|View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008
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, May 13,
Justin Fischer, Chairperson
Mav Sanghvi, Vice-Chairperson
Christian Fox, Community Development Liaison
Elizabeth Kudla, City Attorney
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Charles Boulard, Building Official
Robin Working, ZBA Recording
Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.
1 Novi, Michigan
2 Tuesday, May 13, 2008
3 7:00 p.m.
4 - - - - - -
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would like to
6 call to order the May 8th, 2008 City of Novi
7 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
8 First of all, I just want to mention
9 for anyone watching at home, there are some
10 repairs going on in the back room, so
11 unfortunately from what it sounds like, the
12 shot that you have right now of the whole
13 entire board is the only one that you will
14 be seeing tonight. You won't be seeing the
15 Petitioners or anything on the overhead or
16 any close-ups of -- I know everyone likes to
17 see Robin when they do a close-up over
18 there. So, unfortunately it will be just
19 the whole Board. So, thank you for allowing
20 me to make that announcement.
21 Ms. Working, would you please call the
23 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
24 MEMBER BAUER: Present.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
4 MEMBER SHROYER: Here.
5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Present.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?
8 MEMBER GHANNAM: Here.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
12 MEMBER WROBEL: Present.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
14 MEMBER IBE: Present.
15 MS. WORKING: All present and
16 accounted for.
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time I
18 will have us all stand for the Pledge of
19 Allegiance. Which one of my alternates has
20 not -- have you started us off yet?
21 MEMBER GHANNAM: No.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you please
23 start us?
24 MEMBER GHANNAM: I will.
1 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to
2 the flag of the United States of America and
3 to the Republic for which it stands, one
4 nation under God indivisible with liberty
5 and justice for all.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time I
7 would like to mention that there are rules
8 of conduct and a hearing format in the back
9 of the room for anyone who is interested.
10 Please make sure you turn off all cell
11 phones and pagers. And just as a rule,
12 individuals will have five minutes to
13 address the Board and those of you coming up
14 as a group will have ten.
15 The full set like I said can be found
16 in the back of the room. Unfortunately,
17 once again with the TV difficulties, they
18 will not be running on there, but they can
19 be found on the City of Novi's website. So,
20 let's go forward.
21 The City of Novi Zoning Board of
22 Appeals is a Hearing Board empowered by the
23 Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking
24 variances from the application of the Novi
1 Zoning Ordinance. It takes a vote of at
2 least four members to approve a variance
3 request and a vote of the majority present
4 to deny a variance.
5 We do have a full Board tonight, so
6 all decisions made will be final. We do
7 have an agenda before us, so, let's see if
8 there are any changes.
9 Any Board Members or City Staff
10 recommending changes? Seeing none, I will
11 entertain a Motion to approve.
12 MEMBER WROBEL: Motion to approve the
13 agenda as stated.
14 MR. BAUER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We have a motion
16 by Member Wrobel and a second by Bauer. All
17 in favor say aye?
18 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, we
20 will go by our agenda here.
21 We also have the approval of Minutes
22 on the agenda from April 8th, 2008. Are
23 there any changes to these Minutes?
24 MEMBER BAUER: Move to approve.
1 MEMBER IBE: Second.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
3 Motion by Member Bauer and a second by
4 Member Ibe.
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I do have
6 some comments and corrections.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Page 109,
9 line 3. Without all of these variances it
10 is totally un-developable. And the
11 following line also should read that: I
12 think it beholds upon us to grant some of
13 these variances so that he can utilize his
14 property. Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any further
16 changes to the April 2008 Minutes? Do you
17 concur with the changes?
18 MEMBER BAUER: Approve as amended.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Ibe
20 agrees as well?
21 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor of
23 the amended Minutes from April 8th say aye?
24 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any opposed?
2 Seeing none, the Minutes are approved.
3 At this time we will go ahead and move
4 along and open up the public remarks portion
5 of the meeting. All comments related to a
6 case on the agenda should be held until that
7 case is called. However, if anyone wishes
8 to address the Board on any matter or case
9 not on the agenda tonight, please go ahead
10 and raise your hand and come forward.
11 Seeing none, we will close the public
12 remarks section of the meeting and move on
13 to our first case.
15 Case number: 08-017 filed by Larry
16 Shew of Meadow Pointe LLC for Avalon Pointe
17 Office Center. Is the Petitioner here
18 today? All right, please come forward.
19 This is located at 41805 Eleven Mile
20 Road. The Petitioner is requesting an
21 extension for the continued use of a 60
22 square foot temporary construction
23 identification sign to remain on property at
24 said address until the first certificate of
1 occupancy for the third building is issued.
2 The property is zoned I-1 and located south
3 of Eleven Mile Road and west of Meadowbrook
5 And as the Board Members will
6 remember, this was postponed from our April
7 8th, 2008 meeting. You are Larry?
8 MR. SHEW: I am Larry Shew.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could
10 raise you hand and be sworn in by our Board
12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or
13 affirm that in case number: 08-017 to tell
14 the truth in this case?
15 MR. SHEW: I do.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: If you can state
17 your name and address and proceed with your
19 MR. SHEW: Larry Shew, 153 North
20 Milford Road, Highland, Michigan 48357. Why
21 I'm here tonight?
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. Tell us
23 why you are here.
24 MR. SHEW: Why I am here tonight, we
1 have a project located on Eleven Mile Road.
2 It's an office condominium. It consist of
3 three buildings. We have one building up.
4 The second one is almost up. It's currently
5 under construction. We have the potential
6 of a third building as well.
7 What makes this a little different is
8 we are selling our units, not leasing them.
9 We are doing fairly well considering the
10 economy. In the middle building which is
11 building number two we have 50 percent
12 occupied of the 10,000, so, basically 5,000
13 square feet occupied.
14 In the second building that is
15 currently under construction we have another
16 5,000. We have two tenants there, and
17 that's basically 50 percent occupied.
18 The third building is 10,000, but we don't
19 have any tenants at this time. We have been
20 getting some fairly good calls, it's just
21 like I said, the economy is slow. We would
22 normally sell these things out very quickly
23 and it's very unusual that we haven't sold
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
2 in the audience that wishes to make a
3 comment on this case? Seeing none, I would
4 ask the Board Secretary to read any
6 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case there
7 were 160 notices mailed. One approval.
8 Zero objections. Just -- there is no
9 comments. It's approval from Peter Phillips
10 on North Pointe Drive.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam
13 We will go ahead and turn this over to
14 the City Staff. Any comments?
15 MR. AMOLSCH: No, sir.
16 MS. KUDLA: No.
17 MR. FOX: I would just like to
18 reiterate through the Chair what the
19 Applicant has already stated, that this is a
20 three unit, a three building condo complex.
21 There is currently one complete building and
22 one building under construction about half
23 done at this time and one building yet to be
24 constructed. That's it.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very
2 much. I'll turn it over for more
4 Member Sanghvi?
5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Bauer first.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Bauer?
7 MEMBER BAUER: I believe we should go
8 ahead and extend the sign. The area looks
9 good, but with the climate today, I think
10 they are going to need some help.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
12 Member Bauer.
13 Member Sanghvi, your comments?
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I agree
15 wholeheartedly with what has been said, they
16 should be allowed to continue with the
17 current sign. And perhaps we should take
18 into consideration the economy, climate and
19 considering that maybe we should extend this
20 for a period of at least one year. Thank
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Wrobel?
23 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
24 To the Applicant. What kind of extension
1 time period were you looking for?
2 MR. SHEW: Our goal is to be out of it
3 in one year. We are going to be real
4 aggressive with our marketing.
5 MEMBER WROBEL: Okay. I can go along
6 with that. Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Krieger?
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: From what I found
9 this building being on Eleven Mile Road is
10 in a unique location making it difficult to
11 obtain a third certificate of occupancy and
12 extend the time for about a year of the
13 current sign of 60 square feet would give
14 the proponent relief.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you care
16 to make that into a motion?
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay, that's a
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Go ahead and
20 move in proper format and restate what you
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
23 08-017 filed by Larry Shew of Meadow Pointe,
24 LLC, for Avalon Pointe Office Center located
1 at 41805 Eleven Mile Road, I move to grant
2 the request for the proponent that the
3 building because of its unique location and
4 making it difficult first, looking for its
5 first certificate of occupancy and to extend
6 that for one year of the current sign of 60
7 square feet.
8 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Start with
10 Member Shroyer.
11 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Member
12 Chair. If the maker of the motion would
13 consider the possibility of bringing it
14 until the first certificate of occupancy of
15 the final building or the extension of the
16 period issue of one year I would be more in
17 favor of --
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Whichever comes
20 MEMBER SHROYER: Whichever comes
21 first, exactly.
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
23 MEMBER BAUER: Fine.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion maker
1 agrees, and who seconded the motion?
2 MEMBER BAUER: Me.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You did? Okay.
4 MR. BOULARD: I just wanted to clarify
5 that, I believe -- had there been a
6 certificate of occupancy issued for the
7 first building?
8 MR. SHEW: Has there been?
9 MR. BOULARD: Yeah.
10 MR. SHEW: Three currently. In the
11 building number two which is the middle
12 building. Three tenants.
13 MR. BOULARD: Typically just for the
14 sake of clarification, typically a
15 construction sign would come down once the
16 first certificate is issued. In this case
17 because of the construction of the buildings
18 is spread out, the request is beyond that.
19 So, I just wanted to clarify that for the
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
22 MS. WORKING: So, I would like to
23 reiterate before you take a vote, please,
24 that's it's for the first certificate of
1 occupancy of the third building or for a
2 period of one year, whichever comes first?
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's
5 MEMBER SHROYER: When I said the final
6 building it's the same.
7 MS. WORKING: Okay.
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion maker
10 agrees, and Member Bauer is the seconder of
11 the motion and he also concurs.
12 Any further discussion? Seeing none,
13 Ms. Working, would you please call the roll.
14 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
18 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
20 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
21 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
22 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
24 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
3 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance
6 has been granted.
7 MR. SHEW: Thank you. I appreciate
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: For one year for
10 the third building and best of luck to you
11 in leasing that out.
12 MR. SHEW: Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We will move on
15 to our next case on the agenda. Case
16 number: 08-018 filed by Edie Victor of
17 Gardner Signs for Huntington Bank.
18 Is the Petitioner here today? If you
19 can come forward.
20 This request is located at 43200 Ten
21 Mile Road, and the Applicant is requesting a
22 13 square foot area variance and a one foot
23 height variance for an 8 by 6 foot
24 multi-tenant ground sign measuring 48 square
1 feet to be located at said address.
2 The property is zoned B-3 and located
3 north of Ten Mile Road and east of Novi
5 MR. BRANDICE (ph): Hello, actually my
6 name is Jeff Brandice. Edie Victor was the
7 person who filled out the application.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can raise
9 your hand and be sworn in by our Board
11 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
12 08-018 of Gardener Sign, Incorporated, for
13 Huntington Bank in this case do you swear to
14 tell the truth?
15 MR. BRANDICE: I do.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
17 MR. BRANDICE: What we are looking to
18 do here is erect a multi-tenant sign for the
19 tenants, existing tenants that are currently
20 in this shopping center as well as future
21 ones. There would be a total of five
22 tenants all together. Currently we had a
23 mock-up sign installed there, and I am sure
24 you got to see that. That's basically what
1 the sign would look like. Other than the
2 other tenants that would come Benito's, the
3 cleaners and Penn Station would have their
4 logos, which you should have.
5 I do not have the fourth tenant as of
6 yet, but, really, I am representing both
7 Huntington and Bennett Donaldson who owns
8 the property and who has given permission to
9 erect this sign off of Novi Road. Currently
10 if you are heading south on Novi Road, it's
11 near impossible to see the signs that are
12 going to be erected on the building that
13 faces south. And, you know, I would
14 consider that a driving hazard, people
15 driving south trying to get into the
16 shopping center. If someone is giving you
17 directions, you have no idea that they are
18 there unless there is some type of sign out
19 in front identifying these businesses.
20 One, as the gentleman previously
21 stated before me, with the economy so bad,
22 these people need a chance to at least have
23 their name out there for people to see their
24 business, otherwise, you know, it's going to
1 be very tough unless just word of mouth gets
2 around where their business is.
3 Once, again, the gas station on that
4 corner also blocks, if you are heading down,
5 once again south down Novi, it's tough to
6 see the bank identified that's in the same
7 shopping center unless you know where it is.
8 Because there is no, currently there no
9 ground sign for the bank off of Ten Mile
10 Road, just a wall sign identifier. So, what
11 we are requesting is this multi-tenant sign
12 to help out the tenants in this shopping
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. Any
15 other comments? No other comments?
16 MR. BRANDICE: Oh, no, no, no.
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
18 in the audience that wishes to make a
19 comment on this case? Seeing none -- I will
20 actually pass this along to the Board
21 Secretary and ask you to report to the Board
22 on correspondence.
23 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case:
24 08-018, 18 notices were mailed. Zero
1 approvals. Zero objections.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And I will turn
3 it over to the City Staff.
4 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir.
5 MS. KUDLA: No comment.
6 MR. FOX: Through the Chair, I would
7 like to get a little clarification on this
8 project. Current Zoning District B-3 this
9 project is in only allows for a business
10 ground sign which has the name of the
11 complex on it, not the individual
13 Huntington Bank was granted an
14 additional wall sign on ZBA case: 07-069
15 for the reason that they had one sign and
16 they wanted an additional sign facing Ten
17 Mile Road because they didn't have
18 visibility in that space. That's it.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Perfect. Thank
20 you very much for that insight. And I will
21 go ahead and turn it over to the Board for
22 any comments. Member Bauer?
23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, it says here that
24 this proposed monument sign is on a 10 feet
1 setback. Does that meet the normal setback
2 from the center?
3 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, it does. Three
4 feet is the setback requirement.
5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
7 comments, Member Bauer, or questions? No,
8 not at this time. All right.
9 Member Shroyer?
10 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11 I am wrestling with this a little bit
12 or struggling with it is a better term.
13 When we approved the other Huntington sign,
14 we were or at least I felt that we probably
15 would be seeing some type of a monument sign
16 on this area identifying the shopping
17 center. The shopping center, I believe, is
18 Vantage Point Shopping Center; is that
20 MR. BRANDICE: That's correct.
21 MEMBER SHROYER: Where on the property
22 does it tell people that that's the name of
23 the shopping center?
24 MR. BRANDICE: Currently nowhere.
1 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't understand
2 why the large heading of this wouldn't say
3 Vantage Point Shopping Center where the
4 Applicants can tell people that's where
5 they're located.
6 MR. BRANDICE: Well, I mean, I guess
7 my comment to that is, you want to get an
8 identifier out there for the business and,
9 you know, you identify businesses with their
10 signs, not with what the shopping center is
11 called. At least in the sign business
12 that's what I deal with every day. We would
13 be open to put, if that was a requirement,
14 you know, we would be open to putting that
15 somewhere on the sign as identifying the
16 shopping center.
17 MEMBER SHROYER: Like I said, I am
18 struggling with it. I will listen to what
19 the rest of the Board has to say. I
20 certainly didn't anticipate this. I was
21 looking at a shopping center sign which
22 would meet the Ordinance requirements. With
23 this, it not only doesn't meet the
24 requirements obviously, but putting four or
1 five other signs on that, but there no
2 uncertain circumstance, I guess, is the way
3 to phrase it, I definitely will not approve
4 adding an additional foot to it.
5 I think that's all I am going to say
6 at this point. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
8 Member Shroyer.
9 Member Wrobel?
10 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11 To the City Staff, how many signs total does
12 Huntington have there now? Two?
13 MR. AMOLSCH: Two wall signs.
14 MEMBER WROBEL: One on the Ten Mile
15 side, one on the Novi Road side?
16 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct.
17 MEMBER WROBEL: Number one, I have an
18 issue with the size of the sign. I am not
19 so much concerned with the shopping center
20 name on it. To me they're irrelevant, but I
21 am concerned with the height of the sign.
22 Seven foot seems kind of high to me also.
23 Also, three signs for the bank. If
24 you put one on the monument sign, that's one
1 too many for me. Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other Board
4 I will go ahead and make my comments.
5 I was thinking more along the lines of what
6 Member Shroyer was thinking as far as the
7 business center sign. And I think it really
8 struck a cord with three signs for one bank.
9 All of them larger than they need to -- both
10 the other signs, they came with size
11 requests as well, Alan?
12 MR. AMOLSCH: No, they were just
13 numbered signs.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: They were just
15 numbered, all right. I still think they are
16 pretty large for the property there anyway.
17 In general, I am not sure that I
18 can find with what makes this property
19 unique compared to those other properties
20 and shopping centers in Novi. I look right
21 across the street to where Pizza Cutter is
22 and they don't have a business with every
23 single tenant in there, I don't believe,
24 Alan. I didn't see one, and I don't think
1 they have a permanent formation of one pole
2 sign --
3 MR. AMOLSCH: They just have one
4 business center pole sign which is what the
5 Ordinance allows.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. So, given
7 the fact that I can't see anything
8 exceptional, anything unique, anything
9 that's not really a general condition of the
10 city. I think we're missing one of the key
11 points to the practical difficulty. So, if
12 that can't be proved, I will not be inclined
13 to approve the sign.
14 I will open it up for more Board
15 Members. Member Krieger?
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: In consideration for
17 all the signs on the east side, that's the
18 only complex that has multiple tenants, but
19 I would have to agree that Huntington, I
20 don't know why they would need three. They
21 could just say that they are in the Vantage
22 Pointe Shopping Center area. And then
23 because of the configuration of the
24 building, that the ground sign would be
1 okay, but also I would agree with previous
2 speakers on the size.
3 So, those are my comments right now.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Shroyer?
5 MEMBER SHROYER: I want to ask the
6 Applicant. You have indicated that Mr.
7 Donaldson is the owner and that he has
8 approved putting a sign there?
9 MR. BRANDICE: Yeah, some type of
10 multi-tenant sign, correct.
11 MEMBER SHROYER: Has he seen the
12 mockup of the sign?
13 MR. BRANDICE: Yes, he has.
14 MEMBER SHROYER: Do we have anything
15 in writing that indicates that he is in
16 favor of all this?
17 MR. BRANDICE: I can provide that,
18 yes. I mean, I can provide that to the
19 Board, yes.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't know that we
21 need that, I just wanted to ask. Because I
22 am surprised too that he hasn't said I want
23 something that says the name of the shopping
24 center on the sign.
1 MS. KUDLA: Through the Chair, if the
2 Board wants that, we could make any variance
3 granted conditional on providing that to the
5 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
7 Member Shroyer.
8 Member Sanghvi?
9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
10 It's a tricky situation, but I think the
11 businesses need some kind of identification
12 who are inside the shopping center over
13 there. The sign it doesn't mention even the
14 name of the shopping center. It only talks
15 about Huntington. That's not the name of
16 the shopping center, is it?
17 MR. BRANDICE: No, no. Actually, the
18 Vantage Pointe --
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: And, so,
20 the way everything is presented today, I
21 can't support it. Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Ibe?
23 MEMBER IBE: Sir, is it possible that,
24 would you consider not getting a decision on
1 this matter and perhaps go back to the party
2 who owns the property and indicate to him
3 that the Board is very concerned that the
4 name of the complex is not even on the sign
5 that you are about to put up. I have a
6 problem with Huntington Bank having three
7 signs, I really do. I certainly would like
8 the other businesses to get visibility as
9 well just as much as Huntington Bank, but if
10 you submit for a vote today, I can tell you
11 that you will not get my vote.
12 But I may recommend, it's your
13 decision to make, of course, if you wish to
14 have this tabled and perhaps present it in
15 light of the conversations that you have
16 heard today, perhaps you will probably have
17 a better chance. It's your call.
18 MR. BRANDICE: Thank you.
19 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
21 Member Ibe.
22 There were some good point of views
23 and options presented. Just going back to
24 the drawing board doesn't necessarily mean
1 an approval either. Because in general my
2 consensus with the materials presented and
3 the presentation presented is that there is
4 really nothing exceptional that requires
5 each tenant to be listed. And I believe
6 that putting the sign up as the Ordinance
7 permits unless something came across the
8 next time, should you decide to take that
9 option to change my mind, I would still be
10 inclined to deny at that time.
11 Any other Board Members? Did you care
12 to take it back?
13 MR. BRANDICE: Actually, I guess I
14 have a question. So, what I am hearing here
15 is if we do table this and decide to present
16 this again and we have the Vantage Pointe
17 name as the primary name on the sign, you
18 would be opposed to having additional tenant
19 signs below that?
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am just one
21 Board Member. I'm not sure. I didn't
22 really get a sense from the Board of where
23 they felt with the tenant signs, but it
24 sounds like Huntington being the majority
1 piece there, considering they have two other
2 signs, that was a big point that everyone
3 made. I think that people feel that the
4 additional foot was a little too much,
5 especially considering that that didn't
6 include the center name. So I think there
7 is several comments that were made tonight
8 that I think we would want to take into
9 consideration to try to get the consensus
10 and maybe bring it back to the Board.
11 Member Wrobel?
12 MEMBER WROBEL: Just another comment.
13 This shopping center is setup where the four
14 unit is one building. The bank is a
15 separate building entirely.
16 MR. BRANDICE: That's correct.
17 MEMBER WROBEL: I personally as one
18 Board Member would be willing to do a
19 multi-tenant sign for the four units that
20 are in that one building because in my eyes,
21 coming on Novi Road you do not see the
22 things if you are coming from the north
23 heading south. I can see the difficulty
24 there. The bank, like I said, it's got two
1 signs already. I think that's enough. I
2 could treat them separately. If they came
3 back with something that was just the four
4 buildings, I could support something like
5 that, but not with Huntington on it. Thank
7 MR. BRANDICE: Well, seeing Bennett
8 Donaldson couldn't make it this evening, I
9 would request that we could table this to
10 the next meeting.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay.
12 MR. BRANDICE: And then I will
13 obviously have a revised design of some
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Then I will move
16 to approve the Petitioner's request to have
17 this tabled to June of 2008.
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So moved.
19 MEMBER BAUER: I have a question.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes.
21 MEMBER BAUER: If he is going to make
22 a new design, we have to republish this?
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. It
24 would have to be republished. We'll have to
1 talk with Robin and I'm not sure that June
2 might even be an option. We might have to
3 push it into July given the date.
4 MS. WORKING: Mr. Brandice, can you
5 have something on my desk tomorrow by noon?
6 I am under a legal deadline to notify. So,
7 if you can have something to me tomorrow I
8 can have you heard on the June 10th agenda.
9 If not, we are going into July.
10 MR. BRANDICE: I will do my best to do
12 MS. WORKING: Okay.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll second the
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think Mav has
16 seconded it. Motion by Fischer. Second by
17 Member Sanghvi. Please call the roll.
18 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
20 MS. WORKING: Motion to table,
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct.
23 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
2 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
4 MEMBER BAUER: No.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
6 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
10 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Motion to table passes
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, get with
14 Robin and decide a certain time that would
15 be appropriate.
16 MR. BRANDICE: Okay, great. I have
17 your information, Robin, I will get ahold of
19 MS. WORKING: Or you can have Edie
20 contact me as well.
21 MR. BRANDICE: Yeah. Okay, great.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. BOULARD: I just want to clarify
24 that depending on the bigger issue it may
1 not actually need to be republished, so if
2 there are folks here that would be waiting
3 to see a published notice before they came
4 to another meeting on this issue, I wouldn't
5 necessarily assume that it would be
6 republished because depending on the
7 configuration that comes in it may not need
8 to be.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you for
10 that clarification.
12 We will move along to case
13 number: 08-019 filed by RMJ Development for
14 25280 Seeley Road. Petitioner is here.
15 And if I can point out to the Board
16 Members that in our packet that was on the
17 table today we did receive some supplemental
18 information regarding a site sketch made by
19 the site diagram, a memo from the City
20 Planner as well as authorization for the
21 Petitioner to ask for the variance. So,
22 please take note of those, Board Members.
23 The Applicant is requesting a variance
24 to continue the nonconforming use for
1 outdoor storage for building materials,
2 contractor's equipment/supplies and to park
3 RMJ Development vehicles on the property at
4 said address. The property is zoned I-1 and
5 located north of Grand River and east of
6 Seeley Road.
7 MR. COUCH: Do you want me to state my
8 name and address?
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can be
10 sworn in by our Secretary and then state
11 your name and address.
12 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
13 08-019 filed by RMJ Development, do you
14 swear to tell the truth in this case?
15 MR. COUCH: Yes. Donny Couch, RMJ
16 Development Construction, 143 Canton Center
17 Drive, Suite 315, Northville, Michigan
18 48167. I do have a colored copy of the
19 landscape drawing that I have. If you guys
20 like a copy of it. I will just pass one
21 down. I have a letter, just a small letter
22 prepared of what the property used to be of
23 what I intend to do with it. I have a copy
24 for each of you.
1 The Seeley Road property is a
2 residential house on Seeley Road. Across
3 the street is an oil refinery. Two doors
4 down is Novi Foundation and Novi Poured
5 Wall, a large construction poured wall
6 concrete form company. They park cranes
7 there, backhoes, pickup trucks. They have
8 outdoor storage. Two doors down with an
9 empty lot is (unintelligible). Across the
10 street from that is U-Haul. Certified
11 Mechanics Shop parks U-Haul vehicles there,
13 We intend to just beautify the front
14 of the house, put some new landscaping in.
15 Fix the facade in the front of the house.
16 Keep the grass cut. Redo a nice brick paved
17 patio down the side. Maybe put some nice
18 double front doors in the front of it. Then
19 the shop in the back if you go back down the
20 back drive, there is a shop, a block
21 building. We intend to paint that like an
22 earth tone maybe to blend in with the grass
23 and the trees. And there is a steel chain
24 length fence that runs all the way around
1 the perimeter of the property. I intend to
2 put an eight foot privacy fence around there
3 and I will stain it again an earth tone or a
4 natural wood color to go all the way around
5 the property.
6 Our business hours are only from 7
7 a.m. to 5. There will only be one vehicle
8 parked in the office every morning. We do
9 not put outdoor storage there other than a
10 couple plated vehicles. We are not open to
11 the public for sale of material, pipe,
12 lumbar, any kind of building material. We
13 just basically are using it to have it for
14 an office for a fax machine, for a phone
15 line and to put some stuff inside the shop
16 and maybe park a couple plated vehicles
18 We are not a publically advertised
19 company. All my work comes from referrals
20 that I do. So, I just have five guys and I
21 just go job to job and I am just looking for
22 a nice place to park my stuff.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very
24 much. Is there anyone in the audience that
1 wishes to make a comment on this case?
2 Please go ahead and come up to the podium.
3 MR. ZEROSIDA (ph): Hi, my name is
4 Glen Zerosida appearing on behalf on my
5 clients, Ray Malgap (ph) and Harvey Kleinman
6 (ph). The are collectively known as Aracar
7 (ph) Company. They own 40000 Grand River
8 which is a five building complex immediately
9 adjacent to the subject property. I
10 actually represent the property -- may I
11 approach, Board Members? I have some
12 materials to hand out to you as well.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Pictures? Board
14 Members, what do you feel?
15 MR. ZEROSIDA: Is it okay?
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Go ahead.
17 MR. ZEROSIDA: Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you have
19 enough for everybody?
20 MR. ZEROSIDA: I have five and some
21 pictures that can be handed out, if you pass
22 them along.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You want to keep
24 the pictures and put them on the overhead
1 while you're speaking?
2 MR. ZEROSIDA: Is that possible?
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We can see it.
4 They can't see it at home. But we'll have
5 to deal with that.
6 MR. ZEROSIDA: How would I do this?
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You will just
8 put it on and -- or put them up there and
9 you will be all set, actually.
10 MR. ZEROSIDA: Right here?
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You guys have
12 one, City Staff?
13 MR. ZEROSIDA: I don't know, it's kind
14 of hard. I don't know if there is a
15 magnifying option or not.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It should be on
17 the actual overhead.
18 MR. ZEROSIDA: I don't know if that
19 can be seen or not clearly. It's hard for
20 me to see as well. Anyway, do I need to be
21 sworn in or anything?
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Sure.
23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear in this
24 case that you will tell the truth and your
1 name and address?
2 MR. ZEROSIDA: Yes, I do swear. My
3 name Glen Zerosida. I am a commercial real
4 estate broker with Friedman Real Estate
5 Group. I have represented 40000 Grand River
6 which is Novi Technology Center for about
7 five years. It's a five building complex,
8 102,000 square feet in total. We just
9 leased about 27,000 square feet immediately
10 adjacent to this property and we have got
11 several photographers that show the outside
13 Is that your outside storage?
14 MR. COUCH: No, that's Novi
15 Foundation. We're two more doors down from
16 that. That's adjacent to you. We're
17 another two doors down. You won't be able
18 to see because it will be a private fence.
19 That has nothing to do with us. That's all
20 Novi Wall. They have actually ben
21 grandfathered in, I believe. It has nothing
22 to do with me.
23 MR. ZEROSIDA: You're the property to
24 the north?
1 MR. COUCH: My property will be all
2 treed in and there will be an eight or ten
3 foot privacy fence. We won't have any kind
4 of --
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can speak
6 to us.
7 MR. ZEROSIDA: Oh, I apologize.
9 MR. COUCH: I think he thinks that
10 we're already in the space.
11 MR. ZEROSIDA: Oh, you're not?
12 MR. COUCH: No, we're not.
13 MR. ZEROSIDA: By the way, my clients
14 are here, Ray Malgap and Harvey Kleinman.
15 We were under the impression that this was
16 part of this petition. There is a lot of
17 outside storage immediately adjacent to the
18 property which are evident in these
19 pictures. They own the property that
20 actually goes due west all the way to Seeley
21 Road. And we are about to break ground
22 possibly in building six, seven and eight,
23 it's intended for several more buildings.
24 The park is about 98 percent leased right
1 now. And we're concerned that it would be
2 very, very difficult to lease space. If you
3 look the pictures of the building, that are
4 very attractive high end buildings.
5 We just did a lease with Sonny
6 Corporation for 10,000 square feet. Decon
7 Corporation bringing a lot of jobs in the
8 city, and the only we can do that is with
9 attractive properties. Also, the residential
10 area abuts this property which is the mobile
11 home park.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely and I
13 think we can understand and sympathize with
14 those concerns. Unfortunately, if it does
15 not deal with this property, the Board can
16 do nothing, but I would invite you to please
17 contact our City Staff because there are
18 unsightly things that are not within the
19 Ordinance. I am sure there are some type of
20 ramification that the City can take to take
21 care of those for you. Just as much as you
22 don't want to see things in a disarray, this
23 Board does not and the city does not want to
24 either. So, I would invite you to contact --
1 who would it be?
2 MR. BOULARD: You can contact myself.
3 I can give you a card.
4 MR. ZEROSIDA: Thank you very much. We
5 were not perfectly clear on the exact
6 property we were reporting to.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Totally
9 MR. ZEROSIDA: I didn't mean to
10 interfere with what you plans are. Allen,
11 did you want to say anything? Ray and
12 Harvey, did you want to say anything
14 MR. KLEINMAN: We were under the
15 impression that the property you were
16 talking about --
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Sir, if you want
18 to speak you will have to come up to the
20 MR. KLEINMAN: Hi, my name is Harvey
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You need to be
23 sworn in as well by the Secretary.
24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear to tell
1 the truth in this case regarding 08-019?
2 MR. KLEINMAN: I do.
3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
4 MR. KLEINMAN: My name is Harvey
5 Kleinman. The address is 24201 Bingham Road
6 in Bingham Farms, Michigan. I have owned
7 that property that comes off of Grand River
8 and then doglegs over to Seeley Road since
10 My partner and I have tried very hard
11 to build a quality multi-plex type office
12 park there. And the land running through
13 Seeley has got some additional restrictions
14 on it because it is abutting Presidential
15 which is a the trailer park. So, obviously
16 anything of that kind of nature, that site
17 if we ever, when we hopefully start
18 construction there, that open stuff is going
19 to be able to be seen by the residents of
20 the trailer park, which we certainly
21 couldn't have an office tenant look at it,
22 they sure as heck wouldn't want to be
23 looking at it, so we are concerned.
24 Unfortunately we were mistaken as to exactly
1 where. This case does not cover that piece.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No problem. Like
3 I said, we appreciate your comments and if
4 you want to get with our Community
5 Development Department I am sure we can make
6 sure that everything is on board.
7 MR. KLEINMAN: Thank you.
8 MR. COUCH: Maybe to make him a little
9 more at peace, there are along that fence
10 line, that general fence there are 15 to 20
11 foot trees that wrap all the way around
12 that. Those are on that property that I am
13 looking to purchase. And I intend to put an
14 eight to ten foot privacy fence. I am not
15 planning on putting tons of equipment in
16 there. So, I just have a few vehicles that I
17 just can fit them inside. But I intend to
18 beautify the house.
19 The only thing is the parking lot is
20 gravel. I would want to maybe pave it down
21 the road.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Well, we only
23 have certain things that we're looking at
24 today, so let's stay on topic.
1 MR. ZEROSIDA: Thank you for your
2 time. I apologize for the confusion.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Not a problem at
4 all. Not a problem at all.
5 Did you have any more comments
6 regarding the particulars of your case, your
7 variance today?
8 MR. COUCH: Not at the moment.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right.
10 Anyone else in the audience that wishes to
11 make a comment in this case? Seeing none,
12 we'll ask the Board secretary to read any
13 correspondence into the record.
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case:
15 08-019, 21 notices were mailed with zero
16 approvals and zero objections.
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time I
18 will open it up for City Staff.
19 MS. KUDLA: I just wanted to point out
20 that the standard for the Board's review in
21 this case is the different than the general
22 practical difficulty. What the Petitioner
23 here is asking for is an authorization by
24 the Board to change to another nonconforming
1 use under Section 25025 C of the Zoning
2 Ordinance which states: That no structural
3 alterations are made, any nonconforming use
4 of a structure or structure and land in
5 combination may be changed to another
6 nonconforming use of the same or a more
7 restricted classification provided that the
8 Board of Appeals either by general rule or
9 by making findings in the specific case
10 shall find that the proposed use is equally
11 appropriate or more appropriate to the
12 district than the existing nonconforming
14 In permitting such change the Board of
15 Appeals may require conditions and
16 safeguards in accord with the purpose and
17 intent of this Ordinance. Where a
18 nonconforming use of a structure, land or
19 structure and land in combination is
20 hereafter changed to a more conforming use,
21 it shall not thereafter be changed to less
22 conforming use.
23 So, in this case you are looking at
24 whether or not the proposed use is equally
1 appropriate or more appropriate to the
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Then in relation
5 MS. KUDLA: Than the existing use.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Thank
8 MR. FOX: I would just like to clarify
9 through the Chair that this was an existing
10 nonconforming use previously. It is
11 currently vacant and they are asking, again,
12 to continue a previous nonconforming use or
13 to ask for a change in nonconforming use.
14 If you do consider approving this, the staff
15 would have a couple of conditions that the
16 Applicant had talked to our staff previously
17 about doing which I think the Applicant has
18 already stated that he was considering.
19 One of them being that all the outdoor
20 storage be inside the existing fenced in
21 areas that are already on the property. It
22 already has a gate and set up that way and
23 that some screening be provided along the
24 residential property. Thank you.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very
2 much. At this time I will open it up for
3 Board discussion.
4 Member Sanghvi?
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
6 sir. Two questions. Number one, this
7 should be considered as a use variance of a
8 nonconforming use; is that correct?
9 MS. KUDLA: No, I wouldn't call it a
10 use variance. I would call it an
11 authorization by the Board under the Zoning
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's
14 number one. Number two, there is no
15 grandfathering in when the business is
17 MS. KUDLA: If it was a legal
18 nonconforming use and they are asking to
19 continue it as a legal nonconforming use of
20 a different nature.
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.
22 I think my questions are answered. Thank
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
1 Member Sanghvi.
2 Member Shroyer?
3 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4 Just a little bit of clarification on the
5 pictures that were provided. One is from
6 2002 and one is from 2006. Obviously there
7 is substantial improvement, and I assume it
8 was from the previous tenant that made the
9 improvements because you indicated you have
10 not purchased it yet?
11 MR. COUCH: I have not. I just have
12 authority by the building owner. I now
13 speak for them because I believe they are
14 out of Chicago or California. I believe they
15 are out of Chicago. I have made no
16 improvements there yet. They probably went
17 and cleaned up the yard a little bit, I
18 believe. Because there was some pine
19 structures left there a year or so ago and I
20 am sure Maureen have been there to clean it
21 up within the last year. So, now when you go
22 there it is just a gravel parking lot. A
23 house and a building.
24 MEMBER SHROYER: I didn't see much
1 when I went by. I want to check with the
2 City to see if they are aware of anything
3 between 2006 to the present?
4 MR. AMOLSCH: The property has been
5 vacant for a couple of years to my
6 awareness, so it's kind of been no use
8 MEMBER SHROYER: Only residences and a
9 couple of raccoons. That's all I have, Mr.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
12 Member Shroyer.
13 Member Wrobel?
14 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
15 To our City Attorney, if we authorize this
16 and the Applicant after a few years moves
17 out, what does the property revert back to
18 or what does it stay as at that time?
19 MS. KUDLA: It depends on how long he
20 is gone for. If someone buys it and moves
21 in right away, and if they have a similar
22 use they are proposing, it would be the same
23 type of determination.
24 Through the Chair to the City, though,
1 I am noticing based on Alan's comment that
2 it's been vacant for quite some time, I am
3 wondering whether or not Subsection E of
4 that subsection should apply given the
5 vacancy. When it ceases to exist for 18
6 months during a three-year period it shall
7 not thereafter be used in conformance with
8 -- it shall be used except in conformance
9 with the regulations of the district in
10 which it was located.
11 I am wondering if we should table this
12 and consider that based on the fact that
13 Alan is saying it's been not occupied.
14 MR. AMOLSCH: Through the Chair, Mark
15 Spencer and I discussed this last week when
16 I got the packet and there were a number of
17 nonconforming uses on Seeley Road over the
18 years. I don't know how long that property
19 was vacant. It was originally residents and
20 over the years turned into industrial
21 buildings. I don't know exactly how many
22 years it's been vacant. We tried to do some
23 investigation but it wasn't enough time to
24 get really get enough information with
1 records in record keeping in another
2 building, so we weren't able to really
3 determine when that use ceased.
4 MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chair?
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, Mr. Bauer?
6 MEMBER BAUER: Is there a way of
7 finding out such as electric, water?
8 MS. KUDLA: I'm not sure what kind of
9 records. We can discuss that with the
10 Planning Department and Building Department
11 what type of records they might have to be
12 able to provide the Board more information
13 in that regard.
14 MR. COUCH: As it's being turned off
15 or on? Are you talking about the utilities
16 if they are on or off? Of if it has well
17 water or city water? It has well water and
18 all the water is off.
19 MEMBER BAUER: When it was vacant?
20 This is what I want to find out.
21 MR. COUCH: It's all off right now.
22 MEMBER BAUER: With these utilities,
23 it would give us some idea how long it was
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What does the
2 City recommend?
3 MS. KUDLA: I would recommend tabling
4 the matter to find out more background
5 information regarding how long the property
6 has been vacant and whether or not the use
7 has ceased.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It sounds like
9 the City is going to need to do additional
10 research to make sure that we are looking at
11 the correct zoning ordinance, the correct
12 subsections, et cetera.
13 So, I will actually move that we table
14 case number: 08-019, based upon the City
15 Staff's recommendation to look into further
16 ordinance clarification. I would hope that
17 the City can do its best to get this back on
18 the June 2008 agenda.
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If not, then it
21 will be obviously July, but I would hope so,
22 given the lack of clarification here.
23 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I shake my
24 head only because up until this point the
1 City's information to bring forward to you
2 for this case was unavailable, and we have
3 to notify by MZBA standards by a certain
4 date and that deadline falls this week. So,
5 it would not give justice to Mr. Couch or to
6 you, the Board, for me to say to Mr. Couch,
7 can you have something on my desk tomorrow.
8 We're not going to have that information.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It doesn't sound
10 like Mr. Couch is the one asking for the
11 information, though. I mean, we have to do
12 the research here.
13 MS. WORKING: But I am just saying
14 that I cannot notify the case unless I know
15 what I am notifying it under.
16 MS. KUDLA: Mr. Couch can also provide
17 any information that he has that would
18 assist us in that regard as well.
19 MS. WORKING: I might be able to work
20 with him to give him an extra day until
21 Thursday, but that would be the latest I
22 could go to have everything ready to go for
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Like I said, it
1 would just be a hope of mine, if it's not
2 possible then obviously we will move to
3 July, but I would hope that we all work
4 together to try to get this Petitioner back
5 as soon as we can so that we can move
7 MR. BOULARD: If I could ask a couple
8 of questions. Do you know when the previous
9 tenant moved out of the space?
10 MR. COUCH: I would have to say at
11 least two to three years ago because it
12 started out as Price Brothers Pipe
13 Distribution Company back 15 years ago. It
14 was Water Pro, and then it was U.S. Filter
15 and then Water Pro, which is a Swiss
16 company. And then it stayed Water Pro or
17 switched back to U.S. Filter. So, it's been
18 at least three years since that property,
19 it's been any activity in that property.
20 That's for sure. Because I have driven by
21 that property for years.
22 MR. BOULARD: And you understand what
23 the issue is?
24 MR. COUCH: Yes.
1 MR. BOULARD: That if it's been vacant
2 for a certain amount of time it can't
3 necessarily be considered a change of a
4 nonconforming use?
5 MR. COUCH: It was used as a pipe
6 storage area and it was open sales to public
7 contractors for water main, ductal iron
8 pipe, concrete pipe, manholes, catch basins
9 and so forth. And they had semi trucks
10 parked in their lowboys, hi-los. The opened
11 at 6 a.m. and closed at 5 p.m. Monday
12 through Saturday.
13 MR. BOULARD: Okay.
14 MR. COUCH: We used to buy our pipe
15 from there.
16 MR. BOULARD: So, if it's turns out
17 that this section of the ordinance that you
18 applied for the variance for, if it turns
19 out that it does apply, then it wouldn't
20 need to be re-noticed, it could be on the
21 next agenda. Unfortunately if the
22 nonconforming use has expired for lack of a
23 better word, then there would be a different
24 request to come forward.
1 MR. ZEROSIDA: Can we ask a question?
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
3 motion on the table right now. Let us go
4 ahead. Unless you have something else,
6 MS. WORKING: I don't have a seconder
7 to the motion.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Sanghvi.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Or Mr. Bauer.
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: I doesn't matter.
12 MEMBER SHROYER: It's Jerry Sanghvi.
13 MEMBER BAUER: That's good.
14 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
18 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
19 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
20 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
22 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
24 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
3 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Motion to table to
5 possibly the June meeting, depending on the
6 notification passes 7-0.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. You
8 will be tabled.
9 There is a question? You want to
11 MR. ZEROSIDA: We had a question. We
12 are wondering how the proposed new use
13 qualifies as grandfathered ordinance? In
14 other words, a nonconforming use, how is the
15 new use a nonconforming use?
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It sounds like
17 we are doing a lot of ordinance
18 investigation and once again I would
19 probably ask you to given the Community
20 Development Department a call tomorrow and
21 they can answer those specific questions
22 about each parcel, just so we're not giving
23 information based off of just one case.
24 They have all the data they might need to
1 answer that question for you.
2 MR. ZEROSIDA: Sure. Thank you very
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. I
5 hope that helps you out.
7 We'll move on to case number:
8 08-020. Member Wrobel, did you have a
10 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11 As a member of the Planning Commission, I
12 have sat in on this case and voted on it and
13 per the advice of our City Attorney I wish
14 to recuse myself from this case.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would move
16 that we recuse, approve the recusal of Wayne
17 Wrobel for case number: 08-020.
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say
21 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any opposed?
23 Seeing none. Thank you for that disclosure,
24 Member Wrobel.
2 At this time I will call case number:
3 08-020 filed by L & A Architects for Taco
4 Bell located at 21090 Haggerty Road.
5 Petitioner is requesting one ten foot yard
6 parking setback variance. One variance to
7 the required number of parking spaces. One
8 five foot side yard dumpster setback
9 variance and one variance to the requirement
10 that loading areas be screened from view
11 from any public right-of-way, including free
12 way right-of-way and adjacent properties for
13 the Taco Bell restaurant located at said
14 address. The property is zoned FS and is
15 located north of Eight Mile Road and east of
16 Haggerty Road. And you the Petitioner?
17 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Joe Zabolotny.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, can
19 you please raise your hand and be sworn in
20 by our Secretary.
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: In numbered case:
22 08-020 filed by L & A Architects for Taco
23 Bell located at Haggerty Road, do you swear
24 or affirm to tell truth in this case?
1 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name
3 and address and proceed.
4 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Joe Zabolotny, L & A
5 Architects, 2430 Rochester Court, Troy,
7 I am coming before you today seeking
8 four variances. As you know this is an
9 existing Taco Bell. It's been there some 20
10 years now. Taco Bell is wanting to
11 redevelop the site and build a new image
12 building on the same site at approximately
13 the same location with on landscaping
14 parking (unintelligible). In order to do
15 that we need four variances as they are
16 described in the agenda.
17 A great most or part of these
18 variances are due to the fact that there is
19 a 40 foot MDOT easement at the rear of our
20 property. I have had many conversations and
21 meetings with MDOT and they are contending
22 that they will not let us build upon their
23 easement anymore. Previously part of the
24 trash enclosure was on the easement and some
1 of our parking area was on their easement as
2 are all the other sites south of us.
3 But in applying for a permit for
4 the new development they denied us. Hence,
5 we ended up having to remove parking and
6 pavement from the easement. I have had to
7 redesign the site in order to get as much
8 parking as I can. And at that point before
9 the Planning Commission, they made the
10 recommendation to place parking up along the
11 front setback of the building as it is
12 currently now on-site. So, basically the
13 four ordinances or the four variances that
14 we are requesting will help us to redevelop
15 the site the best that we can for this new
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone
18 in the audience that wishes to make a
19 comment on this case? Seeing none, we will
20 ask the Board Secretary to read any
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: In the case 08-020,
23 16 notices were made. Zero approvals. Zero
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyone from the
2 City staff?
3 MR. FOX: The staff is going to, we
4 are going to defer to the Planning Review
5 Center's report. They have had many
6 discussions with the Applicant and this came
7 through them and through the Planning
8 Commission, so, we don't have any other
9 comments than what are written down here.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is anyone from
11 the Planning Department or anyone who wrote
12 this here today?
13 MS. WORKING: No, Mr. Chair, they are
14 pretty straightforward setback requests as
15 well as a dumpster location setback request.
16 You have looked at many of these in the
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
19 I will open it up for Board discussion.
20 Member Shroyer? A chance to put your
21 Planning Commission hat on.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, that's been off
23 for quite some time. Thank you.
24 Mr. Zabolotny, a couple of questions.
1 First one is in regard to, none of the
2 information that we received showed the
3 current size and the new size for the
4 building. Are we reconstructing the same
5 size building?
6 MR. ZABOLOTNY: No, it's slightly
7 larger. The existing building is about
8 2,500 square. We are proposing a 2,800
9 square foot building.
10 MEMBER SHROYER: If you were to build
11 another 2,500 square foot building would you
12 meet all the ordinance requirements?
13 MR. ZABOLOTNY: That I don't know
14 because we don't have a 2,500 square foot
16 MEMBER SHROYER: You don't have one?
17 MR. ZABOLOTNY: This is a Taco Bell
18 prototypical building that they use on most
19 of their sites throughout the country.
20 That's what they gave to me to go on this
21 site for.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Second
23 question is, I need to understand more about
24 the screening. Could you give us some more
1 detail regarding that?
2 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Screening of the trash
3 or loading zone?
4 MEMBER SHROYER: Loading area, yes.
5 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Frankly, I think we
6 have enough already. There is an existing
7 vegetation screen along the I-275
8 right-of-way. The loading zone is at the
9 rear of the property. Most of the building
10 are already screened. We also just adding
11 additional landscaping, trees, shrubs along
12 the Haggerty right-of-way. I feel it's
13 going to be sufficient for screening of that
14 loading zone.
15 MEMBER SHROYER: On one side is the
16 dumpster enclosure and basically the
17 screening backs up to the interstate,
19 MR. ZABOLOTNY: That's correct.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't have any
21 other questions. I am not opposed to the
22 setbacks with his statements. I am not
23 opposed to the screen. I am concerned that
24 any time somebody comes in and wants to
1 build a bigger building, we end up having a
2 variance request that come forward, but I
3 understand the statement that that he is
4 saying, that all the Taco Bells basically
5 from here on out that are being built are
6 going to be built on the same platform or
8 MR. ZABOLOTNY: We're also with this
9 new building, because of the larger size it
10 has a larger kitchen. Hence it can handle a
11 lot more production.
12 It's three cook lines in it as opposed to
13 the old building. So, we are hoping to
14 alleviate some of the congestion going
15 through the site in order to get people out
16 of there.
17 MEMBER SHROYER: I was going to make a
18 comment, the lines are quite often long.
19 MR. ZABOLOTNY: It's a very busy
21 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't have any
22 other comments, Mr. Chair.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
24 Member Shroyer.
1 Member Sanghvi?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
3 Mr. Chair. I just have one question. What
4 are the fundamental differences between the
5 requirement for parking spaces for a sit-in
6 fast food as opposed to the drive through
7 fast food restaurants?
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: While they are
9 researching, do you have any other comments
10 or can I open it up and when an answer is
11 found --
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Sure, you
13 can open it up.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay.
15 MR. ZABOLOTNY: I can make a comment
16 to that because that was brought up at the
17 Planning Commission. The fast food
18 restaurant per se, the parking requirement
19 is stricter. And at the Planning Commission
20 they allowed us to consider this a fast food
21 restaurant because 75 percent of our
22 business goes through the drive through --
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's not
24 the question, sir. Thank you.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: You are looking at one
4 for each 60 square feet of gross floor area
5 for a fast food restaurant. And the
6 Ordinance requires one for each 30 square
7 foot of useable floor area for drive-in
8 restaurant, or one for each employee plus
9 one for every two persons allowed in seating
10 areas for a drive through restaurant.
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: What number
12 are we looking at? What is the big
13 difference in the two numbers?
14 MS. WORKING: From what they are
15 asking for currently and what your --
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: As opposed
17 to what is required, yes.
18 MS. WORKING: The Planning Commission
19 is requiring them to have parking setback
20 for a fast food restaurant.
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I think
22 they are considering drive through for the
23 counting of the parking spaces available and
24 that's why there is a difference of two.
1 MS. WORKING: 14 8A, drive through
2 restaurant. That's what the Planning
3 Commission is -- yeah, drive through. We
4 notified them under 2505 14C 8-A, which is
5 drive through restaurants. One for each
6 employee plus one for every two persons
7 allowed in the seating area which was what
8 the Planning Commission recommended.
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.
10 It makes no difference. It's a difference
11 of two spaces. I want to point that out.
12 We are looking at only two spots here which
13 is not a great deal of number in a drive
14 through place. Thank you. The point is
15 well made.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Ghannam?
17 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just have a
18 question for you, sir. Is the difficulty
19 that you are having with the parking and the
20 dumpster and so forth because of the MDOT
22 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Yeah, mostly, yes.
23 MEMBER GHANNAM: It seems like it's
24 taking a chunk of your land at the back
1 toward the freeway.
2 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Right, there is a 40
3 foot easement at the rear.
4 MEMBER GHANNAM: What's currently on
5 that easement right now?
6 MR. ZABOLOTNY: It's just trees and
7 landscaping. There is some underground
8 storm sewers, with a retention on it.
9 MEMBER GHANNAM: Did you mention
10 earlier there was some part of the dumpster
11 that was on there?
12 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Yeah, the current one
13 is, yes.
14 MEMBER GHANNAM: The current one,
15 correct. But right now MDOT will not let you
16 continue that use?
17 MR. ZABOLOTNY: No, they won't.
18 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do you know how long
19 that easement has been there?
20 MR. ZABOLOTNY: This was developed in
21 '85, I believe, '84 or '85.
22 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have any
23 other questions. Thank you, Chair.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other Board
1 Members? Member Krieger?
2 MEMBER KRIEGER: I guess because of
3 the previous comments. That because of the
4 MDOT that the Petitioner would not -- it
5 would be unreasonable -- he would be
6 prevented from using this property because
7 of that, and he did not self create it in
8 this case. So, to grant his variance would
9 give him relief. That's it right now.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. I
11 just need a synopsis of what's there
12 currently? What's going in there now? And
13 what are the differences? And what's
14 causing the difficulty that other than Taco
15 Bell is requiring a bigger building on the
16 same size lot? Other than that, I guess,
17 what is causing you practical difficulty
18 other than you have a reasonable use right
19 now. The building is there. You have a
20 Taco Bell there, it's working just fine
21 except for long lines sometimes. So, I
22 guess that's my issue. I don't see any
23 difficulty other than wanting a bigger
1 MR. ZABOLOTNY: The building is beyond
2 its life cycle so they want to replace it.
3 It's getting old. On top of that, when this
4 was first developed, the zoning standards
5 and setbacks were a little more lenient.
6 Now, we are having to meet and come into
7 compliance with the new zoning standards,
8 and frankly, our site is not wide enough to
9 get the parking as the ordinance calls for.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How many current
11 spots do you have?
12 MR. ZABOLOTNY: I think there is 45.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What is the
14 front yard setback currently?
15 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Ten foot.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think we have
17 addressed some of the concerns regarding the
18 dumpster. I am okay with that.
19 I am just still struggling with the
20 spots. I have seen the long lines, and I
21 have seen lines coming out almost onto
22 Haggerty Road and I have a real safety
23 concern. Given that, but I will leave it up
24 to my Board Members.
1 Member Shroyer?
2 MEMBER SHROYER: Just a question or
3 two and a comment. Mr. Amolsch, he
4 indicated the current front yard setback is
5 10 feet. So, right now the existing
6 facility, parking, et cetera, is that
7 considered nonconforming?
8 MR. FOX: As it currently sits, the
9 existing parking is -- the majority of what
10 you see on here is already existing as far
11 as the setbacks that are on the property.
12 Whether they were nonconforming at the time
13 it was built in '85, I don't know the answer
14 to that depending on what the setback
15 requirements were at that time.
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Under today's
18 MR. FOX: Under today's standard it's
19 existing nonconforming, yes.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: That's what I was
21 getting at. The other thing tied into that
22 -- well, I won't do that. I understand
23 where the Chairman is coming from. And I
24 too have a safety concern. But if they are
1 already nonconforming the way the building
2 is and tearing down the building and
3 building a new building, it really isn't a
4 difference other than size and it's a
5 minimal impact on parking spaces, I still
6 don't have a major issue with it.
7 I don't know if there is any other
8 way. I guess what I want to say, what are
9 the options? If this was to be denied this
10 evening what is Taco Bell going to do?
11 MR. ZABOLOTNY: I will let Jim Metco
12 (ph) from Taco Bell answer that.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can be
14 sworn in by our Secretary too, please.
15 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
16 08-020, do you swear or affirm to tell the
17 truth in this case?
18 MR. METCO (ph): I do.
19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
20 MR. METCO: My name is Jim Metco from
21 Taco Bell. I live in Oshkosh, Wisconsin at
22 6427 East Court Avenue. I am the
23 construction project manager for that
24 location as well as numerous ones that we
1 have built over the last four or five years
2 in the Greater Detroit area.
3 Hopefully to shed a little bit of light, we
4 have worked with the Planning Department
5 very diligently. We have had several
6 meetings with them. We have gone back. We
7 have gotten their recommendations. We have
8 even had some assistance from some folks
9 from an architectural standpoint give us
10 recommendations as far as how we could best
11 tweak this particular lot to accommodate the
12 building that we are proposing in front of
13 you folks this evening.
14 It is a larger building. The design
15 intent as Joe had mentioned earlier, it is
16 our new base prototype plan. That's been
17 out there now for a number of years at this
18 point in time. It is primarily designed to
19 have a larger what I refer to engine back of
20 the house kitchen area. The technology
21 that's employed in the buildings now in
22 terms of electronics all the way from your
23 point of sales cash register system all the
24 way through the kitchen flow and actual
1 equipment layout and the design and capacity
2 of the equipment all lends itself to much
3 improved speed of service.
4 Taco Bell is primarily a drive
5 through business. Between 70 and 80 percent
6 of our store's business is generated through
7 drive through and, therefore, the entire
8 design concept of that building is
9 predicated primarily around the drive
10 through customer. They have very strict
11 criteria on drive through time.
12 Each store is rated and measured by
13 performance on that drive through time. The
14 overall intent here is to accommodate the
15 successful business that we have had there.
16 I believe the public here greatly supports
17 Taco Bell which we certainly are very happy
18 for. In return, we basically have outgrown
19 the building, so we want to redesign it and
20 come back with a new prototype, enhance it.
21 And the benefit to the customer would
22 certainly be an improved speed of service
23 and a higher quality of product at that
24 point in time. We met
1 several different times with MDOT both at
2 the site itself as well as at their regional
3 office with their regional director and we
4 were flatly denied due to an expansion
5 program that they are looking at doing at
6 that intersection which I think is underway
7 in construction right now because there is
8 activity that's going on the overpass at
9 this point in time.
10 They have got traffic congestion
11 problems so they are going to widen that
12 area right there. We even offered as Taco
13 Bell to go to work and make it contingent
14 that if they did relinquish some of the
15 space on that or distances on their easement
16 to enable us to put the building to meet the
17 code requirements that are placed in front
18 of us at this point in time from a
19 compliance standpoint, we would go back to
20 the table with MDOT that if they needed the
21 extra space, because in our opinion there
22 appeared to be quite a bit of extra space
23 that was there, but they didn't have plans
24 available to show us what their expansion
1 was for the off ramp. We made it contingent
2 that we would go back and work with them to
3 give back space through the City if need be
4 through the Planning Department if that ever
5 happened. They had nothing to do with that.
6 They said they need all the space that they
7 got on their easement because of their
8 expansion program and were basically denied.
9 We have tried every aspect at this
10 point in time to do that. The best plan
11 that we have gotten up at this point in time
12 through numerous, numerous revisions even
13 prior to submittal to the Planning
14 Department is what is now in front of you
15 folks at this point in time.
16 I hope that shed a little bit of light
17 and, sir, answered some of your questions.
18 I would be more than glad if you have
19 anything else that I can answer from a
20 construction perspective. And I would be
21 on-site as I identified to the Planning
22 Commission. I would be on-site once
23 construction starts I'm on-site once a week
24 for supervision purposes.
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Metco, on the
2 time studies that you have done from the old
3 process to the new process, what's the
5 MR. METCO: About 35 percent
7 MEMBER SHROYER: So, one out of every
8 10 cars that go through, typically now you
9 are going to get 13 cars through or
10 somewhere in that neighborhood?
11 MR. METCO: We have had a good
12 experience with other communities as well,
13 not just in the greater Detroit area,
14 because I cover throughout the midwest,
15 similar conversations and it's lent itself
16 to a very, very positive impact at the drive
18 The safety concerns, we hear that
19 very often. I guess Taco Bell has been
20 extremely successful. We are very grateful
21 for that and it's part of what's exactly
22 driven us to the type of building and design
23 that we have today for that reason.
24 MEMBER SHROYER: Working with the
1 Planning Commission was there any traffic
2 study done or was there any discussion?
3 MR. METCO: No, there was none
5 MEMBER SHROYER: They didn't bring in
6 Hertsfield Royal (ph) or --
7 MR. METCO: I believe they checked and
8 went back and did some accident studies to
9 see if there were accident cases that were
10 presented and I think it was over the last
11 five period. There was no accidents
13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very
15 much for your comments. I better understand
16 now. It sounds like the larger building
17 isn't about getting more people in there, it
18 isn't about being just a bigger thing, it
19 has to with improving the technology of the
20 kitchen, et cetera, better for the
21 employees. I am thrilled to know about the
22 better pass through because of the faster
23 speed of service.
24 This morning I was at Tim
1 Horton's, pulled in and the line was too
2 long, so what did I do? I used up one of
3 the spots. So, my concern was taking away
4 the spot. But it sounds like that really
5 isn't an issue any more given the planning
6 you have done work with the Planning
7 Commission as well and the Planning
8 Department as well as MDOT and the
9 difficulties because of easement there, I
10 would be willing to support it.
11 So, I will open it back up for Board
12 Members. Member Sanghvi?
13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I had one more
14 question. How is this change going to
15 impact the traffic coming from the gas
16 station, coming in your property and turning
17 left at the traffic light?
18 MR. METCO: To be truthful, sir, I
19 don't believe I can honestly answer that.
20 In my own personal opinion I don't think it
21 would be any different than what it is
22 today. I don't anticipate any more
23 substantial increase in customer count at
24 this point in time going through our
1 facility or the gas stations. I would
2 suspect at this point in time being a gas
3 station with the current prices of fuel, I
4 would suspect that there is probably far
5 less activity.
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Hopefully
7 it will turn around. The building will be
8 there forever. Taking any comments about
9 the flow of traffic from the gas station
10 through this property toward Haggerty Road
11 and turning left at the light? You have no
13 MR. BOULARD: No, nothing to add.
14 MR. METCO: All I can say is I know it
15 was looked at by the Planning Commission and
16 they had no issue.
17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It looks similar
19 to what they currently have too.
20 MS. KUDLA: Through the Chair, can I
21 ask the Applicant a question about the MDOT
22 easement? Sir, if it wasn't for this MDOT
23 easement being on the Taco Bell property
24 would Taco Bell be able to meet all of the
1 Ordinance requirements?
2 MR. ZABOLOTNY: No. We had a plan
3 before the Planning Commission before MDOT
4 denied us that met some these requirements,
5 but we were still lacking in a few of the
7 MS. KUDLA: Do you know which one of
8 the MDOT easement is --
9 MR. ZABOLOTNY: It was the screening
10 of the enclosure or the loading zone and we
11 are still short of parking, but then they
12 allowed us to consider the drive through as
13 opposed to a fast food.
14 MS. KUDLA: Thank you.
15 MR. METCO: I guess as a further
16 comment, this is a corporate store, it's not
17 a franchisee. I think there is every bit as
18 great as ownership if not more from that
19 perspective also.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this point
21 I'll go ahead and make a motion that in case
22 number: 08-020 filed by L & A Architects
23 for Taco Bell located at 21090 Haggerty Road
24 that we grant the Petitioner's request
1 because the Petitioner has established
2 practical difficulty given the Petitioner
3 has established that the property is unique
4 in its width as well as the MDOT easement
5 issue that they have cited.
6 The need for the variance is not self
7 created. Because of the fact that the
8 building as it sits would not allow -- I'm
9 sorry, the lot as it sits currently would
10 not allow the proposed building which takes
11 into consideration the safety and as well as
12 traffic situation over on Haggerty Road.
13 That the variance request will not cause
14 impact, adverse impact on surrounding
15 property. Once, again, citing the safety
16 concern being addressed by the Petitioner.
17 And, lastly, that the Petitioner has
18 established that -- where was my last piece?
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Parking
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. That the
22 parking spaces will not be an impact given
23 the increased push through of traffic.
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
2 motion and a second. Any further
3 discussion? Seeing none -- Mr. Boulard?
4 MR. BOULARD: If I could just clarify
5 and just ask. In your motion you are
6 proposing, your motion includes a front yard
7 setback variance of 10 feet, a variance
8 request for a waiver of two parking spaces.
9 A five foot setback variance out of the
10 required 10 feet for the dumpster. And
11 that's it, right?
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: As stated.
13 Member Shroyer?
14 MEMBER SHROYER: Did it also include
15 the relief from their requirement of
16 additional screening for the loading area?
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. Might
18 I add that the spirit of the Ordinance will
19 also be observed and that substantial
20 injustice would be done to this Petitioner
21 as well as others because the same exact
22 type and use for the property will not
23 change at all. So I did want to add that to
24 the motion as well.
1 Seconder agrees?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please call the
5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?
12 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
14 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Best of luck to
21 you guys. Once again, thanks for additional
22 clarification and I am sure it will look and
23 work out very nicely for you.
24 MR. ZABOLOTNY: Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time I
3 would like to call case number: 08-022
4 filed by Linda Cornillie for 1601 East Lake
5 Road. The Petitioner is requesting one four
6 foot side yard setback variance and one five
7 percent rear yard lot coverage variance for
8 the construction of a new 528 square foot
9 detached garage to be located at said
10 address. The property is zoned R-4 and
11 located north of Thirteen Mile Road and west
12 of Novi Road.
13 Are you the Petitioner? You are the
15 MS. CORNILLIE: Yes.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an
18 MS. CORNILLIE: No.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could
20 just raise your hand and be sworn in by our
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case: 08-022
23 filed by Linda Cornillie for 1601 East Lake
24 Road, do you swear or affirm to tell the
1 truth in this case? Just to tell the truth
2 in the case?
3 MS. CORNILLIE: Yes.
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
5 MS. CORNILLIE: I'm sorry.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Go ahead and
7 state your name and address and proceed.
8 MS. CORNILLIE: Linda Cornillie, 1601
9 East Lake Road, Novi, Michigan, 48377. The
10 reason I am here was to put up a detached
11 garage. And I originally proposed for a
12 four foot variance on that and I brought --
13 after talking to a couple of people because
14 the homes are so close in that area, I
15 arranged for a secondary proposal. And I
16 would like for you to see. I would like two
17 feet, but I would be willing to go with
18 whatever the City --
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry, just
20 make sure that you are speaking into the
21 microphone so everyone can hear.
22 MS. CORNILLIE: I would like to go
23 forward with this, so I would like to come
24 to an agreement.
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, let me
2 understand. You had a plan before and this
3 is a new plan?
4 MS. CORNILLIE: Yes. After looking at
5 it and talking it over with people that I
6 feel as though the two foot from the
7 property line is close and for safety
8 reasons I came up with the secondary. I
9 would like to have the two feet, the
10 properties are small, but I would be willing
11 to go with the secondary if the City would
12 consider it.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We'll have to
14 give the City Staff a few minutes to review
15 it, because depending on how it changes from
16 the original plan we might have to re-notice
17 it. So, I'll let them go ahead and take
18 look at it. Please let me know if a
19 determination cannot be made tonight, that's
20 obviously okay too, given the last minute
22 Are there any other
23 facts regarding this case or this property
24 or this proposed garage that you wish to
1 make further comments on?
2 MS. CORNILLIE: No. I just feel like
3 it's something that's very necessary for me.
4 I can't handle the winters. I have had four
5 back surgeries, and I need something like
6 this. The removal of the snow, the snow on
7 the cars.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Perfect. Is
9 there anyone in the audience that wishes to
10 make a comment on this case? Please file
11 down whenever you get a chance.
12 If you could state your name and be sworn
13 in by our Secretary.
14 MR. NASEGLIO (ph): Jack Naseglio.
15 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
16 08-022 that you swear or affirm to tell the
17 truth in this case?
18 MR. NASEGLIO: Yes. Jack Naseglio,
19 1603 East Lake Road, Novi, Michigan, 48377.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Proceed with
21 your comments.
22 MR. NASEGLIO: I am next door to Ms.
23 Cornillie. Again, this is the first I have
24 heard of a change in her side yard setback.
1 I don't know what that is now. We have not
2 talked about this. I totally disagree with
3 the two foot setback. The four foot that
4 she is requiring now leaving me with two
5 feet, that's right on the property line.
6 The size of this garage now is just
7 overbearing for that size lot. I don't have
8 a problem with Ms. Cornillie building a
9 garage. This size garage is a little too
10 big for that lot.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Perfect. Any
12 other comments?
13 MR. NASEGLIO: At this time, no, until
14 I find out what the setbacks are that she is
15 requiring now. Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
17 further comments?
18 MR. SHARP: Yes.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please be sworn
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case: 08-022, do
22 you swear or affirm to tell the truth in
23 this case?
24 MR. SHARP: Yes, I do. My name is
1 Mark Sharp. I am with Linda. I am helping
2 her out here. I just wanted to bring up,
3 the City had a recommendation and I talked
4 it over, I found out from Mr. Fox here.
5 Their recommendation doesn't really fit her
6 plan as far as, they weren't aware that she
7 is trying to park a boat. That's why she
8 was asking for 11 feet off the back of the
9 property with a garage. And they were
10 asking why the garage was cocked a little
11 bit, and it was for that reason to have the
12 11 feet so she can get a pontoon boat back
13 there. It would be parallel 11 feet with
14 the property line.
15 There was a seven foot deck off the
16 back of the house that wasn't noticed or
17 nothing was said.
18 But they was saying it was 22 feet. They
19 wanted her to put the garage door facing her
20 house and that there would be enough room
21 for a 90 degree turn there, which there
22 wouldn't be. There wouldn't be the 22 feet
23 because there is a seven foot deck off the
24 back of that too and she would have nowhere
1 to put a boat then with their plan.
2 I just wanted to make that aware of.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Any other
4 comments on this case? Seeing none, I will
5 ask the Secretary to report any
7 MEMBER KRIEGER: In 08-022 case, there
8 were 64 notices mailed and two approvals and
9 zero objections.
10 First one is from Megan and William
11 Dennan (ph), 102 Lashbrook. "As the closest
12 neighbors to Linda not sharing a property
13 line and as the neighbors with the view to
14 the lake directly impacted by the proposed
15 project, we have absolutely no issues with
16 the requested variances.
17 In the lake area any property owner
18 enjoying the benefit of a garage most likely
19 require a variance as well. Enjoying that
20 benefit ourselves, we look forward to in
21 this project going forward without any
23 The second one is from, Ken Alverse
24 (ph), 1517 East Lake Drive. "We are in
1 favor of variances. They are not uncommon
2 nor out of character for this area."
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam
4 Secretary. Might I also point out to the
5 Board that in our packet tonight we did
6 receive three color photos of where the
7 proposed garage will be sitting. So, I just
8 wanted to recall your attention to that.
9 Thank you, again, to City Staff for
10 that. And I'll turn it over to City Staff
11 for any comments from them.
12 MR. BOULARD: I will start. Based on
13 review of the Petitioner's revised site
14 plan, I would not see that we would need to
15 re-notice because the requested variance
16 would be less than what the original noticed
17 request was. So, I don't see that we need
18 to re-notice that to consider the other
20 I had one question also for the
21 Petitioner. The seven foot deck does not
22 appear on your site plan?
23 MS. CORNILLIE: I am hard of hearing,
24 I'm sorry.
1 MR. BOULARD: The seven foot deck that
2 the gentleman referred to doesn't appear on
3 the documents that you submitted or is it
4 included in the front print of the building
5 that's on there?
6 MS. CORNILLIE: I have a -- I kind of
7 drew it in on this one here give that the
8 City proposed to show that there is a
9 backyard and exactly where it was. Here is
10 my home and there is the deck and this is
11 what the City had proposed.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay, hold on.
13 If we need to we will get another microphone
14 if you are going to be over here. We need
15 to make sure that our court reporter can
16 hear what's going on for the record. Or if
17 you want to put it up on the overhead. We
18 just can't have a presentation going off in
19 one corner of the table.
20 MR. BOULARD: I guess, if you could
21 just confirm that the drawings, the original
22 drawings and the revised drawing that you
23 provided to all the Members of the Board
24 does not show that deck. Is that correct?
1 MS. CORNILLIE: That's correct.
2 Because that is not the way I was going to
3 go in with.
4 MR. BOULARD: Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is the
6 seven foot deck.
7 MR. FOX: I would also like to clarify
8 a little bit through the Chair that the
9 reason we were having discussions with him
10 about an alternate plan was originally two
11 feet from the property line is very close
12 for fire department access. There is
13 currently no fence or anything of that
14 nature, but there is nothing saying there
15 couldn't be a fence on that property line
16 which would not give adequate access between
17 the building and the fence.
18 Her new proposal is going to increase,
19 that's something we would be a little more
20 acceptable of. The other problem we had was
21 from a safety standpoint as far as the
22 garage door facing Lashbrook Road or
23 Lashbrook Drive. The original proposal
24 showed it only being 10 feet from the
1 property line which is not enough room to
2 park a car straight in front of the house
3 and still be on the property.
4 A proposal to push it to the side is
5 actually going to make that condition a
6 little worse which was the reason that we
7 recommended rotating it, putting the door on
8 a different location to get the parking off
9 of the roadside of the street of the
10 property there. Thank you.
11 MS. CORNILLIE: With the original and
12 the second one that I gave you, I left
13 enough room between the deck and the garage
14 for parking, and I also behind the garage
15 there is with the 11 feet back there there
16 is room for parking as well.
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. I
18 will open it up for Board discussion and
20 Member Sanghvi?
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
22 Mr. Chair. The point is well taken that in
23 the original plan submitted to you there was
24 no deck shown on that thing. And that is
1 why you recommended what you did without
2 being aware of it. Now we know the fact
3 that this deck is still there around this
4 area here and she is leaving enough space in
5 between the proposed garage and that, does
6 it change your opinion?
7 MR. FOX: Well, it definitely would
8 need some more looking at as far as getting
9 a -- we were looking at a side entry
10 driveway of 22 feet which is probably the
11 minimum that we require there for
12 maneuvering. With that deck in there it
13 definitely narrows that down and causes a
14 little bit of a problem. But we still have
15 issues with it being, facing the side of the
16 street there with only having 10 foot for a
17 driveway in front of the door.
18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Or eight feet if
19 we are looking at the proposal too, correct?
20 MR. BOULARD: That would be correct,
21 eight and a half feet.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
23 Member Sanghvi, still having the floor, any
24 other questions?
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The other
2 question was, if we make the condition of
3 granting the variance that no fence will go
4 up between the two properties, that will
5 solve the accessibility problem?
6 MR. BOULARD: I am not sure that as a
7 condition of granting a variance on this
8 property we could compel or prevent the
9 owner of the adjacent property from putting
10 a fence up on his side of the property line.
11 MS. KUDLA: That's correct.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Wrobel?
13 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 One of the questions I am looking at and I
15 guess I am looking for the City to answer
16 this for me. With this portion of the
17 garage being so close to lot 50, will there
18 be any problems with water runoff from the
19 garage going on to the other property? Two
20 foot I would imagine it would be. Four
21 foot, I don't know. Five foot, I don't
23 MR. BOULARD: I guess, my answer would
24 be the minimum setback that the Ordinance
1 would require is six feet. Certainly four
2 is better than two and five is better than
3 four. I am not sure how wide the eaves
4 would be on the garage but I am very
5 concerned about the two foot.
6 MEMBER WROBEL: I don't want to give
7 somebody a variance to meet their needs and
8 their neighbors having a problem down the
9 road with water runoff. Thank you.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer?
11 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. Not being
12 familiar with garage sizes and not going out
13 and measuring mine, a 24 foot wide garage is
14 two car? Two and a half car? What is it
15 considered typically?
16 MS. CORNILLIE: I would probably say
17 two and a half.
18 MR. SHARP: Twenty-four is two and a
19 half car?
20 MEMBER SHROYER: Twenty-four is two
21 and a half car. So, you are looking to park
22 two cars to have storage for lawnmowers and
23 whatever else?
24 MS. CORNILLIE: Correct.
1 MEMBER SHROYER: And then park a
2 pontoon boat behind it?
3 MS. CORNILLIE: On the back side of
4 it, yes.
5 MEMBER SHROYER: How much room would
6 be between the end of the deck and the
7 beginning of the garage?
8 MS. CORNILLIE: Nine feet.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At which point
10 of clarification? On which proposal?
11 MEMBER SHROYER: On the new proposal.
12 On the new proposal is that nine feet also?
13 MS. CORNILLIE: Yes.
14 MEMBER SHROYER: Part of what I don't
15 understand is you are just shifting the
16 garage forward.
17 MS. CORNILLIE: Yes.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: The garage is the
19 same size.
20 MS. CORNILLIE: Yes.
21 MEMBER SHROYER: You are shifting the
22 garage closer to Lashbrook Road, the garage.
23 MS. CORNILLIE: Yes.
24 MEMBER SHROYER: Does eight and a half
1 feet provide enough space for a car to sit
2 on the driveway?
3 MS. CORNILLIE: No.
4 MEMBER SHROYER: That's what I
6 MS. CORNILLIE: I don't think it
7 would, no. I don't know why I would -- I
8 mean, if I had a garage I would just pull
9 into the garage. I wouldn't even consider
10 parking there. If I wanted it out of the
11 garage I would park on either other side of
12 it instead of in front by the road.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: So, why wouldn't you
14 want to move it closer to Lashbrook Road to
15 provide more room in the back?
16 MS. CORNILLIE: Right now with it at
17 four feet, the garage would be even with my
18 home on the road side. If I move it back
19 it's going to be out towards the road
21 MEMBER SHROYER: Not according to the
22 drawing. Nothing lines up.
23 MS. CORNILLIE: That's with the two
24 feet. I didn't actually move the garage with
1 the second one. I just -- they said that
2 they would accept me leaving it. But it
3 would actually move the garage.
4 MEMBER SHROYER: Moving the garage,
5 you are saying that the --
6 MS. CORNILLIE: End of it.
7 MEMBER SHROYER: The east side of the
8 house would be in line with the garage
9 door --
10 MS. CORNILLIE: The Lashbrook side
11 would be in line, yes.
12 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, that would make
13 more sense. Twenty-four foot is two and a
14 half car garage. Twenty-two feet in length
15 is that standard for a garage? It is
16 standard, okay. How long is a car?
17 MEMBER WROBEL: You work for GM.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: I work for GM.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: How long is a Ford?
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's getting
22 shorter. The profit margin is getting
24 The City might have some more comments
1 to that.
2 MR. BOULARD: Depending on who the
3 marketing folks are they can call a garage
4 under 20 feet, you know, a two car garage.
5 It becomes difficult to get a lot of
6 vehicles in and be able to even get past
7 them. So, 22 feet is not unreasonable for a
8 garage if you want to be able to get your
9 vehicle in and make sure you walk past it
10 and have a lawnmower or bicycle in front.
11 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Well, that's
12 all the questions I have then. Thank you,
13 Mr. Chair.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
15 Member Krieger?
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have a concern with
17 the whole proposal that it's self created.
18 That maybe there is another option maybe
19 having an attached garage. In looking at it
20 from a completely different aspect because
21 it's so difficult to try and fit the pontoon
22 boat, the cars and put it in a garage, so
23 they can accommodate all that in this space,
24 so I am having a lot of difficulty with.
1 Plus, having two feet it's impossible to
2 even think of two feet on the property line.
3 You're in your neighbor's yard if you are
4 doing something.
5 That's all my comments right now.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
7 Member Krieger.
8 What other options have you looked at?
9 MS. CORNILLIE: That's all I have as
10 of right now.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What would be
12 the difficulty with an attached type of
13 garage? Is it even possible?
14 MR. BOULARD: I'm not sure that --
15 there is insurmountable difficulties in
16 doing an attached garage. The building code
17 allows attached garages. The concern, there
18 may be internal concerns with the residents
19 in terms of egress windows and access out
20 the back. I am not sure how the house is
21 laid out, but that's certainly to the best
22 of my knowledge there wouldn't be anything
23 that would prevent that. There is still the
24 issue of lot coverage and to some extent
1 would be adding on to a nonconforming
2 structure. I think the existing house is
3 nonconforming. But the house isn't going to
4 move. That would be one option for the --
5 MR. FOX: It would increase the
6 variance request in this case. Once you
7 attach it to the primary structure, the
8 garage would have to meet the same setbacks
9 as the primary structure which would mean it
10 would need a 30 foot setback from Lashbrook
11 Drive which effectively covers the entire
12 lot. So, you would need a complete lot
13 coverage variance for that.
14 As far as setback variance, you would
15 need a rear yard setback variance for both
16 property lines plus lot coverage. So, it
17 would increase the variance request quite a
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Exactly
20 what I was looking for. From my perspective
21 I don't feel like the two foot option would
22 work. So, I have pretty much taken that
23 right out of my packet. Obviously citing
24 the safety concerns, you know, should there
1 be a fence built, et cetera. So, I
2 definitely cannot support the two foot
3 request. And, so, I guess, my remaining
4 question is that when we look at the new
5 proposal, is an eight and a half foot
6 driveway a large enough footprint to make me
7 comfortable regarding any safety concerns
8 over on Lashbrook. Parking cars even
9 sideways there would present a concern to me
10 as far as safety goes.
11 So, you know, if we want, we can
12 always look at tabling and kicking this back
13 to the City, now that they understand better
14 the Petitioner's concern with having the
15 access facing the house to see what they --
16 to give us some type of formal
17 recommendation of this new proposal, that is
18 one possibility. Or we can act on this new
19 proposal today. So, I think we need to look
20 towards getting to a consensus here. So, I
21 would urge my Board Members and colleagues
22 to throw it out there on the table for me.
23 Member Ibe?
24 MEMBER IBE: I think with all fairness
1 to the gentleman who was opposed to this
2 margin. It might be in the interest of
3 everyone involved including Board Members,
4 that this matter be tabled so that he can at
5 least get an opportunity to see what we
6 have. Because if he has any objections he
7 has a right to present an objection, and if
8 we vote on this matter today, we would be
9 denying him the opportunity to make an
10 objection. Be it a reasonable one or
11 unreasonable one. He still has a right to
12 do that.
13 If I were to vote today I would vote
14 to deny. So, it's your option to decide
15 to table this or move forward. I would
16 recommend I would strongly table this so
17 that anyone who has a concern can address
18 that concern rather than this Board making a
19 decision and ignoring the concern of that
20 particular one neighbor. Thank you, Mr.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
23 Other Board Members? Member Shroyer?
24 MEMBER SHROYER: I would agree with
1 Member Ibe, and I also would agree with you
2 concerning the two foot setback is to
3 provide additional feet back to the City and
4 the Applicant that we move forward with the
5 tabling. I would not consider two foot at
6 all. I think four foot would be an absolute
7 minimum. I would like to even see it larger
8 if possible. That's all.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you
10 understand so far where we are going with
12 MS. CORNILLIE: Yes, but may I say
13 this. I am asking now for this four feet
14 off the property line which only gives me
15 eight and a half. To me, if I move it six
16 feet off the property line at one end then
17 it's going to be seven or whatever at the
18 other end, then I am going to go into four
19 and a half to enter my garage and that's the
20 only option I have. That would mean that I
21 could not have a garage put up then. This
22 is something that I want to go forward with.
23 I need this.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We're not saying
1 that we're denying it outright. What we
2 would like to do is give the City an
3 opportunity to review the new proposal and
4 make their recommendations. We would like to
5 give you an opportunity to work with your
6 neighbors as well to ease any concerns that
7 they might have. As you can see the Board
8 does not feel comfortable for sure with the
9 two feet footprint that was proposed.
10 MS. CORNILLIE: Absolutely.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And I am not
12 sure that we have been convinced that the
13 four foot really does address the public
14 safety concerns. So, what we need to do is
15 get some input from the neighbors, the City
16 and yourself and look over this. And this
17 is what the Board seems that they are
18 proposing to do at this time and to come
19 back at whatever appropriate time. So,
20 that's where we see it going.
21 MS. CORNILLIE: Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is that a
23 motion, Member Shroyer?
24 MEMBER SHROYER: Sure. Case number --
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the City
2 Staff feel comfortable with the comments
3 that have been made? Do you have any
4 questions for us?
5 MEMBER SHROYER: Do you want me to
6 make a motion?
7 MR. BOULARD: I have one question if I
8 could for the Petitioner. Obviously staff
9 we're concerned about the proximity to the
10 neighboring property line, but we are also
11 very concerned with the fact that there is
12 not room, to back out of the garage you are
13 backing out onto the road. So, as you
14 pointed out, every foot that you move the
15 building from the property line makes it
16 that much worse. And the reality is, folks
17 get out of their, they get out of their cars
18 to open the garage door. There are any
19 number of reasons that folks end up with a
20 car at least temporarily parked in front of
21 their garage, which in this particular case
22 would be out in the road.
23 I guess my question is, and you
24 mentioned, you mentioned the deck there. Is
1 the deck something that you would be willing
2 to compromise with in terms eliminating the
3 deck to --
4 MS. CORNILLIE: You mean turning the
5 door the other way?
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think that
7 maybe once the Petitioner comes to the City
8 and maybe you can work with this after
9 hours, I guess.
10 MR. BOULARD: Just a question.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's just
12 something to think about. Like I said, if
13 you get together with them maybe you can
14 further discuss that option.
15 Member Shroyer?
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Sure. In case
17 number: 08-022 filed by Linda Cornillie for
18 1601 East Lake Road --
19 MS. CORNILLIE: 1601.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: 1601 East Lake Road,
21 move to table the motion to give to staff
22 and the City an opportunity to review the
23 new proposed blueprint and to take into
24 consideration the comments made by the
1 Board, and in addition to reviewing the
2 safety concerns of the sling radius for
3 opening the garage or to park the car in
4 front of the garage while opening or closing
5 the door.
6 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
8 motion and a second on the table. Any
9 further discussion?
10 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you please
11 call the roll.
12 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, who second
13 the motion, please?
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Oh, I'm sorry,
15 Member Bauer.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer, thank you.
17 Member Shroyer?
18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
23 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe.
24 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
6 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Motion to table passes
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We look forward
10 to seeing you back with some new plans and
11 further recommendations on your proposal.
12 MS. CORNILLIE: Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
15 All right, at this point I would like
16 to call case number: 08-023 filed by Edward
17 Balfe of Erickson Retirement Communities
18 located at 41000 West Thirteen Mile Road.
19 The Petitioner is requesting an extension to
20 allow the continued placement of a temporary
21 construction identification sign at said
22 address. The sign was originally approved
23 in ZBA 04-012 for one year and granted a two
24 year extension in ZBA 04-117. The property
1 is zone RM-1 and is located north of
2 Thirteen Mile Road and west of the M-5
4 Can you please raise your hand and be
5 sworn in by our Secretary.
6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Before you do that,
7 may I interject?
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, I'm sorry.
9 MEMBER GHANNAM: That's okay. Just to
10 disclose, I have an interest in a property
11 nearby this particular development at the
12 Thirteen Mile and Meadowbrook area that I'm
13 interested in, so in all fairness I should
14 disclose that in the event there may be a
15 perceived conflict of interest.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Did you prefer
17 to sit with us today and not make any
18 comments or any recommendation from City
20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have a
21 problem with simply being excused upon
22 motion of any of the members.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How does the
24 Board feel?
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, let him sit out
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Then I'll
4 move to approve a recusal of Member Ghannam
5 for this case number: 08-023.
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say
9 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right.
11 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case 08-023 filed
12 by Edward Balfe for Erickson Retirement
13 Communities-Fox Run Village located at 41000
14 West Thirteen Mile Road, do you swear or
15 affirm to tell the truth in this case?
16 MR. BALFE: Yes.
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
18 MR. BALFE: Good evening, my name is
19 Edward Balfe. I'm the director at Fox Run
20 Village at Erickson Retirement Community at
21 41000 Thirteen Mile Road in Novi, Michigan.
22 In 2002 we broke ground at Fox Run
23 Village and since then we have opened six
24 residential buildings which is equal to 682
1 apartment style homes. We opened up the
2 extended care facility the first phase which
3 is 132 beds along with two clubhouses and
4 the infamous guard house where you have the
5 happy and smiling security guard to greet
7 We are presently constructing the
8 seventh residential building and we'll open
9 that in the Fall of this year. We are
10 excited about that. I am excited to report
11 to you that we have over 750 residents
12 living at Fox Run. So, we're here today to
13 respectfully request permission to allow the
14 existing construction identification sign to
15 remain for an appropriate amount of time as
16 determined by the Board.
17 The residential building we are
18 opening up this year is the second
19 residential building of five in our second
20 neighborhood. We are building at a rate of
21 approximately one building a year at this
22 point in time. Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyone else in
24 the audience that wishes to make a comment
1 on this case? Seeing none, I'll ask the
2 Board Secretary to record any
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case 08-023, 636
5 notices were mailed. Zero approvals. Zero
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll turn it
8 over to the City Staff.
9 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment.
10 MS. KUDLA: Nothing.
11 MR. FOX: Just for clarification,
12 again, on the project, this is a very long
13 ongoing project. There is still
14 approximately seven buildings left to be
15 built on that site plus a community center
16 and a parking garage, a parking deck
17 structure. There is a lot of work still
18 left to be done on this project and the sign
19 does provide a necessary identification for
20 the trades and such. Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Board Members?
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: This seems
23 to be pretty straightforward to renew the
24 presence of the sign for a period of three
1 years. I recommend that whatever comes
2 first, the completion of the building or
3 three years. I have no difficulty in
4 supporting that. Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Alan, any issues
6 that you are aware of? Any complaints?
7 MR. AMOLSCH: No, the sign is very
8 well maintained.
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would tend to
10 agree. I drive by it every once in a while
11 and it doesn't even look temporary to me. I
12 think it's a very nice building -- or sign.
13 I hope no one is living in there. It's kind
14 of awkward.
15 Giving the heads nodding, I would like
16 to make a motion that in case number:
17 08-023 filed by Edward Balfe for Erickson
18 Retirement Communities located at 41000 West
19 Thirteen Mile Road, that we approve the
20 Petitioner's request given that the
21 Petitioner has established practical
22 difficulty. Given that the request is based
23 upon circumstances or features that are
24 exceptional and unique to the property such
1 as the large size of the buildings and the
2 campus. The clientele they are trying to
3 attract as well as the people working on the
4 property being able to find the building.
5 Failure to grant will unreasonably
6 prevent or limit the use of the property and
7 make it more difficult -- will make it more
8 difficult to use the property as allowed.
9 And, lastly, this will result in
10 substantial injustice done to the Petitioner
11 as well as the surrounding properties since
12 it is a well kept sign that is not too large
13 and it is not inconsistent with the spirit
14 or intent of the chapter, I would make this
15 motion conditioned upon it being revoked if
16 the C of O on the last building is given,
17 and it is also for a period of three years.
18 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
20 motion by Member Fischer. A second by
21 Member Bauer.
22 Ms. Working, will you please call the
24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
5 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
6 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
8 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: And Member Wrobel?
13 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
14 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes
16 MR. BALFE: Thank you.
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Best
18 of luck. Looking good, by the way.
19 MEMBER SHROYER: Hope to be there some
20 day. A long way down.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You know, you
22 took the words right out of my mouth, Member
23 Shroyer. You know, I am just counting down
24 the days.
2 MEMBER BAUER: The years would be
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Decades.
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right at
8 this time I would like to call case number:
9 08-024 filed by David Hengstebeck --
10 MR. HENGSTEBECK: Hengstebeck.
11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Hengstebeck for
12 23770 Meadowbrook Road. The Petitioner is
13 requesting one 8.3 foot aggregate side yard
14 setback variance for the addition of a new
15 attached garage to an existing nonconforming
16 structure located at said address. The
17 Applicant's property has an existing 4.2
18 foot north side yard setback. The property
19 is located east of Meadowbrook Road. North
20 of Malott Drive and it's zoned R-4.
21 I am assuming you are the Petitioner?
22 MR. HENGSTEBECK: Yes, I'm David
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Raise your hand
1 and be sworn in by our Secretary.
2 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
3 08-024 on 23770 Meadowbrook Road, do you
4 swear or affirm to tell the truth in this
6 MR. HENGSTEBECK: Yes, I do.
7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
8 MR. HENGSTEBECK: Basically in a
9 nutshell, I would like to build a two car
10 attached garage on my house very similar to
11 the other homes in the neighborhood. I
12 think I included some photographs there.
13 Obviously for the additional storage and to
14 beautify the house. I have verbal approval
15 of the neighbor next to me and the neighbors
16 that are directly affected by it and also
17 written approval of the neighborhood
18 association. That's it in a nutshell.
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will offer the
20 chance for anyone in the audience to speak
21 on the case, but there is no one in here. I
22 just wanted that on the record.
23 Madam Secretary, would you please read
24 any correspondence regarding this case.
1 MS. WORKING: The other Secretary
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yeah. I didn't
4 know if you had something --
5 MS. WORKING: No, you were looking at
7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I heard -- I'm
9 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case ZBA 08-024,
10 40 notices were mailed. Two approvals.
11 Zero objections.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I thought you
13 wanted to offer something else. I heard
14 something going on over there.
15 Thank you for that, Madam Secretary.
16 Anyone from the City Staff that wishes to
17 enlighten us?
18 Oh, are you still looking for the
20 MEMBER KRIEGER: There's nothing in
21 there? I guess I'm done. Thank you.
22 MS. WORKING: They didn't make it back
23 in the file? They might have just gotten
24 turned around.
1 I think they are the first two things that
2 had in your left hand there. Are they?
3 There two.
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: There are two
5 approvals. The first one from Sandy
6 Mitchell, 23740 Meadowbrook Road. Her
7 comments. "Agree to variance."
8 The second one is from Carol Love,
9 23680 Meadowbrook Road. The comments are,
10 "As long as Mr. David Hengstebeck's garage
11 blends in with his house he should be able
12 to build his garage." Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Now, I'll open
14 it up to Staff for comments.
15 MR. FOX: For a little clarification,
16 again, through the Chair. We did do a site
17 visit out onto this project. The proposal
18 is consistent with what's going on in the
19 majority of the neighborhood down there.
20 There are a couple of
21 differences, but the majority of the houses
22 have this similar condition. The requested
23 variance for clarification on what the
24 aggregate is, he has a minimum side yard
1 setback and then both side yard setbacks
2 together deem the aggregate side yard. The
3 building is already existing nonconforming,
4 so it's too close to the property line. The
5 existing building is already too close to
6 the property line. The existing building is
7 already too close to the property line on
8 one side. It's not asking to do that on the
9 opposite property line, just the total
10 setbacks for both sides when this is
11 attached would be less than 25 feet. He
12 still would maintain 12 and a half feet side
13 yard setback to the property line on the
14 garage side.
15 It's also something that may be of
16 note that a detached garage may be in
17 conformance if it was to be placed in the
18 rear yard. We didn't look at that in
19 determination, but he has quite a bit of
20 room back there. So, I mean, it's a
21 possibility whether the Applicant is willing
22 to do that or not. Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. I
24 drove by at some point. Is the structure
1 down now?
2 MR. HENGSTEBECK: I tore that down,
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I just wanted to
5 make sure that what I saw was at the correct
7 MR. HENGSTEBECK: That was the other
8 reason too. I am trying to beautify the
9 house and that was a real eye sore. I live
10 right on Meadowbrook Road. I remodeled the
11 entire interior of the house and now I am
12 turning my attention to the outside to bring
13 it up to the standards.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And I appreciate
15 the comment from the City and the
16 recommendation that it is possible to look
17 at a detached rear garage. That would be a
18 conformance because I think it's very
19 important for the Zoning Board to look into
20 what other options and whether or not lesser
21 variances could be given. One of the things
22 that I would have an issue with doing that
23 is that we must always look to make sure
24 that any variance that we look at is in
1 conjunction with the surrounding properties,
2 and I am not sure that putting something in
3 the rear yard would do that. I think that
4 approving this variance would actually put
5 it in line with the other houses in the
6 surrounding areas. So, all I have reviewed
7 from it, I would be willing to support.
8 Member Wrobel?
9 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
10 I agree with what you said. Looking at
11 other options is important, but in this case
12 it would be out of character. The only
13 issue I just want to make sure is from
14 looking at the plans here, it's going to be
15 a vinyl sided garage in its entirety?
16 MR. HENGSTEBECK: That was my plan.
17 MEMBER WROBEL: Because I have seen
18 the pictures that were submitted which are
19 good of the other houses in the area. Some
20 have brick facia. Some don't, and I am just
21 trying to get -- it's important that we want
22 to make sure it blend in with the house as
23 much as possible so it doesn't look like
24 it's an added on garage. I assume that the
1 shingled area and roof will be the same as
2 the existing house?
3 MR. HENGSTEBECK: Yes.
4 MEMBER WROBEL: I have no issue with
5 this. It's in line with everything else
6 going on there and I think it's the lesser
7 of all evil. Thank you.
8 MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem with
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer?
11 MEMBER SHROYER: I just have one quick
12 question for the City. You talked about
13 being consistent in the neighborhood. And
14 when I drove through it it appeared to be
15 very consistent with all of it, but I wanted
16 to make sure that other houses with the
17 attached garages they probably all are also
18 exceeding the aggregate total five yard
19 setbacks, correct?
20 MR. FOX: I believe so based on just
21 looking at them from areal photographs and
22 from being out there on-site they are
23 consistently spaced apart as well. We did
24 check some dimensions between houses and
1 they are consistent apart, so that would be
2 consistent with the setback being the
3 roughly the same.
4 MEMBER SHROYER: I think I saw one, it
5 may not be, but I believe that might have
6 been a double lot so that was probably fine.
7 I just wanted to make sure that we were
8 consistent with that as well and that could
9 be used as a finding if need be. Thank you.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Krieger?
11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just a comment. I
12 found the house easily because it didn't
13 have a garage where all the other ones did,
14 so I zeroed in on it. So, I have no
15 objections either.
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would move
17 that in case number: 08-023 filed by David
18 Hengstebeck --
19 MR. HENGSTEBECK: Hengstebeck.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Hengstebeck, for
21 23700 Meadowbrook Road, that we approve the
22 Petitioner's request given that Petitioner
23 has established a practical difficulty in
24 that the property is -- the shape of the
1 property is unique and creates a need for
2 the variance. Strict compliance with the
3 regulations of the Zoning Ordinance will be
4 unnecessarily burdensome and, in fact, make
5 the house out of character.
6 The Petitioner has established that a
7 variance, the minimum variance is necessary
8 because a lesser variance would only make
9 the property more out of character with
10 surrounding properties. This request for a
11 variance will not cause adverse impact on
12 the surrounding property, property values or
13 the enjoyment of property in the
14 neighborhood because as stated it is in line
15 with the surrounding community and the
16 garages that many of the buildings around
17 there have.
18 Would the Board be in favor of looking
19 at a condition of regarding the construction
20 or --
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Maintain
22 the architectural integrity.
23 MEMBER SHROYER: The facade.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. And
1 one condition is that the Petitioner
2 maintain the architectural integrity and
3 facade of the main structure on the lots.
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a
6 motion by myself and a second by Member
7 Sanghvi. Please call the roll.
8 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?
9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
13 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
14 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
17 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
20 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
21 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
22 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We are all set.
1 Get with the Building Department and best of
2 luck to you.
3 MR. HENGSTEBECK: Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It looks very
7 That takes us along to Other
8 Matters. I just wanted to first and
9 foremost thank the City Attorney as well as
10 Tom, pass along the thanks, and Robin,
11 Chris, Charles, Steve, all of the efforts
12 that went into the training last week. We
13 appreciate it. All the packets, the
14 materials, the good discussion that we had I
15 think on behalf of the Board and the
16 preparation that you took. So, from the
17 bottom of our hearts we appreciate that. We
18 have been asking for it for quite awhile and
19 we were happy to have it responded to.
20 MEMBER BAUER: The pizza.
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The pizza, yes,
22 that Tom Schultz personally cooked.
23 Excellent, except for when Member Wrobel
24 took the last piece from me. Which I won't
1 soon forget.
2 Are there any other comments as far as
3 a debrief from the training session, any
4 good, bad or indifferent that any Board
5 Members wanted to make? And then at that
6 point we'll move to number two in case
7 anyone from City Staff wants to comment on
8 that or whatever else you have in mind. So,
9 I just wanted to open it up. Member Ibe and
10 Shroyer, do you have any comments that you
11 would like to make?
12 MEMBER IBE: I concur with everything
13 that you said.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Member
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Having been through
17 several of the training sessions that they
18 provided, I think this was by far the best.
19 So, my congratulations as well.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Bauer?
21 MEMBER BAUER: No problem.
22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Krieger?
23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Very good. Help
24 build on previous knowledge, so it's a
1 continuing learning process.
2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyone on this
3 side? Member Sanghvi?
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It was a
5 very well organized effort by everybody and
6 it was well worth the time. Thank you.
7 MEMBER WROBEL: It was well worth the
8 time. I think it's a better opportunity, we
9 have a lot more people in the city, newer
10 people, get a working relationship knowing
11 what we want, what you can provide us so it
12 will help us in the long run. Thank you.
13 MR. GHANNAM: Also, I would like to
14 thank them for the seminar they put on. I
15 thought it was very helpful, especially in
16 light of the new laws that are being passed
17 and changed. I think it's very helpful that
18 we know that too. So, thank you.
19 MS. KUDLA: We are happy to do it.
20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think that we
21 should kind of build on this, try to keep an
22 open dialogue going on with the City
23 Attorney as well as the Staff. I think one
24 thing that we didn't comment on are some of
1 the variance worksheets that could be
2 included possibly with the packets or
3 laminated or whatever.
4 So, I would urge any Board Members if
5 you want to send me an e-mail with your
6 thoughts on which version you like the best.
7 What you would like to see maybe if it's
8 included in the packet or whatnot, I can try
9 to consolidate that and pass that along, so
10 please get with me whenever possible.
11 MS. KUDLA: Or any changes.
12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Or changes as
14 MEMBER SHROYER: Are we allowed to
15 send it to you at work?
16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, did you want
18 to give the Board a little bit of guideline
19 on a time frame on that so that we might set
20 a goal date to implement this change?
21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Sure. Maybe
22 within the next week or so. We kind of have
23 our off week here. Well, some of us, not
24 Member Wrobel so much, but maybe within a
1 week if you can look at, we provided in the
2 packet the two variance worksheets that I
3 came up with as well as the ones that were
4 provided by the City Attorney. Beth did a
5 very good job on those as well. So, if you
6 could review those it would be fantastic.
7 What I have tried to say as well
8 is that we might just find out that each and
9 every one of us want something different and
10 whatnot, at which point we should send out
11 an electronic document, do what we want on
12 our own or maybe if there is some type of
13 consensus we can include it in the packet.
14 That's what I am just trying to gather.
15 It's a very high level where does the Board
16 sit on whether or not they use it, what do
17 they like, what don't they like, et cetera.
18 So, maybe within a week from today if you
19 can send me an e-mail.
20 MS. WORKING: If that time frame is
21 agreeable to the Board we could do a trial
22 run for the June packet is where I was going
23 with this for you?
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I just have
1 a little problem personally because I am
2 leaving tomorrow and I will be gone for a
3 week. So, I don't think I can participate
4 in week's time frame.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: When you get
6 back that works too. I think we will have a
7 generality of where the Board is along with
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.
10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will open it
11 up for number two under other matters.
12 MR. BOULARD: I think we have covered
13 everything. Mr. Schultz's extraordinary
14 culinary skills aside, I would like to thank
15 you all for taking another evening out of
16 your week last week to spend the time just
17 going over these things and working towards
18 the process. And if you have suggestions
19 regarding the recommendations that we're
20 trying to put together in these staff
21 reports, please forward them. The more
22 input the better. I much appreciate it.
23 Thank you very much.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
1 Seeing no other business --
2 MR. AMOLSCH: Mr. Chairman.
4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This is off the
6 MR. AMOLSCH: In reference to the
7 Huntington Bank sign and the Board indicated
8 they had a problem with height variance,
9 there was no problem with setback per
10 Ordinance. The square footage was a concern
11 to the Board? They did request a variance
12 for that too.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: I didn't notice that.
14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I had an issue.
15 MR. AMOLSCH: The guy is going to
16 design a new sign and everything --
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You have to ask
18 these Board Members. I haven't been
19 convinced that a multi-tenant sign needs to
20 there be. Any other Board Members who are
21 considering it?
22 MEMBER GHANNAM: Just as a quick
23 comment. One thing I noticed about that
24 particular petition is that it was brought
1 on behalf of Huntington Bank, not the owner
2 of the premises. So, Huntington obviously
3 is trying to get their third sign and trying
4 to appease some other tenants. I would
5 think it should have been on behalf of the
6 owner. That would have been the more
7 appropriate entity.
8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Very good point.
9 MS. WORKING: I want to reiterate and
10 point out to the Board that in this Z-3
11 district multi-tenant signs are not allowed
12 by the Ordinance and I think that's
13 something that is part of the training. We
14 are working really hard on this. Please be
15 familiar with the Ordinance. We try to
16 provide you it in relationship to the
17 variance request, but sometimes other
18 sections also apply just like that pointed
19 out this evening. So, if you don't have
20 your copy anymore or you are able to access
21 on line you can access the code on line as
23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Did that
24 somewhat answer your question?
1 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. He was going to
2 redesign the sign or come up with something
3 else. I just didn't want to ambush him
4 later on when he had a problem with the
5 square footage and the Board didn't want
6 that big of a sign. That's the only reason
7 I brought it up.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I think
9 this discussion has raised an interesting
10 issue for me and that is, all sign makers
11 will make a sign to sell the site whether
12 the Petitioner should be the owner of the
13 property or the sign maker is the main
15 MS. KUDLA: I think it would be all
16 right if we had a letter from the owner of
17 the property saying that he is in agreement.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: I believe that
19 anything that we refer back to the City the
20 first and utmost thing that you should be
21 looking at is what could be done to meet the
22 Ordinances. So, even if we didn't indicate
23 that it's too big and we need to look at it,
24 please look at those. If it's out of the
1 Ordinance and we're looking for variances in
2 that matter, I think that's what needs to be
3 looked at first and then other options could
4 follow from that.
5 I had another comment if I may.
6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I don't see it
7 on the agenda.
8 MEMBER SHROYER: Because they took it
9 off the agenda. I just wanted to mention
10 that there is perhaps audience at home that
11 is sitting on pins and needles waiting to
12 hear about our rules and revisions, that it
13 was removed from tonight's agenda and will
14 be added to next month agenda, I assume.
15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It will be added
16 when deemed appropriate.
17 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, when deemed
19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: When the stuff
20 is ready it will be added. Absolutely our
21 eye is still on it, but it wasn't pertinent
22 to bring it up.
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Still under review.
24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no
1 business in front of the Zoning Board I will
2 entertain a motion to adjourn.
3 MEMBER WROBEL: Motion to adjourn.
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So moved.
5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say
7 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
8 (The meeting was adjourned at
9 10:21 p.m.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify
that I have recorded stenographically the
proceedings had and testimony taken in the
above-entitled matter at the time and place
hereinbefore set forth, and I do further
certify that the foregoing transcript,
consisting of (122) typewritten pages, is a
true and correct transcript of my said
Mona L. Talton,
Certified Shorthand Reporter
May 23, 2008