| 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 the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, September 12, 2006. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Hello, you're 6 going to be hold on for a few minutes and give a 7 chance to our stenographer to show up before we 8 start the meeting. So I beg for your indulgence. 9 Thank you. 10 (A brief recess was taken.) 11 (Back on the record.) 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 13 We'll call to Order the 14 September, 2006 meeting of the City of Novi 15 Zoning Board of Appeals. 16 Will you please join me in the 17 Pledge of Allegiance. 18 BOARD MEMBERS: I Pledge 19 Allegiance to the flag of the United States 20 of America; and to the Republic for which it 21 stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, 22 with liberty and justice for all. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 24 please be seated. 3 1 Ms. Working, will you please 2 call the roll. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: He's excused. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 10 MEMBER GATT: Here. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Here. 17 ROBIN WORKING: We have one 18 member absent, Member Fischer. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 We do have the quorum and the 21 meeting is now in session. 22 I would like to go over the 23 rules of conduct. You can find them all on 24 the agenda. 4 1 Just a friendly reminder, 2 please turn off all your cell phones and 3 pagers. 4 Individual applicants may take 5 up to five minutes; and the group may take 6 up to ten minutes to present their case. 7 The Zoning Board of Appeals is 8 the Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 9 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 10 from the application of the Novi Zoning 11 Ordinances. It takes a vote of at least 12 Members to approve a variance request; and a 13 vote of the majority of the Members present 14 to deny a variance. Tonight we have a full 15 Board, so all decisions made will be final. 16 Let's look at the agenda. 17 Are there any changes to the 18 agenda, Ms. Working? 19 ROBIN WORKING: Yes, 20 Mr. Chairman. 21 I would like to add under 22 approval of Minutes the August 2006 meeting, 23 please. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: So noted. 5 1 Anything else? 2 The Chair will entertain a 3 Motion to accept the amended agenda. 4 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Second. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moved and 7 seconded. 8 Any discussions? 9 Seeing none, those in favor of 10 approving the agenda, please signify by 11 saying aye. 12 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Those opposed, 14 same sign. 15 We have an agenda. 16 And as you mentioned, we do 17 have Minutes from the meeting from July, as 18 well as August, 2006. 19 Are there any changes in the 20 Minutes? 21 Anybody would like to make any 22 additions, deletions, corrections? 23 Seeing none -- 24 MEMBER BAUER: Move to approve. 6 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Both the 2 Minutes from July and August? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. 5 Anybody seconded? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded. 8 Motion has been made and 9 seconded, without any further discussion, 10 let's go ahead. 11 All those in favor of 12 accepting the Minutes as presented, please 13 signify by saying aye? 14 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those 16 opposed, same sign. 17 Okay. At this point, we will 18 open for public remarks section. 19 Is there anyone in the 20 audience who wishes to make comments not 21 pertaining to any matter on the agenda 22 tonight, you may please come forward now. 23 Seeing none, we will close the 24 public remarks section. 7 1 And this brings us to the 2 first case on the agenda. 3 4 Case Number: 06-061, filed by 5 Bart Wingblad for Angela Hospice Annual 6 Fundraiser/Benefit sign. 7 Is the applicant here? 8 MR. WINGBLAD: Yes. 9 Good evening. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good evening. 11 Will you please identify 12 yourself -- your name, address -- and be 13 sworn in by our secretary, thank you. 14 MR. WINGBLAD: My name is Bart 15 Wingblad. My address is 21112 Gill Road, 16 Farmington Hills, Michigan, 48335. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise 18 your right hand. 19 Do you solemnly swear or 20 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 21 06-061? 22 MR. WINGBLAD: I do. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please proceed. 8 1 MR. WINGBLAD: I'd like to 2 start out, first of all, by thanking this 3 Board and expressing my sincere gratitude 4 for affording me the opportunity to appear 5 before you on behalf of Angela Hospice. 6 What we're proposing, what 7 we're asking this Board to consider, is a 8 variance to put up our fundraiser sign once 9 again this year. I came before you last 10 year, and I asked you for a one-time only 11 exception. I never -- I truly never 12 believed I would still have possession of 13 the land. I do. 14 The people that are buying the 15 land have been before you many times trying 16 to get final approval on the site approval 17 map; and I'm sure that's moving along and 18 near completion. But I find myself still 19 owning the land, so I'm back again to try to 20 persuade you to allow us one more year to 21 put the sign up. 22 Our event this year, again, 23 it's the Light up the Life. It's our 24 fundraiser; it's our big annual fundraiser. 9 1 It's going to be held at the Diamond Center 2 at the Rock Financial Showplace on October 3 21st. 4 We're asking to put the sign 5 up from September 13th to October 13th; the 6 same conditions as last year. The lighting 7 to be turned off at midnight; and meet all 8 the requirements, as far as the setbacks. 9 What we exceed is the size of the sign; and 10 that's what I'm back here to -- to beg this 11 Board to allow us to do. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 Does anyone in the audience 14 wish to speak about this case? 15 Seeing none, I will inform the 16 Board that 16 notices were mailed; zero 17 approval, zero objections. 18 Building Department? 19 MR. HINES: Thank you, 20 Mr. Chairman. 21 We just want to bring to your 22 attention that there were a lot of 23 complaints on this case; and that's really 24 all I can say, but there were several 10 1 complaints regarding the size of the sign. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 3 None specifical. 4 And I'll open to the Board. 5 Yes, Mr. Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Being as it -- we 7 have seen this, what, three years, if my memory 8 is correct; and I think it's a very temporary 9 sign. It's going to go away in a matter of what, 10 30 days, it'll be gone. 11 Angela Hospice supports a lot 12 of people who -- and asks nothing in return 13 from those people. And I think it is a very 14 noble service that they've supplied to the 15 Southeast Michigan community. And I would 16 be in favor of -- in fact I'll make a Motion 17 that we grant the request, as stated. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 20 made and seconded. 21 Any further discussion? 22 ROBIN WORKING: Who seconded the 23 Motion, please? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Bauer. 11 1 Seeing none, will you please 2 call the roll. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup. 4 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 6 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 16 six, to zero. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, your 18 variance has been granted. You can get the 19 permit from the Building Department, and good 20 luck. 21 MR. WINGBLAD: Thank you, on 22 behalf of all of us from Angela Hospice. 23 Thank you. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very 12 1 much. 2 3 Next case, Number: 06-062, 4 filed by the Synergy Group for DL Biotech, 5 located at 46430 Peary Court. 6 Is the applicant here? 7 Will you please identify 8 yourself with your name and address. 9 MR. WAKIS: My name is Ed 10 Wakis. I'm with the Synergy Group. The 11 address is 39400 Woodward Avenue in 12 Bloomfield Hills. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: You'll be sworn 14 in by the secretary. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 16 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 06-062? 17 MR. WAKIS: Yes, I do. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: You can make 20 your presentation. 21 Thank you. 22 MR. WAKIS: Well, we're here 23 to ask a variance to allow parking on the 24 front yard, and to request a variance 13 1 regarding the noise of -- I'm sorry. I'm 2 not quite prepared. 3 Of the noise -- 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes? 5 MR. WAKIS: -- the noise 6 analysis, we'd like to have that waived, 7 because all of our equipment is going to be 8 interior. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 10 Anything else? 11 MR. WAKIS: That's basically 12 it. We need the two variances. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 14 All right. Anybody in the 15 audience who would like to make any comments 16 about this case? 17 Will you please come to the 18 podium, identify yourself, sir, with your 19 name and address. 20 MR. RICHARDSON: Ralph 21 Richardson, 24574 John Dross, South Lyon. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go 23 ahead. 24 MR. RICHARDSON: What we're 14 1 talking about is in the front of the 2 building, we have less -- slightly less than 3 two acres. I think it's 1.33 acres, and 4 that's going to be a paved area. We've been 5 approved for pretty much everything else. 6 Because of the nature of the 7 property, it's on a cul-de-sac against a 8 berm, against a controlled wetland in the 9 back, we really don't have any options as to 10 how to place the property -- the building. 11 So we're asking for a variance based on 12 partially a hardship that we couldn't build 13 a building without doing it in this fashion. 14 As far as the noise analysis, 15 the -- everything we're doing over there is 16 being enclosed and incorporated within the 17 building; and consequently it's almost 18 impossible that there would be any 19 significant noise outside of the building. 20 Thank you for hearing me. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Thank 22 you. 23 Anybody else? 24 No. 15 1 There were 28 notices mailed; 2 zero approvals, zero objections. 3 Building Department, any 4 comments? 5 MR. HINES: No, sir. 6 I would defer this to the 7 Planning Department. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. All 9 right. Here it comes. 10 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, ladies 11 and gentlemen of the ZBA. It's good to be back 12 with you again this evening. 13 We have looked through this a 14 couple times now. The final site plan is 15 actually on my desk for this project. The 16 company is -- purchased one of the lots in 17 Beck North Phase One. Staff, in their 18 review of Beck North Phase One and Two 19 mentioned all the lots are under two acres. 20 You might want to look at multiple -- a 21 little bit larger lots. The original 22 developer chose not to do that. There's no 23 requirement to do that. We don't have a 24 minium lot size in this district. 16 1 So in purchasing the one lot, 2 they laid out their building. We looked at 3 several different options at the pre-app 4 phase. In order to have truck traffic 5 reasonably on this site, there's really no 6 other way to lay out the parking field to be 7 able to get a truck in and out of the site, 8 because they do have full semi-trailers, 9 according to their operations. 10 Frankly the noise analysis is 11 here, because I made an incorrect 12 interpretation at the preliminary phase. 13 Because everything was within a completely 14 enclosed building, including their loading 15 zone, I might add. They supplied me with 16 the information regarding the noise -- the 17 generator. The manufacture's specs did not 18 exceed our requirements, and I made an 19 interpretation, an incorrect one, that they 20 would not need a noise analysis. 21 That's why they're in front of 22 you this evening. We have looked at all the 23 specs for the machinery they are installing. 24 It does fall within our requirements. The 17 1 generator on site is emergency only; and as 2 I mentioned, the loading's within the 3 building. So Staff's fairly comfortable 4 that adjacent to residential, this will be a 5 relatively minor impact and use. 6 It's a pretty good use for the 7 building; good use for the community, 8 actually. We'd like to see this become a 9 little bit of a technology cluster in that 10 phase of Beck North. 11 But I'm happy to answer any 12 questions that you might have about the site 13 plan or the process, thus far. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 15 Opening to the Board. 16 Yes, Mr. Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Can this property 18 be used in any other way. 19 MR. SCHMITT: The property -- 20 it's a wide variety of uses you can have in the 21 light industrial district. 22 MEMBER CANUP: The question 23 is, can it be used in any other way, just 24 yes or no. 18 1 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. 2 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. So it is 3 not a piece of property that cannot be used 4 with the present zoning and with the present 5 Ordinances. 6 MR. SCHMITT: No, it can be 7 used, yes. 8 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. So I 9 guess my question is, if it can be used in 10 the way that it was developed and the zoning 11 and the Ordinances are there, it's a 12 self-created hardship and it's an over-build 13 of a piece of property that is, again, 14 usable in a fashion that it was designed for 15 originally. 16 And as far as the noise thing 17 goes, I think that's something that's in our 18 Ordinances. And unless there's a hardship, 19 a demonstrated hardship for that, I can't 20 see why we should consider overlooking that, 21 or granting a variance not to do it. 22 So that's all I have to say. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 Yes, Mr. Shroyer. 19 1 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 2 Mr. Chair. 3 I echo what the previous 4 speaker stated. I, too, wanted to ask 5 Mr. Schmitt. 6 Mr. Schmitt? 7 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Excuse me. If 9 the building was made smaller, would they be able 10 to provide parking to the rear that would meet 11 the Ordinances? 12 MR. SCHMITT: No. The size of 13 the building has no function on how the site's 14 designed. The site is designed that way because 15 their access point's only 35, 40 feet wide. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: From the 17 cul-de-sac? 18 MR. SCHMITT: From the 19 cul-de-sac. 20 And to get a truck in an out 21 of that, you can't circle the property. You 22 can't get a full turning radias(ph) on the 23 property. The fire -- I don't even know if 24 the Fire Marshal could get into it if you 20 1 turned everything around. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: And how much 3 does a noise analysis cost? 4 MR. SCHMITT: Very good 5 question. We've seen estimates ranging up to 6 $10,000. I would estimate that the middle of the 7 road is going to be somewhere between six and 8 eight thousand dollars. But again, that's based 9 off of things we've -- it's not really based off 10 any RFP or anything that I've done. It's based 11 off secondary data. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: And the last 13 question I had was -- either you could answer it 14 or the applicant -- the schematic that we were 15 provided doesn't give enough detail. 16 Is there any overhead doors 17 that face the residential properties? 18 MR. SCHMITT: There are not. 19 That is not permitted in the light industrial 20 district, adjacent to residential. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: So there's no 22 chance of a door being open and the noise 23 being emitted outside the building that 24 disturbed the residents? 21 1 MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 3 That's all I have, Mr. Chair. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Yes Mr. Bauer. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Is this building 7 going to be an office building? 8 MEMBER BAUER: 9 MR. WAKIS: It's an office 10 building and a lab. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 12 MR. WAKIS: About 50-50. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 14 Yes, Mr. Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: I guess the 16 concerns that I have are not for what 17 today's uses are with it being -- for 18 instance, being a lab. As we've seen 19 buildings turn over, the use changes. And 20 then we still have that building that is 21 non-conforming, that was used for different 22 purpose then the lab maybe. The lab maybe 23 very non-obtrusive, no problems with it at 24 all. 22 1 For some reason that lab 2 changes hands, the owners move it or who 3 knows what happens, the building becomes a 4 different use and then we still have a 5 building that is non-conforming. 6 So, anyway, those are my 7 reasons for -- comments, and I'll leave it 8 at that. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 10 Yes, Mr. Schultz? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: A couple of 12 comments, if I may, Mr. Chair. 13 Really I guess following up on 14 Mr. Schmitt's comments that he made. I want 15 to add to his previous answer. 16 This is a situation where 17 you've got an existing owned unit that was 18 created as part of a site plan approval for 19 the condominium. It's separate and a part 20 from the two uses adjacent to it. It's got 21 some size and configuration issues, being on 22 a court with a minimal frontage. And I 23 think maybe a more complete question to 24 Mr. Schmitt might be, if what the proponent 23 1 is after is the ability to park in the front 2 of the property, in front of the building, 3 is it really possible to construct a 4 building on this single parcel with parking 5 in the rear. 6 I'll let him answer that 7 question, but just remember we're not 8 talking about a use variance here. This is 9 a practical difficulty, non-use parking 10 issue. In an existing development, I think 11 the use -- and again, Mr. Schmitt might 12 comment on it -- is a special land use. So 13 uses within this area are probably going to 14 have to come to the Planning Commission and 15 get special approval in any event, beyond 16 this one. 17 And the standard isn't whether 18 it can be used -- which is kind of a use 19 variance hardship standard. It's more of a 20 question of does the Ordinance cause a 21 burden, and would the burden -- would 22 varying the Ordinance to allow that burden 23 to be dealt with, be substantially 24 appropriate for this property owner, this 24 1 use, and adjacent properties. 2 So I mean it's a several issue 3 inquiry by the -- by the Board, but the main 4 issue is going to be, they're asking for 5 front yard parking. Can they really build a 6 building with parking not in the front yard. 7 And I think that's something Mr. Schmitt 8 should comment on. 9 MR. SCHMITT: And then just to 10 respond to Mr. Canup's concerns, it -- 11 Mr. Schultz is correct. Everything in here is a 12 special land use; except for just a straight 13 office use. So, any user in the future would 14 have to come to us with the special land use 15 requirements. We take them for a Public Hearing 16 in front of the Planning Commission. 17 So the way the light 18 industrial set-up, I think that concern is 19 very valid, especially when it's adjacent to 20 residential. So that is something that's 21 anticipated. The -- as I said, the property 22 can be used, but the design of the site, the 23 layout of the site, really drives the 24 design, because of how narrow it is in the 25 1 front. 2 To be able to get in and out 3 of that site, you really couldn't have a 4 proper turning radius for the truck 5 traffic -- and frankly, a fire truck falls 6 within that category -- to go into the site 7 and swing all the way around, if you had the 8 building in the front. It would be it's 9 extraordinarily difficult, especially taking 10 into account the natural features that we 11 tend to try to preserve in the community. 12 So, the way it's laid out 13 really has been directed by the site, 14 itself. The property to the south is in a 15 similar situation, and their building is 16 long and narrow; and theirs was dictated by 17 the site, again, because they couldn't put 18 parking at the time adjacent to the 19 residential. So they put their building in 20 between the parking and the berm. 21 So these four cul-de-sac lots 22 in phase one have posed these interesting 23 difficulties, and luckily it won't be a 24 problem in phase two, because of the amount 26 1 of natural features that are there. But it 2 has been interesting dealing with these four 3 lots in phase one. 4 MR. WAKIS: One of the reasons 5 we put the parking in the front was to take 6 advantage of the woods and the property in 7 the back. It's a natural area, and we put 8 all the executive -- well, all the offices 9 on the back of the building to take 10 advantage of that feature. And it just 11 seemed like a natural thing to do. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 13 Ms. Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mr. Schmitt, 15 if you could explain regarding the Planning 16 Commission notes. It seems that they are in 17 support of this whole area, so -- 18 MR. SCHMITT: Generally, the 19 Planning Commission had few concerns with the 20 site plan as it was proposed. There are some 21 minor alterations that we need to make at the 22 time of final site plan. The applicant has -- 23 excuse me -- agreed to make some further 24 modifications along the southern property line to 27 1 be a good neighbor, to Coordinated Measurements, 2 to the south. It was brought to our attention 3 that Coordinated Measurements has a breakroom, 4 kitchen area that's directly adjacent to the 5 proposed dumpster. 6 So DL Biotech has agreed to do 7 some more plantings there, trying to -- 8 Coordinated Measurements was one of the 9 first buildings out there. They've been 10 there a long time, so we're trying to -- 11 trying to work with them. 12 The Planning Commission was in 13 support of the variance, I think -- and when 14 the Beck North came in front of the Planning 15 Commission late '90's in phase two, I mean 16 we said, look, you really need to look at 17 this lot size issue; and unfortunately our 18 Ordinance doesn't have a minimum; but then 19 you have a minimum to allow this. So it's 20 something of dichotomy between the two 21 Ordinances. 22 But the Planning Commission 23 did support it. They're pretty happy with 24 the use from a light industry standpoint. 28 1 We couldn't ask for a whole lot better use 2 coming out there. The State's pretty 3 supportive of it, in terms of their 4 incubation of small companies like this, in 5 terms of the biotech field. 6 But the Planning Commission 7 did approve it, subject to the Zoning Board 8 of Appeals weighing in on these two issues. 9 So that was their final 10 determination. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: okay. 12 MEMBER GATT: Mr. Schmitt, I 13 understand about the variance for the parking. 14 What I don't understand is now why would we want 15 to grant this company a variance for not 16 submitting a noise analysis? Why now? Why can't 17 they do that now? 18 MR. SCHMITT: They certainly 19 can, and it's well within the purview of the 20 special land use and the Zoning Board of Appeals 21 action. 22 MEMBER GATT: This is something 23 that occurs regularly for a business? 24 MR. SCHMITT: It does not occur 29 1 regularly. It is a situation that only occurs in 2 this district when you're adjacent adjust 3 residential. So in my time here, I've had three. 4 One of them was a church that requested a 5 variance from it. And frankly, the -- Staff is 6 kind of looking at whether or not across the 7 board we need to require this. 8 Because when churches come 9 forward and have this requirement, it's -- 10 they're a little concerned about it usually. 11 Staff's position on this is because 12 everything was within -- they are actually 13 enclosing everything -- the loading zone, 14 the generator, the dumpster, the AC units, 15 we are relatively comfortable saying it's 16 going to be well within our requirements to 17 meet this. 18 They've submitted the 19 manufacture's specs, and given the mufflers 20 and the sound dampening on the generator -- 21 even when the generator's in use, it still 22 should be within our requirements. That was 23 our -- that's our position on it, which is 24 what's led us here after some discussion 30 1 internally as to how to get -- how to frame 2 this, as to whether it was a Planning 3 Commission finding or whether ZBA needed to 4 weigh in on it. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Gatt? 6 MEMBER GATT: I'd like to make 7 a Motion to approve the variance as 8 requested by the Synergy Group. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 10 made. 11 MEMBER GATT: For the reason 12 that I believe that they have proposed a 13 significant hardship, based on the dimension and 14 size of the lot that they are on. And that there 15 is no other way for this company to exist with a 16 parking lot. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 18 Yes, Mr. Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: What about the 20 noise? Is that going to come under a separate 21 Motion, or are you including that? 22 MEMBER GATT: I would include 23 that in the Motion. I believe that 24 Mr. Schmitt has given significant analysis 31 1 of that it's not going to be an issue. 2 MEMBER CANUP: No, my question 3 was just if it was going to be in that 4 Motion, or is it going to be (interposing) 5 (unintelligible) 6 MEMBER GATT: In this same 7 Motion, all included. 8 MEMBER CANUP: Just a 9 clarification. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 11 The Motion has been made. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'll second 13 it for discussion. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 15 It's been seconded. 16 Any further discussion? 17 Seeing none, will you please 18 call the roll, Ms. Working. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 20 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 32 1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: No. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: No. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 8 four to two. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 10 MR. WAKIS: Thank you. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your variance 12 has been approved. All three variances have been 13 granted. Please get a permit from the Building 14 Department; and best of luck. 15 Thank you. 16 17 Moving on, Case Number: 18 06-063, filed by Richard Connor Riley and 19 Associates for Metro PCS Michigan, Inc., 20 located at 44170 Grand River. 21 (Unintelligible) will you 22 please identify yourself and -- name and 23 address, and be sworn in by our secretary, 24 please. 33 1 MR. JURSON: Yes, sir. 2 It's Matthew Jurson, 3 J-u-r-s-o-n. I'm with Richard Connor Riley 4 and Associates. Our address is 30150 5 Telegraph Road. We're in Suite 420; that's 6 in Bingham Farms, Michigan, 48025. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 8 affirm to tell the truth regarding, Case 06-063? 9 MR. JURSON: I do. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 11 MR. JURSON: Thank you. 12 Metro PCS is asking for 13 permission to install outdoor equipment 14 cabinets. This is an existing wireless 15 facility on Grand River. We had -- we were 16 before this Board back in March for two 17 similar sites, co-locations at existing 18 sites. We were granted the same variance. 19 This sight has an additional variance of a 20 setback. 21 We are proposing the equipment 22 at a location where the Planning -- in fact, 23 we've been working with the Planning 24 Department for the past six or seven months 34 1 on this particular location. They have 2 asked us to place this equipment behind the 3 Verizon shelter to the north for screening 4 purposes. Thereby, we have a setback 5 variance to contend with here, too. 6 I have brought with me -- if I 7 could show you a few pictures to give you 8 idea of what this site is. It's a site 9 that's not visible practically from Grand 10 River. That's the actual -- this here is 11 the existing equipment shelter. This is the 12 north of the site. Grand River would be to 13 the south. 14 This is the space where we'd 15 be proposing the equipment platform. The 16 platform, itself, would be six feet by ten 17 feet. You can see the edge of Cingular's 18 platform. Cingular has existing outdoor 19 equipment cabinets already installed at this 20 location on this platform here. 21 This is a picture of the Metro 22 PCS outdoor cabinets. They're the exact 23 same cabinets that we had proposed back in 24 March at the two sites. It's the same 35 1 cabinets that we use at virtually all of our 2 sites throughout the Southeastern Michigan 3 market. The equipment will probably not 4 exceed the height of the fence. It's about 5 five to six feet tall. And its dimensions 6 are given on the site plan. It's less than 7 or near three feet wide. 8 This is a picture that I took. 9 The site is actually right there where I'm 10 pointing. The property line is a half foot 11 from the existing fenced area; and then this 12 is to the north. This is the only land 13 that's there, and then, of course, we have 14 the railroads. So as a practical matter, 15 the site is really not visible. 16 I would also note that the ZBA 17 had originally granted a variance for the 18 location when it was originally installed. 19 So the compound -- we're not proposing any 20 expansion of -- the cabinets would be within 21 the existing fenced area. 22 This is a picture just taken 23 from Grand River, which, if you can see 24 it -- the cabinet would be -- or the 36 1 existing shelter would be right there. We'd 2 actually be behind that shelter. From the 3 public road, it's not practically visible. 4 A couple of other things that 5 I was going to mention. Most important of 6 which is -- when we were back in March here 7 in front of the Board, we had discussed the 8 actual Ordinance, itself. And I know that 9 the City Attorney and some other people were 10 proposing or talking about some changes to 11 the Ordinance. 12 The way the regulation reads 13 right now, it wouldn't specifically prohibit 14 the cabinets. It simply states that if you 15 have a shelter, it has to be face brick. I 16 had mentioned at that time and I'll mention 17 again, it's the same equipment. This 18 equipment is not designed to be placed 19 indoors. It's for outdoor use only. It's 20 the same equipment that we use at all our 21 sites. 22 So we'd be asking the Board, 23 permission to place outdoor cabinets, as 24 Cingular has, at this site. And to place 37 1 them within the existing compound with no 2 expansion of that. 3 I'd be happy to answer any 4 more questions the Board might have. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, sir. 6 Does anybody in the audience 7 wish to address the Board regarding this 8 case? 9 Seeing none, I'll inform the 10 Board that there were -- 18 notices were 11 mailed, zero approvals, zero objections. 12 Building Department, any 13 comments? 14 MR. HINES: Thank you, 15 Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple comments. 16 I realize the zoning 17 definitions sometimes differ from the 18 Building Code. But I if were to look at 19 this in the Building Code, it would probably 20 not be considered a structure. We look at 21 structure a little differently, i.e., a 22 foundation. 23 A cabinet -- and I believe -- 24 The applicant, if you can 38 1 clarify that these cabinets are designed to 2 be outside. 3 MR. JURSON: That's correct. 4 MR. HINES: And part of that 5 reason is because of heat dissipation that you 6 need? 7 MR. JURSON: Yes. 8 MR. HINES: So to put those in a 9 brick cabinet, first of all, would hinder the use 10 of the equipment; and second -- 11 And maybe Mr. Schultz can 12 elaborate on this a little bit more -- 13 I think it was brought up as 14 the gentleman said earlier that it may not 15 have been the intent to the Ordinance to 16 enclose a cabinet like this; as opposed to 17 an accessory structure. 18 The other question -- or I 19 should say more of a comment, is that this 20 is basically on a railroad easement. So, 21 really it's in my opinion from the Building 22 Department it's a low impact from the 23 neighborhood communities. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 39 1 Mr. Schultz? 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, 3 Mr. Chair. 4 I guess in response to 5 Mr. Hines' comment, you know the last time 6 we suggested that -- when they came forward 7 on the ice arena property with kind of the 8 same set up, that the Board really had two 9 choices. The first -- in response to this 10 first variance, which is enclose it in a 11 brick building -- or that all shelter 12 buildings have to have a brick facade and a 13 gable roof. 14 Our first option to the Board 15 was, you know, the definition of the Zoning 16 Ordinance of a building is something that 17 has a roof, to start with, is enclosed. 18 And, you know, as the gentleman pointed out, 19 this is really designed -- and as Mr. Hines 20 said -- not to have any kind of roof at all. 21 So the Board could certainly say, no 22 variance needed. We interpret the Ordinance 23 to mean they don't have a roof. They're not 24 a building, so, you know, that one isn't 40 1 required. 2 And we pointed out that the 3 City is in the process of trying to sort of 4 tweak it's Ordinance. I don't think that's 5 come forward yet, but that's the Board's 6 first option. I think the option we took 7 that night was to grant the variance and 8 just say, okay. You need the variance, but 9 it's appropriate. 10 So you're still in that same 11 situation. You have either way to go. 12 But -- and with regard to the setback issue, 13 maybe Mr. Schmitt has a comment on that. I 14 think that's actually something the Planning 15 Staff suggested to the applicant. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 17 Mr. Schmitt? 18 MR. SCHMITT: A couple things to 19 sort of wrap up the idea that the shelter -- the 20 Ordinance is currently set-up so that this type 21 of equipment is required to be within a shelter. 22 And it's clear that the intent was originally to 23 screen this equipment from surrounding views. 24 As Mr. Schultz mentioned, the 41 1 ZBA's previously granted a variance for 2 this. Should the ZBA be so inclined, we 3 would, again, recommend you to grant the 4 variance, as opposed to making an 5 interpretation, because, to be perfectly 6 frank, we've ran into some resistance at the 7 Planning Commission in modifying this 8 section of the Ordinance. 9 It's really been -- it's been 10 brought up as to whether or not it really 11 is -- it really should be modified. So 12 again, we would recommend that should the 13 Board be so inclined to grant the variance 14 so, again, we can take that Planning 15 Commission Committees and discuss the fact 16 that, you know, we have one body that's seen 17 a couple of these now; and sees no real need 18 for these, as long as they're well screened 19 from the public right of way. 20 With regard to the second 21 item, we probably -- we have suggested both 22 to the Cingular pads that were there before 23 and the ZBA did see previously -- and quite 24 interesting meeting, actually, it was one of 42 1 my first meetings -- to put these behind the 2 existing brick building. The brick building 3 provides a great screening from all the 4 public; and obviously the CSX Railroad Track 5 Property to the north is screened by the 6 existing vegetation. 7 The only condition that we 8 would ask is that should the Board be so 9 inclined to grant that variance, same 10 condition applies, as did the Cingular that 11 none of the existing vegetation is disturbed 12 during the installation. 13 That's the only comments we 14 have, thank you. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 I'll open it to the Board for 17 discussion. 18 Yes, Mr. Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my 20 question would be, has there been any 21 consideration to giving a -- or writing it 22 or changing the Ordinance? I guess there 23 was consideration of that, changing it to 24 where you could use a block on a -- brick on 43 1 a block fence around it to esthetically hide 2 it and esthetically make it appealing. 3 If -- you know, all case 4 aren't going to be like this. Where you 5 have it back where you have an industrial 6 area, which is not really going to offend 7 anybody. 8 MR. SCHMITT: That is one of the 9 options that we're considering. We've bounced 10 around a couple of drafts. We took it to the 11 implementation committee. I believe the approach 12 we took originally with the implementation 13 committee was to strike it completely, because 14 that's sort of what we heard from the ZBA's 15 previous Minutes. 16 There really wasn't support 17 for that. I mean, I don't that would have 18 gotten approved. So what we're looking 19 at -- and it's in with a jumble of other 20 Ordinances is we're probably going to bring 21 them all forward at the same time, as sort 22 of another clean up. To do a waiver 23 provision or some sort of administrative 24 waiver, when it is screened and allowing for 44 1 brick on brick screen wall, allowing for 2 existing vegetation, things of that nature, 3 to do more naturalized -- really, the 4 majority of the cell tower locations in the 5 City aren't as well screened as this one is. 6 Most of them are adjacent to residential, 7 out in a field, visible from the highway, 8 somewhere a long that line. 9 So this one is really unique 10 in that we kind of support where it's going, 11 because it really is screened from every 12 direction. But we are going to address 13 this, we just are trying to structure how 14 we're going to address it. 15 And certainly, Mr. Canup, that 16 is going to be one of the options we take 17 into account. 18 MEMBER CANUP: I can 19 understand the need for air, probably part 20 of keeping these instruments cool and 21 venting them. And if you build a building 22 and you've bring up another whole set of 23 issues about cooling. So, I would -- you 24 know, I'm in favor of not having to build a 45 1 building; however, maybe we need to have a 2 brick on brick fence, six feet high. 3 What is the height of your 4 equipment? 5 MR. JURSON: It would be no 6 more than six feet. 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, I would 8 be in favor of that, and that would give 9 them the clearance they need on the top for 10 the air movement to keep the equipment cool, 11 and give -- maybe it would set a precedent 12 as to what can be down in the future. I 13 don't think we're going to see, you know, 14 hundreds of these towers go up; so, it's 15 just a very limited problem. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 17 Mr. Canup. 18 Yes, Mr. Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with 20 Mr. Canup. (Unintelligible) few years. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, indeed. 22 MR. JURSON: If I could just 23 make a comment, if it's appropriate at this 24 time. At this time particular location, 46 1 because of the amount of space we have 2 there, we wouldn't actually physically be 3 able to have a brick wall built. We're 4 actually -- you know, and that's one of the 5 reasons I showed you the first picture. 6 When we first put in the 7 application, we had actually proposed a 8 location on the south side towards the front 9 of the building, because that's where there 10 was sufficient space. 11 MEMBER CANUP: What if this 12 Board turned you down on your request, what would 13 you do then? 14 MR. JURSON: We'd be in a real 15 predicament, because what we're trying to do 16 is build these facilities on existing 17 locations. That would force us to actually 18 find -- 19 MEMBER CANUP: I don't think 20 it's my intent -- at least it's not my 21 intent -- 22 MR. JURSON: Oh, no. 23 MEMBER CANUP: -- to run you 24 off, let's put it this way, but we do want to 47 1 have something that when it's done -- even though 2 this is back somewhere hidden, it may not be 3 hidden in five years or ten years from now. And 4 it's -- and, at least, I think the cell phone 5 business is not going to go away. So I'm sure 6 this equipment will still be there. 7 MR. JURSON: Right. 8 No, these comments are very 9 well taken. I think Mr. Schmitt said, 10 himself, too, this -- actually, the ice 11 arena and the location that was approved on 12 Grand River a little bit to the west of 13 this, is actually -- if anything, those were 14 well-screened locations to begin with, but 15 certainly not as well screened as this one. 16 And I just couldn't see -- I think it's more 17 appropriate, as was suggested, to deal with 18 that issue with the Ordinance, with the 19 changes that are apparently being worked on. 20 In this case, again, there 21 would not be any space to put a brick wall 22 to that back. This Cingular shelter is 23 really butt up -- we only have a half feet 24 -- there's a half a foot between the edge of 48 1 the equipment platform; and the property 2 line simply isn't -- this is a tight spot. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 4 Thank you. 5 Anybody else? 6 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 8 I have to assume, Mr. Schmitt, 9 that all the other equipment that is housed 10 there had to have some type of setback 11 variance approved, as well. 12 MR. SCHMITT: The Cingular 13 equipment that you see just on the bottom of this 14 picture, did. The brick building, which is 15 actually home to Sprint-Nextel, I believe. 16 MR. JURSON: Verizon. 17 MR. SCHMITT: Verizon, it's 18 Verizon, okay, was built several years ago with 19 the construction of the tower; and it was setback 20 according to the accessory structure provisions 21 at that time. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: The structure 23 was, but the fence around it -- 24 MR. SCHMITT: Fences are not 49 1 regulated in terms of setback in Novi. We tend 2 to turn a deaf ear to fences, as long as they're 3 in the rear yard of the main structure. So the 4 fence is fine. The structure's set back under 5 the previous Ordinances, so -- yes and no. 6 Anything after the original approval has needed a 7 variance; but the original approval did not need 8 a variance for the housing. 9 They did need a variance, 10 obviously, for the tower being that close to 11 the property line, though. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: And the 13 concreted gabled roof sufficed in that 14 instance with that brick building, as 15 opposed to -- 16 MR. SCHMITT: That building was 17 approved originally. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 19 Are we in a position where we 20 could require a applicant to build a wall, a 21 brick-faced wall, when that's not what our 22 charge is this evening, in the 23 advertisement, etc.? 24 MR. SCHMITT: From Staff's 50 1 perspective -- and perhaps Mr. Schultz'll have 2 more input into this -- the purpose of that 3 section is the screening from public view. Our 4 intension in suggesting that this go beyond the 5 building was to screen from public view. And 6 that's really the spirit in which this was 7 brought forward; is that it is better screened 8 this way. 9 However, it's really -- and 10 Mr. Schultz can further discuss what the 11 relevant condition would be in this case, 12 but that was the purpose of the request. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Schultz, 14 do we have a -- 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 16 Mr. Schultz? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. 18 The Board always has the 19 authority to put a reasonable condition on 20 the grant of a variance. So they're here in 21 front of you -- let's start with the setback 22 variance. They're here in front of you for 23 a setback variance. You're permitted to put 24 reasonable conditions on that. I presume 51 1 the proponent would say, well, requiring me 2 to put a brick wall in the area where the 3 variance is required is really screening it 4 from the railroad right-of-way, number one; 5 in fact, I'm here asking for a variance only 6 because the City wanted me to be here for 7 screening purposes on the other side of my 8 structure. 9 So the question for the Board 10 is going to be if we say build a wall around 11 this portion where the variance is being 12 granted, is that a reasonable condition 13 under the factual circumstances. That's a 14 policy question for the Board. 15 So, you can do conditions, but 16 you got to make sure you related them to 17 what the variance is that you're granting. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Schultz. 20 Well, my opinion is that a 21 brick wall would be excellent to be around 22 the entire facility, not just one set of 23 equipment that's brought in. And I would 24 hope that the City while they're reviewing 52 1 various Ordinances, etc., would look at that 2 as a possible for future sites. And if 3 there's any renovations to the existing 4 sites, that that may be a new requirement. 5 I don't think it's practical 6 at this point to require that in this 7 case -- just one person's opinion. I don't 8 like the term good screening. To me piled 9 up wood in the back and a vegetation to the 10 railroad is -- that's okay. But the front 11 side, the major screening is the brick 12 building; that's all right, too. But the 13 amount of trash around there -- there's a 14 dog pen right adjacent to it -- no dog, but 15 a dog pen. 16 The best screening is the 17 large semi-truck that's parked in front of 18 it, so you can't see any of it from the 19 street. If we could require that to stay 20 there, maybe, that would be great. 21 At any rate, I will go ahead 22 and make a Motion. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: In Case Number: 53 1 06-063, filed by Richard Connor Riley and 2 Associates for Metro PCS Michigan, Incorporated, 3 located at 44170 Grand River Avenue. I move to 4 approve the requested variances, setback variance 5 for another equipment at this site was previously 6 approved by the ZBA. This variance will not 7 negatively impact owners of this or surrounding 8 properties. Novi encourages co-locations to 9 minimize the number of towers in the city. 10 Other equipment is currently 11 located at this site, and is intended for 12 outdoor use, as is this proposed equipment; 13 thus, not needing an enclosed building. 14 Thank you. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. The 16 Motion has been made. 17 MEMBER GATT: Second. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded by 19 Mr. Gatt. 20 Any further discussion? 21 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will 22 you please call the roll. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 54 1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 8 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 12 six to zero. 13 MR. JURSON: Thank you. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Congratulation 15 s. 16 You can get your building 17 permit and -- 18 MR. JURSON: I appreciate it. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: -- good luck. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. JURSON: Thank you. 22 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moving on to 24 the next case, Number: 06-064 filed by William 55 1 and Tracy Slobin of 26484 Mandalay Court, in 2 Asbury Park. 3 The applicant is requesting 4 six point feet aggregate side yard setback 5 variance for the required minimum aggregate 6 of two side yards for the property located 7 at 26484 Mandalay Court. 8 Welcome. 9 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Will you please 11 identify yourself, with your name and address, 12 and then be sworn in by our secretary, thank you. 13 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you. 14 Tracy Slobin, 26484 Mandalay 15 Court, Novi, Michigan 48374. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise 17 your right hand, please. 18 Do you swear or affirm to tell 19 the truth regarding, Case, 06-064? 20 MS. SLOBIN: I do. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 22 Go ahead. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Proceed. 24 MS. SLOBIN: I am here to 56 1 request a side yard variance of six and a 2 half feet for a proposed deck with a 3 screened-in porch. As my house sits now -- 4 I did bring a picture -- I don't know if 5 that's going to come through, doesn't look 6 like it. 7 The side of our home lot has 8 an easement, and our kitchen door wall -- 9 which is where the proposed deck and 10 screened-in porch is to be placed, we would 11 like to have it there -- that's where our 12 door wall sits. So it's the logical, 13 natural place to set a deck and screened-in 14 porch, is on that side of the lot. 15 We do have a wooded lot -- you 16 know, it's all woods behind the house, so 17 there would be no hardship for anybody 18 behind us. I've went to the neighbors on 19 either side, and they were in agreement. 20 They had no problem. I think it would add 21 to the beauty of the home, of the lot. And 22 unfortunately, because the kitchen door 23 wall sits on that west side of the lot, and 24 that is where the easement is, that is the 57 1 narrowest part of our lot. It's the -- to 2 walk out of your kitchen door wall onto a 3 deck and a screened-in porch would be the 4 logical place -- placement of the deck and 5 porch. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it? 7 Thank you. 8 Is there anybody in the 9 audience that would like to address the 10 Board regarding this case? 11 Seeing none, 18 notices were 12 mailed; two approvals, zero objections. 13 And approvals, they're from -- 14 Mr. Secretary? 15 MEMBER BAUER: From L.N. Lee, 16 26492, approval; from Alex and Lizza 17 L-j-u-c-d-j-o-n-a-k, we have no objections 18 regarding the deck with screened porch. We 19 believe it would only add -- add extra features 20 to the home and it's value. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 22 e) their address? 23 MEMBER BAUER: 26476? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mandalay. 58 1 MEMBER BAUER: Mandalay. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 3 Building Department, any 4 comment? 5 MR. HINES: Yes, sir. 6 Just want to point out that 7 there's plenty of space for the setbacks on 8 either side. It's just the aggregate 9 setback that's in violation. But the 10 individual setbacks, there's plenty of 11 setback for each. If you look at each one 12 separately, they're within the Zoning 13 Ordinance for that. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 15 All right. Open it up to the 16 Board. 17 Yes, Mr. Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: On the drawing 19 showing -- it says ESE line; is that 20 easement? 21 MS. SLOBIN: Uh-huh. 22 MEMBER CANUP: Is there an 23 easement that goes through there? 24 MS. SLOBIN: There is. 59 1 I believe it is an electrical 2 easement. (interposing.) 3 MEMBER CANUP: (Interposing) 4 (unintelligible.) I'm sorry. 5 Is that the line that goes 6 underneath your steps? 7 I guess my question is, what 8 is that easement? Is it just thoroughfare 9 easement or is there a sewer line buried 10 under it or a water line buried under it? 11 MEMBER SHROYER: It's a 20 foot 12 easement. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may -- 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 15 Mr. Schultz? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: -- in the meeting 17 that we had with Mr. Saven -- I think it was 18 before Mr. Hines came in -- he confirmed, sort 19 of, among the staff, that there's a ten foot 20 drainage easement on the side; that the labeling 21 of the 20 foot easement is probably miss labeling 22 by their architect. That's the 20 foot setback. 23 The easement, itself, is 24 actually only ten feet from the property 60 1 line. 2 MEMBER CANUP: But there's no 3 -- nothing buried there. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't believe 5 so. I think it's a -- 6 MEMBER CANUP: I don't -- 7 MR. SCHULTZ: -- I believe it's 8 a drainage -- 9 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a 10 problem with any of this; along as there's 11 nothing buried there. If there's a water line or 12 sewer line or storm drain -- 13 MR. SCHULTZ: In the area -- if 14 I may, through the Chair -- the area where the 15 deck intrudes, it's not an easement at all. 16 That's the 20 feet setback line. Their architect 17 or whoever drew this put 20 foot easement, 20 18 foot setback is what they meant. The easement 19 along that property is only ten feet. So they 20 are not in that easement. 21 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: This is through 23 Mr. Saven. I'm assuming he checked it. 24 MEMBER CANUP: So this is -- 61 1 MR. SCHULTZ: I think 2 mislabeled. It's a ten foot easement. A 3 misprint, ten foot easement; 20 foot setback. 4 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 5 Thank you. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Anybody 7 else? 8 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 9 MEMBER SHROYER: A quick 10 question or two quick questions. 11 First of all, the shape of the 12 brick patio, I assume that's the same shape 13 as your enclosed porch would be directly 14 above it? 15 MS. SLOBIN: I believe so. 16 No, actually, the brick porch underneath the 17 screened-in -- proposed screened-in porch, 18 actually is a bit larger. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: A little 20 larger. So -- 21 MS. SLOBIN: Uh-huh. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: -- there's room 23 for the post -- 24 MS. SLOBIN: There's room for 62 1 the -- actually, he's going to dig out those 2 bricks and make room for the posts to go 3 there. But it is -- deck will be smaller. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: So when you're 5 standing at your door wall and you're looking 6 out, there's a large field that's mowed. What is 7 that? 8 MS. SLOBIN: That's a 9 homeowner's property. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: A homeowner 11 that's located on Beck Road or -- 12 MS. SLOBIN: It is off of 13 Eleven Mile Road. As far as I know, that is 14 his property. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: And it backs up 16 all the way -- 17 MS. SLOBIN: Backs up all the 18 way. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: There's 20 really no probability of any additional 21 housing being built in the rear of that lot. 22 This is already a primary residence on 11? 23 MS. SLOBIN: As far as I know. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Those 63 1 are the only questions I have. I'm in 2 support of this. It's a lovely home. 3 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm sure the 5 deck and screened-in area will be a lovely 6 addition. 7 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 9 Ms. Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case 11 Number: 06-064 filed by William and Tracy 12 Slobin at 26484 Mandalay Court in Asbury 13 Park, I move that we approve the six point 14 five foot variance request, because it does 15 not cover the easement line; that it will be 16 intrusive of that or cause any safety 17 issues; and it will add to the property 18 value. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Second the 20 Motion. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 22 made and seconded. 23 Any further discussion? 24 I just wanted a clarification. 64 1 You are including the enclosed 2 -- enclosure to deck, right? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 All right. 6 Yes Mr. Shroyer? 7 MEMBER SHROYER: May we add a 8 friendly amendment that it's also been approved 9 by the Asbury Park Homeowner's Association or 10 Asbury Park Development, LLC? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 14 All right. Ms. Working, will 15 you please call the roll. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 65 1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 3 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 5 six to zero. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Congratulation 7 s. Your variance has been granted. 8 MR. SLOBIN: Thank you. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 10 e) building permit and good luck. 11 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you so much. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 14 Moving onto the next one, Case 15 Number: 06-064 -- oh, I beg your pardon -- 16 065 filed by Athir Y. Yousif of Beech-Beck 17 Properties, LLC, for lot 62 on Pioneer 18 Meadows, Strath Haven Drive. 19 Good evening. Will you please 20 identify yourself -- give your name, 21 address, and be sworn in by our secretary 22 and then make your presentation, thank you. 23 MR. YOUSIF: Athir Y. Yousif, 24 from Beck -- Beech-Beck Properties, LLC, 66 1 17346 Gateway Circle, Southfield, Michigan 2 48075. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right 4 hand. 5 Do you swear or affirm to tell 6 the truth regarding Case, 06-065? 7 MR. YOUSIF: I do. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 9 MR. YOUSIF: Beech-Beck 10 Properties, LLC, have got lot 62, Pioneer 11 Meadows, under contract. And when we looked 12 into the possibility of building a home on 13 this lot, we found out that the whole 14 subdivision is zoned as an R-A, according to 15 the Ordinances of City of Novi; and this 16 requires certain setbacks. 17 This lot is not conforming to 18 any of the regulations of Ordinance for 19 zoning of an R-A. We also noticed that this 20 whole subdivision, each lot of it, does not 21 conform to an R-A zoning. So, according to 22 this, we are requesting variances for the 23 setbacks for this lot, so that it will be 24 buildable, because with the existing zoning 67 1 setbacks, this lot is not buildable. 2 And we are proposing a home on 3 it which is compatible to most of the homes 4 in this subdivision. We are requesting a 5 variance for a rear yard setback of ten 6 feet, to be 40; instead of 50. For the 7 front yard setback to be 40 feet, instead of 8 45; which is a variances of five feet. 9 If you notice this, 45 and 50 10 is 95. If you take it 120 feet, which is 11 the depth of this lot, then we are left only 12 25 feet; which is not buildable anymore. 13 For the sides we are requesting a 15 foot 14 setback, instead of 20, for the R-A. And 15 the variance request is five feet. For the 16 aggregate, we are requesting a seven feet 17 variance to be 43, instead of 50. 18 All of these are actually 19 variances, which if we take this size of the 20 lot -- 100 by 122, we'll be conforming to 21 your R-3 zoning for this; but we will not 22 conform to an R-A. And as I said, there is 23 no lot in this subdivision which conforms to 24 an R-A zoning. 68 1 So the hardship in it is that 2 if we want to go with a R-A zoning setbacks, 3 this lot is not buildable; and that's our 4 request for these variances. 5 Thank you. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 Is there anybody in the 8 audience who would like to address the Board 9 regarding this case? 10 Will you please come forward 11 to the podium, identify yourself. 12 MR. NELSON: My name is Greg 13 Nelson. I'm at 25870 Strath Haven Drive, 14 and I'm the chair of the architect control 15 committee. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go 17 ahead. 18 MR. NELSON: Oh, I don't need 19 to -- oh, okay. 20 What we primarily look at as a 21 committee -- I think Mr. Yousif did a good 22 job summarizing the -- how the subdivision 23 is zoned and some of the challenges that 24 that presents. One -- the main thing that we 69 1 look at when we look at new builds, in 2 addition to setbacks and so on is, are the 3 homes consistent with neighboring homes. So 4 we've got homes in the subdivision varying 5 from two years old to 40 years old; so we're 6 very challenged with providing for homes -- 7 or supporting or not supporting, frankly, 8 plans that are consistent with homes that 9 have been there forever; yet, allowing new 10 builds, such as the one that Mr. Yousif has 11 proposed; that give them a little bit bigger 12 home for new construction. 13 It's a bit of a challenge at 14 times. We've been here talking about other 15 builds. We've got four successes in the 16 past couple years. We've got another dozen 17 or so lots. And the only reason I came 18 tonight, frankly is just to let you know 19 that we had some pre-discussion with 20 Mr. Yousif. He submitted his plans to our 21 satisfaction the first time; which frankly 22 doesn't happen often. And we've approved 23 his plan. We've put that in writing. You 24 should have a letter. 70 1 And the only reason I'm here 2 is to ask you to please, if you would -- as 3 long as no one has any objections -- we'd 4 like to see you approve his plans that he 5 could get started. So we appreciate him 6 working with us and look forward to his home 7 being in our association. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 9 Anybody else? 10 Seeing none, like to inform 11 the Board that 29 notices were mailed, three 12 approvals, zero objections. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Sandra Height, 14 approval, lot owner of 60. Tim Bleacher, 15 approval on Strath Haven. Greg Nelson on Strath 16 Haven. We look forward to this home in our 17 neighborhood. We have reviewed the plans, 18 design, size, setbacks, looks good. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 Building Department? 21 MR. HINES: Thank you. 22 I just want to point out that 23 it is a legal plotted lot that the Ordinance 24 allows to be built on; except that now we 71 1 have to look at all the variances. But it 2 is a legal non-conforming lot in the 3 subdivision. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 And open up to the Board. 6 Yes, Mr. Bauer. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Was this zoning 8 changed in the last few years? 9 MR. HINES: That's a good 10 question. I'm not sure. I've wondered that 11 myself, when why most, if not, all of the houses 12 in it subdivision really don't meet the -- 13 today's code for the R-A. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah, that's why 15 I was asking. 16 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Chair, I live 17 there. 18 MEMBER BAUER: I know you do. 19 MEMBER CANUP: And that 20 subdivision was platted somewhere, late '50's 21 early '6O's. So I would imagine there's been 22 tremendous amounts of change in the Ordinances 23 since that time. In fact, at that time, I think 24 it was a village, and there was literally not 72 1 much Ordinance at all. So, you know, my wife has 2 been working with Mr. Yousif to -- and Greg, to 3 get this to where it's at. And Mr. Yousif has 4 been extremely cooperative in trying to make 5 something fit on that property. 6 And being a resident there and 7 as a Member of this Board, I would endorse 8 what has been asked for in this case; 9 because there's really not much -- I guess 10 basically you'd say the property is 11 unbuildable without some type of variances; 12 which we've seen -- in the last two years 13 we've seen maybe three, four homes come in. 14 There's only eight more lots I understand 15 that are buildable, so we're going to see 16 eight more of them come in. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 18 Mr. Canup. 19 Yes, Mr. Schultz? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: Just to confirm, I 21 don't have the date, but the R-A zoning does come 22 after the lot was platted. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, that's what 24 I thought, but -- 73 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 2 Anybody else? 3 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 4 Initially, when I pulled this 5 information, I had quite a few concerns. 6 You know, brand new lot, brand new house; 7 why in the world can't they meet the 8 requirements. They ought to by a bigger lot 9 if they want to build a bigger house. And I 10 drove over there -- I believe it's one of 11 two vacant lots that are side by side -- 12 they weren't labeled as to what the number 13 was. I didn't know which one was which. 14 The house that you're 15 proposing, size wise, is it comparable to 16 the one directly across the street? 17 MR. YOUSIF: Well, actually it 18 is a bit smaller in area. I think the one 19 across the street is 2700; this one is 20 roughly 2500 -- 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Any idea -- 22 MR. YOUSIF: -- square feet. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: -- roughly what 24 the lot size is of the one across the street? 74 1 MR. YOUSIF: The lot sizes 2 are, I think, similar. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. And is 4 lot either 61 or 63 the same size as this one? 5 MR. YOUSIF: 61 and 62 are 6 exactly the same. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: So we're 8 going to be looking at another request once 9 somebody comes in to build a house. 10 MR. YOUSIF: Actually, have 11 lot 61 under contract, too. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Combine the 13 lots and build a duplex. Can't do that. It's not 14 zoned properly for that. 15 Okay. After hearing the 16 comments and the reasons why, I don't have 17 any objections to the variance request. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good, 19 thank you. 20 Looking for somebody to make a 21 Motion. 22 Yes, Mr. Gatt? 23 MEMBER GATT: I would like to 24 make a Motion in Case Number: 06-065, filed by 75 1 Athir Y. Yousif of Beech-Beck Properties, LLC, 2 for lot 62 in Pioneer Meadows, Strath Haven 3 Drive. I would like to grant all of the 4 requested variances in the front yard, rear yard, 5 side yard and aggregate setback and rear yard 6 setback. I believe that if these variances 7 weren't granted, this lot would be unbuildable. 8 They are -- the variances, they're very similar 9 to every other house or most every other house in 10 this subdivision, as is now. And I believe that 11 this will be nothing but a nice addition to this 12 neighborhood. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 15 Mr. Gatt. 16 Mr. Bauer has seconded it. 17 If there's no further 18 discussion, will you please call the roll, 19 thank you. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Gatt? 21 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 76 1 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 9 six to zero. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your variances 11 have been granted. Get your permit from the 12 Building Department and good luck. 13 MR. YOUSIF: Thank you. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very nice. 15 Moving a long. Next case -- 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would like 17 to ask to be excused from the next case. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 19 Somebody make a Motion. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: So moved. 21 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded. 23 All those in favor say aye. 24 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 77 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. You 2 are excused, thank you. 3 Now that leaves us into a very 4 precarious situation here. 5 Okay. Case Number 6-066, 6 filed by Milton D. Jennings of Barton 7 Malow-White joint venture for Providence 8 Hospital, located at 47601 Grand River 9 Avenue. 10 Good evening. Please identify 11 yourself, with your name, address, and be 12 sworn in by our secretary, thank you. 13 MR. JENNINGS: My name is 14 Milton Jennings, address, 26817 Beck Road. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. Can you 16 raise your right hand. 17 Do you swear or affirm to tell 18 the truth regarding case, 06-066? 19 MR. JENNINGS: I do. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 22 MR. JENNINGS: Barton 23 Mallow-White on behalf of Providence 24 Hospital is requesting one sign variance due 78 1 to the following hardships. Currently, 2 there are several ongoing projects on that 3 site, and there's nothing distinguishing our 4 job site from any of the rest. In addition, 5 we want to make the community aware of the 6 new hospital that's being built on that 7 site. 8 And the size of the site is 9 quite large, and we have lot of deliveries. 10 And if you're not familiar with the area, 11 it's very easy to get turned around. And we 12 get a lot of phone calls from guys not being 13 able to find the site very easily. So, it's 14 my opinion that this construction sign would 15 eliminate a lot of the -- I wouldn't say 16 large problems, but a lot of the phone calls 17 we get with guys trying to find the site. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it? 19 Thank you. 20 MR. JENNINGS: You're welcome. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is there 22 anybody in the audience that would like to make a 23 comment about this case? 24 Seeing none, 48 notices were 79 1 mailed; one approval, zero objections. 2 MEMBER BAUER: From Rock 3 Showplace. Regards to the Public Hearing Notice 4 was sent requesting additional construction 5 identification sign for Providence Hospital, we 6 support this request. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 Building Department? 9 MR. HINES: Thank you. 10 I'd to defer this to our 11 Neighborhood Services Department. 12 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no 13 comment, sir. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 15 you, sir. 16 All right. Open it up to the 17 Board. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: May I make just 19 one comment? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Sure, please. 21 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: This is right now 24 all one parcel. But the long-term development 80 1 plan is several separate developments that are 2 kind of, you know, all working their way through 3 it. There's been no lot splits granted as far as 4 I know at this point; but eventually, there will 5 be some approves some how for these ongoing 6 developments. So there's already a sign for 7 Providence Park, and this one has to go on 8 somewhere in the area where the hospital is; but 9 it's all one parcel. 10 So the one sign theoretically 11 can cancel out the ability of the other 12 developments to show that they're also on 13 their way. So that's really -- it's one 14 parcel, but it's one really big parcel; but 15 it still only gets one sign. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 17 Mr. Schultz. 18 Open it up to the Board. 19 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 20 MEMBER SHROYER: I may as well 21 start. I have some confusion. That helped a 22 little bit. But, in driving out last night, I 23 didn't see any sign existing or proposed at the 24 corner of Beck and Grand River. 81 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: It is there. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't know 3 how I missed it. 4 MR. JENNINGS: There is an 5 existing sign -- 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: There's a sign 7 already there. I have seen it. 8 MR. JENNINGS: -- of the 9 hospital. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, you're not 11 talking about a construction sign. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: The old golf 13 course. 14 MR. JENNINGS: Right. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: It is next to 16 the old golf course opening. There is a sign 17 there. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. So 19 it's south on Beck? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, it's south 21 on Beck. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, then. I 23 was looking at the -- 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, well, 82 1 that is -- that is (unintelligible) correctly 2 drawn, but we won't go into that. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: So you are -- 4 you're looking at proposing a second 5 construction sign within 50 feet of the 6 existing one. 7 MR. JENNINGS: Yes. Because 8 the existing sign is separate from what 9 we're doing. That's the existing Providence 10 Hospital. The sign that we are proposing to 11 put in would be for the new Providence 12 Hospital. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: For the new 14 one, which is in the back. It's half mile behind 15 the building -- 16 MR. JENNINGS: So give or take 17 a few feet. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: And you're 19 saying that you're construction people are having 20 difficulty finding it, even though it's the 21 tallest thing in Novi? 22 MR. JENNINGS: Yeah. But if 23 you're not familiar with the area -- you're 24 a truck driver and all you see are tall 83 1 buildings going up. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: And it would be 3 better located here than at the construction 4 entrance? 5 MR. JENNINGS: I think it 6 would be. It's just a matter of my opinion, 7 only based on the fact that when you say 8 Providence Hospital, you say Grand River and 9 Beck. So, that would give you the general 10 area. And then I guess you would just 11 assume that common sense would take place 12 for a seven story metal frame building going 13 up. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: With five 15 different projects forthcoming -- I don't 16 know what the timing is on the various 17 projects -- but would we -- we're 18 anticipating getting four more request, in 19 other words, from different developers 20 coming forth and wanting construction signs, 21 am I correct on that? 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. If I may 23 through the Chair. 24 Right now, we're sort of in 84 1 the process of trying to figure out how 2 we're going to make these separate 3 developments exist on separately owned 4 parcels. There's an issue by virtue of the 5 fact that it's a private ring road where 6 they're all going to enter and exit from is 7 private; and the assessor's raised some 8 questions whether or not he can grant lot 9 splits. We're resolving that issue. But a 10 long the same lines, the issue that causes 11 the variance is not -- and Mr. Almosch can 12 further explain -- is not proposed or the 13 existing sign in blue; it's the sign way off 14 this drawing, because this parcel's so big. 15 That's for Providence Park Medical Offices, 16 not the hospital. 17 So you only get one 18 construction sign. There's going to be two; 19 there may be more. 20 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 21 across from Applebee's. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: But it's because 23 it's a big singularly owned parcel that we're 24 having this issue; not where they have it in 85 1 relation to their sign or the construction 2 entrance. Just the fact that it's anywhere on 3 their property. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 5 Mr. Schultz. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: And of 7 course -- 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, sorry. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yeah, I've got 10 a couple more things, if I may. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: And, of course, 13 the need is immediate because of, you're under 14 construction, you're trying to get it up. 15 MR. JENNINGS: Correct. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: People need 17 to find it. 18 I am not opposed to an 19 additional sign; given the size of the 20 property that we're talking about. I would 21 want to be looking at a time frame, because 22 if we need to come back at later date -- if 23 we're going to have five different 24 parcels -- I'd hate to grant this for a two 86 1 year period and then find out that we 2 probably need to make an adjustment six 3 months down the road. 4 MEMBER BAUER: It's a 5 construction sign so it has to be taken down 6 after their (unintelligible) (interposing.) 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Right. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup. 9 MEMBER CANUP: You know, I 10 guess I got a real problem with this sign. 11 Number one, it's 108 inches wide. It is 126 12 inches tall. That's a big sign. And a lot 13 of the content of the sign is nothing but 14 advertising. It doesn't say where to go, 15 which way, which direction. 16 If this is the sign that 17 you're proposing; is that correct? 18 MR. JENNINGS: Correct. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. There is 20 no direction on there. It just tells you -- 21 gives you a nice picture of the hospital -- and 22 which any person that's not blind can see from, 23 you know -- again, your point was well taken, 24 it's the tallest structure in Novi. And I think 87 1 what needs to be done here is the hospital or the 2 owners of this property need to come up with a 3 sign package that is going to last for the 4 duration of this project; whether it be a year or 5 five years or whatever. But we're going to end 6 up with a hodge-podge of signs that everybody who 7 comes on that piece of property wants their sign 8 out front. 9 And I thin what we need in my 10 opinion, what we need to do is send the 11 applicant back, tell him to come up with a 12 package plan of directional to the 13 construction site and not an advertising 14 sign. 15 MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, I'd 16 like add to that. The projected dates for this 17 are pretty close, that's altogether; but separate 18 projects. The hospital is -- they are looking at 19 early 2008 to be complete. We have a five story 20 medical office building that would be built as 21 proposed -- actually they're coming in now for 22 plans -- that will be built before the hospital's 23 complete. We have an out-patient surgery 24 building that will be built before the hospital's 88 1 complete; and also a hotel; all are separate 2 entities within the hospital. The hospital's 3 essentially renting that space out to them. And 4 thus, the problem that Mr. Schultz was talking 5 about is -- it's kind of new situation for us 6 because they've got a -- they're going to lease 7 it, but they will be separate parcels. They need 8 to be separate parcels. 9 But in any rate, they're all 10 going to be done pretty much before the 11 hospital. The hospital's going to be the 12 last building built on the site -- at least 13 with what's been proposed so far; that the 14 M.O.D., the surgery building, and the hotel, 15 will all be built before the hospital, and 16 they all are starting to filter in, as far 17 as permits for those. 18 MEMBER CANUP: Well, still 19 going back to the comments. I feel very 20 strongly that there needs to be an overall 21 package. And again, this is sign that 22 you're proposing is nothing more than an 23 advertising. It has absolutely no direction 24 on it at all. If you put it on the corner, 89 1 a truck drives up and sees it, yeah, but 2 which way do I go to go get into here. 3 So I, you know, again, I'm in 4 favor of sending him back and giving them a 5 postponement or opportunity to go back and 6 revise their plans and come back with 7 something that is, again, a directional 8 sign; and not advertising that's meant to 9 get people to where they belong on the site. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 11 Mr. Canup. 12 I'd like to put my comment on 13 record, and that is, I think we need to 14 recognize that this is not just Providence 15 Hospital. It's a campus; and it is going to 16 need lots of different signs; not only for 17 construction, but also other purposes, as 18 well. 19 And unless they've reached 20 that point in planning to know exactly where 21 they're going to put all of their signs; I 22 don't know whether they're going to be able 23 to put a package of signs to be approved all 24 in total at one go. And it is quite 90 1 possible that they don't have these things. 2 I have know no way of knowing at this point. 3 We can suggest to the applicant at this 4 point that we'd be quite happy to table this 5 until next month if they can come up with a 6 better sign for this particular location 7 they have requested, which is more of a 8 directional sign for construction traffic; 9 rather than a standard B (unintelligible) 10 sign, so to speak, as they are presently. 11 Yes, Mr. Schultz? 12 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, no 13 comment on whether or not there should be a 14 larger sign package or -- it's kind of a policy 15 decision for the Board. But just a 16 clarification, the size of the sign is under what 17 they would be permitted if they had -- already 18 had lot lines on this large parcel in place; and 19 the language on there is permitted under the 20 Ordinance; if the construction sign is permitted. 21 So, you know, when we start 22 talking about the Board conditioning things 23 on what's on the sign, we start going down 24 the road to regulating content of sign; 91 1 which is tough enough; but might be harder 2 to do if the Ordinance as it's written 3 permits all the language that's on the sign. 4 So, you know, I'm not 5 commenting on the tabling or what other 6 signs you want to see that's within the -- 7 certainly, a policy question of the Board. 8 But size and writing are things that, you 9 know, if they get a sign, those are 10 permitted sizes and permitted messages. 11 So just to comment on that. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 Yes, what is the pleasure of 14 the Board? 15 Yes, Mr. Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I would 17 ask the applicant if they want an opportunity to 18 rethink this, with -- based on the comments -- at 19 least from my standpoint -- and I don't know how 20 the rest of the Board feels -- but I guess that's 21 something we'll have to decide, if the Board 22 feels that we should ask him to come back to us. 23 That's number one question. 24 MR. SCHULTZ: I might also point 92 1 out that now you're down to five instead of a six 2 full Board. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: That also should 5 factor into the applicant -- 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, that's 7 also another issue. We don't have a full Board 8 at this point in time. 9 Well, from what you 10 explained -- from what Mr. Schultz explained 11 to me, (unintelligible) of the sign is well 12 within the requirements, and we have no 13 control of it. 14 MEMBER CANUP: If we had no 15 control over, it they wouldn't be here. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Now, I'm 17 talking about the wording on the sign. 18 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. But 19 they're asking for a variance to place an 20 additional sign. Now we have control over 21 it. And the reason for the request for the 22 variance -- as stated by the applicant in 23 his presentation -- was to get direction to 24 people who came basically to the corner of 93 1 Grand River and Novi Road and could not find 2 the hospital. 3 I'm saying, that's fine, maybe 4 you need to -- do need direction. This sign 5 indicates no direction at all. It is 6 nothing more than a advertisement. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 8 Here we are. What is the 9 pleasure of the Board? What would you like 10 to recommend next? 11 Mr. Shroyer? 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Can we ask 13 the applicant (unintelligible.) How do you 14 feel about this? 15 MR. JENNINGS: I feel 16 (unintelligible) Mr. Schultz. We meet all 17 the requirements asked of us. I guess if 18 the decision -- you know, asking me what I 19 would do, I guess I would have to go back 20 and rethink it. But as we did meet the 21 requirements, I don't think that the 22 language on the sign would change much. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 24 e) sign maker. 94 1 Okay. 2 Yes, Mr. Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you think it 4 would do any good to go to Providence and ask 5 them? 6 MR. JENNINGS. Oh, sure, 7 ultimately that's -- 8 MEMBER BAUER: The reason for 9 it -- I mean, as you said you're going to have 10 many people working there? 11 MR. JENNINGS: Sure. 12 MEMBER BAUER: We don't want 60 13 signs if we could have one set by hospital, say 14 one on Grand River, one on Beck Road; that could 15 eliminate a lot of individual signs. It would be 16 better for the hospital to begin with. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, yes, 18 Mr. Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Do you 20 understand where we're coming from? If you 21 could go back to the hospital itself and 22 say, look at the whole campus and what's 23 going to be the needs all the different 24 developers that are going to be here, the 95 1 various buildings that are going to be here; 2 and maybe Providence would help you put 3 together a package. 4 Your sign may not change at 5 all, but -- or maybe there'll be an arrow 6 added to it. I don't know. That would be 7 up to you guys. To me, a construction 8 sign -- and that was the term that was used 9 -- a construction sign -- is more than an 10 advertisement. But if Providence could 11 support you and support everybody else, and 12 say we want -- we want to come forward with 13 this package; and it may be two signs; it 14 may be four; whatever, it would be a lot 15 easier to approve at that point, or at least 16 to consider for approval, I should say. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 18 Mr. Schultz? 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Just maybe as much 20 for the benefit of the proponent here, four votes 21 of the people sitting here are required. Normal 22 case, there would be another person sitting in 23 the chair. Ms. Krieger stepped aside because of 24 her conflict. But in a different meeting, you 96 1 may have another body here to make four votes. 2 One of the things that's 3 missing from the package, I think, is some 4 perspective on just how big this piece of 5 property is, as a single site; and where 6 other developments might be proposed. You 7 know, I think the proponent's got to ask the 8 question, you know, am I going to get the 9 four votes based on the comments so far. If 10 not, tabling it to next month -- if you set 11 it for next month -- 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: -- would not 14 require all the extra public notices and things 15 like that. But ultimately, it is up to you to 16 read the sentiment and see if you're going to get 17 your four votes. If not, certainly other 18 information could come back next month with 19 another person up on the table. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Well, do 21 you want to express any opinion about our 22 proposition, or shall we go ahead and do it 23 ourselves anyway? 24 MR. JENNINGS: Well, 97 1 ultimately, it's not my decision, so I would 2 definitely have to go back to Providence. 3 MEMBER BAUER: I propose that we 4 table Case: 06-066 -- 5 MEMBER CANUP: Second. 6 MEMBER BAUER: -- until next 7 month -- 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Any 9 further discussion? 10 MEMBER BAUER: -- for additional 11 information. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: For additional 13 information, thank you. 14 If there is no further 15 discussion, will you please call the roll. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 21 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 98 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 3 five to zero. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 5 MEMBER BAUER: We'll see you 6 next month. 7 MR. JENNINGS: All right. 8 Thanks a lot. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 10 All right. We'll take one 11 more before we break. 12 13 Okay. Case Number 06-067, 14 filed by Tony Nofar of Novi Fine Wine, 15 located at 43340 West Ten Mile Road. 16 MR. RICH: Good evening. 17 I'm Brian Rich, appearing on 18 behalf of Mr. Nofar. My address is 30150 19 Telegraph Road, Suite 245, Bingham Farms, 20 Michigan, 48025. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Are you an 22 attorney? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you an 24 attorney? 99 1 MR. RICH: I am. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go 3 ahead. 4 MR. RICH: Don't hold that 5 against me. 6 I being with some brief 7 overview comments, which apply to both 8 variance requests; and then discuss how 9 they're applicable to these specific 10 requests. 11 First, there is a standard 12 element for determining practical 13 difficulty. I know I've heard the term 14 hardship used earlier this evening; and 15 those factors are what you typically use to 16 identify whether a variance should be 17 granted. 18 And those factors are whether 19 compliance with the strict letter of the 20 restrictions would render conformity with 21 such restrictions; unnecessarily burdensome; 22 whether a grant of the variance would do 23 substantial justice to the applicant, as 24 well as to other property owners in the 100 1 district. Whether the plight of the 2 landowners due to the unique circumstances 3 of the property; and whether the problem is 4 self-created. 5 The issue before you in any 6 case, is whether the relief requested 7 satisfies the spirit of the Ordinance. A 8 variance request is necessary precisely when 9 the specific limitations provided in the 10 Ordinance should not be strictly applied. 11 That's the basis for the existence of the 12 Zoning Board of Appeals; and that's why 13 we're here to ask this Board to exercise 14 it's discretion and grant the variances 15 requested. 16 Now one issue which the Board 17 is faced with is whether the variance 18 requested is consistent with community 19 standards. In partial answer, we've already 20 presented you with literally hundreds of 21 signatures from those favoring the grant of 22 the variances requested. Since the time 23 we've submitted that to Zoning Staff, we 24 have another 60 or so signatures. So we're 101 1 certainly 200 plus; in terms of support for 2 the project. 3 I certainly understand that 4 volume of support for something isn't 5 terminative, but certainly it is a strong 6 indication of what the community standard 7 is; and whether this sort of variance would 8 be viewed as adverse to the community. Now 9 let's look at the specifics why the factors 10 are sufficient for finding practical 11 difficulty in this case. 12 The property, itself, is 13 unique in that it was condemned by the 14 Oakland County Road Commission for 15 reconstruction of the Ten Mile/Novi 16 intersection. Now rather than allow for an 17 ugly, abandoned property, the parties -- 18 including the Road Commission, the City and 19 Mr. Nofar, decided that the community would 20 be better served by redeveloping the 21 property. 22 An agreement resulting in a 23 consent judgment was reached. And in order 24 to meet the road count -- the Road 102 1 Commission's needs and serve the community, 2 again, the property had to be redesigned. 3 With respect to the first 4 variance, that's the one with the channel 5 lettering, identifying the various types of 6 services and products that are available at 7 the facility. Mr. Nofar could have tried to 8 use one sign, a long a single run; but, in 9 fact, it was believed that individual 10 channel letter signs would be significantly 11 more attractive. 12 The signs, themselves, 13 identify distinctive businesses. A place 14 that sells cigars, doesn't necessarily sell 15 pizza. In fact, Pizza Marvelous is a 16 separate legal entity, as well. The 17 problem -- one of the problems that we face, 18 is the redevelopment resulted in an 19 attractive limestone facade. But the 20 problem is, that decreased the glass window 21 space where many other advertise what they 22 sell. They put up paper signs in the 23 windows, and just have that identify what it 24 is they sell. 103 1 In this case, both the City, 2 the Road Commission, and Mr. Nofar believe 3 that an attractive limestone facade would 4 better serve the esthetics of the community. 5 There would be an undue hardship, if the 6 business is not allowed any sort of 7 advertising on the building, itself. 8 Practically, while the existing sign helps, 9 it's simply not enough to promote the 10 business and let people know what's going on 11 there. 12 The building, itself, looks 13 nothing like it looked in the past. People 14 wouldn't know the business from the past; 15 and new people also won't know what's going 16 on at the business. They're just very 17 distinct. So therefore -- I would point out 18 one thing. We understand that asking for 19 signs, you know, something that the Board 20 takes very seriously. 21 And what we've tried to do is 22 come up with the minimum size of signage 23 that we believe would be -- still be able to 24 be visible; but would create as little 104 1 non-conformity -- minimize any 2 non-conformity. In fact, we have the sign 3 designer. And just since the application, 4 itself was filed, he has redesigned the 5 signs, basically to say same thing; but 6 reduce the size substantially. 7 And if I can hand out the 8 new -- new information -- I do have a copy 9 for each member -- then you will actually be 10 able to see this substantial reduction in 11 the request that was made. I'm not sure who 12 to hand it to, if it's appropriate or -- 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 14 MR. RICH: Just pass it down, 15 down the row? 16 You'll see that the signage 17 request has actually been reduced, with 18 respect to the first sign for cigars from 19 11.66 square feet, all the way down to 5.25. 20 The second -- the second sign for the -- 21 Pizza Marvelous has been reduced from 16 22 square feet to 11; the third for liquor, 23 reduced from 11.85 to 7.5; the fourth from 24 Novi Fine Wine reduced from 17 to 11; and 105 1 the lotto sign reduced from nearly ten 2 square feet down to six square feet. 3 So we really are trying to 4 work both with the City, and certain hope 5 the Board will take that into consideration 6 that we've tried to create both an esthetic, 7 as well as a functional means to produce; so 8 that people know exactly what's going on 9 there. Just as an aside -- well not really 10 an aside -- one of the issues is how the 11 signage will assist in identifying the 12 property at night. We had some pictures 13 taken, just showing the property at night. 14 And I'm not sure how this will work, but 15 I'll give it a try. 16 If you like at this picture, 17 this right here that one little bright 18 light, is the existing sign. The rest of 19 the building, there's some minor up 20 lighting, that when you drive by if the 21 other signage is there, people will actually 22 be able to read what the building has. Of 23 course, a lot of business coming to this 24 store is, in fact, at night. 106 1 Just as -- let's see if I can 2 give a little better picture. This is -- 3 well -- this picture shows the property 4 heading eastbound on Ten Mile. Again, the 5 existing signage just really isn't 6 sufficient to properly identify the 7 business. 8 For those reasons we had ask 9 that our request for variance number one be 10 granted. 11 With respect to the second 12 variance, there's actually a precursor 13 question that the Board should address. And 14 that is the Ordinance itself identifies it's 15 purposes as including the promotion of 16 esthetics, encouraging creativity, 17 effectiveness and flexibility; without 18 creating a detriment to the general public. 19 What Mr. Nofar and folks designing the sign 20 have done, is they have come up with a 21 creative incorporation of colorful, but not 22 gaudy blocks within the limestone facade. 23 The alternative would be 24 simply to have a solid blank wall, which 107 1 truthfully wouldn't be particularly 2 appealing. The Board can distinguish 3 between esthetic decoration and a sign. 4 While the Ordinance talks about what a sign 5 is, there's also decoration that clearly is 6 not what the Ordinance intended, and doesn't 7 meet the spirit of the Ordinance. We look 8 to the purpose of the alleged sign or the 9 decoration. 10 In this case, the number of 11 individual sports emblems, they're not 12 specifically intended to induce people to 13 buy tickets. They're not intended to induce 14 people to donate to organizations. It's 15 just that people are comfortable seeing 16 familiar and attractive things. And while 17 Mr. Nofar may sponsor various high school 18 events and things like that -- I believe the 19 Novi team logo is up there -- the purpose of 20 that logo is not to specifically encourage 21 other people that that's what they should 22 do. Again, that's just part of the 23 community. 24 The alternative would be 108 1 simply plain walls with no sort of 2 decoration at all. Similarly, one of the 3 issues was a grapevine representation. 4 Realistically, that's simply art. I mean it 5 doesn't -- it could be a bird; it could be a 6 tree -- that doesn't make it a sign, or at 7 least we're asking the Board that -- to 8 interpret that there's a difference between 9 pure esthetics and representations, and what 10 the Ordinance intended to regulate as a 11 sign, itself. 12 There have been significant 13 improvements made to the property, and 14 unfortunately, it seems like word sign has 15 kind of given a negative connotation. On 16 the other hand, at least with respect to 17 non-word signs, I don't know that people 18 generally believe that sports depictions 19 themselves are offensive -- although I 20 suppose some of the people with Michigan and 21 Michigan State might not want the other 22 person's logo on there -- but I think for 23 the community overall -- you know, we have 24 them both. I think people generally agree 109 1 that having both from the State is probably 2 a pretty beneficial thing. 3 We've talked about the 4 community standards. These are very 5 tasteful renderings. And there's a 6 practical difficulty simply because the wall 7 called for by the Consent Judgment in their 8 depiction is simply a blank wall. Now there 9 are rectangular spaces where these 10 particular emblems are located; but there 11 wasn't a specific rendering that was put on 12 there. 13 So there's some question 14 whether there was an intent to have 15 something there, other than a blank 16 rectangle; but certainly we believe this to 17 be more attractive. 18 And I'd certainly entertain 19 any questions. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 21 Is there anybody in the 22 audience that would like to -- please come 23 on to the podium here, identify yourself, 24 and make your presentation. 110 1 Thank you. 2 MR. WOLFORD: Good evening. 3 My name is Peter Wolford, and 4 together -- you want my address and 5 everything? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please. 7 MR. WOLFORD: I own the Novi 8 Pizza Company, which is located at 24265 9 Novi Road; which is on the northwest corner 10 of Novi right behind the Novi Fine Wines. 11 I have a number of comments 12 I'd like to make; and I'd just like to 13 sort -- make some comments as to what I just 14 heard the gentleman say. I think it's one 15 thing -- I could have all kinds of customers 16 coming to my store and sign a petition. 17 They're not the person that lives with the 18 sign Ordinance. We, the businesses, are the 19 ones that live with the sign Ordinances. 20 I think in this instance, I 21 think that the people from the businesses 22 that respond, it has a more meaningful 23 response, than just a customer coming in to 24 pick up a bottle of wine; or in my case, you 111 1 know, coming in to pick up a pizza. So I 2 hope that, you know, we can kind of look at 3 that. 4 There's a 24 foot sign -- 24 5 square foot sign that's approved, based on 6 the Ordinance that stands today. The 7 Ordinance -- the sign that was put up there, 8 once it was granted, contains all the 9 information that's on the top of the 10 building. It's everything. Pizza Marvelous 11 is on there, cigars is on there, lotto, 12 liquor, it's all on that one sign. If you 13 drive down the street -- it's a yellow sign. 14 It's well-lit at night. There is no problem 15 seeing it coming from either direction. 16 That's my response to that 17 one. 18 I think -- did the City -- did 19 the City come back and ask for that facade 20 to be put on the building, or was it is the 21 Novi Fine Wine wanted the facade on the 22 building. If they wanted the facade put on 23 there and it doesn't have enough light, they 24 submitted the plan; they submitted the plan 112 1 with the limestone clear blocks there on 2 there. It's not bricks. They were on the 3 plan. I saw a copy of the plan and they 4 were on the plan. There was no wording on 5 it. 6 The sign Ordinance, as it 7 stands today, and also as it's proposed to 8 stand in the future, says that a sign is any 9 of those things that are up there -- sports 10 related -- in this case, it's sports 11 related. If a flower shop wants to put a 12 picture of a flower up there, it's a sign. 13 You know, what is a sign. The sign is to 14 draw attention to the building as you drive 15 by. And if you have all those signs lit up 16 there at night, it attracts attention to the 17 building. 18 You know, and that's -- 19 therefore, they considered signs. And under 20 the Ordinance, they're considered signs. 21 It's clear cut. On top of that, the signs 22 were already installed. We're now coming 23 back and asking for a variance on sign that 24 are already up there. They'd already been 113 1 put in place with no permit pulled and no 2 application to put them up. In my mind, 3 they should come down. 4 Just excuse me, because I had 5 some other things written. I just want to 6 make sure I go back on these ones. 7 As far as the sign proposal, 8 you know, the new revised sign proposal with 9 the smaller signs and everything like that; 10 I went to the City and I got all the 11 information I could from them, and I was 12 presented with a copy of the original 13 application that went out with all of 14 dimensions of the building; and the signs as 15 they were shown in there. When they applied 16 for the approval, which was denied by the 17 City, those sign measurements did not 18 represent what was on that plan that was 19 submitted to you. They were larger in the 20 first place. 21 So, you know, now they've been 22 made smaller miraculously the night before 23 or the night of when you want to make the 24 change. You know, it's a substantial 114 1 increase in the size of signage. If you 2 grant it to one business, you have to grant 3 it or be willing to look at granting it to 4 all businesses. We all have hardship. That 5 sign is three foot back from the, you know, 6 from the easement out by the road. It's a 7 24 square foot sign. 8 You know, I'm -- and a number 9 of other business around here would die for 10 a sign like that. I'm 300 foot back from 11 the road, and I live by the Ordinance. You 12 know, nobody forced them to repurchase the 13 property; nobody forced them to put the 14 facade up the way it is. They did it of 15 their own. So if there's any hardship, it's 16 self-inflicted. 17 You know, I think we -- I'd 18 like to make a comment on the sign 19 Ordinance. I came to a meeting here -- I 20 think it was about the 23rd of last month -- 21 and they were reading the new sign 22 Ordinance. It was before the Planning 23 Commission. And I went through the sign 24 Ordinance from top to bottom before all this 115 1 came up, because I didn't know this was all 2 going to happen. I didn't know these signs 3 were going to go up. 4 But I went through it from top 5 to bottom, and some of the other people in 6 the stripmall went through it. And three of 7 us came to the City, because we had a 8 question with regards to one small item in 9 the sign Ordinance. When it was reread 10 here, there were three business people 11 representing all of the business in Novi. 12 So I think -- I went through the sign 13 Ordinance, the new one, it's good. If it's 14 fairly applied, its really good. 15 And it must be good, because 16 we had one small question and no other 17 questions. So I think the sign Ordinance 18 proves that it's accepted by most of the 19 business. And if it's fairly administered, 20 I think we can all live with it. I mean, 21 without a careful evaluation of what's going 22 on here tonight, we can open a Pandora's 23 box, because I'm sure that if Nofar wants to 24 have some exemption or some further 116 1 consideration, then there's going to be a 2 ton of people in here to come in looking for 3 it, too. 4 You know, and I'd just like to 5 go back over a couple things. I can tell 6 you -- I see Allen Amolsch, who's known me 7 for a long time, and you know, we've -- I 8 think he knows that we've always lived 9 within the sign Ordinance. When he opened 10 up our business 12 years ago in Novi, you 11 couldn't have an illuminated open sign in 12 the window. Now when that happened -- you 13 know, when all the other townships and 14 cities around here had them in the windows, 15 all of the merchants in Novi didn't start 16 putting open signs in the window. 17 We went to the Chamber of 18 Commerce and working with the Chamber of 19 Commerce -- and at first, I wasn't even a 20 member -- I came down here to sit in here to 21 11:30, 12:00 when the City had their 22 meetings. We went -- it went on long 23 enough, there was a change and there was an 24 election. You know, so it was at least two 117 1 years. And half the Board Members changed 2 and everything else. 3 And we went through the whole 4 thing. (Unintelligible) went back to the 5 City and the City realized that there was a 6 hardship to all business, not just one 7 business; no all business. And they changed 8 the Ordinance so that we could have open 9 signs. And we all put our open signs up 10 then, after we were given the approval; not 11 before. 12 And I think that's way it's 13 supposed to be anyway. And I guess, in 14 closing, I really feel I'm just asking you 15 to -- you know, if you grant the variance, I 16 feel that you have to ask yourself the 17 question, are you making the new current -- 18 the new and the current sign Ordinance null 19 and void; because basically that's where 20 we're starting off back. We're right back 21 to square one. And are you giving an unfair 22 advantage to one business over every -- the 23 hundreds of other businesses in Novi; 24 because I mean, that -- that's a serious 118 1 question that needs answering. 2 (Unintelligible.) 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you -- 4 MR. WOLFORD: Thank you very 5 much for your time. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 Anybody else? 8 Please come over, identify 9 yourself, sir. 10 MR. BROOKS: Pardon me? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: State your name 12 -- 13 MR. BROOKS: Oh, I'm Martin 14 Brooks. I live at 24924 Glenda. I'm just a 15 Novi resident; a dad, a father, husband, and 16 a small businessman. I met Rod a few years 17 back shortly after he was robbed and held at 18 gun point. Later on, the guy went and 19 killed some people. I don't even drink. 20 I'm a recovering alcoholic. 21 I just seen this man -- as a 22 small businessman, I watch -- I try to deal 23 with small business, and I've watched what 24 he's been through during this construction 119 1 period; similar to my aggravation trying to 2 get off Glenda on Ten Mile during it. But I 3 think what he's done with his building is 4 incredible; almost as good as his pizza. I 5 think it's a travesty the driveway that he 6 had to narrow after the County went through 7 last year and puts in one; and he was forced 8 to change the configuration of it; after my 9 tax dollars went to do the street, the curb, 10 and all that. 11 I certainly don't consider the 12 logos on the rather nicely done building 13 that filled what looked to be a dump -- I 14 don't consider that signage. I think it's a 15 beautiful thing as a resident of Novi. I 16 want my town looking nice. And, you know, I 17 think these guys are trying to do a good 18 business and, you know, trying to survive; 19 and I admire them. 20 And I just -- I'm here as a 21 resident to speak on their behalf. I like 22 what they're doing. I like what they've 23 done with that property, and I hope you guys 24 will give them some consideration. 120 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very 2 much. 3 Seeing nobody else, I had a 4 question for Mr. Schultz. 5 I see on my flier here that 6 how many notice were mailed and all that. 7 That is the standard procedure. But I also 8 notes here about this petition signatures. 9 How relevant are that to our 10 Hearing? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: I -- 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: And do we need 13 to mention that or not? 14 MR. SCHULTZ: I have not seen 15 the petition signatures. I assume it's document 16 collected by the property owner and submitted to 17 the Board. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 19 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the fact 20 that it's been mentioned and exists in the record 21 is sufficient. They're not relevant or 22 irrelevant. They simply are what they are. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 You answered my question. 121 1 Okay. 30 notices were mailed, 2 16 -- on 8-22; 16 more on 8-24; five 3 approvals, seven objections; and the note is 4 also made of petition signatures, 149, yes, 5 channel lettering; 145, yes, logo. 6 Yes, Mr. Secretary, would you 7 like to record the summary of the 8 correspondence, please. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Point of order, 11 for Mr. Schultz, is it all right just to 12 enumerate the number of people who have approved 13 and those who have objected, rather than read 14 each and every letter that have been received for 15 the saving -- for the sake of savings time? I am 16 just wondering whether it's okay. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: As long as you 18 note that there's some objections, some 19 approvals, you have covered the requirements. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 21 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible) 22 done in the past, just come up with the number 23 for each. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's all in the 122 1 report. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: It's not necessary 3 to read the names or the specific comments, just 4 the approval or -- 5 MEMBER BAUER: There was a total 6 of 13 notices were mailed on 8-22; 16 notices 7 mailed, 8-24; five approvals, seven objections, 3 8 mails returned. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it. 10 MEMBER BAUER: And there was a 11 petition. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 13 All right. Building 14 Department? 15 MR. HINES: No comment. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. No 17 comment from Building Department. 18 Before I open it up to the 19 Board, I have a question. Are the logos of 20 Red Wings and Tigers and everything else, is 21 it a sign or not? 22 Mr. Schultz? 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Subject to 24 Mr. Amolsch adding to it, we wouldn't be here on 123 1 those issues if we didn't believe from a Staff 2 perspective that they fall within the definition 3 of a sign under the Ordinance; which just a 4 little brief reference, is name, identification, 5 description, display, device, flag, pennant, 6 logo, trademark that's affixed to a building; and 7 that -- here's the relevant phrase -- advertises, 8 publicizes, or directs attention to a service or 9 products or a business. 10 Obviously, the Petitioner's 11 suggestion is, you know, we're not 12 (unintelligible) for the Lions or the Tigers 13 or the Wings or anything like that -- and 14 maybe if the signs were smaller and less 15 obviously intended to direct attention, you 16 know, there might be an argument. They have 17 actual words on them, each of the one -- 18 most of them, at least, that I've seen, has 19 the name of the team. They've got 20 letters -- I think they fall within the 21 definition of the Ordinance. Ultimately, 22 that's going to be up to the Board to 23 determine. 24 The tougher question I have to 124 1 say on the grape thing over the door, which 2 has no words; is a decorative things within 3 the architecture of the building that, you 4 know, draws attention in the way 5 architectural features does; but is relevant 6 to the building, unlike the sports logos. 7 So that's a tougher question, whether or not 8 you think that's a sign. But from our 9 perspective, they're signs, they're here 10 and, you know, the question for the Board is 11 going to be whether they're appropriate. 12 On comment on the facade 13 improvements, just so the Board knows, this 14 was -- you know, the County did have to 15 condemn that entire site as part of the Ten 16 Mile improvements. Briefly it owned the 17 building; and theoretically, all the 18 materials in it. It was sold to Mr. Nofar. 19 The City intervened in the case, and Mr. 20 Nofar was very cooperative in terms of what 21 the City wanted to see; which was -- if you 22 recall the way the building was before -- 23 nine feet closer to Ten Mile, which is 24 effected their parking, but they had a 125 1 canopy and they had a lot more window space. 2 And when the City suggested, 3 or required, depending on your point of 4 view, that in order for us to go along with 5 the sale to the Nofar -- Mr. Nofar as a 6 tenant, we want to see that portion removed. 7 That's how that new facade came to be. The 8 City did have to approve it, and worked with 9 Mr. Nofar, who obviously has generally 10 improved the building. 11 I don't believe that they're 12 able to put windows where those other 13 sections are, because of what's located 14 inside. But, again, removal of that part; 15 reconfiguration of the parking lot was all 16 things that -- were all things that the city 17 did impose by virtue of intervening in that 18 case; and which Mr. Nofar did, you know, 19 obviously stepped up to. 20 So I just wanted to make sure 21 that you had the history. I'm not sure that 22 it specifically relates to the sign 23 question. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 126 1 Mr. Schultz. 2 Now, I'll open it to the 3 Board. 4 Yes, Mr. Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Question. The 6 property was purchased from condemnation; is 7 that correct? It was condemned, taken 8 over -- basically taken over by the County, 9 and then it was purchase from the County -- 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Purchased from -- 11 MEMBER CANUP: -- knowing what 12 the difficulties of the site were, if there is 13 any difficulties; is that correct? 14 MR. SCHULTZ: I think it's fair 15 to say the property owner had his knowledge of 16 all the impediments, right. 17 MEMBER CANUP: It wasn't imposed 18 on him through -- in other words, he didn't own 19 the property previous to condemnation. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: No, he was -- 21 MEMBER CANUP: He knew what he 22 was getting, he knew what he was getting into. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. 24 He was the tenant, absolutely. 127 1 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 2 I -- you know, that solved, so 3 the hardship wasn't imposed on him by the 4 fact that -- hey, we came and take your 5 property, and (unintelligible) us a sign. 6 That's a non-valid argument in my opinion. 7 And, you know, I'm looking at 8 the logo signs. I know I drive by there 9 probably -- as everybody in this room does 10 -- more than once a day. And the minute 11 those went up, I said, boy, there's a sign 12 case that's going to be before us. And sure 13 enough, it is. And if you do a tally of the 14 signage that is proposed -- unless I've 15 missed something or miscalculated, which I 16 don't think I have -- I came up with a total 17 of 126 square feet of signage, which would 18 included the signs, logos, whatever you call 19 them; and the liquor, lotto, etc. 20 And Al -- Mr. Almosch, are we 21 still figuring signage as boxed? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct, 23 sir. 24 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. The 128 1 applicant didn't quite do it that way. He 2 had his own method of figuring. And, you 3 know, me this looks like something that you 4 would see down on Michigan Avenue with all 5 of these signs on the front of the building. 6 It's knots something that I think we'd want 7 to see in a real with the Ordinances that 8 Novi has in place in order to keep things 9 looking and things presentable. 10 As mentioned by one of the 11 other gentleman, as he sits 300 feet off the 12 road, and would like signs on his building 13 to identify what he does that you could read 14 300 feet away. And I think when our 15 Ordinances were written, they were written 16 trying to solve all the problems. And I 17 think this, in my opinion, falls into that 18 realm of solvable problems with our sign 19 Ordinance as it is written. 20 The arch over the doorway, I 21 guess -- my opinion is the worse thing that 22 could happen is if you painted that -- 23 painted the flowers or whatever petals or 24 whatever it is out, that would not be a 129 1 sign. But I think it's meant to give an 2 architectural look to the entrance of the 3 building. And I really personally don't 4 have a problem with that. I don't think -- 5 my interpretation would not be that that's a 6 sign. 7 But the rest of it -- other 8 than the ground sign, which is an allowable 9 sign, I think is not something that I would 10 vote to approve. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 Yes, Mr. Gatt? 13 MEMBER GATT: I have to echo 14 the last comments made. First of all, let 15 me just start out by saying that I think 16 that the Lions and Tigers and Pistons are 17 very cool, very unique. However, they're 18 signs. They are not part of the Ordinance 19 that is allowed in Novi. I don't know who 20 decided to put those signs up before talking 21 to someone in the City. It would have 22 seemed more logical to me to get some kind 23 of approval before you did it; and then get 24 the answer that it was no then; instead of 130 1 saying, well, we already put it up, now it's 2 going to be a hardship to take it down. 3 The attorney that was here 4 earlier described the flower petal arch as 5 art, well, regardless whether you can 6 consider it art or not, it's a sign that's 7 artistic. I don't feel that any of this was 8 done in the proper manner. I think that if 9 people would have taken a step back and done 10 things in the appropriate process that was 11 supposed to be laid out, none of this would 12 be an issue, because it wouldn't have gone 13 up in the first place. 14 The sign that is existing is 15 within the Ordinance. That's fine. If you 16 want it take that sign down and try 17 something else that would be more appealing, 18 and you think that that would generate more 19 customers, that's something that you can 20 consider. But adding, you know, a hundred 21 plus square feet of signs on top of the 22 signs that you already have up that 23 technically illegal on top of the sign that 24 is the only legal sign that you have on the 131 1 road, just seems ridiculous to me. 2 I don't understand why someone 3 would come to the Board and ask us to grant 4 a variance that you already have -- you 5 already have these permanent signs up, and 6 you should have taken the appropriate steps 7 to make sure that these were legal signs to 8 begin with. 9 Thank you. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 Anybody else? 12 Mr. Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 14 Mr. Chair. 15 I agree and I don't agree with 16 some of this. The grape vineyard or 17 whatever the decorative touch is over the 18 arch of the entry way, in my opinion is an 19 architectural enhancement that is not a 20 sign. And as we go forward with these, I 21 may recommend that we perhaps review each 22 Ordinance separately or each variance 23 request separately; because I am not opposed 24 to that at all. 132 1 I think the team logo signs -- 2 and they are signs -- I do have to agree 3 with that -- I might be able to be convinced 4 that they're okay, because they do not 5 advertise the business performed within the 6 facility. I think they are decorative. 7 When I first saw the rendering of this 8 building, I thought it was very attractive; 9 and a thousand times better than what was 10 there before. 11 Signs A through E, however, I 12 am totally opposed to. As it was mentioned 13 earlier -- I had already made a note of 14 it -- every single one of those signs is 15 very adequately addressed on the monument 16 sign that's out in front of the building. 17 And you can't miss that bright yellow. You 18 can see it hundreds of feet away. And even 19 at night with it being an illuminated sign, 20 you can't miss it. And all that -- all the 21 information is there. So I would be opposed 22 to any of those signs being placed on the 23 building, in addition to the others. 24 So those are my comments at 133 1 this time. 2 Thank you. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 4 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 6 In regards to the Fine Wine, I 7 would also agree that the wall sign -- or 8 the monument sign is -- describes adequately 9 what is the building, and that I would 10 regard it as a place of destination. If I 11 want a bottle of wine, I know exactly where 12 I'm going to go. 13 And that the other -- I agree 14 A through E that it's excessive in -- to the 15 building. 16 Thank you. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 Yes, Mr. Bauer. 19 MEMBER BAUER: I guess with the 20 arch over the entrance, stretching a point it 21 might go. But the rest of the signs, the 22 monument sign that's out in front takes care of 23 that. Anybody that can't see that coming and 24 going, better not be any driving on the road. 134 1 The signs for the different 2 athletic clubs, they don't operate there so 3 they shouldn't be there. So the only thing 4 that I could even come close to would be the 5 vine sign over the door. All the rest, I 6 could not approve. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Do you want to 9 make any comments? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. I agree 11 with most of the comments that have been made, 12 and now I am waiting for somebody to make a 13 Motion. 14 Yes, sir, Mr. Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: I'll make a 16 Motion, but I was waiting for you to make 17 your comments. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 19 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 20 Motion that in Case Number: 06-067, filed by 21 Tony Nofar of Novi Fine Wines that we deny the 22 variances as requested, with the exception of the 23 one 22 square feet grapevine arch sign located 24 above the main entrance of the south side of the 135 1 building. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 MEMBER CANUP: And the reason 4 for the denial is for various -- for reasons as 5 stated in the previous comments by the Board 6 Members. 7 MEMBERS BAUER: Second. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 9 Motion has been made and 10 seconded. 11 Yes, Mr. Schultz. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, and I 13 believe Mr. Canup got most of the way there with 14 the final addition to the Motion, but just by 15 virtue of the fact it's already been in 16 litigation, had denial here, it seems to me that 17 just to distill the comments a little bit, which 18 are incorporated that the sentiment on the signs 19 that are denied is that the existing monument 20 sign is sufficient identification; and that the 21 denial does not -- of the remaining signs, does 22 not constitute a burden on the property owner in 23 terms of identification. 24 Is that a fair distillation of 136 1 those comments? 2 MEMBER CANUP: I would move that 3 those become my words, and be entered into the 4 record as part of the Motion. 5 MEMBER BAUER: I'll second that. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: And seconded. 7 Any further discussion? 8 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 9 MEMBER SHROYER: When I made 10 my comments, I was hoping to get a little 11 more feedback from the Board regarding the 12 logo signs of the variance sport activities. 13 It is truly unfortunate that they didn't go 14 ahead and corporate those in the 15 construction, without coming forward to the 16 City to find out if, indeed, a variance was 17 needed prior to. 18 And we always want to 19 discourage that. We've seen a couple of 20 those instances in the last several months 21 where people have gone ahead and done 22 something and then come in front of the 23 Board and beg for forgiveness, instead of 24 approval. We definitely don't want to 137 1 encourage that by any means. 2 But does anybody else on the 3 Board feel that the logo signs are 4 decorative in nature, and does not advertise 5 the business performed within the facility; 6 thus making it, perhaps, permissible? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: You know, it's 9 not a question of an opinion. It's question 10 of the Ordinance. And the Ordinance, in my 11 opinion, and in the opinion of our legal 12 counsel, is very clear, that those are 13 made -- put there to draw attention to the 14 building; and therefore, they become a sign. 15 Is that correct? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: That's correct. 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, so -- I 18 like them. I think they look kind of neat, but 19 my liking is not what the Ordinance says. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, go ahead. 21 Anything else? Anybody else? 22 Okay. Would you please call 23 the roll, please. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 138 1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Approving Motion 3 to deny; is that correct? 4 MEMBER CANUP: That's correct. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 6 MEMBER GATT: No. 7 ROBIN WORKING: The Motion is 8 to deny with the exception of the grapevine 9 sign. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Correct. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 14 MEMBER SHROYER: No. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: If it would be 20 permissible, may I recall to make sure I have it 21 correct -- 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 23 ROBIN WORKING: -- Mr. Chairman? 24 Mr. Canup voted yes. 139 1 MEMBER CANUP: That's correct. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt 3 voted no. 4 MEMBER GATT: Correct. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger 6 voted yes. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer 9 voted no. Member Sanghvi voted yes? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: And Member Bauer 12 voted yes. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Correct. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Motion to deny 15 passes four to two. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Thank 17 you. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. We'll -- 19 the time is 9:51 and we'd like to take a ten 20 minute recess. Thank you. 21 22 (A brief recess was taken.) 23 (Back on the record.) 24 140 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. We 2 are all here. Let's begin the session and start 3 with the new case. 4 Case Number: 06-068, filed by 5 Planet Neon for Voestalpine/Polynorm located 6 at 44700 Grand River. 7 All right, sir, please 8 identify yourself -- your name, address -- 9 and be sworn in by our secretary and make 10 your presentation. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. OSTOPHER: My name is Dave 13 Ostopher, address is 8846 Cole Street of 14 Holly. I'm representing 8846 Cole, Holly. 15 We are representing Voestalpine Polynorm 16 today. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right 18 hand. 19 Do you swear or affirm to tell 20 the truth regarding Case: 06-068? 21 MR. OSTOPHER: I do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 23 MR. OSTOPHER: Voestalpine is 24 requesting a second sign -- hopefully I'm 141 1 not following a difficult act -- on our wall 2 near the Grand River entrance. The request 3 to have two signs is shown on your 4 exampletory(sic) (ph) picture there is 5 primarily driven by our parent company, 6 Voestalpine. 7 Voestalpine acquired Polynorm 8 in 2001. It's a European company based in 9 Austria. Under the umbrella are 260 10 companies worldwide. Recently, Voestalpine 11 requested all divisions to apply the 12 Voestalpine One Step Ahead logo to their 13 facade in some way. In addition, they've 14 requested that each division name was 15 revised to include the Voestalpine name in 16 their description. 17 So Polynorm Automotive North 18 America -- which is on our wall right now -- 19 is proposed to change to 20 Voestalpine/Polynorm, Inc. The Voestalpine 21 sign, itself, has already been approved. 22 What we're here to propose is to allow the 23 Polynorm -- Voestalpine Polynorm, Inc., 24 adjacent to that sign. 142 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 2 MR. OSTOPHER: And that's just 3 basically it. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is anyone in 5 the audience that would like to make comment as 6 to this case? 7 Seeing none, 19 notices were 8 mailed; zero approvals, zero objections. 9 Building Department? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: No comments. 12 Open it up to the discussion 13 of the Board. 14 Yes, Mr. Canup? 15 Thank God for Mr. Canup. 16 MEMBER CANUP: I just like to 17 talk a lot. 18 I guess I'm going to have to 19 ask, what's the hardship? 20 MR. OSTOPHER: The hardship 21 would be I think two-fold. Voestalpine is 22 requesting that all of their companies 23 address their facade this way. They're a 24 very large company. We here at Polynorm are 143 1 the very first foothold in the United 2 States. And (unintelligible) they're coming 3 to visit us here in October. We look at as 4 a very large visit for us. 5 They have a disc that controls 6 their logos and fonts and sizes and what 7 have you. They're very serious about how 8 they want to represent -- not only their 9 company -- but all the companies under the 10 umbrella. So if were not to do it, I think 11 we would feel somewhat not in compliance 12 with their request. 13 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. This is 14 a want, not a hardship -- 15 MR. OSTOPHER: Okay. 16 MEMBER CANUP: -- is that right? 17 Would that be your interpretation is that I want 18 this, so it's really not a hardship; it's not a 19 need; there's not a directional problem. 20 MR. OSTOPHER: No. 21 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 Mr. Bauer? 144 1 MEMBER BAUER: Seeing the name 2 that took over Polynorm once is enough; not two 3 of them. I can see having their name on it, but 4 I can't see it twice on the front facing Grand 5 River. 6 That's all I have to say. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 8 Mr. Shroyer. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: This came 10 from -- is it a parent company, is that what 11 you'd call it? 12 MR. OSTOPHER: It's the mother 13 company. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Mother 15 company? 16 MR. OSTOPHER: Yes. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Is there any 18 reason why you can't add the word Polynorm, 19 Inc., to the existing sign, and not request 20 a completely separate secondary sign that 21 says the same, Voestalpine or however -- 22 MR. OSTOPHER: Only that it's 23 not our desire here in the United States to 24 have it look that way, it's theirs. It's 145 1 very explicit in their instructions. It's 2 clearly coming from Voestalpine in Europe. 3 And again, all 260 companies are falling 4 under the same -- I don't want to call it 5 regulation, but the same rule. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Let me say it 7 differently. 8 Can we replace the original 9 with the new sign, if they're requiring that 10 you do that? Do you have that say there? 11 MR. OSTOPHER: Well, neither 12 sign is in existence right now. Right now 13 it's just Polynorm Automotive, North 14 America. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Say that 16 again, please? 17 MR. OSTOPHER: I said right 18 now our wall says Polynorm Automotive North 19 America. So the change is applying 20 Voestalpine, the owner of our company, to 21 the facade; and within their request is to 22 change our name and add it. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Can 24 you change your name to Voestalpine 146 1 Polynorm, Inc., and replace the sign that is 2 currently there again, as opposed to having 3 two separate signs? 4 MR. OSTOPHER: That's not what 5 they're requesting for us to do. We can 6 certainly propose it, sir. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: If it gets 8 denied tonight, is that what you would do is go 9 back and make that recommendation? 10 MR. OSTOPHER: Actually, we'd 11 probably ask them which they'd rather have; 12 and if we could fall outside of their norm. 13 My bet would be they would rather have 14 Voestalpine on the wall. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. OSTOPHER: Yes. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anybody else? 19 Seeing none -- 20 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: I don't 22 understand the duplication. That's what 23 confuses me. The name is similar the same, 24 and it's repetitive. 147 1 MR. OSTOPHER: Well, we'd have 2 to ask Voestalpine why they did it that way. 3 MR. GONZALEZ: I got a little 4 better understanding of this. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 6 e) identify yourself, sir. 7 MR. GONZALEZ: Luciano 8 Gonzalez, 6120 Glenneagles, West Bloomfield, 9 Michigan. 10 From my understanding with 11 working with Dave, Voestalpine is a company 12 from overseas; and they have put Polynorm. 13 So Polynorm someway, somehow is a different 14 company than Voestalpine. But at the same 15 time, they're one company. 16 The company oversees would 17 like to see their name, obviously, which 18 owns Polynorm on the board; and that's the 19 name that they would like to have; but which 20 Polynorm is asking is that the Board grants 21 them a second sign with the name of the 22 American company; which is 23 Voestalpine/Polynorm, Inc., not just the 24 name for the foreign company. I don't know 148 1 if I've made any sense, but -- 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, you are 3 making sense. You're trying to say that they 4 want to maintain an American identity apart from 5 the company -- 6 MR. GONZALEZ: Correct. Every 7 company that Voestalpine bought, now is 8 called, Voestalpine -- whatever the other 9 name might be. But at the same time they 10 have to carry the name Voestal -- One Step 11 Ahead -- and the name of the current company 12 that was -- that bought -- 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 14 All right. Any other comments 15 by anybody else? 16 Yes, sir? 17 MEMBER GATT: Just looking over 18 your idea for these two signs, isn't it possible 19 that you could just combine them into one sign, 20 and just -- for example, Voestalpine/Polynorm, 21 Inc., and just put it underneath -- the other 22 one -- and then somehow fit it within our 23 Ordinance? 24 MR. GONZALEZ: I could do 149 1 that. The letters won't be able to lit. 2 You're still not complying with their logo. 3 Their logo is the color one that you see if 4 I -- if anybody else adds, you know, 5 anything else, you're changing the logo. 6 It's not going toe your company logo. Just 7 like the City of Novi has their logo. If 8 you added something else on it, it changes 9 the logo. 10 MEMBER GATT: Uh-huh. For 11 example, if the City of Novi logo right here, if 12 I put it an American Flag underneath it, it 13 doesn't mean that I've combined America and the 14 City of Novi into one huge symbol. It just means 15 their two symbols next to each other. 16 RIGHT2: 17 MR. GONZALEZ: I completely 18 understand, but I don't know how to answer 19 that. But I'm saying they have two 20 different names. It's basically two 21 different companies in there. The head -- 22 the main company -- and Voestal/Polynorm, 23 Inc., which is the American company which 24 they bought. 150 1 MEMBER GATT: And there's no way 2 for you to some how fit both the black and blue 3 -- One Step Ahead Voestalpine sign; and the 4 Voestalpine/Polynorm, Inc., white sign, within 5 one big sign? 6 MR. OSTOPHER: Any provision 7 that we propose to make will have to be 8 approved by Voestalpine. This is explicitly 9 how they had requested it to be. And I'm 10 not saying that's not exactly what we're 11 going to try to do. And if the Board simply 12 cannot agree to the variance that we're 13 requesting, we'll go back to the drawing 14 board; and it will be that company that will 15 choose which we need to propose that -- 16 hopefully will be easier for you to approve. 17 But for us to assume that we 18 could simply modify, by our opinion, what 19 they would approve, will not happen. They 20 will choose it themselves. And again, I 21 think it probably comes down to Voestalpine 22 being on the wall. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I can 24 understand that this is a corporate logo, and you 151 1 have no authority to make any changes in it 2 yourself. And that leads me to two alternatives. 3 One, A, we deny or B we table it, until you can 4 find out whether it came be worked with. 5 And (unintelligible), Mr. 6 Canup? 7 And so, I'm quite happy to 8 give you an option. What would you like us 9 to do? Would you like to go back to your 10 corporate sponsor and talk with them and 11 say, this is the feeling of the Board here; 12 and what would -- which direction should you 13 take; or would you like us to take a 14 decision and settle it right now? That's 15 your choice. 16 MR. GONZALEZ: Sir, my 17 question is the Voestalpine One Step Ahead, 18 that sign has been approved. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 20 MR. GONZALEZ: We're here to 21 ask for a second sign. I understand they're 22 both in the same presentation. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MR. GONZALEZ: We're here to 152 1 present for -- you know, a second sign; not 2 one. The sign's already being made. It 3 will be put up, you know, probably within 4 two or three weeks. But our question is, 5 and we're here for is, can we get a variance 6 for a second sign. Yes, it has the same 7 name but it's -- you know, at the same time 8 it's a different company. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Did they 10 approve the sign, the sign he's talking about? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: They need a 12 variance for a second sign. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Right. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 15 This is a second sign 16 altogether, so we can't combine it. 17 Yes, sir? 18 MEMBER CANUP: I can solve 19 this problem real easy by -- I make a Motion 20 that we deny the request for a variance as 21 stated due to the lack of a demonstrated 22 hardship. 23 MEMBER GATT: Second. 24 MR. GONZALEZ: Could you 153 1 repeat that, sir? 2 MEMBER CANUP: It's a denial 3 due to a lack of a demonstrated hardship. 4 That was the Motion. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 6 Yes, Mr. Schultz? 7 MR. SCHULTZ: Just the notation 8 that again the standard would not be the 9 hardship; but it would be the practical 10 difficulty standard. I'm assuming from the 11 conversation, it's by virtue of the Board's 12 conclusion that they have sufficient 13 identification with one sign -- whichever one it 14 is they pick -- one sign sufficient 15 identification; is that -- 16 MEMBER CANUP: I would again 17 consider that as part of my Motion. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 20 And the seconder -- 21 MEMBER GATT: Second. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 23 Any further discussions? 24 Saying anything, Mr. Bauer? 154 1 MEMBER BAUER: No. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 3 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 4 MEMBER SHROYER: I want to 5 make a quick comment. 6 I don't think that that can be 7 true, in my opinion, because it's two 8 separate companies. And so I don't think 9 one sign does adequately suffice, so I will 10 not be in support of the Motion. 11 Thank you. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 13 Anything else? 14 Well, okay, Ms. Working, 15 please call the roll. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 19 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 23 MEMBER SHROYER: No. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 155 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 5 five to one. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 7 We'll go from there. 8 MR. OSTOPHER: Thank you. 9 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moving on. The 11 next one is Case Number 06-069, filed by Michael 12 Yamada of Collier International for 26800 13 Meadowbrook Road. 14 Good evening, sir. 15 MR. YAMADA: Yes. My name is 16 Michael Yamada. And my corporate address is 17 2 Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Southfield, 18 Michigan, 48076. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 20 e) sworn in by our secretary, please. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 22 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 06-069? 23 MR. YAMADA: Yes, I do. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 156 1 MR. YAMADA: I am here today 2 to request extension of variance for the 3 corporate leasing sign for the corporate 4 business park, for Meadowbrook Corporate 5 Park, currently located south side -- east 6 side of Meadowbrook Road, north of I- 96, 7 south of 12 Mile Road. 8 The building -- the park is 9 composed -- currently composed of two 10 buildings; each sized 54,000 square feet. 11 So two identical buildings combined, 108,000 12 square feet. The first building has 13 approximately 12,000 square feet of vacancy; 14 and the second building is completely 15 occupied. The largest tenant being Trinity 16 Health Care, which is taking about 30,000 17 square feet. And the second largest tenant 18 is Ikon Office Systems. They are taking 19 about 31,000 square feet. The third largest 20 being the Sanyo (unintelligible) taking 21 about 12,000 square feet. 22 The Corporate Park is 23 scheduled to have the third building, which 24 is currently under review by Building 157 1 Department of this City. We expecting to 2 receive permit -- construction permit within 3 next month or so. And then we plan to build 4 a fourth building and a fifth building; that 5 will complete the total business park. And 6 the sign says up to 110,000 square feet 7 available. We do not -- the park is 8 developed by (unintelligible) development 9 company, Bingham Farms; and designed by 10 (unintelligible) Associates. 11 The park is not going to 12 overbuild without any tenants. We need to 13 have some tenancy before we start -- well, 14 some prospective tenants in order to start 15 construction. And we are ready to build a 16 third building, and we need to keep market 17 the project, and this is the reason why I'm 18 here today. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 Is there anybody in the 21 audience who would like to make a comment 22 about this case? 23 Seeing none, we had zero 24 approves, zero objections. 158 1 And I don't understand this. 2 Zero notices were mailed? 3 ROBIN WORKING: That's 4 probably a typographical error, Mr. 5 Chairman. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought so. 7 Thank you. 8 The Building Department? 9 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: No comments. 11 All right. 12 Open to the Board. 13 (Unintelligible) and how long 14 do you think you are likely to take before 15 you fill up your pot, any idea? 16 MR. YAMADA: From today to the 17 -- 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 19 MR. YAMADA: Since building 20 will have three other -- three new 21 buildings, I would expect two years to -- 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 Okay. Members of the Board? 24 MEMBER CANUP: Me again. 159 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's okay. 2 MEMBER CANUP: In this case 3 file, I see it goes back to January 10th of 4 '01. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 6 MEMBER CANUP: If you add two 7 more years to that, that will be seven years. 8 Don't you think you should 9 just sell this building and forget that 10 rental business? 11 MR. YAMADA: This is a very 12 good location, sir, just north of I- 96. 13 And I studied marketing in 2001. However, 14 as you probably recall, the Meadowbrook Road 15 was not in top shape as it is today. It was 16 completely resurfaced, I think, beginning of 17 this year, north of Grand River, and up to 18 Twelve Mile Road. And the road, the 19 condition of the road, did effect the 20 marketing activity substantially. 21 And other reason for the slow 22 start, it is not only Meadowbrook Corporate 23 Park; other business parks like, Regency 24 Business Park, it's west of Haggerty Road, 160 1 in front of Acura Honda dealership. That 2 park has been slow -- I'm sorry, slower than 3 our Meadowbrook Corporate Park's 4 development. 5 And Northern Equities Haggerty 6 Corridor Business Park has been very 7 successful. The price -- pricing, I think 8 the quote is higher and the pricing higher. 9 And I think locations better, right off 10 of -- right on M-5, east side of M-5, north 11 of 12 Mile Road up to Thirteen Mile Road. 12 It's already developed; and they are going 13 to develop north side of 13 Mile Road I 14 think into the near future. 15 I think the general economy 16 for the last three, four years effected, as 17 well as the condition of the road on 18 Meadowbrook. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 All right, Mr. Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: You know, I 22 look at this, and it goes back to '01. 23 MR. YAMADA: Yes. 24 MEMBER CANUP: When does it 161 1 stop? I know the economy is horrible for trying 2 to rent buildings right now, lease or anything. 3 So, you know, I guess I don't -- in 4 (unintelligible) in light of the recent economy 5 or the present economy, got to do what you can to 6 try to rent anything and get the message out 7 there. I think probably in this case -- if there 8 was not too much more discussion on it, I'd make 9 a Motion. We grant the variance for a period of 10 one year as stated; due to the difficulty in 11 leasing with the present economy. 12 MEMBER GATT: Support. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 14 made and supported. 15 Any further discussion? 16 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: What is your 18 occupancy now? 19 MR. YAMADA: About 90 percent 20 for the first two buildings. 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 22 Thank you. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Will you 24 please call the roll? 162 1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 2 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 4 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 14 six to zero. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Your 16 (unintelligible) (interposing.) for one more 17 year. 18 MR. YAMADA: Thank you. 19 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Next Case 21 Number: 06-071, filed by Howard Campbell of Home 22 Depot, located at 47950 Grand River, Westmarket 23 Square. 24 Please identify yourself, and 163 1 your name and address and then be sworn in 2 by our secretary, thank you. 3 MR. CAMPBELL: My name is 4 Howard Campbell, address is 3270 South 5 Milford Road, Milford, Michigan, 48381. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right 7 hand. 8 Do you solemnly swear or 9 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 10 06-071? 11 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I do. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 13 MR. CAMPBELL: Home Depot is 14 requesting a temporary use permit from 15 September 15th to October 2nd to hold a 16 Second Annual Architectural Rug Event to be 17 held in the parking lot in Westmarket 18 Square. 19 Mr. Chairperson, may I pass 20 these out? These are two more papers that 21 were missing from the actual application, 22 which is landlord acceptance -- or landlord 23 approval, and a letter for the hardship 24 actually. 164 1 Thank you. 2 We've been given the 3 opportunity to sell area rugs outside of the 4 normal selection that we actually carry 5 inside the store. The company providing the 6 area rugs need a minimum of two weeks to 7 actually set up and bring in the 8 merchandise, which is actually a large 9 variety of outside or inside area rugs. 10 The rug event will drive 11 additional customers into the Westmarket 12 Square Complex to increase revenue to local 13 businesses, as well as our store. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it? 15 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is there 17 anybody in the audience who would like to make a 18 comment about this case? 19 Seeing none, a total of 13 20 notices were sent; zero approvals, zero 21 objections. 22 Building Department? 23 MR. HINES: We have no comment, 24 sir. 165 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 All right. Open it to the 3 Board? 4 Yes, sir? Yes, Mr. Gatt? 5 MEMBER GATT: You said this is 6 the Second Annual, so this happened last year, as 7 well? 8 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. Not the 9 same time frame, but we were actually -- 10 held one last year. 11 MEMBER GATT: Okay. Forgive me. 12 I wasn't in the city at the time. Did you 13 request a -- 14 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, we did. 15 It's a identical tent, identical 16 merchandise, the same location in the 17 parking lot. It's going to be held -- same 18 safety cautions. 19 MEMBER GATT: Was there any 20 issues that came up last year, any kind of safety 21 issues that presented itself? 22 MR. CAMPBELL: No, sir. 23 MEMBER GATT: Okay, thank you. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 166 1 e) say something? 2 MR. HINES: I do have a comment 3 that -- the only safety issue that we're 4 concerned with is that the tent be -- meet Code 5 requirements, and they do have a flame spread 6 certificate here that shows that it meets the 7 proper standard that's referenced in the Code. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: You are aware 9 of the fire marshal's requirements? 10 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir, we 11 are. It's the same fire rating and the same 12 manufacturer of the tent as we had last 13 year. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 15 you. 16 Yes, sir, Mr. Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: This is becoming 18 quite often. It's not a temporary anymore, it's 19 becoming a full-fledged thing. I think you need 20 more room for building; rather than continually 21 putting up a tent and putting things out on the 22 sidewalk and so forth. 23 That's my remarks to you. 24 MR. CAMPBELL: May I make one 167 1 comment on that, sir? 2 Very rarely -- I'm sorry, 3 Mr. Chairperson, may I? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anybody else? 5 Okay. You want to respond to 6 that? 7 MR. CAMPBELL: We have an 8 outside company that provides these rugs for 9 us. And out of overall 1900 stores, you 10 don't necessarily get the opportunity to run 11 them two years in a row. It's based on how 12 successful your store is. So the likelihood 13 of us actually getting it again, being two 14 times in a row, was actually to our 15 advantage. 16 And that's the reason why 17 we're submitting for another temporary use 18 permit. It's not something that actually 19 comes and falls into our laps yearly. It's 20 really based on performance, because they 21 can only assist so many stores out of the 22 entire company. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 Okay. Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 168 1 MEMBER SHROYER: I think it's 2 pretty straight forward. I'll go ahead and 3 make a Motion. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go 5 ahead. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: In Case Number 7 06-071, filed by Howard Campbell of Home Depot 8 located at 47950 Grand River, in Westmarket 9 Square, I move to approve a temporary use permit 10 for a rug event parking lot tent sale, from 11 September 15th through October 2nd, 2006. This 12 Motion is based on the receipt of an approval 13 letter from the property landlord. The submittal 14 of a certificate providing NFPA 701 flame 15 resistant certification for the tent to be used 16 in a 40 foot by 60 foot area; and that the area 17 is appropriately roped off for safety reasons. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 The Motion has been made and 21 seconded. 22 Any further discussion? 23 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will 24 you please call the roll. 169 1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 2 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 10 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: And Member 12 Krieger? 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 15 six to zero. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 17 e.) 18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Which brings us 21 to the last one on the list. 22 (Unintelligible) Case Number 23 06-072, 41730 Crane Way, filed by Singh 24 Homes -- (unintelligible) filed by Singh 170 1 Homes Building Comm, LLC, for 41730 Crane 2 Way, lot 84, Tollgate Woods Subdivision 3 Number two. 4 I don't see a Petitioner in 5 sight. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 ROBIN WORKING: If you'll note, 9 there were 22 notices sent out on this case; and 10 20 of them were returned. I do not believe the 11 notice to the actual applicant was returned, 12 however. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: So maybe that 14 applicant doesn't know. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Actually -- what 16 I'm trying to clarify is that, maybe we should go 17 through the return notices. I'm fairly 18 confident, however, the applicant is not among 19 the return notices. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) 21 (unintelligible.) you want to check it out and 22 see (unintelligible) has come back. 23 (Unintelligible) decision on this case, and in 24 the meantime, we'll continue with our other 171 1 matters. 2 3 And number one is ZBA 06-073, 4 27000 Sheraton Crown Plaza, mock sign 5 discussion. 6 Building Department? 7 Are you going to talk about 8 it? 9 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 10 the applicant has presented to the Building 11 Department that as a franchise owner, that 12 the parent company prohibits him from 13 placing a mock sign over the current Double 14 Tree sign. He's requesting if he could 15 establish the mock sign at ground level. 16 This would be a case that comes before you 17 in November. Mr. Saven requested that we 18 put it under other matters for the Board to 19 consider and be aware of. So when the mock 20 sign is erected, that you are aware why it's 21 on the ground and not 45 feet above the air. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: What is the 23 pleasure of the Board? I personally have no 24 objection. It's a lot easier to put it at ground 172 1 level than to put it up high in the sky. 2 MEMBER CANUP: Invitation to 3 make a Motion? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please, will 5 you? 6 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 7 Motion that in Case Number 06-071(sic) that we 8 grant the variance as -- wait a minute. Where'd 9 that go? What's the number on that case? 10 MEMBER BAUER: This is on this. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's a mock 12 sign. 13 MEMBER CANUP: What's the number 14 of that case? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: 06-073. 16 MEMBER CANUP: 073 that we grant 17 the variance as requested. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 MEMBER GATT: Second. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, seconded. 21 The Motion has been made and 22 seconded. 23 Will you kindly call the roll. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Who seconded, 173 1 please? 2 MEMBER GATT: I did. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Gatt? 4 Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 7 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 17 six to zero. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: And if I may, 19 Mr. Chair, just on the clarification, this is 20 just on the mock sign, right? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: The mock sign. 22 This is for the mock sign at ground level. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 24 174 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. While we 2 are waiting, we'll talk about the next case, 3 06-91-15A-B Bosco; discussion of violation 4 notice. 5 MEMBER BAUER: That's on the 6 stuff that she gave us. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 8 this was an issue that was brought up under 9 other matters on -- at a previous meeting; 10 and Mr. Saven from the Building Department 11 was going to look into the case. And so 12 this is for your information that a 13 violation letter as been sent out on this 14 particular property. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 ROBIN WORKING: No action 17 needed. It's for your information. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your 19 information is noted. 20 Thank you. 21 MEMBER CANUP: In passing by 22 there several times a day, and that was been 23 rectified, it appears. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's been 175 1 rectified? 2 MEMBER CANUP: So they cleaned 3 it up and -- 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 5 MEMBER CANUP: At least it 6 appears that way. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: It did the 8 trick. 9 Very good. (Unintelligible.) 10 11 Next's item on the agenda, the 12 ZBA proposed meeting date calendar. 13 14 Okay. Any news? 15 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 16 I would request that the Board do make a 17 Motion to approve the proposed calendar, so 18 that we may submit to the City to be 19 official on their planning calendar. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Move to approve 21 the calendar for 2007 as written. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Any 23 second? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 176 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded by 2 Ms. Krieger. 3 Any discussion regarding the 4 calendar? 5 Seeing none, please call the 6 roll. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 10 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 12 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 20 six to zero. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 22 Thank you. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 24 may we return to the 11th case on the current 177 1 agenda? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: After going over 4 the returned notices and verifying that the 5 applicant's mailing address, as provided to the 6 City is 7125, Orchard Lake Road, in West 7 Bloomfield, Michigan, 48325. That mailing 8 address was not one of the return notices. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: So it's no 10 fault of them not being here, so may be we can 11 put them on the agenda next month, with the 12 approval of the Board, shall we do that? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Send them a 14 letter. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Make sure the 16 letter goes to the right people. 17 ROBIN WORKING: No, it did. 18 MEMBER BAUER: No, it did. They 19 did. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 21 the letter was sent to the correct address. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, they 23 didn't make it. 24 That's a good one for Mister 178 1 -- 2 MR. SCHULTZ: I think really to 3 practical options; one to just table it and give 4 them a call and find out why they didn't show up; 5 and that they're -- tell them they are on the 6 next agenda. The other would be to approve it. 7 I don't know if the Board's ready to do that, but 8 I wouldn't recommend a denial without them being 9 here. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would not 11 approve it either without a presentation, so let 12 us table it and let them know that we expect them 13 to be here when they're supposed to be here. 14 Thank you. 15 MEMBER CANUP: Well, anybody 16 look at this Angela Hospice brochure that 17 they have in here, what goes on with this 18 celebration? I haven't read it before, and 19 I did look through it. I would be proud to 20 be able to go and participate in that. It 21 seems like -- 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. It's very 23 nice. 24 MEMBER CANUP: -- a good 179 1 event. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Indeed it is. 3 MEMBER CANUP: With that, if 4 there's no further discussion, I would make a 5 Motion to adjourn. 6 MEMBER GATT: Second. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 8 Motion has been made to 9 adjourn, seconded. 10 All those in favor. 11 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Good night. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good night. 14 The meeting is adjourned. 15 Thank you. 16 (The meeting was adjourned at 17 11:00 p.m.) 18 - - - - - 19 20 21 22 23 24 180 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 4 do hereby certify that I have recorded 5 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 6 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and 7 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify 8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (171) 9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript 10 of my said stenograph notes. 11 12 13 ___________________________ Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 October 3, 2006. (Date) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 181
|