|View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, April 8, 2008.
1 Novi, Michigan
2 Tuesday, April 8, 2008
3 7:00 p.m.
4 - - - - - -
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. It's
7 7:00. Let's go ahead and get started with
8 the City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals
10 Ms. Working, could you please call the
12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
13 MEMBER BAUER: Present.
14 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Here.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
17 MEMBER SHROYER: Present.
18 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?
19 CHAIRPERSON FISHER: Present.
20 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?
21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Present.
22 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here.
24 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
1 MEMBER WROBEL: Present.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
3 MEMBER IBE: Present.
4 MS. WORKING: All present, Mr. Chair.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Ms.
7 And I will now ask our Secretary to
8 lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
9 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to
10 the flag of the United States of America and
11 to the Republic for which it stands once
12 nation under God indivisible with liberty
13 and justice for all.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time it
15 would be a good reminder for everyone to go
16 ahead and turn off all your cell phones and
17 pagers. And for all of the rules and
18 meeting format for the Zoning of Appeals
19 there is a hard copy in the back. Feel free
20 to take a copy and review that at your
22 At this point I'll ask for an appeal
23 of the agenda or any changes.
24 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I would like
1 to bring to your attention that case number:
2 08-017, number 10 on the agenda has
3 requested to be postponed to the May meeting
4 for health reasons. There is a memo in your
5 meeting file this evening.
6 And I would also like to bring to your
7 attention that under other matters, item
8 three, the Board will be considering ZBA
9 07-065, the Novi Corporate Campus. And,
10 Number four, 07-028, 1411 West Lake. And as
11 item number five, a discussion about Article
12 31 Section 3107 of the Zoning Ordinance.
13 You received updated agendas this evening
14 and the audience also has updated agendas.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
16 changes to the agenda? Is there an
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So moved.
19 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say
22 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We have an
1 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a
2 hearing board empowered by the Novi City
3 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances
4 from the application of the Novi Zoning
6 It takes a vote of at least four
7 members to approve a variance request and a
8 vote of the majority present to deny a
9 request. Tonight we do have a full board of
10 seven and our alternate, so any decisions
11 made tonight will be final.
12 We do have the approval of the Minutes
13 from February 12th and March 10th. Are
14 there any changes? We'll start with
15 February 12th.
16 Member Shroyer?
17 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you Member --
18 or, Chairman Fischer, I'm sorry.
19 On page 34 of the minutes line 11 it
20 says, "Vice-Chairman Shroyer." It should
21 say Vice-Chairperson Sanghvi. So, I would
22 like to get that changed, please.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Does
24 anyone else see any changes?
1 MS. KUDLA: I have one change on page
2 42 of the March 10th Minutes, page 42, line
3 four: "I have gotten information that the
4 lessor had been approved,"
5 changed to, AT&T to act as Applicant
6 for the, instead of, "Applicant
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, that's the
9 March 10th Minutes on page 42 and we're
10 changing, one more time instead of
12 MS. KUDLA: Crossing out the
13 "Applicant (unintelligible)," and changed
14 to, AT&T to act as Applicant for the, and
15 then, "meeting proposal."
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Any other
17 changes to either of the sets of minutes?
18 Is there an approval?
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I make a
20 motion to approve the amended minutes.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: For March 10th
22 and February 12th?
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there a
2 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say
5 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: They are
7 approved as amended.
8 At this point we'll move onto the
9 public remarks portion of the meeting.
10 Is there anyone in the audience that
11 wishes to make a comment to the Board on
12 anything not relating to a case tonight?
13 Please come forward.
14 Seeing none, we'll close the public
15 remarks and move to our first case.
16 Member Wrobel?
17 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
18 Based on the opinion of our City Attorney
19 since I also serve on the Planning
20 Commission and have dealt with the Best Buy
21 site plan, I would like to recuse myself
22 from this discussion.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll move to
24 approve the recusal of Member Wrobel. Is
1 there a second?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say
5 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, you
7 will be recused and if Member Ghannam would
8 sit in with us we'd appreciate it.
10 We'll go ahead and call case
11 number: 08-007 filed by Steven Sorenson, PE
12 of Professional Engineering Associates for
13 27772 Novi Road.
14 Is the Applicant here today? Please
15 come forward.
16 The Applicant is requesting six
17 variances for the construction of a proposed
18 Best Buy Store store to be located at said
19 address. The Applicant is requesting two
20 building setback variances, one off-street
21 loading and unloading location variance, one
22 dumpster location variance and two dumpster
23 setback variances.
24 The property is zoned RC and is
1 located south of Twelve Mile Road and east
2 of Novi Road.
3 Are you an attorney?
4 MS. GARCINO (Ph): No.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you please
6 raise your hand and be sworn in by our
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or
9 affirm in case number: 08-007 that you will
10 tell the truth in this case?
11 MS. GARCINO: Yes.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can state
13 your name and address and proceed with the
14 case we'd appreciate it.
15 MS. GARCINO: My name is Jayma
16 Garcino. I am with Maxwell, Johansen, Maher
17 Architects. We are in Nashville, Tennessee.
18 We are here tonight to -- I have got a site
19 plan just for your reference. For the
20 variances described. We have a 30,000
21 square foot store that is being developed on
22 what is currently two parcels in the ring
23 road, off the ring road at Twelve Oaks Mall.
24 The lower parcel, the southern parcel
1 currently occupied by the closed bank and
2 the northern parcel is a furniture store.
3 The setbacks, the current setbacks on
4 these two separate parcels that we are
5 combining as you know are a hundred feet.
6 In the north and south access, the 100 foot
7 setbacks for these the two separate parcels
8 would render them un-developable. They do
9 overlap as separate parcels.
10 So, you can sort of see what the
11 challenge is in developing these with the
12 100 foot setback. We have combined the two
13 and we have worked with staff to come up
14 with a site placement that we feel best
15 responds to the constraints of the site, but
16 we were unable to meet the 100 foot setbacks
17 based on the size of the site.
18 As far as the compactor location and
19 the truck well location for which we are
20 also requesting a variance, as you can see,
21 this is Novi Road which is on the west side
22 of the site. You have the ring road on the
23 southern side of the site and the ring road
24 also on the eastern side of the site. The
1 northern portion of the site is adjacent to
2 the next site. So, effectively we have
3 three visible sides to the site.
4 And Taubman, who controls the mall, I
5 am sure you are aware, also had a
6 restriction that they didn't want to look
7 into the service areas. By that I mean, had
8 they been oriented on the north side of the
9 site from the mall you would be looking into
10 the truck well or into the compactor area,
11 and that was not allowed by them.
12 So, as a result we located the
13 compactor and truck well on the eastern side
14 of the site, as you can see, but they are
15 both fully screened by brick walls. The
16 height of the compactor wall is eight feet
17 and the compactor itself is about four and a
18 half feet tall.
19 The height of the screen wall for the
20 truck well is about 14 feet and it is the
21 full length of the truck. So, both the
22 compactor and the truck should be fully
23 screened behind the masonry wall with the
24 materials that match the building.
1 We appreciate your consideration.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
3 MR. AMAN (ph): I am going to jump in
4 as well. I am Brian Aman. I am an attorney
5 on behalf of Best Buy. Just briefly. You
6 have seen the substance of the facts of the
7 assertion. I don't need to essentially
8 restate the law, but under the Michigan
9 Zoning Enabling Act we think this
10 application meets all requirements in terms
11 of essentially justice being substantially
12 done and public safety concerns being met
13 and essentially because of carefulness of
14 the property requiring this because it would
15 otherwise as she stated be un-developable.
16 For that we want for the purposes of
17 the record to request your approval and
18 consideration. Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
20 in the audience that wishes to make a
21 comment on this case? Seeing none, Madam
22 Secretary, will you please read the
24 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case we have
1 one approval with Dan Rifky (ph) of Sterling
2 Jewelers. No comment. He is on Canton Road
3 in Akron, Ohio.
4 We have another one from Donald
5 Delrose: "Dear Ms. Working, I am writing to
6 you regarding the Best Buy project that has
7 been approved at 27772 Novi Road. I wanted
8 to let you know that I have no objections to
9 the proposed side yard setbacks to the north
10 adjacent with our property line.
11 I do, however, have a concern
12 regarding the landscaping that runs along
13 that side. On the plan it shows that there
14 are existing red Cedar trees planted along
15 the property line. It is not red Cedar
16 trees that are planted over there, but
17 rather they are Arborvitaes that are
18 overgrown and scraggly and they should be
19 replaced. If possible I would like to see
20 some bushes or smaller trees to replace the
21 existing Arborvitaes. As it is, the
22 Arborvitaes tend to lose a lot of debris
23 which causes the green belt to look unkept
24 and requires a lot of maintenance to get it
1 looking good. I believe that if these were
2 to be replaced with a different type of tree
3 we could greatly improve that area."
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That appears to
5 be it?
6 MEMBER KRIEGER: That appears to be
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam
10 That will close the public hearing
11 portion of the case and we'll move to the
12 Building Department.
13 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, if I could to
14 enter into the record the number of
15 notifications, please.
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: For this case 549
17 notices were mailed. Two approvals. Zero
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
20 Anyone else from the Building Department or
22 MS. KUDLA: No.
23 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry?
1 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this point I
3 will go ahead and open it up for Board
5 Member Sanghvi?
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
7 sir. Question. Do we need a letter from
8 the owners of the Twelve Oaks Mall for them
9 to do this?
10 MS. KUDLA: No. As far as the
11 restriction, is that what you are asking?
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Do we need
13 written permission from the owners of this
14 property for them to go ahead and build on
16 MS. KUDLA: No.
17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Not from
18 the Twelve Oaks Mall people?
19 MS. KUDLA: No, we wouldn't need to do
20 a title opinion.
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We don't?
22 MS. KUDLA: I believe at some point we
23 do want to see that there is ownership of
24 the property, but not as part of the Zoning
1 Board case, that's part of the Planning
2 Commission and other documents that come
3 through easements and whatnot.
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. Did
5 you say something?
6 MR. AMAN: I would be glad to respond.
7 She is correct absolutely in everything that
8 she said. We do know that we were approved
9 by the City Council last night and the
10 representatives of Twelve Oaks Mall were
11 there with a letter approving the project as
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank
15 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I just wanted
16 to add also if any members of the Board had
17 any questions Kirsten Kapelanski from the
18 Planning Division is here this evening and
19 would be happy to address any of your
20 questions from a planning standpoint.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have no
23 problem. I just wanted to make sure we are
24 doing everything the right way.
1 (Unintelligible). It doesn't need to vacant
2 anyway and doing nothing. It's lot better
3 to have something that is a flourishing
4 business. I'm all for it. Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer?
6 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
7 A quick question since the attorney
8 brought it up to the City. What exactly was
9 approved by City Council last night?
10 MS. KUDLA: The site plan subject to
11 the ZBA variances is what I understand. I
12 was not there, but that's what I was told.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: So even though this
14 went through the Planning Commission because
15 of the zoning on it, it had been through
16 City Council as well?
17 MS. KUDLA: I'm not certain why it
18 went to City Council. You might want to ask
19 the Planning Department.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: Come on up.
21 MS. KAPELANSKI: Hi. To answer your
22 question, Member Shroyer. I had to go to
23 City Council for site plan approval on this
24 case because all freestanding businesses in
1 the RC District are subject to approval by
2 City Council.
3 MEMBER SHROYER: So, this is all the
4 RC Zoning requirement?
5 MS. KAPELANSKI: It's the zoning and
6 it's the particular use in this case as
8 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. I don't
9 have any objections at all. In fact, I
10 thank Best Buy for doing such a good job
11 with shielding the truck well and the trash
12 compactor. I think that's the only place
13 that it could actually be located and to go
14 to 14 foot height on the truck well which
15 would hide the entire truck and trailer.
16 And the 8 foot on the trash compactor even
17 though it won't hide the trash truck picking
18 it up, it's a good move.
19 I do, though, in continuing to look at
20 the site plan. It provides for 165 foot
21 southern building setback which would only
22 require, and you are requesting a 54-foot
23 variance which actually nets of 9 foot to
24 the good in calculations that I was doing.
1 And a 112 foot western building
2 setback with a requirement of 37 foot
3 variance which nets 26 feet to the back.
4 It's on the other side.
5 So, I do have to respectfully disagree
6 with your statement and also the statement
7 in the application that the site is
8 un-buildable. The way I view it, the site
9 is un-buildable for a building this size or
10 the lot is too small for a building this
11 size. If the building was made smaller it
12 would fit and it would be able to meet all
13 the setback requirements.
14 What is your comments regarding that?
15 MR. AMAN: If I may respond to the
16 Chairman. We actually came in with a larger
17 building and worked with Planning and got
18 down to a smaller building. Essentially the
19 location of the building is ultimately a
20 function of the concerns about traffic as it
21 relates to getting in and out of the site.
22 And, really, the setback variance we kind
23 of jokingly talked about how because of the
24 100 foot setback surrounding this site, this
1 is effectively a peninsula between the ring
2 road and Novi Road literally create a
3 situation where you could almost have maybe
4 a coffee kiosk in the middle and that would
5 be about all that it would comply with with
6 all the setback requirements.
7 So, once we knew we were going to have
8 to some kind of variance, then the question
9 became and really in conjunction with
10 working with planning staff and all the
11 consultants including the traffic
12 consultants, and also including Taubman's
13 consultants which was a stringent a process
14 I may say in the least, was that now that we
15 know we have to have variances in various
16 sites, the question is how to make the site
17 function its best?
18 So, absolutely you are right, we could
19 have adjusted it one way or another in given
20 spots. It came to the conclusion between
21 the traffic consultant as to the
22 relationship and position of curb cuts and
23 the ability to conceal the truck well as you
24 had discussed.
1 And also, by the way, in quick
2 response we had the letter about the red
3 Cedars. We are aware of that and we are
4 glad to fix that in this process. But in
5 that it also became a question that
6 realizing we need to have variances either
7 way, how can we make the site itself
8 function the best and least impactful so
9 that the variances were of the least impact
10 as for the neighbors? So you are right, we
11 could adjust one way or other.
12 It came to the conclusion that this is
13 essentially the most efficient way to have
14 the site set and literally is the smallest
15 footprint Best Buy does.
16 Part of this, the City Council heard
17 this last night, is the attempt to relieve
18 pressure from the Eight Mile and Haggerty
19 store because that intersection is legendary
20 as well as that corridor. So we are hopeful
21 that this will do that. So there were some
22 accommodations made.
23 In the end, though, you are correct,
24 we could have adjusted either way, but the
1 adjustments were based on a desire to have
2 it ultimately, knowing we need adjustments
3 we had to cross that threshold, variances
4 had to be requested. Not only do we have to
5 have variances, one absolutely from
6 everybody from the professional's opinion,
7 traffic consultants, everybody, what works
8 best and this is the design that it
9 ultimately came down to what works best.
10 And this is the design that it ultimately
11 came down to. You are respectfully correct.
12 We got to that point as well and we said,
13 okay, well, now what do we do? And this was
14 a product of that.
15 MEMBER SHROYER: So, you don't feel
16 that Novi needs another coffee location?
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It might need
18 another Best Buy.
19 MR. AMAN: My wife would disagree
20 about the coffee location.
21 MEMBER SHROYER: Out of curiosity, in
22 reducing the building size, what went away?
23 In other words, was it the storage and with
24 the storage gone away was that going to
1 require additional traffic of the truck to
2 come in and unload?
3 MR. AMAN: No, we literally, they
4 effectively shrink everything a little bit.
5 The inventory is the key process because I
6 don't know about you and your household,
7 when the advertisements come out on Saturday
8 and Sunday and people decide that they are
9 going to get either the Apple or the Ipod or
10 whatever, we know, and Best Buy is a Fortune
11 100 company. They built an international
12 tradition, dedication and financial network
13 based on being able to deliver a product, so
14 we know we had to have the proper inventory
15 in place.
16 So, we appropriately, kind of
17 relatively shrink everything to a proper
18 level, but knowing that we can do this. The
19 has essentially parking underneath the store
20 level, a fairly permanent kind of design
21 trying to accommodate all those needs. So
22 there is substantial expense.
23 This building design cost has
24 easily doubled what Best Buy would normally
1 spend on a site, but certainly the value is
2 recognized. So, we relatively shrunk
3 everything trying to accommodate everything.
4 When you are a Fortune 100 company you try
5 to do that.
6 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you very much.
7 With the approval of the Planning Commission
8 on the record. The approval of the City
9 Council on the record and the applicant's
10 statement that he will address the Red Cedar
11 Spice Arborvitaes concerns, I have no
12 objections to this going forward.
13 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
15 Member Shroyer. Other Board Members?
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Looks like
17 we are coming to an end of the discussion.
18 So maybe I should make a motion. That in
19 case number: 08-007 we approve the request
20 for the variance as stated in the
21 application. The reasons for the variances
22 have been very well described and the
23 practical difficulties described by the
24 application and in the discussion. Thank
2 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's a motion
4 and a second on the table. Is there further
5 discussion? Member Shroyer?
6 MEMBER SHROYER: I would like to ask
7 our attorney if I may. Since it was part of
8 the discussion and I believe Member Sanghvi
9 is including the discussion as part of the
10 motion, are we okay with the motion the way
11 it reads, or do we have to verbally repeat
12 that the applicant will address the issues
13 concerning the Red Cedars?
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer,
15 I'm not sure that I really want to go there
16 because I don't see the --
17 MEMBER SHROYER: It's not in our
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's not in our
20 purview as far as I'm concerned.
21 MR. AMAN: Let the record reflect that
22 we stipulate to it. No problem.
23 MEMBER SHROYER: It's part of the
24 record because you made the statements
1 anyway. But it doesn't have to be part of
2 the motion. I was just verifying that.
3 MS. KUDLA: The ZBA isn't requiring it
4 as part of the motion, but they are
5 stipulating to it as more of a contractual
6 type nature.
7 MEMBER SHROYER: So, we're all right
8 on the motion because we discussed the
9 traffic patterns. We discussed the safety
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you
12 comfortable with the finding of fact being
13 part of the discussion as opposed to part of
14 the motion?
15 MEMBER SHROYER: That's a better way
16 to phrase it.
17 MS. KUDLA: We're fine with it, though
18 we would prefer more detail in general, but
19 I don't think you are causing any kind of
20 legal problem by not adding to it.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We're not
22 causing any legal problems. There is a
23 motion on the table, a motion and a second
24 on the table. Any further discussion?
1 Seeing none, Ms. Working, would you
2 please call the roll.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?
10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
12 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Congratulations.
19 Best of luck to you guys. I look forward to
20 the interesting design. Like you said, it's
21 that urban appeal. It reminds me of when I
22 was in Washington, D.C., I think it is
23 similar to some stores out there.
24 Welcome to Novi. Again, best of luck.
1 MR. AMAN: It would be the parking
2 without (unintelligible).
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And snow.
4 MR. AMAN: That's right. That's a
5 four letter word we don't use in this month.
6 Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time
9 let's go ahead and move on to our second
10 case on the agenda which is case number:
11 08-009 filed by Vince Nona of Market Village
12 located at 41430 Grand River Avenue, Suite
13 D. The Petitioner is here.
14 The Petitioner is requesting one sign
15 variance for an additional wall sign on the
16 Meadowbrook Road elevation of the Gateway
17 Village Market. Applicant is requesting one
18 42 square foot wall sign to be located at
19 said address. The property is zoned NCC and
20 is located west of Meadowbrook Road and
21 north of Grand River Avenue.
22 Are you an attorney by chance?
23 MR. NONA: No.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. If
1 you could raise your hand and be sworn in by
2 our Secretary.
3 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
4 08-009 that you would swear and affirm to
5 tell the truth in this case?
6 MR. NONA: I do.
7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Please state your
8 name and address.
9 MR. NONA: My name is Vincent Nona of
10 Market Village, 41430 Grand River Avenue,
11 Suite D. And we are requesting a second
12 sign for our market. The building is
13 located on a prominent corner at Grand River
14 and Meadowbrook. We have two main
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can you do me
17 one favor and put -- do you have a copy of
18 the sign?
19 MR. NONA: I don't.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. Does
21 anyone else have a copy so we can put it up
22 on the overhead?
23 MR. NONA: The building has two main
24 entrances. One off Grand River and one off
1 Meadowbrook. It's a prominent tower. It
2 would look bare without having this sign
3 there from driving up the road. So, that's
4 the reason for the request and also that it
5 is -- this is what the sign looks like on
6 the Grand River side. And the sign that we
7 are going for on the Meadowbrook side is
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
10 comments? No other comments?
11 MR. NONA: No, nothing else.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
13 else in the audience that wishes to make
14 comments regarding this case?
15 Seeing none, I will ask the Secretary
16 to read any correspondence in this case.
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case: 08-009, 107
18 notices were mailed. One approval. Zero
19 objections. The approval
20 is from Gary Wood of Hummer of Novi: "Being
21 a corner lot, Market Village deserves
22 additional signage so as to have visibility
23 to both Grand River and Meadowbrook.
24 Adequate visibility is also important to the
1 community so that accidents do not occur in
2 this intersection."
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam
5 That will conclude the public hearing
6 portion of this case. Does the Building
7 Department or Counsel have any comments to
9 MS. KUDLA: No.
10 MR. AMOLSCH: No.
11 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time I
13 will open it up for the Board for
14 discussion. Member Bauer?
15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. Going by it on
16 Meadowbrook a number of times you pass and
17 see the sign after your entrance off
18 Meadowbrook. That can cause a real safety
19 problem. I just wanted to put that out,
20 first of all.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
22 comments, Member Bauer?
23 MEMBER BAUER: No.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right.
1 Member Wrobel? We have more people on the
2 Board. I'm forgetting people's names.
3 That's what happens when you get my age.
5 MEMBER WROBEL: I drive by this
6 intersection everyday. There is definitely
7 an identity problem if you are driving south
8 on Meadowbrook or you are driving west on
9 Grand River. I will support this as long as
10 the sign is the same size and design as the
11 other sign.
12 MR. NONA: It's identical.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That was my
14 question as well, Member Wrobel. Identical
15 size, identical
16 fonts --
17 MR. NONA: Identical font. Identical
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Colors?
20 MR. NONA: Colors, everything. It's
21 going to be the exact same sign.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Looking at the
23 reasons that we should approve appeals, I
24 feel that this sign that is unique. This
1 property is unique and it is exceptional
2 because of the corner that it is on. That
3 it's on a corner in general. And I believe
4 that this use and this variance would not be
5 incompatible with the surrounding areas.
6 So, I would be inclined to approve this as
8 Any other Board members? Member
10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Out of curiosity.
11 Coming south on Meadowbrook you have no
12 visibility until you are right on the
13 intersection. Do you foresee any need for
14 the other tower that doesn't have anything
15 on it?
16 MR. NONA: If it's allowed, then, yes.
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, for additional
19 MR. NONA: For additional, yes.
20 MEMBER KRIEGER: That's all. Thank
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer?
23 Thank you, Member -- Mr. Chair. I always
24 want to say Member.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Call me
3 MEMBER SHROYER: Question on this
4 similar to the last case. Do we need to
5 have written documentation on file from the
6 building owner for an additional sign to be
7 put up?
8 MS. KUDLA: No.
9 MEMBER SHROYER: We do not. Okay,
10 thank you.
11 I think this is pretty straightforward
12 and I can go ahead and make a motion if you
13 like. In case number: 08-009 filed by
14 Vince Nona of Market Village located a the
15 41430 Grand River Avenue, Suite D, I move to
16 approve the request for a variance to allow
17 for additional wall sign for the east
18 elevation as indicated in our packet
19 provided the sign shall be of the same
20 design, color, look and size of the existing
21 wall sign on the south elevation --
22 MEMBER WROBEL: Second.
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Due to the fact that
24 this business -- I'm not quite done -- has a
1 corner location with frontage on both Grand
2 River Avenue and Meadowbrook Road and that
3 allowing this variance would provide for a
4 safer entryway for the customers that need
5 to cross over lanes on both roads and
6 showing that the sign would maintain with
7 the compatibility with the surrounding
8 buildings and area.
9 MEMBER WROBEL: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
11 motion by Member Shroyer and a second by
12 Member Wrobel. Any other comments?
13 Seeing none, Ms. Working, would you
14 please call the roll.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
18 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
23 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
24 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
1 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Motion is passed 7-0.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Congratulations,
7 the motion was granted. Best of luck to you
8 guys as well.
9 MR. NONA: Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time we
12 will move to case number three on the
13 agenda. Case number: 08-010 filed by Ray
14 Cousineau of Park Place Estates for 50740
15 Berwick Court. The Petitioner is requesting
16 one ten foot front yard setback variance for
17 lot 27 at said address in an effort to
18 preserve a wetland buffer in the rear yard
19 and allow the lot to be buildable.
20 The property is zoned RA and is
21 located off Garfield Road -- west of
22 Garfield Road and south of Nine Mile Road.
23 It appears that the Petitioner is
1 MR. COUSINEAU: Yes, I am.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an
3 attorney, sir?
4 MR. COUSINEAU: No, sir, I am not.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could
6 raise your hand and be sworn in.
7 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
8 08-010 filed by Ray Cousineau of Park Place
9 Estates, Inc., do you swear and affirm to
10 tell the truth in this case?
11 MR. COUSINEAU: Yes, I do.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please state
13 your name and address and proceed.
14 MR. COUSINEAU: My name is Ray
15 Cousineau. I am representing Park Place
16 Estates, Inc., the original developer of the
17 subdivision. And we are located in Wixom,
19 Should I make a brief statement
20 regarding our proposal or the reason that we
21 are here?
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Proceed with all
23 your case, all your facts.
24 MR. COUSINEAU: Okay. Before you on
1 the screen is lot 27 of the Park Place
2 Estates. It's one of the last two lots that
3 we as the developer still own that we have
4 not sold of the 99 lots. It's problematic
5 for us from a marketability standpoint
6 because for the last five or six years we
7 have had no less than a half dozen
8 purchasers look at this particular lot. And
9 because of the encroachment of the wetland
10 or the wetland buffer area, every
11 perspective buyer that has investigated or
12 done their due diligence on this lot has
13 determined that by the time they build a
14 home that is comparable to the existing
15 homes within Park Place, that they will
16 probably end up with virtually no useable
17 backyard because their home will simply abut
18 the wetland buffer area which is an area
19 designated to remain in its natural state
20 and not be maintained, mowed or landscaped
21 or used in any way actively or passively by
22 the residents.
23 So, it's become a major problem for
24 us. We met the City staff and the
1 consultants looking at all types of options.
2 We proposed relocating the buffer or
3 modifying the buffer area itself, relocating
4 the buffer or even providing additional
5 wetland mitigation in lieu of the buffer
6 area. Again, to try to create some type of
7 a useable backyard.
8 The City staff and their consultant
9 indicated that it was not an acceptable
10 proposal. At the city staff request or
11 suggestion they said go to the ZBA and see
12 if the ZBA might consider a temporary waiver
13 of the front yard setback. And I say
14 temporary, for a period of six months which
15 would allow us to market this lot with that
16 variance in place and demonstrate to
17 perspective purchasers that we could move
18 the building envelope forward that ten feet
19 and create some usable backyard.
20 And that's the reason that we are here
21 this evening. Again, it's been a real issue
22 for us. One of the problems that we have is
23 that if you look at trying to locate a
24 comparable house, when I say comparable
1 house, it would be comparable to the
2 existing homes that are built within Park
3 Place which range in size from 3,500 to
4 4,000 square feet with an attached three-car
5 garage. It's estate-type homes on the lot,
6 three-quarter acre lots.
7 Again, if you took a look at the
8 schematic that I have, we have shown you how
9 an almost 3,400 square foot home would be
10 configured on this lot observing the
11 existing setback as is. And you can see
12 that the rear envelope or the rear elevation
13 just abuts directly up to the wetland buffer
14 creating a situation where, again, you have
15 no useable rear yard.
16 So, at this point I'm looking at any
17 relief that we can get, again, to improve
18 the marketability of this lot. Again, if
19 it's the Board's pleasure to grant us a
20 variance, that would give us the option to
21 market the lot, meet with perspective
22 purchasers. Have them put together their
23 building plans. Take those plans to the
24 City for final review and approval. If we
1 are unsuccessful in doing that in six
2 months, then we could ask for an extension
3 of the variance or nothing at all and we
4 would have to look at other alternatives. I
5 guess our only other alternative would be to
6 try to build a much smaller home to squeeze
7 that building envelope down and compress the
8 home and move that envelope towards the
9 front lot to try to create a more usable
11 But then, again, we may have a problem
12 with homeowners restrictions. To do that we
13 may end up with a home that may not meet
14 their square footage requirements or some of
15 their dimensional requirements and we may
16 require a variance from them. So, again,
17 it's very problematic for us. We are just
18 looking for a way to try to resolve this
19 issue and make it more marketable. Thank
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
22 in the audience that wishes to make a
23 comment on this case? Seeing none, I'll ask
24 the Secretary to read any correspondence.
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
2 08-010, eleven notices were mailed. Zero
3 approvals. Three objections.
4 The first one is from Doug and Amy
5 Nolan of Berwick Court. They object: "With
6 a house pushed forward that much it will
7 change the view from both from our house and
8 from the street significantly. It may even
9 completely block our home from the view
10 coming down the cul-de-sac. We purchased
11 our lot with the setbacks established. We
12 do not want the house next door pulled
13 forward. It will not only change our view,
14 but level of privacy, et cetera.
15 The next one is from Leon and Jean Gus
16 on Berwick court. They object. No
17 comments. No, they had a letter: "Comments
18 relating to this case. The proposed plan
19 provided by the Park Place Estate, Inc.,
20 fails to indicate the presence of protected
21 woodlands on lot 27. If a house were to be
22 constructed as indicated on their proposed
23 lot plan, part of the protected woodlands
24 would have to be destroyed. Attached is a
1 plot plan of lot 27 and the adjoining lot
2 which identifies the protected woodland
3 boundaries. The red circle indicates a
4 healthy oak tree with a twelve inch trunk
5 which is located within the protected
7 The tree stands approximately 65 feet
8 from the street and 22 feet from the lot
9 line along lot 28. If a home were built as
10 proposed, this tree along with other
11 protected woodlands would have to be
12 removed. This tree along with the rest of
13 the protected woodlands block the view from
14 our home with the electric tower located
15 next to lot 26. If part of the previously
16 set aside protected woodlands were to be
17 removed, it likely would affect the value of
18 our home.
19 When we purchased lot 28, it was our
20 understanding that the protected woodlands
21 on lot 27 would remain intact. It was
22 established when the subdivision was
23 developed. The reason we purchased lot 28
24 and the reason we paid a premium for the lot
1 compared to other lots within the
2 subdivision were because of the protected
3 woodlands on our lot and the surrounding
4 area which includes lot 27.
5 Park Place Estates, Inc., knew the
6 size restrictions on lot 27 when they
7 developed the subdivision. If they wanted
8 to propose changes to alter the protected
9 woodland such changes should have been
10 proposed prior to selling the adjoining lots
11 not after the adjoining lot owners were
12 under the impression that protected
13 woodlands are protected and would not be
14 removed and/or destroyed. Based on the
15 above facts and circumstances we ask the
16 Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the variance
17 request. From Ann and Gene Jude."
18 And the last one from Raymond T.
19 Stonousch (ph), To City of Novi Zoning Board
20 of Appeals. Subject, regarding the proposed
21 request for a variance on lot 27 at Park
22 Place Subdivisions: "Greetings. As the
23 owner of lot 29 I strongly oppose the
24 granting of this variance for the following
1 reasons: One, I believe it would conflict
2 with the existing setback requirements
3 established in the subdivision.
4 Two, it would disrupt the continuity
5 established in the subdivision. Three, it
6 would degrade the aesthetics and appeal in
7 the subdivision. Four, it would adversely
8 impact the value of my property. Please rule
9 to decline this request for variance."
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam
11 Secretary. That will conclude the public
12 remarks section of the meeting. And we will
13 ask the Building Department if they have any
14 comments or the City?
15 MR. FOX: Yes, I have some comments.
16 We did meet with Mr. Cousineau on this
17 project with our wetland consultant and the
18 Planning Department and myself and some of
19 the staff in the Building Department. We
20 went over a lot of different options as the
21 applicant stated and this did seem to be the
22 best of the options that we could come up
23 without disturbing the wetland. Everybody
24 was in agreement that that would be the
1 least desirable thing to do is to go into
2 that wetland and start tearing up the
3 wetland buffer or the wetland itself to
4 increase this buildable area.
5 Due to the nature of the shape of this
6 particular lot being in the cul-de-sac the
7 way it is, by reducing the setback in the
8 front by 10 feet, you are still not going to
9 adversely affect the line of houses. This
10 would not put this house out in front of all
11 the other houses on the street because of
12 the curvature of the setbacks around that
13 cul-de-sac which was one of the reasons we
14 were in agreement with this.
15 Also, the fact that he would get an
16 increase or a decrease in the setback
17 requirements for the front yard. He would
18 still need to meet all the woodland and
19 wetland requirements for the project. That
20 doesn't make all that go away. So, he would
21 still have to go through whatever via the
22 wetland review as far as any trees would go
23 in the protected woodland areas for any
24 homes that are proposed to be built in that
1 area. Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Any
3 other comments?
4 MS. KUDLA: It appears that with those
5 protected woodland areas shown on the plat
6 and it does appear that the building
7 envelope is outside the protected woodland
9 MR. COUSINEAU: Could I have a
10 response to that one letter regarding the
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Not at this
13 time. If one of the Board Members wishes to
14 bring it up or question you on it, that's
15 their prerogative. But at this time we are
16 on to a later portion of the hearing.
17 So, if the Building Department has no
18 other comments I'll open it up for Board
19 discussion. Member Wrobel?
20 MEMBER WROBEL: Since no one else will
21 start, I'll start. It appears and the staff
22 has confirmed that the wetlands and the
23 wetland buffer will not be affected by this
24 request. That is one of our main concerns
1 trying to keep the wetlands intact and the
2 wetland buffers. The other residents who
3 bought land winding the wetlands there, they
4 will not be damaged with this request.
5 The other fact is, the Applicant, as
6 you said he could put a smaller house there.
7 I believe that that would be more of a
8 deterrent to the housing values in that
9 subdivision having a smaller home than the
10 existing size homes then a 10 foot request
11 setback variance on a cul-de-sac, which I
12 live on a cul-de-sac and the homes have
13 various setbacks and you don't even notice
15 So, given the fact that the wetlands
16 are protected, the house will be comparable
17 to the other size homes, I have no problem
18 supporting this.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
20 Member Wrobel.
21 Other Board Members? Member Ibe?
22 MEMBER IBE: The only question I
23 really have, sir, is in reference to the
24 objection that was raised by Leon and Jean
1 Gus. Now, please help me to understand.
2 When they purchased your lot, meaning lot
3 28, the allegation they make in their
4 letter, is that true that they were led to
5 believe that the protected wetlands will
6 remain intact as established?
7 MR. COUSINEAU: That is correct, sir.
8 First of all, the wetlands are governed by a
9 conservation easement that is on the
10 recorded plat. So that identifies a
11 preservation area. The wetland buffer is
12 not a part of that conservation easement.
13 That's an additional area that the City of
14 Novi retains jurisdiction over.
15 With respect to the woodlands, I got
16 it on the screen right how. This is lot 27,
17 our lot. This is 28 which is Mr. Gus' lot.
18 You can see through here, this is the
19 woodland and the wetland or the silk fence
20 boundary lines that were originally approved
21 prior to development. Anything within this
22 area including all these trees in through
23 here are still part of the protected
24 woodland and they are not intended to be
2 So, the lots, even though I don't know
3 specifically what tree Mr. Gus is talking
4 about, but if there is an existing tree on
5 lot 27 right now, we do not intend to remove
6 that as a part of that proposal. We intend
7 to keep the trees identified for protection
8 continue to be protected. Does that answer
9 your question, sir?
10 MR. IBE: It does, but I do have a
11 follow-up. I really do want to address the
12 allegation raised by the parties Leon and
13 Jean Gus.
14 Now, the price they paid for their
15 lot, they make the allegation that they paid
16 a premium price compared to the rest of the
17 lots particularly because of the woodlands.
18 Is that also a true statement?
19 MR. COUSINEAU: Yes, sir. They have a
20 fairly heavily wooded lot and I don't know
21 if that was necessarily part of the premium
22 consideration, but the majority of the
23 premium is the location of the lot on the
24 cul-de-sac. Where there is no through
1 traffic at the extreme end of the
2 subdivision. So, it was primarily a
3 location premium, but they did pay a premium
4 for their lot.
5 Lot 27 that we still own was
6 originally marketed with the same premium
7 the Gus paid. However, we have realized
8 that because of the economy and because of
9 the problems that we have with this
10 particular lot that we are going to have to
11 reduce the price and we have reduced it
12 significantly to try to move it.
13 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chairman, if you
14 don't mind?
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely.
16 MEMBER IBE: You know, based on your
17 statement that they did pay a premium price
18 for lot 28, did anyone from your company
19 make any representation to the Gus that
20 perhaps lot 27, the one in question right
21 now will remain as is and there will be no
22 development on that property? Was that made
23 at the time they purchased lot 28?
24 MR. COUSINEAU: I know that Mr. Gus
1 looked at this same plan that's on the board
2 right now that shows a typical building
3 envelope and how a home could be built on
4 that particular lot. So, as far as making a
5 representation that it was not buildable,
6 no, that was not the case. He always knew
7 that a home could be constructed there. But
8 Mr. Gus had to deal with some wetland and
9 wetland buffer issues when he constructed
10 the home on his lot. They weren't as severe
11 because the wetland areas were off to the
12 side of his lot. So, he was familiar with
13 the requirements associated with the wetland
14 and the wetland buffer.
15 I don't know if I have answered your
16 question, but we did not make any improper
17 representations to Mr. Gus. I think his
18 primary concern is that he doesn't want
19 trees to come down when a home is built over
20 here. Right now that's not part of our
21 proposal. We're just looking for a way to
22 try to create a more useable rear yard
23 without removing any additional trees on our
24 lot and preserving his view or the
1 screening, if you will.
2 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.
3 MR. COUSINEAU: Thank you.
4 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
6 Member Ibe. Any other Board Members?
7 I have a quick question. In any of
8 your discussions with the City did you talk
9 about lesser variances being requested? And
10 if so, why couldn't that work? And the
11 reason I am asking, it appears that with
12 your request you are going to be able to
13 build a little over 4,000 square-foot house.
14 As the ordinance is written you would be
15 allowed a little under 3,400 square feet.
16 And the normal or average according to the
17 documents we were given is a 3,700
18 square-foot home. It almost seems to me
19 that it would be possible to get by with a
20 lesser variance.
21 MR. COUSINEAU: Good point. There is
22 a schematic when we showed a 4,000 square
23 foot house that could be built with the
24 front yard variance granted. We showed
1 4,000 square feet because we wanted to show
2 the difference in the buildable envelope
3 that was created by the additional 10 foot
4 going from just over 3,000 square feet to
5 over 4,000 square feet. So, it's fairly
6 significant. But both homes still show a
7 building envelope line that would be very
8 close to the buffer area.
9 It would be our intent to market this
10 lot, pull this rear envelope line back
11 forward, if you would, probably something in
12 this area here. Reduce the square footage
13 of the home, but then you create a useable
14 rear yard area. So, again, we're not
15 intending, we don't have a proposal to build
16 a 4,000.
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Four thousand
18 would be a maximum. We kind of comment
19 there the actual building footprint could
20 vary and it would likely be a smaller and
21 more compatible with the average square
23 MR. COUSINEAU: Yeah, I think
24 realistically we need to build something
1 around 3,500 square foot maximum, again,
2 trying to create more of that useable area
3 in the rear yard.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would also
5 tend to support this request since the main
6 goal as stated before is to protect the
7 wetlands, so I would be willing to support
8 as well.
9 Member Shroyer?
10 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11 When I first looked at this I basically
12 wrote down, as long as the neighbors are
13 okay with it and then I'm okay with it.
14 Then we get the objection letters of the
15 three closest neighbors. And so I had to go
16 back and take a relook and I did something
17 very similar to the Chair, looking at the
18 average square footage of 3,712, finding out
19 that the smallest house built over there was
20 2,756 square feet and the proposed 3,374
21 would meet the ordinance requirements. The
22 4,044 square feet would meet it with the
23 variance request. The house is basically --
24 meeting the ordinance of the house would be
1 338 square foot smaller than the average,
2 yet 1,618 square feet larger than the
4 MR. COUSINEAU: You are referring to
5 3,374 building envelope?
6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
7 MR. COUSINEAU: Again, that could be
8 constructed but there is no useable
9 backyard. That's our dilemma.
10 MEMBER SHROYER: So, the requested
11 house is 332 square feet larger than the
12 average. Now, I understand in lowering the
13 price of the lot if you build a bigger house
14 you chart it by the square foot quite often
15 in building and construction so you can make
16 up some of the difference.
17 MR. COUSINEAU: We're not the builder
18 here. We're just the developer. So, we're
19 selling the lots.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: By you I am not
21 referring to you personally. So I was
22 trying to look back and trying to think of
23 what was fair all around. And I would be
24 more inclined to compromise than approve a
1 five foot variance. So, I would like to
2 field that out for the Board's thought and
3 consideration. That would put a little more
4 control. It may appease some of the
5 concerns of the neighbors, not that that
6 needs to be taken into account in our
7 decision and our deliberation, but, maybe
8 that's something that we can look at as
9 opposed to the full 10 foot variance
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If I may, that's
12 where I was going with it as well. But my
13 understanding now is that if we push it back
14 five feet that just means that they are go
15 going to have five foot less of useable
16 backyard. Is that a correct interpretation
17 by me?
18 MR. COUSINEAU: That's what our
19 preference is. We would like to push the
20 building forward and create much of the --
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I was totally on
22 board with you because of that useable
23 backyard. Just to clarify what you had said.
24 MEMBER SHROYER: I would like to make
1 other statement.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely.
3 MEMBER SHROYER: The oak tree that the
4 one letter was referring to does fall within
5 the woodland protected area. So I am pretty
6 sure we're okay there as long as no roots
7 are destroyed during construction. That oak
8 tree could be protected. Thank you, Mr.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Sanghvi?
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
12 Mr. Chair. I just had a question for you,
13 sir. What do you think is the size of the
14 functional area of your lot?
15 MR. COUSINEAU: What do I see?
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The
17 functional which you can really use because
18 of the woodlands and the wetlands and
19 everything else there?
20 MR. COUSINEAU: Of the overall lot?
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
22 MR. COUSINEAU: Mike, do you have any
23 idea what the square foot is? I know these
24 lots are a minimum three-quarter acre. Most
1 of them are closer to an acre. I am not
2 sure of the exact square footage of this
3 particular lot. We are talking about a
4 3,300 to 3,500 square foot home.
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So, you are
6 talking about 3,500 square foot home not a
7 4,000 square foot home?
8 MR. COUSINEAU: No. If I tried to
9 build a -- first of all, I couldn't build a
10 4,000 square foot home on this lot as it
11 exist today with the current setback. The
12 one schematic that we showed showed a 4,000
13 house, but that doesn't give us what we
14 need. That does not give us a useable
15 backyard. That does not give us a usable
16 backyard. It's not an attempt to market this
17 as a 4,000 square foot home.
18 I think we are talking again about a
19 3,500 square foot home is the way that we
20 would present this to perspective purchaser
21 and say then that creates some level of
22 usable backyard outside of the buffer area.
23 Because we're finding a lot of the
24 homeowners in Park Place are active young to
1 middle aged professionals. They have
2 families. They have children. They need
3 some type of a rear yard.
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: My second
5 question was, can you draw me the front line
6 here on lot 28 where the current building is
8 MR. COUSINEAU: This is the original
9 subdivision as approved. This is lot 27
10 which is us and that's the existing front
11 yard setback. This is 28 which is Mr. Gus
12 and I know that his house does meet the --
13 or come to the front yard setback. It
14 doesn't necessarily fit within this generic
15 box. That would be roughly the front of his
16 elevation in comparison to the front of the
17 elevation of our home on 27.
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The one on
19 27 you are showing is the one on the
20 variance you are requesting?
21 MR. COUSINEAU: I'm sorry, what was
22 the question?
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: If you had
24 the variance request where would that house
1 sit in comparison to this?
2 MR. COUSINEAU: That house would
3 probably come up into some area here.
4 Roughly 10 feet.
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.
6 MR. COUSINEAU: Regardless of what
7 happens here this evening, we would have to
8 come back with a building plan obviously if
9 we are successful in selling the lot. But
10 beyond that, we still have to submit our
11 building plans and our plot plans to the
12 subdivision association for their
13 architectural approval. So they are going
14 to see everything that's done on this lot
15 and they are going to have a right of
17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have one
18 more question. What did you mean by a
19 six-month temporary variance?
20 MR. COUSINEAU: I was told by City
21 staff that if we are successful in receiving
22 a variance this evening, that that would be
23 a variance for a period of six months only,
24 which would allow us to sell the lot and
1 have the purchaser come in with building
2 permit plans and if the plans were
3 subsequently approved within that six-month
4 period, then the variance would remain
5 permanent. But if there is no action taken
6 let's say by an applicant or by a purchaser
7 with respect to submitting a building
8 permit, then after six months that variance
9 goes away.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the
11 Building Department wish to clarify for the
13 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair. One
14 of the discussion items at the end of your
15 agenda is the article and the section number
16 that provides for the requirement for
17 someone who is granted a variance to pull a
18 building permit within 90 days. Often a
19 developer will realize that may not be
20 possible. I may not move this lot in 90
21 days and they will come to you asking for
22 additional time and that is what Mr.
23 Cousineau will be doing this evening based
24 on the City's recommendation that he do so.
1 MR. COUSINEAU: So, I am actually
2 asking for the six months? Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Well, at that
4 time --
5 MS. WORKING: The Ordinance requires
6 90 days and then we send the Applicant a
7 letter reminding them that your variance
8 will expire unless you request an extension.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I understand
10 that. But if this Board decides this case
11 and finds finding of facts to grant a
12 variance under the law, then what recourse
13 would this Board have to deny it after 90
15 MS. WORKING: You wouldn't. If you
16 granted the six months you would have six
17 months. I mean the Petitioner would have six
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: For six months.
20 MS. WORKING: Correct.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What recourse
22 would we have at that point? To deny --
23 MS. WORKING: The variance would
24 expire. He would have to re-petition for a
1 new variance.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And bring the
3 same finding of facts, though.
4 MS. WORKING: He would be a brand new
5 case coming before you. It may be the same
6 request, we won't know that, but I am just
7 saying that it will expire and it will no
8 longer be valid. Whatever you approve and
9 grant would no longer be valid after that
10 six-month period should you choose to make
11 that decision.
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: If I
13 understand correctly what you are saying is,
14 the permit will expire in six months, not
15 necessarily the once granted variance would
17 MS. KUDLA: The variance would expire.
18 Right now you are allowed 90 days to pull a
19 building permit under the variance granted.
20 What would be considered right now is
21 sending that provision to the Ordinance
22 Review Committee to expand that 90-day
23 period to six months given the current state
24 of the actual time being realized so that
1 you are going to be able to pull a building
2 permit in 90 days. So, I believe what's
3 going on is that rather than waiting to have
4 that ordinance amended, the Building
5 Department just recommended that the
6 Applicant ask for that additional 90 days
7 based on what has been going on in the
8 current market place and the likelihood that
9 the City is going to seek an amendment on
10 the 90 days.
11 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, in six months if
12 he has not found a buyer and then in eight
13 months he finds a buyer he has got to come
15 MS. KUDLA: Correct.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: But he would
17 come back with the same setback, the same
18 plot, everything would be the same, so our
19 decision would have to be the same because
20 we would use the same law to make the
22 MS. KUDLA: It wouldn't have to be the
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Board Members,
1 any other discussions or motions on this
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: He is
4 working to call it a temporary thing.
5 MR. BOULARD: If I may?
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please.
7 MR. BOULARD: I believe the reasoning
8 behind the time limit is so that, for
9 example, if you had someone who decided that
10 they wanted to purchase a lot, wanted to
11 build a certain type of house. They wanted
12 to build around a tree and the Board
13 approved that and then the house was never
14 built, the lot was sold. The variance
15 wouldn't remain there. It wouldn't remain
16 with the property if the construction was
17 not commenced.
18 An example, ten years down the road
19 when somebody else develops a property the
20 tree that everyone was trying to work around
21 may be long gone. Something like that. So,
22 I think that's the reasoning in putting a
23 time limit on commencing construction once a
24 variance has been made.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Bauer?
2 MEMBER BAUER: With that buffer in the
3 back you are going to the larger sized home.
4 You are talking four feet. In the back
5 that's not too much of a backyard. It
6 doesn't give him much.
7 MR. COUSINEAU: Are you talking about
8 the 4,000 square foot envelope again?
9 MEMBER BAUER: Um-hum.
10 MR. COUSINEAU: Yeah, we can't
11 practically build that and do what I want to
12 do which is to create a useable backyard.
13 So, there is no way that we are going to
14 market this lot that we want you to build a
15 4,000 square foot home. We want to build
16 roughly about a 3,500 square foot home. And
17 as I indicated that would probably create a
18 backyard building envelope somewhere in this
19 area which gives us some usable rear yard.
20 This lot will not accommodate a 4,000
21 square foot home even with the variance.
22 But if I can get something this evening then
23 I can begin to market this and if we are
24 lucky or very fortunate we are going find a
1 buyer and we are going to have to work with
2 them in putting together a plan to submit to
3 the City so that we don't lose the six-month
4 envelope or whatever we have.
5 But if we do lose it, at least even if
6 you gave me six months if I lost the six
7 months and let's say eight months from now a
8 purchaser comes forward, I could
9 realistically say we went in front of the
10 ZBA. They granted us a six-month envelope.
11 We didn't meet the time line, but we can go
12 back to the ZBA with a brand new application
13 with your specific house on that plan so we
14 could show exactly what you intend to build.
15 If I got something this evening at least I
16 could begin marketing with so more
17 creativity and flexibility than I have now
18 because I don't have a lot to work with.
19 MEMBER BAUER: You didn't answer my
20 question, but that's all right.
21 MS. KUDLA: Mr. Chair, if there is any
22 confusion about the Ordinance and the 90-day
23 requirement it's in your packet. And we can
24 put it up on the screen and talk about it or
1 schedule to talk about it at the end of the
2 meeting. If it would help everybody we
3 could take a look at it now.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What I am
5 understanding is they have 90 days per the
6 Ordinance. We would tonight request, or
7 part of our motion would be to extend it to
8 six months?
9 MS. KUDLA: Correct.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's fine.
11 All I'm saying is if that six months or the
12 90 days or whatever amount of time expires,
13 we really don't have recourse under the same
14 circumstances to then reverse our own
15 decision because we make it based off of the
16 practical difficulty being shown.
17 MS. KUDLA: You wouldn't have to
18 reverse because it would expire. If they
19 wanted to renew it they would have to come
20 back in front of the Board.
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I know, but
22 it would be a renewal of the variance
23 already granted.
24 MS. WORKING: They can do that, they
1 can file for an extension.
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: But you are
3 not talking about reviewing the decision of
4 the variance. That is the fundamental
6 MS. KUDLA: It will depend in what
7 time frame they will request it because you
8 have a limited time frame to request a
9 renewal. If it expires outside that time
10 frame, then they are coming in front of the
11 Board again with a whole new request.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We'll discuss
13 that later.
14 If it were to up me if I could make a
15 recommendation to the Board, I would move to
16 approve the request with the six months,
17 that's fine. But asking the attorney, is it
18 possible to review, bring back any plans
19 back before the Zoning Board anyway because
20 one of the major findings of fact is that
21 they are trying to create a useable
22 backyard. If we grant the variance and we
23 say go ahead and then they build a 4,000
24 square foot home, what recourse do we have
1 at that point?
2 MS. KUDLA: So, you are asking that a
3 condition of the variance on it being used
4 for a useable backyard rather than square
5 footage of the home?
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct.
7 MS. KUDLA: I think that you would
8 have to make it that condition.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would
10 recommend doing that, Board Members.
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We make a
12 stipulation for the size of the square foot
13 of the house on the lot?
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I don't know if
15 I would want to hinder their creativity in
16 that manner. I just want to make sure that
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We are
19 limiting the size of the house that goes on
20 the lot. We are not limiting any creativity
21 on what kind of or how to create that house
22 there. Because otherwise you have a
23 variance and there is nothing to stop them
24 from building a 4,000 square foot house.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Except bringing
2 it back to review for the useable backyard.
3 None of us are architects. How could we
4 come up with a square footage that would be
5 reasonable? If they could build something
6 that was 10,000 square foot but live within
7 the variance and setbacks, that's fine by
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: They can go
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
12 recommendations by the Board Members?
13 MEMBER BAUER: I think you are
14 granting something that's not there.
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's the
17 MEMBER BAUER: I don't like to grant
18 something ahead of time that we don't know
19 what it is. He lives within this boundary,
20 yes, but we have no control over it.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Ibe?
22 MEMBER IBE: I think I will be also
23 inclined to approve because I think the
24 Applicant here has diligently and I think in
1 good faith answered the question that was
2 more important to my heart because of the
3 neighbors I wanted to make sure the
4 neighbors were okay with it. And also we
5 will allow the developer the opportunity, of
6 course, to market this particular lot. If
7 we fail to grant a variance tonight, it
8 impedes the ability, of course, to market
9 this particular property.
10 And in reality, I think that our goal
11 is not to prevent business owners from
12 moving forward in finding markets for their
13 product. In this case the product is the
14 land and the only way they can find a
15 potential buyer is to have this variance so
16 that when they present that to a potential
17 buyer the potential buyer knows what he or
18 she is looking at prior to buying it. How
19 else are they going to do that if we don't
20 grant them the leeway to at least seek to
21 find a buyer?
22 I think that if we want to set
23 conditions, say perhaps to alleviate the
24 concerns that some of the neighbors have,
1 that perhaps on the condition that any house
2 to be constructed should be less than X
3 amount of square footage, I think they can
4 live with that. He has already stated that
5 he will build something that was less than
6 4,000 square foot.
7 I think I assume that I should take
8 you for your words.
9 MR. COUSINEAU: Yes, sir.
10 MEMBER IBE: If that was the case, if
11 he were to do anything contrary to that, I
12 am sure we do have records of this
13 proceeding. And there are avenues, of
14 course, to litigate that matter.
15 I don't think that this developer want
16 to take that chance in going against what he
17 has already stated. That having been said,
18 (unintelligible) find a way to allow them
19 the opportunity to market this particular
20 property and let's grant them this variance
21 requested. Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you wish to
23 make a motion to that effect or in that
1 I'll make a motion that in case
2 number: 08-010 filed by Ray Cousineau of
3 Park Place Estates that we grant the
4 Petitioner's request due to the fact that
5 the Petitioner has established practical
6 difficulty given that the buildable area is
7 severely limited due to the wetlands and it
8 is his main goal to, A, preserve those
9 wetlands. And, B, build a usable backyard.
10 Granting this variance would also help the
11 house to become closer in characteristics
12 with the other houses in the subdivision. I
13 would also like to state that the house
14 being on a cul-de-sac in an irregular shape
15 lot also impeded the ability of this lot and
16 furthers the practical difficulty shown.
17 I would grant that the Petitioner
18 would have 60 days to pull the building
19 permit, six months to pull the building
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
23 motion and a second.
24 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair. This
1 Petitioner will more than likely not be
2 pulling the building permit. He is the
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Indeed he is.
5 Given that the variance runs with the land,
6 the lot is granted the variance and the lot
7 has six months as well is my intention.
8 Thank you for that clarification.
9 That is correct. You are correct as usual.
10 There is a motion and a second on the
11 table by Member Fischer and Member Krieger.
12 Any other comments? Seeing none, Ms.
13 Working, would you please call the roll.
14 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
18 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
19 MEMBER SHROYER: No.
20 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: No.
22 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
23 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
1 MEMBER BAUER: No.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
3 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 4-3.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The variance has
6 been granted. You have six months or the
7 lot has six months to pull the permit. Best
8 of luck in marketing that property.
9 MR. COUSINEAU: Thank you for your
10 help and your consideration. We'll do the
11 best that we can.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
14 At this time I would like to call
15 case number four on the agenda which is Case
16 Number: 08-011 filed by Chuck Alawan for
17 Greek Isle Eatery located at 39777 Grand
18 River Avenue. The Petitioner is requesting a
19 variance for the requirement that outdoor
20 seating area shall be enclosed in instances
21 where there is wait staff service. The
22 proposed site is located in the Pheasant Run
23 Plaza and the property is zoned B-3 and is
24 located south of Grand River and west of
1 Haggerty Road.
2 Are you an attorney, sir?
3 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you will go
5 ahead and raise your hand and be sworn in by
6 our Secretary.
7 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case Number:
8 08-011 that you would swear or affirm that
9 you will tell the truth in this case?
10 MR. ALAWAN: Yes, I do.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If could you
12 state your name and address and proceed with
13 your case.
14 MR. ALAWAN: Yes, my name is Chuck
15 Alawan and I am representing Greek Isle
16 Eatery, 39777 Grand River, Novi. I am also
17 the property manager of Pheasant Run Plaza
18 and I have been working on this for quite a
19 while with other tenants who want outdoor
21 In this case, this particular tenant
22 and this will be their fourth year with
23 outdoor seating. They have a wait staff and
24 under the zoning laws the wait staff area
1 for outdoor seating requires an enclosure.
2 Like I said this is the fourth year and I
3 put up a little drawing up there. You may
4 have it already. But I would just point out
5 that they are right here. Next to them is
6 Jimmy Johns. Jimmy Johns is strictly
7 outdoor seating for carry out.
8 There is no wait staff. This area
9 that is under the dotted like in the various
10 columns you see, that is a walkway and it is
11 part of the original construction. The
12 building is kind of unique. It's not a
13 cloth canopy of any type. It's a structural
14 part of the building. I think probably many
15 of you have been there as the Greek Isle
16 Eatery is a substantial tenant and they have
17 been there for seven or eight years.
18 In the three years previous that we
19 have had outdoor seating we have not had a
20 problem. What we don't want to do is to
21 obstruct in the off season the ability to
22 walk underneath that canopy during inclement
24 We also have had a great run or had a
1 very friendly atmosphere sort of a cafe
2 atmosphere. We are 10 foot off the curb
3 from the north side and 25 foot from the
4 curvature of the curb and that would be a
5 drive that's connected to the parking area.
6 We have substantial custodial work
7 throughout the week. We keep the area
8 clean. I think from many points of view,
9 putting a barrier up might just change the
10 atmosphere and it's certainly is going to
11 change the structural use of that walk
12 during inclement weather. So, we are
13 appealing this based on several reasons that
14 I have mentioned. We are trying to
15 maintain, as you probably know we try to
16 keep a very nice premise there. We keep it
17 clean. We have good greenery and we do have
18 requirements of our tenants to maintain
19 their areas.
20 We think both as owners and as
21 business people that the barrier really to
22 our way of thinking is not necessary. And
23 as I said, during the off season it would
24 provide an obstruction. So we are seeking
1 an approval of this variance.
2 I also have another sketch which kind
3 of gives you some dimensions. Let's see if
4 I can position it properly. As you can see
5 this is the front the building. The curb is
6 out here. Jimmy John is to the lower part
7 in this area here. The seating area we're
8 requiring roughly 18, 20 foot in one
9 direction and 12, 13 foot in that direction.
10 There is a curb at the -- as you go around I
11 should mention that this is the entrance to
12 the restaurant. The other door is the
13 service entrance and that allows serve staff
14 to enter and serve the tables without going
15 through the front door. It's kind of a
16 unique arrangement. We would like to keep
17 it that way.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anything else?
19 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
21 in the audience that wishes to make a
22 comment on the case? Seeing none, I will
23 ask the Secretary to record any
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
2 08-011, 173 notices were mailed. Two
3 approvals and zero objections.
4 First one is from Mr. McCroy, general
5 manager, Gina Agosta Salon on Grand River:
6 "We have absolutely no problem with this.
7 We encourage you to allow them their
8 requested variance."
9 The second one is from Pheasant Run
10 Plaza, Incorporated, Ali Fayez, president.
11 He has an approval. No comments.
12 Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam
15 At this time we'll move to the City
16 for any comments.
17 MS. KUDLA: None.
18 MR. BOULARD: I have a couple
19 questions if I could for the Applicant.
20 Does the restaurant serve alcohol?
21 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir.
22 MR. BOULARD: So, there is no alcohol
23 served inside or contemplated in the
24 exterior area?
1 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir. It's a family
3 MR. BOULARD: Second question is, the
4 doors that's labeled the service door, your
5 deliveries don't come in there, your
6 deliveries come in the back?
7 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir. Deliveries are
8 in the rear of the building.
9 MR. BOULARD: So, if the outdoor
10 seating area is enclosed, how do your
11 patrons enter that area? They enter in the
13 MR. ALAWAN: If it were enclosed?
14 MR. BOULARD: If it were enclosed?
15 MR. ALAWAN: They would have to go
16 through the front door of the restaurant and
17 all the way through and make a U turn and
18 come out the service door.
19 MR. BOULARD: So, the service door
20 serves the employee area?
21 MR. ALAWAN: Yes, sir, that's an
22 employee entrance.
23 MR. BOULARD: Okay, thank you.
24 MR. ALAWAN: You're welcome.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyone else from
2 the City? Then I'll open it up for Board
4 Member Sanghvi?
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I just had
6 one question. Have you ever had any problem
7 with this kind of arrangement?
8 MR. ALAWAN: None that I'm aware of.
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have no
10 problem. This a seasonal thing and it
11 happens every year, then I have no problem
12 with supporting the application. Thank you.
13 MEMBER BAUER: I would support it
14 also, Mr. Chairman.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Question for the
16 City. Oftentimes in this plaza we have seen
17 where they were coming to get the variance
18 to get outdoor seating, but this is
19 different than that request, is it not?
20 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair, I
21 would defer to Ms. Kapelanski. The
22 Ordinance recently was amended to include a
23 section specifically addressing outdoor
24 seating and an actual site plan review
1 requirement now, and in the past we didn't
2 have that section of the Ordinance and
3 that's why you saw those cases come before
4 you. Ms. Kapelanski did the review on this
5 case so I think she would probably be able
6 to answer that question.
7 MS. KAPELANSKI: A follow-up to Ms.
8 Working's comments. The Ordinance was
9 recently amended as she said. I think it
10 was about a year and a half ago now. So,
11 outdoor seating is now reviewed by the
12 Planning Division.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you for
14 that by the way. That's a very good change.
15 Kudos to the Building Department.
16 MS. KAPELANSKI: So, the Planning
17 Division will review the outdoor seating
18 plan and approve that administratively.
19 This case is before you this evening since
20 the Applicant is seeking a variance from one
21 of the requirements listed in the new
22 outdoor seating ordinance.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Follow-up with
24 that. What is the intent of the Ordinance
1 to have an enclosed area?
2 MS. KAPELANSKI: As I understand it as
3 we have interpreted that, part of it is is
4 partially to protect the Applicant. If you
5 have a wait staff serving an outdoor seating
6 area and no enclosure, people could
7 theoretically get up and walk away without
8 paying the bill. If it's enclosed there is
9 a little bit of a barrier there. I think
10 it's also to create some kind of separation
11 between the sidewalk or a parking lot,
12 wherever the outdoor seating is proposed and
13 the restaurant itself.
14 We have no objection to this
15 particular request.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: By enclosure
17 what do you mean by that? Would that have
18 to be a full fledged building with a facade
19 or could it be a gate with a fence?
20 MS. KAPELANSKI: Generally it's an
21 iron-type gate. It has to be made of a
22 durable material.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Given that it
24 seems that the intent of the Ordinance is
1 that to protect the Petitioner. The
2 Petitioner is in essence declining that
3 protection. I hope no one walks away from
4 the restaurant, but, I would be willing to
5 approve as well.
6 Any other Board Members? Member
8 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9 I had the question about intent as well, but
10 another question to the City in that regard.
11 Are temporary barriers approvable? She
12 mentioned there are slots on each column
13 that you slide an iron fence down during the
14 summer and you lift it up during the winter.
15 Is that considered an enclosure?
16 MS. KAPELANSKI: I can address that,
17 Member Shroyer.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank you.
19 MS. KAPELANSKI: The only thing that
20 the Ordinance list is that the outdoor
21 seating area has to be enclosed. We would
22 have no problem with something that would be
23 movable or removal in the winter or fall
24 months. The only issue would be that
1 whenever an applicant requests a special
2 inspection which they have to do every year,
3 to make sure that outdoor seating area is
4 set up according to the approved plan. The
5 enclosure or the gate would have to be in
6 place at that point.
7 MEMBER SHROYER: Before you leave. Is
8 the yearly inspection is there a charge for
10 MS. KAPELANSKI: There is a $70, I
11 believe it's a $70 fee for the special
12 inspection and that would be every year.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: And the Applicant is
14 aware that it would be every year?
15 MS. KAPELANSKI: Yes.
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Before you leave you
17 might be able to answer this as well. Are
18 there currently any other establishments in
19 the Novi area with this permission that has
20 been granted?
21 MS. KAPELANSKI: With a variance for
22 the enclosure or with outdoor seating as
24 MEMBER SHROYER: Variance.
1 MS. KAPELANSKI: This is first
2 variance I believe you are seeing for the
3 enclosure. This is a fairly new Ordinance
4 and I believe we have had maybe three new
5 restaurants come through under the
6 Ordinance. And most of them did not require
7 an enclosure. They didn't have wait staff
8 for outdoor seating.
9 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. I am
10 always concerned about setting precedents
11 that may get out of hand down the road or
12 whatever. And my primary concern, however,
13 on this one was regarding the liquor
14 license, and that was addressed.
15 So, with that I don't have a problem
16 with approving this as well. Thank you, Mr.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I agree. To
19 that effect I would think we would in the
20 motion want to make it very clear that it
21 would be for this type of business so we can
22 get away from that precedent setting because
23 of the special circumstances surrounding
24 this eatery in general. So, whoever might
1 be willing to make a motion I would prefer
2 that be part of that.
3 Member Shroyer?
4 MEMBER SHROYER: My motion initially
5 was to deny it because I thought they had a
6 liquor license. I can put something
8 In case number: 08-011 filed by Chuck
9 Alawan from Greek Isle Eatery located at
10 39777 Grand River Avenue. Move to approve
11 the request for a variance due to the facts
12 that the Applicant has demonstrated that
13 building a barrier would actually impede the
14 pedestrians from being able to utilize the
15 walkway during inclement weather. It does
16 not create a safety hazard because there is
17 still adequate walking area between the
18 outside column area and the drive. They do
19 not serve liquor so there are no concerns
20 about any police issues. I believe that's
22 There is one other thing that we
23 covered that you mentioned isn't there?
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The intent for
1 the Ordinance?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Is it in
3 the intent of the Ordinance?
4 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. Based on the
5 intent of the Ordinance it doesn't fall
6 under either one of those negatives. In
7 other words, the intent of the Ordinance was
8 to protect the Applicant. The Applicant has
9 chosen to pursue the variance anyway.
10 And then also there was one other
11 thing that had to do with -- Oh, and this
12 would be specific to the Greek Isle Eatery
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: What about Jimmy
16 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
17 MEMBER SHROYER: No, not Jimmy Johns
18 at this point. They would have to come to
19 us separately.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion by Member
21 Shroyer. And a second by whom? By Member
23 Any other discussion? Seeing
24 none, Ms. Working, will you please call the
2 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
3 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
6 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
8 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
9 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
14 MS. WORKING: And Member Wrobel?
15 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
16 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
17 MR. ALAWAN: Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time we
19 have been on for about 90 minutes and we
20 seem to be about halfway through the
21 caseload, so let's go ahead and take a brief
22 10 minute recess. We will reconvene at
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's been about
1 10 minutes, so let's go ahead and continue
2 with the agenda.
4 Case number five on the
5 agenda is Case Number: 08-012 filed by
6 Bradley Schupholm of Bradley Signworks for
7 Crowne Plaza located at 27000 Sheraton
9 The Petitioner is requesting two
10 variances to a previously approved pole sign
11 to allow for two additional panels on the
12 existing sign. The first panel measures 44
13 square feet and is to be located below the
14 existing Crowne Plaza sign for Benedetto's
15 Steakhouse. The second panel measures 33
16 square feet and is to be placed below the
17 Benedetto's sign. This panel is proposed to
18 be a LED reader board sign.
19 The Applicant is also requesting one
20 wall sign variance for a 63 square foot
21 illuminated wall sign to be located on the
22 west elevation of the Crowne Plaza hotel
23 located at said address. The property is
24 zoned C-Conference Center and is located
1 north of I-96 and west of Novi Road.
2 Are you the Petitioner?
3 MS. NELSON: Yes.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an
6 MS. NELSON: All right. If you could
7 raise your hand and be sworn in by our
9 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
10 08-012 that you would swear or affirm to
11 tell the truth in this case?
12 MS. NELSON: Yes.
13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please state
15 your name and address and proceed with your
17 MS. NELSON: Cynthia Nelson. I am here
18 on behalf of Bradley Signworks, 46601 Grand
19 River, Novi is where we are located.
20 In the case of the pole sign, I
21 realize that the original pole sign that you
22 can see on the screen, it did go in front of
23 the ZBA previously and we're not talking
24 about changing any structure. Everything is
1 going to stay intact. He is going to add
2 the steakhouse where the old Oak Grill was
3 on the side of the building there. And
4 there is no signage indicating that or that
5 you can see coming from 96. He would like
6 to put the steakhouse there. And the bottom
7 sign we are proposing would be an LED reader
8 board. It would have messages on it. It
9 would only be visible from -- there is no
10 other -- the locations where that the light
11 could bother anybody else or anything like
12 that. And basically what you could do is
13 you would be able to see it going 96 east on
14 the freeway.
15 The Crowne Plaza is a very nice hotel
16 if you haven't been there. It is lovely
17 inside. They have lots of facilities that
18 are unadvertised such as shuttle buses to
19 the Rock Financial. They do weddings,
20 catering, all kinds of afternoon banquets.
21 Like Pat was there last week and a bunch of
22 ladies from the Rock Financial were and they
23 would like to be able to advertise these
24 events as well as allow the city to use the
1 reader board for any city functions that you
2 might see fit such as like the '50s thing or
3 something that you might want to get people
4 in town for.
5 I think if you drive by that hotel, it
6 is, what I think is one of the biggest
7 hardships about getting into that hotel if
8 you tried to get in there and look at the
9 signs that we have got up there is the
10 driveway. You have to get on the left hand
11 lane, you got to make a real sharp turn when
12 you first go in that shopping plaza. And I
13 have been there like 50 times and I go by it
14 every time. I end up at Circuit City
15 turning around and going through the back
16 driveway by Carrabba's over there because
17 you really, it doesn't have real good
18 access. And they are trying to make a go of
19 it. I think it could be a lucrative
20 business bringing a lot of money for the
21 city. People coming there and they stay
23 When I was in there meeting with the
24 owner last week and I heard, there was like
1 50 people all came in at once. They were
2 going to Rock Financial. They were all
3 saying, oh, where should we go to eat?
4 Where can we go and have a cocktail? Where
5 can we go afterwards?
6 People want to be in the area.
7 And obviously as business owners in the City
8 of Novi we want to keep the business here.
9 Driving down 96 the big signs that you see
10 for hotels are all in Wixom. We need them
11 to go just a little but further and see some
12 nice places in Novi to go. So that would be
13 our reason for wanting that.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Any other
15 comments? And that doesn't mean you have to
16 have any. Just making sure you are all set.
17 MS. NELSON: I do have two requests.
18 I didn't know if you want to discuss this
19 one or go on to the next?
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What's the
21 Board's pleasure? Let's go ahead and do
23 MS. NELSON: The other one I am
24 proposing a channel letter sign on the side
1 so you can see it coming east on 96. It's
2 basically in the parking lot of the E-magine
3 theater and the only place that it would be
4 visible from other than the expressway
5 coming 96 east would be from the parking
6 lot. But I think if you drive by there
7 which I do everyday on my way there to my
8 shop and home, it would be very effective to
9 have a lit channel letter sign. We're not
10 proposing to change any of the -- all of the
11 type, the colors, everything is consistent
12 with what is already there. It would just
13 be straight black letter just simple, easy
14 to read and unfortunately I do believe I
15 gave everybody 13 copies of this other, this
16 Crowne Plaza Sign, but I don't have any. I
17 gave them all away.
18 Thank you very much. So this would be
19 that. We do have a mock-up of it on the
20 building so if you had an opportunity, been
21 able to drive by. I know you got to figure
22 that it's going to be lighted. The burgundy
23 color for the face is consistent with the
24 colors of the chain. It's their corporate
1 burgundy color and we're proposing single
2 stripe white neon on the raise way that
3 would match the building and I don't think
4 it would be obtrusive. And it definitely
5 would be noticeable. You have to kind of
6 think of things like people that are in town
7 maybe new to Michigan and/or the Novi area,
8 they are coming in for a wedding or a
9 funeral or going to Rock Financial or
10 whatever they want to do and they don't know
11 where to go. Well, they see a nice clean
12 sign on the side of a building and they
13 might be more inclined to stop at our
14 location instead of moving down the road.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anything else?
16 MS. NELSON: No.
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
18 in the audience that wishes to make comment
19 on this case? Seeing none, I will ask our
20 secretary to read -- actually, I will just
21 let us know there were 231 notices mailed
22 with zero approvals and zero objections.
23 That closes the public hearing portion
24 of the case and I will ask for the City if
1 there are any comments?
2 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir.
3 MS. KUDLA: No.
4 MR. BOULARD: I have one comment.
5 It's actually a point of clarification. And
6 I believe the copy of the letter from
7 Bradley Signworks that's in your packet has
8 a note at the bottom that the Applicant is
9 withdrawing a request for number three. I
10 just wanted to point out as I understand it
11 that corresponds with request number two on
12 the actual application form.
13 MS. NELSON: Can I address that?
14 MS. WORKING: And I will further point
15 out through the Chair that we did not notify
16 for the parts of their petition that were
17 withdrawn. They are only notified for what
18 they are requesting and what they just
19 proposed to you this evening.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
21 comments? Open it up for Board discussion.
22 Member Sanghvi?
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
24 Mr. Chair. To me this request sounds quite
1 reasonable and I have no difficulty
2 supporting it. Except I have one question.
3 I know at the present the bottom of the
4 panel is black. Do you have any specific
5 idea what kind of sign you are going to put
6 on that main portion of the panel?
7 MS. NELSON: I'm sorry, what panel?
8 The pole sign?
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The one on
10 the pole sign --
11 MS. NELSON: Oh, because it shows up
12 black on your thing?
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yeah.
14 MS. NELSON: That's called, that's a
15 reader board.
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It is a
17 changing sign, isn't it?
18 MS. NELSON: Yeah, it would have copy
19 on it that would change in accordance with
20 the Ordinance of the City of Novi.
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Does that
22 change the complexion of the type of sign
23 because of the changing verbiage on that
24 pole sign?
1 MR. AMOLSCH: With regard to
2 changeable copy?
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
4 MR. AMOLSCH: Do you want to know does
5 it changes anything about the sign?
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Does it
7 become part of a different or part of the
8 sign ordinance because of that?
9 MR. AMOLSCH: Well, changeable copy
10 signs are permitted currently for restaurant
11 uses. However, the Ordinance I believe is
12 not going to allow that. It has to be a
13 freestanding building with a restaurant use
14 only. This is a restaurant use and a hotel.
15 MS. KUDLA: Currently that issue does
16 not need an additional variance.
17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.
18 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, were your
19 dimensions different? Is that what you were
20 trying to show me?
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mine looks
22 different than everybody else's.
23 MS. WORKING: Well, it's noticed for
24 33 square feet, so that would be the 3 by 11
1 measurement for the LED portion of the pole
2 sign request, just so you are aware. I just
3 saw that your picture did look different and
4 I didn't want you to think that you were
5 looking at anything other than what has been
7 MS. NELSON: I'm sorry about that. I
8 think what you have for some reason is the
9 first picture that I turned in and I was
10 told by the City that it had to be inside of
11 the poles, so we changed all the dimensions
12 of it to fit in the criteria which were
13 asked to do. I'm sorry about that.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I feel a little
16 better. All right. Thank you, Member
17 Sanghvi and the other Board Members.
18 Member Shroyer?
19 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm sorry, I am still
20 confused. When they told me that number
21 three is actually number two, could you
22 clarify what was going on?
23 MS. NELSON: I think what happened is
24 when I first applied for the sign permit I
1 was told by the sign inspector that I had to
2 have a variance to put up Benedetto's
3 Steakhouse where the Oak Grill is. So, I
4 sent in the paperwork as that, so I had
5 three issues.
6 MEMBER SHROYER: On the building or on
7 the side?
8 MS. NELSON: On the side of the
9 building when you first come in. I was told
10 that I had to have a variance for that also.
11 So, I applied for all three.
12 Then I was later told that you are
13 allowed to have at this time a freestanding
14 building, you can have the restaurant sign.
15 So I went ahead and I did secure the regular
16 sign permit for that.
17 MEMBER SHROYER: So, I had it right
19 MS. NELSON: Yes.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: They tried to confuse
22 MS. NELSON: Yeah, I'm doing my best.
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you for that.
24 And I agree. The entryway to get into that
1 location is horrible. We have had issues
2 with that with the City for ages and somehow
3 we can't seem to get it addressed.
4 I'm okay with the Steakhouse sign.
5 I'm okay with the Crowne Plaza sign, but I
6 do have concerns about the reader board. I
7 drove up and down 96 trying to envision with
8 a picture in one hand and trying to steer
9 with the other. People probably thought I
10 had been drinking or something, which I
12 It seems like three lines is just too
13 much verbiage. The size of the letters is
14 too small, and I am afraid it would create
15 quite a bit of a safety hazard to try to
16 read that from 96. The loop road, whatever
17 the name of that road is, sure it would be
18 beneficial, but even for the loop road it
19 would be more beneficial if it was down
20 toward the ground to be able to read it
21 instead of trying to look up to read. So, I
22 have some serious concerns about that
23 portion. Like I said, I am in favor of the
24 others. The reader board sign I'm not
1 impressed, so you are just going to have to
2 convince me that that's needed for me to
3 approve this.
4 MS. NELSON: If you allow me to
5 comment on that. We're definitely flexible
6 on the copy. On the lines of copy and I
7 think what we really would like to do is
8 say, you know, it's not going to messages
9 that are going over and over. Maybe say
10 it's the Golf Show at Rock Financial. Hey,
11 good prices for golf show or something like
12 that. We could go down to less than three
13 line for the reader board.
14 MEMBER SHROYER: I would be more open
16 MS. NELSON: Two lines and a bigger
18 MEMBER SHROYER: Again, I would want
19 to get feedback from the City regarding that
20 as to their recommendations and what have
21 you. Of course, I would want to hear
22 comments from the rest of the Board. That's
23 all I have, Mr. Chair.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
1 Member Shroyer.
2 Member Wrobel?
3 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4 First off, I understand the problems of
5 accessibility there and hopefully if the new
6 master plan is adapted there are some
7 exciting things purposed for that area which
8 would really open up accessibility. Maybe
9 it will come to fruition in our lifetime.
10 As far as the Crowne Plaza sign, I
11 have no issue whatsoever with.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The wall sign?
13 MEMBER WROBEL: The wall sign, right.
14 The Benedetto sign, no issue with.
15 I too have concerns about the reader
16 board, the LED board and I am just not sold
17 on it.
18 Would this board be used just for the
19 restaurant or the hotel or both primarily?
20 MS. NELSON: For both.
21 MEMBER WROBEL: Given the size of it,
22 given the location of it, I don't really
23 think it's going to do that much. I don't
24 believe it's needed, but I will listen to my
1 colleagues and go from there. Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
3 Member Wrobel.
4 Member Bauer?
5 MEMBER BAUER: I like the Crowne Plaza
6 sign and Steakhouse sign. That reader board
7 is going to be such a deterrent for people
8 going by and go right off the road. Thank
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Could someone
11 quickly tell me how large is the Crowne
12 Plaza sign?
13 MR. AMOLSCH: It's 193.5 square feet.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you have the
16 MR. AMOLSCH: 21.6 by 9 feet.
17 MS. NELSON: If I could just add one
18 more thing on this. I am still pleading my
19 case here for the reader board. But don't
20 forget, you guys can use it too. You can do
21 weather reports or Amber alerts.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I appreciate
23 that, but at the same time if we allowed a
24 sign like that for everyone who offered to
1 let us use this, it would be all the way up
2 and down Grand River. How often do you plan
3 on changing it?
4 MS. NELSON: How often do you plan on
5 changing it?
6 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Changing the
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes.
9 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I really didn't
10 think about it to be honest with you.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. If you
12 can just throw something at me if I am not
13 paying attention. Member Ibe?
14 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Member
15 Chairman. I think I want to re-emphasize
16 what my colleague has said. I'm certainly
17 in favor of the sign itself as well as the
18 Benedetto's Steakhouse.
19 As far as the LED reader is concerned,
20 I don't think that the Board wants to go
21 that route in setting a precedent. We don't
22 want Novi to become a city where you have
23 neon lights. I have seen quite a few
24 sitting on this board lately. I mean, it
1 seems like everybody wants neon lights.
2 It's going to be called Las Vegas, Michigan.
3 I think that your sign is bright
4 enough that the LED becomes a huge
5 distraction. The bright red and all the
6 pleasant color you have, you are going to be
7 taking away from it once you add that LED
8 and it is a safety hazard. If you are
9 driving down 96 and I have been there, it's
10 dangerous to try to read the sign and travel
11 at the same time. You don't want to trust
12 the drivers to be careful.
13 I will be in favor of what you have so
14 long as it does not include the LED. If the
15 LED is there I would certainly decline to
17 Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
19 Member Ibe.
20 I would tend to agree with the Board's
21 sentiments as well. I know that the
22 Planning Commission and City Council are
23 apparently looking at LED signs and
24 messages, how often their changing them; is
1 that correct? I would urge them to make a
2 decision fast. Because like I said, we have
3 been getting quite a few requests for
4 variances regarding these and if we don't
5 keep our eye on the ball, well, guess what,
6 pretty soon Novi as you said will have
7 messages everywhere.
8 To me unfortunately I don't believe it
9 to be aesthetically pleasing. I don't
10 believe it to be in the intent of the
11 Ordinance to have something flashing
12 constantly. To have every single business
13 having some type of changeable copy sign
14 such as that or changeable reading sign.
15 So, I don't feel that the variance as to
16 practical difficulty has been shown in that
18 Not to mention that if we add up all
19 the square of footage if I did it correctly,
20 that pole sign would be upward of 277 square
21 feet. That's above, I think right around if
22 not above all the sides we gave at the
23 anchor stores at the malls. I believe that
24 would be upward of what we gave Rock
2 Do you know Rock Financial's square
3 footage by chance?
4 MR. AMOLSCH: I think the one on the
5 freeway is about 700 square feet.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am not sure
7 that the size, despite the traffic issues
8 that have been mentioned, I don't think that
9 the size of the property and the building
10 that's on there warrant something as large
11 as Twelve Oaks Mall. So I know that
12 everyone seems to be fine with the
13 additional wall sign and steakhouse sign,
14 but I was hesitant the first time when we
15 gave the Crown Plaza sign. So, the LED sign
16 is way above and beyond in my eyes. The
17 practicality is just not there.
18 Those would be my comments. I am
19 still hesitant to comment on the other
21 Member Sanghvi?
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I would be
23 quite happy to make a motion to approve
24 minus the reader board sign on the pole to
1 approve your request. If you can live with
2 it. Either you have it or you lose the
3 whole thing? It's your choice.
4 MS. NELSON: Can you live with that?
5 Yes, sir, we can live with that.
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. I
7 will make motion that in case number:
8 08-012 filed by Bradley Schupholm of Bradley
9 Signworks for Crowne Plaza located at 27000
10 Sheraton Drive, we approve the pole sign
11 minus the reader board also the wall sign on
12 the west elevation.
13 MEMBER IBE: Second.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Has
15 demonstrated sufficient hardship and need
16 for business identification. Thank you.
17 MEMBER IBE: And I'll second that.
18 Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Just a point of
20 clarification that the Board use practical
21 difficulty as the standard as opposed to
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The seconder
1 agrees as well?
2 MEMBER IBE: Yes, I do. Thank you,
3 Mr. Chair.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
5 comments? Ms. Working, would you please
6 call the roll.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
10 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
20 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
22 MS. NELSON: Thank you for your time.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance
24 has been partially granted and best of luck
1 to you guys.
2 MS. NELSON: Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Moving
5 along to case number: 08-013 filed by Ron
6 Nuechterlein of Superior Diversified
7 Services for the Shirvanian Office Building
8 located at 43485 Fonda Drive.
9 The Petitioner is requesting four
10 variances for the construction of a proposed
11 office building to be located at 43485 Fonda
13 The Applicant is
14 requesting two parking setback variances,
15 one loading space setback variance and one
16 maneuvering lane width variance. The
17 property is zone TC and is located north of
18 Grand River Avenue and west of Novi Road.
19 Member Wrobel?
20 MEMBER WROBEL: Once, again, I need to
21 recuse myself based on dealings with this
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to
24 approve the recusal of --
1 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: -- Member Wrobel
3 based on his Planning Commission duties.
4 There is a second. All in favor say aye?
5 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, you
7 have been recused.
8 Member Ghannam, at this time I would
9 actually like to welcome you. I note and
10 someone brought it to my attention that the
11 first meeting was technically a special
12 meeting and there wasn't any audience
13 participation so I do want to welcome you
14 and my apologies for leaving you hanging the
15 first time.
16 MR. GHANNAM: Thank you, sir, I
17 appreciate it.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will look
19 forward to your comments during this case.
20 You are the Petitioner?
21 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes, sir.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an
23 attorney, sir?
24 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: No, I am not.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. If
2 you would raise your hand and be sworn in by
3 our Secretary.
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
5 08-013 do you swear or affirm to tell the
6 truth in this case?
7 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes.
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Give your name
10 and address and proceed with your case.
11 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: My name is Ron
12 Nuechterlein. I'm with Superior Diversified
13 Services. We are the selected construction
14 manager for the project and represent the
15 Applicant for these four variances we are
16 requesting. We have as I stated in my
17 letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals
18 received preliminary site plan approval for
19 this approximately a month ago.
20 The four variances we are requesting I
21 didn't bring the small sheet, but I maybe
22 can best describe them with the larger board
23 as to where they are.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do we have an
2 MS. WORKING: It's right behind the
4 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Oh, okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you going to
6 set it over there and if you could grab a
7 microphone too, and if we could have the
8 people in the back make sure the other
9 microphone is working that would be great.
10 MEMBER SHROYER: Would you like to put
11 this on the overhead for the members of the
13 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Is this on?
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. Sir, we
15 tried to get a Bob Barker microphone, but.
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Fox.
17 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Firstly to give you
18 an idea of our location here, this is the
19 cul-de-sac and Fonda Drive located here.
20 This site is approximately 400 feet in width
21 by 400 feet in depth. This is the Baby R Us
22 building here and this is the main drive
23 coming in off Fonda Street which is 24 feet
24 in width and has a common access ingress,
1 egress with the Dara Place (ph) parcel that
2 goes out to Novi Road. So, there is
3 circulation here for this particular
5 The first three variances we're
6 requesting relate to side yard parking
7 setback and loading setback. The parking
8 area here is adjacent to the property line
9 as well as the loading area. And also as
10 well as this, the easterly side the site.
11 The ordinance requires 20 feet of
12 clearance there. As you can see, we have a
13 very small parcel of land and to develop the
14 small parcel of land and get adequate car
15 parking, it would be difficult for us to
16 move our parking 20 feet in from each, the
17 east and west property line and be able to
18 come up with a building of any size to
19 develop here.
20 The third -- or the fourth variance
21 we're requesting is a circulatory drive
22 aisle variance which is for the parking
23 located here and in the center area here in
24 the building. This drive aisle is 22 feet
1 in periphery. Our main drive through and
2 access to Dara Place is 24 feet. This is a
3 secondary route through this area.
4 Twenty-two feet is commonly used in a lot of
5 communities for secondary circulatory
7 I did personally talk to Fire Marshal
8 Michael Evans and Michael Evans had no
9 problems with that width in being
10 maneuverable to this area. The detention
11 pond in the back exist and was built with
12 the Dara Place development. This is a joint
13 detention facility that services both Dara
14 Place and this development combining both
15 properties which is good. One detention
16 pond for two properties.
17 Some of the considerations we gave in
18 trying to make this 24 feet is we could have
19 eliminated a four foot green belt buffer
20 along the building, however, I think that
21 the landscaping is more important from the
22 aspect that this is very useable and in the
23 southerly portion the parking actually
24 borders the free board of the detention pond
1 which is basically the crown creating the
2 capacity for the detention pond.
3 So, we couldn't really move into that
4 area. I believe that's pretty much the gist
5 of our requested variances and I would be
6 happy to address any other questions you
7 might have regarding this.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very
9 much. Is there anyone in the audience that
10 wishes to make a comment on this case?
11 Seeing none. I'll ask the Secretary to
12 record the correspondence for us.
13 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case ZBA: 08-013
14 there were 35 notices with zero approvals
15 and zero objections.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That closes out
17 the public hearing portion of the case and
18 I'll ask the City if there are any comments?
19 MR. BOULARD: I have a couple of
20 questions if I could. The plan shows the
21 parking lot it curbs basically running right
22 up to the property line. Will those grades
23 match the grades on the adjacent property?
24 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: For the most part
1 in the rear of the property along the
2 easterly edge, yes.
3 Along the westerly edge as you can see how
4 the contours fall off here, we have an area,
5 a lower area here which there is a
6 structural retaining wall that is being
7 built in a segment of the westerly property
8 line and that has been structurally
9 designed. It's adequate for our purpose to
10 retain the grade that we're proposing for
11 this piece relative to the adjacent piece.
12 I might also add that this parcel is
13 owned by the City of Novi. It's
14 predominantly wetland.
15 The chances of it ever being developed is
16 probably very slim. There is a water course
17 that presently runs through here which is
18 the middle River Rouge drain.
19 Charles, your second question was?
20 MR. BOULARD: My second question had
21 to deal -- the second question was, is the
22 west facade of the building going to be
23 designed to take into account the limited
24 separation of the property line?
1 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: I am not sure I
2 understand that question. We have
3 approximately seven feet of distance between
4 the westerly property line and the building.
5 MR. BOULARD: So, it will be designed
7 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes.
8 MR. BOULARD: That's it.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, sir.
10 I'll open it up to the Board for discussion
11 seeing no other comments from the City.
12 Member Shroyer?
13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 I have some concerns. I had similar
15 concerns with other building that was built
16 nearby. The main concern is with the
17 property bordering, basically having zero
18 yard setbacks, you are right on the property
19 line. First of all, how could you build a
20 wall without trespassing on the adjacent
22 And then second of all, how could you
23 maintain a wall without trespassing on the
24 adjacent property?
1 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Are you referring
2 to the retaining wall portion as being a
4 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. Because that's
5 still your property. The retaining wall is
6 part of your property.
7 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Right. And, you
8 know, I'm not exactly sure that that wall is
9 right on the property line. There might be
10 slight distance, but that wall is racked
11 back to a degree. To construct that wall we
12 do need some permission. We need permission
13 from the adjacent property owner which, of
14 course, we are doing a couple of other
15 things here that I might add.
16 There is a sanitary sewer that runs
17 down this property adjacent to the west
18 property line. There was never an easement
19 created for it. The Engineering Department
20 has asked me if we would be willing to
21 dedicate a portion of our property to give
22 the City a 20-foot wide easement for the
23 maintenance of that sanitary sewer. We
24 agreed to do that.
1 We also have to sign an agreement that
2 in the event that they never dig for that
3 sanitary sewer that we are responsible for
4 the replacement of that wall. In addition
5 to that, there is another thing that we have
6 offered. There is a portion of property
7 here that does not fall. This little
8 triangle here does not fall within the
9 dedicated right-of-way up to this point.
10 We have agreed to give that to the
11 City of Novi at no charge. We are trying to
12 be as accommodating as we possibly be can.
13 In the case of this to answer
14 your question, I guess we would have to ask
15 the city of Novi if we have permission to
16 repair that wall. I don't think the City of
17 Novi would be totally unreasonable.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: I just always have a
19 concern when somebody puts their property
20 line right on for their building or their
21 parking lot or anything else right on the
22 line because even to weed whip grass that
23 might be between the edges you have to go on
24 the other side and basically trespass or get
1 written permission because of liability and
2 everything else. So that's a concern that I
4 And, likewise, on the other side, the
5 east side you only have a two foot request
6 and the way it looks to me is that that is
7 sod or grass.
8 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: That would occur at
9 this portion right here. And that is right
10 now in a woodland state. That has not been
11 approved. I might even mention Mr. Cuttey
12 (ph) I believe owns that parcel immediately
13 adjacent to us. It's not grass or it's not
14 manicured. It just rough woodland.
15 MEMBER SHROYER: It's never got to the
16 point of being manicured. Now you are
17 talking about a mower that's less than two
18 feet wide and things like that.
19 MEMBER BAUER: Use scissors.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: And you got to use
21 scissors. You mentioned or you talked
22 substantially about the wetlands and it
23 doesn't seem to be any issue with that.
24 You talked about receiving permission
1 from the Fire Marshal to go to a, I believe
2 it was 22-foot wide drive.
3 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Drive.
4 MEMBER SHROYER: Do you have that in
5 written form on file as well?
6 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes, I do. That is
7 part of his initial review for preliminary
8 site plan approval when it was given by the
9 Planning Commission.
10 MEMBER SHROYER: And we have that on
11 file, correct? We can ask. We want to try
12 to protect the City and make sure we have
13 all the documents.
14 MS. KAPELANSKI: The Fire Marshal did
15 review the preliminary site plan which shows
16 the 20-foot wide drive around. His review
17 has not made any mention or objection to
19 MEMBER SHROYER: What I would request
20 to the Board if we do approve this, that we
21 do make it contingent upon receiving the
22 written documentation from the Fire Marshal
23 that he is agreeable with the 22-foot wide
1 And that's all the questions I have,
2 Mr. Chair. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
4 Member Shroyer.
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Mr. Chair.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Sanghvi?
7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.
8 I had a question. Wasn't there some point
9 in time there was a plan to build that road,
10 the road connecting onto Novi Road?
11 MS. WORKING: I'm not sure.
12 MS. KAPELANSKI: I can speak to that.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Should we get
14 you a name tag and get you a seat over there
16 MS. WORKING: I offered, Mr. Chair, I
18 MS. KAPELANSKI: As part of the master
19 plan review recommendations that Member
20 Wrobel was referring to, there are some
21 plans and the master plans recommendations
22 are going to the Planning Commission next
23 week. There are plans for a ring road to
24 connect to that property. As I understand
1 it right now, the ring road would be on City
2 owned property. Excuse me, I misspoke
3 there. The ring road would come --
4 MEMBER SHROYER: It's further west.
5 MS. KAPELANSKI: If I am remembering
6 correctly, the ring road would come through
7 here, if I am remembering correctly. So it
8 would not, the development of this property
9 in particular would not impact the ring
10 road, it would blend together.
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's going to be east
12 of the ring road?
13 MS. KAPELANSKI: Yes, I believe so.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank
15 you. I had a rough idea, it's something we
16 had talked about their building a ring road
17 there somewhere along that line.
18 *Well, this is a very difficult piece
19 of property, it is like a Band-Aid. We are
20 trying to put everything on a Band-Aid. So,
21 without all of these variances it's totally
22 (unintelligible). So, the way things
23 are, the configuration of the lot, without
24 any variances we can't do anything, so I
1 think it beholds upon us to grant some of
2 his variances so that he can
3 (unintelligible). Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
5 Member Sanghvi.
6 Other Board Member comments? Is it
7 getting past you guys' bedtimes?
8 MEMBER BAUER: It's past our bedtime.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I have no
10 comments to add.
11 Member Sanghvi?
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Sir, in
13 that case I would make a motion that in case
14 number: 08-013 filed by -- please pronounce
15 your name.
16 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Ron Nuechterlein.
17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.
18 Filed by Ron Nuechterlein for Superior
19 Diversified Services for the Shirvanian
20 Office Building located at 43485 Fonda
21 Drive, we grant the request for the
22 variances due to the lot configuration and
23 the conditions of the terrain
24 (unintelligible). Thank you.
1 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll support.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
3 motion by Member Sanghvi and a support by
4 Member Shroyer. Were we considering -- you
5 had mentioned it being contingent upon the
6 Fire Marshal letter. Do we wish to make that
7 part of the motion?
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have no
9 problem. I think he said the fire
10 Marshal --
11 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: I personally did
12 talk to Mike Evans.
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You don't
14 have any written statement. I have no
15 difficulty without his statements.
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Does that mean you
17 are going to include it in the motion or
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: If you like
20 we can. I have no problem either one.
21 MEMBER SHROYER: I would feel better
22 if it was included.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Well, if it
24 makes you happy I have no problem including
2 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Contingent upon
4 Member Shroyer's comments during his
5 discussion, written confirmation.
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I agree.
7 Contingent upon a letter of approval by the
8 Fire Marshal.
9 MEMBER SHROYER: Being provided to the
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Boulard?
13 MR. BOULARD: If I may. The intent of
14 that letter would specifically mention in an
15 affirmative fashion that the Fire Marshal is
16 in support of the variance for the reduced
17 maneuvering lane width.
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The whole
19 purpose is to know whether or not you can
20 turn around in the parking lot. If he say
21 you can you can. I don't know how many feet
22 you need to turn around in a fire engine. I
23 have never driven one before, but that's
24 fine with me. Thank you.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
2 motion with a contingency and a second by
3 Member Shroyer.
4 Ms. Working, will you please call the
6 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
8 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
14 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?
15 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
17 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
20 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance
22 has been granted with that one restriction
23 and good luck with that parcel.
24 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That brings us
3 to Case Number: 08-014 filed by Paul
4 Weinstock of Radiant Sign Company for Hertz
5 located at 42355 Grand River Avenue.
6 Petitioner is requesting a 15 square
7 foot sign variance for the placement of a 6'
8 x 30" directional sign to be located at said
9 address. The property is zoned B-3 and is
10 located south of Grand River and west of
11 Meadowbrook Road.
12 Are you an attorney?
13 MR. WEINSTOCK: No.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer?
15 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
16 Before you move forward I would like to make
17 a comment that because this is located on a
18 property owned by a Chevrolet dealership, I
19 am employed by General Motors Corporation.
20 I would like to disclose that. I don't
21 think any of my judgments would be impaired
22 or be changed based on that employment, but
23 I wanted to disclose that for everybody's
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I appreciate
2 that disclosure and I don't think it should
3 be an issue. All right, the Board seems to
5 So, are you an attorney?
6 MR. WEINSTOCK: No.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Will you be
8 speaking as well and are you an attorney?
9 MR. LADUE (ph): No.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you both
11 want to go ahead and raise your hands and be
12 sworn in by our Secretary?
13 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
14 08-014 do you swear and affirm to tell the
15 truth in this case?
16 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yes.
17 MR. LADUE: Yes.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you would
19 state your name and address and proceed with
20 your case.
21 MR. WEINSTOCK: Paul Weinstock from
22 Radiant Sign Company, 30943 Sutters Hill
23 Court, Farmington Hills. I am the sign
24 contractor. I applied for the variance and
1 I have a Hertz representative here that just
2 wants to speak.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay.
4 MR. LADUE: Good evening. Rick Ladue,
5 42355 Grand River. I am currently an area
6 manager with the Hertz Corporation.
7 In essence based on the current layout
8 of this dealership where we have been since
9 2004, we really are looking for some help in
10 guiding our customers to find our current
11 operations out of the dealership.
12 As you can see, we're really looking
13 for a directional signage not illuminated
14 just on the easement off of Grand River
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
18 MR. LADUE: Outside of I do have some
19 documentation. As a Hertz representative we
20 do have some very creative ways for
21 customers to give feedback in terms of their
22 rental car experience. I do have some
23 documentation from one particular customer
24 that we have on paper in terms of our
1 hardship being able to locate the location.
2 I can tell you I have personally taken
3 numerous phone calls from people not quite
4 aware of where we are because of what's
5 currently available and what's there at
6 Marty Feldman Chevrolet. So, our request is
7 really just to provide, like you say, one
8 sign, a monument sign to direct people into
9 the location to either drop off and pick up
10 all of their customers.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
12 in the audience that wishes to make comment
13 on this case? Seeing none, I will pass the
14 file to our Secretary and ask her to read
15 any correspondence.
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
17 08-014 23 notices were mailed. Zero
18 approvals and zero objections.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam
20 Secretary. That takes care of the public
21 hearing portion of our case and I will turn
22 it over to see if there are any comments
23 from the City.
24 MR. AMOLSCH: I have a comment, sir,
1 through the Chair. When I originally
2 reviewed this request it was several months
3 ago. When it came in the sign was not on
4 the monument as it's indicated on your
5 drawing. It was viewed as a pole sign only.
6 So, therefore, they do not need a variance
7 for the monument. But the second variance
8 is listed on the notice.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Section
11 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is no longer
14 MR. AMOLSCH: No longer required.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It is your
16 intent to put it on the monument sign?
17 MR. WEINSTOCK: Originally we were
18 going to put it on a pole which is a covered
19 skirt, like a metal aluminum skirt to cover
20 it. And then when we found that the new
21 code was on a brick base, we were willing to
22 go the extra mile and do the extra step of
23 putting it on a brick base to keep it within
24 the code. So, really the only variance
1 we're asking for is the additional sign on
2 the property.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
4 comments from the Building or the City?
5 Member Boulard -- not Member. Mr.
7 MR. BOULARD: Just a question for the
8 Applicant. The Goodwrench sign that shows
9 in the drawing that's sitting between the
10 roadway and the proposed sign, is the intent
11 to remove that sign?
12 MR. WEINSTOCK: No. That sign is
13 owned by Goodwrench. We are not allowed to
14 mount anything on it or attach anything to
15 it so this would be a sign in addition to
17 MR. BOULARD: Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Any
19 other comments? All right, I'll turn it
20 over to the Board.
21 Member Sanghvi?
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
23 sir. This is a second business at the same
24 address in the area. It's not part of the
1 Marty Feldman business, so they need a
2 business identification for how to get in
3 and get out. I didn't know that you existed
4 there. So, I understand what you meant and
5 I have no problem supporting your
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
8 Member Sanghvi.
9 Member Wrobel?
10 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11 I also have no problem. I know the business
12 needs identification. I have a question.
13 Is this a general rental or is this just for
14 people taking their car in for service at a
15 Chevy dealership?
16 MR. LADUE: That's a very good
17 question. We do obviously service the
18 dealership in terms of servicing the
19 warranty work. However, obviously based on
20 the number of corporate partners that we
21 have in the area, (unintelligible) as being
22 one that comes off the top of my head. But,
23 yes, it's really to identify where we are.
24 A lot of our corporate, a lot of our leisure
1 customers that live in the city of Novi have
2 issues finding us. So, we just want to make
3 that in terms of traffic flow and things of
4 that nature easier to locate our operation.
5 MEMBER WROBEL: So, it's more
6 (unintelligible). I can support the sign.
7 I just wish from an aesthetic standpoint
8 that could combine the Hertz and Goodwrench
9 signs. I know they are owned by different
10 people, but it's not going to happen in this
11 case. So I will support it as is.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer?
13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 I understand the need. I was in a
15 dealership one time and saw the desk and
16 said, oh, it's a Hertz here. And was
17 curious about the same thing and was asking
18 about a business within a business which was
19 mentioned earlier.
20 One of the questions I have for
21 the two of you or one of you is, was this
22 the only location that was being considered
23 to place the sign? Or was that the only
24 place that was considered under Marty
2 MR. WEINSTOCK: Well, based on the
3 property layout and looking at where the
4 property line is, the only other place we
5 would have to put it would have to be a
6 parking space and we would put it in front
7 of it because there is parking across the
8 whole front. It would have to go in front
9 of the property line and that would really
10 be encroaching on the right of way and the
12 So, that's really the only island.
13 There is another island to the east, but
14 then the Hertz is not on that driveway,
15 that's by the body shop, so it doesn't make
16 sense to put it there.
17 MR. LADUE: In addition, aesthetically
18 we felt that that was the best location
19 without distracting. We are trying to
20 maintain the height so it's not taller than
21 the Goodwrench sign.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, the aesthetics
23 is the only thing that I have an issue with.
24 I agree it's needed and I will be supporting
1 it for that reason. I actually like the
2 bare, not skirted, but the bare poles better
3 than the bricks.
4 MR. WEINSTOCK: We're not opposed to
6 MEMBER SHROYER: The reason I say that
7 is because of the Mr. Goodwrench sign.
8 MR. WEINSTOCK: To match it?
9 MEMBER SHROYER: To match it. Because
10 now we're looking at the possibility of
11 putting up a brick monument sign if we could
12 get Goodwrench to put up brick monument sign
13 also, that would be great. But that's not
14 our discussion this evening.
15 So, you wouldn't be opposed to that
17 MR. WEINSTOCK: No. We originally had
18 it on a single pole, but we can put it on
19 two end poles to match the Goodwrench. We
20 were just trying to give a little bit
21 towards the new Ordinance with the bricks so
22 that maybe they will give us the variance
23 for the sign.
24 MEMBER SHROYER: I like the new
1 Ordinance, but I don't like the new
2 Ordinance set right beside an old Ordinance,
3 one that we can't change.
4 Mr. Amolsch, if we were to look at
5 something like that would that bring Section
6 28-1 back into play?
7 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.
8 MEMBER SHROYER: So, I am asking the
9 Board to look at adding another variance.
10 That's unusual.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
12 comments, Member Shroyer?
13 MEMBER SHROYER: That's it. I'll shut
14 up for now.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think that's a
16 very slippery slope personally. My issue
17 with that is eventually I hope that
18 Goodwrench comes into conformance with the
19 new Ordinance because if you drive up and
20 down that Grand River corridor, that's the
21 kind of signs that are going up. Now, if
22 Marty Feldman cares to leave their -- and
23 it's not a knock against GM just because I
24 work for Ford -- their other signs we'll
1 call them up, then so be it. But eventually
2 I would like to see them come into
3 conformance with the signs as well so I
4 would be very hesitant to add variances
5 because remember, the Zoning Board should
6 always be looking to use the least amount of
7 variances, but allow the Petitioner to use
8 their property.
9 Going back to the sign in itself and
10 the need for the sign, what percentage of
11 business is from Marty Feldman Chevrolet,
12 and what is what I would call freestanding
13 or someone who is calling in?
14 MR. LADUE: To be honest that really
15 varies depending on the time of the year.
16 Obviously in the summer months we tend to
17 excel more in the leisure business or
18 corporate travel. Having said that it would
19 range anywhere from 10 to maybe 20 percent
20 of it being Marty Feldman referred business,
21 if you will. Outside of that it's typical
22 Novi residents that are looking to travel
23 with leisure or, again, the corporate
24 partners that we have in the area.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, you are
2 saying 80 to 90 percent of your normal
3 business is?
4 MR. LADUE: Walk-in travel.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Having been at
6 Varsity Lincoln, now they have nice signs
7 I'll have you know.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: However, their
10 Enterprise dealership is in the used lot
11 which is in Wixom and I don't believe that
12 they do have the
13 business --
15 MR. AMOLSCH: The only sign that's in
16 Wixom is the pole sign.
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm talking
18 about at the old used one. Behind like
19 Don's of Traverse City there.
20 MEMBER WROBEL: North of Twelve Mile.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyway, I'm not
22 sure if they have a second sign, but I would
23 tend to guess that their business is driven
24 mostly from the Varsity Lincoln dealership
1 because they are often sending people there.
2 So, given that fact, given the fact that you
3 had mentioned that the majority of business
4 is from other Novi businesses or residents,
5 I guess I see a need for the sign given that
6 it is a business within a business which is
7 a different unique circumstance in itself.
8 Once, again, I would not support
9 trying to match the Goodwrench or Chevrolet
10 signs in any manner of speaking.
11 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't disagree.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Sanghvi?
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
14 sir. If I may I would like to make a motion
15 that in case number: 08-014 filed Paul
16 Weinstock of Radiant Sign Company for Hertz
17 located at 42355 Grand River. We grant the
18 request for the variance for business
19 identification and direction. Thank you.
20 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Point of
22 clarification that we are approving the
23 variance for the number of on premise signs
24 but not the variance to the pole sign?
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: No, there
2 is no pole sign. It's going to be --
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's going to be
4 on a brick base, correct. But it was
5 noticed. I want to clarify that we are only
6 approving the one and the other one has been
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The other
9 one has been withdrawn, yes.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are we all set
11 with that?
12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi, it was
13 for business identification and?
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Direction.
15 MS. WORKING: Direction. Thank you,
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There was a
18 motion by Member Sanghvi and a second by
19 Member Krieger.
20 Are we all set with that? I'm asking the
21 City attorney.
22 MS. KUDLA: Yes.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Ms. Working,
24 would you please call the roll.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
8 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
14 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance
17 has been granted. Good luck.
18 Once, again, if you can convince Marty
20 MR. LADUE: We'll work on it.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Tell him to give
22 the Building Department a call.
24 We'll move to case number:
1 08-015 filed by Thomas Vanoyen of Curb
2 Appeal Homes for 1915 West Lake Drive. The
3 Petitioner is requesting three setback
4 variances and one total lot coverage
5 variance for the construction of a new home
6 to be located at said address. The property
7 is zoned R-4 and is located south of Pontiac
8 Trail and east of West Lake Drive.
9 You are the Petitioner. Are you an
10 attorney, sir?
11 MR. VANOYEN: No.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can raise
13 your hand and be sworn in by our Secretary.
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
15 08-015 do you swear in this case to tell the
17 MR. VANOYEN: Yes, I do.
18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you will
20 state your name and address.
21 MR. VANOYEN: My name is Thomas
22 Vanoyen and I am representing Mary and James
23 Street is their names, and they have
24 employed me to build them a house or add on
1 to this house and this is the house that I
2 have. You can see the -- I gave you guys
3 the footprint of the new house. This is
4 behind you, I'm sorry you will have to turn
5 your head, behind you is the existing house
6 right now and it's a plot plan. What you
7 are seeing there, there is a -- what I am
8 really trying to point out is the distance
9 from the property line to the water's edge.
10 There is just a very, very small amount of
11 area there, but it is almost 900 square
13 You take a look at this picture right
14 here which isn't -- anyway, you are not
15 going to see it very, very good. But that
16 is approximately 30 feet that you see right
17 there. It's not even on the print. No one
18 can touch it except for the Streets, the new
19 owners, and it makes the lot quite a bit
20 larger than it actually appears on the plot
22 So, I am saying that there is almost
23 900 square feet, 860 square feet that is
24 really there. It's just that it's just not
2 And the second place would be the
3 house that we're looking at right now,
4 that's the house right there. That has
5 approximately 900 square feet in it right
6 now. They have two kids. One 18, one six
7 and then the mom and dad. It's just not
8 enough room to support the now-a-day
9 contemporary lifestyle that people live in.
10 One of the reasons they picked that
11 particular neighborhood was the houses in
12 the neighborhood are growing. They are
13 growing very quickly. This house right here
14 you will see this is only five houses down
15 which is only on a 30 foot lot if you look
16 at that. They managed to squeeze quite a
17 bit out of that particular lot.
18 This one right here is seven houses
19 down. That looks like it's under
20 construction. Obviously it is. Again,
21 seven houses down on the same street. And
22 last, this one right here is eight houses
23 down which is directly next door to the one
24 we just saw. That one right there is
1 completed and there is people living in it.
2 I feel that the neighborhood, once we
3 add the new two-story building onto this lot
4 will nothing but add to the entire
5 neighborhood and I feel that it won't -- if
6 anything, it's just going to make the whole
7 neighborhood look more beautiful. Thank
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Is
10 there anyone in the audience that wishes to
11 make a comment on this case? Seeing none,
12 once again, I will pass the correspondence
13 to the Secretary and ask her to record it
14 into the record.
15 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
16 08-015, 45 notices were mailed. Zero
17 approvals and zero objections. There are
18 two letters of concern.
19 First one: "To Whom It May Concern.
20 My name is Jerry Ross and I live at 1911
21 West Lake Drive. The property just to the
22 north of the street, the property at 1915
23 West Lake Drive. I have lived there since
24 1924 and served in several committees for
1 the improvement of the City especially in
2 the Walled Lake area. I have seen a great
3 deal of improvement around the lake over the
4 years. But one thing has puzzled me. Why
5 are people putting such large houses on
6 cottage sized lots?
7 This ruins the integrity of the
8 property. I probably am not alone in
9 thinking this because standards and zoning
10 were created to prevent this. If these
11 codes are to be changed, the neighbors
12 should have the final say.
13 Even though I have seen other smaller
14 lots on the lake overbuilt, this was the
15 first time in my 30 sum years here that this
16 has directly affected me.
17 My wife and I have had many long
18 discussions since receiving the Board of
19 Appeals public hearing notice. We like the
20 Streets (unintelligible). Nevertheless, I
21 need to protect my property. I am mainly
22 concerned that the amount of the impervious
23 ground covered by the movement and structure
24 would cause runoff onto our property. It is
1 a fairly flat piece of property with the
2 water cable three feet below the surface.
3 With approximately 50 percent of the
4 property covered and only four feet on
5 either side for runoff, where will this
6 water go?
7 We would like assurance that property
8 drainage -- proper drainage from this amount
9 of impervious ground is correctly and
10 adequately taken care of. We don't want the
11 value of our property to be negatively
12 impacted by this construction.
13 Thank you, Jerry and Debra Ross."
14 The other concern is from Gary
15 Phillips on West Lake: "I have some concern
16 that the near working percent lot coverage
17 may cause excessive water runoff to the
18 detriment of neighbors on both sides."
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right.
20 Thank you, Madam Secretary. That will close
21 the public hearing portion of the case and
22 I'll turn it over for City comments.
23 MR. FOX: I'd like to make a comment.
24 When we review it for building permits, if
1 it's given approval, we will be looking to
2 maintain the drainage path on the property
3 as part of our review. So, we will make
4 sure the water stays on the property and
5 does not encroach on the neighbors in either
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll open it up
8 for Board discussion. Member Bauer?
9 MEMBER BAUER: Has the fire department
10 given the okay being that close together?
11 It's only eight feet between them.
12 MR. FOX: We have requested an answer
13 from Mike Evans and we haven't received
14 anything at this time. We have issued
15 setbacks of this type in the past.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Along those same
17 lines, are there increased standards of
18 building material that needs to be used when
19 said setback is in place? Or is it just the
20 same as --
21 MR. FOX: The building code gives us
22 up to three feet from the property line
23 before we have to go to a rated wall for
24 fire separation. So, it meets the
1 requirements of the building code as far as
2 fire separations go between the buildings.
3 We have a six foot minimum. Anything closer
4 than that have to be rated between the two
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you have any
7 further comments in regards to the drainage
8 concerns and the 900 square feet or so that
9 wouldn't be part of the calculation, is my
11 MR. FOX: The area behind the house or
12 I would consider on the lake front side of
13 the property, it's not really considered
14 property as far as it's part of the lake,
15 it's not part of the individual property.
16 It doesn't really have any affect on us as
17 far as drainage. We'll maintain the proper
18 drainage on the property up to there and
19 make sure that none of it floats either way.
20 They are required to have a swale on their
21 property to maintain water on their site and
22 they are not allowed to drain it on either
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll keep the
1 questions going. If there was some type of
2 emergency behind the house given that there
3 would be four feet on one side, what would
4 be the plan? Or would there be excavating
5 in the backyard or anything to that affect,
6 have you considered that? What if something
7 large needed to get in the backyard I guess
8 is my question?
9 MR. VANOYEN: You would have to
10 encroach on the neighbor's yard. He has a
11 lot of room. Mike uniquely fit a fire truck
12 through there.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you know the
14 exact measurement?
15 MR. VANOYEN: I would say approximate,
16 ball parking 22, 25 feet.
17 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer, there is
18 an areal view in the proper ZBA file that
19 Madam Secretary was reading from on the left
20 side of the file. If you wanted to have
21 that put up on the projector. There are two
23 One shows lots of pink outline and
24 that's your identification downgrade. The
1 one underneath it will show you the actual
2 lot and any structures that are on lots next
3 door or adjacent to the Petitioner's
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the Board
6 wish to see this on the overhead?
7 MR. VANOYEN: Now, we're taking a look
8 right here at the existing house. As we
9 look to the -- if you can look to the left,
10 it looks like there is no one. You can see
11 a house just vaguely and you see there is a
12 property line. The neighbor owns both of
13 those lots. That would be, I forget the
14 number. I think it's 26 and 25. Or is it
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 28, 29.
17 MR. VANOYEN: Okay, it's 28, 29. You
18 can see his house right there. He clips
19 about a good six feet of it. Maybe eight
20 feet of it. Now, the rest of that in
21 between the 30 foot lot he has got 25 feet
22 of room in between there that you can get
23 something back in there if ever the case may
24 be that you can, if it was needed on any of
1 these lots. But not to say that that's
2 going to change.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other Board
4 Members? Member Shroyer?
5 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6 The main concern that I have with any of the
7 lake lots is impeding the view of the
8 neighboring properties. When I went out
9 there I easily saw the house from the left
10 and the right. It was easier to see from
11 the areal view. It doesn't appear that even
12 with the expansion there would be any
13 difficulty on the house to the left, but
14 could you kind of outline with your pencil
15 the new frame for the house, or how far back
16 it would go towards the lake so I could try
17 to compare it?
18 MR. VANOYEN: Yes, I certainly can.
19 You see this deck that's back in here?
20 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
21 MR. VANOYEN: I am going to take this
22 house and add 20 feet onto it. This deck is
23 approximately 30 feet the way it sits right
24 now so I am going to take two thirds of this
1 deck right here onto it. The neighbor's
2 house that's right to the left, now that
3 would be, right now it's sitting
4 approximately here and this house over here,
5 this is right next door. This house is way
6 up in front by the water. So that's not
7 going to affect anybody. If anybody it
8 might affect is this guy a little bit
9 looking this way, but not any other way.
10 MEMBER SHROYER: Actually the house on
11 lot 28 may even impede his view of the lake,
12 just a portion in front of 27 would be the
13 area that might be obstructed.
14 MR. VANOYEN: If I were going to say
15 that the existing house on the right hand
16 side, if anything a new structure will be a
17 few feet in front of his view, but nothing
18 like a tunnel or anything. We're not going
19 to dump a two-story house and he is back the
20 last 40 feet. He is not going to be back to
21 that at all.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: If you would, please
23 put the areal photo back up again and show
24 me on the deck approximately where the new
1 house would be.
2 MR. VANOYEN: That deck is the
3 existing deck right now and it is at 30 feet
4 the way it sits right now and we are going
5 to use, that's where the new house is going
6 to sit right there. There will be ten feet
7 of deck left over.
8 Now, the front part will go all the
9 way up. We are probably going to add,
10 that's about where it's going to sitting now
11 according to my measurements with the new
12 front garage.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: I am not as concerned
14 about the front as I am the back. People
15 live on the lake because they want to see
16 the lake.
17 MR. VANOYEN: That's true.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: And I don't want
19 impede the aesthetic view of the neighbors
20 by allowing someone to exceed the Ordinance
21 requirements. But in this case due to the
22 angle of the lake or the angle I should say
23 of the lots on the lake, I don't believe
24 it's going to create any visual hazards.
1 So, I would be in support of these requests.
2 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
4 Member Shroyer.
5 Member Sanghvi?
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Are you
7 building a new home or are you adding on?
8 MR. VANOYEN: I am adding onto this
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So, here
11 you say construction of a new home which is
12 a totally different meaning to me.
13 MS. WORKING: We are okay with the
14 setback request as requested in terms of the
15 documented measurements. It was my
16 understanding that the Petitioner is going
17 to knock down the existing home. He is only
18 knocking down the existing garage to make
19 room for the new home addition to the
20 existing footprint. So the setback requests
21 as they were made are still valid.
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It's a
23 combination of both?
24 MS. WORKING: Correct.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Wrobel?
2 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3 To staff. I am concerned about the side
4 yard setback being at four feet. Do we have
5 additional homes in that area? I know that
6 some of the big foot homes are in that area.
7 Are we looking at are four foot setbacks
8 there or smaller setbacks or larger
10 MR. FOX: I don't have any of the
11 exact numbers. There would not be any
12 smaller than four feet that I would know of.
13 We had four feet setbacks in the past. I
14 don't know which lots on that particular
15 street have that. If there is any directly
16 adjacent to each other that are about four
17 feet I don't know the answer.
18 MEMBER WROBEL: But we have done four
20 MR. FOX: We have done four feet.
21 MEMBER WROBEL: I just don't want to
22 set a precedent.
23 MR. FOX: Four feet we have done.
24 MEMBER WROBEL: Oh, thank you.
1 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair, in
2 discussion with the community development
3 director, he has asked that the Fire Marshal
4 does weigh in on what the requirement or
5 what the restriction would be for setbacks
6 within certain requested footage. We just
7 don't know what that is going to be yet. We
8 don't have anything by Ordinance that
9 restricts us. You as a Board don't. But we
10 in a meeting decided that it's probably a
11 request that we are going to see very
12 frequently and Fire Marshal Evans is going
13 to be putting something together for your
14 direction in the future. It was just a
15 little bit too quick of a turn around for
16 this particular request this evening.
17 MR. VANOYEN: May I say just one thing
18 about the four foot setback? The house
19 right now is sitting at four feet. All we
20 are going to do is continue it from the
21 front to the back. Thank you very much.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyone want to
23 speak? Member Krieger?
24 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
1 08-015 filed by Thomas Vanoyen of Curb
2 Appeal Homes for 1915 West Lake Drive I move
3 that we approve this case in requesting
4 three setback variances. The variance
5 requested for the rear 9.25 feet. The
6 minimum side proposed is four feet, so the
7 variance request for six feet, and with that
8 anything that the Fire Marshal would need to
9 add. And then a proposed aggregate of two
10 sign variance of 17 feet. And with our
11 discussion the proof of the practical
12 difficulty for the use of this property.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Lot coverage?
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Maximum total lot
15 coverage of 25 percent.
16 MEMBER SHROYER: No, 12.
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Variance request of
18 12 percent.
19 MEMBER IBE: I'll second that.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
21 motion by Krieger and a second by Ibe.
22 MS. WORKING: Would Member Krieger
23 like to make that subject to Fire Marshal
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the
3 seconder concur?
4 MEMBER IBE: Yes, please. Thank you,
5 Mr. Chair.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
7 comments? Seeing none, Ms. Working would
8 you please call the roll.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
12 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
14 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
18 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
23 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer, I
24 apologize. Motion passes 7-0.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance
2 has been granted.
3 MR. VANOYEN: Thank you very much.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's kind of
5 late so let's go ahead and go home and we'll
6 do this next month. Just kidding.
8 We'll call case number: 08-016
9 filed by Mark Johnson of Cornell Sign
10 Company for K&S Plaza located at 30900 Beck
12 The Petitioner is requesting one sign
13 variance to allow a 30 square foot
14 multi-tenant business sign for the K&S Plaza
15 located at said address.
16 The proposed multi-tenant sign will
17 replace the existing business center pole
18 center. The property is zone B-3 and located
19 east of Beck Road and south of Pontiac
20 Trail. Are you an attorney?
21 MR. JOHNSON: No.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could
23 raise your hand and be sworn in by our
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
2 08-016, that you swear and affirm to tell
3 the truth in this case?
4 MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could
7 state your name and address and proceed with
8 your case.
9 MR. JOHNSON: Mark R. Johnson, Cornell
10 Sign Company, 9641 Northwest Court,
11 Clarkston, Michigan.
12 The property in question, K&S Plaza,
13 is a multi-tenant retail center that has the
14 potential of up to eight tenants that was
15 built many years ago. I have an areal view
16 here on the projector that shows the
17 orientation of the building in regards to
18 Beck Road and the fact that it is
19 perpendicular with the entrances to all the
20 different stores being facing due south.
21 This was done at the time, of course,
22 because before the wonderful interchange at
23 Beck Road was put in place, most of the
24 traffic pattern for Beck Road for the most
1 case was northbound and a southbound
2 orientation was best. The access onto 96 at
3 Beck Road was limited, so, therefore,
4 heading south towards 96 to then get on
5 wasn't done because there wasn't an actual
6 ramp to use to get on other than heading out
7 towards Lansing.
8 The sign in question that is there
9 presently, the existing sign is also a 5 by
10 6. It has K&S Plaza solely on it. It is 15
11 feet tall at the top and while it does not
12 project over the lot line, it does not meet
13 the three foot requirement of setback off
14 the lot line. For safety purposes my
15 understanding is why most ordinances use a
16 three feet requirement is that if a sidewalk
17 is placed on a lot line or a foot within the
18 lot line, that you have people being able to
19 go up and down the sidewalk whether it be a
20 young kid biking and whatever and you
21 physically can't have a ground sign because
22 it's sitting right on top of it. So, it's
23 nonconforming in two different ways.
24 The problem is is that exposure for
1 the businesses is severely limited and it is
2 only viewable for the northbound traffic.
3 Obviously with the expansion of the road and
4 the improvement to the interchange, the
5 traffic pattern on Beck Road has changed
6 immensely and you have as much if not
7 perhaps even at times moreso southbound as
8 northbound traffic.
9 So, what we proposed to do is take the
10 existing non-conforming pole sign and put up
11 a ground sign that meets the 30 square foot
12 requirement. It also meets the six foot
13 maximum height requirement versus the 15
14 feet of the existing sign and also will meet
15 the setback requirement.
16 The purpose for this is to give
17 exposure for the businesses for advertising
18 for southbound traffic. Beck Road because
19 of its traffic count should afford this
20 retail center a very -- how to put it? Even
21 in these economic times, a very stable
22 exposure and base to the public. The
23 problem being is the width and the way the
24 center is located that it has a tendency
1 that when you are heading southbound even if
2 you are in line because let's face it, when
3 you are on roads in southeastern, Michigan
4 you are usually in a traffic jam of some
5 sort, you have no idea as you are heading
6 south of what those businesses are on that
7 side and that is the reason for the request.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
10 MR. JOHNSON: I do have Mark Angeloni
11 (ph) who is the owner of the center.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an
14 MR. ANGELONI: No.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you want to
16 be sworn in as well, please?
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
18 08-016 do you swear or affirm to tell the
19 truth in this case?
20 MR. ANGELONI: Yes.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name
22 and address too.
23 MR. ANGELONI: Mar Angeloni of K&S
24 Investment Group, 1800 West 14 Mile Road,
1 Suite C, Royal Oak. We are the owners of
2 the K&S Plaza on 30900 Beck Road. We are
3 here this evening requesting a variance of
4 the multi-tenant sign at K&S Plaza.
5 We realize that the City of Novi does
6 not allow multi-tenant signs, however,
7 because of various circumstances, we are in
8 a unique position that warrants a variance.
9 Because we are located in the northwest
10 corner of the city limits we border the
11 cities of Wixom, Commerce and nearby walled
12 Lake. Those cities have had several new
13 commercial retail developments in the past
14 couple of years.
15 Besides the new downtown development
16 in Wixom, there have been three new strip
17 centers within one mile from us. The point
18 is during these difficult economic times,
19 the competition for our tenants has
20 increased. These other communities allow
21 multi-tenant signs in their strip centers
22 and that puts us an our tenants at a
23 disadvantage. All we ask for is a level
24 playing field for our tenants. By approving
1 the variance it only helps our tenants
2 potentially reach greater financial success
3 which in turn is an advantage to the City of
4 Novi receiving more tax dollars.
5 I believe that you all have seen, you
6 see the copy there of the proposed sign that
7 we do hope to erect, you can see it's well
8 designed. It's attractive and it matches
9 the color scheme of our building.
10 Ultimately it enhances the appearance of the
12 Finally, I just want to thank you for
13 consideration of our multi-tenant variance
14 request. And I am willing to answer any
15 questions that you may have.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
17 MR. JOHNSON: May I make one
18 additional comment?
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely.
20 MR. JOHNSON: I just want to mention
21 that I know that we erected a mock-up. It
22 was actually erected ten days prior as
23 required, and then a week ago today it was
24 kind of the Wizard of Oz here in Michigan
1 and it kind of blew apart and we tried to
2 get it back up as best we could for you.
3 Hopefully some of you were able to see it
4 before the winds got ahold of it and we felt
5 like Dorothy, we weren't in Kansas anymore.
6 It kind of gives you the idea that
7 that was the actual size and proportions of
8 sign that it's something, the variances
9 requested and we feel it's a workable sign
10 because of the fact the way traffic backs up
11 on Beck Road and everything it gives time
12 for people to read and things because I know
13 that's one time. I have been doing this for
14 many years and sometimes it's a concern, is
15 it really going to be effective? When you
16 are heading to or from that freeway you are
17 sitting in traffic and they are going to
18 have the time to read it.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. Is
20 there anyone in the audience that wishes to
21 make a comment on this case? Seeing none,
22 I'll ask the Secretary to read any
24 MS. KRIEGER: In case number:
1 08-016, 73 notices were mailed. One
2 approval. Zero objections.
3 And the one approval is from Sandra E.
4 Golden-Schaefer: "Thank you for taking the
5 time to read my concerns regarding the
6 appeal for Mark Johnson and Cornell Sign
7 Company to allow a 30 square foot
8 multi-tenant sign for K&S Plaza. I agree
9 with Mr. Johnson that the sign needs to be
10 updated and it also needs to be more
11 informational. As long as the sign is
12 classy in keeping with the facade of the
13 building and it isn't a glaring neon sign
14 that will glow in the dark and keep me
15 awake, I recommend you approve this
16 business. Thank you."
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. That
18 concludes the public hearing portion of the
19 case. Any comments from the City?
20 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir.
21 MS. KUDLA: No comments.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Then
23 I will turn it over to the Board for
1 Member Sanghvi?
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. Question.
3 How many stores have you got in the plaza?
4 MR. ANGELONI: There is a potential of
5 up to eight. There are six tenants
6 presently, though. But some tenants have an
7 expanded, you know, double suite or
8 something like that.
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Have many
10 tenants have you got? Is it full now?
11 MR. ANGELONI: No.
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You have
13 some empty stores there?
14 MR. ANGELONI: Two.
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
18 Member Sanghvi.
19 Member Bauer?
20 MEMBER BAUER: I think it's going to
21 be real nice up there. I like the sign much
22 better than just the K&S. It says
23 something. Thank you. Good luck.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Wrobel?
1 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2 I also approve of the sign. It's a lot
3 better than the other one and I understand
4 the need for it for the southbound traffic
5 at that location so people can see what's in
6 there. And, hopefully, just an editorial
7 comment, once the sign goes up we won't be
8 seeing the Farmer Grill truck parked out
9 acting as a sign as it is now.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Isn't that
11 technically an ordinance violation, Alan?
12 MR. AMOLSCH: If it's parked there all
13 the time, yes.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am pretty sure
15 it is actually.
16 Member Shroyer?
17 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
18 I believe I read part of your mock sign near
19 my house on 10 Mile yesterday and I approved
20 of it. It looked nice. No, I agree
22 It's a great improvement over the
23 sign. I do want to ask because I have also
24 wondered every since I lived in Novi, what
1 does K&S stand for?
2 MR. ANGELONI: They are the initials
3 of my parents.
4 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, great, that's
6 I believe I have a motion if you are ready
7 for one.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go right
10 MEMBER SHROYER: In case number:
11 08-016 filed by Mark Johnson of Cornell Sign
12 Company, Incorporated, for K&S Plaza located
13 at 3900 Beck Road, I move to approve the
14 request to replace the existing business
15 center pole sign with a multi-tenant
16 business sign. The signage itself is not
17 increasing in size, the location will not
18 impair the view from surrounding businesses.
19 The sign will meet all setback requirements
20 and will result in the removal of the
21 existing non-conforming pole sign.
22 The proposed sign will allow for the
23 exposure for up to eight businesses that are
24 located in the plaza. Without the signage
1 viewable from northbound Beck Road.
2 MEMBER WROBEL: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It is a motion
4 by Member Shroyer and a second by Member
6 Any further discussion? Seeing none,
7 Ms. Working will you please call the roll.
8 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
11 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
14 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
16 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
18 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
19 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
20 MS. WORKING: And Member Krieger?
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
22 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Good luck over
1 MR. JOHNSON: If I may add to the
2 Chairman. You are right, Ford does have
3 better pole coverage on their signs. And I
4 apologize to Member Shroyer. My wife works
5 for a service parts operation at GM and I
6 still have to say that.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If we could mark
8 my vote as an enthusiastic aye.
9 MEMBER SHROYER: Can I withdraw the
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No, the case has
12 been decided.
14 Moving along. We are done with the
15 case section of the meeting so let's move to
16 other matters. Building Official Comments,
17 number one.
18 MR. BOULARD: I just have a couple of
19 things. First I wanted to bring to your
20 attention, I am sure you have already seen
21 them, two copies of correspondence from our
22 attorneys. One of which was mailed to you
23 and the other is, I believe --
24 MS. WORKING: Both were mailed.
1 MR. BOULARD: Both were mailed to you.
2 If for whatever reason you did not receive
3 those, let us know. I want to pass along
4 that her discussion at the last meeting, as
5 to the request that Counsel consider the
6 addition of second alternate has been passed
7 along to the administration.
8 And last in regard to training there
9 is a couple of opportunities that Mr. Rumple
10 is working on. One would be to have someone
11 from outside come in and do some training.
12 And the intent is to have that following
13 some training (unintelligible) in our
14 offices. The intent would be to have that
15 training on an off Tuesday night and if you
16 all would be so kind, I would appreciate it
17 if there were times on Tuesday nights in the
18 future next, probably in the next month or
19 month and a half that you would be
20 available, if you could let Ms. Working know
21 so that we could try to get that scheduled.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I might add to
23 that. What I said when this was brought up
24 to me is that I feel that the in-house
1 training from the City Council -- Counsel
2 that the City employs, Secrest, Wardle, has
3 a very good foundational piece, and I am
4 happy to see that they are working on some
5 outside advance training for us. And I
6 agree wholeheartedly with Steve's
7 recommendation that we first concentrate on
8 the foundations and basics from our City
9 attorney and then move to some outside
10 perspectives. So I wanted to, I told him
11 that earlier today and I wanted to share
12 that with the Board.
13 If I can ask if Ms. Working would just
14 shoot an e-mail to the Board within maybe
15 the next six to eight weeks and the Board
16 could respond back to her which ones are
17 available, similar to what we did for the
18 special meeting, I feel that that worked out
19 well for us if it worked out well for you.
20 MS. WORKING: That's fine. I would
21 just like to point out that you have three
22 remaining Tuesdays in April and one Tuesday
23 in May prior to the scheduled ZBA hearing
24 and then two more Tuesdays in May. Would
1 you like me to go into June as well? I know
2 it's the time of year --
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Let's just do
4 April and May at this point.
5 MS. WORKING: I'll get that together.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Sorry to
8 MR. BOULARD: Nothing further. Thank
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Moving
11 along to number two. Rules of Procedure
12 Update. Is there anything to that effect?
13 MS. KUDLA: What's been going on is
14 that I believe we found there was an
15 amendment to the rules in 2005 that we do
16 need to add. So, I will add that as a red
17 line. I did make some recommended changes
18 to the Minutes and I believe you received
19 those changes. Consistent with those
20 changes I will make the red lining changes
21 to the rules that we discussed.
22 In addition, I am doing some
23 additional research regarding the, as far as
24 the alternate member what we can -- the MZBA
1 recent amendments do not clarify anything
2 with respect to what the alternate members
3 are permitted to do or forbidden to do, so
4 we are going to try to look outside the
5 scope of that ordinate statute and see if we
6 can find support for having the member
7 participate in other similar statutes. So,
8 I will be trying to put together an opinion
9 letter on that issue concurrent with us
10 considering the change language. So, I
11 would expect that would be within the same
12 time frame at the end of the month.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Sounds
15 Yes, something was mentioned to me
16 regarding the mocked sign amendment that was
17 approved in 2005, I believe that is what you
18 are referring to; is that correct?
19 MS. KUDLA: Correct.
20 MS. WORKING: I would like to also
21 propose to the Chair, it was recommended to
22 me that the Board might consider making one
23 of the requirements having to do with mock
24 signage. That the Applicant provide a
1 picture of what the mock sign looks like in
2 the event that we do have inclement weather
3 like that and then I would be able to
4 forward that to you in case you didn't have
5 a chance for the site visit. We would
6 implement that as a requirement by the rules
7 for application for consideration if the
8 Board would see that to be useful.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do we want to
10 make that a recommendation?
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, I
12 think it's a very good idea.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: I think it's a lousy
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, looks
16 like it passes 6-1 then.
17 MS. WORKING: This was Member
18 Shroyer's idea.
19 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, I change my
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: He likes to
23 see all the signs end up in his front yard.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
1 comments on the rules and procedures?
2 MEMBER SHROYER: I have one.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes.
4 MEMBER SHROYER: In the write up that
5 Ms. Working did, I appreciate all the
6 effort in trying to decipher the audiotape
7 and everything to put these together. I do
8 have several question marks that I'm not
9 sure I remembered everything correctly. So,
10 I guess my question is, will we be getting
11 another copy of the revisions to review
12 prior to when we're going to vote on the
13 final recommendations or the final set?
14 MS. KUDLA: You will be getting a copy
15 of the actual procedures. I don't think
16 it's part of the Minutes that we are going
17 to go into any more detail on it.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligible).
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are we going to
20 have to approve those Minutes?
21 MS. KUDLA: Yes.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: That was the next
23 question I had is, do these have to be
1 MS. KUDLA: They do. But from my
2 review of the Open Meetings Act and the
3 minimum requirements for Minutes they do
4 both require that.
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I move that
6 we accept the Minutes as presented.
7 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think they are
9 still making revisions to the Minutes.
10 MS. KUDLA: We made revisions, but --
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Were they part
12 of what we got?
13 MS. KUDLA: Yes.
14 MS. WORKING: You should have received
15 the blue --
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have seen
18 MEMBER SHROYER: I have not seen that.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I don't think I
21 MS. WORKING: In the mailing just the
22 other day?
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The
24 envelope that came by mail?
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I got a weird
2 sign picture too.
3 MEMBER SHROYER: The only thing I have
4 is the original letter.
5 MS. WORKING: Possibly -- we have had
6 a lot of problems with our color copier.
7 So, it's possible that some of you received
8 black and white copies. Member Ghannam has
9 pointed it that he got one. So, if you did
10 receive --
11 MEMBER BAUER: I got two.
12 MS. WORKING: Oh, that's wonderful.
13 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can we have it
16 sent back out?
17 MS. WORKING: I would prefer to
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Will you e-mail
20 the newest version to us and then we will
21 approve them next time?
22 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer
23 (unintelligible), if I can access the color
24 copier actually.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: E-mail them to
2 me and I will print them out for him.
3 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll figure out a way
4 to get them.
5 MS. WORKING: Okay. I can mail them
6 to you, that's not a problem. I just feel
7 that you should have them now.
8 MEMBER SHROYER: That's fine.
9 MS. WORKING: Now, you need a copy of
10 the old, this set as well as what Beth is
11 going to put together something new now to
12 incorporate the mock sign amendment and
13 everything. So, do you want these first or
14 do you want to wait until she send them to
15 me and then I'll send them all out at the
16 same time?
17 MEMBER BAUER: All at one time.
18 MS. WORKING: I'll send them all at
19 one time. Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
21 motion and a second. Let me withdraw the
22 motion and approve
23 the --
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has
1 been withdrawn.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's all
3 right. Any other rule and procedure
5 Moving on to number three.
6 MS. WORKING: Novi Corporate Campus.
7 There is a photograph inside your meeting
8 file that was taken on March 14th of this
9 year. Along with it you will see the motion
10 that was made by the Zoning Board to grant
11 the variances requested for a one year
12 period with a six month review. We are at
13 the six month review point. Ordinance
14 Officer (unintelligible) said she feels that
15 the trailer is in compliance with the
16 landscaping concerns that the Board has and
17 is before you today to see if you will grant
18 them their additional six months on the
19 requested variance back in September.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Given the fact
21 that the Ordinance officer is okay with it
22 and we approved it under the finding of fact
23 last time, I would move that we go ahead and
24 approve the second six months for case
1 number: 07-065, Novi Corporate Campus.
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
4 motion and a second. Any further
5 discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Working, will
6 you please call the roll.
7 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi.
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Aye.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
12 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
18 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve in six
22 months on ZBA 07-065 passes 7-0.
24 The next item that you are being
1 asked to consider this evening is ZBA 07-00
2 -- excuse me, 028. It's past my bedtime.
3 That's for 1411 West Lake Drive.
4 Members of the Board, this is a
5 request to extend per 90 days the
6 requirement to pull a building permit within
7 that 90 days. The Petitioner was granted
8 variances by the Board at the January 9th
9 meeting, and he would like another 90 days.
10 You can see his request in writing attached
11 to the original motion.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It appears that
13 he has difficulty with his architects in
14 getting the plans. I don't see an issue
15 with this. So, with everyone shaking their
16 head I move that in case number: 07-028
17 that we extend the time period to pull a
18 permit an additional 90 days from tonight.
19 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: Since the original
21 motion was written so well I would support
22 the motion.
23 MS. KRIEGER: Oh, you wrote it, did
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Ms. Working,
2 will you please call the roll.
3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
8 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
12 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: And Member Wrobel?
16 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Motion to extend passes
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Number five was
20 my question for something that came up. In
21 an effort to somewhat streamline the process
22 that we do here so we don't run here until
23 10:30, I had asked for a recommendation as
24 to whether we could have something similar
1 to the City Council where they have a
2 consent agenda where these 90 day
3 extensions, things like that we could just
4 throw under there, review it as part of our
5 packet process and just approve it, but it's
6 my understanding that since we're a quasi
7 judicial board, the City Attorney does not
8 recommend that and that's their prerogative
9 and so if that's their recommendation then I
10 will go with that.
11 So, at this point I would ask the
12 Board to consider directing the Building
13 Department to looking into recommending to
14 the Ordinance Review Committee and City
15 Council to review this 90-day rule and
16 possibly extend it to six months or whatever
17 their recommendation may be. If that's the
18 direction of the Board, maybe intent, might
19 try something differently, but if it can be
20 reviewed and streamline our processes I
21 think we would be much appreciative.
22 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is
24 apparently a motion and a second. All in
1 favor of giving that direction say aye?
2 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the
4 Building Department wish to comment before
5 that actually?
6 MR. BOULARD: My only question would
7 be if there would be direction to consider a
8 time other than the six months?
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: My take is that
10 you guys are the professionals. Whatever
11 you feel an appropriate time frame would be
12 is fine with us. If you still think it's
13 90, that's fine, come back and tell us.
14 But I am just looking at some direction from
15 you whether or not we can recommend to that
16 in ordinance review as to extending that so
17 we don't get as many of these.
18 MR. BOULARD: I heard six months. I
19 assume there is some reasoning and some
20 experience that would lead to that and I
21 just wondered if there is anything you all
22 wanted to add to that?
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: My only comment
24 would be that oftentimes it's 90 days and we
1 approve for another 90 days and that seems
2 to take care of the issue. Other than that
3 I have no experience in that.
4 Any other members wish to comment on
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I think 180
7 days is a very good idea because you don't
8 know what the weather is going to be like
9 when you give 90 days in December.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Exactly. It
11 will give them a change of a season
12 possibility and stuff like that.
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: They might
14 even change the (unintelligible).
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no other
16 business before the Board I would like --
17 You have business?
18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay.
20 MEMBER BAUER: Paradise Park where do
21 we stand?
22 MS. WORKING: Members of the Board,
23 the Board gave the Petitioner the option to
24 return in April or May. The Petitioner
1 chose to return in May. So, he has been
2 sent a letter regarding that. I have spoken
3 to him on the phone and he will receive
4 another meeting notification to remind him
5 to show up in May. Those letters will go
6 out the third week of this month along with
7 the regular agenda items for the month of
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no other
10 business, I'll entertain a motion to
12 MEMBER WROBEL: Motion to adjourn.
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say
16 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
17 (The meeting was adjourned at
18 10:32 p.m.)
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify
5 that I have recorded stenographically the
6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the
7 above-entitled matter at the time and place
8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further
9 certify that the foregoing transcript,
10 consisting of (167) typewritten pages, is a
11 true and correct transcript of my said
12 stenographic notes.
19 Mona L. Talton,
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter
22 April 24, 2008