| 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, December 3, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call this meeting to order. Madam Secretary, will you 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? MR. REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. We do have a full board, meeting is now in session. Ladies and gentlemen, we do have some rules of conduct with respect to participating with the ZBA that's listed at the top of this agenda, if you will take note of it. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to
hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority of members to deny a variance. We have a full board tonight and the decisions will be final. Any changes to the agenda? MS. MARCHIONI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Move for approval. All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Minutes. We have minutes of October 1st and November-4th. Any changes to those minutes? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Move to approve as submitted. All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. This is the part of the meeting in which the public is invited to come to the podium to discuss any issue unrelated to a case that's on our docket tonight, so if there's anybody in the audience who wants to
talk to us about something other than what's on our docket, now is the time to put it on camera. (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll close that portion. CASE NUMBER 02-076 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call the first case, 02-076 filed by Don Henry of Tomco Fabricating. This is a continuation of the case, so, sir, you are still under oath. I guess, in summary, what we have here is you're operating a business that has got some outdoor storage which isn't allowed in this particular district as zoned today, and we were hoping that we could get some screening, or at least address how we could obscure this outdoor storage, so go ahead. MR. HENRY: I believe I've submitted the plans to Sarah, and she should have those. MR. CHAIRMAN: Wish to tell us anything more, or we'll just let the board members -- okay.
There were -- I don't see -- Sarah, was this renoted? Did it have to be? MS. MARCHIONI: No, there's no changes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to address the board on this case -- on this particular case? Give us your name and address. MR. EGAN: My name is Bradford Egan, 27087 Gratiot Avenue in Roseville. I'm the land development manager for Ferlito Construction and Novi Development, LLC. We are the developer of the parcel that basically surrounds the Tomco site. We are investing, when complete, probably around $30 million into this project. To date we've invested about $10 million. We've got two existing buildings with quality tenants in them that are light industrial users. And I have some letters that date back to -- the first one of June 29th, 2001, to Mayor Clark asking for help on how to alleviate the eyesore of Tomco Manufacturing with the outdoor
storage, the overgrown weeds, the vacant buses, boats, everything under the sun, and did not get any response. I spoke with Cindy Uglo a number of times. I've worked very closely with Clay Pearson on this. I know there was a follow-up letter issued to Tomco Manufacturing around June 1st of this year, and there wasn't any response. They were on a previous agenda that they couldn't make. I was at that agenda meeting. And there was also a complaint by our tenant from Costell (ph) of America to Mr. Pearson expressing their displeasure with the outdoor storage. With the investment that we're making into this park, and we've got two quality tenants, we strongly recommend the board not allow for outdoor storage or screening of any kind. I was told initially by Cindy Uglo after she had sent the letter to Tomco that they were going to have 30 days, or-45 days, whatever it was, to rectify the situation and if not they were going to take a sheriff over there and, you know,
make something happen. None of that's happened, and now it's a year-and-a-half later since my first initial letter to the mayor, which, to his credit, he gave me a call personally about a week after I sent the letter, but that still doesn't alleviate the problem. So that's the extent of it. We hope that our investment is enough to justify not allowing for a variance in this case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: Once again, recapping, there was an issue regarding the temporary use of this outdoor storage. Is this your -- is this what you're still looking at, a temporary use? MR. HENRY: Yes, sir. MR. SAVEN: And would you explain to the board how long this temporary use is going to be for, please. MR. HENRY: It's basically until the property is sold. The only thing I can say at this
point is he's had a lot of activity looking at the land, my father who owns the land. As soon as it's sold I'll be out of there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Don? MR. SAVEN: No, I'm all set. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER BAUER: Question. If the property is going to be sold, then you're going to move out, wouldn't it behoove you to start moving now? MR. HENRY: Who knows when the property's going to be sold. MEMBER BAUER: That's my question. MR. HENRY: Yeah. I can't do that. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: I've got some additional questions and -- I guess hearing the speaker, the neighbor, from Ferlito -- I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name -- if this has been going on for over a year-and-a-half and we're just hearing about it now -- he's referring to busses and boats and such like that, I guess my question is, it was my understanding that all of these items were in
storage for a fee, and I guess my point at this time is, if there's anything there that's not in storage for a fee I would certainly think that they should be moved as soon as possible. Another thing that came up is the cost of doing the temporary screening, and I guess I don't want to seem insensitive, but it's not, I don't think up to me, to say that your cost to do the screening to try to make this legal really should have any bearing on this. I mean, I realize it's going to be expensive, and I'm -- and I am sensitive to the economy, to your -- but the point is, if I -- when I asked you at -- the very first time you were here was there any representation to you when you bought the property that the outdoor storage -- and it was illegal then, you know, it should have been addressed at that time. And you said you didn't recall that there was any representation that there had been, the storage issue was legal. I guess my problem at this time is, what are we going to do in the meantime, because this property could not sell for years and years now.
In the meantime, there's neighbors and they're tired of looking at this and it's still illegal, and, you know -- I just -- I guess I'm kind of frustrated that we don't have a resolution to this before now. Thank you. MR. HENRY: Well, I didn't know this had been going on for a year-and-a-half. And when we did buy the property that property was zoned outside storage, and that's the way we've used it since, virtually, the day we've bought it, almost 25 years ago. MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MEMBER GRAY: Don's at the back right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to address that history. MEMBER SANGHVI: Papers and a copy of a letter right there. MEMBER GRAY: I-2 district permitted outdoor storage related to the business use only and required and eight foot high obscuring wall around the property. So it was not deemed to be incidental to the business if it was a construction
company storing their vehicles and cranes for example. This is storing other people's property for pay and for profit, and I fail to see the hardship. MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: By way of clarification, just to remind you that what's before you is a use variance, not the lesser less stringent area variance. This is a use variance. There never was a legal established I-2 outdoor storage because there never was the appropriate screening, and it wouldn't be permitted now, so regardless of the history, in some sense you have to realize that what's before you is a use variance. And there's no grandfathering, there's no nonconformity here, so we need to review this essentially as it exists today and determine whether or not he's -- the applicant's met the criteria for a use variance here. And with regard to the enforcement issues, I think the City has, after having identified the issue, you know, attempted, as the City always would, to try and meet with the
property owner and work out a solution, and having failed that, cited him for a violation which leads him here. This has obviously been a long process here, several meetings, but it's a cumbersome process, but you're near the end of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Cindy? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns on -- confusions, and so I'm going to address this to everyone, and if anyone wants to pipe in to offer me some guidance. I'm confused because if this is outdoor storage, why is it in such poor shape? I mean, even if you've been taking money and storing items, why are there old, unused buses and old items that are not being used? I have a confusion for that. In the first meeting that you were here, you told us that you have this outdoor storage and that you're getting money for this and you needed this as a second income. Income, as a board member, for me, is not a hardship. The loss of that income is not a justified hardship for me. Okay?
But I -- now, hearing the neighbor's complaint that this is not in a good setting in terms of weeds and deteriorating values, what is the story about this? What's with the old buses and old -- who's paying you to keep those there? MR. HENRY: Just residents pretty much. MEMBER GRONACHAN: But it is in pretty poor shape outside? MR. HENRY: Yes, it is. You know, once again, it's really been like that for 25 years. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, that's irrelevant. I'm talking about today. MR. HENRY: Nobody's ever noticed -- well, nothing's been cleaned up. Nobody's ever noticed until the development came in with the Regency Park. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Well, what was is irrelevant to me tonight. I want to make that very clear. I'm not -- Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I can support this with that reason,
especially now that the neighbor is evident. He was here at a meeting when the petitioner was not, so we didn't hear his concerns before, but I'm rather concerned by the length of time that this has taken, by the delay when the petitioner didn't show up before, then we postponed it last month, and now this. We're just going around in circles, and I don't -- this is not a permitted use and this board member can't support it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's very significant the additional evidence we heard tonight from the adjoining land owner, the fact that it's an unknown when this property could sell, and it's very unclear to me -- I don't believe that an eight-foot fence is going to secure this site anyways, and I have no support for the petitioner's request. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I think the question needs to be asked of the petitioner, the variances being requested, you want to maintain the outdoor storage on this property and the only way you're going to be able to do that is if you fence
it to screen it. Are you prepared to put up the fence within 30 days to screen the property? MR. HENRY: I had originally -- I had thought the board wanted me to lay out a time line. I thought I put down 90 days, but if it need be 30- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Well, we're going back several months now, and I guess my point at this time is, I know you've obtained estimates to do the fencing, you've obtained an estimate to demolish the old building- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) Yes. MEMBER GRAY: -you know, we've been playing with this for several months now, and I think it's time to fish or cut bait. MR. HENRY: In answer to your question, yes, I can have that barrier up in 30 days. MEMBER GRAY: You can have the property surrounded and screened, which would bring it -- Mr. Schultz, would that bring it into compliance for the short-term until it's sold? MR. SCHULTZ: If that's the motion of the board, it would be a variance given that
relief. It only comes into compliance if you grant that variance. MEMBER GRAY: That's what I wanted to know. MR. SAVEN: For a period of time though. We're going to be looking at a period of time; is that correct? MEMBER SANGHVI: That would be the next issue. MEMBER GRAY: Well, the period of time -- I mean, I'm just trying to -- I'm trying to find out exactly what our options are here. MR. SCHULTZ: I understood the question to be would putting the fence in bring it into compliance. MEMBER GRAY: That's the question. That answer is no, correct? MR. SCHULTZ: The answer would be that would be the -- if that were your motion, that would be the variance relief, and he would have to been permitted to continue the use with the screening. And if you want to add a time element to that, then that would be further discussion. MEMBER GRAY: Well -- and, of course,
it would be only for this petitioner and it would be until the property is sold. We understand that he's been actively seeking buyers for quite some time now. I just wanted to know what our options are at this point. Thank you. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that in Case Number 02-076 the applicant's request be denied for use variance for lack of convincing hardship. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Tom. MR. SCHULTZ: Just the usual. There have been a number of reasons. MEMBER SANGHVI: We already discussed all the different reasons on the record. MR. SCHULTZ: I think the maker of the motion, or someone else, could offer just a short list of the reasons that we've already heard some members give to attach to the motion and make it clearer for anyone who's reviewing the motion why there's no finding of hardship.
MEMBER SANGHVI: We are talking about variance here, and the variance of the use and not of anything else, and it's not permitted and there is no hardship because he has not adequately shown us why this variance be granted because of the reasons already discussed and -- which are on the record from the previous meetings. MR. CHAIRMAN: In addition to which the zoning clearly says that this is outdoor storage that's only permitted to that that's relating to his businesses. MR. REINKE: The other thing, if I might insert, is that he's really looking at a temporary basis right now because he has no plans on staying there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Satisfy your request? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MR. REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Henry, but your request for this use variance has been denied. MR. HENRY: I didn't think you could take something away after I've been legally -- after I've been doing it for 25 years, legally or not. Even Tom, the city attorney, had mentioned if there was a fence up there all these years ago that nothing could be done about this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm -- as I said -- I mean, we've voted on this already, but I just will say that I think it's significant the other evidence that was brought forth tonight. That was very, very compelling. MR. HENRY: So what you're saying is
the only thing that I can store outside is what relates to my business? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MR. HENRY: Okay. Because- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Time out. We're getting -- there is no outdoor storage issue. If it was nonconforming -- a legal nonconforming issue, it would have been an issue where it would have been screened to begin with and the outdoor storage would have been incidental to your business. MR. HENRY: But I do have a fair amount of outside storage there that is incidental to my business. MR. SAVEN: What I'm saying, at that time, if it was fenced in, but it was not fenced in; and, therefore, it was not legal. MR. HENRY: So you mean I have to clean up everything that's even related to my businesses? MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, just briefly- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) I'm out of business if you do that.
MR. SCHULTZ: -the application that was before the board tonight was for general outdoor storage with an acknowledgment on the record from the petitioner that it's not related -- not all related to his use. If there were some other application that the proponent came to you with down the road, even if it was less than what he was here with tonight, that would be a different issue that you would have to consider at that time. MEMBER GRAY: And noticed legally. MR. SCHULTZ: This was -- that is not the case that was before you tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd say if you have other issues -- we're going to call the next case, but if you have other discussion, you can talk to Tom or Don Saven. MR. HENRY: Call them tomorrow? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. CASE NUMBER 02-083 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-083 is filed by John Carroll representing Novi Party Store. This is also a continuation of a case. Anybody
that wasn't here last month? MR. BAIN: Same three gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. BAIN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Bain. I'm an attorney representing Novi Party Store. My address is 27780 Novi Road, suite 200 here in Novi. And as the board is aware, we had originally requested a sign variance for a sixty-foot sign. We came to the first -- I was not present at that first meeting. They came to the first meeting. The board suggested that the sixty-foot sign would not be conforming and would not be allowed, cut it down to two, twenty-five foot signs -- two thirty-foot signs, I apologize, which is where we were last time. There was suggestion made that we should maybe cut in down again. We have placed another proposal for two, twenty-four square foot signs, so we reduced it by more than fifty -- by approximately seventy percent at this point. And I do believe that the documentation was submitted -- the proposal was
submitted to the board by November 15th when they requested that. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. If we have questions, I'm sure we'll get to them. This was renoted. We had one objection that was filed by Cooper, Shifman, Gabe, Quinn and Seymour representing the adjoining party store next door, continuing their objection. Anybody in the audience wish to give comment? MR. GILLAM: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Zoning Board. David Gillam. I'm an attorney with Cooper, Shifman, Gabe, Quinn and Seymour, 26200 Town Center Drive here in Novi. And I believe the Zoning Board has a copy of a letter that I submitted by fax to Miss Marchioni today. I appreciate her distributing it to the board tonight. Really, nothing new in the letter that I've submitted. It has been and continues to be our position that the variances that are requested in this particular matter are not justified because there are no practical
difficulties with the use of the site. If, in fact, there are any practical difficulties, those difficulties are associated with the way this building is oriented and it was the applicant's choice to orient that building in the fashion that they did. We would ask that the variances be denied. If, in fact, you are inclined to grant a request, that is, if you feel that signage along the east elevation of the building is appropriate, then it would be appropriate for the existing ground sign to be removed. And our position has been and is -- one way or the other, that there is no need to have both signage on the east side of the building and also in front of the building as well. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members. Let me throw a bomb at you. We've got an existing sign
that was put up a year or so ago. You know you never got a permit for that sign? MR. CARROLL: Yes, we did, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Last month, and the month previous, it was my position that that large sign out front represented sufficient identification. Now, you added a little twist when you redid your building and got all the entranceways on the east side. That's, again, my impression, it was your option. I'm compelled to agree with the gentleman that was just up, that if you want two signs on the front of the property, or the east side of the building that represent the two potential businesses, the party store and whatever you lease out, that the ground sign comes down. I'm even more compelled to support that position knowing that you haven't paid for the first one you put up. MR. BAIN: Mr. Chairman, may I approach with a copy of the permit? MR. CHAIRMAN: You have an application for a permit. You have an application for a permit. You never got a permit.
Now, if I'm wrong on that -- MR. BAIN: I apologize. I was not involved a year ago, so I have no knowledge, so- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Those are just my feelings. MR. BAIN: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's other board members here that, as you already have summarized, gave you some direction as to how to proceed. Board members? MR. CARROLL: That's a bomb all right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Well, Mr. Chair, this is another one that we've been going back and forth with for quite a while, and I want to get it resolved tonight. The more I drive around the area and the more I look at the signs, the more I am convinced that the hardship is self-imposed by the way the building was built; however, that was their choice. It was my impression last month that we were supposed to be told at that point which
sign or signs they wanted to keep, the one out front or the one on the east, and we weren't told that, so I guess, you know, since they're not willing to make a decision on either/or, I think we're going to be in that position tonight. And I'm interested in hearing what the other board members have to say. MR. CARROLL: If I may, we were asked to come back and resubmit something smaller size on the first meeting, and that's what we did, and that's what -- we thought we were following your guidelines on what you wanted. MEMBER GRAY: It was my understanding that you were asked to make a choice, and from looking at the minutes, they were in October or September- MR. BAIN: (Interposing) I believe there was a suggestion to maybe altering the ground sign or maybe putting forth a proposal for that also, but I do not believe that was the only thing that was submitted. And I would just submit, in all due respect for the board member driving around, we don't have to drive too very far to see where
variances were granted to other surrounding businesses. In fact, Audio Visual Signals or Services, which is directly east of our building, has both the ground sign, larger than ours, as well as a wall sign on the side of their building, and that variance was, in fact, granted. We don't have to drive too much further than the Red Lobster -- and I do have all these addresses for the board. MEMBER GRAY: And I will remind you that we are specific -- speaking again here as a specific case. MR. BAIN: I understand. I'm just addressing Miss Gray's proposal that she drove around and looked around the community to see where these various signs existed or did not exist, and I just think we should point out to the board, given the fact that everything in these hearings is based on the record of the various businesses in this area that do, in fact, have this dual signage. And I could go on with a long list of addresses and we can all drive around and see, as you did this evening, the various businesses that do have this and for which variances have been
granted. I understand last time the legal proposition was put forth different strokes for different folks, but I don't know on what basis these other places have been granted this variance. Our variance is -- we do have a unique situation. We had the place going that way due to the size restriction -- due to the size of the building. Originally we were going to make it a one-tenant building, we were going to occupy the whole thing ourselves. Since then, unfortunately due to finances, our plans changed. We did not have to have the building be as big for the party store. We submitted it, we made it a multi-tenant building, or a two-tenant building, ourselves and one space to rent out. Now we have a unique situation where, obviously, our tenant is going to need some signage. We do not have that tenant yet, I'm sorry, wish we did, but they are going to want some recognition on the side of that building, and it does create a unique situation.
My client spent a significant amount of money, tore down a rotten old store, put up a very nice new store, improved this community significantly, and they're asking for a very small variance on a sign that creates -- the sign itself is creating no road hazard or anything of that nature. It's not blocking a driveway, it's not doing anything except giving recognition and splitting our building up so that some way we can delineate ourselves and, more importantly, our tenant. MR. REINKE: Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to deal with a second sign here at some time -- point in time. From what they originally proposed, I think was totally overkill. What's down there size wise now is not going to be of value for Grand River and it's going to identify basically from the drive-in area, and it's down to a point of something that, although I don't totally agree with, I can live with. MR. BAIN: You know, again, I just note for the record, looking at a copy of the application for the original sign, the ground sign,
it does indicate approved on here. I do not have the permit, and I apologize. I do not know the City's procedure for granting it. I do note that it says status approved on this permit application, if I can approach with that, if the board would like to see it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's discuss your case before us. I was given some different information, and maybe we'll have to deal with that after the fact as well, if there's some outstanding legal work to be done on that ground sign. Other board members, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman? MEMBER SANGHVI: Sir, the way I feel, yes, you need an identification sign for the second tenant. That's okay. And I also feel that the illegal sign should be removed so that your two signs for your own party store and your tenant, and the sign put up there without any permit or anything should be removed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's not complicate things now. Let's not mix it all up here. Let's take the ground sign's legality out of the
question. MEMBER SANGHVI: Then there's a third sign there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? MEMBER SANGHVI: The ground sign and the other two signs becomes three signs for the same property. MEMBER GRAY: Which is what we've been dealing with for the last three or four months. MEMBER SANGHVI: And I think the time has come to just make a decision and get on with it, and I'm going to make a motion that- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Hold on, Mav. Let's -- Cindy had something she wanted to take up MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, I wanted clarification, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last month I thought that we agreed, and I just reviewed the minutes again, that Mr. Reinke was -- the purpose of having these two signs was for identification of the business. We're all in agreement of that, that's necessary. Mr. Reinke also asked you about
decreasing the size of the signs for both businesses. You were in agreement with that. And at one point he says, "And you are in agreement of removing the ground sign," and it says right here that you were in agreement to that. So I don't have a problem with the size of these signs. I think that you made an effort to doing it. You did exactly what we asked for based on last month's discussion at this table. But I am still not sure that there is a need for that ground sign, and so that's what I'm having a problem with. MEMBER SANGHVI: That's what I'm saying. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't have a problem with the size of your signs. I am in agreement of that, but I need help with this ground sign. I don't understand. MR. BAIN: If I may address that, the ground sign, if we just have the signs on the east side of the building, okay, we have no way for a customer to see us if they're traveling eastbound on Grand River because the signs are on the east
side of the building, unless they're going to be looking out their rearview mirror trying to find our store, which obviously is going to create a traffic hazard. So they will have to drive right by our store, I suppose will pull a U-turn or something like that if they want to try to come back because we will have no signage out front where they can see our sign due to the way it faces Grand River. The signs are not on the front of the building, they are on the side of the building. They face east. If you're traveling east and you're looking for the Novi Party Store, you can't find us. Now, I would hate to see what would happen if somebody's turning their head, and I know this is far-fetched, but these things do happen, trying to find the Novi Party Store because there's no sign out front and broadside somebody turning into the Local Colors or something there, and then we have a death over a sign. I think we have to have some forethought into the future on things of that nature. Things do happen, and hopefully that never
does, but that is a possibility. MEMBER SANGHVI: Anything is possible. MR. BAIN: That is why it is necessary for us to have the two signs, both the ground sign and the signs on the other side of the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Couldn't the ground sign be modified? MR. BAIN: I suppose, sir, we could raise it or make it bigger, but I don't- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I'm suggesting splitting it in half for identification of both the businesses that would be visible from the east or the west. MR. BAIN: The problem is that, due to the size restrictions, sir, we will not really be able to give our tenant very much signage, nor ourselves very much signage on that ground sign, if we are restricted to the size of the sign, you know, obviously by the City. So what is -- usually would be for a single tenant, which is what we've really done with the ground sign at this point, we had to save a small space for the tenant, but with
designs as a single-use building, and a single tenant sign would have to be split into two, and that's going to cause hardship on our business. And, again, just given the surrounding area, as Miss Gray brought up, and various other variances that have been granted to other businesses in the area, very similar in nature, directly next door, Audio Visual Systems has the exact same sign variance. MEMBER BAUER: Each one has to stand on its own. We do not set precedent on one for another. MR. BAIN: I understand that. MR. CHAIRMAN: You keep saying you understand but you keep bringing it up. MR. BAIN: Well, I think it's important. We have on the record that we drove around and looked at other businesses, and I'm just basing it on the record, sir, placing it on the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the ground sign- MR. BAIN: (Interposing) Other businesses have been granted that variance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that ground sign does a very good job being roughly 20 feet off of the edge of Grand River. You've got very clear visibility, and I sure would like to see another way of doing it, although I am compelled to ask Laverne, given the petitioner is back this month with revised wall signage based on your recommendation, maybe you ought to see where the board sits with that. MEMBER REINKE: I can work with that. I just have one question I would like to address to Mr. Saven first. MR. SAVEN: I knew he was going to do that. MEMBER REINKE: The standard business identification is what, 24 square feet? MR. SAVEN: I believe it's 30. MR. REINKE: Due to the fact that it is smaller basically than the standard business identification, we're going to have to -- there is going to be some kind of identification required to the second business in this center, I move that the variance request for the twenty-four square foot --
two twenty-four square foot business identification signs on the east side of the building be granted for business identification. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: See where the board sits, Sarah. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MR. REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We're back to square one. Looks like we're going to have to deal with that ground sign, at least if we're going
to come up with any resolution. We're going to have to deal with that ground sign, and it's -- if we're going to deal with it tonight, it's going to be either modified or moved. It certainly isn't going to be enlarged because that's not what was advertised. MR. BAIN: We're in agreement at this point we have a permit for the ground sign? MR. CHAIRMAN: Does it look like we do now? MR. SAVEN: Looks like we have a permit. MR. BAIN: All right. So we're good on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: I -- and I'll apologize for the record on that. I was given different direction. MR. SAVEN: I have the permit number and I have the date of that permit and I will investigate it, but the way that it looks it has been signed for, so apparently they did pick it up. MR. BAIN: Doesn't that mean you got to take a bomb back and have it explode on you? MR. CHAIRMAN: I already apologized
on the record. MR. BAIN: We'll take the apology. I'm just kidding. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I really want to bring home a point here. All businesses are allowed one sign, one sign only. Whether they choose a ground sign or a wall sign, it's up to them. The only way that things change is when we have a business which has a ground sign which has a business center identification and we have four or more businesses, then each one of those businesses are allowed a wall sign. So if that was the question -- this is less than that. Now, to qualify that, you have to have separate entrances for those businesses, so those were the conditions, and that's why these gentlemen, based upon him separating his business, he's running into a problem in this area. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want the ground sign that's already there that provides clear identification from east to west, correct? MR. BAIN: That's Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Obviously you're only going to have one sign on the wall, for your
tenant. Let's look at something in between. If the ground sign provides clear identification for the party store and you get a sign on the wall for your tenant, I can live with that. MR. BAIN: Excuse me for one moment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I've just been advised the fact that there may be another concern regarding how many signs this business is allowed. It's only allowed one sign, one sign only, whether it's a wall sign or a ground sign, one sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's where I'm leaning. MR. CARROLL: So we're saying the ground sign is for the party store? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's something that I've just thrown out. That does give you east/west identification. It's already there. MR. CARROLL: No. What I'm getting at is his point. You're saying that even though it identifies the party store, can the tenant still have a sign? MR. BAIN: I appreciate what you're
trying to do. MR. SAVEN: We're trying to get it on the one sign, that's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's clear tonight that you're not going to get what you want, all right. That's -- we've voted no on that already. I'm looking for some common ground. MR. BAIN: No. And, sir, I understand. I certainly appreciate that. The problem we're experiencing tonight is that, unfortunately, the principal member of the store, who would be able to really make that decision, is not here, and that's the problem we're running into as I discussed with his colleague. MR. CHAIRMAN: So you would prefer not to even hear a motion along those lines? MR. BAIN: I appreciate what you're trying to do. What I prefer to do, I guess, it keep that in consideration and see you next month with the gentleman that's able to make that decision. And, again, I appreciate what you're trying to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: If that's what you prefer to do. I'd prefer to at least come to a
resolve, if we have to wait another month. UNIDENTIFIED: Can you give me a couple minutes? I can make a call again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. You know what, we're going to go to the next case, all right. MR. BAIN: That would be fine, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: When you guys get ahold of him, wave at me in the back and we'll bring you right back up. MR. BAIN: Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 02-098 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's call the next case, Celeste Hamilton, 209 Charlotte, Case Number 02-098. Celeste, you want to raise your hand and be sworn by the secretary? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MS. HAMILTON: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Celeste, tell us what you want to do.
MS. HAMILTON: Okay. I live at 209 Charlotte Drive, and we want to construct a storage shed out in our yard. We don't have a backyard, so we're requesting a variance that we could construct our shed in the front yard. So I submitted the plots, and I think everybody can kind of see how our house lays on the property, and yet we don't have a backyard, or even side yards per se, and -- so the place that we chose was furthest from the house, it's secluded from sight pretty much all the way round. I submitted some pictures, too. There's trees all around it. So it's far from the neighbors. And our neighbors' backyards are right in line with where the shed would be, so it wouldn't look out of place. I mean, we kind of consider this area of our yard our backyard, so -- because we don't have a backyard, that we're requesting a variance that we could build the shed there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You did a nice job. There were thirty-four notices sent;
there were ten approvals, no objections. Anybody in the audience want to speak on this matter? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: It's very obvious just by the plot plan of, you know, the property she has to place the shed, and I have no problems whatsoever. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll also add, just for the audience's sake, I wouldn't call this a shed. This is pretty nice. Board members? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Celeste, when was your house built? MS. HAMILTON: About 40 years ago. MEMBER GRAY: About 40 years ago? And when did you purchase it? MS. HAMILTON: About three years ago. MEMBER GRAY: About three years ago. I know the area, and Mr. Reinke, I know you do, too. This -- where Mrs. Hamilton is
proposing to site her shed is just very, very shortly off a road that dead-ends into a lake, so it is not traveled. I don't see that it supports -- that it presents a problem, especially the way she's proposing to screen it. A lot of people think when you have a house facing the street that that's your front yard, but those of us who live in the lake area consider that our front yard is what's on the water, so this is a very awkward situation where she has basically an older house that she has, thankfully, taken from a legally converted multiple back to single-family, and I don't think the shed's going to be a problem to anybody. We, last summer, approved siting the shed in the front yard for one of her neighbors. I'm not offering that as support by any stretch of the imagination, but these are older houses that are being rehabed, and I think we need to work with the residents to do what we can to accommodate their needs. MR. REINKE: Mr. Chairman, as you -- agreeing with what she said, it's really kind of a unique looking shed. It looks almost like a atrium
more than anything else. And as Miss Gray said, the lot -- where the lot is located, there's no through traffic, there's probably nobody going down that section except yourself. I have no problem with the petitioner's request in supporting that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's get Celeste home before 9:00. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-098, I move that petitioner's variance be granted -- request be granted due to lot size, shape and configuration. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MEMBER GRAY: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess there's no discussion on this motion. Sarah, you want to call the roll? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MR. 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. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have your variance. See the building department for your permit. MS. HAMILTON: Okay. Can I also request a waiver on that five day? MR. SAVEN: Three months for the permit, but five days okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: So granted. MS. HAMILTON: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-099 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case we'll call, 02-099. This is Ray and Amy Elmblad. Raise your 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. ELMBLAD: Yes, I do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. ELMBLAD: Do you have copies of this? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. We have a whole package. MR. ELMBLAD: Okay. This is a hand drawing that I did, and it involves a family room, a mud room and a garage addition. And this has been submitted to the architectural control committee for our subdivision, which has already been approved. I've also spoke with several of our neighbors, asking them what their opinions were. I did not receive any negative opinions about this addition, and I actually asked them to sign an affidavit that I believe the board has. Basically, we just need more space with our house. There's a -- we have a growing family. There's a few flaws in our floor plan, and I won't go through all the flaws, but the added living space, mud room and garage addition, will address all those needs that we have. We have considered going out of the front of the house; however, the board of -- I'm
sorry, architectural control has basically nixed that idea. They don't want any change with the front of the house. We considered going out the back of the house behind the living room; however, there's two setbacks, a side setback and a rear setback, and -- that we would be violating. And there's also electrical service boxes, so we didn't go in that direction. Because of the angles of our property -- we have a small lot. The angles of our property, we felt our only option was to work behind our garage where we have a little more space. Other hardships that I'm -- basically, it's the small lot. We live on a cul-de-sac, and so our lot is rectangular, but it's askew, and so -- and because of the setbacks, our house is built on a certain angle, and no matter what direction we went with our addition plans, there wasn't really too much that we could do without violating a setback. We have a beautiful backyard, beautifully landscaped backyard. We have great
views of some wetlands and some woodlands, and during the summer months we really do like to enjoy the backyard; however, when the sun goes down and the temperature goes down the mosquitoes come out and basically chase us into the house. And so the family room will be designed with some windows so we can continue to enjoy our backyard. Lastly, we had a few contractors look over our plans. They say they make sense. They say it won't change the grade of our property. Because our houses on our cul-de-sac are sort of around a circle cul-de-sac, our addition won't be blocking anyone's view. After the addition is completed, we plan to have the addition professionally landscaped so that it will look as if it's a part of the house. Professional -- or the walkway that we had planned will match the front stairs and steps and walkway on the patio in the back. And we don't want to move. We like where we live. We're committed to our street and our neighbors and we like our house. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were
thirty-two notices; and there were eight approvals by adjoining neighbors, and there is a letter from Mr. (inaudible) the architectural control committee approving the plans as submitted. Anybody in the audience wish to make a comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No, okay. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, this property received a ZBA approval sometime ago during the development of the Vistas area where several variances were granted. (inaudible) underlying zoning district. Everything was in line with the R-4 zoning district, which means that the rear yard has to still maintain 35 foot. The underlying zoning district at the time was an R-8 district, which, if you can remember this gentleman really was in at that particular time, but because of the variance he was down to the R-4 zoning district. And as far -- the gentleman also presented his case very well due to the
configuration of the property, the angulation of the building. Those are all the concerns that he had for the addition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MR. REINKE: I think the petitioner has covered -- a very good job in his presentation. He really answered most questions the board members could have, and I could support the petitioner's request. MEMBER BAUER: I, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Lots of nods. MEMBER SANGHVI: All right, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that Case Number 02-099, applicants' request be granted because of the peculiar configuration of the lot. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: 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. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MR. REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: We got you out fast. You have a variance. See the building department for a permit. MR. ELMBLAD: All right. Thank you. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good job. CASE NUMBER 02-100 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll continue on. 02-100, representing Pinnacle Office Centre. Is this Paul Choukourian? MR. CHOUKOURIAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Paul, are you an attorney? MR. CHOUKOURIAN: No, I'm not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Raise your right hand and we'll swear you in. 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. CHOUKOURIAN: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Go ahead and present your case. MR. CHOUKOURIAN: My name is Paul Choukourian. I'm with Minasian Development. We are the developer and I am the leasing agent for the Pinnacle Office Centre. The sign was erected approximately a year ago for the Pinnacle Office Centre North, which is our new building. It's under construction, and it's still under construction. We anticipate having it completed around February. And as of now we have no leases in that building. We hope to keep the sign for approximately another year just to help bolster advertising. We do generate a fair amount of calls from that development sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were ten notices sent. An immediate parcel owner sent in an approval. No objections. Anybody in the audience?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER SANGHVI: No comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think this one is pretty straightforward. There is nothing leased, and I think another year is reasonable. I'll make a motion along those lines. ZBA Case 02-100, I would move for the petitioner's approval of a variance for purpose of leasing out the property for one year. MEMBER SANGHVI: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Motion and support. Discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: 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: Okay. Got your variance. MR. CHOUKOURIAN: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, due to a potential conflict, I want to remove myself from the next case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-101 MR. CHAIRMAN: The next case is 02-101 filed by Glenn Schoening of Pleasant Cove. I don't want you scare you off, but I want you to be aware that you need five yes votes. Okay? MR. SCHOENING: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: And with Laverne gone, there's only five voting. But if you came next
month he'd be removing himself as well, so -- we just don't have an alternate tonight. Want to give us your name and be sworn by the secretary? 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. SCHOENING: Yes. My name is Glenn Schoening. I'm at 150 Pleasant Cove. I'm here seeking a variance of ten feet in the front yard and eight feet in the rear. We're trying to put addition on. We live in the old neighborhood near the lakes area, and the roads are really close to the houses when they were developed. About three years ago, the next-door neighbor, she passed away, and her son came to us and said do you want to buy a portion of the lot next door, and I said sure, I'd love to because -- if you take a look at our -- side of our house, you go straight forward when we bought the house, that wasn't even our property. It was right on the edge. So I said sure. So we purchased the land and we were thinking about adding on once we
get the money. So we have the money now and we'd like to put in a garage with a family room and a bathroom and mud room. And due to the size of the lot, and plus all the angles -- like, if you look at the existing structure right now, it's not even parallel with the road. It's sort of like at an angle. So if I take the house line and go straight forward with twenty-four feet, which is considerably the norm for a two-and-a-half car garage, it still is less than thirty feet away from the road. And plus the back lot, the angle is really severe, and that's why we need a variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were twenty-nine notices sent; five approvals, and probably more than that, looking at the list here. No objections. Anybody in the audience wish to comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just, once again, emphasize the unusual shape of the property and the configuration of the front yard as it's laid out to
the existing parcel of land. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I'm familiar also with this part of the area, too, and interestingly enough, that road was supposed to be sixty feet. There was supposed to be thirty feet across to the south which never got put in, but be that as it may, I think the petitioner has done a good job in presenting his case. I don't think that it's going to be grossly dissimilar from any of the neighbors, and I think that a ten foot setback in the front variance is not totally out of line with what's in the neighborhood, or in the general area, and we do have to make a motion the same, that's the -- if the rest of the board is so inclined. MEMBER BAUER: Make a motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MEMBER GRAY: Go ahead and make a motion. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure we got the right measurements here. On the map it says twenty-eight feet for the rear yard setback, so he would only need seven feet
and he's asking for eight. MR. SAVEN: I understand that, but there was a couple of issues that came about, and I think it had to deal with one of the other submittals or -- in the application -- hang on one second. I need 27 foot as far as the setback goes, he had indicated on the application, but he showed 28 foot- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) Okay. MR. SAVEN: -rear yard, so to be sure, fair, making sure he'll never come back again -- MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. I just -- MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman, in the mater of Case Number 02-101, move to approve the two requested variances for which the petitioner has applied due to the size of the lot and configuration of the property lines, the -- that's it. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion?
(No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: 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 Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you got your variance. MR. SCHOENING: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the building department. CASE NUMBER O2-083 (continued) MR. CHAIRMAN: Your timing is impeccable. Come on down. Well, what have we decided? MR. BAIN: We've decided -- there's not -- they appreciate your proposal but we're not
going to accept that, and I guess we'll have to live with the board's decision on the other issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's have some discussion on that. We had -- just to recap now, we've had a no vote on the two wall signs, and it's your desire at this point not to pursue other discussion, just live with the ground sign. MR. BAIN: Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: At some point in the future we'll probably see you back for a wall sign for this third party. MR. BAIN: That's -- I've talked to the powers that be, and my clients, and that may very well be the case. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's your pleasure. MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: How we handle this administratively? MR. SCHULTZ: I think there -- there was a motion to grant the proposed relief that failed two to four. I think there should be a motion in the other direction, if someone is so inclined, so that we have a motion -- a positive motion in other words, even if it's for or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have one of the non-supporting members make that motion? MEMBER BAUER: Make a motion in Case 02-083 that the requested variance be approved as recommended. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Denied. MR. SCHULTZ: Motion to approve has already failed once. MEMBER BAUER: Okay. I misunderstood. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion to deny. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Motion to deny. MEMBER BAUER: Motion to deny. MR. CHAIRMAN: So the motion is amended to say denied. MEMBER BAUER: Denied. MR. CHAIRMAN: I support. Any discussion on the motion? MR. SCHULTZ: Should be reasons attached consistent with the discussion that was held, the existing ground sign, the other items that board members raised. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hardship being self-imposed by virtue of the design of the
building, sufficient building identification with the current ground sign. MEMBER BAUER: Right. MR. SCHULTZ: If the maker will accept that, that's fine. MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MR. REINKE: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have denial on your submittal. MR. BAIN: Thanks. Have a good evening.
CASE NUMBER 02-102 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mamola, Case 02-102. Mr. Mamola is representing Clayton Group, which is looking to put up a ground sign. This is for a parcel that's going to be Johnson Printing building on Grand River. Lee, you want to raise your 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. MAMOLA: Yes, I do. Lee Mamola from Mamola Associate Architects. As the chairman said, we're representing Clayton Group for their appeal on the sign. We were also the architects for the building and for the project site design. I believe you should have my letter of November 8th which outlines some of the facts of why we feel there's a need for a variance in this case. The property is located southwest corner of Grand River and Taft and abuts a residentially zoned property to the south. There's
a combination of being a corner lot and a residentially zoned property which really presents the extenuating circumstances leading to our request for appeal tonight. The building is essentially an office building with some high bay activity, assembly of that sort, generally in the middle. The roadway, Grand River and Taft, in a sense cannot be developed for parking. They have to be left as greenbelt areas per other requirements of the ordinance. This mandates that the parking go to either the side yard or to the rear yard. And the rear yard also must be -- rear yard parking must be set a distance away from the residentially zoned property. Another requirement is that the loading zone area for this building can only be located on the west edge of the building, and you'll see in our diagram we have a little indent there. What this means is that for tenants in this building, they either face Grand River or they have to face the south or the residentially zoned property.
We have two tenants. We have the owner-occupied tenant, Johnson Printing, who has an existing sign up near Grand River, and we are asking the second sign be -- it would be erected along Taft Road. This sign would be, I believe, about half the size of what would be otherwise permitted if it were the only sign on the site, and it does not impinge upon the front yard setbacks. We're proposing to set it back in a legal matter. It is lower in height than would otherwise be allowed. It is not to be a lit sign. Clayton does not require the need for an internally lit or ground lit sign so, we think we've gone very far in mitigating the other requirement for a sign if it were the only sign on the site. Clayton does need this sign. As traffic would approach the site, they only see the Johnson sign at this point; and, of course, it says Johnson's business, doesn't say the name of Clayton. Clayton is behind the building, in essence, in the darker area on my diagram. If they did not get this appeal -- this request for appeal, their sign would be located in the middle of the
building, roughly where the door is, and really pretty much hidden from all public view, unless you were, of course, already on the property, and that would serve little functional purpose. The sign is there to help direct visitors to identify those coming to Clayton as this is their location. So that's the essence of our appeal. One last point, I'm sorry, that they state in a letter it cannot be seen, either sign can be seen from the other sign. It's only from -- if you're sitting in your car at Grand River going westbound and generally looking in the southwest direction will you see both signs simultaneously. You almost have to be looking to try to see if you can see both signs simultaneously. So we really do believe we meet much of the spirit of the intent of the ordinance and that there are some conditions here that warrant a variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were sixteen notices sent; there were no approvals, no objections. Anybody in the audience?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: Only that you have two frontages for this site, which -- for the business being at the rear it seems like it wouldn't be that much of a problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, given that Lee knows what makes the board happy, and the fact that you minimized the sign, I appreciate that. It takes a lot of the belaboring out of these cases. I think that- UNIDENTIFIED: (Interposing) Notices? MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? UNIDENTIFIED: Notices? MR. CHAIRMAN: Zero/zero. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: I guess one of the questions I had on this, and I've watched this site for quite a few years, I have to kind of question why there's not an additional address shown on that building perhaps facing eastbound. MR. MAMOLA: Additional-
MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) An additional address. Because the only way you can see the address is as you're driving -- well, driving westbound or northwestbound on Grand River is, you know, when you're right there because of the location on the northwest corner of the building. MR. MAMOLA: The address is on the northern facade of the building, that's correct. MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. MR. MAMOLA: Maybe Mr. Saven can explain this better than I can. There are rules about having -- addressing sites, and because of the way this building is designed there are, you know -- how those rules can become addressed. It was a concern, frankly, of the Clayton people, and I understand that they have a suite number -- that same street address but suite 200, whatever the number is. MEMBER GRAY: I just -- you know, I can appreciate the need for the second sign, but I thought having the street address, I mean, facing eastbound would also be part of a remedy, too. Thank you.
MR. SAVEN: I think one of the issues -- I'm the guy who's been delegated to address everything in this city. The issue is that we deal with emergency vehicles to get them to a space real quick. Rather than having a multi-tenant building with various addresses, to be able to identify that number for a quicker response, to get to that building, to identify. From that point on it would be from a suite or room or whatever basis that would be. MEMBER GRAY: I was just talking about the site, the topography of the whole general area heading up as you're driving northwest on Grand River. It just seemed to me that part of the solution might be to put the same address on that northeast- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) It might be confusing for emergency vehicles. MEMBER GRAY: Oh. MR. SAVEN: Because you'd have the 4000s running east and west and you got the 2000s running north and south. Taft would be 2000 but you have a 4000 number on 2000.
MEMBER GRAY: Oh. It just seemed like there can be an easier way to deal with it, so -- I appreciate your comments. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other board member questions? I think it's a reasonable request for the identification purposes of the business. MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion in Case Number 02-102, the applicant's request be granted for a second sign for identification purposes. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Support, okay. Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mamola, you have your variance. See the building department. MR. MAMOLA: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-103 We're going to call another case before taking a nine o'clock break, and it's the next one on our agenda, Kelly Riddle and Robert Rutherford. This is Case 02-103, with respect to property at 125 Austin, looking for a single variance on a setback. Want to give us your names and raise your hand and be sworn? MR. RUTHERFORD: Robert Rutherford, 125 Austin. MS. RIDDLE: Kelly Riddle, 125 Austin. MEMBER GRONACHAN: 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. RUTHERFORD & MS. RIDDLE: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Tell us what you want to do. MR. RUTHERFORD: Put an addition on the front of our house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Seriously, it can be as simple as that. We all have the packet. We've seen what you want to do. You've got a nice rendering there. We have some questions, we'll ask you. Twenty-six notices sent, and you have an overwhelming eleven approvals, no objections from any of your neighbors. Anybody in the audience wish to comment on this particular case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Building department? MR. SAVEN: I did receive a call from a resident in the area who was questioning whether or not the addition could be placed between the garage and the house. Was there any reason why
this couldn't have been done? MR. RUTHERFORD: The addition between the garage and the house? MR. SAVEN: Right. MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, we wanted the garage detached. MR. SAVEN: Pardon? MR. RUTHERFORD: We wanted the garage detached. MR. SAVEN: Okay. MS. RIDDLE: Part of the big reason of wanting to go out the front is to change it from the looks of just like a trailer, to make it look more like a house. MR. SAVEN: That's right. You did say that. I am sorry. MS. RIDDLE: That's the main thing of it, is to make it- MR. RUTHERFORD: (Interposing) Change the whole appearance of the house, to bring it up more to what's going in our area right now. MR. SAVEN: Because one of the reasons why I want to point this is, for the garage, the detached garage, there's certain
restrictions for construction- MS. RIDDLE: (Interposing) Right. MR. SAVEN: -that you don't have to comply with as stringent as it would be for a house. The minute you attach it, then you have other implications here, and I don't want you getting down the road that you want to try to do something with the garage later on. MR. RUTHERFORD: No. Our full intention is to have a detached garage. MS. RIDDLE: It has been approved that it will be considered attached because we have to have the roof line attaching. MR. RUTHERFORD: To put a roof- MS. RIDDLE: (Interposing) In order -- MR. RUTHERFORD: -between the house and the garage- MS. RIDDLE: (Interposing) Right. MR. RUTHERFORD: -because there's no accessory structures beside the house. MR. SAVEN: Are you going to attach this garage? MR. RUTHERFORD: It has to be
attached with the roof from the garage to the house. MS. RIDDLE: Like a breezeway. MR. RUTHERFORD: A breezeway or some type of roof. This is what the attorney's, whenever I went to the building department, told me I had to do to be able to build the garage beside my house, because I don't have room in my backyard. MR. SAVEN: I got you. I got you. I understand what you're trying to do now. Just be sure when you come in for that garage, that that garage setback has to be met, okay. MR. RUTHERFORD: I have the permits for the garage. MR. SAVEN: Okay. MS. RIDDLE: The foundation's in and everything. MEMBER SANGHVI: They already have a foundation poured. MR. SAVEN: Okay. So you're just going -- you're just going with a breezeway and a roof going all the way across? MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.
MR. SAVEN: Okay. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, what's before us tonight is a setback variance, and if there is some other- MR. RUTHERFORD: (Interposing) For the addition. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there is some other issue with the building department, take it up with him. Board members? MR. REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I've got, I guess, a problem here. Usually in granting a variance request, and I understand what petitioner is wanting to do, changing the style of the home and everything, but when there is the size lot that they have, I have a problem with granting the front yard variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you put that rendering back up again? MS. RIDDLE: Oh, sure. MR. RUTHERFORD: To put the addition in the back of the house, it's 35 foot, and the canal is right behind us. And at one -- at some point in time we'd like to have some kind of deck
or something in the backyard. And as far as all my mechanicals, and to do what we want to do as far as the bathroom and the heating and everything like that, going out the front is the best way to do it. And it's going to be on a crawl space so I can run my mechanicals out the front. And like I say, the biggest reason why we want to do it, other than we need the space, is to make it not look so much like a little box sitting there, make it look more like a house. MR. REINKE: Okay. This addition is going to be a two-story? MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. MEMBER REINKE: All right. So really it's going to change the configuration of the house, whether it projects out in the front yard or starts from the front edge of the existing house and goes up and goes back. MS. RIDDLE: Okay. But we're trying to bring it out -- because with the way the living room and the kitchen and stuff is set up- MR. RUTHERFORD: (Interposing) The way the house is laid out, on the inside-
MS. RIDDLE: (Interposing) There is no room in our living room. And we have a granddaughter, and everybody knows how much stuff goes with a new one, for a child wise, and you can't walk through the living room if you've got her sitting in the walker. The space in our living room is not large enough. MR. RUTHERFORD: Will this show up on here? Basically, this is the way the house is right now, with the kitchen and the dining room, and it's very small, and the stairs are in between the dining room and kitchen and the living room, and the living room is very small. MEMBER GRAY: Where is the road? MR. RUTHERFORD: Pardon? MEMBER GRAY: Show me where the road is on there. MR. RUTHERFORD: The road is out here. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MEMBER REINKE: Well, this is why, like, I think Miss Gray mentioned, somebody had called the City. To my estimation, it would be
better to go towards the garage than to come out into the front yard. MS. RIDDLE: Make the living room long. MR. RUTHERFORD: It's not going to- MS. RIDDLE: (Interposing) It's not going to make it any wider in that aspect. We can have a hallway for a living room. MR. RUTHERFORD: If I may, this is what we want to do right here, go out the front, change the stairs. We're going to move the stairs towards the front of the house, which is going to make the kitchen and the dining room bigger. And then as far as the upstairs, it's going to be a loft. MEMBER REINKE: What's your distance between the house and your garage? MR. RUTHERFORD: Twelve feet. This is just the addition. This is the bedroom, bath and the closet. It's a balcony. And this is all open above the living room with cathedral ceilings, and then we're going to do the whole house and the garage with log. Going out the side isn't going to
benefit us the way this is. I mean, we need the space for a living room so we have some -- I mean, our furniture is from here to that pillar. That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members? Sarah, do you have any input on this? You're certainly familiar with that part of town. MEMBER GRAY: As is Mr. Reinke. This was a manufactured home that was brought in some ten years ago, ten, twelve maybe. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah. It's a '79. MEMBER REINKE: About fifteen years ago. MR. RUTHERFORD: It's a '79. When it was placed there, I'm not sure. MEMBER GRAY: And these lots, you know, we know to have three lots is deceiving because they're very narrow lots. And the canal -- I mean, they have the wet behind them, so they have to stay out of that. I'm not real thrilled with coming forward to the road, but it's no closer to the road than some of the neighbors. And, you know, this may well be the only viable -- if they don't want
to put it between the garage and the house, which I can see why they don't, or out the back -- well, out the back you wouldn't have the living room space. You'd have, you know, from the kitchen. It's because of the way their house is set up now, and the floor plan. And I know there's no homeowner's association in the area, but they have support of some of their -- most of their neighbors it appears. MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just going back through here, and virtually to a T, every approval that came back voiced the approval that any improvement to this home, this property, is appreciated and supported. This is a very sensitive part of town. If there was -- I'm surprised there's not somebody else that's typically at our meetings not here. MEMBER GRAY: But I can tell you he's in support of it. MR. RUTHERFORD: When we bought this property it was a rental property before we bought it, and it was-
MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That was noted in here as well. MR. RUTHERFORD: It was in pretty bad disrepair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: And I know the absent person to whom you refer is in support of this. I got a phone call, so -- MEMBER SANGHVI: I think they are trying to make this look much better than what it is now. MEMBER REINKE: I totally agree with what they're doing. MEMBER SANGHVI: I think it's going to add to the neighborhood rather than take anything away. MR. REINKE: My only comment is to try to find a way to utilize -- to give them what they want without coming out quite as far into the front yard setback. MR. RUTHERFORD: We don't want an attached garage, so going in between the house and garage, I don't really want to do that. Going out the back, I'm so close to the canal, that going out
the back is virtually going to put me right next to the water, and the mosquitoes there will carry you away as it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd point out as well, is that when we were looking at front yard setbacks, I would certainly keep in mind -- or at least address the issue, that this isn't a heavily traveled area any longer. MEMBER GRAY: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: So I think that that might play in some of the thinking. MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, from the house, where it sits right now to the edge of the road, is 46 or-47 feet. MEMBER GRAY: That's not the property line. MR. RUTHERFORD: I know that. MR. REINKE: I have one question. I'll compromise with you. Will you quit parking in front of the house? MS. RIDDLE: What do you mean, quit parking in front of the house? MR. REINKE: Yeah.
MS. RIDDLE: The driveway was already moved from what it was. MR. REINKE: What I'm saying, what it was in the past. I hope that this will turn into a front yard. MS. RIDDLE: From where it is right now? MR. RUTHERFORD: From where the parking is now? MR. REINKE: No. I'm saying, where they used to park all the time. MR. RUTHERFORD: That parking hasn't been like that since we moved in. MEMBER REINKE: I understand that. But I'm just saying, we're hoping you'll keep it that way. MS. RIDDLE: Oh, yes. We don't -- I don't like- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) They used to park in every direction. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that comes about as far as setbacks go, is they're requesting this -- dealing with a setback where a garage is involved, because you need to get
that car off the drive, and this particular case it is not a garage, it is an addition to a house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER SANGHVI: All right, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's hear a motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: Make a motion to grant the request of Case Number 02-103, the petitioners' request be granted due to peculiar configuration of the lot. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We've got motion and support. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MR. REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your variance. See the building department for the necessary permit. MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much. MS. RIDDLE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will take a five minute break and finish up a little bit after 9:00. (A recess was taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We will reconvene. CASE NUMBER 02-104 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll start with one of my favorite topics, Post Bar, Case 02-104, filed by Alden Faudie, Jr., of Gillett Associates, Inc. And this relates to the Post Bar seeking to build in what was a portion of Vic's Center on Grand River, and an issue with parking spaces which you're going to tell us all about. We have an attorney present I
believe. No? MR. OEGEMA: That would be me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, the other two gentlemen will give us their name and be sworn, please. MR. FAUDIE: Okay. I'm Alden Faudie, Jr., from Gillett Associates. We're not actually representing the Post Bar. We're actually representing the owners of Vic's Market building, but it's to get Post Bar into the building. This is Jim Oegema who represents the owner. MR. BRINKMEYER: Dave Brinkmeyer, Gillett Associates. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hands, gentlemen, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. FAUDIE & MR. BRINKMEYER: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. FAUDIE: Brief history of the building. It was built in 1995, '96, as a single
user specialty market, as most of you know. The original owner has closed the business and the building has been empty for over a year. MR. OEGEMA: Since February. MR. FAUDIE: Close to a year, except for Lifestyle Spa, which takes one end of the building, about 7,000 square feet, and there's some offices upstairs where Jim's office is. The variance we're seeking is, the building owners are proposing to insert Post Bar, which is about 11,000 square feet, into this space previously occupied by the flower shop and the greenhouse at the west end of the building right along Market Street. We've met with the planning department, we've met with the building department, informally, just to discuss some issues with the construction. But at the planning department's advice, we used the original length trip factors and calculations from the original Jared (ph) Mills (ph) site plan that was approved back six, seven years ago, and the Rich Associates parking study that was done at the same time that the City
used to determine the parking requirements for the building. From those -- from that calculation, we determined that the change in use from a flower shop and a greenhouse to a restaurant is going to add a hundred and thirty-six spaces to the requirement for that building. The required and approved parking for the original Vic's building, per that same study, was a hundred and eighty spaces assigned to Vic's and that whole building. There are three hundred and forty-three spaces, however, on the Vic's property, so there's an excess of a hundred and sixty-two spaces. The parking with the Post Bar in place increased by the hundred and thirty-six spaces would require three hundred and sixteen spaces. Again, there's three hundred and forty-three on that piece of property, so there's an excess of twenty-seven spaces extra. We believe there's enough parking on the actual Vic's parcel for this change; however, the original site plan was approved as part of the whole Town Center area, and there's shared parking
agreements with both sides of the street. And the buildings on the west side of the street, Mesquite Creek, Mongolian Barbecue, Lazy Lizard, et cetera, are actually deficient in their parking. They actually require about six hundred and twenty-five spaces and they only provide four hundred and twenty-one. This is all part of the site plan you guys all have on record. They have, however, shared parking agreement with the owners of the Vic's building to use some of the surplus of theirs. It's not clearly spelled out how many spaces, but they just use the parking. So if you add up all the totals of all the property altogether, when it's fully built out all the way from Market Street all the way over to Novi Road, the numbers that you have in your paperwork, we end up being, with this change in use from a flower shop to the Post Bar, we end up short by forty-five spaces. We have the space on the Vic's property, but there's not space for the whole development when it's built out in the future, if that ever happens.
The planning department feels though, since it was part of a single contiguous plan, it needs to be addressed as a single contiguous plan. Basically that's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were twelve notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience wish to comment? Come on down. MR. HOGAN: I need a microphone brought up to me. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's coming. Let's see if we can pick you up from there. MR. HOGAN: Usually it reaches up here. What I want to talk about is the extremely deficient entire Market and Main Street area. The building is noncompliant in the first place. It never has been in compliance. And across the street where they're deficient, as he said, more than just a little. It's grossly noncompliant. There -- only spaces they do allow for handicap parking over there has a 25 percent
grade, 25 degree grade from the parking spaces down into a ditch and then back up a hill to get into the Main Street area on -- the restaurants all along there, there's not one curb break, there's no handicap parking. On the other side where Vic's had a couple of spaces there, they're not. The entire area that goes down the street on the south side of Main Street has no handicap parking spaces. And, for instance, last night the meeting ended so early, I didn't even get a chance to get in because the front was so caked up with snow plow, I decided to over there and see because we're supposed to have some people in wheelchairs going to the event this week over there, and just to check, I found all sidewalks completely cleaned, not a bit of snow on any of them. I found almost every handicap spot had a snowplow gird in it and mud and snow, or tracks going back and forth where the truck rolled over it in order to make -- this is a continuous issue. And if the place is built out, it is a question down a road that we need to plan for
now. Obviously, the things haven't been corrected since 1993 when the ADA was put into affect, and the City codes and State codes in addition to that. Their just is no parking over there, even in the area down by the brewery and those areas down there. There's parking curbs in the handicap parking spaces. They're full of snow, the ramps are closed up. But every one of those entrances where people have to step off the curb into the person's business is completely clean. Those things are -- have to be taken into consideration. If anything is going to go down the street south, and I believe the flower house was south of the main building, there's zip down there. So I would like to make sure it's at least attached to that, be compliant in the whole area, and especially in Vic's Market, including bathrooms, because they're not compliant. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I get your name, sir? MR. HOGAN: Wayne Hogan.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Wayne? MR. HOGAN: Hogan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's noted for the record, but I'll -- Wayne, for your sake, as a ZBA we can only deal with a variance that's before us, and there's going to be some other discussion that might help you. I'll ask a question here when we finish up with the audience participation. Anybody else have comments with respect to this case, this variance request? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: I need to get Wayne's phone number, please. Wayne, can I have your phone number? MR. HOGAN: I'd be willing to give it to you, but not on the air. MR. SAVEN: Fair enough, very well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, maybe you can run up and -- I'd like the building department to at least begin looking into your concerns. While we can't deal with them, obviously they are very important issues and the appropriate parties should
be dealing with that. With respect to this case though, building department, any questions, issues? MR. SAVEN: Well, the issue is that when the study was done, the study was done for an entire site and phases that are not even shown as it exists now, the buildings that are not even existent as presented before you tonight. As indicated earlier on, if you were to take this building separately and by itself, it would meet the requirements, parking requirements, but because it was part of a study we have issues where we're dealing with the uses that are out there that we don't even know what's going to take place or whether or not the building is going to be built. That was taken into account in this study, and that's where the deficiency is. It's off on the entire project. It's not off of any individual building, so that's what we're dealing with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a question. As I understood it, because this is not built out all the way to Novi Road, if there are changes in the plan as it was calculated two or
three years ago, as this has changed, we're looking at a reconfiguration again potentially, so this is going to be a moving target until this thing is all- MR. FAUDIE: (Interposing) Up or down, either way. MR. SAVEN: I will assure the board that I had extensive communications with the planning department regarding this issue in terms of the intensity of the uses that are -- that's potential for future development, and just based upon those concerns at all, they assured us that they will be watching this very carefully. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, discussion, questions? I'll just make my own comment that with over 2,000 available parking spots, I don't think that this site is going to be deficient by 45 as it's calculated perhaps, but in all reality, I don't think we're dealing with any problem here. MEMBER SANGHVI: I quite agree with you, Mr. Chairman. This is a pie in the sky, and I don't think it has any relevance to the present situation, and I don't see any problem about
granting this. MR. REINKE: Even the -- Mr. Chairman, even the impact of the total aggregate parking spaces, the deficiency of 45 is -- it's minimal. If -- but, of course, if you have anything that's going to be of a larger magnitude generally, as far as parking, it's going to have to be given extreme consideration and evaluation at that point in time, but I don't think we're at that point in time with the requirements that are stated to be needed for this situation. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I also think that the applicant would be willing to take a look at the location of the front entrance for this particular building as it would relate to availability of parking, close proximity parking for handicap facilities adjacent to that structure, which would take care of Wayne's concern that he mentioned earlier on. MEMBER REINKE: I would assume that each business is required to have handicap access and handicap parking- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) It's
law. MEMBER REINKE: -and that they're going to have to comply with that regulation. MR. SAVEN: I need clarification here. ADA and the rules that Wayne's talking about are explicit in terms of the amount of handicap parking which is available. Unfortunately, the issue that Wayne's talking about, in some instances, is certainly a major maintenance issue; is that correct, Wayne? MR. HOGAN: I'm sorry? MR. SAVEN: It's a major maintenance issue in regards to the snow -- where the snow is being placed and accessibility? MR. HOGAN: During snow time, yeah, but -- and every other instance, too, not just during a snowstorm. MR. SAVEN: Right. But each business is looked at from a square footage basis and for compliance to the code. We have certain requirements for handicap parking. Those requirements are met, okay. That accessibility, I can't do this
for each individual business because this is looked at as an entire package, amount of parking that's there, and close proximity to the building as we can get as far as parking is concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Wayne's issues are going to be addressed- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Right MR. CHAIRMAN: -by the building department. Let's take care of case before us, please. MR. HOGAN: I'm sorry, sir. That is a case before you though. You were going to ask me a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. What's before us tonight is whether they are deficient by 45 parking spots under today's calculation. That's what before us tonight. MR. HOGAN: Under today's calculation? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. HOGAN: And the study? MR. CHAIRMAN: Under today's calculation, which can change with future additions to this whole complex as it's built out. That
overall number of parking spaces is going to change again and again and again. It may go up, it may go down. Until that whole complex is built out, we won't know, but what we're dealing with tonight is based on what's built, what's in business, and that square footage and that use, does that equate to enough parking spaces for the new Post Bar. That's what's before us. Any further discussion by board members? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion in Case 02-104 that we approve the variance of 45 parking spaces at this time due to the changing nature of occupancies and build-out in the Town Center -- I'm sorry, Main Street area, understanding that there have been issues brought before us that will be separately addressed by the building department. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that was well stated, Sarah.
MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah, please call the vote. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: 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? MR. REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, see the building department. CASE NUMBER 02-105 MR. CHAIRMAN: The next case is Brookhaven Subdivision filed by Michael Fellows of Mozart Homes, LLC. This is Case Number 02-105. Gentlemen, you want to give us your names and raise your right hand and be sworn,
please. MR. SIEBERT: My name is Cliff Siebert. MR. FELLOWS: I'm Mike Fellows, sir, from Mozart Homes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Gentlemen, do you swear or affirm that the information that you give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. SIEBERT & MR. FELLOWS: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. FELLOWS: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. I appreciate the chance to be here. As you know, the proposed sixteen unit residential development by the name of Brookhaven, the property is seven acres in size. It is a piece that's kind of funny shaped in that there's a five-and-a-half acre main part in it, and an acre-and-a-half at the northern end of it. It's that shape, that little skinny acre-and-a-half, that makes the layout and use of this property a little bit difficult. The permitted density -- if I may, I'd like to give you just a little bit of history
about how we came to be here, very quick. In R-4 zoning, permitted density is about 3.3 -- exactly 3.3 units per acre. Realistically, you can usually get about three units per acre, which on this site would be twenty-one lots. We did -- Cliff's office actually did several plans in the preliminary planning of this, and the best we could come with on any plan was eighteen lots, not needing any variances; however, that plan was not the most desireable plan we came up with, so we chose, instead, to present originally to the planning commission a plan which had seventeen lots on it, also which did not require us to come and ask for variances. At the time we submitted that plan, we also had some meetings with the neighbors whose property surround it in the middle of the subdivision, and quickly learned that they weren't very happy about that seventeen lot proposal, primarily because of the proximity of the cul-de-sac to their rear yards. So before we even got to present to the planning commission, we withdraw that plan and
went back again with Cliff and came up with a sixteen lot plan, which achieved the goal of pulling the cul-de-sac away from the rear yards of the neighbors. However, to do a sixteen lot plan, kind of paradoxically, now we need a variance -- or, actually, I think there are three variances we need. The neighbors were much happier with that plan, and they came to the planning commission meeting and pretty much expressed their approval with that plan over the original seventeen lot plan. So we're here tonight to ask for a variance regarding lots eight, nine and ten. No other lots in the subdivision are we requesting variances for. Those three lots will be served by a shared driveway, which, as you see, sticks out of the north end of that cul-de-sac. And because Mr. Siebert is much more knowledgeable on the details of the variance, I'm going to let him present that to you. MR. SIEBERT: Actually, I think there
are only three variances that we need, one for each of these lots. At the requested front yard setback, we more than exceed the eighty foot minimum width required in the R-4 zoning. For instance, at the proposed setback, lot eight will have a width of eighty-five feet, lot nine will be ninety feet in width, and lot ten will be 91.18 feet in width. So at this additional or larger setback, we will meet the width -- yes, the width requirement for the R-4 zoning. And in addition, these three lots do have frontage on a public road, although it's fairly small, especially for lots nine and ten. I think it's around ten feet, but they do all meet the requirement for frontage on a public road. So we are asking for the three variances, one each for lots eight, nine and ten, in order to increase the front yard setback, in order to then obtain the minimum width that's required for that zoning. This is very similar to the variances that were granted for Willowbrook Farms. They had
a similar situation where the front setback was extended, was made larger, in order to meet the width requirement. And also I think it was Bradford of Novi also had a similar situation where they asked for an additional -- or a larger front yard setback. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were seventy-one notices sent; there were no approvals, and you had a pretty strong objection from the neighbor right behind lot seven -- pardon me, lot eight. And he's concerned about the variances that have been proposed. Maybe she's here. If she's not here, maybe she's watching at home. Anybody in the audience wish to make comment on this one? Want to give us your name and address, sir? MR. TOWNSEND: My name is Irvin Townsend. I live at 24339 Pinecrest Drive. I've lived there since 1970, one of the first people to buy in the subdivision. This, of course, is -- I'm not that
much of a speaker, but it looks like, to me, that these people have been given lots of latitude with this property. When it was first brought out, we was under the impression there was going to be about thirty feet of green area behind our houses. Then it went down to twenty. And I believe now it's down to ten feet, which is about the width of a driveway. The thing that bothers me is that, you know, you people have ordinances to stick by, and you take and add signs, and these people came in and they weren't happy with the sign so they had to have a bigger sign. Well, you know, you can't be giving them everything, and then they're going to keep on just taking. And we feel that, you know, this is just not being fair with us. We've talked to the people. In fact, I believe number eight is behind my house. I live in that lot number forty-three, and it looks like that it's, you know, it's going to be pretty close in there to us. That lot, that number eight lot, looks like it's kind of offset there so that it kicks up in there to -- close into our property.
But I don't really see the lot lines on there. That's about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll see if we can address some of your concerns during discussion. MR. TOWNSEND: Thank you. MR. MUTCH: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the board. Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court. First, I want to take issue with the statement that was made by the developer in terms of whether the residents surrounding this property approved in the sense that they gave their consent to this, and I would say that if given the choice between two evils and you pick the lesser of two evils, I don't consider that giving approval to this plan, and I think that what's taking place with this development. The name of this development is Brookhaven Subdivision, but I think a more appropriate name would be Shoehorn Acres. We have a developer who has developed in Novi, who is trying to force homes into an area where they clearly don't fit without violating our
zoning ordinances. This is not a situation where we have a homeowner on a lakefront property trying to improve and expand our house and dealing with the limitations of their property. This is a blank slate, and the developer has no excuse for not meeting the standards of our ordinances. The developer made the argument that what you're seeing and what you're being asked to grant variances to is a superior plan than what has otherwise been presented and what might have been approved through the planning process, although it never did go through that process completely. But the real question is, does this plan and do these variances that are being requested further the intent of our zoning ordinances. And I take the position that they don't. Clearly, he is going to benefit from the variances if they're granted. But what do these variances achieve? If you grant these variances you don't get a plan that preserves a greater amount of the regulated woodlands on this property. In fact, I think in comparing the plans,
we might have actually lost trees and lost green space with this plan. And, frankly, this area doesn't need anymore traffic, and it doesn't need anymore homes, so there's no benefit being accrued that way. And I think if you grant the variances you're going to be sending the wrong message to the developers. Essentially, it would be saying if you can't meet our ordinances, don't worry, come in, get a variance and then you can have as many lots as you can fit on the property, and I think that's the wrong message to send. Clearly, there is no legitimate need or purpose served by granting these variances. Not only is the developer unable to meet the lot width and frontage requirements, he can't even meet the front yard setback requirements, and that says to me, in looking at those plans, that even with this irregular driveway arrangement, that if you can't even get a front yard setback in that -- on those lots, that you're trying to squeeze in lots where they don't fit, and I think that's clearly what's going on. And the driveway arrangement itself I
think raises real questions of public safety and access if there was ever an emergency and it needed to get a fire vehicle back, or a police vehicle, back to those lots. That's a real question. There was a comparison made to a couple other developments, the Willowbrook development and the Bradford development. I think those are materially different from this development. For those who are familiar with those lots where the variances were granted, those are homes imposing on other adjacent property owners. They were sort of isolated islands where the variance allowed those little isolated islands to be developed. In this case, the developer is going to benefit at the expense of the surrounding property owners. I believe that after you examine these variances and apply the appropriate standards, the board will find that these variances are unnecessary, unwarranted and fail to advance any legitimate zoning interest. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody
else? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: Well, as you can see, this is a very unique case, especially for the three lots that they're seeking a variance from. One of the issues you take a look at in the zoning ordinance which deals with variances which are before you, is lots fronting on a public road. This, in turn, has implications in terms of how much frontage that they do have on a public road. And the -- and I believe it was at a planning commission meeting they had made a determination that the rear lot line would be that which would be adjacent on the east -- most easterly property line, so what is considered a front lot line would be that which would be opposite the rear property line. But based upon the fact that the frontage requirement -- the frontage on a public road is minimal in nature as what you can see, a portion of that lot ten and lot nine's drive, okay, is almost as though it's being shared and it's fronting on a cul-de-sac. So each
one has a certain amount of frontage. And as you go through the calculations for that frontage on the public street, we're looking at that as being part of the variance, okay. The other issue is taking into account that even though the front property line off the garages, as it comes in on what may be considered a front property line, that particular setback is what was making the determining factor for the front yard setbacks and the need for those variances. Even though they sit back far enough from the road, we have the issue of what was determined as a front property line. That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you go through, for my sake, the first three variance requests for eight, nine and ten with respect to required width? MR. SAVEN: Okay. If you take a look at your plot plan -- I don't have a laser or anything. If you take a look at the -- at the end of the cul-de-sac for the property known as eight, or lot eight, the frontage requirement for lot eight would be that portion which is adjacent to
the cul-de-sac in yellow, and that's that distance that we have for the frontage on a public road there. Going down to the drive for lot nine would be the next portion. You could see how the driveway is split in that particular area. That would be the frontage for lot nine. And ten would be, likewise, that portion of the property, which is that drive area, which is looked at for that portion. So actually the drive, sir -- the drives for nine and ten serve as your frontage requirement on the public road? Are you in agreement or not in agreement? MR. SIEBERT: No, that -- well, we front on a public road. I mean, each one of the lots do provide frontage on a public road. There's -- the ordinance doesn't require a minimum frontage on a public road. It requires a minimum, the width at the front yard setback. So as to the frontage on a public road, we believe we meet the ordinance requirement in that respect. We do meet the width requirement at
the front yard setback that we're asking for because we exceed the eighty feet of width at the proposed front yard setback, so we don't believe we need a variance for a width -- lot width in this case because where the houses -- homes are to be located, we meet that width for that zoning classification. So what we believe we need at this point is a variance for an increase of the front yard setback for each of the three lots. I believe what the planning commission found was that -- this was the original plan that was submitted to the planning commission, and as you can see the cul-de-sac was longer and it ended at this point. It met all the city requirements as the cul-de-sac length. It required no variances. And, in fact, we had one additional lot with this layout. But after meeting with neighborhood residents, it was determined that they preferred a design where this was pulled back, where they didn't have the cul-de-sac located immediately behind their homes. And even though we lost one more lot by pulling it back here, we
believe it was a better design. So even though we lost the additional lot, we thought it was a better design and better met with what most of the neighbors were looking for. And at the planning commission, several of those neighbors did show up at the meeting in support of what we were doing with this alternate design. MR. FELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, if I may also add a little bit. First, regarding Mr. Townsend's comments, I have not met with you in person. We did send several letters to the association offering to meet with anyone at any time. That's still good. I'm not quite sure -- I was trying to write down your concern, and if I can I'd be happy to meet with you and explain or try to understand your response at any time. I do take exception to some of Mr. Mutch's comments, of course. As Cliff describes, we do have a plan of seventeen lots which does not need any variances. It meets all of the City's ordinances; however, because of concerns of the neighbors, we are trying to mitigate what they saw as an
unfavorable plan, and so we agreed to drop one lot. One lot out of seventeen is a great percentage of the project to lose, frankly. Regarding his comment about Shoehorn Acres, I'd like to point out that nine of these sixteen lots exceed the width requirements, and every single lot exceeds the area requirements of R-4 zoning. I guess that's all. Thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's get some board member input on -- moving forward with this. Some of my first comments is, a lot of what has been raised as objections are issues that should be raised with the planning commission. I mean, we've only -- we've got two items in front of us that are variance requests, and while I might not like what's laying there, that's not for me to judge. This is the ZBA. We hear variances, and we have testimony that there was other designs, we have testimony that there was interface with neighbors. There was a number of notices sent. Board members? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I'll start
it off. I have a problem with this configuration of a shared driveway for every single reason that I can think of. We in the City of Novi don't like shared driveways. We discourage them whenever possible. You -- this reeks to me of flag lot, which we discourage at every chance we get. Even though they did receive an approval from the planning commission for this configuration, it was predicate upon us granting variances, and I just can't see how I could support any variances at all for lots eight, nine and ten. This is new construction. The only reason for having these three extra lots is to increase profit, and I don't look at that as a reason for a hardship. They have demonstrated, although it's not to, as they claim, the neighbors' liking, that they can build as zoned and they can meet the requirements without variances, and so why this is before us is absolutely beyond me. And that's all I'm going to say at this time. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Typically, we've got a developer in here that's trying to get
more than less, and I'm not too thrilled with what's laying on the table in front of us for issues not only raised by Sarah but by members of the audience. I don't like the idea of that single street serving three houses. I -- boy. Fire, police, all of that issue. I think that there's some legitimate -- legitimacy to what we read in the minutes regarding the woodsites on the south end, right, yep. I've always been in favor of any plan that saves woodlands. MR. FELLOWS: If I may- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let me ask you a question. MR. FELLOWS: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be your preference to build the design on top? MR. FELLOWS: We'd make more money doing that. But, honestly, I can feel for the neighbors. I mean, having their rear lot line is obviously much, much closer to a road in that configuration. I mean, obviously it's not always about the money. We try to-
MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) It is closer to the road but it's serving two houses. MR. FELLOWS: Well- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You know what, that's not in front of us tonight. I think what's in front of us is whether these variances are within our discretion and if we believe that there's been enough hardship to- MR. FELLOWS: (Interposing) That's one of the comments that I wanted to make, was that approximately a quarter of the site is very difficult to use, to lay out, because of the shape of it, and I see that as a definite hardship. The configuration of the site, I didn't create that. The density allowed is over twenty units per acre. We're proposing sixteen. Here, I thought, meeting with the neighbors, with voluntarily withdrawing the previous plan that, you know -- and losing one lot, we were attempting to work with them, to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. I do prefer the sixteen lot plan over the seventeen lot plan, just to answer your question, but I guess my preference doesn't really
matter. I have a question -- you were asking something about a wood lot or wood -- I didn't quite understand what you were referring to. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think with the upper design you maintain more woodlands was my impression; is that correct? MR. FELLOWS: Actually, no. That's not really true. If you were to calculate it out -- and it's a little misleading looking at these plans because of the dark green areas being -- as indicative of what would be preserved. In reality -- and, unfortunately, I should apologize for this. Neither one of these plans exactly shows the area of the preservation of the woodlands. The bottom plan does show it more accurately at the north end of the site, but in some meetings I've had recently with Steve Prince, we're going to be preserving some more trees along the eastern boundary and along the southwestern boundary line than is shown on that plan. And in the final analysis, actually there are more trees preserved on the sixteen lot plan than there would be on the seventeen lot plan.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's get some further board input. MEMBER SANGHVI: I have a question for you, sir. Do you have the detailed inset of last three lots other than in this here? MR. FELLOWS: Other more detailed drawing than- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Yes, than was looked -- because this does not really give you the real-deal picture of how much space we are talking about for the shared driveway and how wide are they and all that. MR. FELLOWS: Cliff can help me out a little bit with some numbers probably, but this plan does show a little bit better, and I can move it out if you prefer, a little closer. These heavy black lines are the actual lot lines. So as you can see, like Cliff said, technically each lot does front on the public cul-de-sac, but obviously it's very minimal frontage. And if the -- so lot ten is really all of that. Now, in a practical sense, somebody
who moves into lot ten is going to think of this as this is their front yard and this is their front yard and here's their street. I mean, nobody's going to know -- there's not going to be any physical indication out there of where these property lines are. The fire marshal has written a letter in approval of this driveway. And, actually, one thing that is also not depicted on this is that the suggestion came up to flip lot ten, the house for ten, so the driveway would actually come out of the southern end of the house and shorten that shared driveway considerably with the little stub-type turn around; again, which the fire marshal had expressed approval of. I'm not sure I'm answering your questions about the lots, but like I say, Cliff can probably tell you in more detail the actual dimensions of them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me throw a thought out to the other board members. Haven't we always been of the pursuasion that if a site and a plan can be generated, developed without any variances, that we would typically deny the variance request?
It seems like a shut case. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Now, there may be other reasons that planning had in their vision, but when there's a plan that can be done without any variances, I can't see why we would consider these variances especially. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have a question. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go back to building department. MR. SAVEN: We can go to the members first. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll get everybody. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I go back to my beginning -- beginner's training. What's the hardship, and I have a problem seeing what the hardship is. I can appreciate the petitioner's work. I share the previous speaker's, or Sarah's, Miss Gray's, comments about this was a flag lot, and I'm not happy with that, but I keep going back to what's the hardship, and I keep coming back to a financial.
I see Tom maybe has some insight, but if somebody can steer me down a road of this is new construction, we have residents that are not happy. Granted, the petitioner went back and tried to help the residents with his previous lot, layout, okay, and I can -- I've taken note of that, but you can't make all the people happy all of the time, but at least the attempt was made. But this is a whole new thing, and now we've got a resident that's going to live behind lot eight who has some concerns. But, then again, on the other hand, where I'm torn is that we don't have a lot of letters from residents fighting this. I'm looking in your direction, and you're bobbing your head, so I'm looking for your guidance after Mr. Saven talks. Thank you. MR. REINKE: Mr. Chairman, he's got a configuration up there which he doesn't need a variance for, but as to what I'm gathering from the information, that when he met with the homeowners affected, they didn't want that. They would prefer to have the other one which requires variances.
MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. MR. REINKE: So I'm torn between -- and I totally agree, that -- the position I take is -- especially if it's new development, there should be no variance required. But now we got a situation here with okay, we go ahead and we say -- we turn this down, he goes back and builds the ones -- and all the neighbors are unhappy because now they got all these cars turning around and lights shining in their houses and everything else. So you're on a pendulum here, and I'm having a problem in dealing with it. And I guess I have to stop and think and give some consideration to the variance requests, deemed on the fact that it seemed to resolve most issues with the residents' concern, or we'd have had a lot more response, in a negative fashion, to what they're proposing. MR. FELLOWS: That's correct. Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Hold on a second. I want to get Don's- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Yeah. As
indicated, and just following up to what Mr. Reinke was indicating, if you take a look at that plan, and it's very important, and I think this is what the gentleman was talking about, was the fact that if that plan that was without ordinance violations was a consideration, the property, or the lot which is directly adjacent to that subdivision, would have a side yard instead of a rear yard, and if you have a side yard you're losing that distance between the buildings and the property line. And if you can recall, the planning commission was explicit that the property for nine, ten, and those properties which were facing the easterly property line, or abutting the easterly property line, was to be considered a rear yard. So that gives them the thirty-five foot requirement instead of possibly the ten foot minimum requirement which was a minimum requirement they would have to be. And, certainly, if you take a look at the cul-de-sac, and if the people were driving around the cul-de-sac, the lights would be right in these people's eyes, or in the windows, and that was -- and I'm sure that was one of the concerns
that the planning commission had when they were looking at this, and that's how this plan is before you right now. Maybe that was an alternative to try to help the residents adjacent. I'm just throwing that out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: I can appreciate your comments. What I'm also having a problem with is, having lived in a house with a shared driveway, they're horrible. Now, you have -- what happens with lot number ten when nine and eight are having parties and there's an emergency at ten, and even though the fire marshal may have given a letter saying this is okay, do you mean to tell me that you're going to drive those fire trucks down the street and then you're going to back them down the cul-de-sac trying to get out? I mean, this makes no sense to me at all. It just -- this is not good planning, and I just -- I can't help but think that -- the other question is, how are -- since it's a shared driveway, how are the residents of this subdivision supposed to get to this park to utilize it, walk on somebody's driveway or, you know -- and
that may be rhetorical, but that's another thing that slapped me in the face when I was looking at it. What makes sense to me from a planning standpoint is to eliminate at least two of these lots, if not three. And we're not here to discuss that tonight, but I certainly would have eliminated at least two of these lots and have eight face exactly on the cul-de-sac, and that would still possibly give people access to the park. But I can't support -- I mean, I understand that the residents were more in support of this than another, but as was questioned, I mean how many options were they given. And just because a property is zoned doesn't mean that it has to be built that way. I mean, it doesn't mean that we have to say you can have 21 lots in here just because it's -- the acreage says it. I mean, there are configurations that just absolutely exclude it, and this, I think, is one of them. Thank you. MR. FELLOWS: Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MR. FELLOWS: I'm trying to remember everyone's comments. Please help me with your last name. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Gronachan. MR. FELLOWS: Gronachan. You were asking about the hardship. Actually, the hardship is the shape of that property, like I mentioned. It's seven acres, and there's almost a quarter of it that is very difficult, just by virtue of the shape that is inherent in the land. The hardship is that I can't get anywhere near the allowable density. I do have the ability to develop the property to the highest use I can put it to. And if the density is allowing me close to twenty-two units but I can't even get really sixteen or seventeen, that does seem to me to be a hardship. Cliff's office did probably a dozen different layouts. We spent six months designing this site, so I do see a hardship here. But more importantly, I think, I want to know, I want to ask, the City has many, many, many ordinances, and many residents, and are the
ordinances really subordinate to the residents' concern, or do the residents kind of have to subordinate their lives to the ordinances? And here we have a plan that was probably favored by -- of the people I talked to and the responses I got, probably a minimum of nine out of ten people expressed a preference to have that cul-de-sac not so close to their backyards. And I do think there's a hardship. I do think there is something that can be justified in the granting of this variance, and in doing so you would be really, in my opinion -- obviously it's my opinion because it's my plan, but doing the right thing by a bunch of other people who aren't me who normally would be opposing -- and you're right. How many guys do you get come in and ask for a variance to allow them to build less than they could. It is true, I can do a plan that doesn't require variances, but it's a worse plan. It's a plan that affects a lot more people more negatively. It affects me more positively, I can make more money. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'll go back to
what we're obligated to do, and that's consider the variances in front of us. There's a lot with this -- the lower plan that I do not like, and the fact that we've got a plan that, with new construction, needs no variances, I will not support the variance requests as requested. MR. REINKE: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER REINKE: In my normal method of looking at these, I would totally agree with you, but due to the fact that the top layout has a very adverse affect on the adjoining neighbors, and the proposed layout that requires the variances has the minimum impact on the neighborhood, I can support petitioner's request for a variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Just a couple of questions, and please take what I'm about to say -- I'm not trying to become another member of the ZBA. I'm not saying anything to advocate one way or the other in favor of the proponent or against the proponent. I think what you're struggling with
here is that this is a planning question. It's not really something this board sees on a regular basis, and I think the planning commission itself, which makes these kinds of decisions every other week, struggled with it, too, if you read through the minutes. It appears, and it appeared to the planning commission, I think from the minutes, that there is a plan that can be developed with seventeen lots, one extra lot, without variance. So the question that the planning commission was faced with is okay, we have a plan in front of us that could be denied because it doesn't meet ordinance requirements. So that's our first option, we can just deny it and tell them to come back until it meets ordinance requirements. Or it could make a planning determination and decide we like the plan if these other ordinance issues can be addressed. And that's the motion that was made. It's not binding on you. It -- it's not -- it wasn't clearly articulated or directed to you, but the planning commission determined that this plan was acceptable to it.
So that's a consideration for you, but it's not binding. When -- I understand completely when each of you say typically if they can develop a property without an ordinance why are they before us. They're before you because they're proposing a plan that they think, even though it has some ordinance deficiencies, it's better than one that wouldn't have deficiencies. So the question is, can you consider that when you're going through your variance calculus. The elements of a area variance are going to be, is there a burden on the property owner, difficulty. The definition of practical difficulty is, is there a practical difficulty with complying with ordinance requirements and that the property owner is suggesting that odd configuration at the top of the property, which he didn't create, causes some difficulty. It can be dealt with without a variance. He's shown that. So that's an issue you need to weigh. The second element of a practical
difficulty test is, does what's proposed do substantial justice as presented. The phrase that the court's use, substantial justice to the neighboring property owners. That's a legitimate, important, equally weighed consideration to can it be built without the variance. The third consideration is, does it do substantial justice to the community as a whole. Is this, what's before you, a better layout from the community standpoint. Not a technical calculus standpoint but a community standpoint, is this a better layout. They've made their arguments, and I guess you have to weigh those. The fourth element is, is this a self-created hardship, and I think what the proponent is arguing is look, I can get another unit if I reconfigure this, I'm suggesting something different because I've spoken with the planner and neighbors and here's what I propose. What you need to weigh -- I don't think you should be saying hey, it can be built without a variance and, therefore, deny. These are equal considerations, what's the layout of the property, is it better for
us as a community to have -- for one less lot with a different layout, is it better for the neighbors. You know, you may have people disagree with your ultimate conclusion on the decision, but it is your determination. It's made more difficult by virtue of the fact that it's really, unfortunately, kind of something that you don't do every week. But you have the ability to look beyond the fact that a plan could be developed without a variance. You just need to decide whether the plan that's before you is a better plan and does more justice for the surrounding property owners than what could be built. And I'm not suggesting you go one way or the other, just suggesting that you can do that. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan, in response to some of Mr. Schultz's comments, I've looked at this very carefully, I think, and I absolutely see that they can build without variance. I can see what they're asking for, applying standards of practical difficulty and substantial justice. I personally am not convinced that they have demonstrated to me that they can't
build out this property with less variance. I absolutely understand they can build it without. But it hasn't been demonstrated to me that they cannot build on this property and put in a subdivision with less variance. And that is one of the things that I'm looking at. Even getting rid of one more lot and making the park a little bit bigger and doing something creative with lots eight and nine off the cul-de-sac, I would be much happier with than what I'm faced with tonight. I absolutely, from a standpoint of looking at this, I can't support what's in front of us tonight. And, I mean -- that's all I'm going to say. Thanks. MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman, if you look at the one with seventeen sites, that cul-de-sac is coming up very close on the property line on both sides. This is going to affect people in the subdivisions on either side much, much more than the present one for the sixteen. Secondly, all the people down below the cul-de-sac on the seventeen are going to walk
through these two people's property to get to that park. On the one with the sixteen, they have a roadway that they can use. It's less invasive to these other properties. MEMBER GRAY: Is that a driveway or is that road? Once it crosses that property line is that driveway or is it road? MEMBER BAUER: I'm considering for people to walk down there. I understand what you're talking about, but people aren't going to see a line that's going to go down there, but they're going to walk across these people's grass. MEMBER GRAY: Unless there's an easement, a walk and easement through. MEMBER BAUER: But it's not set that way. That's why I prefer the sixteen- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Jerry, I'm going to suggest that -- I wouldn't suggest that either of these are good layouts, and that's why if we vote a denial it sends it back to planning where it out to be. MEMBER GRAY: Absolutely.
MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, you -- have the people in the audience seen these representations? Sitting where they were, I don't know if they can see what we're talking about. Are you familiar with both of these? MR. TOWNSEND: Yes. One thing that hasn't been discussed is the property is very uneven. There's going to have to be a lot of lowering and rising of that property to get those houses, because that -- going down towards the creek and the railroad track, so, you know -- there's a major property elevation. So, you know, if I had my druthers, I would agree with the lady, Sarah, that, you know, if those two were eliminated and it was just the round bend, there would be no problem, but trying to stick two more houses in back there, I can't agree with that. MEMBER REINKE: Well- MR. FELLOWS: (Interposing) Mr. Chair, it's been brought up a couple different occasions on the access to the area in the back. And at the planning commission meeting we had stipulated that -- well, there's two things, first
of all. Access to -- this is one continuous common area known as Boylap Park. Access to it can be obtained off the end of the cul-de-sac and walking in this preserved vegetated strip of ground to get to the park. But on top of that, we had mentioned at the planning commission that we would be willing to grant an easement down this shared driveway for anybody in the project to use that. Cliff pointed out one thing that, in the seventeen lot plan, there wasn't a park proposed up here. This was just rear yards for these lots. Now, the different colors of green don't -- make that a little more confusing, but there was no separate park at all on the seventeen lot plan. MR. SCHULTZ: I was just going to point out that I don't -- I wouldn't think you would have to rely on the developer's offer or proposal to create an easement. If you were to accept the proposal, you could impose that requirement, if it were an issue for you, as part of the variance. That's just -- I want to make sure it
wasn't just an offer from the developer. MEMBER GRAY: I'm still swayed by the City's history with flag lots and shared driveways and that we strongly discourage them whenever possible, and I'm just not happy with this plan. And I think my own vote is to send it back to planning, which is where it belongs. MEMBER REINKE: Well -- Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER REINKE: The thing is, if -- and this is my feeling and opinion -- this gets turned down tonight, the top plan's going to go. MEMBER GRAY: Not necessarily. MEMBER BAUER: Why not? MEMBER REINKE: They don't have to have a variance to get that. MEMBER SANGHVI: They don't have to ask anybody. MEMBER GRAY: But that plan wasn't approved by the planning commission. It has to go back to planning. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Just a little comment on what happens at the planning commission level.
This is -- and the developer can correct me if I'm wrong -- not proposed as one of our optional discretionary kind of developments, like a cluster or a planned residential or something like that. This is a straightforward site condo; is that- MR. FELLOWS: (Interposing) That's right. MR. SCHULTZ: What the planning commission does is it reviews what gets put before it for whether it meets ordinance requirements. If -- and I don't -- sitting here today I can't tell you that the seventeen lot plan meets ordinance requirements. If that were true, however, the planning commission would be looking for something in the ordinance to deny that plan and might not be able to find anything. It's not an exercise of discretion at the planning commission level, and I know it is for you on every decision you make, an exercise of discretion. For the planning commission, not every decision they make is discretionary. If it meets ordinance requirements -- I'm not representing that it does. If it does, there would be difficulty denying a
plan that ordinance requirements, whether it had fifteen lots or seventeen or whatever. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, in lieu of all of the discussion, Tom's explanation about the degree of practical difficulty, Mr. Reinke's views on this whole -- you need to look at this picture, the entire picture, and I go back to there are no disapproval letters in that folder from any resident, and we have one resident sitting in the audience saying yeah, I can go with this. I'd rather see it a little different, but I didn't bring my eraser tonight. So I'm going back to this, but I have one other question. And not to make this a three-hour discussion, but Sarah does bring up a good question. Is there a less variance that can be met on this plan? Is there a lesser variance that can be met? MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to -- just for the record, there was a very adamant objection letter- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -from (inaudible). I thought I had mentioned that. MEMBER GRONACHAN: How many -- I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Seventy-one notices, one objection. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I think I'm going to play devil's advocate and make a motion and see where we all stand. I would like to make a motion that the applicant's request for these variances for these three lots, number eight, nine and ten, be granted because of the peculiar configuration of the lots and that kind of (inaudible). MR. REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have a motion and support. Any discussion on that motion? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can I make an amendment to the motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: This is discussion. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Sanghvi, I'd like to add an amendment, just a clarification, that if you're going to ask for support on this motion, that the reason why this motion would be
approved, for the previous discussion, and it does meet the practical difficulty, that we have looked at the hardship based on the neighbors in the neighborhood, the community standpoint that there's less traffic in this area as well, by looking at this plan, that there is also -- and that I don't feel that this was self-created, this is not a self-created hardship. Will you accept that? MEMBER SANGHVI: I accept that. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an amended motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MR. REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance requests have been granted. See the building department for your permits. MR. FELLOWS: There's one thing. It's my understanding that these variances are only good for a certain period of time before we get a building permit. Is that right? MS. MARCHIONI: You have 90 days after final site plan. MR. FELLOWS: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-106 MR. CHAIRMAN: Wireless, come on down. Case 02-106 filed by Thomas Price, @ Wireless. This is regarding a store in West Oaks II, and is requesting a second sign, correct? MR. PRICE: That is correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to raise your hand and be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth?
MR. PRICE: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. PRICE: Thank you for your patience at this late hour. I think these went longer than what you expected. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you for yours. MR. PRICE: My name is Tom Price. I live at 22537 Porter Street in Novi, and have been a resident of Novi for eight years now. My wife, Beverly, and I recently opened a cellular store selling cellular phones and accessories. The name of the business is @ Wireless. We opened this business two weeks ago at 27793-C, West Oaks Drive in West Oaks II. It is in the same building as Jennifer Convertibles, which is the freestanding building in the midst of the West Oaks II Shopping Center. What we are requesting -- respectfully requesting tonight is for a second sign facing south, which is where our main entrance to the building is, and which is where most of the parking -- or primarily where our parking spaces
are, are on the south side. We do currently have one sign which faces east towards Novi Road for people that may see it from that point. The hardship here is a practical disadvantage that we have, because so much traffic goes east and west on West Oaks Drive II, with the inability being able to see the name of the business when they are traversing east and west, such as going from Kohl's, Bed, Bath and Beyond towards Novi Road. They literally cannot see what type of business that they have in there going that way. As you know, the signs, of course, respectfully -- correct signs are important to a business because they alert the prospective customers of the name of the business, and certainly do affect the viability of any business. We're in the same building as Jennifer Convertibles. Again, it's a four-sided building. I think what we're asking for here is nothing different than what other retailers have in and around the area, such as Jennifer Convertibles, which I said shares the same building as ourselves,
amongst others. What we're proposing for is a sign that would read the same as what we have right now, and the same size, which has the @ Wireless, which is @, being the ampersand, and the word Wireless, which would be 23 inches high by 149 inches long, which is basically about 23.88 square feet, and it's -- a reference to that is in your packet, which I believe you all received, which shows the layout of the sign. I just respectfully request your approval for this variance. I thank you for your consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were twenty-two notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience have a comment? (No comment.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER BAUER: I can't see any problem on this with some of the other
out-buildings to get them identification. This is a lot closer to Kohl's. MR. CHAIRMAN: I was struck that it's a relatively small sign. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, it's a small sign. Where the building is located, in proximity of moving traffic around there, it would almost behoove us that they have a second sign to let people know where they are rather than making them circle around (inaudible) extra signs, but I think it's probably warranted in this situation. MEMBER GRAY: I have no problem with the second sign, but I question the need for the same size. I think facing south it might even be a little smaller, but -- I'm not happy with all the signs that are on all those buildings either, so -- because his next-door tenant to the west doesn't have a sign facing the south. It only has one facing west, but -- could you live with a smaller sign? MR. PRICE: You know, Miss Gray, I did talk to our sign people who do manufacture the signs. They feel by compressing that sign down, it just really -- I don't know what the word is for
it, but it really creates a very squished or small sign. Really, that's -- that's their opinion. I think at 23 inches, which is, you know, about yay high, like that, it's really not out of place, or certainly out of character. I think if you were to look at our present sign- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Oh, I saw them. MR. PRICE: I don't think that's really too big or -- certainly too big for the building. We do have a building -- unlike the photograph -- or sketch here, which is a flat roof building. The building there does have peeks and gables, so it does present some higher elevation there than certainly this drawing may illustrate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's see where the board sits. I'll make a motion with respect to 02-106 that the petitioner's variance request be granted for purpose of identification, business identification. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Sarah -- any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MR. REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your second sign. See the building department for your permit. MR. PRICE: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other matters for discussion? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, I'll
close this meeting. (The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m) - - - Date approved: January 7, 2003 __________________________ 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 157 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|