View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012

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, June 12, 2012.

Rickie Ibe, Chairman
Linda Krieger, Secretary
Mav Sanghvi
David Ghannam
Jeffrey Gedeon
Donna Skelcy
James Gerblick

Charles Boulard, Building Official
Elizabeth Saarela, City Attorney
Coordinator Angela Pawloswki, Recording Secretary

Darlene K. May, RPR/CSR-6479. Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, June 12, 2012

3 7:03 p.m.

4 -- --- --

5 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Welcome to the

6 June 12, 2012 Novi Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

7 Can we please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

8 (Pledge of Allegiance.)


10 Ms. Pawlowski, can we please have

11 the roll call, please.

12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?


14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?


18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?


20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?






1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Now we'll go over

2 the formal rules of conduct for the Novi Zoning Board

3 of Appeals. Before I do that, please turn off all

4 cell phones as well as silence the pagers so we are

5 not disrupted during this meeting. Also, when the

6 case is called, the applicant please come forward and

7 the applicant will have five minutes to present your

8 case and any extensions that may be allowed by the

9 chair.

10 The public will be asked if they

11 wish to make comments on a particular case and at

12 that point, the public remarks will be entertained.

13 The agenda can be found in the back of the room for

14 those who need to get a copy of the agenda.

15 Thank you.

16 Next is the approval of the agenda

17 for today's meeting. Is there any corrections or

18 modifications to the agenda for today?

19 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. ZB case 12-022

20 at 39500 Ten Mile has asked to be postponed until the

21 July meeting to allow verification of the posting.

22 Also, case number 12-025, which is

23 located at 27754 Novi Road has withdrawn their

24 application.

25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.





1 Is that the only modifications for

2 the agenda? Do we have any additional modifications?

3 Seeing none, I would entertain a

4 motion.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion

6 to accept the amendments for tonight?

7 MS. SKELCY: Second.

8 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Motion has been

9 made and seconded.

10 Do we have any comments regarding

11 that?

12 Seeing none. Can we all in favor

13 say "Aye."

14 THE BOARD: Aye.

15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: All against, say

16 "Nay."

17 The aye carries. The agenda is

18 hereby approved.

19 Now, that brings us to the minutes

20 from the last meeting. Do we have any changes to the

21 minutes from the last meeting?

22 Seeing none, I will entertain a

23 motion to approve the minutes from the May 8th, 2012

24 meeting.

25 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion





1 to accept the minutes as presented?


3 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any

4 comments regarding the motion that was made and

5 seconded?

6 Seeing none, all in favor say,

7 "Aye."


9 CHAIRPERSON IBE: All against say

10 "Nay."

11 The favors carry. The minutes for

12 May 8th, 2012 has been approved.

13 Now that would bring us to public

14 remark section for this meeting. Is anyone in the

15 audience who would like to make a public remark

16 before we go into the cases for today?

17 Well, seeing none, the public remark

18 section is now closed and we are going to start with

19 the first case for today.

20 That would be Case Number 12-016,

21 31140 Beck Road. Will the applicant please come to

22 the podium. When you come to the podium, please

23 state your full name and also spell your name so that

24 it can be recorded. And if you're not an attorney,

25 raise your right hand and be sworn in by madame





1 secretary.

2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Your name, sir?

3 MR. MANSOUR: Kal Mansour, K-a-l,

4 Mansour, M-a-n-s-o-u-r.

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

6 12-016, do you swear to tell the truth in this case?

7 MR. MANSOUR: Yes, ma'am.

8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

9 MR. MANSOUR: My name is Kal

10 Mansour. I'm with Sign Emporium. I'm here to

11 represent the Shops at the Trail. Asking the

12 committee to consider a new ground sign due to the

13 lack of visibility for the existing tenants that are

14 there. The hardship we have is the way the building

15 has been set inside a little bit.

16 Basically, that's all I have to say

17 about that. I'll wait for you folks if you have any

18 questions.

19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Well, is there

20 anybody in the public that would like to make a

21 comment on this particular case? Please raise your

22 right hand and come to the podium at this point.

23 Well, seeing none, I'll ask madame

24 secretary to read any correspondence that was

25 received in this particular case.





1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case,

2 12-016, 22 were mailed, three returned, no responses.


4 I will now ask the City if they have

5 any comments to make regarding this particular case.

6 MR. BOULARD: Just a point of

7 clarification. This was the -- this application was

8 previously on the agenda on the old information along

9 with the application. There's also new information

10 that supersedes that and includes a revised location

11 for the sign. So I just want to make that note.

12 Because it is considerably -- a considerable distance

13 from where it was before.

14 And point out that this is the

15 third -- this will be proposed for third sign for the

16 site. There's a sign that is allowed by right.

17 There is a sign that is allowed under the previous

18 grants and this would be the third sign for the site.

19 So I will standby for questions.

20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you,

21 Mr. Boulard.

22 Does the city attorney have anything

23 to add?

24 MS. SAARELA: We have nothing to

25 add.





1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. I will

2 now open up to the board for any questions regarding

3 this particular case.

4 Yes, Member Skelcy?

5 MEMBER SKELCY: I was wondering,

6 Mr. Mansour, why do you feel you need this

7 particular sign since you already have two?

8 MR. MANSOUR: The existing signs

9 that are there right now stand about five feet tall

10 and they just indicate the name of the shopping

11 center itself. The tenants that are there right

12 now -- he's losing tenants at a pretty good rate and

13 they're all complaining because the way the building

14 is set inside there, they don't have enough

15 visibility and this -- he's hoping that this is going

16 to be the remedy for it and he is willing to take the

17 one sign down that's on Beck Road, hopefully, in

18 place of this one here. So he is willing to take off

19 the one sign.

20 MEMBER SKELCY: Now, this proposed

21 sign looks like it's quite far back from Beck Road.

22 Because it looks like it's lined up with the CVS that

23 is over there.

24 MR. MANSOUR: Actually, the way it's

25 positioned right now, you'll be able to see it from





1 Pontiac Trail from where the traffic light is. And

2 as you're heading north on Beck Road, you'll be able

3 to catch it on the angle that it's in.

4 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank you,

5 very much.

6 MR. MANSOUR: Thank you.

7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Do we

8 have any other comments?

9 Yes, Member Ghannam?

10 MEMBER GHANNAM: First of all, I

11 guess, the question becomes why such a large sign?

12 MR. MANSOUR: Well, he wanted to max

13 it out because he's got quite a few tenants in there

14 and a lot of them want as much space as possible and

15 we've got it set back to what the ordinance will

16 allow us. We've got it set back pretty far only for

17 the purpose of trying to get some square footage on

18 there to accommodate everybody that is there.

19 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand the

20 theory that bigger is always better. The site is

21 entitled to one sign. You have two. Now you want a

22 third sign. That's not quite double the size that

23 you would be allowed if you were entitled to one

24 sign, but almost double.

25 MR. MANSOUR: Yeah.





1 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, I mean, how

2 does this meet our standards of practical difficulty?

3 MR. MANSOUR: Again, the hardship is

4 the way the building is set in and based on the

5 ordinance, the setbacks, it's within the setback

6 ordinance. You know, based on how many feet from the

7 road there, it is within that ordinance. It does

8 fall within that ordinance.

9 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't understand

10 that. What falls within the ordinance?

11 MR. MANSOUR: The size of the sign

12 that we're asking for.

13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Is that accurate,

14 Mr. Boulard?

15 MR. BOULARD: I guess you're talking

16 about the overall size of the sign?

17 MR. MANSOUR: Yes, sir. The

18 verbiage. You're correct.

19 MR. BOULARD: The sign ordinance

20 allows one sign for business center. That sign is

21 not supposed to have the tenant names on it. Which

22 is one of the reasons this sign is before you.

23 This sign is limited -- that that

24 one sign is limited to six feet in height and one

25 square foot for every two feet of setback from the





1 center line. However, the maximum is a hundred

2 square feet.

3 So I think -- is that, perhaps, what

4 you're saying? You know, one foot for every foot of

5 setback.

6 MR. MANSOUR: Correct.

7 MR. BOULARD: One thing that is also

8 apparent from the conversations we had earlier

9 tonight is that the sign ordinance indicates that the

10 size of the sign is measured in the smallest polygon.

11 The regular polygon that, you know, includes all the

12 verbiage on it. This sign, the sign that is

13 originally proposed, works out to about 137 square

14 feet as opposed to the maximum of 100 feet, if it was

15 the only sign. So in that sense, in that sense we

16 advertised for the larger sign in the event that you

17 wanted to consider that or something less. But the

18 other issue is that, A, it's the third sign and the

19 tenant names.

20 I hope that helped.

21 MEMBER GHANNAM: I mean, if it was

22 the only sign, he's entitled to six foot high and

23 he's requesting 13 foot, correct?

24 MR. BOULARD: Yes.

25 MEMBER GHANNAM: Because according





1 to our old material, it said if it was the only sign,

2 it would be 85 feet as opposed to the 100, but is

3 that changed because of the new location?



6 Personally, as proposed, I am not in favor of this

7 particular sign. I do like the idea, however, that

8 if you were to get a sign, that you'd take down the

9 second sign. I would encourage that. But in terms

10 of the height, I mean, to me it seems massive. Even

11 when you put your proposed average-sized six foot man

12 next to it, it's more than double. It's 13 foot.

13 It's just massive for that particular area.

14 I mean, we do have unusual -- I

15 shouldn't say unusual. We have very strict

16 ordinances in Novi. The question is, how does this

17 sign -- I guess your theory is that the bigger the

18 sign the tenants will stay and I'm not sure that's

19 necessarily the case in this economy. But in terms

20 of the size, I'm not in favor. If some of the other

21 members would consider smaller signs, I'd consider

22 that in exchange for a removal of the second sign,

23 but as proposed I would not be in favor.

24 Thank you.

25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.





1 Yes?

2 MEMBER GEDEON: When I see this --

3 we had a case last year for the Town Center. Are you

4 familiar with the Novi Town Center?


6 MEMBER GEDEON: In that case, I

7 believe they wanted four tenant panels and it was --

8 I don't remember the exact type, but it was certainly

9 less than 13 feet and there were similar issues

10 there. You know, the Town Center shops are tucked

11 behind, you know, some outlots. There's a car wash

12 and some restaurants and some other things like that.

13 So it's similar. I think it's probably even less

14 visibility there than in this case. So I'm not

15 inclined to support this. Especially with that many

16 tenant panels. You know, maybe if it was reduced to

17 something comparable even understanding that it's a

18 different zoning district, but as it's presented, you

19 know, I don't think I support this.

20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Do we

21 have any comments or questions for the applicant?

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Previously, we

23 approved for, I think it was Biggby Coffee on the

24 corner. They wanted a second sign to face Pontiac

25 Trail. I believe since then they've left, but then





1 can a separate business come along again and ask for

2 a second sign on the building itself once whatever we

3 do with these separate signs? Like Shops on the

4 Trail, the directional sign I see on Pontiac Trail

5 and Beck Road. So how would that change things?

6 MR. BOULARD: So if I understand

7 correctly, your question is would granting or denying

8 this variance change the right of a business that was

9 on the corner in the center to have a second sign?


11 MR. BOULARD: To the best of my

12 knowledge, only one sign would be allowed and this

13 board would see a new request for a second sign for a

14 tenant within the center that was based on having

15 two.

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Because they could

17 potentially have a third sign, then, if they haven't

18 posted on this third sign that they're proposing?

19 MR. BOULARD: Well, if there was

20 another variance granted, then the tenant could

21 potentially have two signs, yes.

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. Thank you.

23 I also, not to say that neighbors

24 are -- you have to do what your neighbor does, but

25 the K and S building next door opted to do something





1 similar and it's not as large as that. So I'm

2 agreeable that to take down one of the Beck Road

3 signs as proposed, but then, too, it's pretty big to

4 go up to 13 feet. So I would also not be in favor of

5 that. Thank you.

6 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any

7 additional comments?

8 Yes?

9 MEMBER GEDEON: Having heard from a

10 couple of other members of the panel here, it sounds

11 like most of us are thinking that 13 feet is too

12 much. Is there a size smaller than that that you

13 would be willing to live with as far as a proposal

14 for a sign?

15 MR. MANSOUR: We've considered a lot

16 of options. The only reason for that is where the

17 placement of the sign is to max it out as much as

18 possible. It's the ordinance that kind of forces it

19 to be pushed back so far. And at that point, you

20 know, it's almost -- it's a waste of money for them

21 to even to attempt to do that. Especially when they

22 have it pushed back from the property line. If I'm

23 not mistaken, it's 90 feet. We got trees that are

24 there. He wants to try to clear some of that, you

25 know, to get as much visibility. I mean, considering





1 the scope of the property that's there, the sign, you

2 know, I mean, it's minute. That's just my opinion.

3 You know, you folks make the final

4 judgment on that.

5 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. Thank you.

6 MR. MANSOUR: Thank you.

7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Well, sir, just a

8 quick comment. It appears your proposal is not going

9 to pass if a vote is taken; however, that doesn't

10 stop you from going forward. The only concern I have

11 with the sign is -- two concerns is, one, the size

12 itself, as previously echoed by my colleagues. As

13 well as the fact that the businesses that you want to

14 advertise there, I seriously doubt how anyone is

15 going to be able to see those. Subject to pull up

16 there, stop and take a look at the big sign.

17 It may not solve the problem that is

18 intended, but that's my personal observation. But

19 the choice is yours.

20 Well, having heard all the comments

21 and there is no additional comment or question --

22 Yes, Mr. Boulard, you have something

23 to say?

24 MR. BOULARD: I just want to

25 mention, if the owner -- you mentioned clearing trees





1 and so on, not related to this, but the -- before he

2 starts cutting down trees and vegetation --

3 MR. MANSOUR: Oh, no. You

4 misunderstood. I apologize. It's not a matter -- he

5 wasn't thinking about cutting trees. Where the trees

6 are placed we want to get some clearance on that.

7 For the view.

8 MR. BOULARD: For the landscape.

9 Sorry about that.

10 MR. MANSOUR: Oh, you're fine.

11 MR. BOULARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 CHAIRPERSON IBE: If there are no

13 questions, I would entertain a motion.

14 Anyone want to attempt this?

15 MEMBER SKELCY: I move in the case

16 of 12-016 located at 31140 Beck Road that we deny the

17 variances requested by the applicant, including the

18 request for the tenant names on a business center

19 sign, a third sign on the property that exceeds the

20 required amount under the ordinance. And the reason

21 that I move to deny it is because the request is

22 based upon circumstances or features that are not

23 exceptional and unique to the property and do

24 result -- do not result in the conditions that exist

25 generally in the City or that are self-created. The





1 failure to grant the relief will not unreasonably

2 prevent or limit the use of the property and will not

3 result in substantially more than mere inconvenience

4 or inability to obtain a higher economic or financial

5 return.


7 MS. SAARELA: Can I suggest just

8 some specific -- adding some of the specific reasons

9 that were discussed with the board here including --

10 I mean, some of the information provided by the

11 applicant was that the reason for the signage is that

12 tenants are leaving and, if you look at factor C or

13 one of the factors, that would result in mere

14 inconvenience or inability to obtain a higher

15 economic or financial return, the variance would

16 result in interference with adjacent and surrounding

17 properties. You mentioned that the signage is not

18 consistent with the signage that you seen on

19 surrounding merchants and properties that is larger.

20 I would suggest that it would be inconsistent with

21 the spirit intended of the ordinance because of the

22 larger size.

23 That you also want to just add some

24 of those specific reasons right into the motion.

25 MEMBER SKELCY: I would like to





1 amend the motion to include the information provided

2 by counsel.



5 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Seeing the motion

6 and it has been seconded, do we have any discussion

7 regarding that motion?

8 Yes?

9 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would also like

10 to add that the sign isn't necessarily true whether

11 for the economic returns that businesses were going

12 to come and go regardless.

13 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

14 Ms. Pawlowski, can we call the roll,

15 please?

16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?


18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?


22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?


24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?






1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?


5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven

6 to zero.

7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Sorry,

8 sir.

9 MR. MANSOUR: That's okay.

10 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, sir.

11 We now move to our second case for

12 the day, case number 12-019, 24755 Nepavine Drive.

13 Will the applicant please take the

14 podium.

15 MR. MINOCK: My name is Jason

16 Minock. It's M-i-n-o-c-k.

17 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

18 12-019, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in

19 this case?

20 MR. MINOCK: I do.

21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

22 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

23 MR. MINOCK: I believe everybody has

24 a copy of the color one, hopefully, because the black

25 and white one doesn't quite do justice. I'm here





1 asking for a variance for the size of a house that

2 has to be within 75 percent of the average floor area

3 of the surrounding community. And the way that the

4 ordinance was written, doesn't take into the fact a

5 large RUV (ph) like this. So next to Bellagio, my

6 understanding is, I can build very small homes. It

7 wouldn't matter how large the homes were in Bellagio.

8 But, if Bellagio -- if it's the same community, you

9 have an issue. And that's the issue that I have in

10 Island Lake.

11 Based on the map, the homes that are

12 highlighted in blue are 150 feet wide minimum, almost

13 one acre, much larger homesites. The ones in green

14 are 106 feet wide. Again, much larger homesites,

15 half acre minimum. Then, the ones that are in the

16 orange there are predominantly 90 feet wide and about

17 a third of an acre.

18 And, basically, there was a

19 hierarchy in Island Lake. They said there was going

20 to be three different size single family homes which

21 are going to be what -- and this is just our terms.

22 But the signature homes, which are

23 the ones in the water there, the larger homes. They

24 are both wider and larger square footage. And then

25 there are the estate homes which are in the green





1 which are, again, larger. And I have the average

2 square footages of the homes within the radius that

3 Doug had done. So the averages within that radius is

4 4300 square feet for the estate homes, 5400 square

5 feet for the signature homes and within the orange

6 it's 3300 square feet.

7 So what I'm asking for is that the

8 home that I'm asking about, lot 389, be compared to

9 the other homes of like size lots, like size homes.

10 Right now it's being compared to lots that are three

11 times larger which, obviously, can accommodate much

12 larger homes. So the square footage has been

13 eschewed there.

14 The house in question that we're

15 asking about is 2753 square feet. So it's not a real

16 small house. And I understand the issue. You don't

17 want a really large house and a small house right

18 next to each other. That's not the case. All the

19 orange are on 90 foot wide lots and all the homes are

20 relatively similar in size.

21 So I'm asking for a variance on that

22 lot that the square footage requirements, really,

23 just take into account the homes within its own

24 community. That's all.

25 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can we request him





1 to put this on the overhead, please?

2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Please. Can you

3 put it on the overhead?

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So everyone can see

5 what he's talking about.

6 MR. MINOCK: Does that help?

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. Just show me

8 which house you are talking about now. Which one?

9 MR. MINOCK: I'm referring to this

10 house right here. And, again, the blue, which are

11 the signature, are the one acre lots. These green

12 ones that are here, highlighted in green, are half

13 acre lots and got 106 feet wide and all of this

14 orange here are what we call our executive lots that

15 are 90 feet wide. It is similar the size lot on the

16 north side of the lake, but I didn't bother

17 highlighting those because they don't come into play

18 with the radius.

19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

20 Is there anyone in the audience who

21 would like to make a comment concerning this

22 particular case?

23 Seeing none, I will go to the

24 City.

25 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add and





1 I'll stand by and answer any questions.


3 Mr. Boulard.

4 And the City Attorney, any?

5 MS. SAARELA: I have nothing to add

6 either.


8 I will ask my secretary to read into

9 the record any correspondence that was received for

10 this case.

11 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

12 12-019, 27 were mailed, eight returned. Zero

13 responses.

14 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, madame

15 secretary.

16 I would like to now open this up for

17 discussion?

18 Yes?

19 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a question.

20 Mr. Boulard, are all the other pink

21 ones or the orange ones, is this the size mandated

22 for this particular -- the orange executive homes was

23 that mandated by the builder or by the City?

24 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Should be by the

25 builder.





1 MR. BOULARD: I guess the intent of

2 the ordinance is that within a community, within a

3 community that the home are built like sizes so you

4 don't have folks that move into a neighborhood with a

5 three to 4,000 square foot home or someone builds a

6 1500 foot square house, that kind of thing or the

7 extreme. This development is unique in that most

8 developments have lots that are pretty much the same

9 size, unless there's wetlands or so on involved.

10 Unless I'm mistaken, up to this point, the economy

11 being what it was, most of the -- as you can see, the

12 average of the executive homes is fully the mandated

13 75 percent of the estate homes, things like that.

14 But, for example, in this case you

15 have a proposed home on that lot that happens to be

16 backed up and within the calculated radius with a lot

17 of the bigger homes. That said, for example, if

18 there were no estate homes or signature homes in

19 development, the proposed home at 2753, I believe,

20 would hit the 75 percent of the average of the

21 executive homes and that's what you're asking for.

22 But the size of the home is based on

23 the sales in the market. Whatever they decide to

24 sale, to some extent, that's how the size is come up

25 with.





1 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you, very

2 much. I have no other questions.

3 MR. MINOCK: If the home was up back

4 here closer to Ten Mile and you did your radius, so

5 if the home was back here and you did your radius, it

6 would meet the ordinance.


8 Yes, Member Ghannam?

9 MEMBER GHANNAM: So the problem he's

10 facing or this particular unit is facing is it's

11 because it's abutting the green colored homes, the

12 half acre ones, correct?

13 MR. BOULARD: Yes. It's nearby.

14 MR. MINOCK: And the blue.

15 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand the

16 blue. But out of curiosity, all the ones along that

17 line that are next to the green shaded homes, have

18 you had this problem before or are they all developed

19 or no? I didn't see that.

20 MR. MINOCK: All these green homes

21 back here are developed.

22 MEMBER GHANNAM: No. I'm talking

23 about the orange side.

24 MR. MINOCK: The orange? Yes. They

25 have all been sold and I believe every one has been





1 through the permit process. They haven't been built

2 yet.


4 average-size homes of all those shaded in orange is

5 approximately how much?

6 MR. MINOCK: Well, it's 3300 square

7 feet within the radius of the confines of this

8 ordinance, but in the whole overall it's probably a

9 little less than 3300 square feet.

10 I'm guessing it's probably 3200

11 square feet.

12 MEMBER GHANNAM: That's the average?

13 MR. MINOCK: Yes.

14 MEMBER GHANNAM: And out of

15 curiosity -- and I assume this is one particular

16 phase. All the ones shaded in orange are a

17 particular phase in Island Lake?

18 MR. MINOCK: Correct.

19 MEMBER GHANNAM: And of the ones in

20 orange, shaded orange in that phase, is this one of

21 the homes that is being built in this particular

22 phase, this size home, 2700 and some square feet?

23 MR. MINOCK: It is. And this home

24 actually exists in that phase in a different area so

25 it didn't have this issue.





1 MEMBER GHANNAM: So it's a floor

2 plan and elevation and all that that is being built,

3 but your problem is it's next to the green shaded

4 home?

5 MR. MINOCK: Right.

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: I got you.

7 Personally, since we didn't receive

8 any major or really objections to your proposal and I

9 assume all the nearby homeowners got notice, it

10 doesn't seem to be unreasonable. It does seem an

11 unusual area where this home is and how it's situated

12 near these extremely larger lots and homes and

13 medium-size homes. So I have no problem with it,

14 sir.

15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Do we

16 have any additional comments? Questions considering

17 this?

18 Seeing none. I will entertain a

19 motion.

20 Yes. Go ahead.

21 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

22 12-019, 24755 Nepavine Drive, I move to approve the

23 request for similar to similar as presented that

24 there are unique circumstances and physical

25 conditions according to the map from the orange area.





1 That it becomes an issue because of this home's

2 unique location and it abuts another area phase of

3 this development that is similar, but not similar.

4 So, also, the property such as narrowness,

5 shallowness, shape, water, topography, which are all

6 part of this area, or similar physical conditions and

7 the need for the variance is not due to the

8 applicant's personal or economic difficulty.

9 It's not self-created and the strict

10 compliance with regulations governing area, setback,

11 frontage, height, bulk, density or other dimensional

12 requirements will unreasonably prevent the property

13 owner from using the property for its permitted use

14 or purpose and will render conformity with those

15 regulations unnecessarily burdensome.

16 That this particular home is a

17 little bit smaller than the rest of the property size

18 as presented. So for those reasons, that the

19 requested variance is the minimum variance necessary

20 to do substantial justice to the applicant as well as

21 to other property owners in the district. The other

22 property owners were notified. So residents in that

23 area are aware. The requested variance will not

24 cause an adverse impact on surrounding properties,

25 property values which are similar or the use and





1 enjoyment of the property in the neighborhood or

2 zoning district.


4 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Seeing a motion

5 and second. Do we have any further discussion?

6 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, please

7 call the roll.

8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?


10 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?


14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?


16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?


22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven

23 to zero.

24 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

25 Congratulations.





1 MR. MINOCK: Thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: We will now call

3 case number 12-020, Timken, 28125 Cabot Drive. Will

4 the applicants please take the podium and state your

5 name and spell it for the record. And if you're not

6 an attorney, please raise your right hand and be

7 sworn in by the secretary. Thank you.

8 MR. MARCELLI: Good evening. My

9 name is Mike Marcelli, M-a-r-c-e-l-l-i, director of

10 sales for the Timken Company located at 28125 Cabot

11 Drive. Thank you for your time this evening.

12 MEMBER KRIEGER: You're not an

13 attorney?

14 MR. MARCELLI: Not an attorney.

15 MEMBER KRIEGER: So in case number

16 12-020, 28125 Cabot Drive, do you swear to tell the

17 truth in this case?


19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

20 MR. MARCELLI: With me is Tim Franta

21 from our sign company. He will be providing the

22 details on our request.

23 MR. FRANTA: My name is Timothy

24 Franta, F-r-a-n-t-a, with Canton Sign Company,

25 Canton, Ohio. I represent Timken Company's





1 signage.

2 MEMBER KRIEGER: So in the case of

3 12-020, do you swear to tell the truth in this case?

4 MR. FRANTA: Yes, I do.

5 I'm going to briefly state why we

6 need this variance in our opinion and then I'm going

7 to show you some photographs to try to visually

8 explain it. Because, as you know, a picture is worth

9 a thousand words and I tend to yammer on anyway.

10 Timken Company has been located in

11 this Haggerty Corporate quarter park. They were on

12 Cabot just a few -- maybe a mile or so to the north

13 of where they're at now. And in that original

14 building, they had this sign on their building facing

15 M-5, north M-5. And it's an illuminated sign and it

16 gives them a presence on the building. When they

17 moved to their new location, the new building is

18 dissimilar to the first building because it only has

19 one entrance and I think your ordinance only allows

20 two wall signs for this type of building of this

21 size. So now there are three tenants and they all

22 have to go into the same entrance and without the

23 variance, Timken is denied a sign on the building.

24 We're not asking for a sign to be

25 added to a wall that already has a sign. What we





1 would like is to have the existing sign that was

2 there placed on the west wall of the new building

3 facing M-5 in a similar situation. It's not too

4 large. It's within the ordinance sizes.

5 So what I want to do is show you --

6 how do we get this thing to work?

7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just lay it on

8 there.

9 MR. FRANTA: This is the sign as it

10 existed at 28875 Cabot Drive. It's an internally

11 illuminated channel letter sign. At night the

12 letters Timken light up.

13 The new building, the new address,

14 there are three frontages. Cabot -- at the end of

15 Cabot as you go down towards 12 Mile, they have,

16 like, a little pond and it's next to the art

17 institute. You may know where that is at. In order

18 to enter this building, you have to actually go

19 through the art institute's parking lot.

20 And this is the north side of this

21 building. There are no signs on this side. It has,

22 basically, a couple of little directional signs.

23 The east wall of this building has a

24 sign, SSDC, who is a tenant of the building, and they

25 actually downsized their space and created a new





1 space that the Timken Company is occupying now.

2 Right below that sign is the Timken

3 space. They occupy a space on the second floor.

4 Here's a view of the south wall of

5 this building and here, again, the second sign from

6 the second tenant, they occupy the first floor of

7 this building and that sign is, here again, right

8 above where the Timken company's offices are.

9 There's an entrance to this building

10 off of 12 Mile and here's a view of the building as

11 you drive up the driveway and you can see the east

12 side and the south side of the building and the two

13 signs that exist.

14 Now, the entrance to the building,

15 all three entrances, are right here. That's the only

16 way you can get into the building. You go into the

17 lobby and there's a business on the first floor. I

18 think the art institute has some offices. But you go

19 up an elevator and there's two tenants in the second

20 level. So you only have one way to get in.

21 Here's the side of the building that

22 we're suggesting that we're allowed to put this sign.

23 This is the west side and it faces the on ramp off of

24 12 Mile and this is the area that we would like to

25 place that sign. Right here.





1 And I believe we placed a mockup

2 banner on this building 10 days ago so you members

3 could possibly drive by and see it. It's the exact

4 size of the sign that we're putting in.

5 There's another view of the sign

6 from the west side from M-5. And this is the area

7 where the sign's going to go. Right here.

8 Now, lastly, I show a rendering.

9 This is a computer rendering of the sign in the

10 position that we desire. Now, without this sign, no

11 one will know just driving around where the Timken

12 Company is. They have no idea. They may have an

13 address, so they're looking for the address. They

14 come to the area. They see the entrance to the art

15 institute and have to snake their way through.

16 They'll be driving around the building. If we at

17 least have this sign, they'll know, hey, the Timken

18 Company is in that building and all they have to do

19 is find the door. So that's what we're asking for.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

22 Is there anybody in the public who

23 would like to make a comment regarding this

24 particular case?

25 Seeing none, I will ask the





1 secretary to please read any correspondence

2 received.

3 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

4 12-020, 11 were mailed. One returned. Zero

5 responses.

6 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. I will

7 now turn to the City for any comment they may have on

8 this particular case.

9 MR. BOULARD: I just want to confer

10 one thing, if I can ask the applicant a question?


12 MR. BOULARD: If I understand from

13 our earlier conversations, the sign that you're

14 proposing to install, it is the same sign that is on

15 the building in the previous location?

16 MR. FRANTA: Correct.

17 MR. BOULARD: So you already have

18 the sign?

19 MR. FRANTA: The sign exists. We

20 may have to modify how we install it to adhere it to

21 your building code and we have a local sign company

22 that has submitted the engineer drawings and whatnot

23 to show how it attaches to the wall, et cetera. But

24 it's the same sign.

25 MR. BOULARD: Thank you.





1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Any

2 from the City Attorney's office?


4 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. I will

5 now open up this matter for the board.

6 Yes. Member Sanghvi?

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I drove

8 around here looking for this place. It's not easy to

9 find. Until you come around and look at the west

10 side wall up in the sky and then you see the mockup

11 you have put in here. Otherwise, there is no way of

12 identifying this building. I think it needs

13 something to identify this at that location. Thank

14 you.

15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member

16 Sanghvi.

17 MEMBER GEDEON: As you presented the

18 case, specifically, you mentioned the west wall of

19 the building and you also mentioned that there would

20 only be one sign per direction -- or per one wall.

21 So one on the west wall and one on the south wall and

22 one on the east wall. Would you accept that if those

23 limitations were added to the motion?

24 MR. FRANTA: I'm not sure what

25 you're saying.





1 MEMBER GEDEON: If we limited the

2 motion, specifically, to one sign per wall with the

3 Timken sign -- or the requested sign being on the

4 west wall, would that be acceptable limitations?

5 MR. FRANTA: Yes. That would be

6 wonderful.

7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member

8 Gedeon.

9 Yes, Member Ghannam?

10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Sir, I understand

11 your request. To me, it seems logical. Because if

12 you have two signs up there and one tenant is not

13 identified, then the question is how do they know if

14 that tenant is in the building. The problem is that

15 you have the two that you're entitled to and, you

16 know, obviously, you received a variance. And the

17 problem is what if another space is split up and

18 another tenant and then you have your fourth tenant

19 and then another space is split up and you have a

20 fifth tenant or a sixth tenant. Then the question

21 becomes how many signs can go on those walls. Once

22 we grant a variance it's good, really, I believe,

23 indefinitely. And that becomes my concern.

24 Your concern is you got three

25 tenants, you want three signs and I don't blame you





1 personally. That's what I worry about for future

2 reference. Do you understand?

3 MR. FRANTA: I know the owner of the

4 building does not oppose this and we're not asking

5 for an additional sign. Because this sign existed

6 already in that corridor on a building. So it's not

7 a new sign, per se.

8 MEMBER GHANNAM: It's not allowed by

9 this ordinance for this building. That's the

10 problem.

11 MR. FRANTA: You're correct. What

12 we're trying to point out is that the unique

13 positioning of this building and the way the

14 entrances are makes it extremely difficult for

15 anybody to find it and using like a GPS to get an

16 address, it's not like you're going to go right to

17 the address because you're going into a different

18 parking lot.

19 But, you know, we're just -- we want

20 to have a presence to the public so that they know

21 this is the correct building and since there is only

22 one entrance to the building, once you see the sign,

23 you'll know you're at the right place.

24 MEMBER GHANNAM: That, I understand.

25 But if you take that to its logical extreme, that





1 building is entitled to an unlimited number of signs

2 depending on the unlimited number of tenants. Do you

3 follow me?

4 MR. FRANTA: I understand. That's

5 why we're asking for your decision.

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have

7 anything else. Thank you.


9 MEMBER SKELCY: I have to agree with

10 Mr. Ghannam's comments.

11 In addition, I know that off of that

12 one entrance there is a ground sign that says Timken

13 off of 12 Mile. Because I saw it when I drove by.

14 MR. FRANTA: It's a small

15 directional sign.


17 MR. FRANTA: The letters are

18 approximately two inches high.

19 MEMBER SKELCY: I understand. I'm

20 stating -- I'm not asking you any questions at this

21 time.

22 MR. FRANTA: Okay.

23 MEMBER SKELCY: What I'm saying, you

24 know, I know that is there. And the Timken, you

25 know, when you're pulling up -- when I pulled up and





1 looked at it, I didn't see Timken. I had to drive

2 all the way to the back of the building to find the

3 sign and I kind of don't think it serves that great

4 of a purpose when you can't see it from the front.

5 And I also agree that, you know, every time you get a

6 new tenant, you're going to want to come back and ask

7 for another sign for the tenant and then we start to

8 get into that slippery slope where we almost have a

9 monument sign with all the tenant names like the

10 earlier case we heard tonight.

11 So that's all I have to comment on.

12 Thank you.

13 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, sir.

14 MR. MARCELLI: Could I respond to

15 that question or the issue?

16 CHAIRPERSON IBE: I don't believe

17 there was a question posed. One minute, sir.

18 Just go ahead with your comments.

19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Well, I'll hear

20 what you have to say first.

21 MR. FRANTA: Thank you. I

22 respectfully understand the issue with regard to

23 multiple tenants being able to move in, but the

24 building is now full. I mean, I realize that nothing

25 is forever but we do have a long-term intention to be





1 in the building and the building is right now as

2 occupied, it's full. There isn't space for another

3 tenant to move in.

4 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, sir.

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: A question to the

6 City. How was it that you have one -- how did we

7 have one building with two different businesses with

8 two different -- I mean, if it was one business

9 coming into this building, they'd end up with three

10 signs if they wanted to keep the -- if we approve

11 this.

12 MR. BOULARD: So ...

13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mostly, how did it

14 end up being two different businesses, one entrance,

15 one building?

16 MR. BOULARD: The unit specifies

17 that for a business building with a single identity,

18 with a single entrance, there is one sign allowed.

19 If that building is over 40,000 square feet, which

20 this building is, there's two signs allowed. The

21 landlord can distribute those as he sees fit. His

22 largest tenants, the ones that pay the most, whatever

23 he wants to. So in this case, now, we have a

24 building with a single entrance.

25 So this would be, potentially, a





1 third sign. I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that there

2 wouldn't be a way to frame a variance so that if all

3 the tenants moved out a single tenant would just go

4 back to two.

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Or come back to the

6 City with --

7 Could they in the future, for

8 counsel, that if these three moved out and somebody

9 else wanted to come into the building, would they

10 have to come back to the City regarding signs?

11 MS. SAARELA: I guess for this sign,

12 do you want to make this sign limited to this tenant

13 so that another tenant wouldn't be able to have a

14 sign necessarily?

15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Because I agree

16 that they need some identification. It's just

17 interesting how it ended up being this way versus

18 other signs we've had in the City.

19 So, thank you.


21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Actually, I have

22 another question.


24 MEMBER GHANNAM: How many tenants

25 would be in this building?





1 MR. FRANTA: I believe there is the

2 Social Security, the SSDC. I'm not sure what that

3 building is. And then there's the Freescale Company

4 and the art institute has some offices in that

5 building also, but they have their own building

6 across from the parking lot. So they don't require a

7 sign on that building. It's like they have a couple

8 classrooms in it. But there would be three tenants.

9 And we're not asking for a sign to be on the same

10 wall as another sign. We're just asking for a sign

11 on a single wall that has no sign.

12 MEMBER GHANNAM: All right. Thank

13 you.

14 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any

15 additional comments?

16 Sir, I think my problem with this,

17 for both of you gentlemen, is that the question that

18 was asked by two of the members was not really

19 answered to my satisfaction.

20 MR. FRANTA: Okay.

21 CHAIRPERSON IBE: And that is what

22 stops -- you know, like you said, the other company

23 had to let go of some space for Timken to occupy the

24 second floor. What is stops Timken from dividing up

25 the second floor for a tenant to come in and they're





1 going to require the sign?

2 MR. FRANTA: You guys.


4 MR. FRANTA: You guys stop them.

5 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Well, now, is it

6 agreeable to you that, one, this -- if this motion to

7 pass, it's restricted, one, to this particular

8 tenant. That's one. And, two, that no additional

9 signs will be granted beyond these three. Is that

10 something you will agree to?

11 MR. FRANTA: Yes.

12 MEMBER GEDEON: I guess I have a

13 issue with that. You can't limit a future board's

14 ability to grant a variance.

15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: We're not asking

16 the board would limit it. It's just if the tenant is

17 agreed -- now, who is the owner of the property?

18 You gentlemen, you're representing

19 the owner of the property?

20 MR. FRANTA: The owner is not

21 present.


23 MR. FRANTA: But he did sign the

24 application and he's in favor of the sign being

25 placed where we're asking.





1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: So, technically,

2 you cannot speak for the owner as to what happens in

3 the future?

4 MR. FRANTA: No. We cannot. But I

5 believe the owner is bound by the rules of the Zoning

6 Board and that's, basically, why we're here to ask

7 for the variance on. We're not trying to rewrite the

8 zoning board.

9 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well, sir.

10 Do we have any additional comments

11 or questions?

12 Seeing none, I will entertain a

13 motion.

14 MEMBER GEDEON: I'll propose a

15 motion to approve the variance as requested for an

16 additional 40 foot wall sign for the business with

17 specific limitations that the additional sign be

18 placed on the west wall of the building and that no

19 other wall sign is moved to the west. So it is the

20 only wall sign present on the west side of the

21 building and I would also limit the variance to the

22 specific tenant, Timken, in this case.

23 The request is -- and the reason for

24 granting this variance is because the request is

25 based on circumstances and features that are





1 exceptional and unique to the property and do not

2 result from conditions that exist generally in the

3 City or that are self-created.

4 Specifically, the arrangement of the

5 building along M-5 allows for -- or I shouldn't say

6 allows for. But provides additional space that is

7 not intrusive to the main surface roads in the area.

8 The failure to grant relief will

9 unreasonably prevent or limit the use of the property

10 and will result in substantially more than mere

11 inconvenience or inability to attain a higher

12 economic or financial return.

13 The grant of relief will not result

14 in a use of structure that is incompatible with or

15 unreasonably interferes with adjacent or surrounding

16 properties, will result in substantial justice being

17 done to both the applicant and the adjacent or

18 surrounding properties, and is not inconsistent with

19 the spirit of the ordinance.


21 second?


23 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Seeing the motion

24 and a second. Do we have any further discussion?

25 Seeing none. Please call the roll.





1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?


3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?


7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?


9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?


15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes four

16 to three.

17 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you very

18 much.

19 MR. FRANTA: Thank you.

20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: I'll bring this to

21 our next case for today. Case number 12-023, Mixx

22 Sports Bar outdoor seating.

23 Will the applicant please come to

24 the podium. State your full name and spell it for

25 our reporter. And if you're not an attorney, please





1 raise your right hand and be sworn in by madame

2 secretary.

3 MR. DOYLE: Daniel Doyle, D-o-y-l-e.

4 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

5 12-023, 43155 Main Street, do you swear or affirm to

6 tell the truth in this case?

7 MR. DOYLE: I do.

8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

9 MR. DOYLE: I'm one of the partners

10 of the Mixx Sports Bar and we're requesting a

11 variance. The current ordinance calls for a six foot

12 pathway and we're requesting a variance down to a

13 five foot pathway, reducing it a foot.

14 Because of the design of the

15 building, we're one of the few establishments in the

16 downtown district that does not have enough room to

17 put an outside patio. We've had several patrons

18 indicate that they go to other places during the

19 summer because of the outdoor seating arrangement.

20 Our business is still there, but we could bring more

21 traffic to the downtown district which would promote

22 the other businesses.

23 We are one of only three on our

24 street that are still in business down there and we

25 would like to bring more traffic down there. There's





1 a jeweler, there's ourselves and there's a hair

2 studio.

3 Included in the packet that I think

4 everybody received, it has a copy of a picture of the

5 patio similar to what we were recommending to what

6 the Penn Grill has in downtown Plymouth.

7 It would be a decorative, iron-type

8 gated area. We've also included a copy of the

9 drawing for the proposed location, along with copies

10 of the ordinances. We looked at the city of

11 Northville and the city of Plymouth, which I think we

12 were trying to replicate a similar downtown district

13 as those areas. You can see that the city of

14 Northville, their ordinance has for a 42 foot (sic),

15 which is about three and a half foot. And the city

16 of Plymouth has a five foot or 60 feet -- or 60-inch,

17 five foot path.

18 We feel that there is -- right now

19 there is next to no traffic on that street. We

20 probably have 10, maybe 15 people on a busy day come

21 down the street. We don't feel that it would

22 restrict the flow of foot traffic and we hope that it

23 will generate more business downtown for the other

24 businesses and the structure.

25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.





1 MR. DOYLE: Thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Is there anybody

3 in the public who would like to make a comment on

4 this particular case, please raise your hand.

5 Seeing none. I will ask madame

6 secretary to read into the record any correspondence

7 received.

8 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

9 12-023, 39 were mailed, zero returned, zero

10 responses.

11 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. I will

12 now ask the City for any comment it may have now

13 regarding this particular case?

14 MR. BOULARD: If I could bring up a

15 point in question with the applicant, please.

16 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes. Please.

17 MR. BOULARD: I just want to confirm

18 for the record that the proposed five feet would be

19 the absolute minimum even with door swings and so on

20 so that someone in a wheelchair could traverse that?

21 MR. DOYLE: Absolutely, yes.

22 MR. BOULARD: And also, that you're

23 confident that the area that would remain inside the

24 fence is going to be accessible also? Including the

25 area around the tree and so on?





1 MR. DOYLE: Yes.


3 Do we have any comment from the

4 City's counsel?



7 I will now open up this particular

8 case for conversation to the board.

9 Yes, Member Ghannam?

10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Just a couple of

11 questions. With the proposed gate and so forth, how

12 much room would that leave for pedestrians to

13 traverse on the sidewalk area?

14 MR. DOYLE: I believe that the gate

15 would open inward so it wouldn't infringe on the five

16 foot pathway.

17 MEMBER GHANNAM: So there would be

18 five feet?

19 MR. DOYLE: Yes.

20 MEMBER GHANNAM: Okay. Is there

21 any issues with safety or concerns with the City

22 regarding the safety of the berm being five feet?

23 MR. BOULARD: The actual fenced area

24 of the gate does open out. The gate that is around

25 the fence that would be required, I assume, by OCC,





1 opens out. However, the outdoor seating area does

2 not extend in front of the exit door of the building.

3 So it should be -- I don't see that there would be a

4 safety issue there. As long as we got the five feet

5 clear.

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: So with regard to

7 the outside seating, that's not -- I mean, they would

8 be entitled to that. The only question is this one

9 variance, right?

10 MR. BOULARD: Yes. The outdoor

11 seating variance requires a six foot wide path, but

12 they don't have enough room there and can't go up or

13 down the sidewalk to the west because it's a

14 different property there.

15 So, hence, the request for the

16 variance.

17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Just one other

18 question for you. If you reduce this fenced in area

19 by the one foot given the six foot, would that be

20 safe for the seating area outside?

21 MR. BOULARD: I'm guessing with the

22 minimum four foot shown to the table that would be

23 unusable.

24 MEMBER GHANNAM: Is that your

25 position, sir? That it would be unusable if you





1 reduced it a foot?

2 MR. DOYLE: Yes. Yes.


4 understand the need for the variance. I mean, you're

5 entitled to outside seating. To me, so long as there

6 is no issues with safety and so forth of pedestrians,

7 I mean, I have no problem with this.

8 MR. DOYLE: We did look at

9 alternatives. Trying to go up to the roof and that

10 was virtually impossible because of the stacks. So

11 we did look for alternatives.

12 MEMBER GHANNAM: That is your job.

13 You have to try to minimize whatever request you're

14 making. If you can't do the entire outside seating

15 because of this one foot and yet it's still safe, it

16 appears reasonable.

17 MR. DOYLE: Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

19 Yes, Member Gedeon?

20 MEMBER GEDEON: I think the

21 applicant's discussion of neighboring zoning

22 ordinances in Northville and Plymouth is compelling.

23 If you go to the downtown area, even in Ann Arbor,

24 Plymouth or Northville, many of the restaurants have

25 outdoor seating and it's just what's expected and I





1 know that the downtown Novi area is struggling and

2 this one thing is not going to turn it around,

3 obviously, but I think every little bit helps. So

4 I'm in favor of this.

5 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member

6 Gedeon.

7 Yes, Member Gerblick?

8 MEMBER GERBLICK: I saw that you had

9 a picture from, I guess, it's the Penn Bar in

10 Plymouth.

11 MR. DOYLE: Yes.

12 MEMBER GERBLICK: I know their fence

13 that they have in place there in the wintertime,

14 that's a removable fence. It's not permanent. The

15 question is, was the fence that you guys are

16 proposing to put in, is that a permanent fence or is

17 it going to be similar to what they have at the Penn

18 where you would have a cast iron fence that would be

19 removable in the winter months?

20 MR. DOYLE: I'm sorry. My partner

21 is the builder and he was supposed to be here, but he

22 got called out of town. I believe we can remove it,

23 but I'm not certain. But if it makes a difference,

24 we can make it removable during the winter.

25 MEMBER GERBLICK: All right. Thank





1 you.

2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Member Skelcy?

3 MEMBER SKELCY: Are you going to

4 have three tables? The drawing shows three, but is

5 that ...

6 MR. DOYLE: Well, it'll be three to

7 five. Whatever fits and make sense within that area

8 to seat comfortably.

9 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank you.

10 No more questions.

11 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any --

12 yes?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no problem

14 with outside seating arrangement, but I'm not so sure

15 about the enclosure around there. I mean, there's so

16 little room there, if you go and look at the place.

17 If you put an enclosure, there is no room for anybody

18 else to walk around it without going on the street.

19 And, yes, you can have outside seating, but I am not

20 so sure about the enclosure around there.

21 Physically, there's no room to put a regular size

22 table or anything where you can walk around the fence

23 going to some other business on the street. And I'm

24 not sure how the American Disability Act also can be

25 enforced if you put an enclosure there.





1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Maybe our City

2 or ...

3 MR. BOULARD: I can try to address

4 that. The ADA is a civil rights legislation and so

5 that is enforced by the City. The barrier free code

6 requires, typically, depending on the amount of

7 traffic, three feet to five feet for traffic. So if

8 the applicant was, as promised, to maintain a five

9 foot path clear without, you know, bases for fence

10 posts and things in it, clear, it would meet, in my

11 estimation, the requirements.

12 With regard to the fence and the

13 enclosure, I believe that's a requirement for outdoor

14 service of alcohol from the OCC. So it's a kind of

15 the chicken or the egg.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Catch-22?

17 MR. BOULARD: Yes.

18 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Thank

19 you.

20 Yes, Member Gedeon?

21 MEMBER GEDEON: For the City, is

22 there any kind of other ordinance that requires -- I

23 imagine it's a public sidewalk, right, so permanent

24 structure. I can just imagine snow removal and all

25 that stuff being an issue.





1 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance requires

2 the fixtures and so on are removed. Fixtures and

3 tables, wastebaskets and those kind of things are

4 removed in the winter. Certainly, the landlord

5 and/or the business owner is responsible for clearing

6 that snow.

7 One suggestion I could put out is

8 that you could, if you so decided, to put a condition

9 that the posts are removable so you wouldn't have a

10 buildup up of snow against the building in the winter

11 and reduce that buildup.

12 MEMBER GEDEON: That would be my

13 concern. Thanks.

14 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

15 Yes?

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Are you amendable

17 to that, to have a fence that is removable?

18 MR. DOYLE: Yes.

19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Member

20 Krieger.

21 Do we have any additional comments

22 or questions?

23 Seeing none, I will entertain a

24 motion, please.

25 Yes, Member Krieger.





1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

2 12-023 for 43155 Main Street I move to approve the

3 applicant's request for five feet as the amount of

4 distance for the barrier free area for traffic,

5 pedestrian traffic. That, as requested, also for

6 winter, a fence that is able to be removed for winter

7 clearing of snow. That the area is unique

8 circumstances on Main Street and physical conditions

9 of the property that it will enhance an attraction

10 for more visitors to the street. The narrowness,

11 shallowness, shape, water, topography and similar

12 physical conditions and the need for the variance is

13 not due to the applicant's personal or economic

14 difficulty.

15 The strict compliance with

16 regulations governing the area, setback, frontage,

17 height, bulk, density or other dimensional

18 requirements will unreasonably prevent the property

19 owner from using the property for a permitted

20 purpose. That having the fence for -- giving liquor

21 outside per laws or will render conformity with those

22 regulations unnecessarily burdensome.

23 The requested variance is the

24 minimum variance necessary to do substantial justice

25 for the applicant as well as to the neighboring





1 property owners in the district. The requested

2 variance will not cause an adverse impact on

3 surrounding property. People will still be able to

4 get by with wheelchairs. The property values will

5 not be dimensioned and maybe enhance them by

6 attracting more in the enjoyment of the property in

7 the neighborhood and zoning district.

8 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes, Mr. Boulard?

9 MR. BOULARD: If I might offer the

10 suggestion that as opposed to just winter that say

11 the fence will be removed in the periods that the

12 ordinance excludes outdoor seating. Because there

13 are specific dates in there.


15 MR. BOULARD: That will change that.

16 That way everybody knows what dates you meant.


18 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll second it.

19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Seeing

20 a motion and a second. Do we have any further

21 conversation?

22 Seeing none. Please call the roll,

23 Ms. Pawlowski.

24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?






1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?


5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?


7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?


13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven

14 to zero.

15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

16 Congratulations, sir.

17 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Board.

18 CHAIRPERSON IBE: That brings us to

19 our next case. Case number 12-024, Crescent Place,

20 26401 Novi Road. Will the applicant please come to

21 the podium.

22 State your full name for the record

23 and please spell your name, first and last name. And

24 if you're not an attorney, raise your right hand and

25 be sworn in by the secretary.





1 MR. ROBINSON: Good evening. Steve

2 Robinson, R-o-b-i-n-s-o-n, with Brooks Development

3 Company.

4 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

5 12-024 on 26401 Novi Road, do you swear to tell the

6 truth in this case?


8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

9 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Please go ahead.

10 MR. ROBINSON: We're here this

11 evening on the redevelopment of the existing Big Boy

12 on the northwest corner of Novi and Crescent Road. I

13 know this project was before you, I believe, a couple

14 years ago. When we picked up the project after it

15 previously failed, we tried to mirror as much of the

16 previously approved project as we possibly could. In

17 fact, we mirrored almost everything, although

18 conditions have changed somewhat in the marketplace.

19 We're here this evening asking for,

20 I guess, three different variances. Much of them are

21 the two variances regarding setback. And locations

22 of the loading zone are really due to the constraints

23 of the site having three separate frontages. And the

24 final -- and I can go into that in more detail if

25 you'd like.





1 But the final is relative to the

2 parking. The demand in this location has really seen

3 a number of quick service restaurants, fast casual

4 restaurants. Which is, I mean, a fast moving trend

5 within the retail industry. As opposed to menu

6 service, drive-thru service, this is a menu board

7 service where you walk in, you order from the menu

8 board, get your food and either sit down or walk back

9 out again.

10 We've seen in many communities --

11 some communities, I guess, a distinction of this type

12 of restaurant. Your quick service restaurants in the

13 zoning ordinance relative to parking. We've done a

14 number of these projects across the state and in the

15 periods of 2009 to 2012, which has been, you know, a

16 relatively difficult environment for Michigan. We've

17 really hung in there and developed a number of these

18 properties to include this type of restaurants.

19 We have seen that seating

20 requirements is more on the order of one per 100 as

21 opposed to one per 70, which is the current City of

22 Novi ordinance.

23 When we looked at -- the nature of

24 the variance of 14 spaces was more a product of the

25 math going into it where we felt that somewhere





1 between one per 70 versus one per 100 and we've come

2 across one per 90 is something we thought was more

3 conservative to the need of the users, but still, you

4 know, still something that would be satisfied to the

5 retailers in this area to make this a successful

6 center. So although it's 14 spaces, it was really

7 derived on the math of one per 90 as opposed to one

8 per 70 in the ordinance.

9 This property is, you know, kind of

10 in field redevelopment project within the Town Center

11 district. The Town Center district being designed, I

12 think, successfully in areas and maybe not so

13 successfully in other areas to support pedestrian

14 traffic and the more of a walkable community, which I

15 also think will eschew the parking demand numbers

16 when you're inside a large community like this. So

17 this property, although it stands alone, is part of a

18 larger area of development with the properties across

19 the street, et cetera. And we're quite confident

20 that based on our experience with these types of

21 centers and these types of users that the parking

22 that we're asking for will be sufficient.

23 You know, there are some

24 inefficiencies to the site that to conform with the

25 aesthetics of this particular area with this front





1 loaded building, the building that fronts on Novi

2 Road, and we think we have done -- I guess we'll

3 consider ourselves an admirable job with trying to

4 fit in with the rest of the community and help

5 preserve the pattern of development in the Town

6 Center district.


8 Is there anyone in the public who

9 would like to make a remark in this particular case?

10 Please raise your hand.

11 Seeing none, I will ask the

12 secretary to read into the record any correspondence

13 received.

14 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number

15 12-024, 29 were mailed, zero returned, zero

16 response.

17 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. The

18 City, do we have any comments concerning this

19 particular case?

20 MR. BOULARD: Kristen Kapelanski

21 from our planning division is here just in case you

22 have any questions and we have her report.

23 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Thank

24 you so much.

25 The City Attorney, any comments?





1 MS. SAARELA: I do not.

2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you very

3 much.

4 I will now open this particular case

5 to the board for discussion.

6 Yes, Member Skelcy?

7 MEMBER SKELCY: I have questions for

8 the City.

9 Yes, thank you.

10 MS. KAPELANSKI: Good evening.

11 MEMBER SKELCY: When I read the

12 report, it says that there will be two restaurant

13 spaces and then it says additional retail space. How

14 many additional retail spaces will there be?

15 MS. KAPELANSKI: I believe the

16 applicant has shown on the floor plan that was

17 submitted one large retail space in terms of

18 calculating the parking. If they split it into two

19 spaces or one, we would calculate the parking the

20 same way.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: So it would be the

22 same no matter how many businesses were in there?


24 MEMBER SKELCY: Then I notice that

25 you do not support the variance because there's been





1 no explanation as to why they cannot reduce the size

2 of the buildings to accommodate the parking; is that

3 correct?

4 MS. KAPELANSKI: That's correct.

5 The planning staff does not support their requested

6 variance for the number of parking spaces or the

7 parking setbacks, but we did support the variance

8 request for the loading zone and the dumpster

9 location.

10 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank you.

11 I have a question for Mr. -- I'm

12 sorry. I didn't write your name down.

13 MR. ROBINSON: Robinson.

14 MEMBER SKELCY: Mr. Robinson, why

15 can you not reduce the size of the building, which

16 appears to be the billion dollar question?

17 MR. ROBINSON: Right. Well, it's

18 simple economics. I mean, I can try to twist that

19 some other way, but, you know, there's been -- this

20 project was attempted once before on this particular

21 property with the similar size building. I don't

22 know for -- I think it's almost exactly -- we used

23 exactly the same floor plan that they did before. We

24 used exactly the same site plan with the exception of

25 the parking lot in the rear.





1 You know, between construction --

2 between hard costs and redevelopment of the site,

3 you've got utility issues and you've got storm water

4 issues here that need to be accommodated for.

5 There's an economic balance to trying to get the

6 project to work and that was our threshold number.

7 The rents from the prior attempt at this project are

8 down at least 25 percent from what they were four

9 years ago. The demand has changed. The market's

10 changed.

11 The owners of the Big Boy which are,

12 you know, great people, have significantly reduced

13 price to try to make this work, but that's the simple

14 answer.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: So you're saying

16 that in order to recoup the costs for building and

17 developing and continuing to maintain the property,

18 you have to have that much space so that you can

19 lease out retail and have two restaurants?

20 MR. ROBINSON: Yeah. If you look

21 at -- it's one per 70 for a restaurant. It's one per

22 200 for retail. So for every parking space, we need

23 to lose almost -- excuse my math.

24 So for every 70 feet of restaurant

25 we need to lose the 200 feet of retail. So in order





1 to bring this in balance to have the two restaurants

2 this building would be is -- my math genius.

3 Much smaller.

4 Let's see. Maybe I can do the math

5 real quick.

6 It would go all the way down like

7 7700 square feet. So we would lose, you know, 2400

8 square feet.

9 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. Those

10 are all the questions I have. Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, member

12 Skelcy.

13 Yes, Member Gedeon?

14 MEMBER GEDEON: I know the focus on

15 the last couple of questions has been on the size of

16 the building. But I think the applicant made a valid

17 point about the use of the building for not so much

18 fast food -- I apologize. I forgot the word you

19 used. Quick service?

20 MR. ROBINSON: Quick service.

21 MEMBER GEDEON: Quick service food.

22 So that's something that the zoning ordinance may not

23 have anticipated when they set the one per 70 square

24 foot requirement. So, you know, even though you can

25 say, well, they should've built a smaller building,





1 they're kind of in the gray area here in my opinion.

2 So, you know, I would support this.

3 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member

4 Gedeon.

5 Do we have any --

6 Yes, Member Sanghvi?

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: From what I look at

8 this plan here, you would have streets on three sides

9 of property. So which is the front yard? And where

10 do you put the dumpster? In the rear? In front of

11 the Melting Pot?

12 I mean, the way the whole property

13 is located and the design and everything is there,

14 they need a variance for almost everything to build

15 anything worthwhile. And I don't see how they can

16 build anything without these variances, really. And

17 from what is going on in the Expo Center now, this is

18 really going to be one of the real prime properties

19 in that area and they want to develop it and it needs

20 developing. I have no problem with developing

21 anything. So I know that the two main variances are

22 not a problem. But there is no other way anything

23 can be done as far as I can see. So, reluctantly, I

24 am willing to support that case.






1 Ghannam?

2 MEMBER GHANNAM: I have no problems

3 with the loading zone on the dumpster locations given

4 the configuration. With regard to the parking, was

5 this particular building -- I know you said it's the

6 same -- basically, the same floor plans of the

7 existing building?

8 MR. ROBINSON: No. The previously

9 public building. Not the existing building. The

10 existing building is a much smaller building.

11 MEMBER GHANNAM: With the current

12 configuration of this 10,000 and some square foot

13 building, did you design it with tenants in mind?

14 MR. ROBINSON: We do have -- we have

15 tenants in mind. One of the major tenants was lost

16 during the process to another location. But we --

17 just keeping market demand, you know, we can easily

18 fill it across the board with restaurants. We don't

19 think the building would park for that from our

20 standpoint. We think the building would park to

21 about 4600 square feet of restaurant is where we feel

22 comfortable.

23 You know, our -- and if I may have

24 some liberty. Our focus has really been on the

25 aesthetics and how this building functions and how it





1 fits in with the community. So we have tried not to

2 cut any corners on the aesthetics of the building,

3 the landscaping, everything else like that. So this

4 is a building that really fits within the idea of the

5 Town Center district and that's where our main focus

6 has been. And we're trying to make it economically

7 feasible.

8 MEMBER GHANNAM: And I appreciate

9 that. So you may have tenants but I assume each food

10 service place would take about 2300 square feet?

11 MR. ROBINSON: Yeah. Either 24, 22,

12 22, 20. You know, when we get right down to it,

13 somewhere in that neighborhood.

14 MEMBER GHANNAM: And the balance is

15 some kind of retail?

16 MR. ROBINSON: And the balance would

17 be retail.

18 MEMBER GHANNAM: This is a unique

19 spot given what just got -- or is getting demolished

20 behind you. And I understand the need. Novi Road is

21 very busy and so forth and I think your need has been

22 justified. So I have no problems with the balance of

23 the parking issues either. So I would be willing

24 support it.

25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member





1 Ghannam.

2 I also have a comment to make.

3 First, I must say that I applaud the applicants for

4 the careful planning. This particular spot actually

5 needs redeveloping. If there is anywhere in the Town

6 Center that needed redevelopment, is this particular

7 eyesore. When you drive past it every day, it just

8 doesn't look good. I'm sure that with the

9 redevelopment, it's probably going to bring some life

10 to the area. And, really, I think you have made your

11 case very simple for me to support your proposal.

12 Thank you.

13 MR. ROBINSON: Thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any

15 further discussion?

16 Seeing none, I would entertain a

17 motion, please.

18 Yes?

19 MEMBER GEDEON: I move that we grant

20 the variance as requested in case number 12-024,

21 Crescent Place, 26401 Novi Road. The variance should

22 be granted due to the practical difficulty, that

23 there are unique circumstances or physical conditions

24 of the property where the building is located and the

25 surrounding properties around it. The need is not





1 self-created.

2 Strict compliance with regulations

3 will unreasonably prevent the property owner from

4 using the property for a permitted purpose or will

5 render conformity with those regulations

6 unnecessarily burdensome. The request granted is

7 the minimum request necessary to do substantial

8 justice to the applicant as well as other property

9 owners in the district and the requested variance

10 will not cause an adverse impact on surrounding

11 property, property values or the use and enjoyment of

12 the property in the neighborhood or zoning

13 district.


15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Seeing a motion

16 and a second. Do we have any further discussion?

17 Seeing none. Please call the roll,

18 Ms. Pawlowski.

19 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?


21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


23 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?


25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?






2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


4 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


6 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?


8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven

9 to zero.

10 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Congratulations.

11 MR. ROBINSON: Thank you very

12 much.

13 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.

14 Turning to the City, do we have to

15 do anything with the case that was tabled or

16 dismissed? Do we have to take any motion regarding

17 those, case number 12-022?

18 MS. SAARELA: It's already been

19 set.

20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: It's already been

21 set. Wonderful. Great.

22 I'm sorry. Go ahead.

23 MR. BOULARD: If I might, the

24 gentleman that is sitting in the back watching us

25 patiently is actually -- I just want to introduce





1 him. His name is Alex Trouissant (ph). He is

2 between his first and second years of law school.

3 He's a member of the Novi Community and he's helping

4 us out a few days a week in preparing some of the

5 paperwork. So you'll see his name and I just wanted

6 to introduce him and say thank you.


8 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you. And my

9 law school.

10 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Do we

11 have any other matters that we need to take up at

12 this time?

13 Seeing none, I will entertain a

14 motion to adjourn.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion to adjourn.


17 CHAIRPERSON IBE: We have a motion

18 and seconded. All in favor say "Aye."

19 THE BOARD: Aye.

20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: All opposed?

21 Seeing none, meeting is hereby

22 adjourned.

23 (Meeting concluded at 8:28 p.m.)

24 - - -






1 C E R T I F I C A T E



4 ) ss



7 I, Darlene K. May, Notary Public

8 within and for the County of Oakland, do hereby

9 certify that I have recorded stenographically the

10 proceedings had and testimony taken in the

11 above-entitled matter at the time and place

12 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that

13 the foregoing transcript, consisting of seventy-eight

14 (78) typewritten pages, is a true and correct

15 transcript of my said stenographic notes.


17 ____________________________

Darlene K. May, RPR/CSR-6479


19 June 24, 2012