| View Agenda for this
meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING -
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, October 14, 2008. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'd like to call 8 to order the October 2008 Zoning Board of 9 Appeals meeting for the City of Novi. 10 Ms. Working, will you please call the 11 roll. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Burke? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Here. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Here. 20 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Present. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam? 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: Present. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
4 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 2 MS. WORKING: Mr. Ibe? 3 Mr. Chair, Mr. Ibe is absent this 4 evening. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer, 6 will you please lead us in the pledge of 7 allegiance. 8 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to 9 the flag of the United State of America. 10 And to the Republic for which it stands, one 11 nation under God indivisible with liberty 12 and justice for all. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: With our 14 alternate member serving tonight in the 15 place of Rickie Ibe we do have a quorum so 16 the meeting is now in session. 17 The rules of conduct for tonight's 18 meeting can be found in the back of the room 19 on the back of the agenda or on a separate 20 sheet in the back there. 21 But I would like to remind people that 22 if could you please turn off all cell phones 23 and pagers it would be appreciative. And as 24 far as the meeting goes, we would like to
5 1 keep it where individuals will have five 2 minutes to address the Board and groups will 3 have 10 minutes. So, someone speaking on 4 behalf of a group they will have 10 minutes. 5 Like I said, a full set of the rules can be 6 found in the back of the room. 7 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 8 hearing board empowered by the Novi City 9 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 10 from the application of the Novi Zoning 11 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four 12 members to approve a variance and a vote of 13 the majority present to deny a variance. 14 Tonight we do have a full board so any 15 decisions made will be final. 16 We have an agenda in front of us. Are 17 there any changes to the agenda? 18 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I would like 19 to bring to the Board's attention that case 20 number three under new business 08-055 has 21 been withdrawn. It no longer requires your 22 consideration. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can you help me 24 out with a clarification, a little past
6 1 other matters we have a case listed there. 2 That will not be heard tonight, correct? 3 MS. WORKING: That is correct. 08-054 4 did not make it out of Planning Commission, 5 therefore, will not be heard by the ZBA this 6 evening. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, I just want 8 to let anyone know that might be here to 9 speak on behalf of case number 08-054 filed 10 by the Manyam Group for the Temple Cultural 11 Center at 26233 Taft Road, that did not make 12 it out Planning Commission and will not be 13 heard tonight. So, comments will have to be 14 reserved until the meeting at which it is 15 heard. 16 We do have an amended agenda. Any 17 motions to approve? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So moved. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Second. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: A motion by 21 Member Sanghvi and a second Member Shroyer. 22 All in favor say aye? 23 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any opposed?
7 1 Seeing none, the agenda passes. 2 And we will move along to approval of 3 the minutes for August 12th, 2008. Are 4 there any changes to those minutes? Seeing 5 none, I will entertain a motion to approve 6 as submitted? 7 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion by Member 10 Bauer and second by Member Sanghvi. All in 11 favor say aye? 12 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any opposed? 14 Seeing none, the minutes are approved. 15 At this point we will move to the 16 public remarks portion of the meeting. All 17 comments related to a case on the agenda 18 should be held until that case is heard. 19 However, if anyone wishes to address the 20 Board on any matter or any case not on the 21 agenda tonight, please come forward. Seeing 22 none, we will close the public remarks 23 portion of the meeting and move to our first 24 case.
8 1 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Chair, excuse me. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: I have a copy of 4 September 9th, minutes in my packet as well. 5 Were we going to -- we're not going to 6 review those this evening? 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Given that they 8 are not in the agenda we will go ahead and 9 save them until the next meeting. 10 MS. WORKING: We didn't place them on 11 the agenda because we didn't feel you had 12 enough time to review them to make a motion 13 to approve them. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: You are ahead of the 15 game, Member Shroyer. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Trying to work at it. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no other 19 comments, we will go ahead and call case 20 number 08-045 filed by Charles Alawan of 21 Pheasant Run Plaza, Incorporated for 22 Pheasant Run Plaza located at 39877, 39863, 23 39853, 39843, 31, 21 and 39783 Grand River 24 Avenue.
9 1 Board Members, you will remember that 2 this case was tabled from the August 12th 3 meeting and the business is located south of 4 Grand River and west of Haggerty Road. The 5 Applicant is requesting five variances for 6 the placement of additional wall signage on 7 the north elevation of the plaza facing 8 Grand River Avenue. 9 You are the Petitioner? 10 MR. ALAWAN: Good evening. Yes. My 11 name is Chuck Alawan. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could 13 raise your hand and be sworn in by our Board 14 Secretary. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or 16 affirm in case number: 08-045 to tell the 17 truth in this case? 18 MR. ALAWAN: Absolutely. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could 21 state your name and address for us. 22 MR. ALAWAN: My name is Charles 23 Alawan. I live in Farmington Hills, but I 24 am here representing a certain number of
10 1 businesses at Pheasant Run Plaza on Grand 2 River just west of Haggerty. 3 I would have liked to have been here 4 two months ago, the economic conditions just 5 about made a different approach, but that's 6 not why I'm here. It had nothing do with 7 the economic conditions. It's a condition 8 that we have observed over a number of years 9 for a group of our merchants. 10 I think you all had a packet. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. 12 MR. ALAWAN: We did post signs. We 13 were going to be here last month and Ms. 14 Working reminded me that I needed to put up 15 some mock signs, which we did. I am hoping 16 that you had a chance to look at them. 17 I think this is functioning. It's 18 that building there, Grand River is right 19 there. And that building almost faces 20 perpendicular to Grand River. 21 When you are traveling that would be east on 22 Grand River, it's pretty hard to see 23 anything except the back of the building. 24 Then when you are going west, it's even more
11 1 difficult because of some of the vegetation, 2 trees and traffic. So, we have had over a 3 number of years complaints and requests by 4 some of those merchants to get a little 5 better exposure and to get a little break, a 6 little break because of that position. 7 So, we have proposed to put the 8 signage on the north end of that one 9 building and limit it to use by merchants in 10 that building. That building this is an 11 aerial photograph. There it is. Grand 12 River is the bottom of the picture. That 13 building, north would be the closest to 14 Grand River. That's the face of the 15 building that we have in mind. And I have 16 another photograph that probably gives you 17 it just in case you didn't get a chance to 18 go by it. We are talking about five 19 merchants, five signs. The signs would have 20 all the same type signs and color of 21 letters. 22 The owner of the property, he is not 23 terribly interested in putting signs up on 24 his building except in this particular case
12 1 we think it's a hardship that we have to 2 address and that's why we are bringing it to 3 you. We think it's a situation that has 4 been lingering for a number of -- that's the 5 style, the type letters. If you seen the 6 mockup it really doesn't do much except to 7 give you an idea. That's what it would look 8 like if you gave us permission to do it. 9 We have been listening to these 10 tenants for a number of years. I think in 11 past years there was an attempt to have a 12 directory sign which stack directly type 13 thing. It wasn't approved then and I don't 14 agree to have it now because it doesn't 15 function and you can't read the letters. 16 But in this case it does offer a 17 controlled architectural display of signs. 18 It's not different types. It's not 19 different letters. It's not a circus. It's 20 a pretty organized and well thought out plan 21 to give these merchants a little better shot 22 on some of the traffic coming from the west 23 toward the east. 24 There is a cost involved. Each
13 1 merchant would absorb the sign. The owner 2 would absorb putting in a new circuit to 3 accommodate it. It would certainly help. I 4 know we want to do things to help merchants 5 make money. I think we need to do 6 everything we can to allow them to reach 7 their potential. Especially with this 8 situation, this is not something that we 9 would want for anybody to have to go through 10 these kinds of economic conditions. We are 11 facing a whole new ball game. But these 12 signs stand away from that particular 13 condition and is addressing a particular 14 condition that has existed for a number of 15 years. 16 So, we are asking your permission to 17 change or at least modify it in this 18 particular case as the ordinance to allow 19 it. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very 21 much for your comments. 22 Madam Secretary, are there any 23 correspondence? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
14 1 08-045, 21 notices were mailed. Zero 2 approvals and zero objections. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone 4 in the audience who wishes to make a comment 5 on the case? 6 Seeing none, we will close the 7 opportunity. And we will ask the Community 8 Development Department, any comments 9 tonight? 10 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, Mr. Amolsch 11 is not with us this evening, but I think you 12 have all the information you need about the 13 size and location and design for your 14 consideration. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 16 comments? 17 MR. BOULARD: I have a question for 18 the Petitioner, if I could. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely. 20 MR. BOULARD: One of the criteria for 21 approval of the appeal is that the 22 circumstances or features that are 23 exceptional or unique to the property are 24 not self created and that the conditions are
15 1 unique to that property. And, thus, the 2 variance is justified. Could you describe 3 what situation is unique? 4 MR. ALAWAN: Certainly I'm sure it is 5 not unique for the entire city, but it's 6 unique for that property because it's laid 7 out in such a way, 20 some years ago when it 8 was built to accommodate the property. I 9 think Karim was create as a side street. 10 And I think Mr. Paze (ph) and the property 11 development across the road denoted some 12 space to create that road. So, that kind of 13 tightened that angle that that building was 14 built at. And the circumstances we feel 15 that we are talking about is the exact 16 thing. The angle doesn't allow a decent 17 exposure from either direction. 18 You can start traveling west on Grand 19 River Avenue, come down Haggerty or either 20 make a turn if you have been there. 21 Unfortunately, we have got some very, very 22 healthy mature trees and vegetation. You 23 can probably pick up and I think, Ms. 24 Working, you might be able to pick up the
16 1 Smokers there and maybe the Oxford Tailor, 2 but by that time you are picking speed up 3 and you have lost it. 4 The nature of the problem is the angle 5 of that building to the street and the 6 covers that we have coming the other way. 7 We do have a marquis and since I was in here 8 we redesigned the marquis to brighten it up 9 and give it a little more emphasis on the 10 lettering because we were getting complaints 11 that people couldn't even pick up the 12 marquis. 13 We still have a problem because we 14 have to take advantage of that strip to get 15 the parking in there. When you have got 16 parking there in one direction you are going 17 to have a time reading it because we are 18 restricted in height. Burger King has sign 19 that upsets the view to that. We have done 20 something, we have lightened up on it. 21 Tried to make it more visible for people who 22 are looking for Pheasant Run because 23 addresses mean nothing. If you want to give 24 people directions and if you want to say I'm
17 1 at 39 whatever it is you are talking about, 2 you have to tell them Pheasant Run. 3 But, in the other direction, you get 4 the back of the building and you are by it 5 before you even know what's going on. The 6 angle of this building and that northern 7 wall, it really does help because you can 8 pick up those signs. And I know it's a 9 variance and I know it may not be unique in 10 terms of the entire city, but at least to 11 that property it poses a problem. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. At 13 this time I will turn it over to the Board 14 discussion and ask for comments. Member 15 Sanghvi? 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, 17 Mr. Chair. Personally to me the whole 18 notion of putting signs like that on the 19 wall is rather tacky and it reminds me of 20 the warehouses with all those signs on the 21 top of the buildings, especially when you 22 drive down from LaGaurdia Airport to 23 Manhattan. It's just all run down and look 24 all the way through, and I don't know that
18 1 it's going to fit in the City of Novi these 2 kinds of signs. I would very much support a 3 marquis sign listing all the businesses so 4 everybody is visible rather than just the 5 names of the businesses. This kind of 6 thing, I'm sorry, cannot support it. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 8 Member Sanghvi. Other Board Members? 9 Member Ghannam? 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just have a couple 11 of questions for you, sir. On one of your 12 photographs it has the names of tenants and 13 so forth. It has capital letters for the 14 first name and then small letters. Was that 15 your intent for each and every tenant to 16 have a capital, for example, Gina Agosta 17 Salon and the rest are smaller case letters? 18 MR. ALAWAN: I think the mock signs 19 don't demonstrate that. 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: Was that the intent? 21 MR. ALAWAN: The intent was for 22 uniformity of size and style and color. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: For each letter? 24 MR. ALAWAN: For each letter and for
19 1 each sign. We didn't want to end up with a 2 gaudy look. That concerns us. That's the 3 style the landlord in terms of maintaining 4 that property, and he has done very well for 5 25 years and still continues with this idea. 6 But, yes, I see what you are saying, the 7 caps are there. And I don't think the 8 mockup shows that. 9 MEMBER GHANNAM: What size letters do 10 they intend on putting up? 11 MR. ALAWAN: It will conform to the 12 size of the sign. In other words, we are 13 limited to the size of that sign and it 14 would conform to that in terms of letters. 15 We tried to demonstrate it on the mockups, 16 but it didn't pick the style that I show in 17 this picture by showing caps. I'm not quite 18 sure, quite frankly, what size it would be, 19 but I think they are 12 inches. 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I have a couple more 21 questions. What is the type of facade 22 that's on the wall that these letters -- 23 MR. ALAWAN: It's a stucco. 24 MEMBER GHANNAM: It is a stucco?
20 1 MR. ALAWAN: It's a stucco. And it's 2 a beige. It might be a little darker beige 3 because those letters they are white. We 4 are still talking to give it a little more 5 definition during the daytime. 6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Have the tenants been 7 complaining about customers of theirs not 8 being able to see them? 9 MR. ALAWAN: It's really been 10 constant. I managed the property for five 11 years. We have an anchor tenant there that 12 has also 50% of that building, that's Gina 13 Agosta. And she has always talked to us 14 about that. 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: Personally, I know at 16 least in the past since I have been here we 17 had a few cases similar to this. One of 18 them that comes to mind was a case that we 19 heard, a property on Beck just north of the 20 freeway. And it was similarly angled 21 perpendicular to Beck Road. And people 22 coming from the north going south could not 23 see anything. I think the owner wanted some 24 type of monument sign. This is a little bit
21 1 different. Personally I see the need for 2 the tenants given this unusual 3 circumstances. And certainly it doesn't 4 seem that the tenants are responsible for 5 the layout or design obviously of the 6 promises since this was done long before 7 they were there. It seems pretty consistent 8 with what we have done before. So, I would 9 be in support of this variance. 10 MR. ALAWAN: Just to comment that we 11 have had restrictions in terms of the out to 12 out size of the sign. We have filled out 13 forms that restrict the outer limits. We 14 haven't really defined the fact whether the 15 first letter would be a cap or not. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: Either way I am sure 17 it would have to comply with City 18 ordinances. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other Board 20 Members? Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: This location is a 22 place where people are going to go, not out 23 looking for it. And with the Pheasant Run 24 Plaza, that's a great draw right there.
22 1 Another unique thing, I live not too 2 far from here and many times I have seen 3 that parking lot completely full. 4 MR. ALAWAN: Lunch time. 5 MEMBER BAUER: I don't see what their 6 problem is. I cannot support it. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 8 Members? Member Shroyer? 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, sir. Just 10 points of clarification here. On the 11 overhead you put up it showed nine different 12 addresses in the building. On the 13 application it list seven addresses, three 14 of which are Agosta. 15 MR. ALAWAN: We have two vacancies 16 right now. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Two vacancies? 18 MR. ALAWAN: Yes. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: So, if new tenants 20 come in what are you going to do for them? 21 MR. ALAWAN: We only have room at this 22 time to consider five. That's our choice as 23 landlords and we are dealing with what we 24 have and that's all we can deal with. And
23 1 we're not projecting beyond that quite 2 frankly. It's not something that we want to 3 see on that side of the building. 4 I would just like to respond to Mr. 5 Bauer if -- 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Sir, unless 7 directly asked a question we'll keep it to 8 the Board's comments. 9 MR. ALAWAN: Oh, I'm sorry. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: That was the only 12 question I had for the Applicant. And 13 obviously I do have concerns about having 14 other businesses going in there and coming 15 back to us at a later time looking for some 16 type of signage for them being fair and 17 consistent. 18 I am also aware of at least three 19 other shopping plaza-type layouts in Novi. 20 One right up the street with a similar 21 layout. If we approve something along this 22 line, my concern is that we will be seeing 23 every one of those shopping centers in here 24 requesting the same type of activity. I
24 1 don't see the practical difficulty being 2 justified and I cannot support it. Thank 3 you. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 5 Member Shroyer. Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: One question for the 7 City. The level of Pheasant Run, the sign 8 that's there, the monument sign and it's 9 level to the street, if it's down or level? 10 MR. BOULARD: I was there at lunch 11 today. I believe the parking lot drops. 12 The level of the parking lot is a 13 significant drop from the road surface. The 14 monument sign, correct me if I am wrong, is 15 up at road level, you know, you can't see it 16 from the road. There is vegetation there. 17 It's not a tall sign, but it is up on the 18 berm, so-to-speak, although it's certainly 19 not raised above the road level. 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: My second question 21 was that taking into consideration of the 22 speed that that would be a practical 23 difficulty, but also that those businesses 24 are a destination. If you could convince me
25 1 more and as previous members have stated 2 that there are other areas in Novi where 3 there is similar buildings, how it is unique 4 for you to have these signs on your north 5 wall? 6 MR. ALAWAN: The question was asked 7 whether it was unique to this property and I 8 also admitted that I don't know how many 9 similar ones, but there certainly has to be 10 other similar conditions. But I think the 11 question was was it unique to this property. 12 I was addressing the way it's laid out that 13 is what causes a problem with this 14 particular building. I can't vouch for 15 other situations in the city. If that's 16 question. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: I am needing more 18 information to be able to consider that it 19 is a unique circumstance that I can support. 20 MR. ALAWAN: Am I responding? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MR. ALAWAN: The marquis is really in 23 a disadvantage area because we are lower 24 than the road a bit and the marquis is
26 1 located in an area that is down at the level 2 of the parking lot. The uniqueness as I 3 have described, it is very difficult to get 4 the kind of exposure for that one building. 5 We have one building which faces Grand River 6 and that building we have more problems with 7 tenants. But I am not dealing with that, 8 that problem, but it's symptomatic of what I 9 am talking about because people want 10 exposure. Everything I hear in this 11 business is we want exposure to the main 12 thoroughfare. Well, we can't give them 13 that. 14 At this particular junction there is 15 an accumulation of several years now when we 16 were being asked to do -- in fact, I think 17 it was two or three years ago I just 18 broached this subject in a casual manner and 19 chose not at that time to make the appeal. 20 But nothing ventured, nothing gained, and so 21 here we are. It's a culmination of these 22 people asking us to do something. 23 So, as a landlord we want to control 24 this as much as you do want control for the
27 1 city, we want to control for our property. 2 We don't want signs up all over the place. 3 They come to us with banner request. We tell 4 them you have to go to the city for that. 5 We don't want banners hanging off of our 6 marquis. It is unique to us and it is a 7 problem and, therefore, I appeal on that 8 basis. As to whether it's unique for the 9 City of Novi, I don't think so, I am sure 10 there are other situations. 11 If what you are saying is if this 12 happens and then other people will want the 13 same treatment, I can't respond except that 14 we have a situation and we have to come to 15 you to get some relief from it. 16 And you haven't heard me -- the 17 question was the parking lot. The parking 18 lot is jammed between 11:30 and 1:00. And 19 if you are ever there in the morning and you 20 are ever there in the afternoon you can go 21 there right now we do have (unintelligible). 22 We think some of it, if not a good portion 23 of it is because we don't get the amount of 24 drive-by coverage that we would like to.
28 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 3 comments at this time, Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: No. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Burke? 6 MEMBER BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 Seeing as this building gets 100% visibility 8 when you are heading west on Grand River and 9 about zero heading east, I sympathize with 10 the need for something there on that 11 northern facade. And you had me right up 12 until you have two vacancies, and you know 13 -- I am in a building that has a lot of 14 vacancies and I am sure that the landlord is 15 going to want to do anything they can do to 16 bring a tenant in, including signage on that 17 north facade. And then you are going to be 18 jamming in another sign. And that's what's 19 going to start to look a little tacky. 20 The way this is laid out right 21 here, I don't object to that. I think it's 22 a little understated. Plain and simple and 23 no flash, no nothing, it looks nice, and I 24 would support that. But I am a little
29 1 concerned about this vacancy and you are 2 going to work as hard as you can to fill the 3 empty spots that you have. And some guy 4 coming in with whatever kind of business is 5 going to want the same signage on the north 6 side and that's what I am thinking. 7 MR. ALAWAN: Thank God we still have 8 an option as landlord to accept tenants. We 9 don't want tattoo shops, tanning places. We 10 have had several this year businesses we 11 really don't want in that plaza. We are 12 being selective because we're not in a 13 crisis and that's why when the question was 14 asked, I passed over those vacancies because 15 that's not part of what I am dealing with 16 here. I am not looking to prospect, in 17 other words, to put a sign up on 18 (unintelligible). These are established 19 businesses that I am getting them for. 20 MEMBER BURKE: I understand that. But 21 I don't want to get into a debate about your 22 practices. Sooner or later there is going 23 to be another tenant, and the next thing you 24 know we're going to have more signs there
30 1 and then it's going to get a little more 2 jumbled and a little more compressed and 3 it's not going to have the same appeal that 4 I like on this. 5 MR. ALAWAN: I certainly don't want to 6 get into a debate. It was already explained 7 to us that this would be restricted to 8 people in that building and would be 9 restricted to what I am appealing for 10 because of the space limitation five. We 11 are certainly not coming back here if you 12 are going to approve this, we are not coming 13 back for more signs. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are there any 15 other Board Member comments tonight? 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll make a motion. 18 In Case number: 08-045, Pheasant Run Plaza, 19 Incorporated, the locations of 38787, 39821, 20 39831, 39853, 39863 and 39877, I move to 21 deny the variance request whereas the 22 Petitioner has not convincingly demonstrated 23 practical difficulty, as item one. 24 Item two, these businesses already
31 1 have existing wall signs on the east 2 elevation of the building and the ordinance 3 does not allow for additional signage. 4 And number three, circumstances of this 5 property are not unique as there are many 6 buildings with this configuration within the 7 city. 8 And item four, the addition of more 9 signage will not provide substantial justice 10 to the other tenants or operating owners on 11 Grand River and other similar properties in 12 the city. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 15 motion by Member Shroyer and a second by 16 Member Bauer. Any other comments by Board 17 Members? 18 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you 19 please call the roll. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?
32 1 MEMBER BURKE: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam? 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: No. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes 11 6-1. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry, at 13 this time your variance request has been 14 denied, sir. 15 16 At this time I would like to call case 17 number -- moving along to the new business 18 portion of the agenda, Case Number: 08-052 19 filed by Jasper Catanzaro representing 20 Weston Estates Homeowners Association at 21 43468 McLean Court. 22 Petitioner is requesting two sign 23 variances for the placement of a 10 foot 24 tall, break-away pole, subdivision
33 1 entranceway sign. The sign measures 14 2 inches by 20 inches and is proposed to be 3 located in a City of Novi right-of-way 4 adjacent to lot 12, 43468 McLean Court. The 5 property is zoned R-4 located west of Novi 6 Road and north of 9 Mile Road. 7 8 If you can please be sworn in by our 9 Board Secretary. 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 11 08-052 do you swear or affirm to tell the 12 truth in this case? 13 MR. CATANZARO: I do. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Could you state 15 your name and address and proceed with your 16 case. 17 MR. CATANZARO: I'm Jasper Catanzaro, 18 43468 McLean Court. Good evening. I am 19 here to represent the Weston Estates 20 Homeowners Association and we are asking for 21 a sign variance for our neighborhood for the 22 following reasons. 23 In the first place to get to our 24 little subdivision there are only 12 homes
34 1 in our subdivision. You have to go through 2 the Mystic Forest Subdivision and there is 3 no distinction when you come in through 4 Mystic Forest to tell you it's Weston 5 Estates. Our homes were built approximately 6 10 years after the first homes were built in 7 Mystic Forest and on average they cost 8 between $100,000 to $200,000 more than 9 Mystic Forest homes. 10 We actually thought that there was 11 going to be a sign placed by the builder, 12 but the homes got sold so quickly and turned 13 over to the association that we never got 14 around to figuring out if they were going to 15 put a sign out there. It never happened. 16 So, anyway, first, we had went through the 17 Mystic Forest Homeowners Association and 18 asked if we could have a sign placed in the 19 boulevard where you come in, and our past 20 president told us they didn't want to do 21 that. They didn't want anything put into 22 the boulevard there. 23 So, then, we decided to pick an area. 24 So, we're looking at there, is the area that
35 1 we are looking at doing this is in the 2 roadway, whatever the boulevard there is 3 about the logical place. And basically what 4 we are looking to do is put in a sign that 5 looks something like you have the package 6 there in front of you. But I have something 7 that's similar in another subdivision and 8 it's going to be something that match our 9 mailbox, something like that. It will match 10 our mailboxes. Our mailboxes are similar to 11 those. 12 What we want to do is, we want to have 13 something to show that this is the Weston 14 Estates Subdivision. We want something that 15 is going to be very tasteful. And basically 16 if you have any suggestions too, we would be 17 open to those. But we would like something 18 to show that this is our subdivision. In 19 fact, I think we are the only subdivision in 20 Novi that does not have any entrance sign. 21 So, I guess that's what that is. 22 I am going to conclude with my little 23 report here. I see maybe I should have been 24 better prepared, but it's my first time
36 1 doing this. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No problem. We 3 will take it easy on you, and if the Board 4 has any questions in the future I'm sure 5 we'll ask. 6 I don't hear any further comments at 7 this time, I'll ask the Secretary to read 8 any correspondence. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 10 08-052, 33 notices were mailed and three 11 responses were returned. And first one is 12 from Matt Gibson on McLean Court. 13 "Please note my comments to case number: 14 08-052 for 43468 McLean. Comments: It's 15 unfortunate the building developer did not 16 plan or leave room for a sign. Weston 17 Estates is unique. The only way in is 18 through Mystic Forest. To put a sign up 19 (unintelligible) no parking sign does not do 20 justice. Also when entering, a sign would 21 be located on your left which does not seem 22 correct. It probably would be more of a 23 hazard to get a variance to put the sign on 24 the wrong side of the street. Also when
37 1 exiting the sign is not visible until you 2 are very close to it because of the street 3 trees which will only be getting larger. 4 Are there signs in Novi which are located on 5 your left when entering? (Unintelligible) 6 small sign on your left I would agree are 7 fine." 8 The the next one is Michael and Susan 9 Sluskar (ph), City of Novi homeowners. 10 "This letter is in response to a Zoning 11 Board of Appeals public hearing notice we 12 received dated 23, September, 2008, 13 regarding the request for two zoning 14 ordinance variances for entrance signage 15 pertaining to Weston Estates. As homeowners 16 of properties adjacent to Weston Estates we 17 strongly disapprove of the placement of any 18 such signage within the subdivision 19 right-of-ways for this purpose. The Weston 20 Estates entrance sign proposal advocates 21 that a doubled sided plaque attached to a 10 22 foot pole be located in the right-of-way 23 adjacent to lot 12, 43468 McLean Court, in 24 Weston Estates. We feel this sign is
38 1 totally unnecessary. Signage to distinguish 2 McLean Court, a/k/a Weston Estates from the 3 Mystic Forest Subdivision should have been 4 addressed when McLean Court was first 5 established. 6 As a Mystic Forest homeowner an 7 emphatically state that the building of 8 Weston Estates has lowered my qualify of 9 life in Novi. As residing on the corner lot 10 I am now subject to a much higher noise and 11 traffic level than before. I would have 12 much preferred the residence of Weston 13 Estates to have their own entrance allowing 14 off Novi Road allowing them all the identity 15 they desire and the ability to erect all the 16 signage that they want. 17 The utilization of the exiting Mystic 18 Forest street for their entrance and exit 19 can be apparent setting apart the Mystic 20 Forest Subdivision. That's just the way it 21 is, just as I have had to make adjustments, 22 so must they. Many we understand the 23 concerns of the homeowners of Weston Estates 24 about real property value, however, we
39 1 strongly object to the placement of such 2 signage as we feel it will negatively 3 detract from the value and enjoyment of our 4 property. We ask that you do not grant the 5 requested variances and uphold the spirit of 6 the existing zoning ordinances. Thank you." 7 The last one is in Thomas and Kimberly 8 Tabush (ph), city of Novi homeowners. 9 "Regarding my comments regarding case 10 number: 08-052 for proposed Weston Court 11 Estates signage variances. It has come to 12 our attention that the homeowners of Weston 13 Court Estates are attempting to gain 14 approval for two zoning ordinance variances 15 for an entrance sign pertaining to their 16 site condo development. As homeowners of 17 property adjacent to Weston Court Estates we 18 strongly disapprove of the placement of any 19 such signage within the subdivision right of 20 way for this purpose. 21 The Weston Court Estates entrance sign 22 proposal advocates that a double sided 23 plaque attached to a 10 foot pole located in 24 the right-of-way adjacent to lot 12 in
40 1 Weston Estates. The proposed location of 2 this plaque, while not within the platted 3 area of Mystic Forest would obstruct views 4 for the homeowners of abutting properties 5 within Mystic Forest. The developer, Mozart 6 Homes was aware of the sentiments of 7 homeowners with property abutting to the 8 Weston Court Estates condominium site and, 9 therefore, did not indicate or have plans to 10 erect an entrance sign within the 11 subdivision right-of-ways in deference to 12 those most directly affected. 13 The homeowners of Weston Court Estates 14 have not approached the homeowners of the 15 abutting properties for concurrence with 16 their proposal. The Weston Court Estates 17 residents think that a lack of a sign 18 implies that the new development is part of 19 the older Mystic Forest development. As the 20 Weston Court Estates needs to develop its 21 own identity as a means to distinguish it 22 from Mystic Forest, that objective should 23 not be pursued at the detriment to the 24 persons to whom real property is assessed
41 1 within 300 feet of the boundary of the 2 proposed signage variance. The residents of 3 West Court Estates should not be permitted 4 to infringe on the rights of Mystic Forest 5 Subdivision resident's abutting property 6 simply because it is more cost effective for 7 them to do so. 8 While we understand the concerns of 9 the homeowners of Weston Court Estate about 10 real property values, we strongly object to 11 the placement of such signage as we feel it 12 will negatively detract from the value and 13 enjoyment of our property. The homeowners 14 of Weston Court Estates should not have line 15 of sight view to the entrance sign as the 16 suggested location is in direct line of 17 sight from our residence. I would have to 18 view the sign everyday while utilizing my 19 kitchen, bathroom, rear patio and bedrooms. 20 I ask each of you which rooms of your house 21 do you use the most? In which rooms do you 22 gather more often when friends and family 23 visit? I purchased a home in the confines 24 of a subdivision so I would not have to view
42 1 signage while enjoying my home. I chose to 2 live in a zone community because the zoning 3 laws are meant to protect the rights. 4 Additionally, I believe that placement 5 of signage in said location will cause a 6 decrease in the value of our home and make 7 it less likely to sell if this zoning 8 variance is permitted. We ask that you do 9 not grant the requested variance and uphold 10 the spirit of the existing zoning ordinance. 11 Thank you." 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam 13 Secretary. At this time I will ask if 14 anyone in the audience wishes to make a 15 comment on this case? If you guys want to 16 come forward and start lining up. 17 If you will be sworn in by our 18 secretary. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: If you can swear or 20 affirm to tell the truth in case number: 21 08-052? 22 MR. TARBUSH: I will. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name 24 and address.
43 1 MR. TARBUSH: Tom Tarbush at 23304 2 Mystic Forest. You have read the letter 3 that we have submitted to the Zoning Board 4 on this also. A couple of points that I 5 would like to reemphasize on this is that 6 when the developer was building this site, 7 he did ask the homeownership about signage 8 into this area and understood that Mystic 9 Forest Homeowners Association was not in 10 favor of signage. 11 Secondly, he had an option to put an 12 entrance off of Novi Road directly and chose 13 not to put the entrance off of Novi Road so 14 that he could have another lot for a house 15 so that he could get more value for his 16 property as well as more tax dollars for the 17 city. So, I am assuming, and I hate to 18 assume that the reason why the variance was 19 given that they didn't have a direct access 20 to a main street was for tax dollar purposes 21 as well as end dollars for his development 22 company. 23 Finally, along with that, the 24 development has been in as I said about five
44 1 years now without any signage. So, if they 2 have gone five years without a sign what's 3 the difference if it goes another 20 years 4 without a sign? When they all purchased the 5 home they all drove through Mystic Forest to 6 look at the property. They all went through 7 Mystic Forest to talk to the developer and 8 they all still purchased their home without 9 a sign saying that they were Weston Court 10 Estates. So, with that being said, what's 11 the need for the sign? People still bought 12 their home. 13 Now, being a person that has lived in 14 five different cities in five different 15 states, personally purchased a number of 16 homes in all of those states, property 17 values are looked at in a one square mile 18 basis. When a bank comes in to assess the 19 property value of your home, they are 20 looking at a one mile square radius of your 21 value of your home. So, that home is going 22 to be valued not only at Mystic Forest, but 23 in every other subdivision that's in a one 24 square mile.
45 1 I am sorry they bought a house that 2 was more expensive than the other homes in 3 the subdivision, but they knew that went 4 they bought the property. Buyer beware. If 5 you want to have a piece of property that's 6 a higher value when you go for resale, you 7 have to understand that 12 homes is not 8 going to bring up the value of 100 homes. 9 There is 100 homes in that subdivision. The 10 weight factor there isn't enough value on 11 those homes to even draw up the value of 12 Mystic Forest homes. 13 Then finally my residence is the 14 only residence that is going to be looking 15 at that sign every day. When I look out my 16 kitchen window pouring a cup of coffee I see 17 that sign. When I sit in my family room and 18 look out the window I see that sign. No one 19 has ever come directly to me and asked me 20 what my opinion was about putting in a sign. 21 The day that they put it in or the weekend 22 that they put in a prototype sign I was out 23 in my yard cutting the grass. There were 24 three or four homeowners from the Weston
46 1 Estates homeowners that were standing around 2 looking at the sign. They all saw me in my 3 yard. They never came to ask me what my 4 opinion was on that. 5 I guess my only other thing is if the 6 Board does approve this sign, I would like 7 at least from a neighborly perspective that 8 they move the sign down so I can't see it 9 out of my window. And, secondly, I would 10 like the City to consider decreasing my 11 property value because every home that's by 12 the entrance of a subdivision has lower 13 property values. My property value is going 14 down, I would like a reduction in my taxes. 15 And then, finally, I would like to 16 have the homeowners association put in a 17 privacy area so that I can't see it, the 18 signage coming out of my home. Every 19 entrance that you go into that has signage 20 for the subdivision there is landscape 21 around the development has provided so that 22 you have privacy and cannot see the signage 23 from your home. That's what I am asking. 24 Thank you.
47 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 2 Before we have other people stepping up for 3 comments let me just clarify a few things. 4 This Board only has a certain amount of 5 jurisdiction. We are only looking at the 6 case before us tonight. Anything regarding 7 the previous development, that really wasn't 8 involving the Zoning Board, so we must focus 9 on the facts presented us tonight. Also, 10 this Zoning Board does not have the 11 authority over taxes. The Board of Review 12 is something that you would have to take 13 that up with if anything were to be decided 14 on tonight. 15 So, once again, we will go back to 16 comments, but I would like them zeroed in on 17 the facts as presented to us in our case 18 tonight. 19 I will ask that you be sworn in by our 20 Secretary and proceed with your comments as 21 well. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 23 08-052 do you swear or affirm to tell the 24 truth?
48 1 MS. HALSKI (ph): I do. My name is 2 Michelle Halski, I live at 43444 McLean 3 Court in the Weston Estates Development. On 4 behalf of my husband and myself, we really 5 would like to have some type of 6 identification sign. We have driven around 7 Novi and all the other subdivisions do have 8 some forms of identification, give you some 9 indication that you are entering a 10 subdivision. 11 As Jasper mentioned, we are basically 12 a court development and you drive from 13 Mystic Forest into this court. When we tell 14 people we are with Weston Estates they are 15 always saying, where is that? We can't even 16 use it for deliveries. When we have friends 17 coming over for holiday parties, you got to 18 turn into Weston Estates. Well, where is 19 that? It's on McLean Court. It kind of 20 doesn't gibe. It doesn't make sense. We 21 want our own form of identity. Our houses 22 are newer and they do look different. It is 23 its own unique little community. It's a 24 little cul-de-sac development.
49 1 The developer, Mozart, they have had 2 three developments now. We were their very 3 first ones, probably a learning experience 4 for them. Originally we had a service road 5 coming off of Novi Road. They closed off 6 that service road. At that service road at 7 a certain point in time there was a sign 8 which led everyone to believe, hey, we have 9 indication that we were a subdivision. When 10 they blocked off that road the sign went 11 away. The road was closed up. Again, that 12 was only one way in and that was through 13 Mystic Forest. 14 Since they have completed two other 15 developments at Brookhaven and Taft Knolls, 16 they do have signage identifying that that's 17 a subdivision. We do have our own 18 homeowners association and we pay our own 19 homeowners dues which are separate and 20 unique from Mystic Forest. We do everything 21 different -- not different, but on our own 22 from Mystic Forest. So, we are just asking 23 for some form of identification. 24 The sign we thought it could be
50 1 something classy, it's not something that's 2 a big monolith, it's not a flashing bright 3 marquis, it's just something unique and 4 classy. As Jasper mentioned we are willing 5 to take suggestions from the Board. We just 6 really want something that kind of shows 7 that we're different because we're not 8 Mystic Forest. If I wanted a house in 9 Mystic Forest I would have bought a house 10 there, but I bought in Weston Estates. 11 That's basically all I have to say. 12 Thanks for your time. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very 14 much. Let me ask other people in the 15 audience if they have comments on tonight's 16 case? Seeing none, all right. 17 You have some more comments? 18 MR. CATANZARO: One final thing, the 19 road that used to go -- that we first bought 20 on, we all knew in the beginning it was 21 going to be a cul-de-sac, but it was called 22 Weston. And then something happened. There 23 was another road in Novi called Weston so 24 they changed it to McLean. So, just like
51 1 Michelle said, people drive in there and you 2 would have to really explain to people how 3 to get to us. 4 We are looking for something, I heard 5 earlier somebody had asked about a unique 6 situation. We feel this is a unique 7 situation and we feel that we're probably 8 the only subdivision that doesn't have some 9 sort of name on it. Thank you very much. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time I 11 will close the public comments for tonight 12 for this case and I will turn it over to the 13 Community Development Department for any 14 comments. 15 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add beyond 16 the issues that have already been raised. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will turn it 18 over to the Board for their discussion 19 tonight. Member Sanghvi starting us off 20 again. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, 22 Mr. Chair. We have a tricky situation here. 23 On the one hand, this is a subdivision, even 24 though it is a small subdivision, and it
52 1 needs an identification. It needs an 2 identification. On the other hand, there is 3 no really good safe and unobtrusive place to 4 put that sign. And I don't know whether it 5 is very practical to put this subdivision 6 given its size on some kind of sign on Novi 7 Road near Mystic -- what's the name of the 8 street they went in? Anyway, Mystic Forest 9 area itself other than right on McLean Court 10 there itself. 11 But, yes, we need to find a way of 12 identifying the subdivision. To me, I know 13 this doesn't meet with the requirement and 14 this is a pole sign. It looks pretty 15 elegant to me. I don't have any problem 16 with the appearance of the sign. My only 17 question is how far are you proposing that 18 sign to be from that fire hydrant? 19 MR. CATANZARO: I think we're looking 20 at about 10 feet. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Is that a 22 safety (unintelligible) in that respect? 23 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi, through 24 the Chair, should the Board be inclined to
53 1 grant the variance in this case this 2 evening, the Petitioner is fully aware, we 3 have discussed that this would be the first 4 step and the next step would be to go to the 5 Engineering Department and work with them. 6 There are several different reviews that 7 will be done through Engineering with DPW 8 and Engineering as well as Landscape 9 Architectural input from our City Planner, 10 Dave Beschke. The variance they are asking 11 for you tonight is the ability to be able to 12 move on to that next step. So, this is just 13 one in a series before there may be a sign 14 erected if those approvals are given as 15 well. 16 The Petitioner has chosen to start 17 with the ZBA and knows that it may be 18 necessary to move forward with a separate 19 application in filing for the engineering 20 for a right-of-way permit. I would assume 21 that that is part of their review with the 22 fire hydrant. The code does address that as 23 well as other public safety considerations. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The safety
54 1 consideration should be considered when you 2 are giving a variance not after giving the 3 variance. 4 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just had a comment, 5 through the Chair. That's a question I was 6 going to ask our counsel. Shouldn't those 7 things be done before this is brought to us? 8 Because shouldn't we know where it can be 9 placed and if it can be placed through these 10 other things that Ms. Working was telling us 11 about? 12 MS. KUDLA: Well, what they are going 13 to go through is a right-of-way permit. 14 They will look at it at that time and if it 15 can't be placed from a safety perspective 16 near that fire hydrant, I would assume at 17 that time they would have to come up with 18 another location. I don't think that this 19 variance is requesting a specific location. 20 It's just requesting a sign. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, the location 22 is no part of it? I mean, we have heard 23 many comments regarding the location and I 24 would be hesitant to approve a blanket
55 1 approval for where we are going to place it 2 if we have no clue where the City 3 Engineering Department is going to state 4 that it should be. 5 MS. KUDLA: Given that there is a 6 question that this is going to be in a 7 public city right-of-way, I don't think that 8 you can give the specific location given 9 that they no matter what are still going to 10 have review it for being in the public 11 right-of-way. So, if it's going to 12 interfere in the public right-of-way with 13 their sewer easement or their water easement 14 or anything else that the City needs to get 15 to in the public right-of-way, they are 16 going to say no to that location. If you 17 say this is where we want it, it's still 18 going to come to that right-of-way permit 19 review. If it's going to obstruct them 20 getting to their sewer or their water main, 21 it's still going to be denied from that 22 perspective no matter where you specifically 23 said you wanted it. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely. And
56 1 I think that's why the question is being 2 brought up. That it would make more sense 3 for the City to decide this is where it's 4 going to be so we can then make a 5 determination based off of comments. 6 MS. KUDLA: So, you are suggesting do 7 the right-of-way permit, first 8 consideration, get a specific location and 9 table this and come back after the 10 right-of-way permit. I think that can be 11 done procedurally. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I don't 13 want to go out on the limb and give 14 permission, grant a variance and then find 15 out that this is not a safe place to put it 16 in the first place. So, I think I like to 17 know more about the safety concern and all 18 other aspects of it before deciding what we 19 are going to decide here at the Zoning Board 20 of Appeals meeting. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Boulard? 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: This is 23 what I feel. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
57 1 Member Sanghvi. 2 MR. BOULARD: I think the point is 3 sort of well taken. The issue is, first of 4 all, if the type of sign is not approved 5 then the location is a moot point. The 6 petitioners, I believe, were given the 7 option to also apply for that right-of-way 8 permit at this time. It's additional cost, 9 and they chose, as I understand at this time 10 to proceed with the variance request 11 approval to install this type of sign in the 12 approximate area. Obviously even if this 13 body were to approve that, if the 14 Engineering Department could not find a safe 15 place, the sign would not be installed and 16 we would be back to square one. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: May I? 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: This is the 20 strangest thing I have ever heard that the 21 location is a moot point. The location is 22 very important as the sign itself where it's 23 going to be and what kind of sign it is 24 going to be. We can't consider going to the
58 1 (unintelligible) once we approve the sign. 2 No, I don't agree with that. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 4 Member Sanghvi. Other Board Members? 5 Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would like to see 7 more information about where I would like 8 the sign, but I agree with Member Sanghvi, 9 that I would like to see more information. 10 I would be willing to table this issue. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14 This isn't totally unique. I for one live 15 in a subdivision within the city that the 16 subdivision is within a subdivision. The 17 other subdivision has two entrances and we 18 have none. You have to go through it to get 19 to ours. In fact, at our last homeowners 20 association meeting we discussed signage. 21 I also look at all the other 22 subdivisions in Novi that are 23 interconnected. They may have an entryway 24 semi, but they are connected by streets that
59 1 are connecting the different subdivisions, 2 and I can see them wanting to have signs at 3 each one of their entrances going both 4 directions. So, there is a possibility of 5 opening up a large hornets nest here. I 6 don't see enough of a hardship at this time 7 to support this variance request. 8 However, I think it's important enough 9 to request that the City Ordinance Review 10 Committee review this possibility and what 11 can be done, what should be done. What can 12 be made available with an Ordinance change 13 that would allow people to come in and 14 request something. What I am looking at 15 there is a standardization that we would 16 have the same requirements for everyone that 17 came forward. So, I am not opposed to 18 signage for that type of situation, I can't 19 support it this evening because I see it 20 being a much bigger item that needs to be 21 addressed and perhaps the city can do 22 something that would allow other 23 subdivisions to come forward as well and be 24 consistent.
60 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other Board 2 Members? Member Burke? 3 MEMBER BURKE: To the Applicant. The 4 picture here shows a sign hanging down and 5 then you showed us one that looked like a no 6 parking sign. Which sign -- is that the 7 sign you were getting, that type of sign? 8 Or is it really going to be this type of 9 sign? 10 MR. CATANZARO: We are looking at what 11 you have there. 12 MEMBER BURKE: About 14 by 20? 13 MR. CATANZARO: Correct. Not that 14 big. 15 MEMBER BURKE: Three inch pole? 16 MR. CATANZARO: That's it. 17 MEMBER BURKE: That's 10 foot off the 18 northern most property? 19 MR. CATANZARO: Correct. 20 MEMBER BURKE: If we decided to table 21 this, through the Chair, I would ask if we 22 can at least, if we voted for this, could we 23 put an amendment on it that says it can't be 24 any closer than a 10 setback from the edge
61 1 of the sub? 2 MS. KUDLA: You can say that, but then 3 if it went through the permit process and 4 they found that that was the only place they 5 would be coming back here asking for an 6 amendment on that. 7 MEMBER BURKE: But it could go farther 8 into the sub? 9 MS. KUDLA: Right. 10 MEMBER BURKE: They could probably 11 find somewhere farther into the sub? 12 MS. KUDLA: Right, right. 13 MEMBER BURKE: It would be just as 14 safe. Well, I do support your sign, but as 15 you have heard, there are some procedural 16 issues I think that needs to be taken care 17 of beforehand. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other Board 19 Members? 20 I think I am going to echo the 21 sentiments of Member Shroyer. I really 22 think that he hit the nail on the head. We 23 have seen more and more cases recently where 24 I believe something like this is the case.
62 1 What happens is something might come before 2 us, maybe something that we don't object to 3 as a Board, but doesn't meet the strict 4 standard that we need to review as part of 5 the appeals process. Is it exceptional and 6 unique to the City of Novi? And as Member 7 Shroyer said, I have seen similar 8 situations. Will it unreasonably prevent or 9 limit the use of the property? In my eyes, 10 no, it won't. So, while I don't object to 11 the sign per se, I don't feel that it meets 12 our standards. And I think that the perfect 13 place for something like this is with the 14 Sign Ordinance Committee on City Council 15 Subcommittee. So, unfortunately at this 16 time I would be forced to deny based on the 17 standards that we have to review in the 18 appeals process based on case law. 19 However, I don't object to the need 20 for identification. I feel your pain in 21 that. So, other Board Members? 22 MEMBER BURKE: Motion to table? Is 23 that what we want? We're going to vote for 24 or against it? Mr. Shroyer asked that we
63 1 get some more input, so I make a motion to 2 table. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Based on what? 4 Whose doing what at this point? What action 5 are we waiting for? 6 MEMBER BURKE: Following Mr. Shroyer's 7 comments about some procedural taking place. 8 Getting some right-of-way permit to 9 ascertain an exact location of the sign. 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The problem 11 we have got here is what comes first, egg or 12 the chicken. And you want a permit first 13 and then look at other things and I would 14 have thought that we need to know all the 15 facts relevant for ourselves including the 16 safety concern and the presence of the fire 17 hydrant before we decide whether this 18 variance should be granted or not. So, we 19 are back to square one. Any amount of 20 tabling is not going to resolve that issue. 21 The fact remains that they are in the 22 subdivision here, there are some homeowners 23 there. They need an identification of some 24 kind that this is a subdivision. And the
64 1 City has given them the permission to build 2 that subdivision. So, it is up to City and 3 it beholds on us and the City to take a 4 decision to tell them one way or the other 5 whether, yes, you can have a sign or you 6 can't have a sign. And if you can have a 7 sign that you make it contingent upon safety 8 approval for the presence of the fire 9 hydrant, et cetera, et cetera. Thank you. 10 MEMBER BAUER: I have one thing to 11 say. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: North on Village Oaks 14 there is a separate area called Fairfield, 15 am I correct? Fairfield Farms? 16 MS. WORKING: I honestly don't know, 17 sir. 18 MEMBER BAUER: It is an extension of 19 Village Oaks but it has a separate name. 20 They have nothing, never had. And that's 21 over 30 years. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is it possible 23 to direct the Engineering Department to 24 review this and give us their recommendation
65 1 without asking them to fully apply for the 2 right-of-way so they can give us some type 3 of determination on the location of the 4 sign? 5 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Ms. Working? 7 MS. WORKING: The Community 8 Development Department did correspond with 9 the Engineering Department about this case 10 and because there are policies that require 11 applications to be filed and fees to be paid 12 for reviews to be done, the Petitioner was 13 given the option and he chose to stick with 14 the ZBA petition in the beginning. Many of 15 you are in homeowner associations, you know 16 the way you have to go back to your 17 homeowners association for approval of 18 expenditure of any kind of funds. So, they 19 thought that since they finally had gotten 20 the agreement for the approval of the $300 21 for their petition, that they would stick 22 with this direction for now and see where it 23 led. 24 Through the Chair, if the Board is so
66 1 inclined maybe knowing what the Petitioner 2 has heard tonight, maybe he would have 3 chosen differently. I can't speak on his 4 behalf. Just so that you know, there has 5 been information exchanged between the 6 Engineering Department and the Community 7 Development Department, but not a review 8 done because that requires an application 9 and a filing fee. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right. But what 11 I am saying is that it's no longer the 12 Applicant asking or requesting the permit -- 13 MS. WORKING: I will have to defer to 14 counsel. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: -- the Zoning 16 Board should have the ability to ask the 17 City to provide services, and that's what 18 we're doing so we can make a correction 19 determination. 20 MS. KUDLA: But to go through a whole 21 what you mean as a right-of-way permit 22 review, I would not recommend stepping away 23 from anything that needs to be done in that 24 review just to limit the review for purposes
67 1 of what you need here today. So, I could 2 not recommend as the City Attorney that it 3 would be safe for the Engineering Department 4 to not go through all of the steps that it 5 needs to go through in order to issue a 6 right-of-way permit. 7 I guess what you are asking is to do a 8 right-of-way permit without any costs for 9 basis of the determination of this Board. I 10 can't recommend anything less than a full 11 right-of-way permit investigation. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You can't 13 recommend anything less even just to find a 14 location? A proposed or possible location? 15 MS. KUDLA: Are you talking about 16 possible locations or a proposed location? 17 Because once you pick your proposed location 18 it's still going to have to then go back to 19 the Engineering Department for the 20 right-of-way permit for that specific 21 location. 22 MEMBER BURKE: As part of what I want 23 to say I would like to retract my motion to 24 table. And nobody second it.
68 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion fails 2 anyway. 3 MEMBER BURKE: Let me ask the 4 Applicant. Would you be willing, if we were 5 to table this, would you be willing to go 6 back to the City to get your right-of-way 7 permit so that we can establish a specific 8 location of the sign? 9 MR. CATANZARO: Yes. 10 MEMBER BURKE: And then come back to 11 the ZBA with a specific location so that we 12 could either make a decision one way or 13 another on that? 14 MR. CATANZARO: Correct. 15 MEMBER BURKE: In that case, fellow 16 commissioners, I motion to table this so the 17 Applicant goes back and gets a right-of-way 18 permit to ascertain the exact location of 19 the requested sign. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second the 21 motion. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion by Member 23 Burke and a second by Member Sanghvi. Any 24 further comment? Ms. Krieger?
69 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: That the two 2 homeowners have a discussion. Can we ask 3 for the parties involved? 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think it 5 wouldn't be a bad idea for the two parties 6 involved to discuss the proposed sign. But 7 I don't feel that it's proper to make that 8 part of the motion. But I think the Board, 9 we always obviously encourage people to talk 10 with their neighbors. 11 MEMBER BAUER: One of other things 12 that I think should be taken into 13 consideration and that is to live up to the 14 ordinance as far as size. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think that's 16 another comment that the Applicant can take 17 under advisement as they review the 18 right-of-way. 19 Any other comments? Member Ghannam? 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I would just like to 21 amend the motion to add that before the 22 Applicant comes back to the ZBA that he gets 23 all applicable approvals such as 24 engineering, landscaping, whatever else is
70 1 required before he comes and get a final 2 decision. Because if one of them is not 3 approved, then he wouldn't be coming back 4 here anyway. It would be a wasted step. 5 So, whatever applicable requirements have to 6 be met prior to coming back to the ZBA. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can City Staff 8 tell us what those would include? 9 MR. BOULARD: Well, generally the 10 right-of-way permit is what's going to be 11 outstanding. Obviously the sign permit. 12 The ability to issue a sign permit would 13 depend on the decision here. But we are in 14 agreement, we will cover all the concerns 15 that you all had. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. So we 17 have a motion. Given that the right-of-way 18 seems to be the only outstanding issue, do 19 you still care to make that as an amendment 20 then? 21 MEMBER GHANNAM: No, if that's the 22 only thing that is being required and all 23 the investigation were to be encompassed in 24 that right-of-way permit, that would be the
71 1 only amendment to get a right-of-way permit. 2 I think it's only fair to the homeowners 3 nearby or whoever is on notice of this that 4 they know where the specific sign, potential 5 sign would go. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Boulard? 7 MR. BOULARD: Once the sign permit is 8 issued there is going be to a building 9 permit. The issue there is the construction 10 of the pole and the size of the footing. 11 Those are things that aren't going to have 12 any visual affect. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Fox, did you 14 have you something to add? 15 MR. FOX: Through the Chair, for a 16 little bit of clarification. Based on what I 17 am reading in here, for what we are actually 18 trying to do, the Ordinance allows them to 19 have an entranceway sign, but it's required 20 to be a ground sign. What they are asking 21 for is a pole sign which is too tall to be 22 considered an entryway sign and it's mounted 23 on a pole. Those are the two things that 24 they are asking for a variance for. The
72 1 location is always taken care of through the 2 right-of-way permit. They are allowed to 3 have a sign. They can put the sign in there 4 as long as it is in the right-of-way 5 somewhere and the right-of-way department 6 approves it. But the fact that it's a pole 7 mounted sign and that it's more than five 8 feet tall is the reason it's here. That's 9 the main reason that we're sitting here. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: But under City 11 Staff's comments it says that the entrance 12 does not have access to a location for a 13 ground sign as required by Ordinance. 14 MS. WORKING: I believe that to be a 15 correct statement. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am going based 17 off of that comment. 18 MS. WORKING: Most entranceway signs 19 are located in a boulevard or on a parcel of 20 land. I believe, and maybe the Petitioner 21 can clarify that this pole sign is proposed 22 to be put on a homeowner's parcel of land, 23 not like a homeowner's association owned 24 piece of property.
73 1 MR. FOX: And it is going to be less 2 than 10 feet from the edge of the 3 right-of-way which is one of the 4 requirements. It's got to be in the 5 right-of-way, but less than 10 feet from the 6 border of the right-of-way, which this would 7 not be in this particular case. But as far 8 as back and forth in that right-of-way, up 9 and down the street, I mean, other than the 10 fact that there is an issue with the hydrant 11 there, that needs to be resolved. I just 12 want to be clear on as far as what the main 13 reason was for it to be here. It's not the 14 fact that they are not allowed to have a 15 sign at all, it's just the type of sign they 16 are asking for. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think that 18 still given the circumstances regarding 19 exceptional unique piece of property that we 20 have, I would still like to see the location 21 I think is going to be important. 22 Are there any other comments? 23 MS. WORKING: One more through the 24 Chair if you all don't mind. I also believe
74 1 that conversation has occurred between the 2 Engineering Department and the Petitioner 3 over a period of time. And at one time it 4 was recommended by the City Engineering 5 Department that they look at a break-away 6 pole type sign rather than a ground sign and 7 that's how they have come to this point 8 today after discussing it with the other 9 homeowners in their cul-de-sac community. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And I think that 11 might be important information for the 12 Applicant to submit the next time this comes 13 before us. 14 There is a motion by Member Burke and 15 a second by Member Sanghvi. No amendments 16 were added. So, I will ask Ms. Working to 17 call the roll. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: Actually, I had an 19 amendment that they go through the process 20 of the Engineering Department regarding the 21 right-of-way to find out where the location 22 is. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's why we 24 are tabling it to begin with.
75 1 MEMBER BURKE: That's part of the 2 motion. 3 MS. WORKING: Motion to table? 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Burke? 6 MEMBER BURKE: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Motion to table. Member 8 Sanghvi? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam? 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Motion to table passes 21 7-1. 22 MR. CATANZARO: Thank you very much. 23 MS. WORKING: Oh, 7-0, I apologize. 24
76 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time we 2 call the last case number under New 3 Business. Case Number: 08-053 filed Pat 4 Cavanaugh of Shannon Development LLC for 5 Stoneridge Office Park located on parcel 6 50-22-10-452-001. The Applicant is 7 requesting one sign variance for continued 8 placement of an 8 foot 6 inch by 7 foot 6 9 inch, sixty-four square foot construction 10 identification sign originally approved on 11 12-8-06 located on the stated parcel. The 12 project received its first C of O on August 13 5, 2008. The property is zoned OS-1 and is 14 located west of Novi Road and north of 15 Twelve Mile Road. 16 You are the Petitioner? 17 MR. CAVANAUGH: I'm Shawn (ph) 18 Cavanaugh for Shannon Development. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, would 20 you raise your hand and be sworn in by our 21 Secretary. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or 23 affirm in this case: 08-053 to tell the 24 truth in this case?
77 1 MR. CAVANAUGH: I do. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name 3 and address and proceed. 4 MR. CAVANAUGH: Shawn Cavanaugh, 640 5 North Old Woodward in Birmingham. We are 6 respectfully requesting a six month 7 extension to the sign permit for the 8 following reasons. The sign is a key 9 reference point for identifying the project 10 which still has a substantial amount of 11 construction to be completed. We have three 12 buildings completed. It's a seven building 13 project. One of which the TCO was awarded 14 to. 15 We have also, as an office condominium 16 project we seek to have project and owner 17 identification signage. We are in the 18 process of submitting a plan for a permanent 19 monument sign. We have met with Alan 20 Amolsch. Apparently the sign is presenting 21 its own set of challenges, so we will 22 apparently need to come before the Zoning 23 Board to address those issues as well. We 24 expect to that have submitted within 30
78 1 days. So, in conclusion we are respectfully 2 requesting an extension. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. I 4 will pass the file to the Secretary and ask 5 her to read any correspondence for us 6 tonight. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case: 8 08-053, 121 notices were mailed and zero 9 responses. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone 11 in the audience that wishes to make a 12 comment on this case, please come forward. 13 You will be sworn in by our Secretary, 14 please. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 16 08-053 do you swear or affirm to tell the 17 truth in this case? 18 MR. HERTZBERG (ph): Yes. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name 20 and address. 21 MR. HERTZBERG: My name is Michael 22 Hertzberg. We are the recipients of 23 documents of August 5th. We have no issue 24 with the sign remaining in place as long as
79 1 it's not used as a crutch to further delay 2 in getting a monument sign at the site. We 3 are a medical office in there. We have 4 patients every day complaining they cannot 5 find us because there is no sign on the 6 road. 7 The sign that's there obviously is a 8 nice size sign, however, it's kind of off to 9 the side of the property and it's not very 10 visible from the road. We have concern 11 about emergency crews finding us in case of 12 an emergency. 13 There was a real estate sign. I 14 believe it's 3 by 5 foot, if I am not 15 mistaken, just past the entry driveway to 16 the property. It's very difficult to see. 17 The writing is small because there is a lot 18 of writing on it. It does have our address 19 on that for our one building, but, again, it 20 is difficult to see unless you know what you 21 to look for you don't see it. We have been 22 there for just over two months now and it's 23 something that we are dealing with on a 24 daily basis. We have no issue with the
80 1 construction sign staying, we just want 2 something added to it, so I would ask that 3 if you guys do approve it, to put a time 4 mandate on it when we could get a monument 5 sign. If that's something that possibly you 6 guys can do. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I don't think 8 it's in our purview to mandate a monument 9 sign, we can place a time limit, and we 10 often do with these cases on this sign, 11 which might further that cause. Correct me 12 if I'm wrong? 13 MS. KUDLA: That's correct. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Any 15 other comments from anyone in the audience? 16 Seeing none, I will close that portion and 17 turn it over to the Community Development 18 Department. Mr. Boulard? 19 MR. BOULARD: I just have one question 20 for the Petitioner for the sake of the 21 record. The existing sign doesn't appear to 22 located on your plan. Can you tell us 23 roughly where it is along the frontage? 24 MR. CAVANAUGH: It's to the east side
81 1 of the site. That's the picture, I guess. 2 Yours is a little better than mine. 3 MR. BOULARD: Somewhere behind 4 Building G, is that roughly where it is? 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can put 6 it on the overhead for us too. 7 MR. BOULARD: I am just trying to 8 match that picture to the site. 9 MR. CAVANAUGH: It's to the eastern 10 boarder of the site where the stone wall is. 11 It would be behind where you see Building D. 12 MR. BOULARD: Building B is the 13 building that's straight ahead when you come 14 in the drive? 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: B or G? 16 MR. CAVANAUGH: G is the first 17 building when you come in the drive. The 18 building is to be constructed which would be 19 to the right of the driveway. 20 MS. WORKING: Could you just show the 21 Board on this item where it is? 22 MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you. This is 23 approximately where the sign is. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. Any
82 1 other comments from our friends over on the 2 other end of the table there? 3 Seeing none, I will turn it over for 4 Board discussion. Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: You are asking for six 6 months? 7 MR. CAVANAUGH: We chose six months 8 based on the thought that a month is really 9 actually only like 20 days. We don't intend 10 to take six months. 11 MEMBER BAUER: I was going to say. 12 You are going to be working in the 13 wintertime? 14 MR. CAVANAUGH: No, sir. We wanted to 15 give ourselves some room. We intend to 16 submit the proposal for the monument sign 17 within 30 days. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Question? There 19 were two violations for continued use of 20 this sign; is that correct? 21 MS. WORKING: That is correct. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And a citation? 23 MS. WORKING: That is correct. The 24 Petitioner's case has been postponed pending
83 1 the ZBA case tonight. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That got sent 3 back from the -- 4 MS. WORKING: He will still have to go 5 back and prove that he did go to the Board 6 to remedy the situation. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And one other 8 piece of clarification. I did my math and 9 it was a little under 64 square feet which 10 is allowed under construction identification 11 signs. Right now we are looking at this 12 because of the City code; is that correct? 13 Is that my understanding? 14 MS. WORKING: Correct. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I personally 16 don't see issues with a six month extension 17 at this time. I will entertain a motion if 18 someone cares to make it or have any other 19 comments. Member Shroyer? 20 MEMBER SHROYER: I have a comment and 21 I can go ahead and make a motion. First 22 comment I know that you had indicated that 23 the permanent sign is going to be problem. 24 I am going to encourage the Applicant to put
84 1 together the request for the permit to try 2 your hardest to stay within City Ordinance 3 requirements. 4 MR. CAVANAUGH: We certainly are. 5 That's why we are assessing it with Mr. 6 Amolsch. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: He's the expert so 8 heed his warnings. 9 In case number: 08-053 Stoneridge 10 Office Center, move to approve the variance 11 requested. The unique circumstances of the 12 development of this project, that's item 13 one. Item two, this situation does not 14 result from conditions that exist generally 15 in the city or that are self created. 16 Three, due to the current economy, the 17 failure to grant relief would unreasonably 18 prevent or limit the use of the property. 19 And, four, to grant relief will not result 20 in the use of the structure that's 21 incompatible with or unreasonably interferes 22 with adjacent and surrounding properties. 23 Conditions of approval include the 24 variance shall be for a maximum of six
85 1 months and the submittal of a sign package 2 for permanent approval be submitted to the 3 City within, you said 30 days, I am going to 4 give you 45 days. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Might I suggest 7 a friendly amendment that the inclusion of 8 economic factors, we also took into 9 consideration that this sign is of a 10 temporary nature combined with that as 11 opposed to permanent signs for economic 12 reasons. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Certainly. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The seconder 15 concurs? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. Any 18 other comments? Seeing none, Ms. Working, 19 will you please call the roll for the motion 20 made by Member Shroyer and seconded by 21 Member Bauer. 22 MS. WORKING: Thank you. Member 23 Shroyer? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
86 1 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Burke? 4 MEMBER BURKE: Yep. 5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam? 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes 14 7-0. 15 MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance 17 was granted with some conditions. So, make 18 sure you meet those and call the City with 19 any questions and best of luck to you guys. 20 21 At this time we will go ahead and 22 discuss the Rules of Procedure which were 23 given to us. I will turn it over to the 24 City Attorney to make any comments that she
87 1 wishes to make at this time. 2 MS. KUDLA: I don't have anything 3 substantively additional to add. I just 4 made the minor changes that we discussed at 5 the last meeting which was to indicate that 6 there would be one alternate member and that 7 we would continue in the same manner that we 8 have been. And that alternate member can 9 participate in Board consideration up until 10 the point of voting. That isn't the case 11 when they not sitting in for a regular 12 member. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do any Board 14 Members have any comments? Member Sanghvi? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, 16 Mr. Chair. I just would like to thank all 17 the parties concerned in coming to a very 18 nice document to look at and hopefully we 19 will be approving tonight. 20 And if there is not going to be a lot 21 of discussion I would like to make a motion 22 to approve the rules as presented and 23 corrected, hoping that it will iron out a 24 lot of the little kinks and help us run the
88 1 Board very smoothly from now on. Thank you. 2 MEMBER GHANNAM: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 4 There is a second by Member Ghannam at this 5 time. 6 I will ask for any other comments. 7 Member Shroyer? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: I have several that I 9 think bear discussion. One is just a 10 clerical or typographical error I believe on 11 Article 5 under Motions, Section 5.1, page 12 6. Instead of it being Section 5.1, I 13 believe that should be Section 5.0 because 14 that is the first one. 15 Also, on that page right above that 16 4.1, Vacancy in Office, the last sentence it 17 says: From any regular member of the Board 18 other than the alternate member. I think we 19 ought to include and the PC representative 20 as well. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will turn it 22 over to the attorney for response. My 23 understanding would be that this document 24 kind of refers to the Planning Commission
89 1 member as a second member, as its own 2 separate member by himself or herself as in, 3 in and of itself as opposed to -- he is not 4 a regular member basically to me. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: He's a 6 special member. 7 MEMBER BURKE: Don't hold anything 8 back either. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You are even 10 higher on the pedestal, Mr. Burke. 11 MS. KUDLA: Technically he would be a 12 regular member, though we haven't made any 13 really distinction between his position and 14 how that would be any way different than 15 other regular members, which it really only 16 differs in that he has to recuse himself on 17 matters that he has voted on from Planning 18 Commission perspective. But generally he 19 would be a regular member. 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: But can he be an 21 officer? 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think more or 23 less the Board has talked about it and we 24 don't want that person to be.
90 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Correct. So, you 2 wouldn't include it? 3 MS. KUDLA: I don't see why he 4 couldn't be, but it would be up to you 5 whether or not. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think the 7 general consensus when we met in the back 8 room is that we don't think it would be 9 appropriate given the short-term nature. 10 Usually they are a newer member to the 11 Board, et cetera, so we just felt that this 12 should be people that are just appointed. 13 Not to mention the fact that they have a 14 busy schedule with the three meetings a 15 month that they unfortunately have to bear 16 as well. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Not 18 withstanding their exceptional ability and 19 expertise, we have decided to give them a 20 way out of it. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Well, Member 22 Wrobel hadn't. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Our officer elections 24 are in February by Ordinance, and they
91 1 select their candidate in June. It doesn't 2 really match up. Which brings me back to 3 Section 2 under Membership. Do we want to 4 leave it the saying, the Board consist of 5 seven regular members and one alternate 6 member approved by Council? And it goes on 7 and says, one member shall also be a member 8 of the Planning Commission. Or would we 9 want to change that to six regular members, 10 and then also, an additional member shall be 11 selected to comply with the commission? 12 MS. KUDLA: Well, I think when you go 13 to the Zoning Enabling Act, you are going to 14 have to designate this person from the 15 Planning Commission as a regular member. 16 That's how they are designated under the 17 Zoning Enabling Act. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, we leave 19 Section 2, but we still want the change to 20 the other section, the vacancy. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: And the last comment 22 that I have here, I believe, let me double 23 check, is on page 4 where we talk about 2.3, 24 Alternate Member. And it talks about the
92 1 second to the last sentence, however, the 2 alternate member may vote only in the 3 absence or recusal of a regular member. 4 That is fine then because that means if a 5 Planning Commission member is not present he 6 could act on behalf of the Planning 7 Commission member as well, correct? So 8 nothing needs to be done there either? 9 MS. KUDLA: Nothing needs to be done 10 there. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Those are the only 12 comments that I have, Mr. Chair. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, we have an 14 suggested amendment to Section 5.1 to make 15 it 5.0. And we also have Section 4.1 16 stating that no Planning Commission member 17 shall serve in the absence. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We would 19 consider it to be an elected position. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right. 21 MS. KUDLA: Would you like me to make 22 that a Section 4.2? 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Whatever you 24 feel is appropriate we'll take your advice.
93 1 MS. KUDLA: Okay. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you fine 3 with that? 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. We should be 5 able to approve it just based on that? 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 9 comments? So, we have a motion and a 10 second. And now Member Shroyer has 11 suggested amendments, do you -- 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: And we 13 accept the amendments. 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll second that 15 also. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seconder accepts 17 as well. Any further discussion? Seeing 18 none, Ms. Working, will you please call the 19 roll on the approval of the Rules of 20 Procedure as amended. 21 MS. WORKING: It's with pleasure that 22 I ask for this vote. 23 Member Sanghvi? 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
94 1 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam? 2 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Most assuredly. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Burke? 10 MEMBER BURKE: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: An emphatic yes. 13 Aye as well. 14 MS. WORKING: It gives me great 15 pleasure to say that the Rules of Procedure 16 are approved 7-0. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It was a long 18 road but I appreciate everyone's effort on 19 this. I think that we all put in a lot of 20 work even including previous members, Member 21 Canup helped us out, Linda, myself. Then 22 the subcommittee started doing it, then we 23 all got together. It was a great 24 compromise, good discussions that we had in
95 1 special meetings. I certainly appreciate 2 everybody's hard work on this. 3 And with that seeing no other business 4 before the Zoning Board I will entertain a 5 motion to adjourn. 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So moved. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say 9 aye? 10 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any opposed? 12 Seeing none, we are adjourned. 13 (The meeting was adjourned at 14 8:34 p.m.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
96 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify 5 that I have recorded stenographically the 6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 7 above-entitled matter at the time and place 8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further 9 certify that the foregoing transcript, 10 consisting of (78) typewritten pages, is a 11 true and correct transcript of my said 12 stenographic notes. 13 14 15 16 17 18 _____________________________ 19 Mona L. Talton, 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter 21 22 October 23, 2008 23 24
|