| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting CITY OF NOVI The NOVI ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS taken before me, Darlene K. May, CSR-6479, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, February 3, 2004. PRESENT: Members: Frank Brennan, Cynthia Gronachan, Sarah Gray, Justin Fischer ALSO PRESENT: Donald Saven, Building Official; Denise Anderson, Recording Secretary; Thomas Schultz, City Attorney, Timothy Schmitt, Planner ABSENT: Member Mav Sanghvi, Member Brent Canup, Member Gerald Bauer
Novi, Michigan Tuesday, February 3, 2004 7:30 p.m. - - - CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I would like to call the February 2004 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order. Denise, will you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer, absent and excused. Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup, absent, excused. Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Here. MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi, absent, excused. Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Here. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The Zoning
Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Novi Zoning ordinances. It takes at least four members to approve a variance request and a vote of the majority of the members present to deny a variance. A full board consists of six members and this evening we only have four. It takes all four votes to approve your request this evening. Any petitioner who wishes to table their request until the next meeting or until a full board is present may do so now. Is there anyone here this evening that wishes to have their case tabled until next month? Seeing none. Any board decisions made tonight will be final. The agenda, are there any changes? MS. ANDERSON: Yes. There are two changes. Case Number 03-107 for 150 North Haven and Case Number 03-111 for Amen Korean United Methodist Church, these two cases were tabled at the January 6th meeting at the request to have a full board present. They will be heard at the March 2nd Zoning Board of Appeals.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you, Denise. Next I believe we received the December minutes in our packet. Are there any changes to the minutes? None. Move for approval? MEMBER BRENNAN: So moved. MEMBER GRAY: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All those in favor say, "Aye"? MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: At this point I would like to ask if there are any public remarks from anyone in the audience that wishes to make a statement in regards to anything other than what's on the agenda this evening? MR. SAVEN: Madame chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Please. MR. SAVEN: Under other matters I would like to take a couple of moments to go over some issues that we need to discuss in regards to some past cases and one has to do with ZBA Case 03 dash 116 and
also I'd like to discuss issues regarding mock-up signs under other matters. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay, Mr. Saven. MR. SAVEN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: At this time I would like to introduce to the audience as well as to our board we've had the pleasure to meet or newest member to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Justin Fischer, who is our alternate and is joining us this evening to help balance the board. Welcome aboard. MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It is my understanding that you traveled a little bit? MEMBER FISCHER: That is correct. I was in Washington D.C. but I will be able to come back and make sure I'm here to assist you guys whenever you need a vote. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, congratulations on your appointment and we're glad to have you with us. MEMBER FISCHER: I'm glad to be here.
Case No. 03-111 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Moving right along. What I would like to do is call the first case, Case Number 03-111 filed by -- Case Number 03-117 filed by Tassos Epicurean Cuisine at 25715 Meadowbrook Road. This case is being tabled from last month. Good evening. Would you please state your names for the record and both of you were sworn in last month? MR. BOZADIS: I was not. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Then you'll have to raise your right hand and be sworn in by our alternate secretary. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you're going to give us tonight is the truth? MR. DEBOSKEY: We do. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. You've got the floor. MR. BOZADIS: My name is Tassos Bozadis. MR. DEBOSKEY: My name is Adam Deboskey, D-e-b-o-s-k-e-y.
MR. BOZADIS: This is a continuation of our last month and what I would like to bring to your attention the information that the assistant fire chief in regard to fire safety of nitrogen tank installation has been satisfied and we had a meeting with him and as far as he is concerned I think we have received a letter from him indicating so. The request tonight is your approval to install an 8,000 gallon nitrogen tank either in the premises of the property indicated at 27 -- excuse me 25737 Meadowbrook Road and that is actually to allow us to meet the demands of OSHA -- excuse me. Of FDA and federal Government requirements regarding the bringing the temperature of cooked food in a very short period of time. Besides, for the installation of this particular tank we have to apply for actual variances. One is actually the installation of our enclosed wall from complete solid wall to the lattice type of structure and that is actually for the safety and not allowing actually nitrogen in the area where the wall actually is going to be and that's the purpose of the lattice. The other variance is the proximity of the building. Instead of ten feet away in the
building we actually come closer to the building, three feet away from the building. So the wall is going to be a part of the building structure and the third variance is the size of the tank from 6,000 -- 600 gallons that the City proves we request the installation of a 15,000 gallon tank. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Anything else? MR. BOZADIS: That's all. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on behalf of this case? Seeing none. There were eleven notices sent. One objection. Three returns. The objection is from Michael J. Hall and I believe this is the same letter that I read last month. It's already part of the record. Building department? MS. ANDERSON: No. Actually it's a different letter. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It is a different letter. I'm going to pass the letter to the board members at this time so they can take a look at
it. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair, I would like to ask the applicant, last time you were here the tank was standing in a vertical position and now you are claiming that you want to place this in a horizontal position? MR. BOZADIS: I beg your pardon, you're right. MR. SAVEN: This was not brought to the board and I think this is very critical to this case. Number two, we're talking about this particular use for this particular district whereby the allowance is zoned for 600 gallon tank and this is one of the issues that should be mentioned. That he is exceeding this by 12,400 gallons. So that's one of the major issues that are before you tonight. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Board members? Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Thanks for working with us. I met with BOC, the gas supplier after the whatever last meeting we had and they came up with a couple of options that solved some of the problems.
The biggest being a negative approval from our -- or negative support from the fire department. That was our biggest issue. That's been resolved. The fire department now has looked at the plan and has come to the conclusion that what they are proposing is safe. Number two, this gas, nitrogen gas, is used throughout the city. There's thousands and thousands of tanks of nitrogen for use in a number of different industrial and commercial and the like. And, in fact, there's a very, very huge, huge tank at Providence Hospital at Grand River and Beck. So it's widely used, very safe. One of my issues and one of the issues raised last month was with the neighboring condos and apartments of having to look out their windows and see this huge tank. Well, they're not going to see this huge tank because it's going to be laying on its side and it's going to be covered by a wall. Number two -- or number four I should say. The safety fence or fencing around it the various request is such that it's a requirement of the gas to be properly ventilated that they not have a solid mass wall and it's only fitting and sound engineering that that variance be allowed.
And number five, and Mr. Canup zeroed in on this in our last meeting. This is a good neighbor. We don't want to run them out of town and I think they've gone a long way to come up with creative engineering designs to satisfy our safety concerns, our neighborly concerns but still satisfy their needs. I only have one question. That parking lot is a little confined. Do you intend to have those big concrete posts surrounding this thing so if somebody comes around the corner they're not going to run into the silo? MR. BOZADIS: Yes, that's correct. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I concur with Member Brennan's comments and am pleased to see that you've worked with us to resolve this issue. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: I also concur. I did have a question. When I drove by the site the air conditioner seemed closer to the building than it
seems like it is on the map that I have in front of me. Will you be moving that in order to -- MR. BOZADIS: Yes, they will be relocating it. It may be on top of the unit or even in the front part -- actually in the front part of the vessel or in the side of the refrigeration unit we have. MEMBER FISCHER: I bring that up just because I'm very happy as well that they seem to be working with us in order to get their variances accepted. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. I too, am very pleased especially after following our instructions last month in going back and working with the fire department and it just goes to show what working together can -- this is a positive result. I'm very pleased and everyone's happy. So having said that, is there a motion to be made? MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Any others? MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry. Go ahead and do the motion. I jumped in too soon. I want a discussion on the motion.
MEMBER BRENNAN: We haven't made it. MR. SAVEN: I understand. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I realize the board is very large tonight. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair, I'll make a motion with respect to Case 03 dash 117 that petitioner has had compliance with the restriction of the ordinances would unreasonably prevent the use of the property to be unnecessary and I'll reference the five items that he spoke of previous. So with that I would move for approval of all variances as submitted tonight. MEMBER GRAY: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved. Is there any further discussion on the motion. Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair, if I may, it appears as though we're leaning in a certain matter as far as this approval or disapproval and what I would like to bring up is the fact that there is a letter on file from the fire department for compliance to chapter 33 to installation of this unit. I would ask that that become part of the approval or disapproval, whatever it may be, and also the fact is
that taking a look at the location of the enclosure that it be somewhat consistent with some facade material that is there in present with the building. I'm not sure whether painting is going to be satisfactory or not in that particular area, but if there is anything to be worked out with the planning department I would really appreciate that being part of the motion. MEMBER BRENNAN: Accepted. MR. SAVEN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Any further discussion? Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes four to zero.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your variances have been granted. Congratulations. Good luck to you. MR. BOZADIS: Thank you, very much.
Case No. 03-102 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's call our next case. Case number 03-102 filed by Elaine Lafer at 25890 Strath Haven Drive. Ms. Lafer is requesting five variances for the construction of a new home located at the address that I just gave in the Pioneers Meadows subdivision. Good evening. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you want to give us your names and raise your right hand to be sworn. MS. LAFER: Elaine Lafer. MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir? MR. PRESLEY: Greg Presley. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you're going to give us will be the truth? MR. PRESLEY: Yes. MS. LAFER: Mr. Presley is the architect that's been helping me. I'll start with the front request. MR. PRESLEY: No. Let me go ahead and take it. MS. LAFER: Okay. Mr. Presley is going to take it.
MR. PRESLEY: The lot that we have there is a nonconforming lot. It's lot 95 in Pioneer Meadows. In fact, all of the subdivision, as you know, is a nonconforming subdivision. All of the lots are somewhere around 12,000 square feet. Whereas R-A zoning requires a full acre. So we're just a hair over a quarter of an acre. In fact, the subdivision acts more like R-3 zoning. The subdivision is perhaps two-thirds built out or three-quarters built out and all of the houses that are on those lots have, I'm sure, required variances in order to build. We looked at the variance -- the setbacks of the neighbors and we have attempted to create a house that would fit in the neighborhood in terms of the size of it and the scale of it and the location of it. Our argument would be that strict enforcement of the requirements of the R-A zoning, which require the setbacks, as you know, would result in a buildable envelope of 1250 square feet. That subdivision does requires attached garages. So that if one were to have, let's say, a two-car attached garage, that would render the buildable building area to be less than what is also allowed by R-A zoning which is a thousand square feet, minimum square
footage. Mrs. Lafer desires to have a one level home and we would like -- I'm trying to accommodate that. When Mrs. Lafer first came to me she had brought a plan that the -- building plan that would have required a 23 foot rear yard variance. We worked on her requirements and came up with a unique plan that increased that rear yard requirement to 35 feet. So, in fact, then, what our building, proposed building does accomplish is to sit within the requirements as if it were R-3 zoning and, in fact, it is. The building is 40 feet setback on the front side, 35 on the rear. We had the building located to 65 feet wide which is pretty average for that neighborhood. We had it situated 15 feet off the south property line which is where the neighbor has it to the south, situated 15 feet off. However, the subdivision requested that we center the building in the property and that meant that we needed to go for one more variance. Originally at 15 feet off we would have complied with the north side 20 foot rear minimum side yard setback. Centered we need five variances including total both sides. We have a letter of support -- let me
point out one more thing before we get to that. The neighbor on the south side has -- and I'll put it the same way that it has on my drawing. My drawing shows the edge of that building which, if I place it over it, there is a portion of the building which is bumped back. That's a family room and that indeed is 35 feet off of the rear property line. So we are asking for no more of a variance than our neighbor to the south of us probably got. We are -- the house itself would be 1660 square feet, a three bedroom, two bath house with modest proportions and modest room sizes. We do have a letter of support from the subdivision and they are the ones that requested that we center the building on the property. We understand that there have been two letters of objection and one would be the neighbor -- not really a neighbor. The person that owns the property to the north and our response to that letter would be that the width of the house is about the same as other neighbors have in that neighborhood. On an issue of lesser variance we did look at the possibility of reducing a size of the house but we have gone as far as we can, we think, in terms of making the house a
reasonable size for her needs and fitting it in the neighborhood on a way we feel is appropriate. So we hope we balanced all these objectives and created something that you might consider. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make comments with regards to this case? Seeing none, there were 33 notices sent. Five approvals including the subdivision association letter and two objections as Mr. Presley spoke. One is from a Mr. Cabadis (ph) who is not able to be here due to personal reasons and he owns the vacant lot number 96. The address of that -- I'm sorry, I guess there is no address for his lot. It's lot 96. The other objection is from Charles and Cathy Bedrow (ph) on 47256 Sierra Drive. Their concern is the size of the house given that this is an older neighborhood. The rest were basic approvals. Building department? MR. SAVEN: As indicated in the past this is probably one of our most difficult subdivisions that we hear variances on strictly for the fact that when the subdivision was approved the zoning chains that were about this subdivision and, as
was told earlier on, this is an R-A zoning district which requires an acre of property and these lots -- most of these lots are not an acre. So it's very difficult to place something on it and most people will come before a board. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Board members? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Normally with new construction I'm not real thrilled with lots and lots of variances. I do know that this is an older subdivision. Was it always zoned R-A, Don? MR. SAVEN: No. It went back to, I believe, an R-4 zoning district at one time. Plus we lost the grandfathering provision in regards to the ten-foot setback requirements and that makes things a little difficult now. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Thanks. Living in an R-4 sub in the older part of the city as well I know how difficult it can be to build and what I look at what you are proposing and what is already in existence in the subdivision, I don't see that it's going to be that different. It's not going to be anymore intrusive than any of these other houses.
We've heard several variances over the past few years for additions on these houses and we've granted them, generally speaking. So although this is new construction I'm going to be in support of all five of the variances requested for those reasons. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Thanks, Sarah, you stole my thunder. It's a house designed to match all the other houses in the subdivision. It's centered. It has the same setbacks as all the other houses. I guess the only other thing that I would point out is that there's very strong support from the association and they've been around awhile. That sub has been there since 1957 and with their support, you've got mine. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm stumped. To be honest with you, I was not in favor of it when I first looked at this case and then forgot about the R-A zoning. So in light of it -- because later on down the road someone will be sure to tell us how we voted tonight and didn't hear the whole case. So I would like to tell the residences this is a rare
occasion when we grant these kind of variances due to lot size and due to the history of the subdivision. So I would support it as well and if anyone would like to make a motion. Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of case 03 dash 102 move that we grant all five variances requested due to the lot size and configuration that it does not meet the current zoning and that does not have anymore of an effect on the neighborhood than the existing houses already there. MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes four to zero. MR. PRESLEY: Thank you very much. MS. LAFER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You're welcome. Please see the building department.
Case No. 04-001 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's call case number 04-001 filed by Jeffrey Kasper of Planet Neon for Harold's Frame Shop at 44170 Grand River Avenue. Harold's Frame Shop is requesting three sign variances to erect one sign located at the above address, west of Novi Road and north of Grand River Avenue. Good evening. MR. WITENGA: Good evening. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are you both testifying? MS. NIXON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER BRENNAN: Why don't you give us your names first. MR. WITENGA: My name is Michael Witenga (ph). I'm a sales representative for Planet Neon. MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. MS. NIXON: My name is Shelly Nixon. I work at Harold's Frame Shop on Grand River Avenue.
MEMBER BRENNAN: Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that everything you're going to tell us is the truth? MS. NIXON: Yes. MR. WITENGA: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. MR. WITENGA: Good evening. I believe you all have these superimposed images on the digital photos and the reason why we're proposing the size of the sign that we are is not to be distracting at all to the community. Our position is that with the bridge, the newly built bridge at the height that it is is that it is very difficult to see Harold's Frame Shop and also would be impossible to see a sign if it were at the five feet limit by the City. And, as you can see by the photos, there is a photo where my sales manager and I were actually at the middle of the bridge, at the highest point of the bridge, and you can see -- from the view of the sign, you can just see the top of the sign. So this is when you're even first starting to see the sign. So in reality you don't have a lot of time. The westbound traffic doesn't have a lot of time to necessarily even slow
down to turn into the entrance of Harold's Frame Shop even at the -- I would say even at the proposed height that we have here because you are just starting to see it at the middle of the bridge. And, as you see, as you're making your way down the bridge going westbound that the sign comes more and more into view. But we felt that this was a reasonable height for the sign given the height of the bridge and the height of the wall that obscures Harold's Frame Shop. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Anything else? MS. NIXON: I just wanted to reiterate it's just been a sign that we've needed for a very long time and due to the things that happened with the bridge over the years, the funding was lost. I mean, it was just, you know, some things happened. Because the bridge was supposed to be done a couple of times in the last ten years and we're finally wanting to get rid of the old sign that we had to get an updated new sign and we're not trying to be intrusive on anyone. It seems to be -- we've got a couple of different types we've looked at the positioning of the signs and this seems to be the only place to put the sign. The only -- you know, the only other place we
had thought and suggested them to put the sign was like right at the edge of the driveway and DMS Excavating was the one that said no because they were worried about the edge of the driveway. Worrying about sliding around the barriers that were there and he was the one that suggested me to push it back and put it in where they suggested it. So it wasn't really the height. You know, we're just trying to get it over the bridge. The bridge was considerably higher than the last proposal that we seen from the Road Commission. You know, it's just the way it had to be. I mean, the bridge looks really nice right now. It's really going to be an advantage to the city. You can walk across the bridge now and that's part of the reason why the barriers had to be that way. So that's all I really wanted to add. We're not trying to make it -- we're just trying to make it nice for the whole city. We don't want it to be -- just an added benefit to the traffic that's going to be up and down the road in the near future with the Expo Center going in. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment in regards to this case?
Seeing none. There were twelve notices sent and seven objections. Residents on Clark Street, on Whipple Street. Mostly Clark. One objection from Grand River. Grand River again. Whipple and Whipple. The gist of the letters indicate that these residents are objecting to this sign due to the fact that this is a residential area as well and they don't feel that a sign -- and I almost get the impression that they don't want a sign there at all. "An approval would establish an obviously repugnant precedent. Perspective customers for such a business are typically not impulsive buyers. Most likely they have an address and phone number available. After 40 plus years Harold's employees should be able to find their way to work. There are other options. From the point of view their building and parking lot are more than enough exposed." That's from Andrew and Gloria Downey at 26030 Clark Street. Patricia and Robert Shaw at 26065 Whipple, "Please do not allow this variance. This 40 foot sign would be clearly visible from our second floor bedroom. This would also make the appearance of a highway truck stop. The custom
before other businesses on Grand River request their own variance. Please restrict this business to having the same ordinances that all the other business on Grand River must adhere to." Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of issues. I was aware that the height of the bridge would be brought up tonight so I did get with our engineers referencing the height of the bridge. That bridge is approximately two foot higher than the bridge that was there previous according to our city engineers and this is a pylon sign. This is a rather unusual nature for a request as far as the height is concerned and I believe that they're trying to effectively have some kind of identification from the trafficking that runs from east to west off of Grand River. MR. WITENGA: Correct. May I speak to the some of the letters for a second? I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Not at this time. MR. WITENGA: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Will the sign be lit at
night? MR. WITENGA: That is something that we would like to discuss with the board. Shelly and I discussed this actually in the hallway before we entered and she is more than willing to have the sign on a timer if that would be more agreeable to the board to where it would shut off at a certain time so that it's -- you know, their customer base isn't going to need it into the late hours of the night so that would be something that we would like to discuss with you. MEMBER GRAY: My question is raised because with a sign of this height, there's going to be a certain amount of light that's going to be shed everywhere and one of the letters brought that up. If the sign was approved -- and I understand why you're doing it. And I also want you to know that I really appreciate your offer to remove all the building signs in exchange -- I think that it has to be turned off at some point. I mean, I know what your normal business hours are and they're usually Monday through Friday. Are you open on Saturday? MS. NIXON: No, we're not. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. And this is a
destination place. I grew up in Redford Township and everybody in the world knows where Harold's Frame Shop is. MEMBER BRENNAN: Eight Mile and Beech. MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. I thought it was Telegraph. MEMBER BRENNAN: Eight Mile and Beech, correct? MS. NIXON: Yes. It's a mile from Telegraph. MEMBER GRAY: But the point is that this is a destination place. The people that are going to come here are going to come because they know your reputation and it is going to take some getting used to with the new bridge and I can support the sign if it's going to be a timer on it to turn off the sign so that it isn't intrusive on the neighbors across the street and south of Grand River. Thank you. MR. WITENGA: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: I also agree about turning off the sign. I was going to bring up a
possible dimming it or something of that sort but, of course, turning it off would be the best option. In reference to the signs on the building I see about -- I see four sets. Is there a way to show them what I'm talking about? Do you have this? MR. SAVEN: I believe their variance is they're going to take down the other signs. So those would not be an issue as far as should they be part of the motion. The other signs would come down. MEMBER FISCHER: Well, my question lies in the fact that I saw that there were three signs that they were going to remove but there was four different sets of signs. MEMBER GRAY: That's the building. MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you for clarifying that. MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan, I'm going to keep calling you Member Bauer but that's out of force of habit. Sorry. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll shave my beard. The variance request is submitted
when a petitioner has presented a case for hardship. And I think Harold's has a case for hardship. The bridge is taller. Their view of their building is obscured. I don't have any problem with the sign as presented or even the size of the sign presented. I do have a problem with the height and I note if Jim Harrington is watching tonight he's just squirming in his chair because we do not consider sign variances without mockups. And I can't drive over that bridge and see where 40 foot is. So the best I can do is study and restudy these pictures and I don't believe that you need to have that sign 40 feet in the air and I think that you can do with something less and, while I hate to negotiate, 30 feet is what I wrote down. I believe you need the sign and I think it's a good place for it. MR. WITENGA: Right. MEMBER BRENNAN: But given the residential issues and that's -- I know that the young couple that live right across the street from you, right across the street, and they have two little boys and if they don't have to see that sign illuminated either day or night I think they would be a lot happier. I don't know what 30 feet does for you.
Whether that's workable but that's my thoughts. MR. WITENGA: Can I respond to that? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, let all the board members and then we can go there. MR. WITENGA: I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude in any way. I'm just not used to the decorum. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: That's quite all right. I'm going to take the middle of the road and tie what Member Gray and Member Brennan has said. This is a destination location. It's not like if I'm going out on a Sunday drive looking for a business that I'm going to drive to go shopping at. If I'm coming to Harold's Frame Shop I'm coming for a sole purpose, am I not? Am I correct? And usually there's phone calls involved and some sort of conversation saying, "By the way, where are you located? And I'm going to find you because I heard about your business," or whatever. So I tie that in with what Member Gray says and I tie that in with what Member Brennan said because that height isn't necessarily what needs to be there. The identification, I agree, needs to be there. It's
unfortunate that the bridge is higher and if you were a brand new business we would be looking at a different reason or a different hardship but at this point -- and I thank Member Brennan for bringing this up. What kind of hardship have you gone through since -- I mean, obviously with the bridge out and all the construction but have you had a loss of business because of people not being able to find you? MS. NIXON: In my opinion we have. Because I work at both locations. I work at Redford and I also work at Novi. Sometimes I work on the counter just to hear a conversation. There's a lot of conversation in both areas. There's a lot of conversation in the Detroit shop going, "Do you have another location?" You're right. We've been in Novi since 1970. You would think that everyone knows where we are. I'm shocked at the amount of people that don't. I sit in Novi and people ask me about Redford. "That place is still there? What lasts 50 years?" So I take both of your positions. I'm surprised at the people that really don't know but just need a little reminder with the sign being there
that we are there. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I guess what I'm looking for is that, you know, being that Member Brennan brought it the hardship of people not being able to find you and I don't know that a 40 foot sign is going to help. I agree a sign of some sort by that bridge will help. I don't think the building of the bridge helped you at all. I'm sure that delayed it. So I'm torn and I'm looking for assistance from the other members. You helped me a great deal on this but I can't support the height. MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's ask the petitioner. Can you put that sign at 30 feet and will it serve your purpose? MR. WITENGA: Of course we can. We can definitely change the height. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. MR. WITENGA: Okay. MEMBER BRENNAN: You can see where I'm going. I agree that the sign is needed. You're a long-time business and I sure want to keep you there. If I had a mockup that would convince me that that sign based on the mockup was right, I'd be compelled, but all I got is what I got. I mean, I'm looking at
this picture as we're going to the top and we're just starting to see the top of it. A 40 foot sign, this type of sign is if not what we -- we've been trying to get Marty Feldman's dang signs out of here for the last ten years and now we're looking at considering putting another one, but I think you have a hardship. If you can put that sign in that location at 30 feet you've got my support. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: The utility pole that is next to where you're proposing to put this, how high is that utility pole? MR. WITENGA: That's about 30 feet. MEMBER GRAY: Thirty feet. Can you live with 30 feet? MS. NIXON: I can live with whatever sign you say. MR. WITENGA: The reason why we proposed 40 feet is to give it a little more visibility as you're at the top of that bridge and to just give the motorists time to slow down and turn into the parking lot. MEMBER BRENNAN: It's a tough
location. You're real low. MR. WITENGA: Right. MEMBER BRENNAN: The bridge is high. MR. WITENGA: It's a valley. MEMBER BRENNAN: I agree you need that sign. Thirty would be great. MEMBER GRAY: If you can live with thirty you might have a deal. MEMBER BRENNAN: Don has his hand up. MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair, one of the issues that wasn't brought up is there was an existing grounds sign there previous, if you can remember. During the course of business it was on two poles. It had a lean-to type of roof over it. I believe that size of the sign would not exceed eight foot in height. It was almost by a four by eight sheet of plywood with Harold's Frame Shop on that particular location and that was out front at that particular location for several years and we still had the same condition that was there with the bridge being there also. So I know that the bridge is two foot higher than it was but I mean all the facts are presented. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member
Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I think it's probably obvious to everyone but Harold's is looking to clean up their site. They've taken a lot of the old lettering off of the building. They've taken three existing signs off and put up a very, very nice decorative sign made by a local Novi business to maintain the Novi business. I have no problem with it. And I think we got a nod from the applicant that thirty foot is acceptable. Are they still nodding? MR. SAVEN: Just one other issue. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Don? MR. SAVEN: We did not go for public comment yet if there was anybody else. MEMBER GRAY: I thought we did. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I did. MR. SAVEN: You did? I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There was nobody in the audience and we had seven objections. MS. NIXON: Harold wanted to speak, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, he's part of you guys so he can come on up. MR. DAVIS: My name is Harold Davis.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Davis, would you raise your right hand and be sworn in, please. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you swear or affirm that everything you're going tell us is the truth? MR. DAVIS: Yes. The sign height, one thing I wanted to point out the sign is going to be facing east and west so people across the street are only going to see the corner and I'm pretty sure it's a type of sign that it's not going to be a bright sign. It's more like a glow type. So it's not, you know, going to shine up the whole neighborhood. My only concern if thirty feet works, I don't have a problem, but is there a way we can test it and make sure? MEMBER BRENNAN: That's what we wanted you to do. MR. DAVIS: It would be something like floating up a balloon on a string or something like that? MR. WITENGA: Basically, I feel you can really tell by viewing the light pole. The light pole is at thirty feet so really you can see that
coming down the bridge but you can't see it until you get past the barrier wall. MR. DAVIS: You know, it's just my concern is that you spend all this money and then you find that thirty feet, it don't work. That's what I'm concerned about. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I understand and since everyone keeps bringing up the mockup and since I'm the one that made the decision it was due to the weather conditions and the frozen ground it was my understanding at least reported to me that you could not put it in the ground to do a mockup. MR. DAVIS: Right. It made it difficult. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So that was the report that I got and due to the circumstances agreed to go without a mockup. The only suggestion that I can do is if you gentlemen, if you're not comfortable with the thirty feet you do have the option to table and if you want to come up with a mockup to test the height, because this board doesn't -- I mean, you know, we're doing this based on, you know, what if. If you don't think you're going to be happy with that my suggestion would be to
table it and do a test on however you're going to come up with that mockup and then you can come back. Did you want to take a minute and discuss this and we can move on to the next case? MR. WITENGA: I'm sorry. We're just sitting here talking. MR. DAVIS: It's fine, I guess. MR. WITENGA: If the board is agreeable we would be happy to comply with the thirty foot height that you proposed. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chairperson? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion with respect to case number 04 dash 001 that the petitioner's request for a sign variance of thirty feet which would be a pole sign to provide business recognition. The petitioner is also agreeable to removing all existing signage on the building and that the sign while illuminated during the day will be off during off business hours. Fair enough; is that okay? MR. DAVIS: One other thing. There should probably be a time stipulated, you know, at this point in time, you know, so that later down the
road it won't be a he said she said. MEMBER BRENNAN: As far as when the sign is on and off? MR. DAVIS: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you want to define that now? MS. NIXON: I would feel more comfortable. Because your opinion would matter. MEMBER BRENNAN: No. It's your business. You tell me when you're going to turn it on and off. When do you open, at 7:00? MS. NIXON: Seven o'clock is when the first person gets there. MEMBER BRENNAN: You close at 7:00? MS. NIXON: We close at 5:30 at 5:30. I would think 5:00 to 7:00 would be fine. MEMBER BRENNAN: In the summertime obviously -- it's not as big of an issue in the summertime. It's winter when it's dark at 5:30 so 7:00 to 7:00 with the added stipulation that the sign is only on from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I think that's a motion. MEMBER FISCHER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there any
further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes four to zero. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. Your variance has been granted at thirty feet. Thank you very much.
Case No. 04-002 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All right. Let's call our next case, 04-002 filed by Ralph Stoy of RBS Company at 39659 Orchard Hill. Mr. Stoy is requesting a 53 foot parking lot parking setback variance for the construction of an addition to a parking lot located 39650 Orchard Hills Place Drive. Gentlemen, would you state your names please and be sworn in by our secretary. MR. STOY: My Name is Ralph Stoy from the RBS Companies and with me today is -- MR. MAMOLA: Lee Mamola, associates architect. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I know you're not. Are you an attorney? MR. MAMOLA: No, I'm an architect. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you both raise your right hands and be sworn. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this case is the truth? MR. STOY: Yes. MR. MAMOLA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thanks. MR. MAMOLA: I would start, Madame Chair and Members of the Board, thank you for hearing this case. I'm helping Mr. Stoy and his company obtain the variance and I would like to let the board be aware of how we got to this point today. We started really with a meeting back in early December, Tim Schmidt had it initially as an application to expand the parking lot which can be done on an administrative review. It was obvious apparent that we needed to obtain a variance because the plan for expansion did not comply with the ordinance requirements and I pointed that out that should you feel so inclined to grant this variance tonight the next step would be a full-fledged plan review and would be subject to landscaping design, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So it was somewhat of an administrative maneuver to get in front of you at this time tonight. The nature of the appeal is really rooted in historic contents of the zoning requirements. In front of you I have a color diagram of what you should have in your packets as a print. The existing building is a little more than a 12,000
square foot square office building and initially was designed as an administrative office building, technical sales and similar type functions. Now Mr. Stoy's company is seeking to renovate the building to accommodate doctor offices for the most part which has a higher demand for parking requirements per the ordinance and in order to comply with the parking requirements we have the city to expand the parking area. If you look at where the parking area can expand we only have two choices. One would be in the front yard and the other is we're proposing in the rear yard. The building front yard setback at its nearest point existing is 108 feet. The ordinance only requires 35 feet. There are some nice trees on that front yard and it's a rather attractive front yard and I think that whoever designed this site plan initially probably made a good decision to maintain what's called the environmental asthetics of that front yard. Particularly as you enter the Orchard Hill Park Place. Our proposal would move the parking. It would provide a number of parking spaces per ordinance but would put the nearest parking space within 47 feet of the residential property which is to
the west. There was a point in time at about what the time when this project was initially built. I'm going to say '88 to '89 somewhere in there, that that would have applied and then shortly thereafter that distance of 40 feet was moved to 60 feet and shortly thereafter that 60 feet was moved to a 100 feet and I reference this only because I'm well familiar with all the parking standards as they changed. Particularly in the early '80s -- late '80s early '90s as the town saw the enormous amount of site plans come through and they were forever it seemed like and then you just -- its zoning board ordinances particularly as one project was built and ordinances might have been adopted to at somewhat reactionary. Our hardship would be that we cannot comply with the ordinance requirements for parking unless we literally move the building. If we did put the parking in the front yard we would require a variance because we are not allowed to have parking in the front yard. There is some variance work. You might be able to get one or two spaces in the front yard. With that I guess that's the nature
of our request. Though we did meet with Mr. Schmidt back in December he stated that this had the support of the planning department, this request for the variance, and I'd also point out this building has been vacant now for several years. That it represents an opportunity to clean up the backyard. That those residents that do back up to this area are currently looking at an unoccupied building somewhat of an area to gather late evenings with certain kind of people that might tend to go to dark parking lots. The applicant is willing to provide additional landscaping screening in that what is the existing four foot berm there now. I think in the long run this is going to improve the view from the residents as they look toward this site and gives the community one less vacant building. Rob, do you have anything to add? MR. STOY: No. Again, the issue is that in the traditional office I don't know if we need the variance because we have probably sufficient car parking and building ordinances have changed over the years, but with well over 50 percent going to one doctor and we're looking at another tenant -- it will be all medical. And the parking is critical, of
course, and they do use a lot of it. So that's our situation and when we came in to talk with the planning department they directed us because of the changes in the ordinance that existed from the time the building was built until now. MR. MAMOLA: I'll point out that we could theoretically push the parking a few feet away from the residences and towards the building. However, that would require another variance. We do have the required landscape buffer now between the back wall of the building and five foot pedestrian walk is proposed so that people can get out of their cars and have a place to walk safely. So this is really -- well, we could move it closer to it and we would, in effect, require a greater variance and really no increase in effect and no great value. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. MAMOLA: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make a comment in regards to this case? Seeing none, there were twelve notices sent. No approvals. No objections. Building department?
MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of questions. In regards to the berm that's shown on the property, the existing berm, you'll be discussing this with the planning department to probably extend that berm to accommodate that additional parking? MR. STOY: We already did. It actually goes across the whole back. It's pretty high and pretty obscured now. Again, if there is additional berming or planting that's required that will not be an issue for us and something we would resolve with the planning department. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, this petitioner's between a hard spot and a rock. He's required to increase the number of parking spots to meet one ordinance and in doing so creates a problem with setback. I only had one issue and I had lots of stars around it that said neighbors. And I don't see any neighbors that have objections. I don't have any letters that have been referenced to suggest any issues or problems. I'll point out as well that the projected use of this facility is a medical building?
MR. STOY: Um-hmm. MEMBER BRENNAN: So there's no night traffic. This is business from 8:00 to 5:00. MR. MAMOLA: For the most part, yeah. MEMBER BRENNAN: And then the doctors go home. So it's a very light use. I support your request. MR. STOY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Anyone else? MEMBER GRAY: Present a motion, Frank? MEMBER BRENNAN: Sure. With respect to case 04 dash 002 I would move to the approval of the variance request due to lot configuration and the need to meet new ordinance with respect to parking spaces. MEMBER FISCHER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?
MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes four to zero. MR. STOY: Thank you. MR. MAMOLA: Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The board's going to take just a short five minute break and we'll start back with our next case. (A short recess was taken.)
Case No. 04-003 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. We'll call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting back to order and call our next case 04-003, Stone City, Inc. at 26940 Taft Road. Roger Soulliere is requesting a variance to continue the use of outdoor storage in an I-1 zoning district for the business known as Stone City, Incorporated. The applicant is requesting a three-year variance similar to a previous ZBA case. The property is located north of Grand River and east of Taft. Good evening, would you please state your name and raise your right hand to be sworn in by our secretary. MS. BARBENGER: Dawn Barbenger (ph). MR. SOULLIERE: Roger Soulliere. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you're going to give us tonight is the truth? MS. BARBENGER: Yes. MR. SOULLIERE: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thanks. MR. SOULLIERE: Hi. Thanks for letting me come in today. We seem to have missed our
last meeting and we do apologize greatly. I was out of town and, Dawn, which is the general manager out there has been there all year trying to get things to run real smooth was in the hospital during that time so we apologize for that. We are asking for an extension on the lease. You've been gracious enough to give us two so far. Each one three years. So far we've been able to get a lot of the local Novi people to come to our store. Service them with deliveries, keeping it close. Keeping the traffic down to a minimum. We are in a high visible area but lost down at the end of Taft. We had plenty of hardships throughout the summers here which we are hopeful to reap the fruits of the Grand River being fixed up a little bit but during the whole last year we had no opportunity for people to come down our road. They stopped coming a lot. Our mail got rerouted which we knew this was for the betterment of the community and we kind of just bit our lip and figured that the best would come. We're asking to extend this. We have four more years left on our lease there and one of our biggest goals of Stone City is to put a permanent site and we are looking now since we have four years we
feel we would like to stay in the Novi area if we find a place suitable for some outside storage. If not, maybe just, you know, have a building big enough to store some of the stuff inside. We know that we would have to have something suitable by planning and we're going to start working that out. We would like to be able to grant this and we would like to offer up that we could split this into maybe two years and then the two years since there is four years left instead of three. Give you an opportunity to make sure that we keep, you know, our site clear. Dawn, that's her directive to make sure, you know, dust stays down and to keep things cleaned up and we don't let piles come up. Our motto this year is we're trying to tighten up all our businesses to have them clean, no access. You know, keep it as tight as possible with the economy the way it is. We still can serve the Novi area, the Stonewater, maybe the different areas up and down on Beck. We would like to continue that if you would allow us. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make a comment in regards to this case?
Seeing none, building department? Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Thank you. Just two comments. Earlier on we had an issue regarding wetlands violation which has been corrected since that time. It has been ongoing and our wetlands consultant was out there and those issues was taken care of, but one of the issues I want to bring up if the board so chooses for this approval I would suggest that it be under continuing jurisdiction and in any matter that is part of this approval -- I do apologize. Anyhow, as I was indicating, that should the board decide to vote for the approval I would ask that it be under continuing jurisdiction and as Mr. Soulliere had indicated if he has a four year lease maximizing I would suggest that we would have him come back after two years at that particular time. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Board members? MEMBER GRAY: Any notices? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There were twelve notices sent. No approvals, no objections. None returned. Member Brennan?
MEMBER BRENNAN: As I recall this case you took over a business that had a lot of old history and you went through a lot of effort to clean that old history up. I only had one question of the building department. Over the last three years from the last extension has there been any issues with the building department as far as citations or problems? MR. SAVEN: There was issues regarding the wetland issues which has been resolved. MEMBER BRENNAN: Since our last variance there's been another? MR. SAVEN: The last variance was issued -- MR. SCHULTZ: '99. MR. SAVEN: Pardon? MR. SCHULTZ: 1999. MR. SAVEN: 1999. MEMBER BRENNAN: So since or last variance issue has there been any problems there? MR. SAVEN: There was an issue regarding the wetlands and that issue has been resolved. It's been a very lowland area in that particular area and I'm not pulling any punches here,
we have flood plain issues and overlapping blinds pursuant to the GIS but there was issue concerning the wetlands where there may have been storage in that area and that is now since cleaned up. MEMBER BRENNAN: I guess what I was getting to is if they have four years left on their lease I wouldn't have any problem granting a four-year variance with continued jurisdiction. They've been a good neighbor and a good business. They've struggled through this Grand River issue as others in that area and I think this is an opportunity to help a business that's been good in the city. That's my thoughts. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I can agree with that. Mr. Souilliere, you did say you're looking in the city to stay in the city? MR. SOULLIERE: I would like to. MEMBER GRAY: So we could also limit the variance to this tenant as well, could we not, for the storage? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you, okay. Member Fischer, any comments? MEMBER FISCHER: No comments.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I don't know that I'm comfortable with a four-year extension. I agree with Member Brennan's comments; however, I'm not comfortable with just letting it go for the four years. So I'm willing to support the two years. The reason being that they're not -- I realize that you want to stay in the area but given the history and everything I'm just not comfortable with letting it go for that long. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion with respect to Case 04 dash 003 that the petitioner's variance request be extended for two years with a continued jurisdiction by the building department. MEMBER GRAY: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. It's been moved and approved. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes four to zero. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your variance has been granted. MR. SOULLIERE: Thank you, very much.
Case No. 04-005 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have case number 04-005 filed by Jill Porter at 23034 Balcombe Street. Ms. Porter is requesting a variance for the construction of an addition to an existing home in the Meadowbrook Lake subdivision. MS. PORTER: Good evening. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good evening. Would you please state your name and raise your right hand to be sworn in by our secretary. MS. PORTER: Jill Porter. MR. PORTER: Donald Porter. MEMBER BRENNAN: Hi. MS. PORTER: Hi. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you swear or affirm that what you're going to tell us tonight will be the truth? MS. PORTER: Yes. MR. PORTER: Yes. MS. PORTER: My husband Donald and I would like to request a three foot, four inch variance to build an addition to the back of our house. The reason we need it is because we have a vinyl in-ground pool that right now lays about ten feet, eight inches
from our house and with the addition bumped out four feet and ten inches it would be six feet, six inches away from the pool but it would also -- the bump out or addition would be even with the back part of our house and I have a very small kitchen and I even have pictures if you would like to see and it's very compact and with this four feet addition it would just really expand the kitchen and the square footage and it would be very nice for my husband and my children. I'm a homemaker and I stay home and bake a lot and I cook and I would love that. Would love a bigger kitchen. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to- MEMBER FISCHER: (Interposing) I'm sorry. I believe he might have had something to say. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. MR. PORTER: I was just going to say that the kitchen -- the subdivision is thirty something years old and the kitchen has not been updated. This would also help increase the value of the home and be consistent with some of the other updates within that subdivision. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. I take
it there's no one in the audience that wishes to make any comments in regards to this case. There were, however, 33 notices sent and you had six approvals. Everyone in the neighborhood or at least everyone around you is very happy to hear that you're doing this. Building department? MR. SAVEN: They did their homework. Good job. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I think I recall probably half a dozen cases involving additions with respect to swimming pools. And I have always gotten nervous when the addition had a roof that might allow for kids jumping off roofs into pools. I remember one time, gosh, I just didn't like what they were presenting. That's not the case here. So I guess the short story is I have no problem with your desires as long as you're willing to build it. MR. PORTER: That's the other problem. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?
MEMBER FISCHER: I also agree that safety in that manner is definitely very important. The fact that my biggest concern would also be your neighbors as well and the fact that notices were sent and they were sent back with approvals leads me to support this motion. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Do we have an approval from the homeowner's association? MS. PORTER: I do have a letter here. MEMBER GRAY: So we have the approval from the homeowner's association then and as well as your neighbors. So my only comment when I saw this was why don't you take it farther to the east -- I'm sorry. To the south and squaring off the whole thing but you have that door wall there. MR. PORTER: The pool equipment is going to go off on that side which limits the amount of space we have. MEMBER GRAY: I don't have a problem. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is that a motion? MEMBER GRAY: It could be a motion.
In the matter of Case Number 04-005 look for the approval to the variance requested because the -- I don't see any impact, negative impact, on the neighbors or the subdivision with this. MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. It's been moved and approved any further discussion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes four to zero. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your variance has been granted. Please see the building department. MS. PORTER: Thank you very much. MEMBER BRENNAN: Bring us cookies.
MEMBER FISCHER: First Tuesday of every month. Case No. 04-006 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Our last case of the evening is 04-006 filed by George C. Ross Signature Associates for Real Estate Sign at 28331 Haggerty Road. They are requesting two sign variances to obtain oversize road signs at the site of five acres located at the site on his property. Good evening. MR. ROSS: Good evening. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: State your name and raise your right hand to be sworn in by our secretary. MR. ROSS: My name is George Ross with Signature Associates. Our offices are located at One Town Square, Southfield, Michigan. If I could preface by asking you a favor. My hearing aid battery died as I drove in the parking lot. So I'm having a little difficulty hearing. So I'm going to ask you to speak up just a little bit so I can hear you.
MEMBER BRENNAN: Raise your hand again. Do you swear or affirm that what you are going to tell us tonight is the truth? MR. ROSS: Yes, I do. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. MR. ROSS: Thank you. The subject property on Haggerty Road is within what is known as the Haggerty corridor. Which I'm sure you are familiar with. It's owned by Mr. Art Cervi who is a long-time resident of the city of Novi. A very active resident in the city of Novi who is desirous of selling his property and has retained us to do so. The sign variances that we're requesting are a result of the topography of the property. I don't know if you visited the site but Haggerty Road is about ten or twelve feet above his property. And in order to put a sign advertising the property for sale behind the road right of way is actually in a hole and the elevation at that point is about five feet below Haggerty Road. So the sign is for all practical purposes invisible. So, in essence, even though the sign variance that I'm asking for, eight feet, exceeds the current ordinance requirement. From the standpoint of Haggerty Road visibility. It's still below the five feet level but
at least it will be somewhat visible. So it will attempt to do the job for Mr. Cervi. The other issue or the thing that I was trying to attempt to do is because of, again, the topography and the fact that Haggerty Road is a high speed road, you whiz by a six foot square sign and it's invisible. I've been involved in the sale of leasing of industrial property in the city of Novi for over thirty years and I have never come to you folks for a variance on any of these signs. I've always complied. In this particular case I think the ordinance serves a disservice to Mr. Cervi in the attempts to market property. Vacant land in the city of Novi allows 16 square feet. The property even though there's a home on the property, the property is being marketed as a development site and in essence as a vacant development site. Because the home will be removed by whoever buys it and it will be redeveloped under the OST zoning. So on that basis, I'm asking for a variance to allow a sign that would normally be used for vacant land. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. All
set. There is no one in the audience to make any comments on this case and there were nine notices sent and one approval from Americentre Novi at 28175 Haggerty Road. Basically, reiterating exactly what the petitioner just told us about the speed of Haggerty Road and the location. Building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: How long has the sign been there now? MR. ROSS: How long will it be there? MEMBER GRAY: How long has it been there? MR. ROSS: It was just erected about a month ago. MEMBER GRAY: About a month ago? MR. ROSS: Yes. Actually a little over a month ago when I was advised by Mr. Amish (ph) that I would have to get a variance. MEMBER GRAY: So you put it up before? MR. ROSS: Right. I received a
letter from Mr. Amish saying I wasn't in compliance with the ordinance. I either had to remove the sign or submit for a variance. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROSS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, this is another one of those between a rock and a hard spot. We could ask him to go in and tear down that building which is going to come down anyways and then he would have a 16 square foot sign. However, it isn't practical and reasonable to do that when we know it's going to come down anyways. I think this is a no brainer. The gentleman and Signature has been in the community for a long time. They probably felt they were complying with the ordinance knowing that that building wasn't going to be there and their interpretation was that the property was vacant and I would tend to agree with him. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is this a motion? MEMBER BRENNAN: I will make a motion unless there is other comments.
MEMBER FISCHER: No comments. MEMBER BRENNAN: I would make a motion with respect to Case 04 dash 006 that the petitioner's request for this particular sign, which is already erected, be approved for the purpose of site identification knowing that the existing building is coming down and is being presented as -- not presented. As being saleable as a vacant lot. MEMBER GRAY: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes four to zero.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your sign has been approved, sir. MR. ROSS: Thank you very much. Good night. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, that concludes the case load for this evening. However, I understand that Mr. Saven would like to add to other matters at this time. MR. SAVEN: It's Don's moment. MEMBER GRAY: Shine. MR. SAVEN: I'd like to discuss a ZBA case, 03-116, for Meadowbrook Corporate Parks. This was a sign that was approved for that particular case in which time through the motion there was an issue regarding taking down another sign. If you can recall that? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yeah. MR. SAVEN: But we never gave them a time limit for that sign and I just needed to know from the board as to what they were looking at as far as a time limit for that sign? Are we looking at for a purpose of a year or two years, sale of the property? MS. ANDERSON: I have the motion here
if you want to read it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Was that last month's? MS. ANDERSON: It was last month's. MR. SAVEN: It says -- if I can, I'll go ahead and read the motion. It says, "In regard to case 03 dash 116 to grant the petitioner's request for two sign variances with modification on the height of the type and two feet out and making it two feet shorter than it is currently. This is granted with the confirmation that the other sign information is correct and that is to be removed in early February." And that was the additional sign that was coming in for another sign permit in February. If you recall it, but we never gave these people a time limit. Was it your intention to give them a time limit? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Boy, how did we miss it? MR. SAVEN: I would ask you to go back and think about it and call Denise and let us this which way to pursue this matter. Tom, because it wasn't in motion is there anyway we can notify these people and indicate
that the time factor is for "X" amount of time? MR. SCHULTZ: I think because there was a formal motion I think if we want this to be enforceable we probably have to do it a little more formally. We have to have a motion to reconsider the question so that's it's open appropriately before the board and then have some discussion here tonight about the timing. And if you agree on a time then let's contact the property owner and make sure that the property owner consents to that. If not, it needs to be on the next agenda. If it is something you want to add to the motion. MEMBER BRENNAN: I can tell you right now that I don't remember all the details on this particular case and I would like to review the minutes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: Then I think what you ought to do is have a motion to reconsider the question and that way it will come back up in the next meeting. You can put it under other matters but that formally reinstates the question before the proponent can say, "Wait a minute. You had your chance and didn't impose the condition and I can keep it up
forever." MEMBER BRENNAN: But this doesn't stop petitioners. MR. SCHULTZ: No. MEMBER BRENNAN: All we're going to do is address the time element? MR. SAVEN: It may be that that wasn't an issue. In normal circumstances it would be for signs we either have a duration for temporary use or temporary allowance of the sign and this was brought to my attention from Allen and this guy doesn't miss anything in regards to the signs and I need to bring that before the board. MR. SCHULTZ: And it won't stop -- it won't prevent them from putting up a sign. MEMBER BRENNAN: But we did slide one by you. MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, you did. MR. SAVEN: You slid it by me. That was my problem. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You know, this was so much discussion about that other sign. MR. SCHULTZ: And when that would come down.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: That's why I would like to see the minutes before we make a decision on that. MR. SCHULTZ: So motion to reconsider to address the time issue which would reserve your right to look at it next month. MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved all those in favor say, "Aye." MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Any opposed? None. MR. SCHULTZ: All right. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mockup signs? MR. SAVEN: Item number two, mockup signs. This one was a little unusual and I have a certain safety issue that I have to take a look at in regards to mockup signs when we get to them. We never dealt with pylon signs standing up there and waving in the breeze or whatever especially 30 feet or 40 feet or whatever the case may be. One of the cases we have
before the board next month will be the Expo sign. These are not extremely small signs. They're not going on a building. You will have one facing Grand River and there will be one facing -- MEMBER BRENNAN: 96. MR. SAVEN: 96. One sign's 50 foot in height and it's going to be about 500 square feet and this is what they're requesting. I'm just bringing it to your attention. I guess I need to get some input from the board on how they want to approach there issue. I'm going to be very honest with you, when you deal with issues regarding wind speed and wind on a flat surface and trying to put something up on a temporary basis especially around an expressway. The wind is so bad. You're dealing with a force on a flat surface. You're going to lose something and we certainly don't need any problems in this particular area. What they tried to do tonight which is brought before you when we had this discussion I was adamant about them not putting up anything strictly for the fact they can do the computer generated program that can give you a forensics that would be okay but if they were to place something on a
sign and that wind tunneling that is there I would be concerned of anybody that may be coming out of Harold's Frame Shop or whatever that would probably lose a sign. When it is put on pylon it's a different story because you have a fastening system and integrating the whole system together. It's not a problem but when you're on a lifting device it's kind of shaky, that's all. Those are one of the things. If I ask the chairperson, I have this concern. Is it the board's desire that we can take this into consideration to look at it with that point of view or do you want us to contact every one of you in regards to this mockup sign? Because it has been the policy. It's been this policy that's been generated and I feel like I'm violating your policy but along the same lines you can take it into the account of the safety factor. I'm sorry, I'm going to do it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And I think under the given circumstances the right decision was made given the weather and everything else and the safety issue and perhaps not everyone got that and that's not something that we're going to do on a regular basis. Is there a question on the Expo
coming after this? MR. SAVEN: The question is whether or not you want them to put up a mockup sign. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Can we address the first question. We'll go to the Expo Center. MR. SAVEN: The first question being whether or not -- CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Do you want the chair to make a decision of a mockup sign or not? If you have a problem with that going up. MEMBER BRENNAN: I have no problem with that. I think with Harold's tonight that was an appropriate decision. I do have a comment with respect to the Expo Center. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, I do too. MEMBER GRAY: I also agree there has to be some kind of discretion. So if you want like with Harold's that was the appropriate thing to do and I think the two of you should be able to make that decision. MEMBER BRENNAN: My recommendation on the Expo Center because there has been some previous
decision about this. Number one, it's a huge highly profile new development in the city. I'm not going to make a Best Buy decision on this one. I appreciate that a 500 square foot sign is difficult to even project computer animated. What I would like to see is a wood framed outline of the sign laying in a parking lot. You tell me when it's going to be there and I'll drive over there, but if this thing is, you know, a 100 by 300 square foot, it's huge and I'm not going to look at a computer animation making a decision on this thing. If they can find someplace, maybe at the existing Expo Center back on a parking lot on a day that nobody's there that they can lay out a wood frame so I have visual perspective of what that 500 square foot sign looks like I'd feel a lot more comfortable than something like this. I agree that it's unreasonable to put a-mockup. But you can lay some two by fours on the pavement and that gets me a lot closer and a lot more comfortable. Just my comments. MR. SAVEN: Frank, help me out here. Are you looking for an outline. MEMBER BRENNAN: Just an outline. MR. SAVEN: Just an outline followed
by two by fours. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We can get the size idea. MR. SAVEN: Well, I hate to say, you guys have been very adamant about the issue when we're dealing with a Chrysler Plymouth dealership which was located on Haggerty Road when we didn't have the mockup sign there and with that vision coming off the hill or something like that. I know that was a problem child. But, you know, is it that you want to see it 50 foot up in the air this is not going to be an easy thing to do. MEMBER BRENNAN: But I would like to see what a sign that size looks like. MR. SAVEN: At their now existing Expo Center? MEMBER BRENNAN: Wherever it's convenient for them to lay it out. If they have got a spot in the parking lot if they want to lease a corner at Twelve Oaks. Tell me where it is going to be and when and I will see it. It can be a one day event. Tell me it's going to be there at four o'clock on a Saturday and I'll go see it. MR. SAVEN: I think I would like to
see it under their property though. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I would too. MR. SAVEN: Property is and give us an idea. MEMBER BRENNAN: They have events going on there every week and that's one problem. MR. SAVEN: We'll look at the issue and build the outside framework and just allow the wind to go through. That makes me and my comfort level go better but as far as the height goes that's impossible. MEMBER GRAY: The only other thing I was going to bring up is there has to be a way to put something up that gives an idea of 50 foot height, like a balloon or something that's going to be able to, you know, see what this is and show me how high 50 feet is going to be. Because the top of the sign is going to be at 50 foot? MR. SAVEN: Top of the sign is 50. MEMBER BRENNAN: That's not too unreasonable. If they're going to lay this wood frame out and then put four balloons on the four corner corners and that gives you a perspective. MEMBER GRAY: That's going to help us
more. MR. SCHULTZ: Or is there another sign somewhere that's roughly the same, like the Palace or something like that that is roughly the portion? MEMBER GRAY: A field trip. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do we have anything within the city? MR. SAVEN: Wait a minute. I just went to a budget. Come on. MEMBER BRENNAN: I think the theater sign is that big at Twelve Oaks. That's not 500 square feet. That is something much more cumbersome than that. I can walk it and get a visual. Get some balloons up in the air I can get a perspective of the elevation. MEMBER GRAY: And if they can give us a location of the sign that's very similar that we're familiar with. MR. SAVEN: I think that's a great idea. That's a good idea. MEMBER GRAY: Within like a ten mile radius of the city. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Or an all
day field trip. MEMBER BRENNAN: I know there's one in Atlanta. MEMBER GRAY: Michigan and Georgia. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I know there's one in New York City. MR. SAVEN: Just one other issue, I will be in Lansing for the next meeting. But I will be here. It's going to be a real tight trip coming back but I will be here. MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I thank everybody this evening and if there is nothing further everybody's in approval to adjourn the meeting? MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All those in favor say "Aye". MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Meeting adjourned. (The meeting was concluded
at 9:15 p.m.) - - -
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Darlene K. May, 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 eighty-nine (89) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said stenographic notes.
_____________________________ Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479 ___________________ (Date)
|