|
View Agenda for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and Testimony taken in the matter of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: Jennifer L. Wall, Certified Shorthand Reporter 1 Novi, Michigan. 2 Tuesday, April 12, 2012 3 7:00 p.m. 4 ** ** ** 5 CHARIMAN IBE: Good evening and 6 welcome to the April 10, 2012 Novi Zoning 7 Board of Appeals meeting. 8 Please let's rise for the 9 Pledge of Allegiance. Member Skelcy, will 10 you lead us. 11 (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) 12 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. 13 Ms. Pawlowski, will you please call the roll, 14 please. 15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon? 16 MR. GEDEON: Here. 17 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick? 18 MR. GERBLICK: Here. 19 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam? 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: Here. 21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe? 22 CHARIMAN IBE: Present. 23 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 24 MS. KRIEGER: Here. 25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?
4 1 MR. SANGHVI: Here. 2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 3 MS. SKELCY: Here. 4 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Well, we 5 do have a quorum tonight, looks like we have 6 all members present for the meeting. 7 I will go over the rules of 8 conduct for this meeting, that way those in 9 the audience and those sitting at home or 10 watching at home will be familiar with what 11 is going on. 12 You can find the agenda for 13 today's meeting in the back of the chambers, 14 and please remember to turn off all 15 telephones and pagers at this time. 16 Individual applicants may take 17 five minutes, when called upon to present 18 their case, and groups will take up to ten 19 minutes to address the Board. 20 Now, the Zoning Board of 21 Appeals is a hearing Board empowered by the 22 City of Novi Charter to hear appeals, second 23 variances of application of the Novi Zoning 24 Ordinances. 25 It takes a vote of least four
5 1 members to approve a variance. And a vote of 2 the majority of members present to deny the 3 variance. 4 Tonight we have a full board, 5 as I said earlier. We will look forward to 6 having very interesting conversations today. 7 I think next thing on the 8 agenda is the approval of the agenda. 9 Do we have any corrections or 10 modifications to the agenda? 11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: No. 12 CHARIMAN IBE: None. Seeing none, 13 do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? 14 MR. SANGHVI: So moved. 15 MS. SKELCY: Second. 16 CHARIMAN IBE: The agenda is 17 approved for the meeting. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: Take a voice vote. 19 CHARIMAN IBE: Voice vote. Thank 20 you very much. At this point, we will take a 21 voice vote to approve our agenda. All in 22 favor say aye. 23 THE BOARD: Aye. 24 CHARIMAN IBE: All against say nay. 25 Seeing none, the agenda is
6 1 approved. 2 Now, as for the minutes from 3 the last meeting, is there any changes or 4 corrections to the minutes from the March 5 meeting? 6 Yes, Ms. Saarela? 7 MS. SAARELA: Okay. I only have 8 one change, and that is for the March 6th 9 meeting on page nine, line six, it should be 10 PUD agreement instead of IUD. Thank you. 11 CHARIMAN IBE: So noted. 12 Mr. Boulard, you have a comment? 13 MR. BOULARD: Yes, on the 14 February 14th minutes beginning on page 15, 15 Mr. Brow is Mr. Breault, B-r-e-a-u-l-t. 16 And on the March minutes, there 17 is two dates listed on the cover, I believe 18 that should just be 2012. Thank you. 19 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. So 20 noted. 21 Do we have any additional 22 corrections to the minutes? 23 Seeing none, can I hear -- if 24 all in favor of approving the minutes. Can I 25 get an aye to that?
7 1 MR. SANGHVI: Can I make a motion 2 to approve minutes for both the months in one 3 motion? 4 MS. SAARELA: Yes. 5 CHARIMAN IBE: Very well. 6 MR. SANGHVI: Let's approve the 7 minutes for both February and March. 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll second that. 9 CHARIMAN IBE: The motion of the 10 minutes and seconded, all those in favor of 11 approving the minutes as proposed by 12 Member Sanghvi, please say aye. 13 THE BOARD: Aye. 14 CHARIMAN IBE: All those opposed? 15 Seeing none, the minutes for 16 February and March have been approved. 17 At this point, we will open it 18 up for public remarks from anyone in the 19 audience regarding any matter noted on the 20 agenda today. 21 Seeing none, we will move to 22 our first case on the agenda for today. 23 That will be Case No. 1, 24 12-009, 2022 Austin. Will the applicant 25 please come forward to the microphone.
8 1 Please state your name and address. 2 MR. HADDEN: My name is Ian Hadden. 3 My address is 2420 Rollindale (ph), 4 West Bloomfield, Michigan. 5 CHARIMAN IBE: Are you an attorney? 6 MR. HADDEN: No. 7 CHARIMAN IBE: Please raise your 8 right hand and have our secretary swear you 9 in. 10 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-009 11 for 2022 Austin Road, do you swear to tell 12 the truth in this case? 13 MR. HADDEN: Yes. 14 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you. 15 CHARIMAN IBE: Please go ahead, 16 sir. 17 MR. HADDEN: I have come to ask for 18 a variance tonight. I was here about a year 19 ago asking for the same variance. 20 Unfortunately, by the time I 21 had the plans drawn up and got the quotes 22 from the contractors and got all the numbers 23 in, the plans deem enough value in to the 24 property to warrant that level of work. 25 In the time that has passed, I
9 1 have revised my plans and got the financing 2 all lined up, so I have come to ask for that 3 same variance again this year. 4 Basically what I'm looking to 5 do is at the back of the property there is an 6 existing sunporch. What I'd like to do is 7 take that sunporch off and build the kitchen 8 area out and square off the back of the 9 property so it's not the box sticking out on 10 the back. 11 CHARIMAN IBE: Okay. Is that all 12 the presentation you wish to make at this 13 time? 14 MR. HADDEN: Unless anyone has any 15 questions? 16 CHARIMAN IBE: Very well. Now, is 17 there anyone in the audience who would like 18 to make a comment regarding this particular 19 case, please raise your hand. 20 Seeing none, I will ask the 21 City, does anyone have any information 22 regarding this particular application? 23 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 24 MS. SAARELA: We have nothing to 25 add either.
10 1 CHARIMAN IBE: Very well. At this 2 point we will open it up to the Board for 3 discussions. 4 Anyone like to have any 5 questions or comments regarding this 6 particular case? Yes, Member Sanghvi. 7 MR. SANGHVI: We do the 8 correspondence before we come to that. 9 CHARIMAN IBE: Very well. Thank 10 you, Member Sanghvi, for pointing that out. 11 Will the secretary please read 12 any correspondence. 13 MS. KRIEGER: There were 47 mails, 14 six returns, no responses. 15 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Madam 16 Secretary. 17 At this time, we would like to 18 open it up to the -- this particular case to 19 the members. Member Sanghvi, go ahead. 20 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I went 21 and visited your place. And I don't see any 22 problem, from my personal point of view, on 23 the Board, in approving your request. 24 Nothing (inaudible), so I have no problem. 25 Thank you.
11 1 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Member 2 Sanghvi. 3 Do we have any other -- 4 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just have a 5 question for the City. Is there any 6 difference between this particular request 7 and the June of 2010 request? 8 MR. BOULARD: The file is there. I 9 can take a look through the first one. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: In the meantime, 11 while he is looking, sir, do you know if 12 there is any difference between the request 13 in June of 2010 and now? 14 MR. HADDEN: No, it's the same 15 request. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: It's the same 17 request. When do you plan to start 18 construction? 19 MR. HADDEN: The contractor is 20 lined up and we are looking to begin as soon 21 as we get full permission from the City, 22 hoping for middle of April, towards the end 23 of April. 24 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have any 25 problem with your request, sir, either, so I
12 1 would be in support of it. 2 CHARIMAN IBE: Do we have any 3 additional comments or questions? 4 Seeing none, I will entertain a 5 motion if anyone is willing to make a motion? 6 Member Skelcy. 7 MS. SKELCY: In the Case of 12-009, 8 located at 2022 Austin, I move that we grant 9 the variance to allow a reduction in the 10 10-foot minimum side yard setback to 1.25 11 feet, and a reduction in the required 25 foot 12 minimum aggregate side setback to 2.25 feet, 13 for an addition to the existing residence. 14 The reason is that there are 15 unique circumstances or physical conditions 16 of the property, such as narrowness, 17 shallowness, shape, water, topography or 18 similar physical conditions, and the need for 19 the variance is not due to the applicant's 20 personal or economic difficulty. 21 As we all know, this house is 22 located on Shellwood Lake, and because of 23 that, that is the uniqueness that we are 24 talking about. 25 The need is not self-created.
13 1 There is strict compliance with regulations 2 governing -- the strict compliance with 3 regulations governing area setback frontage, 4 height, bulk, density or other dimensional 5 requirements, will unreasonably prevent the 6 property owner from using the property for a 7 permitted purpose, if he is not granted the 8 variance. 9 The requested variance is the 10 minimum variance necessary to do substantial 11 justice to the applicant as well as to other 12 property owners in the district. 13 The requested variance will not 14 cause an adverse impact on surrounding 15 property, property values or the use and 16 enjoyment of the property in the neighborhood 17 or zoning district. In fact, it should 18 increase the value because it's an 19 improvement to the home, so it should 20 increase property values in the area as well 21 as the property value of the home. 22 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 23 CHARIMAN IBE: Very well. Seeing a 24 motion and a second, Ms. Pawlowski, can you 25 please call the roll.
14 1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon? 2 MR. GEDEON: Yes. 3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick? 4 MR. GERBLICK: Yes. 5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam? 6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe? 8 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes. 9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 10 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 12 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 14 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven 16 to zero. 17 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you very much. 18 Good luck. 19 The second case on the agenda 20 Case No. 12-010, The Heights of Novi. Is the 21 applicant here? 22 MR. BARBAS: Yes. 23 CHARIMAN IBE: Please go to the 24 podium, please go ahead and state your name, 25 your address, and if you are not an attorney,
15 1 please raise your right hand and be sworn in 2 by the secretary. 3 MR. BARBAS: My name is 4 Andrew Barbas. My address is 100 Galleria 5 Office Center, Southfield, Michigan. And I 6 am an attorney. 7 CHARIMAN IBE: Go ahead. 8 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-010 -- 9 MR. SANGHVI: You don't need it. I 10 don't know why they allow it, but -- 11 CHARIMAN IBE: Please go ahead. 12 MR. BARBAS: I said that last time. 13 I am here today actually in 14 conjunction with the variance that was 15 requested last fall regarding the sign. 16 Last fall, I believe it was, we 17 requested a sign variance that was granted in 18 enabling us to move the location of the sign 19 for the community outside the existing 20 right-of-way, but inside the proposed 21 right-of-way. 22 Unfortunately, at the time, and 23 this was I think somewhat of the left hand, 24 right hand, we had in the original design two 25 flagpoles that are set much farther back, and
16 1 totally not visible, to the point that I 2 think I was the only person that knew that 3 the flagpoles were there. 4 We had them moved up into the 5 sign area, as the whole part of the 6 coordinated redesign. And it was not noted 7 by our landscape contractor, planner that 8 these poles were there. I mean, it was on 9 the plan, it just wasn't highlighted to the 10 planning department, and the planning 11 department also did not notice that the poles 12 were being moved up. As a result, they were 13 not included in the variance request. 14 So this is sort of like a 15 request to modify our original variance 16 request to move the flagpoles up where the 17 sign is now. 18 The flagpoles actually are just 19 outside of the proposed the right-of-way, so 20 they are not even inside the proposed 21 right-of-way, but they aren't within about 22 two or three of the requirements of the 23 ordinances. 24 One was a little confusing for 25 which that one I have a sheet that I handed
17 1 the City. I don't know if that's been passed 2 around. 3 One of the requirements is that 4 a flagpole, presumably if it falls, will not 5 fall into the street, which makes sense. 6 And so what I did is I blew up 7 a part the design that you have on the 8 another thing and showed where the front 9 flagpole -- there are two flagpoles. This is 10 the one closest to the street. The height of 11 the flagpole would be if it were to fall 12 down. 13 The reason we're requesting a 14 30 foot flagpole, I can't remember whether 15 the actual height might be permitted -- I 16 forgot what the exact height would be, but 17 the reason are requesting a 30-foot, again to 18 make sure there isn't confusion, is that are 19 three flagpoles back there right now. And so 20 we are moving two that are 30 feet up, and we 21 would rather just move the flagpoles than to 22 have to replace flagpoles with whatever 23 3-foot, 4-foot shorter flagpole. So that was 24 the second. 25 And the third variance, if I
18 1 remember correctly, is that there is a 2 requirement that the flagpoles be set back a 3 certain part -- a certain portion back into 4 the property, so that they're not closer to 5 the road than the building, and that really, 6 from what the way I would read it, was more 7 designed for a commercial building, like an 8 auto dealership or something, so they're not 9 jammed all the way up in the front. 10 Here, you know, with 11 multi-apartment development, everything is 12 set back, and to put it half way back makes 13 it totally invisible, which is what they are 14 right now, is totally invisible. 15 So those are really the 16 requests. And the reason for the variances 17 basically are a repetitive of what I said 18 last time for the signs. 19 And I will be happy to go 20 through them, but it's pretty much -- I tried 21 to put it in the application. 22 If you have any questions, 23 that's the shortest easiest way for me to 24 handle that. 25 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, sir. Is
19 1 there anyone in the audience who would like 2 to make a comment regarding this particular 3 case at this time? 4 Seeing none, I'm going to ask 5 the secretary now to read any correspondence 6 regarding this case. 7 MS. KRIEGER: In Case. No. 12-010, 8 The Heights of Novi, 140 were mailed and 9 seven returned, no responses. 10 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. 11 Does the City have any comments 12 concerning this particular case? 13 MS. SAARELA: No. 14 MR. BARBAS: I had a copy of one 15 response that was favorable. 16 CHARIMAN IBE: One moment. 17 MR. BOULARD: I just wanted to 18 point out that because there is actually two 19 parts to this. One deals with the zoning 20 ordinance, and so the standards for granting 21 a dimensional variance are included. 22 Also the sizes of the flags, 23 the sign ordinance actually allows the 24 maximum of two flags in addition to the state 25 and national flags. A maximum of two
20 1 commercial flags up to 24 square feet, and 2 that's why the standards for the sign 3 variance are included also for -- should the 4 Board decide to act favorably on the request 5 for the 50 square foot single commercial 6 sign. Thank you. 7 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, 8 Mr. Boulard. At this time, I would like to 9 open it up to the Board for discussions. 10 Anyone? Yes, Member Sanghvi? 11 MR. SANGHVI: Can you ask him to 12 put this on the overhead so everybody can see 13 what we are looking at. 14 CHARIMAN IBE: Please. Can you put 15 that on. Thank you. 16 MR. SANGHVI: Can you kindly 17 explain the location of the flagpole now. 18 MR. BARBAS: I'm sorry? 19 MR. SANGHVI: Explain the location 20 of the flagpole. 21 MR. BARBAS: The proposed flagpoles 22 are to be here and to be here (indicating). 23 This would be the height of the flagpoles, so 24 were the flagpole fall over, which it 25 shouldn't, would the flagpole fall it, it
21 1 would still not reach out to the street line, 2 which if you saw the larger version of the 3 whole property, you would see the street line 4 is much, much farther down here. So the 5 flagpole would not fall into the street in 6 any way whatsoever. 7 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. You are 8 proposing two flagpoles? 9 MR. BARBAS: Yes, one American and 10 one commercial. 11 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I have no 12 further questions. 13 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Member 14 Sanghvi. Do we have any other questions or 15 comments concerning this particular case? 16 Yes, Member Skelcy? 17 MS. SKELCY: What will be on the 18 commercial flag? 19 MR. BARBAS: A logo of our company, 20 management company. Basically it looks like 21 a Y, York. See if I can pull out a business 22 card. 23 It's basically going to look 24 like a cool looking Y, sort of gold like -- I 25 can get you a symbol. It's basically just a
22 1 logo that says York under it. 2 MS. SKELCY: Why exactly do you 3 need a 50 foot one instead of what the 4 ordinance allows, which is 24 square foot? 5 MR. BARBAS: Because we are 6 really -- when we do them, we can -- they're 7 the same height flag, they're the same size 8 pole, and they just look coordinated better. 9 We are not putting up two commercial flags, 10 we are just putting up one. And 50 foot is 11 not a large flag, based the height of the 12 flagpole and where it is located. 13 MS. SKELCY: What size will the 14 American flag be? 15 MR. BARBAS: Same thing. 16 MS. SKELCY: I don't understand why 17 you need to have a commercial flagpole. I 18 mean, what's -- 19 MR. BARBAS: It's something that we 20 have always done and wanted to do. It looks 21 better than just having the one flag there. 22 It looks nice. This isn't a 23 flag that says, hey, rent, buy or something 24 like that. It is something that just 25 esthetically looks good, and we feel adds to
23 1 the property. 2 It was suggested when the 3 design was put together, it was suggested 4 that the two poles look better than one, one 5 flagpole, just sometimes looks like what the 6 heck is it doing here. 7 Right now there are three up 8 there. 9 MS. SKELCY: Why do you have to 10 have the flagpoles right in the middle there, 11 why can't they be further back in the 12 property? 13 MR. BARBAS: Because further back 14 is way farther back. It's like the flagpoles 15 that are there now, it's like, why are there 16 flagpoles there. They're like in the middle 17 of nothing. It's not a coordinated design. 18 MS. SKELCY: Those are all the 19 questions I have. Thank you. 20 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Member 21 Skelcy. Do we have any other comments or 22 questions regarding this? 23 Just while we are -- 24 Ms. Saarela, do we have to take this as one 25 motion or do we have to separate them?
24 1 MS. SAARELA: Since they're two 2 different standards, I would prefer you 3 separate them to different motions. 4 If you have to name off facts 5 related to both standards, it would be hard 6 run them together in one. 7 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Seeing 8 no other comments or questions, anyone want 9 to attempt to make a motion on this? 10 Yes, Member Gedeon, thank you. 11 MR. GEDEON: Somebody else has to 12 take the one though. 13 In Case 12-010, The Heights of 14 Novi, I move to request the first variance to 15 allow two 30-foot flagpoles within four feet 16 and 10 feet respectively of the proposed 17 right-of-way. 18 In this situation, the variance 19 is appropriate because there are unique 20 circumstances to the property, such as the 21 fact that the property is a multi-building 22 development, there is no -- necessarily, no 23 primary building to measure the distance from 24 the setback, or from the right-of-way. 25 The need is not self-created.
25 1 It's in strict compliance with the 2 regulations, it would unreasonably prevent 3 the property owner from using the property 4 for a permitted purpose. 5 Additionally, the requested 6 variance is the minimum variance necessary to 7 do substantial justice, and the requested 8 variance will not cause an adverse impact on 9 the surrounding properties, or property 10 values, and it should be noted that there 11 were no objections in the record from the 12 neighboring properties owners. 13 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: Even though it's 15 been moved and seconded, I would like to add 16 a condition. I remember when this case came 17 before last year, there was issues about the 18 right-of-way. 19 If we can condition the 20 approval that indicates that the property 21 owner would have to remove or relocate those 22 poles if the proposed right-of-way was ever 23 converted to a public right-of-way. 24 MR. BARBAS: These are outside of 25 the proposed right-of-way.
26 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand. But 2 if it's ever converted to a public 3 right-of-way, the question would be -- 4 MR. BARBAS: Where the poles are 5 located? 6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Where they will be 7 located. 8 MR. BARBAS: They're behind the 9 proposed right-of-way. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Well, I 11 understand. So you wouldn't have any 12 problem, but I'm not going to argue with you. 13 I'm just saying that the condition, that if 14 some reason the -- they are -- this would be 15 part of the proposed right-of-way, that the 16 property owner would be required to remove 17 them. 18 MR. GEDEON: I am not opposed to 19 accepting that amendment, but I think the 20 variance was based on the proposed 21 right-of-way, not the current right-of-way. 22 But to the extent that it's 23 necessary, you know, I think we should add 24 that to the motion. 25 MS. KRIEGER: I'm acceptable to
27 1 that. 2 CHARIMAN IBE: Seeing a motion and 3 a second, is there any further discussion 4 regarding the motion? 5 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, 6 will you please call the roll. 7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon? 8 MR. GEDEON: Yes. 9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick? 10 MR. GERBLICK: Yes. 11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam? 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe? 14 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes. 15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 16 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 17 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 18 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 19 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 20 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven 22 to zero. 23 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Again, 24 on the second part of the application, do I 25 see -- anyone that is willing to make a
28 1 motion regarding the second part of the 2 application? Member Krieger. 3 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-010, 4 the Heights of Novi, the applicant's request 5 for a 30 foot flagpole within four feet and 6 10 feet respectively of the proposed 7 right-of-way line, where 37.5 feet is 8 required and allowed to display a 50 square 9 foot commercial flag, as explained by the 10 petitioner, and the American flag, as he 11 stated, for the two flags. 12 And that in the future if there 13 was a right-of-way needing to be 14 reconsidered, that they would be moved as 15 necessary, and that the standard for granting 16 a sign variance, their request is based upon 17 circumstances and features that are 18 exceptional and unique to this property. Its 19 set back a little bit for these apartments, 20 as you're coming around the corner, and not a 21 result from the conditions that exist 22 generally in the City, and not self-created, 23 they were that way. 24 The failure to grant relief 25 will unreasonably prevent or limit the use of
29 1 the property and result in substantially more 2 than a mere inconvenience or inability to 3 attain a higher economic or financial return, 4 that the flags will enhance the use of the 5 property. 6 The grant of relief will not 7 result in a use of structure that is 8 incompatible or unreasonably interferes with 9 adjacent or surrounding properties, will 10 result in substantial justice being done to 11 both the applicant and adjacent and 12 surrounding properties. And is not 13 inconsistent with the spirit of the 14 ordinance. 15 MS. SAARELA: The only thing I 16 would note is that you had added a condition 17 there about the proposed right-0f-way being 18 changed to the public right-of-way, I believe 19 that condition was related to the other 20 variance, which is the pole, not the size of 21 the flag. 22 So that condition would not be 23 related to the size of the flag, will not 24 need to be attached to this motion. 25 MS. KRIEGER: So I will withdraw
30 1 that part of it. 2 CHARIMAN IBE: Did I get a second? 3 MR. SANGHVI: Second. 4 CHARIMAN IBE: Seeing a motion -- 5 go ahead. 6 MR. GEDEON: I apologize if I 7 missed this, but I wanted to confirm that one 8 of the conditions was that -- one of the 9 rationales for granting the motion was that 10 we are allowing a 50 square foot commercial 11 flag because the applicant has only requested 12 a single additional flag above the beyond the 13 American flag. 14 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 15 CHARIMAN IBE: Well, seeing a 16 motion and a second, do we have any further 17 discussion regarding this motion? 18 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski 19 please call the roll. 20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon? 21 MR. GEDEON: Yes. 22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick? 23 MR. GERBLICK: Yes. 24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam? 25 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
31 1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe? 2 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes. 3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 4 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 6 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 8 MS. SKELCY: No. 9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes six 10 to one. 11 CHARIMAN IBE: Congratulations. 12 MR. BARBAS: Thank you, ladies and 13 gentlemen. 14 CHARIMAN IBE: We will move onto 15 our next case, the agenda. Case. No. 12-011, 16 Collex Collision. Is the applicant here? 17 Please come to the podium. State your name 18 and address. 19 Of course, we know Mr. Quinn is 20 an attorney, so there is no need to swear him 21 in. 22 MR. QUINN: Good evening, everyone. 23 Matthew Quinn appearing on behalf of Collex 24 Collision Experts. 25 Beth, congratulations, hope
32 1 everything goes well. 2 MS. SAARELA: Thanks. 3 MR. QUINN: I am here tonight to 4 talk about a long-time business residence in 5 Novi, Collex Collision. 6 They have been in Novi for 18 7 years. This is their second location where 8 they currently are located. 9 This case has a little history 10 because it's gone on for a while. It's been 11 here in front of you for other matters, other 12 than what we are here for tonight. 13 I can tell you that the sign 14 matters have been resolved, and it's ready to 15 move forward with the construction of the new 16 building that we are going to talk about this 17 evening. 18 Now, Collex Collision is, of 19 course, a collision shop. And in Novi, they 20 purchased, I'm going to show you on the 21 overhead here. They purchased the site. 22 This is the old view of the site. This is 23 Novi Road, north and south. The railroad 24 tracks are on their east side, and to the 25 south of them is another heavy industry use.
33 1 This is zoned I2. This is the outline of 2 what was their site. This the flat site 3 before the bridge. 4 The bridge now stops a little 5 more than two-thirds through their property. 6 We will see that on another plan. 7 They are going to leave the 8 existing building, which is just under 8,000 9 square feet, and they will build another 10 structure. 11 One of the reasons I wanted you 12 to take a look at that is so that you can see 13 how much useable parking space there is on 14 the Novi frontage here, as compared to what 15 they are left with now with the construction 16 of the bridge. 17 Let me show you. 18 Now, again, Novi Road is over 19 here (indicating). This dark line shows 20 where the bridge ends, the bridge abutment. 21 This is the driveway area. They are now 22 subject to a 12 foot slope from Novi Road to 23 their parking surface. All of this area is 24 detention basin and all nicely landscaped. 25 The area of movement around the
34 1 site for fire department purposes, is 2 referenced in this drawing. This is the main 3 entrance, and the fire department has 4 360 degrees around the new building, which is 5 approximately 20,000 square feet. This is 6 the emergency access site -- I mean, 7 entrance, I'm sorry, through here, that 8 they're maintaining. 9 Now, let's talk about the 10 variances that are necessary. The first 11 three are relatively simple because they 12 pertain to the site plan, what have you. 13 First requirement is that we 14 have a 3-foot berm along Novi Road. Well, 15 the staff supports the waiver of the 3-foot 16 berm because we have a 12-foot drop that goes 17 down into the site, a berm which served no 18 purpose. 19 The next request is for the 20 seven parking spaces right here (indicating). 21 All right. The 100-foot setback is right 22 through the middle of this driveway. 23 This is the main entrance to 24 the building right here (indicating), this is 25 where the offices are (indicating). We have
35 1 seven parking spots here, including three 2 handicapped. We have another handicapped and 3 two parking spots here (indicating). 4 Of course, as we all know, when 5 you go to a business, especially for the 6 first time, you would like to get as close as 7 possible to the main entranceway, and that is 8 why the parking is proposed here 9 (indicating). 10 Of course, you also know the 11 last thing we are asking for is a parking 12 variance, and so these seven additional 13 parking spots right here become important. 14 One of the reasons that the 15 ordinance doesn't allow parking spots in the 16 front yard and above the setback line, so 17 that they can not be readily seen from the 18 roadway. 19 Well, again, these are 12 feet 20 below the roadway surface, if your coming 21 north to south, you can't even see into the 22 property down here, you're coming south to 23 north, the landscaping -- let me show you 24 this picture again. 25 All this heavy landscaping in
36 1 this area will prohibit someone from seeing 2 down into the site. 3 So the purpose of that setback 4 for parking really doesn't apply here because 5 you can't see those seven parking spaces 6 anyway. 7 The third variance dealing with 8 the site is on this interior side setback on 9 the south. The ordinance requires 20 feet. 10 We had provided five feet -- hang on. We had 11 provided five feet, and we can go -- I'm 12 sorry, we had provided three feet, three or 13 five, which one? It's five. We can now to 14 go seven. We can move back these parking 15 spots, make them a little smaller, so we can 16 go so -- we now only need a 13-foot variance 17 on this side. 18 Now, what we have done on this 19 side is build a retaining wall to assist 20 that. That extra three feet will allow us to 21 put some additional plantings in there. And 22 as you saw on the first picture, what are we 23 buffering, but another I2 without outdoor 24 storage directly adjacent to us. 25 If you could see this closer,
37 1 they have outdoor storage right on the 2 property line, so the purpose of this buffer 3 is not doing anyone any good, matter of fact, 4 they should be buffering to us instead of the 5 other way around. 6 So that variance is a minor 7 one. And it will still allow us to maintain 8 the emergency circulation that's necessary 9 for the fire trucks to go through. 10 Now let's talk about the last 11 item, which is the parking variance. The 12 Novi ordinance, as I mentioned to the 13 Planning Commission, is very onerous, and in 14 our opinion, out of touch with other 15 communities in the area. 16 For this building, let me show 17 you the inside of our building. We have in 18 the main building, there is 33 work spaces. 19 These are all the vehicles that can fit. 20 This area is vehicles that would be 21 working -- worked on. This is a four vehicle 22 wash area. This is a paint booth that can 23 fit three to four vehicles at a time. This 24 is the take-in area that can fit two or three 25 vehicles.
38 1 Inside we have room, adding all 2 these up, for 33 spaces, 33 spaces. And 3 we're required to have 300 parking spaces. 4 I asked the owner at the 5 Planning Commission, have -- would you like 6 to be able to fill up the 300 parking spaces 7 with damaged automobiles, even though you can 8 only take in 33 at a time. He said, 9 certainly, but it has never happened. I will 10 give you some comparisons in just a minute. 11 Also under, in your ordinance 12 the definition in your ordinance for useable 13 floor space, when it talks about automobile 14 service, it says, shall be considered -- 15 floor space to be used for servicing 16 vehicles, in automobile service establishment 17 shall be considered as usable floor space for 18 servicing vehicles. 19 These areas here are the areas 20 that we use for servicing the vehicles. 21 Out of our whole building, it's 22 only 10,191 feet in the main building. The 23 ordinance says in a typical building, you do 24 not include hallways, aisleways, well, that's 25 what all of this area is through here
39 1 (indicating). All of the areas without the 2 vehicles are nothing more than an aisleway 3 large enough so these vehicles can back in 4 and out with relative ease or be pushed in 5 and out with relative ease. 6 So we think there is ambiguity 7 to the ordinance, that is, as it applies to 8 an automobile dealership -- I mean, an 9 automobile repair facility. 10 Also in that ordinance excludes 11 the storage, the processing of merchandise, 12 hallways, utilities and other things -- all 13 right -- that are excluded from computation. 14 So we take a little disbelief 15 that these areas should be included. 16 Basically, what I think the staff did is took 17 the entire building and calculated on that, 18 instead of what is the useable floor space. 19 Now, let's talk a bit about the 20 other ordinances that I mentioned. 21 When I was sitting in my 22 office, I just took out my little computer in 23 the other cities that I deal with, I was able 24 to look pretty quickly at what other cities 25 do for the same type of uses.
40 1 City of Royal Oak, for the same 2 square footage, we have 93 parking spaces 3 required. 93. In the City of South Lyon, we 4 would be required to have 104. In the City 5 of Wixom, we would be required to have 104. 6 So 93, 104, 104 and Novi 300 7 parking spaces. 8 Now, my client has 11 other 9 locations in the metropolitan area. And 10 here's a list, and it was part of your 11 information. 12 Eleven locations, the most 13 parking required in Clinton Township for a 14 38,000 square foot building, which is bigger 15 than our two buildings of 30,000 feet, has a 16 requirement of 117 parking spaces. 17 In Sterling Heights, a 27,000 18 square foot building, very similar to ours, 19 96 parking spaces exist. 20 And you can see, all the rest 21 are significantly lower than those, too, 22 again compared as to Novi's requirement of 23 300 parking spaces. 24 All right. So what would be 25 the next comparison. Let's look at the two
41 1 other collision shops in Novi. One is 2 Classic Collision, and this is part of an 3 automotive strip mall on Novi Road. 4 It's a five tenant building has 5 16,585 square foot total on three acres. The 6 body shop is 8,000 square feet. For the 7 entire center they have 173 parking spaces, 8 compared to our requirement of 300. 9 The other is Keyford Collision. 10 This is their area here (indicating). They 11 have towing with outside storage, and they 12 were required to have 85 parking spaces, 13 compared to our requirement of 300. And they 14 actually have a towing outside storage area. 15 I think the point I'm trying to 16 make is, is that, we're very satisfied that 17 our parking spaces of 140 will never, ever be 18 filled. 19 Because as you look at the 11 20 other facilities we have, the owner reports 21 to me, there has never been a time when all 22 of these parking spaces have ever been filled 23 on a site. 24 So your requirement is 300. We 25 have 140 on site, and we have the capability
42 1 of having 33 in our main building, which is 2 173 total. And we have the capability of 3 another 12 in the other building, so we have 4 that many for inside. 5 So we are asking for the 6 variance. Now, from that 300, to 140, all 7 right. That variance request is what we are 8 looking for. 9 And other reasons for this, you 10 look at your criteria. Does this affect 11 anything around us? No. Is it self-created? 12 Not really. We had more additional parking 13 had we not had this 12-foot drop and this 14 bridge put onto our property. 15 This project was planned well 16 before the bridge project and it just 17 happened to come and be constructed at the 18 same time. 19 So our business can operate 20 with what we have. There is no reason 21 whatsoever for this onerous requirement of 22 300 parking spaces for the type of business 23 that we have, when we can only fit 33 24 vehicles in the building at one time. 25 Now, why that size building?
43 1 Given the history of this business in Novi, 2 this business site is developed and sized for 3 the Novi business. Who knows the business 4 better than the owners of this business, and 5 the 11 others that they have. 6 They know what their 7 requirements are, they have built this and 8 designed this site, given what's left over 9 after the bridge, to work exactly the way 10 it's supposed to work, so they can continue 11 to be in Novi for another 18 years or longer, 12 they're going to be employing 20 people here 13 at this site, and this is a good business. 14 Novi is one of the better shops of the 12 all 15 together. 16 So they would like to stay 17 here. This is the site they own. They took 18 a very unusual site, I think you would even 19 agree, way back when they took it, it was a 20 delapidated site, they brought it up to Novi 21 standards, they want to keep the standards 22 great and this is the project that will allow 23 them to do so. 24 So thank you, I have the staff 25 here. I have the in-house attorney. I have
44 1 the engineers. I have the builder. I have 2 any questions you might want to know, we have 3 got the answers for you. Thank you. 4 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Quinn. 5 Is there anybody in the public who would like 6 to make a comment regarding this particular 7 case, please raise your hand. 8 Seeing none, I will ask Madam 9 Secretary to please read any correspondence. 10 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-011, 11 Collex Collision, 14 were mailed, three 12 returns, zero responses. 13 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Now, 14 let's go the City for any comments they may 15 have on this particular case? 16 MS. SAARELA: I don't have any 17 comments. 18 MR. BOULARD: Just a couple points. 19 Attached to your packet is a report from 20 Kristin Kapelanski, who is here, if you have 21 any questions. 22 Also I'd like to mention that 23 the planning staff has undertaken to examine 24 the current parking requirements. Initial 25 indications indicate it may be appropriate
45 1 for reductions in some cases, but those are 2 properly handled through the Planning 3 Commission and the public hearing process, 4 and City Council, so obviously this project 5 is well ahead of those. 6 Other than that, if there is 7 any questions, we will be happy to answer to 8 the best of our ability. 9 MEMBER GHANNAM: We are the only 10 ones that can grant the variance regarding 11 the parking, correct? 12 MR. BOULARD: Currently, yes. 13 CHARIMAN IBE: Very well. Thank 14 you, Mr. Boulard. 15 I will now, before turning this 16 over to the Board for further discussion, 17 perhaps have the planning person, would like 18 to take the podium, assuming there are any 19 questions from the Board. Thank you, 20 Mr. Quinn. 21 MR. QUINN: Certainly. 22 CHARIMAN IBE: At this time I will 23 open up this particular case for discussion 24 for the Board. 25 Anyone like to take --
46 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just have a 2 question for Ms. Kapelanski. Regarding this 3 parking issue okay. He put on to me some 4 very persuasive evidence about the number of 5 parking spaces required and so forth. He's 6 taking the actual spaces where the cars were 7 being parked inside the building, is that an 8 accurate analysis as to how calculate how 9 many parking spaces are needed or you just 10 take gross square footage of the building, 11 how does Novi -- 12 MS. KAPELANSKI: Well, the zoning 13 ordinance includes -- I have a graphic to 14 show useable floor area. This is shown 15 something similar to an auto repair shop. 16 It's a little hard to see. 17 This is the sales and service 18 area, this is shown as utilities, storage and 19 the bathroom. 20 This is what would be 21 calculated as useable floor area 22 (indicating). It's all of this sales and 23 service area. 24 It doesn't include space 25 between aisles. There is a reference in the
47 1 useable floor area definition to hallways. 2 We have always interpreted that to be 3 hallways inside of an office space, where you 4 would consider a traditional hallway, not 5 necessarily a parking aisle. 6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Everything that is 7 considered the shop area, you're considering 8 as part of the square footage that calculates 9 the parking requirements? 10 MS. KAPELANSKI: That's correct. 11 MEMBER GHANNAM: Does the Planning 12 Commission or any of the city departments, to 13 your knowledge, do they have any huge 14 reserves on the parking that they are 15 proposing given the size of the building? 16 MS. KAPELANSKI: Do they have any 17 reservations? 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: Well, I mean, what 19 are their problems? I mean, if a variance is 20 granted, I mean, what would be the problems 21 in granting that? That's what I want to 22 know. 23 MS. KAPELANSKI: I think from the 24 staff's perspective, our concern would be 25 that the variance that they are requesting is
48 1 quite large, more than 50 percent of the 2 parking that would be required. 3 We had talked with the 4 applicant about this since the 5 pre-application meeting, which is the first 6 step in the development process and expressed 7 our concerns. 8 We would be willing to consider 9 additional information from staff's 10 perspectives, from the applicant, maybe a 11 parking study, or some sort of a traffic 12 analysis of some of their other shops 13 indicating whether or not all the parking 14 spaces are usually full, some hard data about 15 how many parking spaces are full in a 16 similarly sized shop. 17 The Planning Commission talked 18 about this briefly as part of the site plan 19 review. They did not have very many 20 reservations about the parking deficiency, 21 but they did express that they were going to 22 leave that up to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do you know -- I 24 mean, I'm going to ask Mr. Quinn also, do you 25 know how many parking sports were eliminated
49 1 because of reconstruction of Novi Road and 2 ramp and so forth, was it a whole lot or no? 3 MS. KAPELANSKI: We didn't see a 4 site plan for what was planned prior to the 5 reconstruction or the planned location of the 6 bridge, so I'm not sure how many would have 7 originally been proposed. 8 They are adding quite a bit of 9 additional square footage to the site, so I 10 don't think the parking requirements were 11 previously as high. 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do you know how 13 much land was condemned or taken from them as 14 part of this whole reconstruction project? 15 MS. KAPELANSKI: That I can't 16 answer. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have any 18 other questions for you. Thank you. 19 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Member 20 Gedeon? 21 MR. GEDEON: One further question 22 for the planning representative. 23 Member Ghannam started to this 24 address this, but what exactly is the harm 25 from the City's perspective of having fewer
50 1 parking spots? There is no street parking 2 allowed on Novi Road. I mean, if for some 3 reason all the parking spaces were full, 4 wouldn't the only harm fall on the business 5 owner, not on the community? 6 MS. KAPELANSKI: I think our 7 concern would be -- I can see that 8 perspective. I think that would definitely 9 be the majority of the cases, it would lead 10 to problems for the business. But we 11 wouldn't want to see a situation where cars 12 were parked, for example, in front of the 13 emergency access aisles, or were blocking the 14 parking aisle because all those spaces were 15 full, and there was some sort of an emergency 16 on the site, for some reason the fire truck 17 couldn't circulate around the site. That 18 would be our main concern. 19 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Member 20 Skelcy? 21 MS. SKELCY: I have a question for 22 you. What was the rationale behind creating 23 so many parking spaces for that particular 24 square footage? Because when I look at the 25 other city numbers that Mr. Quinn presented,
51 1 I felt like our ours unusually high. What 2 was the rationale? 3 MS. KAPELANSKI: You know, I think 4 that particular parking standard has been in 5 place for quite a while. We have kind of 6 speculated around the department what might 7 have been the original thought process when 8 that was put in place. 9 I think it might have been 10 intended to be a gas station, service type 11 station, where you might have a smaller 12 service area, a smaller parking count that 13 would be required, people coming in and out 14 for quick oil changes or tire changes. I 15 think that might have been the original 16 rationale. 17 MS. SKELCY: Thank you. 18 CHARIMAN IBE: I have a question 19 for you. When considering the number of 20 spaces that needs be located, do we take 21 it -- do you take into consideration the use 22 of the business, the type of business that 23 actually exists in the location? 24 For example, from Mr. Quinn 25 eloquently and persuasively, you know, put
52 1 forward, this is an automobile place. So I 2 don't assume -- it's not a shopping center 3 where you expect so many people to gather at 4 one time. 5 When making allocations for 6 parking spaces, is the use of the business 7 considered? 8 MS. KAPELANSKI: Well, the use of 9 the business does dictate what the number of 10 parking spaces required are. It's listed in 11 the zoning ordinance, the parking 12 requirements by use, so we do go by that. 13 Our concern with tailoring 14 parking requirements to specific businesses 15 would be ten or 20 years from now, we have a 16 built site, a new business comes in and their 17 use or business type is slightly different, 18 and now they need more parking spaces. 19 So I think that would be the 20 concern with tailoring parking requirements 21 to businesses. 22 But the uses are what's used to 23 determine the number of parking spaces needed 24 on the site. 25 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Do we
53 1 have any further questions for the Planning 2 Commission? Yes, Member Krieger. 3 MS. KRIEGER: I guess a question 4 and a comment. I can understand 300 parking 5 space for a dealership that's trying to sell 6 cars, but for an industrial place to have 300 7 spaces, it's like, okay, I'm going to have 8 300 wrecked cars parked here, I don't 9 understand that. 10 In the 30 years that I have 11 gone up and down Novi Road, the other 12 business that's the car repair shop, they 13 have those other extra spaces, and I have 14 never seen it full to capacity, not knowing 15 the details or specifics or statistics 16 regarding that, so in this case, I would 17 understand their unique circumstances. 18 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Member 19 Krieger. 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just have a 21 question from a planning perspective. Has 22 the size of the building been approved 23 already? 24 MS. KAPELANSKI: The Planning 25 Commission has approved the site plan and the
54 1 size of the building, subject to these 2 variances being approved. 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand. I 4 don't have any other questions for you. 5 Thank you. 6 CHARIMAN IBE: We have any further 7 discussion regarding this case? 8 MR. SANGHVI: I have no questions 9 for her. 10 CHARIMAN IBE: Do you have any 11 questions for Mr. Quinn? 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 13 CHARIMAN IBE: Mr. Quinn, please 14 come to the podium. Thank you, sir. 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: The first 16 building, the existing building, what is that 17 going to be used for? 18 MR. QUINN: Same thing. It will be 19 continued to be used as a collision shop 20 also. 21 MEMBER GHANNAM: How many spaces 22 does that building -- I mean, how many 23 vehicles can it -- 24 MR. QUINN: That's only 7,800 25 square feet now. It holds about I think, 12.
55 1 I'm getting confirmation. About 12. 2 MEMBER GHANNAM: This business 3 plans to service cars, vehicles in both 4 buildings? 5 MR. QUINN: Yes. Collision shop, 6 both places. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: Did it ever 8 consider, you know, demolishing one and just 9 having one building for everything? 10 MR. QUINN: Yes. That was 11 considered, except they just put in a 12 considerable amount of money into the old 13 building to refurbish it when they bought 14 this site. So with that investment, it just 15 was not wise to do -- tear that building down 16 or do anything else. And they can use the 17 square footage to make the business viable. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: You said this 19 business will have approximately 20 some 20 employees? 21 MR. QUINN: Correct. 22 MEMBER GHANNAM: When both 23 buildings are built? 24 MR. QUINN: Yes. 25 MEMBER GHANNAM: Or the second
56 1 building is built. 2 On average, does your client 3 have any kind of idea or perspective on how 4 many vehicles will be parked on an average 5 day, minimum and maximum outside? 6 MR. QUINN: You know, if there is 7 33 inside he'd be more than happy to have 33 8 outside. Honestly. 9 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand. But 10 is there any evidence or anything that you 11 can present us, to say, look, on an average 12 day, even if we are full, maximum here is how 13 much -- we offer you 140 -- 14 MR. QUINN: 140 is what we need. 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: But I understand 16 the vehicles inside, and 140 outside, but do 17 you have any estimate as to, if you're full, 18 maximum capacity, how many vehicles do you 19 expect on the outside? 20 MR. QUINN: Mr. Gagliano told me 21 before, they would never would have half of 22 those 140 filled. 23 And when you look at the other 24 buildings they have, and the numbers that 25 they have there, if you took half of -- of
57 1 course, it's not quite fair because they're 2 different square footages, but the most at 3 38,000 square feet is 117 total. And they 4 have never had that close to being filled. 5 So the 140 is a nice number, 6 we'll mover the snow out from 140, but we 7 will never have 140 close to being filled. 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: With the 9 reconstruction of Novi Road, how many spaces 10 do you think that would be -- 11 MR. QUINN: That has never been 12 brought before, so I don't know. 13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do you know how 14 much land was condemned from them, an 15 approximate size? 16 MR. QUINN: We don't have that 17 number available. I wasn't the attorney. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand. I 19 mean, personally, I remember when your client 20 came in several times regarding the sign 21 issues, the pole sign, the ground sign and 22 all the other signs and all that, I 23 understand this is an unusual case because of 24 the condemnation, because of the widening of 25 Novi Road, and you know, all that going on,
58 1 and I have been up and down that area many, 2 many times, even since the sign issues, and I 3 understand that difficulty your client is 4 having. 5 I have no problems with the 6 requests being made. You know, I'm glad to 7 hear your explanation, personally, on the 8 parking issue. 9 To me, it's a closer call on 10 the parking and the reducing of the parking, 11 but in my opinion, since the City has already 12 approved the site plan, minus any variances 13 you may need, I think under the circumstances 14 given your client's -- didn't ask to be 15 condemned -- didn't ask for their plan to be 16 taken, so forth, I think it's appropriate 17 under the circumstances to grant that one 18 also. 19 I would be in favor is the 20 whole point of supporting all of your 21 requests. 22 MR. QUINN: Thank you. 23 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Member 24 Skelcy? 25 MS. SKELCY: Mr. Quinn, could they
59 1 build more parking spots? I mean, that 2 really hasn't been addressed. Is there room 3 to build more parking spots or not? 4 MR. QUINN: No. We would have to 5 go into the green belt areas, take more of 6 the green space to build more parking spaces. 7 And then we would be deficient in the green 8 space areas, so no. 9 MS. SKELCY: Thank you. 10 CHARIMAN IBE: Do we have any 11 further conversation? Member Sanghvi? 12 MR. SANGHVI: When this is fully 13 operational, Mr. Quinn, how many employees 14 are you expecting in there? 15 MR. QUINN: There will be 20. When 16 they're built out, there will be 20. 17 MR. SANGHVI: When it gets fully 18 operational. How many are there now? 19 MR. QUINN: Mr. Gagliano wasn't 20 able to be here tonight, so we don't know 21 that exact answer. 22 MR. SANGHVI: The reason why I'm 23 asking, all these people are going to park 24 there, when they come to work? 25 MR. QUINN: Yes, the ordinance does
60 1 account a vehicle per employee, so there is 2 20 employee spaces. 3 MR. SANGHVI: So we can take 20 out 4 of their calculation? 5 MR. QUINN: Yes. They will be the 6 ones that park way in the back. 7 MR. SANGHVI: They are still -- the 8 parking is supposed to remain the same 9 number? 10 MR. QUINN: That's correct. 11 MR. SANGHVI: I personally have no 12 problem with your other request for the other 13 variances. 14 Only thing I have a question is 15 the number of parking spots already. 16 Unfortunately, I don't write the ordinance. 17 And perhaps (inaudible) come to the City, you 18 can also write ordinances. 19 Unfortunately we have to go by 20 what is written down already, in approving or 21 disapproving. 22 And I know there are a lot of 23 parking spots that are going to be -- they 24 are all required, put together. So is there 25 any kind of medium you can come to from this
61 1 large number of variation of parking spaces? 2 MR. QUINN: To be honest with you, 3 Dr. Sanghvi, we don't really think that we're 4 under parked as it is, with 140. It's that 5 number of 300 is just a number that really 6 doesn't apply, we believe, to our specific 7 situation. 8 The 140 will be more than 9 sufficient to operate this business. And 10 there is no place to make up any additional 11 parking. 12 As I said, the size of the 13 buildings are sized right for the business 14 that is necessary here in Novi. 15 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: If I can just add, 17 just so I'm clear, after your proposed site 18 plan and parking and so forth, the entire 19 property of Collex will be utilized, correct? 20 Whether it be green space or parts space or 21 building, so forth? 22 MR. QUINN: That's correct. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: Other than taking 24 into plantings, there is no other space? 25 MR. QUINN: That is correct.
62 1 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes, Member Skelcy. 2 MS. SKELCY: I have a question for 3 the City Attorney. Can we restrict the 4 variance to an automotive business that does 5 collision work? I mean, if he sells, you 6 know, the building in 20 years, I have a 7 concern. 8 MS. SAARELA: You can make the 9 variance go with the business. It's not 10 something that we prefer that you do. You 11 can give it to the particular applicant. 12 It's been done before, but it's not 13 preferred. 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: I actually thought 15 about that, too, to be honest. The problem 16 is, if you grant it now, they do sell it, if 17 a new buyer comes in, it may be an issue at 18 that point, in time, they have got an 19 existing building, parking, so forth, they 20 get what they are seeing, they really may 21 not. That may be a problem. 22 MS. SKELCY: I mean, if it's 23 something other than an automotive business. 24 That was my thinking. I mean, if it's a 25 collision business, they're going to come in
63 1 and be able to take advantage of the same 2 thing he has, but if it's a -- I can't even 3 think of what other kind of business. 4 MEMBER GHANNAM: It's hard to 5 anticipate. That is why it may be difficult 6 to restrict that, in my opinion. 7 MR. QUINN: What I can tell you, 8 because there was some discussion on the 9 smaller building, about maybe making that an 10 Enterprise Rent-a-car place instead of a 11 collision. And I believe we would have to 12 come back to you because that's a different 13 use than collision. We would have to come 14 back to you to modify the variance based upon 15 the parking standards for that building for 16 that particular use. 17 So I think you do have that 18 safety, if the use changes, that we'd have to 19 come back in front of you. Maybe Beth can 20 confirm that. 21 MS. SAARELA: Yes, if it was a 22 total different use, they would be looking at 23 different parking standards, if they were 24 changing a use to something totally 25 different, they would be going back to the
64 1 Planning Commission again. It may be a 2 different variance, or no variance depending 3 on the use. 4 But as far as running it with 5 the particular business, that's the difficult 6 thing to track. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: So whether the 8 existing owner changes its use or it's sold 9 and it's proposed to change use, they may 10 have to come back? 11 MS. SAARELA: It may. It may. 12 You look at the zoning 13 district, you look at the uses that are 14 permitted. 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: All right. 16 CHARIMAN IBE: Do we have any 17 further discussion of this particular case? 18 MR. SANGHVI: I just had one 19 question for the City Attorney. If we 20 restrict the variance for only this type of 21 business, is it okay to do it? 22 MS. SAARELA: Type of business 23 versus particular -- I would think you can do 24 it to the particular owner, but type of 25 business would be almost impossible to track
65 1 or quantify. 2 If you're saying collision 3 business, collision shop, the exact same type 4 of operations, particularly, you know, they 5 would have to be doing the same type of work, 6 you know, in order to have the same type of 7 parking concerns, I would say, but -- I have 8 seen restrictions to the business owner, but 9 type of business would be harder to track, 10 like as discussed, you are looking more-- the 11 zoning ordinance is looking at the use. If a 12 different use is coming forward, that is 13 going to be controlled by the zoning 14 ordinance, that may be going back to the 15 Planning Commission, as it is. So I think 16 that you're sort of crossing over into that 17 boundary, deciding what a different use is 18 versus business. 19 If you're not just going by the 20 particular owners. It gets to be a difficult 21 thing to track. I think you're -- could be, 22 you know, getting into the area that the 23 Planning Commission should be making a 24 determination on. 25 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Any
66 1 further conversations on this? 2 Seeing none -- 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll be willing to 4 take a shot at a motion. 5 CHARIMAN IBE: Please, thank you. 6 MEMBER GHANNAM: In Case No. 7 12-011, for Collex Collision at 25100 Novi 8 Road, I will move to grant the variances as 9 requested by the petitioner for the following 10 reasons, I think there are unique 11 circumstances to the conditions to the 12 property, that would necessitate the 13 variance, and it's not due to the applicant's 14 personal or economic difficulty. 15 It is true that there was 16 condemnation issues, there was widening of 17 the road, and I think this is not 18 self-created. 19 I think strict compliance with 20 the regulations governing these issues that 21 come up, including setback, parking, so 22 forth, will unreasonably prevent the property 23 owner from using the property as a permitted 24 purpose or will render conformity with those 25 regulations unnecessarily burdensome.
67 1 I believe that it is the 2 minimum variance necessary to do substantial 3 justice to the applicant, and the request 4 will not cause an adverse impact on the 5 surrounding property, the property values or 6 the enjoyment and use of this particular 7 property in the zoning district. 8 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes, Mr. Boulard? 9 MR. BOULARD: Did I understand 10 correctly, Mr. Quinn, that you had requested 11 a variance of seven feet for the dual out 12 seven foot side set back as opposed to the 13 five feet? 14 MR. QUINN: That's right. 15 MR. BOULARD: That was a lesser 16 variance? 17 MR. QUINN: So the variance is down 18 to 53 feet, from the 20-foot required 19 setback. 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I guess I will 21 clarify by saying as requested during his 22 presentation here today, as opposed to a 23 written request. 24 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. 25 CHARIMAN IBE: Anyone second?
68 1 MR. SANGHVI: Second. 2 CHARIMAN IBE: Seeing a motion and 3 a second, do we have any further discussion? 4 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, 5 please call the roll. 6 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon? 7 MR. GEDEON: Yes. 8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick? 9 MR. GERBLICK: Yes. 10 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam? 11 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe? 13 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes. 14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 15 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 17 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 19 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven 21 to zero. 22 CHARIMAN IBE: Congratulations. 23 MR. QUINN: Thank you very much. 24 Have a good evening. 25 CHARIMAN IBE: We will move onto
69 1 our fourth case on the agenda. Case No. 2 12-012 Stoneridge Office Park. Is the 3 applicant here? 4 MS. ACORI: Yes. 5 CHARIMAN IBE: Please come forward, 6 state your name and address. If you are not 7 an attorney, please raise your right hand and 8 be sworn in by our secretary. Your name and 9 address first. 10 MS. ARKORI: Angela Akori, 32451 11 Rockridge Lane, Farmington Hills. 12 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-012, 13 Stoneridge Office Park, do you swear to tell 14 the truth in this case? 15 MS. ACORI: Yes. 16 CHARIMAN IBE: Please go ahead. 17 MS. ACORI: Thank you for your 18 attention tonight. I stand before you in 19 hopes of getting your approval on a sign that 20 was installed I believe ten days ago in front 21 of Stoneridge Office Park, which was recently 22 acquired by Mr. Joe Schmizzi (phonetic). 23 I believe your ordinance allows 24 for a 16 square foot sign. The sign that we 25 proposed and installed for your viewing is 70
70 1 total square feet. 2 And the reason for the increase 3 in sign is a few reasons. 4 Obviously, because of the 5 traffic on Twelve Mile Road. Is it main road 6 and we are hoping to get better exposure and 7 utilize that. 8 More importantly, I don't know 9 how familiar you are with the development. I 10 think the original owners started 11 construction in 2005, 2006. 12 Unfortunately, it was not a 13 success, it's been sitting there with a 14 building built -- two buildings built 15 actually since then. 16 The new owner really hopes to 17 transform this into a vibrant medical office 18 community. In order to do that and attract 19 tenants, it takes a full blown marketing 20 effort. That's what we my job is, along with 21 my partner, Eric Keys. 22 The signage is just in hopes of 23 re-branding the development. We have named 24 it Stoneridge Office Condo, and the sign we 25 think is a first class sign that exemplifies
71 1 what we are trying to recreate there in the 2 project. 3 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. 4 Is there anybody in the 5 audience who would like to make a comment 6 regarding this particular case? Please raise 7 your hand. 8 Seeing none, I will ask Madam 9 Secretary to please read any correspondence 10 regarding this particular case. 11 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-012, 12 50 were mailed, six returned, one approval, 13 one rejection, anonymous. 14 The approval is, as a 15 neighboring property owner of this request, 16 as well as a homeowner and business owner and 17 resident of the City of Novi, I hereby wish 18 to note my approval of the applicant's 19 request. I would note that I have witnessed 20 vast improvements to the appearance of the 21 Heights of Novi -- oh. How did that get 22 there? 23 MS. ACORI: We'll take it. 24 MS. KRIEGER: How did that get in 25 there?
72 1 I have the rejection one from 2 March 23, 2012. I live in the Carlton Forest 3 condominiums in Novi, located north of Twelve 4 Mile Road and west of Novi Road. I received 5 a letter today from the City of Novi ZBA. 6 I do not approve the placing of 7 the 70 square foot real estate sign where a 8 16 square foot sign is allowed for the 9 Stonebridge Office Park. A 70 square foot 10 real estate sign is four times the size of a 11 16-foot sign, and I do not approve of such 12 large and oversized signage, as it is near 13 where my residential home and community is 14 located and such a huge sign would make my 15 home and community area look like a 16 commercial development. 17 Furthermore, I don't want to 18 have to look at a huge 70-foot square sign 19 that advertises real estate every time I 20 drive out of Carlton Way Drive onto Twelve 21 Mile heading west, as once such a huge sign 22 is there, it will most likely stay planted 23 there for months and maybe even years, and 24 I'm the one that has to look at it, a huge 25 sign, oversized sign every day and not the
73 1 applicant. 2 I ask the City of Novi Zoning 3 Board of Appeals to deny the request for the 4 applicant's request for an exception to the 5 Novi sign ordinance. I ask for the Zoning 6 Board to keep the signage to 16 feet square 7 feet, and not greater. A 16 square foot sign 8 is a nice size for advertisement, and it can 9 easily be seen on Twelve Mile Road and isn't 10 too much signage for me as a resident who 11 lives in Carlton Forest, rather than close to 12 bigger and larger sign, I suggest the 13 applicant use the newspaper, real estate 14 offices and the internet to market their real 15 estate from a Carlton Forest condominum 16 homeowner March 23, 2012. 17 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. 18 MS. ACORI: Certainly appreciate 19 the advice. 20 MS. KRIEGER: There is an approval 21 somewhere. I don't have the approval here. 22 Thank you. 23 CHARIMAN IBE: Mr. Boulard? 24 MR. BOULARD: I believe the 25 approval that was referenced was one that was
74 1 erroneously placed in the folder was for the 2 Heights of Novi. 3 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. 4 Moving forward, I will turn it 5 over to the City. Is there any comments? 6 MS. SAARELA: We have nothing. 7 MR. BOULARD: The only point that I 8 would bring forth is if the Board is inclined 9 to grant a variances, I would suggest that a 10 time limit or some kind of time frame be 11 specified. 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: I have a question 13 while we're on this issue. They have already 14 been approved for a permanent ground sign 15 that exceeds what is required, or what is 16 authorized, correct? 17 MR. BOULARD: Yes. The Board, this 18 body approved a 90 square foot permanent 19 ground sign that's oversized, I believe over 20 height, in 2009. 21 CHARIMAN IBE: I'll now open it up 22 to the Board for discussion. Member Sanghvi? 23 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 24 This development is supposed to have six or 25 seven different buildings, right?
75 1 MS. ACORI: Correct. 2 MR. SANGHVI: So question for 3 Mr. Boulard. If each separate building had 4 their own separate sign, how large could it 5 be? How many square foot would it be? 6 MR. BOULARD: The 16 square foot 7 real estate sign that is allowed is for the 8 development. 9 MR. SANGHVI: Sixteen times seven? 10 MR. BOULARD: For the development, 11 all the buildings are within the development. 12 MR. SANGHVI: Six individual 13 buildings, building (inaudible). 14 MR. BOULARD: Yes, if they were all 15 on separate -- 16 MR. SANGHVI: If the business 17 applied for a sign, so 16 times seven? 18 MR. BOULARD: If they were all on 19 individual parcels, yes. It would be 20 significantly more than 100 square feet. 21 MR. SANGHVI: I don't think this is 22 peanuts, as compared to what would happen in 23 my opinion. I have no problem with it. 24 Thank you. 25 CHARIMAN IBE: Member Gedeon?
76 1 MR. GEDEON: To the City, what -- 2 was the '09 variance the only other variance 3 granted on this parcel? For some reason this 4 seems familiar that we just worked on a case, 5 the same property in the last year or so? 6 MR. BOULARD: There may have been 7 other variances for real estate signs, but 8 none of them were currently in effect. They 9 are all limited by time. 10 This is only -- the other 11 variance that is currently applicable is the 12 one for the an oversized permanent sign. 13 MR. GEDEON: Thank you. 14 CHARIMAN IBE: Member Skelcy? 15 MS. SKELCY: Typically we put a 16 time limit on the amount of time that you can 17 have a sign that large for sale, lease. 18 What kind of time period would 19 you be looking at in terms of keeping that 20 sign up? 21 MS. ACORI: That's a great 22 question. Obviously, you know, our desire to 23 have it there for six months and have the 24 project fully leased. There is, I believe, 25 eight potential buildings. Out of the eight,
77 1 two are full right now, which leaves us with 2 a big job of filling six buildings. Each 3 building is approximately 6,000 to 8,000 4 square feet. 5 In this economy, you know 6 that's -- what is that, six times eight, we 7 are talking about 50,000 square feet of space 8 that we need to lease up, in order to take 9 the signs down, when the project is 100 10 percent leased. So, you know, I would ask 11 for, you know, a few years, hopefully to get 12 it done, in hopes of achieving that much 13 sooner. 14 MS. SKELCY: If we limited it to, I 15 think, in the past we have done two years? 16 If we limit it to two years, at the end of 17 two years, you could always come back and 18 ask -- 19 MS. ACORI: I think that's fine. 20 We have had a good amount of activity, so I 21 think the owner and us would be happy with 22 that. 23 MS. SKELCY: Thank you. 24 MS. ACORI: Thank you. 25 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes, member Ghannam?
78 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: What do you think 2 the minimum amount of square footage of a 3 sign you can live with at this particular 4 site? 5 MS. ACORI: You know, I just drove 6 it before I came here this evening, and I was 7 looking for the sign, and it really didn't 8 jump out at me at all. And I know I'm coming 9 from a biased perspective, but truly it 10 didn't. 11 And the neighboring property 12 has a sign that was very comparable in size, 13 so ours didn't stick out at all. I would 14 stick with what we have presented. 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: There is good 16 reasons because that's the way the City 17 Council has authorized -- their position is 18 they want signs more subtle as opposed to 19 billboard type signs. 20 MS. ACORI: And we are in agreement 21 as well. We want it to look sharp and match 22 the development. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: What are the 24 dimensions proposed to be for the 70 square 25 foot sign?
79 1 MS. ACORI: Are they in your 2 package by chance? 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: The one that's 4 show in mine shows five by seven, but that's 5 not 70 square feet. 6 MS. ACORI: I believe it is five by 7 and seven it's a wing sign, so I believe that 8 is correct. 9 MEMBER GHANNAM: It's double-sided? 10 Is that accurate? 11 MS. ACORI: Correct. 12 MR. BOULARD: Yes, in the sign 13 ordinance, if a sign -- if it's a V shape 14 sign, and the two sides are within two feet 15 of each other at the widest point, it's 16 considered a single sign. In this case, it 17 appears that it's considerably wider than 18 that. 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: I didn't 20 understand that. I thought it was a seven by 21 ten or something obnoxious like that. 22 MS. ACORI: No. Five by seven. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: Now that I'm 24 clear, I actually don't have a problem with 25 that under the circumstances. This is a
80 1 large site, multiple buildings. It is a 2 little bit quicker on Twelve Mile than most, 3 so under those circumstances, I don't have a 4 problem. 5 CHARIMAN IBE: Member Gedeon? 6 MR. GEDEON: I think the fact that 7 this is a V-shaped sign, I think that 8 really -- that addresses a lot of concerns of 9 the one person who wrote in to oppose it. 10 Because this basically reduces the sign to 11 half as much as the request appears. Because 12 unless you're looking at it, if your driving, 13 you're never going to see the full 70 square 14 feet. You have to be standing directly in 15 front of it to see that. So I think this is 16 reasonable. 17 CHARIMAN IBE: While I don't have 18 any problem with the sign either, I think I 19 appreciate the comments by the members and 20 certainly will concur with what has been said 21 here and will also be in favor of this. 22 Do we have any further 23 discussion regarding this matter? If not, I 24 will entertain motion. Yes, Member Skelcy. 25 Thank you.
81 1 MS. SKELCY: In the Case of 12-012 2 Stoneridge Office Park located at 44050 3 Twelve Mile Road, I move that we grant the 4 variance to allow a 70 square foot real 5 estate sign on the property for a period of 6 two years only. 7 This request is based upon 8 circumstances or features that are 9 exceptional and unique to the property, and 10 do not result from conditions that exist 11 generally in the city or that are 12 self-created. 13 I know that there is a huge, 14 large hill or berm which prevents people from 15 actually seeing the property. 16 The failure to grant relief 17 will unreasonably prevent or limit the use of 18 the property and will result in substantially 19 more than mere inconvenience or inability to 20 attain a higher economic or financial return. 21 The grant of relief will not 22 result in a use of structure that is 23 incompatible with or unreasonably interferes 24 with adjacent or surrounding properties, in 25 fact, most of that area is commercial
82 1 buildings. It's not homes or things like 2 that. And will result in substantial justice 3 being done to both the applicant and adjacent 4 or surrounding properties and is not 5 inconsistent with the spirit of the 6 ordinance. 7 MR. SANGHVI: Second. 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: If I can just make 9 an addition, if the mover can modify this, as 10 the applicant proposed, in other words, two 11 35 square foot signs that are angled in a V 12 shape, as opposed to one 70 square foot sign. 13 MS. SKELCY: I would like to 14 incorporate that amendment into the motion. 15 CHARIMAN IBE: You second that? 16 MR. SANGHVI: Yes, second. 17 MR. GEDEON: Just one other 18 comment. Was this variance going to be 19 conditioned for a period of time? 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: She said two 21 years. 22 MR. GEDEON: I apologize. 23 CHARIMAN IBE: Seeing a motion and 24 a second, do we have further discussion 25 regarding the motion?
83 1 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, 2 please call the roll. 3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon? 4 MR. GEDEON: Yes. 5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick? 6 MR. GERBLICK: Yes. 7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam? 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe? 10 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes. 11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 12 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 14 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 16 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 17 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven 18 to zero. 19 CHARIMAN IBE: Congratulations. 20 MS. ACORI: Thank you. 21 CHARIMAN IBE: That bring us to our 22 last case for the day. Case No. 12-013, 23 Great Clips. 24 Will the applicant please come 25 forward. Please state your name and address.
84 1 If you are not an attorney, please raise your 2 right hand and be sworn in. Thank you. 3 MR. SEGAL: I am not an attorney. 4 My name is Alex Segal. My address is 40660 5 Paisley Circle, Novi, Michigan 48377. 6 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-013, 7 for Great Clips, do you swear to tell the 8 truth in this case? 9 MR. SEGAL: Yes. 10 CHARIMAN IBE: Please go ahead, 11 sir. 12 MR. SEGAL: Well, I am preparing to 13 open a Great Clips hair salon. That's going 14 to be my second location in the City of Novi, 15 and I need an exterior sign. 16 The way the rules are written, 17 the sign is measured from the highest point 18 to the lowest point, and then from the left 19 to the right. 20 And Great Clips is a franchise 21 business, so the franchisor dictates what 22 kind of signs we use, and this is the logo 23 sign. I cannot change anything on the sign, 24 not the color, not the font. 25 So this is a little sketch that
85 1 I made. I think it's in your packet also. 2 So the way it's calculated is 3 the -- by the way, I have one of the smallest 4 spaces in the Novi Town Center. We don't 5 need much space for a hair salon, so my sign 6 is only -- it's going to be only 32 square 7 feet, 32 and half square feet. That's based 8 on the frontage, and we don't have much 9 frontage either. 10 So this is 32 and a half square 11 feet, and it's measured from the top to the 12 bottom of this letter P. So all this area 13 that I shaded in gray to the left and to the 14 right of this sticking down letter P is seven 15 and a half square feet of the signage that is 16 not used by the letters. 17 So what I am asking is the 18 variance, so I can use this space that is 19 shaded in gray, and occupy that space with 20 little bit increased in size other letters. 21 So this is to scale, so this is 22 how much bigger my sign is going to be, if I 23 will occupy this space, compared to the -- 24 measured by the City of Novi standards sign. 25 So it's going to grow in length
86 1 about 10 percent and also in height about 2 10 percent compared to the first sign. 3 And this is just an example of 4 other signs that don't have this situation. 5 So they proportionally about the same size as 6 my sign that I'm asking, the size of it. 7 CHARIMAN IBE: Is that all? 8 MR. SEGAL: That's it. Thank you. 9 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Is there 10 anybody in the audience who would like to 11 make a comment concerning this particular 12 case, please raise your hand. 13 Seeing none, I would ask our 14 secretary to please read into the record any 15 correspondence regarding this case. 16 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-013 17 for Great Clips, 138 were mailed, 41 returns, 18 zero responses. 19 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Madam 20 Secretary. 21 Now to the City, do you have 22 any comments or questions regarding this 23 particular case? 24 MS. SAARELA: No. 25 MR. BOULARD: No comment. I will
87 1 stand by if there is any questions. 2 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, 3 Mr. Boulard, as well. 4 I will it open this up to the 5 Board for discussion. Yes, Member Sanghvi? 6 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. This is all the 7 problem of the letter P, goes down, create 8 the problem, otherwise there is no problem. 9 I mean, kidding aside, I have 10 no problem with the request. Thank you. 11 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Member 12 Sanghvi, I like a little bit of humor. 13 Any other -- yes? 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: You said it's a 15 franchise business, right? 16 MR. SEGAL: Yes. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: I presume this P 18 has to be dropped down a little bit? It's 19 part of the logo? 20 MR. SEGAL: Right. It's a logo 21 sign, yes. 22 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand. I 23 generally don't have a problem, too. 24 Especially in light of the fact this it is in 25 the Town Center, there is multiple businesses
88 1 there, it is, I think much more beneficial. 2 I have no problem. 3 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Do we 4 have comments from the members? 5 Just a quick comment, sir. I 6 also do not have any problem with it. I 7 think Member Sanghvi put it rather well, I 8 think, one letter is probably what creates 9 this little problem. And I will be in 10 support of this as well. 11 MR. SEGAL: Thank you. 12 CHARIMAN IBE: Seeing no additional 13 comments or questions, I think we will 14 entertain a motion. Member Krieger? 15 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 12-013, 16 for Great Clips. I move to approve the 17 applicant's request to allow a 40.6 square 18 foot wall sign, that the request is based 19 upon circumstances or features that are 20 exceptional and unique to the property and do 21 not result from conditions that exist 22 generally in the City or are self-created. 23 That the Great Clips is a 24 franchise and the company dictates the way 25 the letters are positioned, so the P, it
89 1 makes the exception to the size request, that 2 the failure to grant relief will unreasonably 3 prevent or limit the use of the property and 4 will result in substantially more than mere 5 inconvenience or inability to attain a higher 6 economic or financial return. 7 That it's in the Town Center, 8 and that you have to drive around to find 9 businesses and new businesses as they 10 turnover. 11 The grant of relief will not 12 result in a use of structure that is 13 incompatible with or unreasonably interferes 14 with adjacent or surrounding properties, will 15 result in substantial justice being done to 16 both the applicant and adjacent or 17 surrounding properties and is not 18 inconsistent with the spirit of the 19 ordinance. 20 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Do I get 21 a second? 22 MR. GERBLICK: Second. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: If I can make just 24 a slight amendment that allows this variance 25 for this particular tenant at this space.
90 1 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MR. GERBLICK: Second. 3 MR. SANGHVI: Very well. Seeing a 4 motion and a second, do we have discussion 5 regarding the motion? 6 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, 7 please call the roll. 8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon? 9 MR. GEDEON: Yes. 10 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick? 11 MR. GERBLICK: Yes. 12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam? 13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe? 15 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes. 16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 17 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 19 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 21 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven 23 to zero. 24 CHARIMAN IBE: Congratulations, 25 sir.
91 1 MR. SEGAL: Thank you very much. 2 Welcome to my new salon in a couple of 3 months. 4 CHARIMAN IBE: Well, that will 5 bring us to other matters on the agenda. 6 Do we have any other matters 7 from the City? 8 MS. SAARELA: We have none. 9 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes, Member Krieger? 10 MS. KRIEGER: The pin that 11 Mr. Boulard has, do you have more of those? 12 MR. BOULARD: I will be happy to 13 track some down. 14 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. I will 15 appreciate it. 16 Seeing none -- 17 MR. SANGHVI: May I make a motion 18 to adjourn, Mr. Chair? 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: I will second 20 that. 21 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. All in 22 favor say aye. 23 THE BOARD: Aye. 24 CHARIMAN IBE: All opposed? Seeing 25 none, we are adjourned.
92 1 (The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
93 1 ** ** ** 2 STATE OF MICHIGAN ) 3 ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF OAKLAND ) 5 I, Jennifer L. Wall, Notary Public within and for 6 the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify 7 that the hearing above, that the statements given by said 8 individuals was stenographically recorded in the presence of 9 myself and others, afterward transcribed by computer under 10 my personal supervision, and that the said statements are a 11 full, true and correct transcript of the statements given by 12 the individuals. 13 I further certify that I am not connected by blood 14 or marriage with any of the parties or their attorneys, and 15 that I am not an employee of any of them, nor financially 16 interested in the action. 17 IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at 18 the City of Walled Lake, County of Oakland, State of 19 Michigan. 20 21 22 ________________ _________________________ Date Jennifer L. Wall CSR-4183 23 Oakland County, Michigan My Commission Expires 11/12/15 24 25
|