| 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, May 6, 2003. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MS. CHAIRMAN: Good evening everyone. I would like to call the May 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order. Sarah, would you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: And I have Member Reed as coming late. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have a few rules of conduct that are printed on the front of the agenda. Everyone in the audience has one. I'm asking the participants to please review them, particularly the new rule of no cell phones turned on during the meeting.
3 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 zoning -- Novi zoning ordinances. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance request and a vote of the majority of members present to deny a variance. If -- we have a full board this evening, so since we have all six members present tonight, at least four votes are required. Those petitioners who wish to -- you'll understand that you need at least four votes for a pass. The agenda, are there any changes or- MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Yes. Please remove the minutes. And also number five for National Diagnostic Services, the length was going to be from the date of the meeting until March 1st, 2004, not May 6th, so make that change. MEMBER GRAY: I'm sorry. Remove which one you said? MS. MARCHIONI: Remove the minutes and the National Diagnostic is until March 1st, not May 6th.
4 MS. CHAIRMAN: So there are no minutes for approval this evening. And just so the board members know, Sarah's working on those. There were some problems with the minutes from March and April, and Sarah's taking care of that. Public remarks. At this time, if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to make a public remark in regards to anything other than that's on the agenda this evening, you can do so now. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in regards to a subject? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: No, okay. If that's the case, we'll get this meeting underway. CASE NUMBER 03-013 MS. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to call our first case. It's 03-013, Miss White is it- MS. WATT: (Interposing) Watt. MS. CHAIRMAN: Watt, I'm sorry. Miss Watt, Laura Watt, from Austin. This is a continuation from last month. So you were already sworn in last month and we'll carry over. Thank you. MS. WATT: Thank you. At the last
5 meeting on April 1st, I was asked to look into other options for the proposed garage that we would like to add onto our home. In doing so, I looked at a detached and also an attached in the backyard. We have electrical wires running through the backyard hanging low that would propose problems to either/or. An attached garage would block entrances and exits to the home. We have a sump discharge in the back, which would also propose a problem in those areas. The exhaust ventilation is in the back, a problem with the attached garage. Looked into getting in off the south side of the home. We have arranged to put a bay window in on the south side. It's a two-foot bay window. That would make it quite tight to enter into the backyard anyways. A north side entrance to the backyard, there's trees, there's drainage, and there's also a cleanout on that side. And putting a drive into the garage off the north side, like a side entrance off the north side, I have two large trees, like a two-foot tree and a four-foot tree. We have sent in a new proposed sketch
6 for a garage, making it a 20 by 24 versus the 24 by 24. It changed the variances. I -- you know, I know there was an issue of how many cars could go between the property -- our property line and the garage. Probably one car. I don't see a problem with that. I'm ready for other options, if any board member has any other options for me, but I have looked into everything at this point. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, there were thirty-seven notices sent again, because this was a change. There were four approvals, no objections. The approvals, just for the record, were from V. Muscat at 2213 Austin, Mark Robbins at 2295 Austin, Wayne Meister at 2290 Austin, Dean and pat Siskinnon at 2296 Austin. Building department, do you have anything to add? MR. SAVEN: Anybody in the audience? MS. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Is there Anybody in the audience who wishes to -- Mr. Korte, come on down. MR. KORTE: Korte, Sherwood Lake, Austin.
7 I was not -- I wasn't here the first time because I figured it was not going to go through. I have, as of today, looked into the City paperwork, and of course the City has mentioned electric wires in the backyard and potential drainage problems. There are no drainage problems in the backyard. Any drainage problem in that backyard was solved by Linda Oakler. Now, Linda Oakler owned the house to the south, which is -- to the south, which would be the garage side. That's where the electric pole is. Linda Oakler solved all of those problems. So a driveway going in on the 14 feet is certainly not a problem. Now, I always knew the house -- and this house was new construction. It was a terrible burnout. Thank God no loss of life. And I argued the point when the house went in originally that it was not correct. And it is 28 feet, not 30. Didn't ask that the foundations be moved. I just said please don't tell me it's correct. We have 56 feet in the back yard, 56 by 80. All of my properties are 40, and less than 40 by
8 a hundred and fifteen. There's almost as much room in that backyard as I have on any of my properties. Now, if one takes current code, and you can go six from back and six from side and you nestle the garage back, not under the power lines which the City would -- not the City, Edison would be happy to remove, and that's a hundred dollar charge and $2.70 a foot. Now, if we nestle the garage in the back and follow all ordinances, we have an extra 16 feet. Now, when you put the ten foot existing from the house that we've made the ordinance, you got an extra sixteen feet. So the garage would sit twenty-six foot from the house in the back yard. Now, no drainage problem. Sump pump can easily be move and redirected around. Now let's go to the front yard. And if anyone drove by, you would see that there's a gas meter problem. Gas meter has to be -- gas line has to be removed, so that we remove the electric line, potentially or not, which doesn't have to, or do we have to remove the gas meter. Now, the gas -- and this is as of the gas company. That's a $500 charge and $7 a foot, and in this situation we're talking 850, so technically
9 the electrical is a cheaper way out. And I realize you don't look at monies, but the point is, something's going to have to be moved. When I bought my houses, first thing I did was brought the electric up on where it should be, and I put gas into two of my houses. Renovation, it's not surprising that you have to move these things. Now, let's talk the integrity of 30 feet, and that's really what I'm here about. Everything on the east side of Austin -- and, of course, I can get to Austin and Old Novi Road, it's not directly east but we'll call it east --this board has stated 30 feet, 30 feet, 30 feet. Now, that house comes in at an awful point of the road where we go from a legal 60 to a legal 40, and that's always going to be an interesting commodity when somebody does something. That's certainly not the petitioner's fault. But there's more than enough room to put it in the backyard without interrupting one ordinance. And the 30 foot in this situation on Austin, one of the earlier -- and on the first times, and it's one of the houses just south of that, said
10 that the variance to the front is much less than North Novi -- North Austin. That's me. I live too close to the road. I didn't put them there. I have no choice. It's awful. And when we begin to interrupt the integrity of that 30 feet when it's not needed -- garage, most recently went in on Pleasant Cove. They had no backyard. I wish that that 30 foot had not been intruded upon, but we need a garage. Everybody needs a garage. There's more than ample space to put it in the back without disrupting anything. And I would ask you to please deal with the 30 feet and do not interrupt it anymore than it already is. And final comment. Laura Watt -- and I do not argue her right to represent -- is not on the legal deed of record. And there is nothing in the paperwork that says she has the right to deal with this property. I do know she lives at the property, I'm not arguing that, but I would like to know why, if the legal deed of record, and she's not a construction person, why does that person get to speak and there's no letter saying that she has the right to. It's a point of legality.
11 Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to address this particular case at this time? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, now I'll turn it over to the building department. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple issues. Number one, the owner of the property is in the audience sitting right there; and, number two, number two is that the board had gave -- had given me specific instructions to go out to this particular site, evaluate the site based upon my best findings, as part of being part of the City and all the ordinances that are about the City. And just as Miss Watt had concluded, there were several issues that were brought up, and the best way to try to handle the situation would be presened before you tonight. It's up to you to make that decision whether or not it's relative or not. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board members? Yes, Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I think Miss Watt did everything we asked her to. We've got
12 four approvals. The parties that were here last month are not here this month. It would be nice to have a 30 foot setback on any garage on that street, but that's why we have variances. That's what happens in the game. I think that she has demonstrated, as well as Mr. Saven has with his letter, that this is the best location of the garage. And I'm not driven to believe that passage through that south side is enough room to navigate traffic, so I'm prepared to support her tonight. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, I can't support petitioner's request because, number one, there is sufficient property in the rear yard that it doesn't need to intrude into the front yard. If there wasn't sufficient property and access to that, the wanting to put a bay window inside as a reason to not use that as access to the garage to me is insufficient. I can't support it because we've got too many problems up in that area where we're intruding into the front yard setbacks that are where they have sufficient property to do otherwise.
13 MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Member Reinke. Anyone else? Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: Ms. Watt, you've heard some comments about the cost to move power lines, cost to move gas lines, and when you -- if you get the variance to put your garage in the front yard, you are prepared to assume the cost of moving the gas line and moving the gas meter I presume? MS. WATT: Absolutely. I've already spoken with Consumers Power. I'm dealing with Mike Joblinsky. MEMBER GRAY: I also want to thank you for giving us information. I really felt last month that what you were asking for was just saying I want the garage in the front yard, and I didn't feel that there was enough supporting evidence, if you will, to say why you couldn't put the garage in the backyard, and to prove your hardship. Unfortunately, I still can't support your request because of the problems with the front yards and the variances granted in the area. But I do appreciate you making the effort -- certainly appreciate you making the effort and giving us information on which we can base our decision, which
14 I feel we didn't have last month. Thank you. MS. WATT: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Any other board members? MEMBER BAUER: I can support it, with what the City has come up with. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, it looks like- MEMBER GATT: (Interposing) Madam Chair, I just want to concur with Board Member Reinke there. I feel for you. I know you want to do this, but I believe there's enough room in the backyard, and it's been proven that there's enough room in the backyard. The desire to have the bay window, although I can understand it, I don't think that that meets the hardship clause that I have to come to terms with. MEMBER BRENNAN: Just for clarification maybe. Mr. Saven's report did not talk about a bay window. Mr. Saven's recommendation was not to have this in the backyard due to the electrical service and drainage. It had nothing to do with any bay window. MEMBER REINKE: The petitioner brought
15 up the window. It was not referenced in Mr. Saven's report. And that's what I was addressing, too, in my comments. MS. CHAIRMAN: Well, I would like to add- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) May I intervene. MS. CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. SAVEN: If I may, I'd just like to clarify it. It was -- the bay window wasn't in the report, as well as a three foot undisturbed area which the driveway can't intrude in between the side yard setback; in other words, from the property line to a driveway there has to be three foot for drainage purposes. You're taking that into consideration, plus a two-foot, there's a five-foot intrusion into that area. MEMBER BRENNAN: Which leaves you with a seven-foot wide driveway, right? MR. SAVEN: It's a little more than that. MEMBER BRENNAN: What's the City's recommendation for a minimum width on driveway? MR. SAVEN: At least nine foot. At
16 least nine foot. MEMBER BRENNAN: So the math says you can't get it in the backyard. MEMBER REINKE: Nine and five is fourteen. MEMBER GRAY: Yeah, it shows 14 on the aerial survey, so which is the correct number? MEMBER BRENNAN: I was going by the petitioner's drawing here. MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: It will be tight. It will be tight. As a projection for a window, I always have concerns about mirrors and things of that nature on the side of cars, and I'm not saying anything more than that. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So without the bay window, the driveway could go in there very easily; is that correct? MR. SAVEN: That's correct. MS. CHAIRMAN: Am I understanding you correctly? MR. SAVEN: That is correct. MS. CHAIRMAN: So to reconfirm what Member Reinke said earlier, it comes down to the bay
17 window? MR. SAVEN: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So- MS. WATT: (Interposing) Do I have a chance to speak? MS. CHAIRMAN: I believe you can. Yes, you can. MS. WATT: I'm sorry. I just have a final comment. When I came in to pull for the garage I also pulled a permit for this bay window. I didn't know that I was going to have problems. I mean, I have a permit for this bay window. The bay window's on order. We're ready to go forward on that. I -- what are we -- what do we do about that? MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, we obviously have a board that's a little divided here this evening with -- and both have brought out some pretty good points at this point. I'm not sure -- and I'm going to look to my seniors for some guidance here, but I don't even know if tabling it at this point, to go back to the drawing board again -- it seems to me, given that Mr. Saven has said that in regards to the bay window, it could still be built in the backyard.
18 I mean, I understand that you ordered the bay window, it's there, for whatever reason, but Even at the time that you probably pulled the permit for the bay window you knew you were going to need a variance for the garage. MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we're still missing this issue on drainage. Isn't that a more significant issue, Don? MR. SAVEN: The property slopes from rear to front on this property. MS. WATT: Yes. MR. SAVEN: And, first of all, you cannot attach the garage to the rear of the home based upon the fact that they have bedrooms in that particular area, beside the fact the service line runs there and whatever. It's kind of a difficult situation. You're dealing with half a dozen of one, six of the other. Yeah. We can snuggle the garage way in the back six foot from the property line. Where's that drainage going to go? It's either going to hit the garage and go over to adjacent neighbors' property, or potential for it to do it, and I think
19 that everybody here knows how sensitive everybody is to drainage in this area. So I'm a little cautious about that particular issue. Sump pump discharge, yeah, it can be rerouted. It's going to have to be rerouted somewhere. Where is it going to be rerouted to? There's a lot of things that are part of this house that are very sensitive to what their request is. If you were to place the house in the back 40, let's say, as to what Mr. Korte was indicating earlier, on- MR. KORTE: (Interposing) Fifty-six. MR. SAVEN: Pardon? MR. KORTE: Fifty-six feet. MR. SAVEN: In the rear yard detached, an area where it was not troublesome by virtue of the overhead wires, that means that that garage is going to sit in the back 40 with a gigantic driveway all the way from the front of the road, all the way around, behind her home to that particular house. Now, I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want this in my yard. And, I'm sorry, that's -- driveways are not what you're looking at.
20 I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I thought this was the best of all situations here as far as placement of this garage. There was discussion of even taking the garage door in the front on that twenty-four foot frontage and moving it over at least six foot from the closest side of the front entrance to allow parking, to have more -- for more distance and parking as you park the car in the front. We're trying to come up with all kinds of options here. So that's what's being presented to you tonight. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything else? MEMBER GATT: Just so I'm clear, the electrical service could be moved though; is that correct? MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. You could go through -- anything that's man made as part of this house can be moved and adjusted to whatever it is. MS. CHAIRMAN: But it still doesn't solve the drainage problem, which is, in your opinion, the biggest- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Absolutely.
21 It May not seem like much to anybody, but I deal with drainage problems every day in this city, and it's really tough to -- it's really tough to resolve. MS. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm going to add my comments at this point, because when I first looked at this case I was also very impressed with the work that you did based on what we asked you for last month. And Don's report, as well, was extremely helpful. And I can support this, especially now, even after hearing the rest of this. I do understand the members that are against this to a point, but the drainage is a big problem. I understand up in this area it is very unique. The road is very narrow. The north end is its own little city within a city so to speak, and I think that when we look at something like this we have to take that into consideration. We certainly don't want to cause some drainage problems for some neighbors. So based on that would be my reason that I would support this. Is there a motion anyone?
22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's see where the board sits. I'll make a motion with regard to case 03-013, that petitioner's modified variance request be approved as submitted this evening for the purpose of lot configuration. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MS. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: I am so torn on this one because I really -- even with all the information, especially with all the information, and the options open to move any utility service, I still, at this point, don't feel that a hardship has been proved. Again, I will remind the board of my comments a month ago, that yes, at some point the roads in this area will be paved. I don't know when. There -- that will probably include, at that point, putting in some kind of storm drainage, with all the other drainage issues we have in the area now that are being totally ignored, and to cite this as a reason for supporting this, I have a problem with it. And I'm very, very sensitive to the petitioner's request. If you have a bay window that you want to put in, you have four or five other rooms
23 in which you can put that bay window, I'm sure, so it's not going to be a total loss. If the garage is in the back you can put it in the front there. But -- I'm not trying to design your house. I'm just -- I don't feel that the hardship has been proved, and I -- again, I'm very, very sensitive to the petitioner's request. Thank you. MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair? MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GATT: Mr. Saven, regarding the drainage, I'm not an expert, if the garage is built in the backyard, can the land be configured to avert a drainage problem? MR. SAVEN: It possibly can be, yes. But remember, when you put a structure up there, you're not -- you don't have the ground to absorb the moisture. You're now dealing with runoff from a garage that's going to be a forceful runoff. This is not something that's going to be an issue of whether it's going to be a slow runoff. MEMBER GATT: Isn't there swales and so on? MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. The distance
24 where we're talking about is six foot from the side and rear property line to the location of the garage is ten foot away from the house. And this is what Mr. Korte was indicating earlier. With a detached garage, we'll put it in this back 40. Again, if it's an issue where we're not dealing with removing the lines to place this garage, then you're putting this garage way in the back 40, and I'm -- and as a homeowner I would really have a problem with that location. MEMBER GATT: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anything further? (No further comment.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?
25 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been approved. Please see the building department. MS. WATT: I thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 03-024 MS. CHAIRMAN: We will get going and call our next case, Case 03-024. Please forgive me on the name, Siegal Tuomaala, representing Marty Feldman Chevrolet. Would you like to come down. And are you Mr. Zimmerman? MR. ZIMMERMAN: I am. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And are you an attorney? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Architect. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would you like to be sworn in by our secretary, please. MR. ZIMMERMAN: Sure. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-024?
26 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. MR. ZIMMERMAN: I've brought some visual displays to help everybody get a clear picture, and I won't linger on them any longer than we need to. Grand River. The beige part of the building is the existing Marty Feldman Chevrolet building. The orange parts are the two additions. This is a service, body and parts located right in the back, and in the front, which is the area that we're talking about, is going to be the service writeup/reception area that we want to add in the front here. Let me switch over to the next board briefly to tell you -- now, this is a blowup of the plan of it. This is the sales area circled in yellow, existing sales area. The gray areas are the addition part. What is in red here is the existing service with the new service added on. The blue is the existing parts area with the new parts added on. The green is the existing body shop with the new body shop added on. The area in the front here, the part that is to your right, is the existing service
27 writeup area. I'm sure you've been there and you've seen there are the two doors here. One drives in this way, and then the people from the service department will drive the car out that way. The addition that we're talking about is right over here. The orange represents the approach that we're looking for. This will be a service writeup/reception area, and it's going to continue all the way across here with the cars coming in -- this is in alignment with the drive to Grand River. And there's a body shop office right here. I will show you a bit about what it looks like now. I'm sure that, again, you've seen this, but let me just briefly show you. What we've got right now, here is the existing writeup doors. You drive in, make a left turn and you're there. This is the existing body shop door. When a car pulls in to get an estimate for body work, it's done on the outside. There's no room in the inside for any cars to park in there. It's strictly a work area. This shows that right-hand area in a
28 bit more detail. There's a pedestrian door and the overhead door right over here. Now, what we want to do and why we want to do it. This is what we propose as the new area. Again, we're sitting in front of the area that you just saw. This is the body shop and body waiting room for people on the inside, an all glass area right here, and we have two overhead glass doors. The material will match the existing building completely, and the appearance in the inside is completely drywalled. It's going to have no visibility through to the inside of any kind of a hoist or any kind of a service area. What you're going to see is a completely drywall with an acoustical ceiling inside of it. Right now the existing building is about 30,000 square feet. We're adding 3,000 in the front in this area, and an area in the back is 7,000. The basic goal is to try to prevent exterior lines of cars from waiting there. We've got -- with the new addition, we've got a hundred and fifty linear feet across. With the two doors, that let's them be open in the early morning when, of course, the biggest rush is, and it lets the cars
29 line up inside for service so it won't back up towards Grand River. Our doors are going to be sitting 200 feet -- approximately 200 feet from Grand River. And during the course of the day, the people will be able to use the right-hand door to access body shop estimates, which come in generally during the course of the day while the service is generally early in the morning. As people line up for the service, both doors can be used for that. So then what happens is that because of the single door and the visibility, cars can line up in a double row and go right across here in the early morning, a hundred and fifty feet, and then the typical daytime when there isn't a line up, service can be directed this way for a writeup, body shop estimates can be directed this way, and this little triangular area is that area that I was talking about with the body shop office. The existing site has really forced us to do what we're doing in terms of the location of this. The location of the existing body shop, as I mentioned, is back here, and the existing service
30 area is here with the parts in between. There is no connection between them, so you can't drive in one spot and go internally to the other one. So the result of that is that we've got to find some way in order to clean this up, and as part of the whole site plan, which we do, and this whole renovation, we've added a lot of landscaping. The whole purpose of this is to clean up the front, eliminate the cars having to wait outside there. Could we put an entry on the side? That would probably be a logical question. The answer is yes, you can put an entry here, but you've got cross traffic then, which means that you've got no way then of organizing traffic to go to the body shop and then to the service area. Plus the fact that you don't have the visibility and you've got to kind of navigate your way around to less visible areas. This area faces towards the main parking lot for the display of cars, and there could be a real danger of interference here. This area, because of the constriction of the site, would force you around here and make a very difficult turn to get into here. So that really, functionally, is a
31 problem with just how this thing was originally located on the site. We feel that the two doors gives us better access to keep the cars out of the lineup onto and towards Grand River. One door would constrict it down and you'd have a traffic problem in the morning where you've got only one line of cars that have to separate off, and one car takes up two lanes and you're back with kind of a backup through the doors that we really hope that we don't have. We feel that we've improved esthetically from where we were in the beginning, which was the goal of this. I mean, this, if we didn't do an addition in the front versus this with the glass. And, again, remember through the glass you're looking at an improved area. You're not looking into a workshop area for service or body shop. We know that other dealerships in Novi have the overhead doors facing front; Mercedes, Infinity, Jeep, Jaguar. It becomes basic to the functioning of a dealership to have this visibility, and we feel that we've taken every step we can to create a better looking environment than what we've
32 got now. And to tie this in, the blue color will tie into the existing blue pattern that's there now. It's going to, we think, work well with what we've got on the site now. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much. There were 14 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to offer any comments? Sir, please. MR. DEUTCHMAN: My name is James Deutchman. I represent Fountain Park Apartments, the apartment project that is the neighboring project to Feldman Chevrolet. I'd like to speak out in behalf of granting this Zoning Board of Appeal grant simply because we feel that it's an enhancement to the entire project. They've done a very elaborate job of doing proper landscaping to create a buffer. They've worked closely with us to make sure that we're comfortable with what they're doing. We think that this will be an improvement to the whole area. I mean, certainly what you're doing is you're updating a dealership that probably is 1970,
33 1980 vintage of design, and this is going to bring it to the current century and certainly enhance it and improve it. So we are definitely speaking out on behalf and in favor of this grant, if we can be so bold as to suggest that. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much. MR. DEUTCHMAN: You're welcome. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just in the note that I placed in your memo here. It says please note that these two service doors will replace one overhead service door that currently face the Grand River Avenue. This will take care of one of the service doors. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Board members? Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm ready. Can you tell me, will there be air conditioning in this area so these doors will be closed in the summertime when
34 there's hot days? MR. ZIMMERMAN: The plan now is not to be cooling that area. MEMBER BRENNAN: You may rethink that because that just put a check on one side versus the other side. I've been in body shops, and if it's 95 degrees those doors are going to be open all day. Secondly, I did make the point that there is residential uses in the back, and that was part of the discussions early on when the dealership was built. So I have a check on the other side for that. I did note, and I'll point out, it's probably obvious, the whole building is well below grade from Grand River, and I would say that that's a positive feature for your design. I'm glad that you noted other dealerships and what other dealerships are doing, and I'll take this opportunity, because I know the Feldmans are in the audience. I would love to see this dealership get in compliance, as other dealers are, with respect to signs. And I have brought this up over the last seven or eight years, every time
35 Feldman's been in front of us we've given you guys virtually every grant you've ever asked for, and I'd like you to -- it's not before us tonight, but I would sure hope that you'd think about getting in compliance with your signs. That's all my comments. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Member Gatt. MEMBER GATT: Mr. Zimmerman, can you tell me how the dealership now compares to the other dealerships in the area as far as bay doors? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yeah, I can tell you exactly. The Mercedes dealership has two doors facing Haggerty, Infinity has two doors facing Haggerty, Jeep has three doors facing Haggerty, and Jaguar has one door facing Ten Mile Road. That's by my count. MEMBER GATT: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, I think they've done a good job on their addition. The architecture of their door makes it fit in with the building. It doesn't make it look like what is there today. As much as I would like to not have the doors
36 there, I think it's the only feasible thing to do, and I think the esthetics of it makes it look like something I can support. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER BAUER: Madam Chairman? MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Bauer. MEMBER BAUER: I have used this facility for my vehicles, so I must say this would be quite an improvement to get service, and I don't think -- by looking at the architect's drawing, I think it would add great appeal to someone coming to this location, and I am for it. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I'll echo the comments. I also think this will be an improvement. I've also bought vehicles there and sat in line for service there, and I think this is going to be an improvement. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is that a motion? MEMBER GRAY: Certainly. In the matter of Case Number 03-024, move to approve the variance requested, noting that one door will replace an existing door and the other door will facilitate
37 access to the building as necessary. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER GRAY: Will that do it? MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion at the table and a second. Is there any further discussion? (No further discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, could you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you very much. MS. CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Have a good evening.
38 CASE NUMBER 03-025 MS. CHAIRMAN: Let's call our next case. We have Case 03-025, Blair Bowman for Central Park Estates. Doesn't look like Blair Bowman. MR. BOWEN: Good evening. It's John Bowen representing Central Park Estates. I'm pitch hitting for Blair tonight. I'm a licensed Michigan attorney who represents Central Park Estates. He had a conflict for tonight. MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Did you say you are an attorney? MR. BOWEN: Yes, I am. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So then you get waived on getting sworn in this evening, and if you'd like to begin. MR. BOWEN: Thank you. This is an application to request that we extend for a one-year period of time an existing sign that is out in front of Central Park Estates which is located on Beck Road just south of Grand River. The project is under construction right now. It's about 60 percent complete, 254 units. The clubhouse that we're currently building, the large
39 structure with pool, is about 70 percent complete. Lease up is going very well, and we expect that we can complete the project probably in the next year and would like permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals to continue with the existing 32 square foot construction sign out front. MS. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that has anything to offer on this case? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, building department. MR. SAVEN: No comment. MS. CHAIRMAN: There were twenty-nine notices sent; two approvals. I will say they were from the same person, Edith White, on Beck, so she must be real happy about the sign. Board members? MEMBER REINKE: I don't have a problem with a one-year extension. I think they're making good progress, and I'd like to see them given the assistance that they need to continue on. MEMBER BAUER: I agree. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MEMBER BRENNAN: I just had a quick
40 question. It's 60 percent built. Of that 60 percent, how much of that is leased? MR. BOWEN: I -- right now, when I say it's 60 percent built, that -- those are the actual structures. I think we have 90 residents right now of the 254, so we're about 50 percent there. But as far as units that are ready for occupation, I think we've only got five or six that are -- have got C of O's that are not occupied right now, so it's moving along pretty well. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thanks. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Anyone care to make a motion? MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, in Case 03-025, I move that petitioner's request for a one-year extension be granted to support the build-out of the project. MEMBER GRAY: Support. MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Sarah, please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?
41 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You're all set. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 03-026 MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. Moving right along here, we'll go to our next case, 03-026 filed by Laura Golze of Caribou Coffee. Is she here? Come on down, Laura. UNIDENTIFIED: Laura's not here. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, we have someone here from Caribou Coffee. They're requesting a variance for outdoor temporary seating, located at 47490 Grand River at Westmarket Square.
42 So could you state your name, please. MS. RUSSO: Doreen Russo. MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary, please. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-026? MS. RUSSO: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: Please continue. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MS. RUSSO: We're just requesting permit for three years, from April 1st to October 30th, for temporary outdoor seating. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience here to -- wish to speak on this case? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: None. There were 21 notices sent, one approval from -- I apologize on this -- Bart Winglass, Farmington Hills. I'm going to think that that's an address of an office and probably a business. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just to note, this was a case that was before you previously. It was our
43 policy of the board to have them come for one year the first time, if there weren't any problems, that they come in and take a look at three years. I have not received any complaints regarding this matter. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Board members, any questions? MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, I'm assuming that you're calling for the same layout of tables and arrangements- MS. RUSSO: (Interposing) That's correct. MEMBER REINKE: -that you had on the previous- MS. RUSSO: That's correct, no changes. MEMBER REINKE: Okay, thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gatt. MEMBER GATT: Just a comment. I've been -- I've visited your establishment many times, and it's a top-notch facility, and there's no problems with the outdoor seating, and I can approve this, no problem. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion to move things along if you like.
44 MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, yeah. MEMBER BRENNAN: Any other comments? MS. CHAIRMAN: Just that I frequent it often, and I agree -- I echo Member Gatt's comment. MEMBER BRENNAN: Case Number 03-026, I move for approval of the variance request for the purpose of outdoor seating. The applicant has Demonstrated that she can run her business without any issues. MEMBER GATT: Support. MS. CHAIRMAN: There's been a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? And I have a question. Regards to the time period, do you want to put any time period? MEMBER BRENNAN: It's three years, from April 1st through October 31st for the next three years. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You're all set. You need to call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?
45 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now you're all set. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 03-027 MS. CHAIRMAN: Case 03-027 has been -- okay. National Diagnostic Services, Mike Ketslakh of National Diagnostic Services, LLC, is requesting a variance to allow placement of a mobile medical diagnostic service trailer. Would you like to raise your right hand and be sworn in, please. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-027? MR. KETSLAKH: Yes, I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MR. KETSLAKH: We're requesting to provide medical diagnostic services at this location
46 for one day a week. It's particularly a test that's looking at blood profusion into the heart and significantly improves the ability of the physician to treat the patient with any kind of problems. We're looking to basically bring the trailer in around five o'clock in the morning and we will move it out in the afternoon. That's really it. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this case? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: No one. There were twenty-three notices sent and nine objections, a petition to deny placement of the mobile trailer, and it appears that most of these objections were -- are at the address of 39555 West Ten Mile in various suites. Basically, their concern is that the trailer is unsightly and presents a public safety hazard. I'll just read some of them. As professionals, we depend on our business for not only our livliehood but also for the livliehood of our staffs, many of whom live here in Novi. Presentation
47 of our places of business is critical to our success. We feel that the placement of this trailer significantly negatively impacts the public perception of the quality and standards of the public as they enter or pass by our office. Additionally, the placement of this trailer in the main access roadway of the Holly Hills Professional Village is in such a location that it compromises traffic flow and presents a public safety hazard. The roadway was designed to allow emergency vehicle access to the complex in an unimpeded fashion. This is not the case with this trailer parked in the main entrance to our complex. We hereby respectfully request that this petition be presented as non-supporting of this motion. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Basically, this issue came before us for a temporary use permit, I believe a little over a year ago or so, and they had the temporary trailer placed in this particular position. I do know that they had some concerns in terms of the length of stay of the trailer because it was only supposed to be for one day. It's kind of extended
48 out a little bit more than normal, and that was the only concern that they had. And then we just -- we started receiving complaints regarding this matter. I could not bring this back before a temporary use hearing based upon what my jurisdiction was in terms of the ordinance; therefore, it had to come before the board. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Board members? Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm always sad to hear or sorry to hear that there's so many people against it because I have just the opposite sentiment. I had an MRI done three weeks ago in one of these portable trailers on Grand River, which is there for two or three weeks at a time and then moved somewhere else. I think that this is a wonderful service for the community. It expedites timing for medical care; otherwise, if I hadn't gone to this place, I'd still be waiting for knee surgery, and it takes a tremendous load off the hospitals, local hospitals, staffing and facilities. I think that this is an important addition to the community and community medical services.
49 I have just one question for you, sir, and maybe you can't answer it. I think that there is a mistake in this layout which shows the trailer location between these two suites and twenty-seven inches between the trailer and the wall. I suspect that that's twenty-seven feet? MR. KETSLAKH: It is 27 feet. MEMBER BRENNAN: Which is certainly navigable. MR. KETSLAKH: Yeah, it is. MEMBER BRENNAN: We've already had this map previously. If you got ten, twelve feet, you got plenty of room for a car. I have -- I had, before coming here tonight, complete support for this, and I still have it, complete support for this. MEMBER BAUER: Madam Chairman? MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Member Bauer. MEMBER BAUER: Don, what was the main problem with the trailer? MR. SAVEN: I believe- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Time? MR. SAVEN: Yeah, the time of stay that it was there. I believe there were other concerns in
50 regards to -- I believe the sightliness of the site, how this portrays with the whole complex, and I think both of those together created a problem. From a safety standard, I do not see this as a safety standard at the time. I don't know where they place it now, how close it's going to be. It's shown, given the spacing that's necessary for maneuverability around the buildings. But again, too, like I said, this is for a temporary use request. It is before you now for one day a week for a specific time, from five o'clock in the morning to be removed at night, and not going to be there for any extended stay, two, three days, because this is the problem that they ran into. MR. KETSLAKH: Sir, also- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) We become a little bit lax in that area. MEMBER BAUER: I just want to ask the petitioner a question. Do you have authority by the building owner? MR. KETSLAKH: Yes, I do. MEMBER BAUER: That should be part of our-
51 MR. KETSLAKH: (Interposing) Yes, sir. It's Paramount that owns that building. MEMBER BAUER: How close is that to the one building? MR. KETSLAKH: It's completely -- it's a little bit adjacent to it. It's probably within four feet to -- parellel to the building. It's right adjacent to it, next to the sidewalk. MEMBER BAUER: You're talking one day? MR. KETSLAKH: Yes, sir, only one day every week. MR. KETSLAKH: And, furthermore, on that, we also purchased the trailer from a different company. They had it -- sublease their trucking, which we do not. We have our own trucking. And we absolutely guarantee the trailer will be out of there by the evening, 100 percent, because we are not -- we don't subcontract with anybody. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gatt. MEMBER GATT: Madam Chairm, a couple questions, security related. It will be delivered at five o'clock in the morning, the trailer? MR. KETSLAKH: Yes, sir, right around
52 five o'clock. MEMBER GATT: Does somebody maintain it from five o'clock until the time it's opened? MR. KETSLAKH: Yes. We have a staff person there at all times actually. The staff arrive there right around 5:00, 5:30, so they're there at all times. MEMBER GATT: So it will never be a vacant trailer with medical supplies? MR. KETSLAKH: No, sir. MEMBER GATT: What's kept in the trailer? MR. KETSLAKH: It's actually medical diagnostic equipment. Its' a diagnostic camera that takes a look at profusion of the blood from the coronary arteries into the heart, so there is no- MEMBER GATT: (Interposing) Will there be any drugs? MR. KETSLAKH: There are no drugs in the trailer. MEMBER BRENNAN: Does it work like an MRI? MR. KETSLAKH: It works essentially -- it works exactly like an MRI, and it's -- from the
53 site of it, you've been into it, they're almost identical. And that trailer is a brand-new trailer, it's brand-new, they're white and they're washed all the time. MEMBER GATT: Another question is, how -- if you can answer, how loud is this device when it's set up at five O'clock in the morning? Just south of there is a street, essentially people sleeping. MR. KETSLAKH: The device makes no noise whatsoever. It's pulled up, the truck pulls it up- MEMBER GATT: (Interposing) I meant the trailer itself. MR. KETSLAKH: It's a brand-new trailer, it's a brand-new tractor, and the trailer itself is not -- the only thing that is operating on the trailer at that time is just the HVC, the lights, and that's it. The camera does not make any kind of noise whatsoever. MEMBER GATT: What about the truck that delivers it? I imagine it's going to be a semitruck that pulls it and parks it in-
54 MR. KETSLAKH: (Interposing) That's correct. We try to be very quite. We've never had a complaint from the people. He pulls in, he sets it up and he just pulls right out. MEMBER GATT: That would be my only concern. Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Reinke. MEMBER REINKE: My only question is, if they're talking about the sightliness of the trailer there, is there any feasibility that this could be located in the rear parking area for that one day so that it's not visible? Because this is what -- this seems to be the major part of the complaints of the objections. To eliminate the visibility, to me, makes this objection that were filed go away. MR. KETSLAKH: Yeah. We have no problem. In fact, actually, we are subleasing -- we just signed the sublease with the landlord for the remainder of the building, so we are -- our company will actually occupy -- we'll occupy three-quarters of the building. So we have absolutely no problems pulling it on the back and basically putting it adjacent to our own suite whatsoever.
55 MEMBER BAUER: One problem. That wall does not go up to the top of a semitrailer. You have homes that back right up to that brick wall. MEMBER REINKE: Well, if they're going to see it from there they're going to see it from where it's at now. MR. SAVEN: I think you need power to get to that unit? MR. KETSLAKH: Yeah. We have plenty of power to do it because we're be right adjacent to Dr. Sax's suite. MR. SAVEN: You were talking about placing this unit directly behind the office building. MR. KETSLAKH: We could. We have no problems with it whatsoever. MR. SAVEN: I have to think that's a problem. MEMBER GATT: Plus it's closer to the homes, and I'm concerned with the noise at five o'clock in the morning. I mean, people call in at that time, they're trying to sleep. It's -- I don't think that's conducive to a good neighbor. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gray.
56 MEMBER GRAY: Well, I was -- I was going to say that I thought that if there was any other place that this could be put, then maybe we should consider that, but with -- I think it's a catch 22 situation. And I don't think we want it in the front parking lot either, so I'm in support of granting the variance. I think this is a very necessary -- I don't want to call it an evil. It's a necessary service, and I can certainly support it. Like Mr. Brennan's having waited and waited and waited at other medical facilities for services, and as the petitioner said, an emergency comes in and you get bumped and it may be for hours and hours and hours, and I think we're seeing more and more of these. And, in fact, we're seeing them all over the community when they do free screening for anything and everything, so I would have no problem supporting this. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I just have a follow-up comment. And I appreciate Bob's comments. If there are problems, the building department's going to hear about it, if it's reported and it looks
57 like a problem. Maybe this motion be tendered that we- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) That's basically what I was trying to say. MEMBER BRENNAN: If we start to have a problem we may call you back. All right? MR. KETSLAKH: Absolutely. MEMBER BRENNAN: Maybe you have to get a different kind of truck, but I think that that may satisfy Bob's problem or issue. MS. CHAIRMAN: Took the words right out of my mouth. I think that part of that -- I think part of this is that -- I also am in support of this, but I think that the one day only, and if we put some conditions on this, and that if there are any further problems with the residents or in the area, then you would have to come back and visit us. MR. KETSLAKH: Thank you, ma'am. MS. CHAIRMAN: So is there a motion? I'm sorry. MEMBER REINKE: I just wanted to allude to just one day a week, that you did in your summary, that you put that in. MS. CHAIRMAN: Is there someone that
58 would like to entertain a motion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Sure. Let me try. Case 03-027, the petitioner's request be approved as submitted, this is one day a week on Fridays, that the building department will maintain jurisdiction, if there are issues by adjoining residents we may ask you to come back and address any complaints. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second. Is there any discussion on the motion? MEMBER BRENNAN: I probably should define the time, because it was changed during -- what is it, May 6th to- MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) March 1st, 2004. MEMBER BRENNAN: May 1st of this year to March 1st of '04. MS. CHAIRMAN: We have the second? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MEMBER GATT: Madam Chairman, just one more. The building department will monitor that. I think the police department should, too, because sometimes the calls for disturbance will come in through the police and the building department may
59 not even be aware of that, the residents are complaining. MS. CHAIRMAN: Don, is that true? MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. I just wanted to re-emphasize continuing jurisdiction in this particular case based on past experience, and we'll have to do the investigation, and if we find any problems we'll bring it back to the board. If you notice, you had nine concerns, so I think that you're probably going to be hearing from somebody sooner or later. MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schultz. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I just want to confirm what the intention is with regard to continuing jurisdiction. If it comes back as a result of complaints, I understand the motion to be essentially reviewed as a new application rather than simply addressing issues, and I guess I want to make sure that we're clear that if it comes back, you have the right to act on it to either remove it or approve it with different conditions. MS. CHAIRMAN: Correct. Thank you for the clarification. Anybody else? (No further comment.)
60 MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you like to call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: You have your variance. MR. KETSLAKH: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 03-028 MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's go to our next case, 03-029, filed by Daniel Carrier, Ledgeview Drive. UNIDENTIFIED: You missed number six. MEMBER GRAY: Picasso Cafe. MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. I apologize
61 for that. Let's try this again. Case 03-028, Picasso Cafe on Grand River, is requesting a variance to allow temporary outdoor seating for the property located at 39915 Grand River. This -- the applicant's requesting for a three-year length variance running from April 1st until October 31st, sorry. And he was before us previous, correct? MR. ATTEE: Yes. Well, my father was, Gerald Attee. My name is Allen Attee from Picasso Cafe at 39915 Grand River. MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. Would you like to raise your hand, please, and be sworn in by the secretary. MR. ATTEE: Sure. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-028? MR. ATTEE: Yes, sir. MEMBER BAUER: Please state your name. MR. ATTEE: Last year the board was kind enough to allow us a one-year variance for outdoor seating at our restaurant. To my knowledge, there have been no complaints or problems with anything. In fact, a lot
62 of the customers tell us how much they like it. So this day I'm here before you again to ask for a three-year variance. There will be no changes in any of the plans that we have, be the same seating as last time, same amount of chairs and tables. MS. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to this case? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, there were seventeen notices sent, one objection. It was by DSI Growth and Income Fund, the managers, Mini-U Storage, 39670 Grand River. I object to this business. There will be paper, plastic cups, et cetera, blowing around. I try to keep a clean place, and I assume so much trash -- I have so much trash in my backyard now, I don't need anymore added to it. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Madam Chairman, I have not received any complaints regarding this particular business. It is very well kept, very clean, orderly, and I have no objection. MR. ATTEE: Thank you. I've never
63 gotten a complaint. I have a bus lady who goes out about every ten minutes and helps. I have, you know, trash dispensers everywhere. None of my other neighbors have ever complained. I try to run a real clean ship, so I would know about it. MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, if there aren't any comments, I'll make a motion, and move this along, since we haven't had any complaints. It's a good, well run business. MR. ATTEE: Thank you. MEMBER BRENNAN: Case 03-028, I would move for approval for the purpose of outdoor seating from May 6th until May 6, 2004. MS. CHAIRMAN: You have the wrong one. MEMBER BRENNAN: You're right. April 1st through October 31st for three years, and it's the same layout and configuration. MR. ATTEE: Yes, sir. MEMBER GATT: I support. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So we have a motion and support. Is there any discussion on the motion?
64 (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you like to call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. You're all set. MR. ATTEE: Thanks a lot. CASE NUMBER 03-029 MS. CHAIRMAN: Let's see if we can get the right case number now for 03-029 filed by Daniel Carrier of 42746 Ledgeview Drive, is requesting a five foot rear setback variance for the construction
65 of a proposed kitchen. MR. CARRIER: And a three season room on the back. MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to raise your hand, please, and be sworn in by our secretary. MR. CARRIER: Oh, sure. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-029? MR. CARRIER: I do. MS. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. CARRIER: Yes. We are requesting a five foot setback variance from the rear for the purpose of the kitchen and a three season room, and then also adding an addition to the upstairs and proportionate to the lower level addition. The addition would extend off the back 14 feet by 20. And we have association approval and I believe neighbors have been notified. We back up to a wetland, so we hope not to impede on anybody visually. We're on a pie-shaped lot because of our cul-de-sac situation there. And I believe you have the plat plan and the building elevations and drawings in your
66 material. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. All set? MR. CARRIER: All set. MS. CHAIRMAN: There were seventeen notices sent; three approvals; Elmlawn on Ledgeview Drive, 42789; Mark and Amy Jost, 42767 Ledgeview Drive; and Adell and Sue Cossi at 42859. Those were the three approvals. MR. CARRIER: I do -- excuse me. I do have one more, for the record. MS. CHAIRMAN: Is that from your homeowner's association? MR. CARRIER: No. This is from another neighbor at 42790. MS. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a letter from your association? MR. CARRIER: Yes, we do. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan, it's on the table. MS. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. Okay, yes. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to make any comment in regards to this case? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: None. Building
67 department. MR. SAVEN: Only this is an unusual piece of property, and my biggest concern was really the 20 foot storm easement in the back. And they're not in that particular area. MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair, Mr. Carrier, I just want to commend you. When I went out to look at your house, it's very beautiful, very well kept. I'll have no trouble supporting this variance. MR. CARRIER: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman? MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Reinke. MEMBER REINKE: I can support the petitioner's request. I have a problem with the writeup. I don't preferably like to see a note that the underlining zoning district for this project has previously received ZBA approval to be consistent with the rear yard setbacks in R-4 zoning district. I think each project, each request, stands on its own merit, and just because a favorable
68 approval is given to a previous request, I don't think that this is a statement that should be included. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else? Building department. MR. SAVEN: I need to respond to Mr. Reinke's concern. One of the things that I've been charged with is getting as much information in regards to this project as is possible. I'm hoping -- one of the reasons why this was in here, this was part of the Vistas concerns a long time ago to which before us we've had several variances as related to this project. You've had two zoning districts, one being an R-A and one being an R-4, and it was very difficult to go through each individual line of description for these projects. For example, this section was in an R-A zoning district, but what the approval was for was for the R-4 zoning district, which was the underlying zoning district. So if you look at your map and you seen R-A and you said wait a minute, this is R-A, this is not R-4, and that's why I want to bring to your attention that this is what it was all about,
69 not to be construed as you gave the approval but it was one that the approval was granted for the R-4. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I don't have a problem with this variance request because it is, as Mr. Saven said, staying out of the easement area. I think it's going to be a nice addition to their house, and I like the fact that it's not encroaching any closer to, I believe it's the north property line, than the line of the house. So that having been said, if it's all right, I would move to approve this variance. In Case 03-029, move to approve the variance of five feet due to lot configuration and layout. Would that be it, Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Sure, yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. MS. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, could you please call the roll.
70 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been approved. See the building department for your permit, and you're all set. MR. CARRIER: Thank you very much. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 03-030 MS. CHAIRMAN: Case 03-030 filed by Singh Development for Waltonwood at Twelve Oaks. Would you like to come on down, please. Requesting a sign extension. MR. PHAM: Khanh Pham, Singh
71 Development. MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to raise your right hand and be sworn in by the secretary? MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-030? MR. PHAM: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MR. PHAM: Good evening. Lynn couldn't make it today, so I thought I would pinch hit, since I have an item after this one. We are here to ask for an extension of a sign -- two signs actually. This is an old aerial. We were before you a month ago asking for a variance on our phase two, which -- right here is the grass where we're planning to build our second phase. This is Twelve Mile. Here's the finger road right here. It comes down. It's hard to see through the contrast of the overhead. We have currently two signs right now, one on Twelve Mile and one on the finger road right in front of our project. The reason why we're here today is currently, right now, Twelve Mile, there's a gap
72 project under construction. We are the owner of this property right here, as well as this property in Waltonwood. In order to further the construction of this site, we have allowed a six six -- a concrete batching plant, which is about three stories high, to be located on this property right here. With that concrete batch being there, and its obstruction to our facility, we would feel strongly that the extension of the sign would allow us to continue marketing, even from Twelve Mile, even though there is a construction site, and still further the cause for the general that Twelve Mile would be constructed and that there would be a location for the concrete batch plant. That's why we're here tonight, to ask for that extension for both signs. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 11 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to this matter? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment.
73 MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members. Member Gatt. MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair, with all the construction and disruption up on Twelve Mile, I think the hardship speaks for itself, and I have no trouble supporting this. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a note here that the last time we saw you, the percentage leased out was around 60 percent. Do you know what you're leased out at? MR. PHAM: Yeah. We are a little bit over 80, but we're about to start phase two, so those signs are still necessary for us to start our phase two leasing. MS. CHAIRMAN: Other board members? If there's no other discussion, Chair would entertain a motion, please. MEMBER GATT: I'll try it, my first motion. MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. MEMBER GATT: I move that Case Number 03-030, requesting an extension for Singh Development for two signs for the Waltonwood Development at
74 Twelve Oaks be granted for one year. MS. CHAIRMAN: Is there a second? MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. MS. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. See the building department and your variance has been granted. MR. PHAM: Thank you. MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair, I know we
75 were going to take a break, but Mr. Pham is here for the next matter, too. MS. CHAIRMAN: I see that. We might as well just- MEMBER GATT: (Interposing) Go on through the next one. MS. CHAIRMAN: -go on here. And I don't know if he needs to be sworn in for the different case. Does he need to be sworn in again? MR. SCHULTZ: No. CASE NUMBER 03-031 MS. CHAIRMAN: You're still under oath, I'd like to remind you, in Case 03-031, Seeley Sanctuary. I'm not going to read all those numbers. MR. PHAM: Well, thank you again. Singh Development has been asked by the Indian community to help them take their sanctuary through a site plan process. Mr. Graywell, the owner of our company, has gladly obliged them and has asked us to work with that community to bring through the sanctuary that the Indian community would like to be located on Thirteen Mile west of M 5.
76 We've gone through the site plan process. We've worked through the planning commission and staff, and we now are at a point where we have designed a project that we think meets the intent of the ordinance in every fashion. We think that it is a great design that maximizes the topography, the land. And one of the features that attracted the Indian community to this property is the the water feature, which is a very strong element in their religion and culture. So -- and through the design process we have helped them design a site plan right here where -- this is the sanctuary right here. Why it's located here is that we have a drop off area in front, and that we're caught with -- there's a 2.9 acre wetland right here, and a regulated wetland right here, and a wetland over in the corner right over here. We worked through the staff and the consultants through the planning process, and the location of our driveway through -- for safety reasons were fixed at right here, so that would be safe offsetting from the new life drive over here,
77 and then across the street is new Fox Run Drive for the retirement community. So we've placed our building right here overlooking the water. Why do we place it here is that in ordinance for churches and places of worship you need to have a 75 foot setback and that no parking can be in the front yard setback. Furthermore, we -- when we designed this we found out that this property has irregular right-of-way lines -- and I think this is a little better -- where the right-of-way lines right here, it jogs down about 20 feet, goes a little further, jogs down another 20 feet, and then comes across toward M 5. With those right-of-way lines, and also trying to meet the front yard setback of the ordinance, the building was placed to not encroach in the setback in terms of building location itself, and the only thing that goes over that is an overhang, and this overhang is an architectural feature that serves -- complimented the architect of the building, and also allows for users to have a little protection from the weather when they're getting dropped off and picked up.
78 We'd like to show you a little bit of some of the architecture and why we think this would be a positive to the community. This is the rendering of the facility. As through the planning commission, they thought that the design warranted the extra overhang, and as through your minutes, commissioners tried to rotate the building to avoid this setback issue, but with the pond being there, the irregular right-of-way line, the need to keep the building further forward so that parking is not in the front yard setback has necessitated us to ask for this variance. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 13 notices sent, zero approvals, zero objections. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this case? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment. MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Boy, this is a tough parcel. This is -- you got more water and swamps on
79 this parcel than I seen anywhere else. I think they've done a good job in planning and working with the City. The fact that this front yard variance is really the result of an overhang I think is a minimal variance condition, and the fact that this landscaping, a berm, sometimes it's just smarter to do it a different way, and I think this is a good example of the smarter way to provide some breakup between the Thirteen Mile and the property, so I'm regretfully supporting both of your projects tonight. And I thought I'd run you out on one or the other. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gatt. MEMBER GATT: Well, I concur with Mr. Brennan. I think you're doing a great job with a tough piece of property. And, you know, I've worked in the City for many, many years, and I've seen Singh Development start Turtle Creek on up to where they're at today, and every project they do is just better than the rest. I think this one speaks for itself. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else? Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I also support this
80 project for the reasons stated, and also because when we're looking at a variance for the berm, what we're doing is we're actually preserving the wetlands and the woodlands by granting that waiver. And for that reason I am in support of the variance. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else? MEMBER BAUER: Great planning. MR. PHAM: Thank you. I didn't get a chance to present my berm speech, but that's okay. MS. CHAIRMAN: See how well you're viewed already? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion, Case 03-031, the petitioner's request for two variances, one front yard setback, and the other elimination of the berm, be approved as submitted due to lot configuration. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second. Is there any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: None. Sarah, could you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: I'm sorry. Who seconded that?
81 MS. CHAIRMAN: Jerry Bauer. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You're all set. MR. PHAM: Thank you. Good night. MS. CHAIRMAN: Having done that case, I think what we'll do, being it's nine o'clock, the board's going to take a five minute break. We'll be back here at 9:05 and finish off the rest of these cases. (A recess was taken.) CASE NUMBER 03-032 MS. CHAIRMAN: I'll call the meeting to
82 order, and we'll go with Case Number 03-032 filed by Platinum Signs representing Putting Edge at 44125 Twelve Mile Road in Fountain Walk. Are you Mr. Manno? MR. SALVO: No. My name is Paul Salvo. He was unable to attend. His wife is actually due to have a baby any day now, so he's on standby. MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand and be sworn by our secretary, please. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-032? MR. SALVO: Yes. The variance that we're requesting is for a large sign that is being put on the building. The reason we're requesting for the larger sign is permitted -- more than is permitted by the the City of Novi is we're looking to attract a larger client base to the complex itself. What we're doing is, by adding the larger sign, will be having a more family clientele being drawn to the community and that complex. In addition, the sign that's being proposed is also a corporate identity, brand identity. The logo that's being used is used on all storefronts across Canada and the U.S. The logo
83 that's being used is also used on all advertising media, the website. It's used to identify Putting Edge. By changing the logo, what we'd be doing is comparable to changing a Coke, Nike, Shell, any one of these logos. By changing the look of the logo would -- you'd be infringing on any brand recognition or loyalty that that company's built up over the years. And, finally, the facade committee for the City of Novi has approved the signage as it currently stands on the building. And it is proportional to the building storefront and it compliments the existing businesses in the community. And that's all. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were twenty notices sent; zero approvals and one objection from Pico Investment Company at 7145 Sheraton Drive. I believe their objection is they feel that the sign is extremely large, will open the door for many other types of variances. The City has very good reasons for establishing a regulation, and this variance would destroy the intended integrity of the appearance of the community. We do
84 not want to see a large sign in the Novi community. I apologize, but I'm not sure -- Sarah, who -- what business is this, do you know? MS. MARCHIONI: I'm not sure where it is. MEMBER BRENNAN: Pico Investment is the owners of the hotel, West Oaks, and also the restaurant who was before us six months ago for a large sign. MS. CHAIRMAN: So they're not in Fountain Walk? MEMBER BRENNAN: No. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay. Anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: No one. Building department? MR. SAVEN: I'd just like to bring to the board's attention the determining height and width of the sign and square footage of the sign, the maximum height and width. In determining the sign size, it is to the extremes of the length and width of the sign function itself. And as you can see,
85 there is two -- actually two signs. One is glow-in-the-dark mini golf underneath the original sign, and it helps contribute to the size of the sign. MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: I wasn't too much concerned about the size because we've addressed issues like this at Fountain Walk before, and we will tonight. I'd like some comment back from building regarding the second item, regarding -- for the proposed sign. That's not a common style consistent with the other signs at Fountain Walk. What's so different about it? MR. SAVEN: Okay. When Fountain Walk started, there's an issue regarding different types and styles of signs. It's just like when you start Town Center. Town Center, you had certain type of lettering and it had to be consistent throughout. This project was designed a little bit differently for its uniqueness and everything that's there. Bottom line is, it is different, and because this is part of the ordinance it has to be
86 addressed. MEMBER BRENNAN: But with that -- and we've -- not to diss you, sir, but we've had large corporations make modifications to signs to meet ordinances, and if that's what the board is moved to and compelled to, believe me, we may ask you to do that as well. That's probably not your issue. It's more the owner's issue. But with respect to their request on the square footage, I think it's in line with what we have moved for other businesses in that. I'd like to have more discussion personally from other members regarding the style. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else. Member Reinke. MEMBER REINKE: The style, I really don't -- it's a unique sign, I agree with that, but I really think that the size of it and what it's projecting is larger than it needs to be. I think it needs to be larger than 40 square feet, but I have a problem jumping up to a hundred and fifteen. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. SALVO: May I make a comment on that note?
87 MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. SALVO: The Putting Edge logo itself is only 78 square feet. Once you add the glow-in-the-dark, now it jumps to -- the way you calculate the square footage, it jumps to a hundred and fifteen feet. MEMBER REINKE: I understand that. MR. SALVO: That's where the big jump. MEMBER REINKE: I know exactly how it's calculated. Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else. MEMBER BAUER: Is glow-in-the-dark mini golf part of their emblem? MR. SALVO: No. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER GATT: Just to speed things along, my comments, when I went out to look, is why would we approve this. I'm not getting any reasons why we would so far, so -- MEMBER BRENNAN: I think what we've established right off the bat (inaudible) reduces the size of the sign is if the glow-in-the-dark mini golf is removed, that makes the sign 78 or something, so that's a reduction in the overall square footage.
88 Again, I'd like to hear some feedback from others on this issue of design. Laverne didn't feel too troubled with it. MS. CHAIRMAN: I don't either. I'm not -- I don't have a problem with the design. I think in this -- Fountain Walk is just so massive to me when you're driving through there sometimes, and this is just a different -- and it's just different, and I can't -- I think on that building, just the Putting Edge though, is good. I think Jerry's on to something here with -- I don't know that glow-in-the dark mini golf has to be on it, just to add to that. You know, it's basically -- for me I'm trying to locate a business, I already know what I'm looking for. So if somebody wants to start making suggestions, perhaps -- Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I'm also not averse to the style of the sign because this whole project has been a real -- it's been a whole lot of fun, hasn't it, folks. I think if you want to keep the glow-in-the-dark mini golf sign, that you have to reduce the size of the logo, or if you want to keep
89 the size of the logo, Putting Edge, then you have to eliminate the glow-in-the-dark. I think to have both of them is a bit much. And so what are you willing to compromise on? MR. SALVO: We can eliminate glow-in-the-dark. MS. CHAIRMAN: You can? MR. SALVO: If we can keep the existing sign as is, Putting Edge, keep the logo -- if we're going to keep the same size on the Putting Edge and eliminate the glow-in-the-dark. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chairman, did we already ask the audience for participation? MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: Because there's somebody there in the back that's waving his hand frantically. MS. CHAIRMAN: Are you part of this? Come on down. MR. VANDERDUSE: My name is Carl Vanderduse. I'm the construction manager for the Putting Edge Corporation, and I happen to be in Novi because I'm meeting with our general contractor there
90 tomorrow, so I thought I'd come by tonight. And Platinum Signs, who we have contracted, has been authorized to drop the glow-in-the-dark portion of the sign to meet approval of your committee. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Board Members? Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair, if there's no other people interested in inputting, I'll make a motion, that with this case, 03-032, I would move that the sign as presented be approved with the elimination of the glow-in-the-dark mini golf, making this approximately a 78 square foot sign, and that we approve the style as presented. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MS. CHAIRMAN: There's been a motion and support. Is there any further discussion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Sarah, could you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
91 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. See the building department. CASE NUMBER 03-033 MS. CHAIRMAN: In the next case, 03-033, Moufid Leon, Leon's Restaurant. Would you like to come on down. Are you Mr. Leon? MR. LEON: Yes, I am. MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to raise your hand and be sworn in by our secretary, please. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-033? MR. LEON: Yes, I do. MS. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you go ahead. MR. LEON: I'm here in front of you asking for a sign facing Ten Mile. In exchange was
92 taking 80 square feet sign down for 36 square feet sign facing Ten Mile, so I would like to -- I have a nice logo, will fit perfect on my new elevation, and that's one of the reason I'm giving up 80 square foot sign for 36 square feet sign. So if you please consider that issue. If not, we can keep the 80 square foot sign. MS. CHAIRMAN: There were 17 notices sent; one approval. It's a lengthy approval, so I'll try to give you the highlights here. Jean Grant lives on Cherry Hill in Meadowbrook Glens, a big supporter of your restaurant, says many fine things about it. She has some concerns about the second sign, visibility, large trees. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make a comment in regards to this case? (No response) MS. CHAIRMAN: No. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just a couple issues. Mr. Leon is going through some changes in facades and going through renovation of his building, and these were the issues that were brought up.
93 He would like to place two signs on this building, one on the front facing Ten Mile Road and one facing west at the entrance. One of the concerns was, of course, the ground pole sign which we have there, and these were one of the issues that we were negotiating at that time. Hopefully the negotiation is that he was going to take that large sign down. And that is still the understanding; is that correct? MR. LEON: Correct. MR. SAVEN: And -- which is something which is 80 square foot. Now, he's got one sign that there -- there were going to be two signs less than 40 square foot, one 36 on one side and I believe one the same size on the other. What he's asking for tonight is one additional sign providing he takes the other one down. If this is the board's decision to approve this, I would ask that that issue of the sign coming down be placed in the motion. Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members.
94 MEMBER BAUER: Don, what size would that be? MR. SAVEN: The sign that's 80 square feet is 10 by 8. It was about 21, 22 feet tall, and it doesn't meet the size of the ordinance as it exists right now. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Boy, number of comments. Mr. Leon, I'm thrilled to see that that big pole sign is coming down. You probably heard my comments about Feldman, trying to get him to do the same thing. I understand the need for a new sign. It's a new business. Tell us why you think you need this sign on the west end when you haven't had one for 30 years there. MR. LEON: Well, the tree line, as you coming east on Ten Mile, it's completely blocking my view, and you would not see it until you pass it. And after you pass it there's all the traffic on Ten Mile and Haggerty. You're not going to turn around to come back to me. MEMBER BRENNAN: East heading west?
95 MR. LEON: If you coming east on Ten Mile, going East on Ten Mile, you can't see the sign until you pass it. That's why I'm asking for sign facing Ten Mile. MEMBER BRENNAN: My first reaction was this is a good deal. We've got an accumulation of square footage that's less than what is currently there. This is one of the staples of our community, great guy, and I think that that's part of my rationalization. And I met my wife there 25 years ago. She was waitress. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anything to add to that? Member Gatt. MEMBER GATT: Well, I didn't meet my wife there. I've had dinner with my wife there many times, so -- I just want to add to what Mr. Brennan said. I've known Mr. Leon for 28 years, and his whole family, and that restaurant is just part of this community now, and I don't -- it's a first class restaurant all the way. Mr. Leon and his family are first class people. Living in the area, I know exactly what he's talking about when you're driving down
96 Ten Mile. If you don't know where it is, sometimes you can miss it, and since we're going to take down that big sign, I can support this motion without batting an eye. MEMBER BAUER: Congratulations. MR. LEON: Thank you. MEMBER BAUER: I go for this 100 percent. MR. LEON: Thank you very much. MS. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have a lot of heads shaking positively here. Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: Well, I don't know the Leons. I've eaten there several times. I don't know anybody who hasn't. I also feel that this is going to be more of a destination place and the clientele will find it. I'm wondering if the sign -- and I know it's a net win. I'm wondering if the sign on the west has to be quite so big. Maybe it could be a bit smaller. Are you willing to reduce the size of the sign on the west side? MR. LEON: Well, I'm giving up 80 square feet sign for 36 square-
97 MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I understand that, but our ordinance says one sign. MR. LEON: I go along with that. I mean, that's why I'm here in front of you. MR. BRENNAN: Madam Chairwoman? MS. CHAIRMANA: Yes, Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Just based on some of the discussion we had, I'd like to give a shot at this and see where the board sits. MS. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to add a comment though in regards to the previous speaker. I -- coming down Ten Mile, I have to concur with the other two members. It is very difficult to find that building on Ten Mile. When I first looked at this, I immediately thought that that sign wasn't necessary. When I was going back out I could not find the building, and I'm hoping that that sign is helping. And I've been here 23 years, so I certainly know where your restaurant is, so it is -- maybe that will help, especially the newcomers, in the area. So, given that, sure, Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: In Case Number 03-033, I would move that the petitioner's request for two signs, each 36 square foot, be approved and the pole
98 sign removed for the purpose of a new business establishment/business identification. MEMBER BAUER: Second, but I think it's a variance for one. MEMBER BRENNAN: It's a variance for one. I'm sorry. You're going to get two but the variance is for one. MS. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been
99 approved. MR. LEON: Thank you very much. MS. CHAIRMAN: See the building department. MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, just a quick note, and I'm just trying to recall, the condition of that motion to remove the pole sign? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MEMBER REINKE: That's all I wanted to know. CASE NUMBER 03-034 MS. CHAIRMAN: Case Number 03-034, filed by Kip Sheward Motor Sports. Mr. Sheward is requesting a use variance to allow sale of cars, wholesale, located at 24404 Catherine Industrial Drive. You are Mr. Sheward? MR. SHEWARD: Yes, I am. MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-034? MR. SHEWARD: I do.
100 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. MR. SHEWARD: What I'm here for, I sure most -- or everybody's gotten the letter that I typed, I hope. I'm kind of unique to the point that I'm not your average car dealer. I'm not asking to have a car dealership on Catherine. I understand it's not the proper zoning for it. But considering the way I do business, we're not really open to the public. I'm actually a wholesaler. My license is held in Keego Harbor at a store that I've closed, but I'm able to keep my license but I'd like to keep everything under roof, so my request is to be able to transfer my license to Catherine Industrial Drive. Everything's pretty much stated in the letter. There's no outside storage, it's not open to the public, there's no flags, there's no cars outside. We're not really even -- really unlock the front door. It's more or less office and storage. I've drawn a little map of how many cars actually fit inside the building. It's very small. It's two people, myself and an assistant. That's it.
101 So my request is to be able to transfer my license. It would help me a lot. I wouldn't have to run back and forth. I'm registered at the Secretary of State over in West Bloomfield. I'd like to be registered back with the Secretary of State here at Drake and Grand River in Farmington Hills. It's much easier for me. It would be a big burden off of my shoulders, that's for sure. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were nine notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on behalf of this case? (No response.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: How many cars do you anticipate maximum in storage? MR. SHEWARD: Storage? MR. SAVEN: Yeah. MR. SHEWARD: It can go to 20 on peak season. That's between November, my slow season of course. I'm mostly sports cars and specialty cars. If I were to store cars all winter long, which is really November to April, 20 to 25 cars, if I really
102 shoehorn them in there. MR. SAVEN: Second question is, again, to reiterate, there's going to be no signage in regards to your business? MR. SHEWARD: No. There's my name on the door, but that's- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Everything will be conducted within the building; in other words, you're not going to have any outside storage at all? MR. SHEWARD: No, no. There's none. Everything's locked up. If you come by, you don't even really know I'm there, other than I had to put my name on the door. That's part of the agreement with the landlord that owns the complex, for identity. I'm unit 306. But my name is on the window, and that's it. MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members. I have a question. Go ahead. MEMBER BRENNAN: I had a number of questions. Are you already established, are you leasing this facility and have cars in there now? MR. SHEWARD: Yes. I can't do the sales out of there is the problem. I can do the
103 storage. That's -- actually, I don't need a variance. I'm zoned for that. MR. SAVEN: For the storage aspect, yes. Storage is something you can take a look at. The thing that's triggering this whole thing is he has a license that needs to have zoning approval. I can't give him zoning approval because this -- just for the fact that this type of licensure requirement is normally dealing with outdoor sales, this type of thing, and exposure to exteriors and things, this is a little different. MEMBER BRENNAN: My other question is, how many cars a year would you anticipate moving through this business? MR. SHEWARD: We might do five cars a month, maybe. It's very small. MEMBER BRENNAN: Any antique cars? MR. SHEWARD: Yeah. MEMBER BRENNAN: Is there any issue with this zoning with respect to safety and gasoline and- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I'm not sure what the conditions are within his particular building. Normally, there would be interceptors that
104 would be located within the structure itself which would be required. Fire department has some unusual concerns about this. Most instances, when you're storing cars in there for a period of time, if it's for show, normally they'll empty the gas tanks. MEMBER BRENNAN: Tell me what type of signage you expect to have on the front door. MR. SHEWARD: It's just my name. It's the same size as everybody else in the complex. It's for identity purposes. Mine's colored. That's the only -- everybody else is in white. I had it done -- my logo is actually Kip Sheward in red and Motor Sports is in yellow. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gatt. MEMBER GATT: I just have a question. How do you advertise? MR. SHEWARD: How do I advertise? Word of mouth. I don't -- like I said, it's very small. We do a lot of Internet, but primarily I'm well known in what I do. I've been doing it for a very, very long time. I was in Novi before. I'm back. I
105 enjoy the community. But I have a big following and a big clientele, so it's not like I need to advertise to the general public, because we're not really general public. MEMBER GATT: So your clients come and they're going to do a transaction inside your building? MR. SHEWARD: Occasionally, but most of the time, as you read in the letter, I -- there's times that I don't even see the car. I'll buy a car in Florida, sell it to a client in New York and do the paper transaction. The car gets shipped from Florida to New York. I never see the car. It never even has to show up. MEMBER GATT: But the cars that you're storing, will your clients come to test drive them and so on? MR. SHEWARD: No, because if it's storage it's a different entity. It's not really for sale. They're just there to store. It helps me out in the wintertime because we're very slow in the winter. I'm more or less -- it's -- I'd call it an eight-month business. The rest of the time, the
106 wintertime, we're slow. There's times we don't even go into the office. MEMBER GATT: The cars being stored are not for sale? MR. SHEWARD: No, just strictly storage. It helps me offset my rent. MEMBER BAUER: No storage -- I mean, no repair or body work at all? MR. SHEWARD: Nothing. We wash an occasional car. MEMBER BAUER: Okay. MR. SHEWARD: No repairs, no painting, there's no grinding, there's -- you wouldn't even know I'm back there. MS. CHAIRMAN: No truck haulers? MR. SHEWARD: Occasionally a truck hauler, yes. Reliable comes in. I'm on a court. It's nice. It's a big wide open court. There's also, I think, if I'm right, a construction company at the end of the court that has a private drive. The truck's there for maybe a half an hour at most, just to unload or load. It's not a problem. And they usually stay on Catherine. It's not like they have to try to come through the complex, but that's
107 the only issue really. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: What are your hours of operation? I understand what you're doing is primarily -- the use that you have now is for storage. And this is only going to be incidental? MR. SHEWARD: Yeah. I'm there from 9:00 to 6:00. I work sometimes late at night, until seven o'clock if I stay in the office to do paperwork, but we're really -- we don't really have set hours because, once again, we're not really open to the public. MEMBER GRAY: How many years have you been in business? MR. SHEWARD: About 28 years now. MEMBER GRAY: The problem that I have with this is that we have the power to authorize a use in a zoning district which is not otherwise permitted provided it is clearly shown that the land cannot be used for a zoned use. Now, I understand that you're already using this facility and occupying this facility for storage. MR. SHEWARD: Yes.
108 MEMBER GRAY: And so I'm presuming though that the financial aspect of it, the storage, would be incidental to the sales. MR. SHEWARD: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Is there -- Tom, is there any direction that -- in the ordinance on this? MR. SCHULTZ: There really isn't. I'm not sure you can put this peg into any hole that's designed in the ordinance, and I assume that's why it was sent to the ZBA through the planning department instead of possibly to the planning commission for some kind of special land use approval. This is a use variance, so the unnecessary hardship standard applies, and it is stated as set forth in the agenda, so that's the decision you're making. It's not -- doesn't fall within the scope of the permitted use, so use variance is all he's got. MEMBER GRAY: Thanks. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? MEMBER BRENNAN: Just another point of clarification, because I think this is important. You said you might sell on average five
109 cars a month. MR. SHEWARD: Yeah. MEMBER BRENNAN: Not all five of those are going to be in your facility? MR. SHEWARD: No. It's one at a time. It's not a -- there's not twelve salesmen. It's one at a time. It could be two cars in one week, it could be five cars in one week, and I don't do a thing for three more weeks. Very low volume, very expensive cars. MEMBER BRENNAN: Seems to me that this is a very minimal need for a use variance. It doesn't seem to be a lot of threat to the community. Obviously there isn't any issues with neighbors or adjoining businesses. It seems like a pretty harmless request. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone care to take a stab at the motion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I'm on a roll. With respect to 03-034, I would move that the petitioner's request for use variance for this particular business be approved for the reason that the requirement is minimal, there is no objection from neighbors or adjoining businesses, and it would
110 be limited to this petitioner only. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Motion has been made and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Tom. MR. SCHULTZ: Just a -- I apologize for consulting here. MS. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. MR. SCHUTLZ: But was it limited to this petitioner only? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, that was the tailend, yeah. MS. CHAIRMAN: You actually said it in the beginning, too. Any further discussion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes.
111 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been approved. MR. SHEWARD: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Does he have to see the building department? MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. MR. SHEWARD: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MEMBER BRENNAN: Welcome back to Novi. MR. SHEWARD: Thanks. Nice to be back, really is. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 03-035 MS. CHAIRMAN: Moving right along, Case Number 03-035, Joseph Gluck. Come on down. Mr. Gluck is asking for two variances, side yard and a total aggregate side yard. Mr. Gluck, would you raise your right
112 hand, please. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-035? MR. GLUCK: I do. What I'm proposing to do is build a 14 by 14 -- basically it's a screened-in porch enclosure. I've heard it called earlier a three season room. It would be like that. One of the problems we have is that we -- the house is located in a beginning of a cul-de-sac. It's on a pie shaped lot, and basically the house was put in the only spot it could be put in by the builder, and that kind of gave us a challenge, once we were trying to put -- once we tried to put in the screened porch. It -- basically, as soon as we come off the east end of it, we're in violation of the 15 foot requirement. Something I would like the board to consider is, if you take the front of our lot, it's a hundred and thirty-one foot, and the back of our lot is 58 foot. The average width is about 95 foot. And if we looked at that, we would be in compliance if we said the lot was ninety-five foot, because that only requires a ten foot side yard
113 setback and a thirty foot total aggregate side yard setback. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right. There were twenty-one notices sent; three approvals: Linda and Jason Roberts at 30377; Scott and Kelly Helleron, 30361; and then Tom and Sylvia Sutherland on Bristol Circle. MR. GLUCK: Right. I also have another one, too, from the neighbor that is directly to the east of us. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If you have that- MR. GLUCK: (Interposing) I have the subdivision also. It's -- MS. MARCHIONI: It's in the file, association. There's two copies in there. MS. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just that this is an R-2 zoning district, and most of the times we're dealing with R-4 zoning districts where we have 15 and 10 requirement. This is a little bit unusual because it talks about a minimum of 15 foot setback requirement for a side yard in this district, and that the lot configuration is a little unique in character. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members.
114 Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Just for those who might be watching at home, the angle of this house has a screened porch tradition where it matches to the house. He actually has the 15 feet. As it gets to the far corner is his ten foot setback, so it appears to be a fairly minor requirement request. And the fact that if we consider the first variance, it makes the second variance a necessity, so one leads to the other, so it's the same condition, so I have -- if -- with the neighbors supporting it, the association supporting, it seems to be a fairly modest request. MS. CHAIRMAN: Other board members? MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, I think it's a minimum intrusion because it's not really going in excess of the home. It's only going back to that one point. It's not jutting out to where it would be intrusive or nothing like that. I really don't see any problem with the request. MS. CHAIRMAN: We're certainly talking about an odd lot size, that's for sure. Makes it kind of -- talk about creativity. Anyone -- Chair would entertain a
115 motion. MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chair, in Case 03-035, move that the petitioner's request be granted due to lot sidelines and building angle. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So I've got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you like to call the roll? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been
116 granted. Please see the building department. MR. GLUCK: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 03-036 MS. CHAIRMAN: Case 03-036, Kevin Akey representing homeowners on East Lake Drive. This is an interpretation, two-and-a-half story project, and as soon as they get their poster boards ready then they can -- and you are? MR. AKEY: Kevin Akey from AZD Architects. MS. CHAIRMAN: Are you the only person speaking tonight? MR. AKEY: I think so, yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and raise your hand. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-036? MR. AKEY: I do. Kevin Akey from AZD Architects. This is the homeowners, Dave and Sue (inaudible). We're here for a couple of interpretations, the first one being whether a
117 half-story is allowed underneath the roof slope or not. The building department is contending that the half-story does not lie under the sloping roof. We feel that it does in a way. We do have a unique roof line. We have a narrow lot. We came up with a unique solution to push in some of these walls on the top so that would give the appearance of an overhang. We're not allowed -- I think we're allowed ten inches into the side yard. We're trying stay completely out of the side yards. So that's how the design came about. Now really, all we're trying to do is get storage on this half level. The City has allowed for this exact configuration, and they've allowed us to do a small truss here. They've allowed us to do a full truss. What we're trying to do is this solution and just eliminate the webbing in the trusses and do an attic-type truss. That's really all we're trying to do. We're under the height restrictions. If we go to a more typical roof, such as this one, we can actually build the house higher, I think about
118 two-and-a-half feet higher, and we can still get storage. Really, all we're trying to do is keep this configuration as the City allowed and do attic trusses in this area. Should make sense I think. The second interpretation would be the exterior materials. The first one would be a split face block, is what we're trying to use, which is this material here. I drove up and down the road. We've taken a lot of pictures. Of the 60 houses we photographed -- I have all those pictures also -- we actually found four of them being block, more of a cinder block type appearance, and one of them did have split face brick on it. All we're trying to do is basically a brick masonry unit at a different size, which is similar to a cultured stone even. It almost gives that appearance. We're just -- we're -- you know, there is existing block houses on the street. They're more of a cinder block. You know, we could match that. We feel it's, you know, almost a basement appearance type look. We're just really trying to upgrade the
119 conditions. The other material is the metal siding. I think the metal siding -- the name scares most people, because in reality -- I have this board here -- and of the 60 houses on that street, 42 of them are actually vinyl or aluminum siding. Some of them are T1-11, asbestos, plaster board. But this is really -- this is vinyl siding down here. This is the metal siding that we're trying to use. This isn't the exact color, but I do have the colors on another color board. So it really gives the appearance, even from ten feet away, of the same exact material, which is prominent on 40 sum of the 60 houses out there. And we're really just using it as an accent. We don't have any of it on the lake side. We just really have a piece of it here, and we do have it on the sides. This material, basically because of the newer technology, it's widely used quite a bit on other homes. It's actually more expensive than aluminum and vinyl siding, it's just a better quality and a less maintenance type material. The house is actually going to have a
120 real strong wood presence. Most of it is wood actually. Doors and windows are wood, lot of these horizontal items are wood, dry stores are wood, trellis is wood. These two materials are both really more of an accent. They are a high quality material. I do have a couple questions, too, because on that same street we have a drive-it house and a cedar-shaked house, and I'm not sure how that was -- how that was able to be approved if there were no other materials like that in the neighborhood when, in fact, we do have some of the same materials with the exception to the metal siding. We're not trying to downgrade the neighborhood at all. We're actually trying to inspire the neighborhood. I believe we've designed the home that is tasteful and respectful to the neighborhood and the City. I also believe we remain compliant with the spirit of the ordinance. And we actually have 20 letters from the neighbors that aren't only excited about this house but they really want the house with the current design. I have all those letters, if you guys would like them. There's actually two sets.
121 One is just for the attic storage trusses, and one is for the exterior materials. We've gotten -- the homeowners have gotten 20 sum signatures. That's about all. Back to this again for a second. We're not really changing the -- to be able to do what we want to do, it would not change the exterior appearance at all. We just really want to do a different type of truss, and that's all. MS. CHAIRMAN: If you'd like to bring those letters forward, please. MR. AKEY: There's two groups here. One is just for -- this is for the exterior material and these are all just for the attic trusses. MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We'll make those part of the record. There were 28 notices sent; no approvals, no objections up until this point with what the petitioner just give us. However, there is a letter that was sent, neither supporting nor rejecting. It was from Asa Smith at 1294 East Lake Drive, who asks us to carefully consider the plans and materials being consolidated for this project -- considered for this project. The lot is small, narrow and long. I believe variances have been
122 granted for this project. Be careful in granting interpretations. Consider neighbors on either side of this project, heights, elevations, landscaping. I am not necessarily for or against this project, but I do believe it should be looked at and evaluated very carefully. And we have -- looks like this is a standard letter and each resident signed it. MR. AKEY: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: I don't know that there's anyone in the audience left to speak on this. Do you have anything to offer on this? UNIDENTIFIED: Both neighbors on both sides have signed it, and everyone was very enthusiastic about it, thought it was a beautiful sign, and it would help increase the value of all the homes around it. They were all very enthusiastic. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just, basically, the reason why they're here is because of the third story implication that this does have, and also the construction materials, which was, as of today, still does not meet the design and construction standards
123 of the ordinance, which was brought in a letter by virtue of Peter Albertson of NSA, and I believe you have been working with him with regard to this particular issue. That's why this gentleman is here today, based upon what he is presenting today. MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members, questions, comments. Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: I think it's beautiful. I think it's very interesting. I've lived in the area since 1978, and I think it's what we tell people to do, to be creative in what you're bringing forward, and you've been creative. I think that the reason that this city has a similar/dissimilar ordinance could be because of the lakes area of the city where houses are, in some cases, a one-story cement block that looks like a garage to some of the two-and-a-half, three-story Victorians that have been built on East Lake. I have concerns about what you're doing, but what you're doing is you're providing storage area, and I know when you live in that area storage is at a premium, so I have no problem with granting this variance because I think it is -- it's less than the height allowed. I would presume that
124 you're only going to use it for storage even though it's going to be with a height that may be interpreted as being a third story for living space. But then you're on an elevation where you're going to have a walkout basement so, you know, that could even be construed as a four-story house. I live off South Lake, and some of my neighbors have what appear to be a three-story house and they have a walkout at road level and their backyards are, you know -- we have a lot of challenges out in that area, and I think you've done a real good job. And I don't see that by just pulling in the sides and using those trusses, when you could actually have the loft storage -- the second one in from the left, that would be allowed. I mean, you're meeting the height restrictions, and I really don't have a problem with it, and nor do I have a problem with the facade material you're proposing to use. I mean, if you look at some of the houses out there, they probably still have asbestos siding on them, and we're not having a problem with that at this point. MR. AKEY: We documented those today.
125 MEMBER GRAY: and I know -- and if you have the support of your next door neighbors on both sides, and you have so many letters of support, then, you know, they're the ones who you are going to have to live with it, so I don't think it's a bad -- I don't think it's a bad plan and I think, you know, when we tell -- when we tell people buy these small skinny lots up in that area and be creative, boy, you've done it, and I'm pretty pleased with it. Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Bauer. MEMBER BAUER: Don, does this any way, shape or form, get into the construction board of appeals? MR. SAVEN: No, not that I'm aware of. At this time it's going to depend on his design and what he's going to use for his lumber configuration. I think he's okay. MEMBER BAUER: I like it very much. MR. SAVEN: The basement issue, I don't think that's -- the basement issue is strictly a basement by the configuration of the ground and terrain and everything there. It will still be classified as a basement.
126 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a follow-up question to Asa's letter, who suggested there were previous variances granted on this parcel, and I'd like to confirm that that's not the case, that this new building is meeting all setbacks. MR. AKEY: Yes, it is. MEMBER BRENNAN: And I don't know that we've ever had a house on East Lake that didn't have setback variances. I'd approve these two just for that reason alone. With respect to the materials, I can find those very attractive. I think that siding looks as good, if not better, than vinyl siding, and vinyl siding is approved, so I don't have any qualms or any problems with either of these. I would support the applicant's positive interpretation. MEMBER GRAY: Should I tell him? MEMBER BRENNAN: Pardon? MEMBER GRAY: Should I tell you? We gave a variance -- this is the Tanelian property. MR. SAVEN: This is the one that had
127 the request for probably about four or five variances on the lot. MEMBER GRAY: We gave them setback variances on this MEMBER BRENNAN: Not on this design. MEMBER GRAY: Not on this design. MR. SAVEN: Not on this design. MEMBER GRAY: Setbacks. MR. AKEY: The previous owner got them and they purchased the lot with those variances already in place for the side yard setbacks. We actually had a question, too, because we had an extension and it expired the day after we submitted for building permit, and we don't know if we need to ask you for another 30 days just to finish the drawings or not. MR. SAVEN: Legal wise, I don't believe we have a problem because you had submitted for the permit. If you didn't submit for the permit, we'd be talking to you. MR. AKEY: Okay. We made that deadline. MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MEMBER GRAY: What do you think?
128 MEMBER REINKE: I think it's great. MEMBER GRAY: Do you have any comments for the record. MS. CHAIRMAN: No. MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of Case 03-036, move to approve the variances requested because the height -- total height is actually less than what could be allowed with an allowed attic, and that the facade material is actually going to enhance the other materials as accents. Will that do it? MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second on the table. Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Sarah, please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?
129 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been granted. Congratulations. MR. AKEY: Is it still considered a variance? MEMBER BRENNAN: Positive interpretation. MS. CHAIRMAN: Positive interpretation. MR. AKEY: I have one other question. To this attic storage, do we -- can we use normal steps going up to this area? Is there any problems there? MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to refer you to Mr. Saven. MR. SAVEN: No problems. They granted the variance based upon the configuration before them tonight. Certainly you have to have access. You have to have accessibility.
130 MR. AKEY: So we can run our stairs up there without having to do a pull-down ladder? MR. SAVEN: That's correct. MR. AKEY: Thank you very much. MEMBER GATT: Good luck. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, that concurs all of our cases. Is there anything else? MEMBER REINKE: I have one topic I'd like to bring up, just as a discussion topic. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER REINKE: Being that this is May 6, if at all possible, we'd like to get things- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I have to agree. I do have to agree with Mr. Reinke. We have -- and Sarah will testify, we have asked for this information for some time. In regards to this particular case, it was just today that we did receive it. We are -- we do have new consultants who are not familiar with our needs as of the present time, but now they are familiar with our needs, and we'll duly notify them. MEMBER REINKE: Thank you. MR. SAVEN: And I do apologize for that late submittal.
131 MS. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: We -- Sarah, we used to get those maps, and I know there was discussion a year ago about possibly getting those site maps again. Any potential on that? MR. SAVEN: I'm trying to give you guys as much information as possible in regards to the location of where everything is at, whether it's north of whatever. This does create a lot more work for Sarah, and which I need her to take care of it. She's only part-time. I need her to get the general information out to you people as best as possible. If it's possible we can do it, we'll try to do it, but our time- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Even giving some, you know- MS. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Directions have been helpful, cross streets would be very helpful. MEMBER BRENNAN: Gets us closer. MEMBER SAVEN: Okay. You should have a map of the city, you should have directions, east or west of whatever it is, and that's what we try to do. MS. CHAIRMAN: I don't even have a ZBA
132 shirt yet. All I have -- MR. SAVEN: Congratulations to Bob Gatt on his first motion. MEMBER GRAY: Sarah, would you remind Chris that he needs to be here next month because I'll be on vacation. MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. I did tell him. MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Meeting adjourned. We'll see you next month. (The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m.) - - - Date approved: July 8, 2003 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary
133 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 one hundred forty-three (143) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said stenograph notes to the best of my ability. ------------------------- Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 -------------- Date
|