| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, July 9, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. We'll call this meeting to order. Sarah, you want to call the roll? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes, here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi, I have him as absent excused. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We do have a quorum. This meeting is now in session. Ladies and gentlemen, on the front page of our agenda there are rules of conduct, and I'd ask that you give a quick looksy-over and try to adhere to them. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variance from the application
of the Novi zoning ordinances. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance request and a vote of the majority of members present to deny a variance. A full Board consists of six members. We have five members tonight, so to get a positive approval of the variance you will need four votes. If there's anyone here who would rather have their case heard before a full Board, I'd ask you to raise your hand now and we'll put you on next month's agenda; otherwise, we will proceed. I see no hands waving. Next item of business is our agenda. Are there any changes, comments, issues, items? MS. MARCHIONI: No. MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve. MR. CHAIRMAN: Move for approval as submitted. All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a set of minutes from the May 7th meeting. Any changes to those minutes? MEMBER GRAY: I've got two
corrections. Page fifty-three line four, where it says the word inaudible, what I said was illegal multiple multiple. And on page fifty-nine line twenty, instead of the number four, I believe it should be the word for, f-o-r. That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, other Boards members? Move for approval as amended. All those in favor say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Public remarks. At this portion we'll invite the public to approach the Board, but all comments related to a case on our agenda should be held until that case is called. Is there anyone who wants to talk to the Board about anything other than items on the agenda? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will proceed and call the first case.
CASE NUMBER 02-051 MR. CHAIRMAN: ZBA Case 02-051. This is the Too Chez signage, please.
Gentlemen, you want to give your names for the record and then raise your right hand and be sworn? MR. HEYN: My name's Jeff Heyn, Planet Neon, and I'm here with Kenneth Aspinaw and John Baumgarden from Epic Restaurants, owner of Too Chez Restaurant. MR. CHAIRMAN: Raise your right hand. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is true? THE GROUP: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have the floor. MR. HEYN: Evening, Board. Like I said, I'm Jeff Heyn, Planet Neon Sign Company. I reside at 1420 Pettibone Lake Road, Highland, Michigan, and I'm -- we're here seeking variance to install a new wall sign that would say Bistro below the existing Too Chez sign on the east elevation and a brand-new sign, Too Chez Bistro, wall sign, individual channel letter sign, which would be on the south elevation, like the drawing that we supplied you with.
Unfortunately, you probably got a chance to see the mockup banners, and they're not installed -- the positioning isn't exactly like the drawing because the elevation on the building has those protruding fascia layers that made it pretty hard to put the banner up over top of that, so they're a little bit lower than -- but the actual drawing is accurate that you have there, the way they would be installed if you grant permission. I just want to make a note, too, that I think there may be a little confusion on the actual size of the sign, the proposed signs. The Too -- the existing Too Chez sign that's been up there, I don't know, three or four years -- UNIDENTIFIED: That's about right, four years. MR. HEYN: That's about thirty square feet, and then the Bistro sign is probably twenty-six square feet. So, in reality, we're looking at adding a twenty-six square foot Bistro to that existing Too Chez sign that's up there now, and then the identical size Too Chez Bistro on the south elevation, which would be the freeway side, so it's not, in my eyes -- I don't know where the
-- it's not a hundred square feet, unless you draw a complete rectangle around the whole envelope, which -- it's accurate from that point of view, but -- I'd really like to have John Baumgardner speak to the -- some of the other points in this matter. I'm going to let him take over from here, unless you have any questions for me on -- or I can get back with you on that, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. BAUMGARDEN: Thanks, Jeff. I'm John Baumgardner. I'm the general manager of Too Chez Restaurant. I live at 54 Oakdale in Pleasant Ridge, Michigan. I've been at Too Chez for over ten years, and I just want to talk to you a little bit about our reasoning for wanting to do this. It's just getting more and more competitive out there. We're really struggling to survive. There are more chain restaurants with their big national advertising coming into Novi. We've got one going in right next door to us. And we've always struggled with just visibility. We have a great location there because we're near Novi Road and I-96; however, the access
is somewhat difficult because you have to come up around to the north and in through West Oaks Drive to get to us. And the traffic we're trying to appeal to is on Novi Road, but I think the way the zoning is structured, our setback goes from Sheridan Drive. Well, there's really no traffic on Sheridan Drive except for those people that are already coming to us or to the hotel, the Double Tree, and there's no signage on the south side of our building, so the people coming up from the south on Novi Road has no idea what our building is really. And over the years that I've been there, we've -- we still experience this. People who have been longtime Novi residents come into the restaurant and say are you new, we never knew you were here. It's just -- it's just something we need to address in order to make our restaurant more marketable in order to survive. We need to -- we want to add the word Bistro because our name, Too Chez, people don't really know what it is. They -- they're not even sure it's a restaurant when you look at the sign the way it sits now, so we needed to make a change
and this seems to be the best change for us to make. The most affordable change for us to make was just to add a word that conveys the kind of restaurant that we want to be. I think that's the point. Another person who's here -- I'm not sure if he has anything to add -- was Kevin Aspinaw who's from our corporate office at Epic Restaurant Group, and I'll open it up to him, unless anyone has questions for me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we might have some questions later on. MR. BAUMGARDEN: Okay. MR. ASPINAW: My name is Kevin Aspinaw, reside at 4029 Cheryl Drive, Commerce Township. Again, I just want to support what John said. He pretty much covered all the bases. But we've, indeed, had Too Chez -- our company, Epic Restaurant Group and its predecessor has operated Too Chez at its current location for close to 18 years. We've struggled at various times to make it successful. We've had a couple -- we've had a name change ten years ago
when we changed to Too Chez. We've, at various times, struggled. We're finding more and more -- it's more and more difficult to run a profitable operation, and we're trying to address it in the best way that we can, so we want to get, basically, more visibility and more name recognition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were nine notices sent to adjoining property owners. There were no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to make a comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No, okay. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, just as Mr. Heyn had indicated, the Novi city ordinance can determine the square footage of sign is to the outmost areas of the sign. As you can see, Bistro is located within the sign area, and we go from top to bottom and out to out, so, in fact, that 101 square -- 100.06 foot applies for this particular square footage. MEMBER BAUER: That's strictly for Bistro?
MR. SAVEN: Including the Bistro; other -- elsewise, it would have been 33 square foot, somewhere around that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, open for discussion, questions or comments? MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem with adding the Bistro to give it identification. The problem I have is the second sign because you already have a road sign out there to direct people in, and I really don't think the south sign is going to be of that significant value. I think the road sign is of more value to them, and I have no problem, like I say, in adding Bistro on the east elevation, but I really have a problem in supporting the second wall sign. MEMBER BAUER: Those are my sentiments. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I share the same sentiments. I don't know where the second sign is going to actually help in drawing in the traffic. Maybe you need to look at another avenue of advertising or whatever, but the first one with the Bistro, I totally agree with my other -- with the previous speaker. I think it does help more so
coming down. And the rest, I think you're going to be on your own coming up with some more creativity on letting people know about your restaurant. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: I am going to disagree with the previous speakers. I think the word Bistro is going to make a big difference on the east side, and because of the site where they are and where they have been for 18 years, it's always been a very difficult site to get to. You can't turn into it. You have to go up to Donelson -- no, not up to Donelson. THE GROUP: West Oaks. MEMBER GRAY: West Oaks. Thank you. I drew a complete blank for a minute. You have to go up to West Oaks to make the turn and then turn, and it's a horrible place to get into. I think the fact that they have been here and they've been here for eighteen years, and under two different names, but the fact that they -- this used to be the old Lincoln Mercury dealer, didn't it, when it was originally built? And that
sat vacant for years. MR. ASPINAW: Never opened. MEMBER GRAY: Never opened. So I don't have as much a problem with them having two signs on their building because they're on a corner, for all intents and purposes. Maybe a smaller sign facing the south, but I don't have any problem adding Bistro on the east elevation, I don't have any problem with the ground sign that's up by West Oaks Drive, and I really don't have a problem with adding a sign facing the expressway. We've heard all the arguments about other applicants a little to the west about why they should have signs facing two ways, and this is just a continuation of that. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would have liked to have heard a little bit more argument on the need for the second sign. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, one of the issues that hasn't been brought up, there is going to be another building being constructed adjacent to Too Chez, which may have a greater height than what the Pizza Hut was, and so
that is another visual -- could be a visual obstruction in the area. I could not tell you the entire height. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's to the north? MR. SAVEN: That is correct, but there's going to be -- I don't know how much closer it's going to be to the road because it's at a very preliminary stage right now that we're looking at, and I do know that it's higher than what the Pizza Hut is right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We seem to have some commonality with a few members. Maybe we should try a motion to see where the Board sits. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-051, I move that the petitioner's request to add the verbiage Bistro to the east elevation of the building be approved and not approving the second wall sign. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: If the maker of the
motion could articulate the reasons for the denial with respect to the second sign, or incorporate your prior comments on the record into the motion? MEMBER REINKE: The reason would be that I think the signage on the east elevation would be adequate to identify the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: As a restaurant. All right. We have an amended motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, let's let Sarah call the vote. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you got a partial victory. If it looks like you've got
problems down the road, come back and see us again. I would suggest -- it always helps to have a little bit more data, if you can present it. If you've got a financial case that you want to present, some information, we'll take a look at that, but at this point you've got a modified east sign. MR. ASPINAW: May I ask a question, sir? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. ASPINAW: When you say provide more data if possible, you made reference to financial, I can understand that, but can you -- what other type of data might you suggest we might provide that might help our case more? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, let me -- one of the issues when that even I, when I was looking at your place today as I was going back over Novi Road, I seen that you did have some large evergreens in that particular area. And like Mr. Reinke indicated, it was very difficult to see whether or not Bistro itself would be something
that could be visually seen from Novi Road. The only thing I could see that would benefit would be off of 96, and traveling on 96 at 70 miles an hour you're really not interested in seeing basically what that sign is, at least I think that -- I think that maybe the topography, your terrain -- the existing terrain and your visual site distance, as you're looking at your building -- and the position of your building should be something taken into consideration. MR. ASPINAW: I can appreciate that, Mr. Saven, and I don't know if it would have helped earlier if I would have presented a stronger case or argument, but we do recognize topography is a difficult property. We probably addressed a lot of it earlier this year, and some of it is difficult to address because a lot of the trees that are now maturing are actually either on state land on the -- between Novi Road and the Sheridan Drive that we have no control over unfortunately. MR. SAVEN: And I think that's why Mr. Reinke was talking about whether or not that sign would be beneficial for you, because Novi Road going -- God knows I spend hours on Novi Road in
that stretch anyway -- but anyhow, to make a long story short, just to be able to see that building, that's where you need that visual application. MR. ASPINAW: I agree with you, which is, again, why we were hoping to get approval. I appreciate what you gave us and we'll try to come back another time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
CASE NUMBER 02-052 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case Number 02-052 is filed by Partenie Todor, and you've got a unique little situation. You want to build a new house and ultimately rip down the real one. So why don't you give us your names and raise your right hand to be sworn. My name Amelia Todor, this is my husband, Partenie Todor. We live at 22001 Beck Road, Northville, Michigan. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you both swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. & MRS TODOR: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MS. TODOR: Yes. We are requesting a
permit to live in our current home until our new construction -- new house would be built. After that, the older home would be demolished. That's all we have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's pretty straightforward. MS. TODOR: Yes. That's all we need. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were thirty notices, and you've got two approvals from neighbors. One is a Joe Donbeck, and another H. Alkema on Nine Mile. Anyone in the audience care to -- sir, come on down, give us your name and address. MR. DONBECK: I'm Joe Donbeck, and I live across the road at 28200 Beck Road, and I certainly hope you people won't put any roadblocks in this family. They have been -- I've been on that property for 50 years, and these folks have been one of the better neighbors we've had, so I think it would be an extreme hardship if that family had to move out while they're building a home that, I'm sure, will come up equal with the Biaggio's subdivision just to the north of them, so I hope that you'll see that the right things are
done tonight. Thanks very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Name and address, please. MS. CRAWFORD: Carol Crawford, 22135 Beck. As a longtime resident there, and two other neighbors who were unable to attend tonight, the three adjoining neighbors to I guess the north, we have no objections and certainly encourage you to support them in their effort to stay in their home with their family and build their new lovely home. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Okay, we'll move on. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: If it is the Board's decision to approve this case tonight, I would ask that the stipulation would be that upon certificate of occupancy, within 30 days thereafter the building comes down. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I see another neighbor. Did you want to come down and say something?
UNIDENTIFIED: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Are you here for the case on Beck Road? UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: But you don't want to say anything? UNIDENTIFIED: Pardon? MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't want to comment? You just missed the audience participation. UNIDENTIFIED: That's okay, I'm all right. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Board Members, questions? MEMBER REINKE: What time frame do you estimate this to completion of your new home? MR. TODOR: About 18 months. MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem with the petitioner's request. I mean, you got to have some place to live. MS. TODOR: Right. With five kids it's hard to move. MEMBER REINKE: It's right there where you're building and everything, that way
you've got an eye on everything and everything is secured and so forth like that, and I can wholeheartedly support their request. MEMBER BAUER: I think it's a good situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a lot of nodding heads, so let's hear a motion. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-052, I move that petitioner's request be granted for them to have a place to live while their new home is being constructed and that their building should come down within 30 days after certificate of occupancy is issued. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion for approval and a second. Any discussion? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. I would ask that person granting the motion to extend that time. I just realized the fact that we do have some problems getting clearances from the utility companies lately. I would I'd ask that we extend this to 60 days if possible. MEMBER REINKE: No problem.
MR. SCHULTZ: Just if there's consideration for the length of time on the variance, eighteen months, two years as the motion's made? MR. CHAIRMAN: Put some time on it? MEMBER REINKE: Make it two years. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you build that house in two years? MR. TODOR: Oh, yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have an amended motion. Sarah, you want to call the vote? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You've got your variance. See the Building Department. MR. & MRS. TODOR: Thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-053 MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call the next case, 02-053. This is Central Park, LLC. There's a familiar face. Mr. Bowman, you want to raise your right hand and be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. BOWMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got the floor. MR. BOWMAN: Basically what's before you tonight is a request for a flag pole and an American flag that was placed on the Central Park property to remain where it currently is located, which is, by way of a small error on the part of the flag pole installing company, is slightly within the to-be-dedicated-right-of-way per our site plan. Tonight though I guess what I would like to do is maybe alter that a little bit, because after looking at the situation, there probably is not a good place for that flag pole to stay in that region, and we're going to suggest or
look towards moving the flag pole in front of the clubhouse when it is constructed. Actually, in the parking structure or parking lot area there's a landscaped area that would be very appropriate for the flag pole to be moved. It won't have the same visual presence or affect that we were hoping to have in front of the gatehouse, but I think that that's what we would like to do. And I guess our request would be simplified in the fact that we would like to maybe, for the next month, maybe six weeks, until the parking lot area in constructed and that area is staked out and identified, we would to not have to move it twice or take it down but move it at the time that that's completed, so hopefully a little bit more reasonable request. MR. CHAIRMAN: That makes sense. There were twenty-nine notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience want to talk about the flag pole? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: I have to agree with Mr. Bowman just for the fact that I was out there
just kind of hoofing it off to try to figure out where that setback was at; and yeah, he does have a little problem and he's going to have to move it. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you've got some setbacks in construction and we gave you three months, do you think that's a window- MR. BOWMAN: (Interposing) That would be very fair and that would be adequate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any comments from the Board? MEMBER GRAY: The only question I have is, if it's in the road right-of-way, Tom, does he need a license from the council to keep it there for that period of time? MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the question sounded like Mr. Bowman said to-be-dedicated-right-of-way, and if it's not yet, I think we can probably let that slide. MEMBER GRAY: So as long as it's not a dedicated right of way then we don't have to worry about a license? MR. SCHULTZ: Right. MEMBER GRAY: Okay, thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments,
motions? MR. SAVEN: Just to clarify, three months? MR. BOWMAN: That would be fine with us. That would be adequate. MEMBER GRAY: And then, of course, Building Department retains jurisdiction? MR. SAVEN: Yeah, we'll have jurisdiction. MEMBER GRAY: For the three -- for that three months? MR. SAVEN: For the three months. They're coming along quite well on the community building right now, so I think we'll move along in the amount of time. It's good weather so far -- MEMBER GRONACHAN: You might as well do the motion then. MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve -- in Case 02-053, move to approve the petitioner's variance for a period of three months, at such time -- when at such time it will be moved by the parking structure. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and a secodn.
Do you swear on that, Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, I'm fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No reponse.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah, call. MS. MARDCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sweeping vote of yesses. MR. BOWMAN: Appreciate it very much. Appreciate your patience, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department for anything you might need.
CASE NUMBER 02-054 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. 02-054, Beechforest Park. This is an extension of a previously granted, I believe, yes. Give us your name, sir, and raise your right hand. MR. FOSSE: Hello. My name is Chuck Fosse. I'm a principal of Wah Yee Associates. We're the architects for the project. Our office is at 37911 West Twelve Mile Road in Farmington Hills. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. FOSSE: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. FOSSE: I just brought this rendering along just to refresh everybody's memory. It's been a long time since we've been before any of the Boards with this building. Basically, nothing has changed. The extension has been requested basically because there's been, as everyone knows, a significant
softening in the office market in our area, and Mr. Menosian is simply looking for -- seeking some more time to market his building so that when he does break ground he can expect to lease it in a reasonable amount of time. All of our construction drawings have been completed for the building. We're basically ready to submit for building permit, but we want to hold off. Based on continued improvement in the office market, we're planning -- Mr. Menosian is planning to seek a building permit and start construction in the spring 2003. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 11 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to make comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No comment. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: The ordinance allows for the expiration of the approval from Zoning Board of
appeals basically 90 days after the final setback and site plan has been approved. Nothing addresses an extension of the site plan. Nothing addresses that particular issue. And I had a discussion with our city attorney and it was best felt that he come back before the Board to allow this to coincide with his extension for final site plan approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There's really just paperwork housekeeping. I don't have any questions. I don't have any objections. MEMBER REINKE: I have -- Mr. Chairman, you know, I guess, you know, this dates back -- this is dating back to '99, and I have a problem with just automatically renewing something like this without something actually more firm of what's happening, what's going on. I mean, here we're going on for another year with no guarantee that it's going to go up or even that they're ready to go at that point in time. MR. FOSSE: All I can tell you is that just about everything in the development is
market driven, and as I think you're aware, there have been several office buildings built in the area in the last year, six months that are virtually unoccupied. Mr. Menosian doesn't want to be in that position; although, like I said, we're prepared, we could file a building permit tomorrow, but what he's seeking is just some more time. Hopefully the market is going to recover and he'll be able to open his building and lease it in a timely manner. MEMBER REINKE: The reason I say that, in three years time what you actually build for what you presented at that time can be a whole different ball game, and I really have a problem continuing this on automatically every year. MR. FOSSE: Well, as I said, there have been no changes to the building since it was -- since the variances were granted. I guess I could document that by showing you a set of working drawings, you can make that comparison. And we don't anticipate any change. He wants to build the building as it was approved. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for the record, and maybe from memory, this is a fairly large
building, and the variances that we granted were side yard setbacks of eleven feet and eleven feet on the two sides? MR. FOSSE: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: In the overall scheme of things, that's relatively minor. MR. FOSSE: And just to add to that, the side yard setbacks are 59 feet, so they're -- I think they're quite generous. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other Board questions, comments, discussion, motions? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I can make a motion, can't I? I will. Case Number 02-054, I would move that petitioner's request for an extension be granted so that it coincides with the Planning Commission approval. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion. (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: None. Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Just a question, and maybe this is for Mr. Saven. This is on tomorrow night's agenda at the Planning Commission?
MR. SAVEN: That is correct. MR. SCHULTZ: If you wanted to make your approval subject to their extension for site plan, just sort of throw that out as consideration, but that's- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) We'll amend the motion to include your recommendation. Any other discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your extension. See the Building Department if he needs to. MR. SAVEN: In a year-and-a-half.
MR. FOSSE: Thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-055 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Picasso, 02-055. This is an outdoor seating case. Sir, give us your name and raise your right hand and be sworn. MR. ATTEE: My name is Gerald Attee. I reside at 21253 Woodhill, Northville, Michigan. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. ATTEE: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. ATTEE: As stated in the agenda, we're looking for approval to put some outdoor seating and build a brick paver patio in the front yard section of the property located at 39915 Grand. We're a fairly new business. We've been in business for 13 months. When we first opened we joined the Chamber of Commerce, and my son attended a meeting where they said they were
looking for ways to beautify that Grand River corridor as a gateway to Novi. When my son came back, we talked about it, and at that same time we were having a problem with people seeing our restaurant. The way we're located, we're the end unit on the building, and people coming from the east can see our Picasso Cafe sign, but anyone driving west, we're offset about 60 feet and they have no idea there's a restaurant there. So we thought we could pretty much kill two birds with one stone by enhancing the area with a brick paver patio and some three umbrellas, and also to serve as a landmark for our restaurant so people could see that there's something there. Even today we still get comments that they don't know there's a restaurant there. Our business hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. We are -- so we close fairly early. There are no residential houses nearby, within a few blocks. We do not serve alcohol. And we think this would enhance the city. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were thirteen notices sent; there were two approvals,
one from Tudor Time and one from the owner of the plaza. Anybody in the audience care to comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just a couple issues. I ran this by the plan review center in terms of landscaping requirements. Where this gentleman is putting this brick paver is not within any green belt area. The green belt is still satisfied by virtue of how far this sets back. The other issue is that it is more of a temporary nature because they're using brick pavers instead of concrete as the patio. It's basically a landscape feature. He's also looking at placing -- I'm trying to remember how many tables and chairs there were. Three tables and twelve chairs in this particular area, which is rather minor for the area he's going to be serving. There is no problem with drainage. I did take a look at that.
So that pretty well much answers any questions I would have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I don't have a problem. It's -- like Mr. Saven had said, it's really minor with the tables on the outside. I think it's going to be a good setup for what he has. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MS. GRONACHAN: Length of time, or is that seasonal? MR. ATTEE: We're looking for from around March 1st to October 31st. It will actually probably be April, but in case we get a few nice days in March or October we'd put the tables out there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me throw something out for Board Members to consider. We've had a number of these cases come before us, and this is your first time in front of us. MR. ATTEE: Yes, it is. It's a fairly new business.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What we've done in the past with first-time users is, if the Board's in agreement, we grant the variance. If everything goes okay, your -- the Building Department's got continuing jurisdiction, so if there's any problems they'll be aware of it, but if not, you can come back next year and ask for two or three years. That's pretty much been the- MR. ATTEE: And we're also asking, I'd understand, for a five-day waiver so we can -- if it's approved to start immediately? MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER BAUER: No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Somebody want to go through the motion? MEMBER BAUER: In Case 02-055, grant approval for the request for the outdoor seating, three tables, twelve chairs, and for the brick paver on the patio, and waiving the five-day waiting period. MEMBER REINKE: Any limitation? MEMBER BAUER: From March 1st to October 31st, for one year. MEMBER GRAY: Second.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department, sir. You've got your variance. MR. ATTEE: Thank you very much.
CASE NUMBER 02-056 MR. CHAIRMAN: We now have a residential case, 45821 Ashford Circle. This is a rear yard setback. MS. NIKSIMAEE: Good evening. My name is (ph) Niksimaee with Arnim Associates, and
on behalf of the homeowner we are requesting a variance. There's existing- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Are both of you going to talk? You want to both raise your hands and be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? THE GROUP: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MS. NIKSIMAEE: What we're requesting is 7.4 feet of variance, rear setback. What they have right now, there's an existing deck. What -- we are proposing to enclose that, make a sunroom out of the existing deck and match all the exterior of the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 31 notices sent to neighbors, and we did have an objection from a neighbor, and he felt that the houses were awfully close together already and that this would make it worse. Anybody in the audience wish to comment?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: This particular addition was staying within the confines of the existing deck. If you notice, it doesn't extend any farther than what's there already. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: Well, I think that, unfortunately, for the bugs and trying to enjoy the backyard, a lot of people have had the same problem with enclosing something like this, I think really it's a minimum intrusion into the backyard, and I'm not usually one to go along with that, but I think they've done -- since they're working with the existing deck that's there and not going any further, I can support petitioner's request. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is consistent with other projects, very similar, and we try to be consistent. Any other comments? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I just want to point out that the existing deck will be removed; is that correct? MS. NIKSIMAEE: That's correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So the sunroom is going to sit on a- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) It's going to be more of a permanent issue on top of its own foundation, just like it would be part of the deck but it's -- unfortunately, this will be a little more elaborate based upon the construction type. MEMBER REINKE: Like regular construction? MR. SAVEN: Right. But it will be a sunroom. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other questions of the petitioner? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion then. With respect to Case 02-056, that we move for approval based on the fact that this is not anymore into the backyard as the existing deck for the purpose of giving the petitioner a place to sit in the evening hours and not get eaten alive. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah?
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. NIKSIMAEE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department for your permits.
CASE NUMBER 02-057 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We're going to call the first of two cases on Lemay. The first is 02-057. This is filed by Chris and Linda Postma of 905 Lemay, and they're going to put an addition over an existing one-story building. So this is Chris and Linda? MR. POSTMA: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to raise your right hand and be sworn?
MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. POSTMA: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Present your case. MR. POSTMA: Now, as if you don't have enough paperwork but I brought some more for you. Here's a list of the surrounding neighbors who have looked at the plans and agreed to that, and here is elevations of the existing and proposed structure. MR. CHAIRMAN: You said in one of these packages there is a list of neighbors that have -- why don't you real quickly go through -- unless you're done? MR. POSTMA: There's not a whole lot to say. It's an existing structure, approximately 1000 square feet, 800 square feet of land surrounding it, and I'm looking for the variance to the rear. The existing structure is only ten, ten-and-a-half feet off the rear. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were forty-eight notices sent and -- well, I've got to
take that back now. We've got 11 approvals from adjoining neighbors, most on Lemay. Anyone in the audience have any comments? Come on down and give us your name, name and address, please. MR. DIETRICH: My name is Andy Dietrich. I live at 911 and I'm case number eight. On Chris and Linda's behalf, they are, by far, the best neighbors we have in the neighborhood. We would all ask that you would approve the variance. They're looking to beautify their home and help beautify our neighborhood. It is a neighborhood that it definitely up and coming in the northwest corner on the south side of Walled Lake, and what they're looking to do is going to add tremendous property value to all of our homes. On behalf of all the neighbors that signed that, we would ask that you approve the variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: I'd like to point out to the Board that the addition -- second story addition is not exceeding what is part of the initial building carry-out. It stays on that particular piece of property. One of the issues, if you've probably taken a look at it, is the first floor is going to have a different type of a roof coverage, and that's why the request is for the 24.5 feet instead of taking it back to the second story addition, because there is some changes to the roof structure that's in play here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. SAVEN: So they're staying within the initial building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: I'm a little hurt that you didn't bring the petition to me. MR. POSTMA: I thought that was a conflict of interest. MEMBER GRAY: This house has been in
the area '50s, '40s maybe. Chris and Linda have done a lot of work on the foundation and rehabbing it and it makes sense to go up. It's a wonderful little house, and it's only going to get better, and if it's not out of line, I'd like to make a motion to approve based on- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You have other nods here? MEMBER REINKE: Support. MEMBER GRAY: Want to hear what it's based on, just in general? MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, go ahead. MEMBER GRAY: Due to lot configuration, they are limited because of the size of their lot, although they have a nice lot next door, they need to go up so they can make use of their property and make use of their house. MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, that was Sarah's motion and Laverne's support. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah, go ahead.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got a second story addition. You can build it. MR. POSTMA: Thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-058 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Andrew, come on down. Case Number 02-058, 911 Lemay, and you have an issue with an existing fence. But first let's- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. DIETRICH: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Fill us in. What's going on? MR. DIETRICH: Ladies and gentlemen, the issue at hand is regarding privacy for my wife and I. We've lived in our home at 911 Lemay for just over a year now. We're looking to beautify our home, as Chris and Linda are, and the rest of our neighbors. Basically what I've done is I have replaced an existing fence. I have gotten what I hope is the kind support of several of the Zoning Board Members so to speak through speaking with people through the City, such as Miss Cindy Yuglo. I've expressed the case to Miss Sarah Marchioni and other people at the Building Department. We took down an existing chain-link fence that was well over six feet, depending on how you look at the topography of the terrain. The lot that we are on is several feet lower than my neighbor next door at 913 Lemay, and what that's created is an erosion problem into my driveway that, due to the fact that the retaining wall is on her property I cannot replace
it, she cannot afford to fix it, and basically it's made the lot line a terrible eyesore; also the fact that when you're standing on her property, you're several feet above. The fence in question faces into our master bedroom, and it makes my wife feel very unsecure when I'm not there late in the evenings if people can walk along her property line late at night, which they do, and see right into our bedroom windows. I have replaced an existing fence that was eroded and falling over because it was a terrible eyesore and no one ever maintained it, partly the neighbor next door to me and partly the previous homeowner from who I bought my home, I've replaced it with a beautiful privacy fence. I did take the liberty to take some Polaroids. If you folks would like to see them I can show you. My father and I put the fence up, and basically -- Chris Postman has helped me put the fence in also. I have gotten the support of the neighbors. I did not take the liberty to go around and get signatures because they all gave me
verbal support and I knew Chris and Linda would be here this evening. The other issue at hand with that is we tried not to do anything that deviated from what was existing in the neighborhood being that the land varies so much. There are several fences that, myself being about six one, I can walk up to some fences that tower above me and then walk down three feet and they're below my chin. As you can see by pictures across an existing fence in my backyard, I didn't go nearly as high as some of the panels on that. I tried to pick a medium height so it didn't look like I was building walls around my home, and basically did a reverse shadow box affect so I could hide some of the wall that was falling into my driveway and still make it look beautiful, help beautify the neighborhood and increase everybody's property value. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone in the audience? Come on down. MR. POSTMA: Chris Postma, 905 Lemay. Just to say, Andy did a wonderful job on the fence, and like the pictures show, there is
a two foot difference in elevation there, so from her property it's definitely at the six foot mark. From his property it's over that, but it's definitely a nice fence, and we support it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? (No response.) MR. DIETRICH: One last note: I did put the pretty side of the fence to my neighbor. The neighbor in question is between Chris and Linda and myself. She is a neighbor that doesn't stay at her home and basically it's been overcome with things, so it is a visual site line from our backyard, and it kind of hides some of that. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were 50 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Building Department has no objection. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I have no objection because basically he's following the height of the fence. It's just where it drops off. And, again, drop the fence down because then he's losing the
privacy that he's trying to protect there. MR. CHAIRMAN: I've got to applaud you by making the nice side facing your neighbor. MR. DIETRICH: Actually, the only -- my side I've got is the existing fence across my back line, and it's -- absolutely. I would always offer my neighbors that if they're kind enough to say we don't have a problem with the privacy. I'd like to offer them free fence basically, and it's prettying everybody up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER GRAY: I think the side that's showing is a whole lot better than what was there. And I also know that the neighbor in question has been a challenge to Miss Yuglo for a number of years, so with that I'd like to make a motion to approve due to the topography of the lot and the conditions. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and lots of support. Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah, go
ahead. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department for --
CASE NUMBER 02-060 MR. CHAIRMAN: We got another case, last case, 02-060, filed by Walter Stone of Summit Pointe. Raise your hand if you're a lawyer. MR. BRODICK: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. MR. BRODICK: Actually, my name is Jim Brodick. I'm with FDI Realty Partners. I'm one of the owners of the Summit Pointe office building and corporate campus. I'm partners with
Robert Shaw (ph) and Mark Shaw, both of Novi, Michigan. This is Walter Stone, who is our tenant and proprietor of the Cafe Dish Sundry Shop at the Summit Pointe office building. And with us also is his mother, Liz Stone, who is actually -- was going to be the one running the sundry shop. He gave his mother something to do after she retired from being a school teacher. MR. CHAIRMAN: Raise your right hand and be sworn, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. BRODICK: I do. I have some handouts here I can give to you, ladies and gentlemen. It's actually a layout of the office building, showing the location of the sundry shop, the sundry shop itself, and Walt- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) This is addition to what's in our packet? MR. BRODICK: This is a addition to what's in your packet, correct. MR. BRODICK: Walt came -- I've known Walt for a number of years, and Walt came to me.
He was looking to open up a sundry shop. He has a few of them in buildings similar to Summit Pointe. It's typical of what you find in buildings of that size in and around the Metropolitan Detroit area. Walt entered into a lease agreement with us back in December of 2001. We submitted our plans to the City of Novi and then made the appropriate changes with the Building Department so we could proceed with the construction, which has now been completed. Walt did send, upon request to the City of Novi, sent a letter for the business registration just stating what the purpose of the business was. That was back in March of this year. It was just recently, probably within the last three weeks, that -- when we were finalizing the construction of the suite that we were notified that were potential problems with his operation, that it would be considered a special -- a principle use permitted subject to special conditions. And, actually, we were a little surprised by that because our interpretation of the
zoning ordinance, we felt that that -- what we've put inside the building was actually -- already met the criteria for permitted use. That was based upon my previous experience with putting in the Westside Deli ten years ago, and also with respect to the Orchard Hill Cafe which just opened within the last two weeks in Orchard Hill Place located at 39500 Orchard Hill Place Drive. Both of which are my understanding -- my understanding is that neither one of those had requested for special permit to operate. We felt very strongly that the use -- the sundry shop itself is a convenience for the tenants of the building. It's not intended to be for the general public to use. It's just a small little space consisting of less than 600 square feet that someone can grab a sandwich or a soda as opposed to hiking down the road and grabbing -- going through a drive-thru and getting a number one on the value meal, because a lot of employees don't have the time to go out and enjoy places like Too Chez or Mongolian Grill in Novi, so they're kind of limited to what is available in the area or if there is something in the building.
And based upon the zoning ordinance, we felt that this was customary usage of office space in that -- in the OSC it does allow things permitted in OS1 and OS2. In an OS2, the OS2 zoning ordinance does allow for office support functions such as conference rooms, dining facilities, and lists some other things. And, again, this is what we felt was considered customary incidental use for the property. Like I said, we've seen many office buildings around town have the same type of operation. And it is by no means intended to be some profit making venture. In fact, the lease, which I'll be happy to show you if you'd like, I think I'm getting a total of -- we're getting a total of maybe $350 per month, and that was to cover the operating expenses. It was not intended to be a profit making venture, unless you can hire the right accounting firm that can make it look like a big profit making venture. So, like I said, it was just strictly for the convenience of tenants in the building and that was it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to comment with respect to this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No, okay. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: I think what I would like to point out, my plan examiner, when he was looking at this, he was viewing it as something which was customary and incidental to the operations of the whole office building based on the fact that it was dealing with those people within the office. It was not a restaurant usage, it wasn't type of an issue where you're having sit-down seating, this type of thing. But as the applicant indicated, that there is -- he was trying to bring it in under what that customary incidental would be in terms of the OS districts that were available, and I think that's how we looked at it, too, until it was brought to our attention that this is an issue that could be under principle uses, and that's why they're here -- principle use subject to special condition, and that's why they're here today. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? I'll
just -- I tend to agree with the petitioner. I've been in lots of large office buildings and they always typically have something like this. The fact that there aree -- there's additional facilities in this city that have the same conditions that tend to make me believe that the petitioner's request is very reasonable. But that's just my view. MEMBER BAUER: Very convenient for the tenants. MEMBER REINKE: My only question is, other than if this was not an OSC district, would this be allowed, Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: I think -- if it was not an OSC district, very possibly, sure. If you're talking about business use, it could fall in that particular area, B1 -- B1 type of an operation, building within a building customary within the building proper. But if you're talking about an office service type of a district, there are certain areas that allude to certain issues that can be placed within that use, so this one just happened to be a, quote, gray area that we're looking at. In my
opinion it's a gray area because this is dealing with the people within that office and would be incidental to that office, and that's where the pickup's at. MR. SCHULTZ: I think the quandry that the planning director had was not so much the use, which is not unusual and could certainly be found by this Board, I would think it could support, as customary incidental to a large -- pretty large office building like that. It's just that when you go to the ordinance you do find the description retail commercial business uses other than restaurants serving convenient shopping needs of persons in the office complex as a description for special land use, so Mr. Evanco, I think, said well, that sounds to me like similar to what's here, so let's send it to the ZBA and see if they've got a use that's separate enough that -- that it's separate and it's not customary and incidental or -- and let the ZBA determine does it fall under that special use, in this case it goes to the planning commission, or can the ZBA look at the particular use here, its size, the items that are being sold and say we
interpret this to be a customary and incidental for this use, this building and the property. MR. BRODICK: If I may say something. Also, too, in looking at this, like every day that -- every day's a new beginning of something. People's lifestyles change, and at the time the ordinance was probably written talked about conference rooms and dining rooms and things like that. And I can remember back when companies had corporate dining rooms, and you see a lot less and less of that in this day and age, so as we -- as the future continues to unfold, what people call one thing today changes, and a good example is just telephone booths. You know, when we built Summit Pointe what, in 2000, we have an alcove just for two pay telephones. We can't get a telephone company to put a telephone in because it's an antiquated thing now, people have cell phones. So everything kind of evolves, so a dining facility like what's listed in OS2 really becomes nothing more than just a place to grab a sandwhich, whether it's where you have a proprietor like Liz Stone handing it to you or if you have a vending machine just basically
spitting it out, so I think that's something that when we were talking about the ordinance, maybe it's something that's -- it's like law. It's constantly evolving. MEMBER BAUER: You have a human being that's doing it instead of a big machine. MR. BRODICK: That's a nice thing to have, service with a smile. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd say Mr. Stone looks like a fine young man, and I think his mom deserves a job. MR. STONE: Thank you. MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem with what they're doing. It's just the approach that we're looking at it, that maybe this is something that really needs to be addressed in the ordinance covering an OSC district, because there's going to be other buildings that are going to want to have the same kind of use and does this mean that everyone is going to have to come to the ZBA. MR. CHAIRMAN: So maybe a recommendation to ordinance review that they take a look at this and maybe make some modifications. MEMBER REINKE: That would be my
recommendation. MR. SCHULTZ: We'll add that to the long list. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? MR. SCHULTZ: We'll add it to the long list. MR. CHAIRMAN: With that noted, can we get a motion made for these gentlemen? I'll make a motion. Case Number 02-060, that the applicants' interpretation that this is customary and incidental be allowed permitted use, that we agree with that. MR. SAVEN: For this use only? MR. CHAIRMAN: For this use only, this facility only. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: My motion has a second. Any discussion on that? MEMBER GRAY: I would suggest we would maybe want to refer to ordinance review as Mr. Schultz suggested. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think he's already added it to the list.
MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah, you want to call the vote? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have your interpretation as requested. MR. BRODICK: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Next on the agenda, under other matters, Tom, you've got something to tell us? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, we have another gentleman out in the audience. I don't know- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Were
you here for a particular case? UNIDENTIFIED: On the list it was number six. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we heard number six quite a while ago, and we granted that variance. UNIDENTIFIED: Oh. I'm the architect. I never -- in less than an hour. We're efficient here. This isn't planning commission. Sorry planning commission. MEMBER GRONACHAN: You'll here about that one. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Well, I'll hear about that one. All right. Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, this was an issue that actually Member Sanghvi had asked for some information on. Since he's not here, we'll probably adjourn it or maybe I'll talk to him directly and- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let's discuss it next month. I remember that now. There's an item regarding Ronald Coon. What's that about?
MR. SAVEN: Mr. Coon was before us and he was supposed to come back to the Board with new information. I know that I've seen him out in the audience after that time with no stipulation as to what his revision was because it was requested of the Board to try to work on those side yard setbacks. Sarah had continuously tried to contact him on many occasions indicating for him to come back before the Board to the point where we had decided to send him a registered letter regarding this particular issue. If you look in the packet you'll see that that letter was sent to him and it was return receipt requested and we did get a copy of his signature and he did receive notification hoping that he'd explain himself tonight. He is not here and I think the Board should act on this case regardless. MS. MARCHIONI: Actually, I didn't get to tell you, he called me this afternoon. He just didn't call me for three months, so I sent him that letter. And he said that he's been trying to work with the architect to come up with the new way that you guys had
suggested, so he is working on it and he's going to hopefully come next month. I gave him all the dates, the meeting date, the cut off date, so he's aware, so hopefully he'll be here next month. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item three is our discussion about people asking for phone numbers? MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. A company called me regarding their grand opening and they wanted to call each of you to see if you would be coming, and I didn't feel comfortable giving out your phone numbers, and I wanted to know what policy you would like to establish? MR. CHAIRMAN: My personal opinion is -- and it's just that. I'm in the phone book. If somebody wants to go through the effort to look me up and call me up, that's their option. I don't think that you should be obligated in any- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well, it is -- MR. SAVEN: I think it's put Sarah in a bad position because she needs to be able to either say yes or no, and if there is a policy that we can establish here, it would be a good idea. MR. CHAIRMAN: Personally, I don't
think you are obligated to do that. MEMBER BAUER: Have them write a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. That's what I said. I said all the correspondence comes to me and I relay it to the members. MEMBER BAUER: That's good. MEMBER REINKE: Because, you know, I don't have a problem with it because if I have an unlisted number than I might have. I mean, it's in phone book so -- I mean -- MS. MARCHIONI: I'll certainly give them the spelling of your name and they can call information. MEMBER GRAY: Well, the other thing is that we're not elected officials. Elected officials have to be contactable, if that's such a word. I would prefer, you know -- enough people know how to get in touch with me, both at work and at home, and if it's important enough that they -- you know, I don't have any problem with them giving the information to Sarah, Sarah sending me an E-mail or Sarah calling me and letting me
know what's going on. I think that would be the appropriate way to handle it. MS. MARCHIONI: If it's something urgent I can E-mail everybody right way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay? MS. MARCHIONI: And then -- wait. I have one more. Mongolian Barbeque is going to be coming in with a sign package next month. They have two existing wall signs up right now. They will be taking both of those down and putting up a projecting sign which will be six feet six inches tall, seven feet six inches wide, and he would like to know how you want him to erect his mockup sign. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Very carefully. MR. SAVEN: I think if you just put it on the wall just -- right at that corner just to get a size to this, I think it would be absolutely okay. I don't want him erecting anything that puts anything fastening to- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) He's wanting to put it on the corner of the building? MR. SAVEN: Looks like that's what he wants to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: If we can get those
two signs down and take another look at it, I would love to, because I wasn't -- I was very disappointed that they put those two signs as close as they did. I had an impression that they were going to be more centered on that restaurant front. They're welcome to come back in. MEMBER REINKE: Well, tell them to put a mockup on the wall in the area- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Right at the intersection. MEMBER REINKE: Right, with the drawings depicting exactly what they want and we'll go from that point. I think that's workable. MR. CHAIRMAN: Frankly, I would love the chance to go through that one again. MS. MARCHIONI: I'm sure the Board would love it. MR. SAVEN: I think what we need to do is find out where the City right-of-way is with that frontage of that building. I want to make sure we don't have that thing projecting out. You're talking seven foot six wide. That's pretty heavy. I want to make sure we're satisfied. Make sure we check on that. Okay?
MS. MARCHIONI: Will everyone be here next month? Mr. Bauer, you're gone in September, correct? MEMBER BAUER: I'll be here. MR. CHAIRMAN: When is the meeting next month, August -- MS. MARCHIONI: August 13th. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? MS. MARCHIONI: That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll close this meeting. (The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.) Date approved: August 13, 2002 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary
- - -
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of 75 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|