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
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,
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?
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
25 It takes a vote of least four
1 members to approve a variance. And a vote of
2 the majority of members present to deny the
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
2 Now, as for the minutes from
3 the last meeting, is there any changes or
4 corrections to the minutes from the March
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
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?
1 MR. SANGHVI: Can I make a motion
2 to approve minutes for both the months in one
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.
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
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,
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
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
14 MR. HADDEN: Unless anyone has any
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.
1 CHARIMAN IBE: Very well. At this
2 point we will open it up to the Board for
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
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.
1 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you, Member
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
16 MEMBER GHANNAM: It's the same
17 request. When do you plan to start
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
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.
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
24 One was a little confusing for
25 which that one I have a sheet that I handed
1 the City. I don't know if that's been passed
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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
6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Where they will be
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
22 MR. QUINN: Good evening, everyone.
23 Matthew Quinn appearing on behalf of Collex
24 Collision Experts.
25 Beth, congratulations, hope
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
23 MS. KAPELANSKI: I think from the
24 staff's perspective, our concern would be
25 that the variance that they are requesting is
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
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
17 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have any
18 other questions for you. Thank you.
19 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Member
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just have a
21 question from a planning perspective. Has
22 the size of the building been approved
24 MS. KAPELANSKI: The Planning
25 Commission has approved the site plan and the
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
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.
1 I'm getting confirmation. About 12.
2 MEMBER GHANNAM: This business
3 plans to service cars, vehicles in both
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
21 MR. QUINN: Correct.
22 MEMBER GHANNAM: When both
23 buildings are built?
24 MR. QUINN: Yes.
25 MEMBER GHANNAM: Or the second
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
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,
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
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
19 I would be in favor is the
20 whole point of supporting all of your
22 MR. QUINN: Thank you.
23 CHARIMAN IBE: Thank you. Member
25 MS. SKELCY: Mr. Quinn, could they
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
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
10 MR. QUINN: That's correct.
11 MR. SANGHVI: I personally have no
12 problem with your other request for the other
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
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
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
8 The 140 will be more than
9 sufficient to operate this business. And
10 there is no place to make up any additional
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
17 MR. QUINN: So the variance is down
18 to 53 feet, from the 20-foot required
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?
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
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
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
1 what we are trying to recreate there in the
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
23 MS. ACORI: We'll take it.
24 MS. KRIEGER: How did that get in
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
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
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
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?
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
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?
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,
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
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
23 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.
24 MS. ACORI: Thank you.
25 CHARIMAN IBE: Yes, member Ghannam?
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
22 MR. GEDEON: I apologize.
23 CHARIMAN IBE: Seeing a motion and
24 a second, do we have further discussion
25 regarding the motion?
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
1 MR. SEGAL: Thank you very much.
2 Welcome to my new salon in a couple of
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
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.
1 (The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.)
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
22 ________________ _________________________
Date Jennifer L. Wall CSR-4183
23 Oakland County, Michigan
My Commission Expires 11/12/15