|
View Agenda for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and Testimony taken in the matter of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: Jennifer L. Wall, Certified Shorthand Reporter 1 Novi, Michigan. 2 Tuesday, January 10, 2012 3 7:00 p.m. 4 ** ** ** 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Welcome to the 6 January 10, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7 meeting. First thing we're going to do is 8 the Pledge of Allegiance. Member Gedeon, can 9 you start us off, please. 10 (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. Ms. 12 Pawlowski, if you can please call the roll. 13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon? 14 MR. GEDEON: Here. 15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick? 16 Absent, excused. 17 Chairman Ghannam? 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Here. 19 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe? 20 MR. IBE: Present. 21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 22 MS. KRIEGER: Here. 23 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 24 MR. SANGHVI: Present. 25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?
4 1 MS. SKELCY: Here. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. We 3 do have a quorum, and before we get into some 4 of the rules and procedures, we do have six 5 of the members tonight. We are missing a 6 member. If for some reason there is someone 7 who wants to have the meeting adjourned, or 8 their case adjourned for a different day, you 9 can present that now. 10 You can always present that now, 11 otherwise, you will need a quorum, four out 12 of six to pass anything. 13 MS. KUDLA: We also have a member 14 who has an expired term, so we are not going 15 to have that member vote tonight. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Who is that? 17 MS. ROBERTS: Mr. Gedeon. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Oh, okay. Sorry 19 about that. So we have to have five 20 members -- just so everybody understands, you 21 need four to pass any motion, whether it be 22 to approve or deny any particular subject. 23 I know on one of the cases, Case 24 No. 11-044, one of the members will be 25 excused because they're an effected piece of
5 1 property. So you will have four. That means 2 you have to have all four votes to approve or 3 deny any particular motion on your case. 4 So if there is anybody who wishes 5 or desires to have their particular issue 6 adjourned, please raise your hand and you can 7 be recognized. 8 If you change your mind later, you 9 can always let us know at that time. But 10 seeing none, I will move on. 11 In terms of the public hearing 12 format, and rules of conduct, we do have 13 informational sheets in the back, please read 14 them. I would ask that anybody here who has 15 a telephone or pager, please turn them off or 16 on vibrate so we don't hear them. 17 Applicants will be called to come 18 forth, state their name and address and be 19 sworn by our secretary. You will then have 20 five minutes to address the board and present 21 your case. At the discretion of the Chair, 22 you can be extended in terms of time to 23 present your case. The public will be asked 24 to comment on the particular cases as they're 25 called.
6 1 The next issue or item on our 2 agenda is the approval of the agenda. Are 3 there any modifications or additions at this 4 time? 5 MR. SANGHVI: So moved. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Well, first of 7 all, any there any modifications or 8 additions? 9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: No. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing none -- 11 MR. SANGHVI: May I make a motion 12 to approve the agenda? 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any seconds? 14 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion 16 and second, all in favor say aye. 17 THE BOARD: Aye. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed? 19 Seeing none, our agenda is approved. 20 I will move to the public remarks 21 section. Now, I will be able to take any 22 public remarks on any matter that's not going 23 to be pending before the board tonight 24 because you will be given an opportunity to 25 do so. Is there anybody in the public who
7 1 would like to address the board? 2 Seeing none, I will close the 3 public remarks section and move to our first 4 case. 5 Case No. 11-043 for 1251 West Lake 6 Drive. Will they please come forward. 7 Are you an attorney, sir? 8 MR. KOSIAN: No, I am not. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can you please 10 state your name and address. 11 MR. KOSIAN: My name is Brian 12 Kosian, 1523 West Lake Drive. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please raise 14 your hand and be sworn by our secretary. 15 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 16 to tell the truth? 17 MR. KOSIAN: Yes, I do. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please go ahead, 19 sir. 20 MR. KOSIAN: I have brought some 21 additional information and I've got six 22 copies. Would it be okay to distribute those 23 to the members? 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please. 25 MR. KOSIAN: Good evening. My name
8 1 is Brian Kosian. And I have with me today, 2 my wife Becky, and Mr. Gary Kwapis 3 (phonetic). Mr. Kwapis is the architect who 4 designed this home for us. 5 We currently live at 1523 West Lake 6 Drive, which is 15 houses south of 1251, the 7 lot that we purchased to build a new home. 8 We built our current home in 1998, and with 9 the addition of twins to our family, we have 10 simply found ourselves in need of additional 11 living space, additional garage space, 12 storage space, and an outdoor play area for 13 our children. 14 We are no strangers to this small 15 lakefront area of Novi. In the past 12 16 years, we have made several contributions to 17 the area. 18 In 1997, we purchased a rotten, 19 delapidated log home. We demolished the 20 home, stood in front of this board, were 21 granted variances and built our current 22 lakefront home, which we live in today. 23 In 2001, we purchased a small 24 cottage at 150 North Haven, just nine doors 25 west from our new lot. We cleaned up the
9 1 home and lot, and it's turned out to be a 2 cute little home that we still own also 3 today. 4 In 2004, myself, with the help of 5 two neighbors, went door-to-door to start and 6 successfully initiate SAD 168 and SAD 169, 7 which brought a water main down West Lake 8 Drive and also paved the road that we all 9 drive in on. 10 We have spent a lot of time 11 planning our new home. Our primary goal was 12 to have a home with good curb appeal and to 13 build a home behind the neighboring site 14 lines without the need of any variances at 15 all. 16 As we worked through the design, it 17 became evident that our plan would require 18 two minor variances. One for lot coverage 19 and one for front yard setback on the 20 roadside, closest to West Lake Drive. 21 The need for these two minor 22 variances have been created for several 23 reasons. The first reason is groundwater. 24 We struck groundwater at two foot seven below 25 grade, which will not allow us to put a
10 1 basement in. Had we been able to put a 2 basement under the home, as it is designed 3 today, we would have gained 1,932 feet. We 4 are now forced to find spaces for two HVAC 5 units, a boiler, electrical panels, water 6 tank, washer and dryer, and most importantly 7 storage. These all have to find a space 8 above grade, robbing us of value living 9 space. 10 The second reason is we have a 11 first floor requirement. Both Becky and I 12 have elderly parents that will have a 13 difficult time negotiating stairs. And our 14 current plan has designed a guest suite on 15 the first floor. 16 The three-car garage. The 17 three-car garage will allow for indoor 18 storage of boats and related equipment 19 keeping our lot free of clutter. Although 20 our garage will intrude into the front yard 21 setback, it will still be further from the 22 road than the two garages to the south, thus 23 keeping consistent with our neighbors. 24 Again, I would like to repeat. Our garage 25 will be further from the road than the two
11 1 neighbors to the south. 2 The fourth issue is the design of 3 our home. Our home is designed similar to 4 east coast homes that have outdoor living 5 areas which are covered porches. While they 6 don't impede into any of the setbacks, they 7 are unfortunately included in the 8 calculations for lot coverage, therefore, 9 putting us over. 10 We have met with our immediate 11 neighbors and shown them our plans. We have 12 earned their support and they have given us 13 written approval, which I submitted to you 14 along with a map showing exactly where they 15 live relative to our site. 16 We hope that you will agree that 17 this home, as designed, will add to the 18 improvements that have taken place through 19 the years on West Lake Drive. 20 Please feel free to direct any 21 questions to either myself or Mr. Kwapis. 22 Thank you for your consideration. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. 24 If someone can shut the backdoor, I would 25 appreciate it. We are getting a lot of
12 1 background noise. Thank you, sir. 2 Is there anybody in the public who 3 would like to make a comment on this 4 particular case, please raise your hand. 5 Seeing none, I will close the 6 public remarks section and ask our secretary 7 to read any correspondence. 8 MS. SKELCY: There were 26 notices 9 mailed, one was returned by the post office. 10 There were five approvals and two objections. 11 Tom Marquardt, M-a-r-q-u-a-r-d-t, 12 of 121 North Haven Street approves. 13 Bruce and Julie Simon, S-i-m-o-n, 14 state my wife and I approve the requested 15 variance. 16 James Jones, Jr. of 70510 Old 17 Haggerty in Canton says, enjoy your new home. 18 David and Maria Dismondy, thank you 19 for sharing your plans with us. We look 20 forward to having you as a neighbor. They 21 live at 1181 West Lake Road. 22 Geri Dismondy at 1185 West Lake 23 Road, writes, welcome to the neighborhood. 24 Lori, L-o-r-i McLean, M-c-l-e-a-n, 25 of 1307 West Lake Drive, Novi writes, on lake
13 1 lots which are shallow to begin with, 2 setbacks should be compiled with. Failure to 3 do so can be prohibited to neighbor's rights. 4 For instances, views. 5 David Boyer of 1191 West Lake 6 Drive, states, lot is large enough, keep 7 house back as required, use any variance 8 towards back of lot near West Lake Drive. Do 9 not want more viewing lakeside restrictions. 10 That is it. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. Is 12 there any comments or any questions by the 13 city? 14 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 15 MS. KUDLA: No. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then I will open 17 it up to the board for discussion. Member 18 Sanghvi? 19 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 20 I saw your lot yesterday, and I like your 21 design. I would commend you for your lot and 22 everything. I only have one question. How 23 far are you from the fire hydrant when you 24 come in the front? You know, there is a fire 25 hydrant?
14 1 MR. KOSIAN: There is one on the 2 lot, yes. 3 MR. SANGHVI: I just want to know 4 how far your building is going to be from 5 there? 6 MR. KOSIAN: We are going to be 7 24.6 feet from the front property line. 8 MR. SANGHVI: Okay. You answered 9 my question. Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Krieger? 11 MS. KRIEGER: I also like it a lot. 12 My question would be, since it's two lots, 13 and the house is going to be over both, like 14 in a previous case, does that have any regard 15 into this or is this one lot? 16 MR. SANGHVI: This is one lot. 17 MR. BOULARD: For purposes of the 18 zoning ordinance, the lots are considered to 19 be one parcel. 20 MS. KRIEGER: Okay. The garage 21 door, the main entrance, you have to come in 22 from the side, so the garage doors don't face 23 the street? 24 MR. KOSIAN: Correct. They are not 25 shown on this.
15 1 MS. KRIEGER: Okay. 2 MR. KOSIAN: It's a side entrance 3 garage. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else? I 5 personally, sir, have no problem with it 6 either. I have reviewed this, and, you know, 7 it seems that you have tried to minimize your 8 variance as requested, and you know, the 9 unusual things about these types of lots that 10 are on the lake, they are smaller, they're 11 not like the larger lots that are being 12 developed in the city, or most other cities. 13 And it is -- we have seen a number of cases 14 of homes coming on -- from lake lots that 15 need small variances, to try update their 16 homes. Again, this seems to be consistent 17 with those. So I have no problem with it. 18 If there is no other comments, I 19 will entertain a motion at this point. 20 Member Ibe? 21 MR. IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In 22 Case No. 11-043, 1251 West Lake Drive, I move 23 that we grant the applicant's request as 24 requested, for the following reasons. One, 25 that there are unique circumstances or
16 1 physical conditions of the property such as 2 the narrowness, the water, the physical 3 condition that will obviously, if not 4 granted, will make it impossible for the 5 applicant to meet the goal that he wishes to 6 reach here. And specifically the applicants 7 talks about groundwater, that makes -- that 8 prevents them from having a basement which 9 will create more additional space. So that 10 by itself is sufficient, unique circumstance 11 to allow this applicant's proposal to go 12 through. 13 Secondly, the need is not 14 self-created. The applicant obviously wanted 15 to build a home that complies with all the 16 necessary requirements. Unfortunately 17 because of the physical conditions, that 18 makes it impossible to meet the goal, so it 19 is not self-created. 20 The strict compliance with 21 regulations governing the area setback, 22 frontage, height, bulk, density or other 23 dimensional requirements will unreasonably 24 prevent the property owner from using the 25 property for the permitted purpose or will
17 1 render conformity with these regulations 2 unnecessarily burdensome. 3 The requested variance is the 4 minimum necessary to do substantial justice 5 to the applicant as well as other surrounding 6 property owners. 7 And finally, the requested variance 8 will not cause an adverse impact on 9 surrounding property. 10 I think it might actually enhance 11 the look of the neighborhood, and also uplift 12 he values, property values of the neighbors. 13 Although we do have some objections to what 14 the applicant is intending to do, there are 15 quite enough people who also approve for 16 applicants. 17 Based on this, I move that we grant 18 the requested application. 19 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion 21 and a second, Ms. Pawlowski, can you -- first 22 of all, is there any further discussion by 23 the Board? 24 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can you 25 please call the roll.
18 1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam? 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe? 4 MR. IBE: Yes. 5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 6 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 8 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 10 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes five 12 to zero. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations, 14 sir. 15 MR. KOSIAN: Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on the 17 agenda is Item No. 2, for Case No. 11-044, 18 317 Duana. Is the applicant here? Please 19 step forward, ma'am. Please state your name 20 and address. 21 MS. SITTERLET: Joanne Sitterlet, 22 317 Duana. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can you pull the 24 microphone by your mouth, so that everybody 25 can hear you.
19 1 Raise your hand and be sworn by our 2 secretary. 3 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 4 to tell the truth? 5 MS. SITTERLET: I do. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please proceed, 7 ma'am. 8 MS. SITTERLET: My name is Joanne 9 Setteler. I'm here regarding a variance for 10 my home at 317 Duana. I am on Shaywood Lake 11 and have a beautiful view of Walled Lake 12 across the street. My home had no garage or 13 driveway when I purchased it. It also had no 14 way to get to the backyard for parking or a 15 garage. I am 63 years old in May. I have a 16 great deal of difficulty with my balance and 17 medical issues with my back. Walking across 18 the street to get to my home wasn't something 19 I could do. 20 I also thought heavily about my 21 brother who's blind, and my mom and others 22 coming to visit my home. Because of these 23 issues, before I purchased, I asked if I 24 could put a very small garage where the 25 bedroom, bath and laundry were. I was very
20 1 happy when I was told I could, as long as I 2 stayed in the footprint. I have done this 3 and it worked out beautifully. 4 I now also have a small driveway 5 that is easy to walk on for everyone. My 6 home was an eyesore to the neighbors and in 7 horrible condition inside also, but had such 8 potential. It was just waiting to become a 9 beautiful home. 10 I am proud to say we have been told 11 by the inspector for the garage, neighbors, 12 several officers and passersby that this was 13 a great idea and the house is already vastly 14 improved. 15 I had no idea my home was built on 16 a variance. However, after I was informed, I 17 had built the garage in the existing 18 footprint, I didn't think I would have a 19 problem with going up in the same footprint. 20 Currently, and without this 21 variance, my bedroom is in the family room 22 and the laundry in dining room, building 23 within the old footprint would be extremely 24 difficult because the addition would be a 25 skinny nine-foot strip down the center, and
21 1 would be almost impossible to place bedroom 2 furniture back in the laundry room. It would 3 also be peculiar and unattractive to me, the 4 neighbors and the city, that's probably why 5 the variance was made for the home 6 originally. This brings me here today. I 7 want to go up from the size of my home that 8 exists now, going back 26 feet of my 60-foot 9 home. I would not be going out of my 10 existing footprint or taking up any 11 additional ground space. 12 I have no homes behind me and don't 13 see this addition blocking anyone's beautiful 14 view of the lakes. I will continue with the 15 new vertical siding and high end windows 16 across the front. 17 My contractor is ready to start 18 immediately after approval, so my home will 19 not be in construction state for more than a 20 couple of weeks. This will not be an ongoing 21 project that the city and neighbors would 22 have to wait on for completion, become an 23 eyesore or detract from the neighborhood in 24 any way. 25 I like simple lines and intend to
22 1 make my home crisp, clean and contemporary. 2 I intend to do everything I can to make this 3 a beautiful addition to the neighborhood and 4 the city. I fell in love with the views I am 5 sandwiched between and am looking forward to 6 moving into my home by the end of this month. 7 I have never been more excited 8 about a new home. This is a very special 9 home to me. I am sincerely asking for your 10 help, hoping you will appreciate my situation 11 and the difficulty I face and allow me to 12 have this variance. And I thank you for this 13 opportunity. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 15 ma'am. 16 Is there anybody in the public who 17 would like to make a comment about this 18 particular case? Ma'am, please come forward. 19 Can you step aside and let this lady talk. 20 State your name and address, ma'am. 21 MS. ROBERTS: I am Lynn Roberts, 22 and I live in Farmington Hills, but I am the 23 president of Summer Resolves (ph), LLC and 24 owner of 315 Duana, which is right next-door 25 to the subject property.
23 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please raise 2 your hand and be sworn by our secretary. 3 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 4 to tell the truth? 5 MS. ROBERTS: I do. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 7 Please proceed. 8 MS. ROBERTS: Thank you. I am here 9 today to express my opposition to the 10 requested addition to this house as proposed. 11 Let me clarify. I am not opposed to an 12 addition, just the plans that are laid out. 13 I could see some improvement to them. 14 First of all, to explain my 15 opposition. I'd like to draw attention to 16 the front elevation of the house. This is 17 the plan that was submitted by my neighbor. 18 As you can see, it's a full two-story plain 19 front facade, okay. This is going all the 20 way up, there is only three feet of property 21 on each side of this house. So this massive 22 facade will fill the entire front of this 23 lot. 24 And I'm concerned about it because 25 I think that's basically unattractive and I
24 1 also think it's out of scale with the 2 surrounding neighborhood. My home is a 3 single story ranch. The house on the other 4 side of this is a single story ranch. The 5 house on the other side of me does have a 6 second story, but it's more of a half story, 7 with a dormer window in the front. So there 8 is nothing that's this big and massive in 9 that area. 10 I'd also like to point out, I 11 suggest that there is another way to do this 12 addition, just pushing that second story 13 back, you know, six or eight feet or maybe 14 even more. 15 When you look at the plans, the 16 addition is planned to be 26 feet deep. The 17 existing house there is 60 feet deep. So 18 there is lots of opportunity to reposition 19 that second story addition. It doesn't have 20 to line up with the front wall of that be -- 21 point forward all the way to front of that 22 house. 23 So what I would like to see is, you 24 know, some flexibility in the plans to maybe 25 push that second story back a little so it's
25 1 less obtrusive, so we can break up the facade 2 and maybe do something rather than just have 3 such a plain facade. 4 I would suggest maybe something 5 like a balcony on the front of it, maybe a 6 partial balcony. You know, this lot has a 7 beautiful lake view in the front, and, you 8 know, I think my neighbor could capitalize on 9 that lake view by doing something like that. 10 Also provide a facade that is a 11 little bit more attractive and fits in better 12 with the general character of the 13 neighborhood. Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just to be 15 clear, you're the owner of a company that 16 owns an adjacent lot? 17 MS. ROBERTS: Yes. Our LLC is just 18 owned by my husband and I. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand. 20 Is that a rental home for you? 21 MS. ROBERTS: No, it is not. Right 22 now we are renovating the home. We are 23 putting a lot of money into it, so we are 24 working on it. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: The intent is to
26 1 live there, I presume? 2 MS. ROBERTS: The intent is to rent 3 it for awhile, and maybe use it as a summer 4 home. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Does this -- 6 your opinion is that this proposed 7 modification or renovation would affect your 8 lake view? 9 MS. ROBERTS: No, not my lake view. 10 Because the houses are kind of parallel and 11 have the same views from the back. I think 12 it's just kind of a massive approach to 13 putting a second story on. I don't see why 14 it has to be pulled all the way to the front 15 of the house like that. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand. 17 Any other questions for this particular 18 witness? 19 MS. SKELCY: None. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Ibe, any 21 questions? 22 MR. IBE: Maybe just one question. 23 May I call you Lynn? 24 MS. ROBERTS: Yes, please. 25 MR. IBE: Now, does the proposal
27 1 made by the applicant, will it in any way 2 affect the use or enjoyment of your property 3 as it is right now? 4 MS. ROBERTS: As it is right now, 5 no, not from the inside of the house. I 6 mean, looking at it, it affects the curb 7 appeal. 8 MR. IBE: Just the curb appeal is 9 all you're concerned about? 10 MS. ROBERTS: Yes. 11 MR. IBE: But not as to the use and 12 enjoyment of your property, no obstructions 13 at all, you will be able to enjoy the lake 14 view, regardless of whether she makes the 15 modifications or not, is that correct? 16 MS. ROBERTS: That is correct, yes. 17 MR. IBE: Very well. Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 19 ma'am. Is there anybody else in the public 20 who would like to make a comment about this 21 particular case? 22 Seeing none, I will close the 23 public remarks section and ask our secretary 24 to read any correspondence. 25 MS. SKELCY: There were 38 notices
28 1 mailed, five were returned by the post office 2 on no approvals or objections. 3 Jean Pembroke of 312 Elm Court in 4 Novi states, I have a question on whether or 5 not you really can put a second floor on a 6 manufactured home that is bolted together. 7 And there is not enough room between the 8 house against to existing houses and the one 9 to the right. That's it. 10 I have to state for the record, 11 that I live at 307 Duana, and cannot 12 participate in this vote because I received a 13 notification about this case, and it does 14 affect my property. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We need a 16 motion? 17 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If someone can 19 move to -- 20 MR. IBE: I make a motion to 21 exclude her. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any second? 23 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I can do a 25 voice --
29 1 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in favor of 3 excusing Member Skelcy say aye. 4 THE BOARD: Aye. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed? 6 Seeing none, you are excused, Member Skelcy, 7 until we are finished up, you have to step in 8 the back. 9 (Whereupon Ms. Skelcy left the hearing room.) 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any comments or 11 issues with the city? 12 MS. KUDLA: We have none. 13 MR. BOULARD: Just a comment, if I 14 could regarding the issues with the 15 structural integrity. We will be doing full 16 permit reviews, building inspections on this 17 as we have done on the work that has taken 18 place so far. 19 And the building code also 20 addresses openings adjacent to property 21 lines, that will be something that will be 22 reviewed when plans are reviewed, if this is 23 approved. 24 With regard to location and 25 approximately the property lines for fire
30 1 protection. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is this a 3 manufactured home? 4 MR. BOULARD: I don't know if it's 5 a manufactured home or a modular home. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will ask the 7 applicant. Anything else from the city? 8 MS. KUDLA: No. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then I will open 10 it up to the board for discussion. 11 Ma'am, I just have a couple 12 questions for you, if you could step forward. 13 Is this a manufactured home? 14 MS. SITTERLET: I really don't 15 know. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you know how 17 old the home is? 18 MS. SITTERLET: Well, I was told 19 that it was built in 1957, but that it was 20 totally demolished and rebuilt in like the 21 '80s, late '80s, and then burned a couple 22 years ago. They got a big settlement because 23 of lot of the stuff in there was still all 24 charred. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How long have
31 1 you owned the home? 2 MS. SITTERLET: Since October 31st. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You mentioned 4 you're ready to build, you know, as soon as 5 you get this approval. Did you have an 6 architect or engineer draft these plans for 7 the -- 8 MS. SITTERLET: I have a builder. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Have you had 10 them -- you haven't had them reviewed with 11 the City, I presume? 12 MS. SITTERLET: I guess this was 13 the first step. It's a simple dormer. It's 14 nothing in -- it's in a contemporary manner, 15 that's why I wanted it straight up, but the 16 windows will add a lot, and there will be 17 beautiful chandeliers showing through it. I 18 don't think it will be very plain. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I don't 20 have any other questions, ma'am. Thank you. 21 Anybody else? Member Krieger? 22 MS. KRIEGER: Have you thought of 23 balconies to the front or the back since you 24 will have that space on the second floor? 25 MS. SITTERLET: It would be a
32 1 wonderful thing, but cost is -- you know, I 2 have put over $100,000 into it, just to 3 getting it where I am at now in this last 4 couple of months. It was totally gutted. It 5 was just a mess in there. So, you know, I 6 would love to have a deck in front, but I 7 couldn't afford to do that. I just, you 8 know -- 9 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you. 10 MS. SITTERLET: I already got it 11 all planned and crunched my numbers for the 12 way it is now. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Ibe? 14 MR. IBE: Ma'am, did you have any 15 conversations with some of your neighbors 16 regarding the plans to build this addition? 17 MS. SITTERLET: Have I? 18 MR. IBE: Yes, have you. 19 MS. SITTERLET: No. When I get off 20 work and get there, I don't see anybody. But 21 I have had my builders and my contractors 22 tell me that people stopped on the road and 23 were complimenting them. Three officers have 24 stopped and told me, you know, how great it's 25 looking.
33 1 The inspector told him that it was 2 a great idea and it's looking so nice. I 3 have had nothing but compliments. 4 MR. IBE: Did you considering maybe 5 writing them a letter, your neighbors? Did 6 you consider that at all maybe as an option, 7 you know, since your work schedule doesn't 8 permit you -- 9 MS. SITTERLET: No, I haven't. 10 MR. IBE: Maybe I mean, we have 11 seen some objections here regarding the 12 house. You know, your plan. While this 13 Lynn, from Farmington Hills, the neighbor, I 14 believe it is at 315, she believes that 15 property will not affect the use and 16 enjoyment of her own property, but she is 17 just concerned about he way it looks, the 18 curb appeal of the property. 19 MS. SITTERLET: There are several 20 homes in the area that go straight up right 21 down the street, a huge home, and this is 22 only 25 feet wide. I didn't put it there 23 that way. They allowed it originally for the 24 home, so that it could be there. I wanted to 25 go up from there to replace the bedroom and
34 1 laundry that I had to take out for the 2 garage. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Your 63-year old 4 mother, does she live with you or does she 5 come visit? 6 MS. SITTERLET: I am 63. 7 MR. IBE: You're 63. You're the 8 one with the medical conditions? 9 MS. SITTERLET: Correct. I have a 10 brother who is multiply handicapped, he's 11 dwarfed and he's blind and my mother is 83. 12 It's very difficult to walk across 13 when you park because it's bumpy and the 14 driveway is nice and smooth and it's very 15 easy to walk on. I couldn't have done it 16 without it and I was very pleased that they 17 allowed me to that. 18 And I thought going straight up, I 19 didn't realize was going outside of the 20 footprint. 21 MR. IBE: Thank you very much. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi? 23 MR. SANGHVI: I just had one 24 question for the building department. These 25 variances are the same as they exist now,
35 1 because the footprint is the same, right? 2 MR. BOULARD: Yes. The addition 3 is -- as I understand, the addition is 4 proposed to not extend beyond the existing 5 exterior walls of the building. It will go 6 up only. 7 MS. SITTERLET: Yes. 8 MR. SANGHVI: Basically these 9 variances are already existing? 10 MR. BOULARD: For the lower floor, 11 yes. 12 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I just have a 14 couple more comments. I understand our 15 speaker's sentiments about this. 16 Personally when I'm reviewing in 17 these types of case, I don't like to 18 micromanage, whether you put a porch or 19 whether you do something else. I understand 20 you meant it as you desire and as you can 21 afford. I understand that. Even though this 22 is not necessarily a lake lot, these are 23 still near the lake, they did have smaller 24 lots, have much more restrictions than our 25 newer subdivisions, so under the
36 1 circumstances, I don't have a problem, ma'am, 2 with your particular request and I would 3 support it. 4 Anybody else have any comments or 5 questions? If not, we can entertain a 6 motion. 7 Member Krieger? 8 MS. KRIEGER: In Case No. 11-044, 9 317 Duana, west of South Lake Drive and Old 10 Novi Road old, I move to approve the request 11 as stated, the proposed three feet variance 12 requested, seven feet proposed six feet 13 variance requested 19 feet, which is for the 14 second floor, which goes with the first floor 15 footprint of the previous variance requests 16 to be no addition, just a second floor. 17 That the applicant -- there are 18 unique circumstances and physical conditions 19 of the property such as narrowness, 20 shallowness, shape, between Shaywood Lake and 21 Walled Lake, the topography and physical 22 conditions make it difficult for this 23 petitioner to create an addition, and the 24 need for the variance is not due to the 25 applicant's personal or economic difficulty.
37 1 The strict compliance with 2 regulations governing the area setback 3 frontage, height, the petitioner is 4 requesting that I believe it was 26 feet for 5 the second floor towards the back, which is 6 not the full length of the first floor. The 7 frontage, the height, the bulk, the density 8 and dimensional requirements will not 9 unreasonably prevent the property owner from 10 using the property for its permitted use, 11 will render the conformity with regulations 12 unnecessarily burdensome. 13 It is not self-created because the 14 house was put on a footprint that previously 15 needed variance. 16 The requested variance is the 17 minimum variance necessary to do substantial 18 justice to the applicant as well as other 19 property owners in the district. And the 20 variance -- there are other houses on that 21 street with similar attributes. The 22 requested variance will not cause an adverse 23 impact on the surrounding properties or 24 values, will probably increase the values and 25 enjoyment of the property.
38 1 It doesn't cause obstruction of 2 views for neighbors to the lakes in the 3 neighborhood and zoning district. 4 MR. BOULARD: If I might suggest, 5 clarification that the addition is on the 6 road, on the roadside of the home, where the 7 address -- towards the road where the address 8 is. And also if you would care to include 9 the variance for an addition to a 10 non-conforming building. 11 MS. KRIEGER: So moved. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Second? 13 MR. SANGHVI: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion 15 and a second, any further discussion? Seeing 16 none -- are you satisfied, Ms. Kudla? 17 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing no other 19 discussion, Ms. Pawlowski, can you please the 20 call the roll. 21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam? 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 23 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe? 24 MR. IBE: Yes. 25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?
39 1 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 3 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes four 5 to zero. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations, 7 ma'am. 8 MS. SITTERLET: Thank you very 9 much. I just love my new home and the city 10 and the lake. Thank you so much. 11 (Whereupon Member Skelcy returned to the 12 hearing room.) 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on the 14 agenda is Item No. 3 for Case No. 11-045 for 15 23995 Novi Road. 16 Ma'am, can you please state your 17 name and address. 18 MS. SIMPSON: I'm Terry Simpson 19 with Sign Techs, 20333 Indoplex, Farmington 20 Hills. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please raise 22 your hand and be sworn. 23 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 24 to tell the truth? 25 MS. SIMPSON: I do.
40 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please proceed. 2 MS. SIMPSON: Again, I'm Terry 3 Simpson with Sign Techs. I am here to 4 represent Novi Energy, who is currently 5 located at 23955 Novi Road. 6 We are requesting a variance to 7 Section 28-8 to erect an off-site premises 8 sign for Novi Energy, due to the location of 9 the building or business in relationship to 10 the Novi Road address. 11 The building or business is not 12 visible for traffic on Novi Road to get to 13 the business. There is an easement or a 14 drive that runs perpendicular to Novi Road 15 that leads you back to the building. 16 Novi Energy is currently the only 17 business that's using that drive, other than 18 Sherwood office building, which doesn't have 19 to go to the end of the drive, they are 20 visible from Novi Road and they have a 32 21 square foot ground sign. So signage for the 22 other property that's currently on the drive 23 has already been taken care of. 24 Novi Energy and their affiliates 25 own the vacant property that's behind the
41 1 existing building, and at this time, have no 2 plans for future use. The sign that we 3 proposed will be within the restrictions of 4 an entranceway sign which is allowed at this 5 location, that would be 24 square feet with a 6 height of five feet. 7 What we're requesting is a business 8 sign, so a sign just to state the company 9 name for Novi Energy versus the entranceway 10 sign that would name a community or a 11 condominium or an association. 12 Should the additional property 13 behind the current building be developed, it 14 is understood that that business sign may at 15 that time, be converted to an entranceway 16 sign. So if Novi Energy builds another 17 building or somebody does something else back 18 there, they understand that they may have to 19 change their business sign to an entryway 20 sign. 21 The only other signage that they're 22 proposing for the building currently is an 23 address marker on the face of that building. 24 So again, it would just be this 25 single sign out at the road for Novi Energy.
42 1 I have the mockup of the proposed address, 2 which would be the only additional sign that 3 they would possibly do at this time. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is that in 5 addition to what you have already provided? 6 MS. SIMPSON: It is. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Why don't you 8 pass it out and then you can go back and 9 speak at the podium. 10 MS. SIMPSON: There was some 11 comments on the notes that I saw on the ZBA 12 agenda today that somebody was concerned are 13 we going to ask for a business sign on the 14 property in addition to the off-site sign. 15 And my point is, the answer to that 16 is no, not at this time. The only thing we 17 are going to try to do is identify the main 18 entrance to that building using an address. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything else, 20 ma'am? 21 MS. SIMPSON: I think that the new 22 sign will make it easier for the customers 23 and the visitors to locate the building and 24 at the same time allow Novi Energy to develop 25 a brand identity identify within the City of
43 1 Novi. 2 It's consistent with the 3 surrounding signs as far as type and size, 4 and I don't think it will be an obstruction 5 in any way. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Thank you 7 very much. Is there anybody from the public 8 who would like to make a comment on this 9 particular case? 10 Seeing none, I will close the 11 public remarks section and ask our secretary 12 to read any correspondence. 13 MS. SKELCY: Eighteen notices were 14 mailed, six were returned and there were no 15 responses. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any comments or 17 questions by the city? 18 MS. KUDLA: No. 19 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. If 20 there is any questions, I'd be happy to 21 assist. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm going to 23 open it up to the board for discussion. 24 Member Skelcy? 25 MS. SKELCY: What does Novi Energy
44 1 do? 2 MS. SIMPSON: Do you want to 3 speak -- Anand is with Novi Energy. He would 4 probably be better suited to answer that than 5 myself. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sir, just 7 briefly state your name and then raise your 8 hand and be sworn. 9 MR. GANGADHARAN: Anand 10 Gangadharan. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please raise 12 your hand and be sworn. 13 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 14 to tell the truth. 15 MR. GANGADHARAN: I do. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please spell 17 your name for our court reporter. 18 MR. GANGADHARAN: A-n-a-n-d, 19 G-a-n-g-a-d-h-a-r-a-n. 20 We are a developer of power plants, 21 alternative energy power plants. We are also 22 energy consultants. This is our world 23 headquarters building. And we just acquired 24 this building. It was a bank owned property, 25 and we have cleaned it up the facility and
45 1 moved in -- build out the facility and just 2 moved in the last few weeks. 3 MS. SKELCY: What kinds of people 4 would be trying to find this location then 5 or -- 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Many, many 7 customers who come, who want to build a power 8 plant or want to build energy facilities or 9 improve the energy efficiency of their 10 buildings, or those kind of things. 11 MS. SKELCY: All right. Now, I 12 went out there today and looked at it, there 13 was a sign on the building that said Novi 14 Energy. I think that may be the concern 15 that's being had with regard to address 16 versus another sign. 17 MS. SIMPSON: I think what you are 18 speaking of right now is about a 12-foot by 19 24-inch vinyl banner that was put up during 20 the construction process so when a contractor 21 came, there was no question that they were in 22 the right place. And I believe it might be 23 flapping on two nails. So it's going to come 24 down and it can come down any time at this 25 point.
46 1 It's not a permanent sign. It's -- 2 like I said, it's a banner. 3 MS. SKELCY: Thank you. Then for 4 Mr. Boulard, she mentioned that they may have 5 change the sign, if another tenant goes in 6 there, or another building is built? Can you 7 expand on that at all? 8 MR. BOULARD: That would be, I 9 believe, their choice, if they wanted to 10 allow -- the sign that is allowed by right 11 would be the business center, Sherwood office 12 park, whatever the name of the center is, the 13 approved name. 14 If I understood correctly, the 15 intent would be, if more businesses moved in, 16 more buildings were constructed, which there 17 is a lot of space for that, in fact, there is 18 an additional foundation already in the 19 printout. At that time, as opposed to the 20 other businesses asking for yet another sign, 21 that this sign would be converted to a 22 business center sign. Did I understand you 23 correctly? 24 MS. SIMPSON: Correct. At no point 25 are we going to come back and ask for another
47 1 32 square foot sign next to this for the next 2 building that goes up. 3 What Anand is saying is he 4 understands that if something changes with 5 that vacant property back there, that we may 6 have to address that. 7 And the sign that we propose is 8 within the allowance for the -- I believe, 9 it's called an entranceway sign, correct me 10 if I'm wrong, but a sign for a park or an 11 industrial park or what have you. 12 And so we have proposed this, at 13 the sign that's already allowed for that type 14 of sign. So what we would intend to do is 15 leave the structure and just change the faces 16 out. Again, there is no plans for that right 17 now, but if somebody had concern about 18 future, we do understand that that might have 19 to change. 20 MS. SKELCY: All right. There is a 21 lot of signs in that area. It is like sign 22 pollution over there, but I have no problem 23 with the sign as proposed and would support 24 it. Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi.
48 1 MR. SANGHVI: I have a question for 2 you, Mr. Boulard. Why aren't you naming this 3 side street and give it a name, then he won't 4 have to do all these things? 5 MR. BOULARD: That side street, to 6 the best of my knowledge, is a drive within 7 the complex. It's actually a shared drive 8 that's owned by the condominium unit owners. 9 So it's a private drive. 10 MR. SANGHVI: If they name the side 11 street, would the address be Novi Road and 12 all these things would be very -- you won't 13 need all these signs (inaudible). 14 MR. BOULARD: Well, I guess that's 15 certainly an option. I would -- if the name 16 of the company were to change, or they were 17 to move to a bigger headquarters, then at 18 some point in the future, then we would have 19 the name still there, so -- 20 MR. SANGHVI: There are more 21 tenants going to come in this very building, 22 we are talking about. It's not only them 23 going to be there. 24 MS. SIMPSON: I believe this is 25 intended to be the only tenant at that
49 1 address. Novi Energy occupies that entire 2 building. 3 MR. SANGHVI: Entire building? 4 MS. SIMPSON: Entire building, 5 correct. 6 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Krieger? 8 MS. KRIEGER: Just to clarify 9 because those buildings have been there 10 forever. There is the three buildings. The 11 one that's Sherwood -- the Sherwood sign 12 belongs to the one building, so in the 13 street, there is an entrance to one private 14 area, it's to three separate privately owned 15 areas, so that other building is still vacant 16 could ask for a sign as well, so there could 17 possibly be another sign? 18 MR. BOULARD: If I could refer you 19 to the map, where the drive comes in, the 20 building to the south is actually a separate 21 parcel, separate development. The building 22 out by the -- by the road, north of the drive 23 is building one. That's the one that was 24 occupied previously. 25 The building behind that with the
50 1 red box around it, that's the current Novi 2 Energy building and that's building two. The 3 entire area to the west of the -- kind of 4 square with the corners cut off, the L shaped 5 portion that wraps around it, in fact, the 6 area to the south, south of the building in 7 the red box is all part of the same 8 development. 9 MS. KRIEGER: So it's buildable? 10 MR. BOULARD: There are some 11 challenges. There is a lot of wetlands and 12 flood planes, but for example, directly south 13 of the building that's in the red box, you 14 will see what looks like some foundations. 15 There is actually foundations where a 16 building was started there. 17 And there is various site plans for 18 additional building to the west of the red 19 box, where it says, Hampton Woods condo. 20 MS. KRIEGER: So that Sherwood 21 address sign is not for all the buildings, 22 just for the one building up front? 23 MS. SIMPSON: I believe Sherwood 24 has its own physical address numbers, so the 25 32 square foot sign that runs parallel with
51 1 Novi Road belongs to that building that runs 2 parallel with Novi, it's a totally separate 3 address. 4 MS. KRIEGER: I guess I'm in 5 agreement with Member Sanghvi that if that 6 road had a name, then it would make it 7 easier, but it makes it understandable that 8 now that if Novi Energy has this building to 9 the back, and somebody is looking for it on 10 Novi Road, that they would need -- so I agree 11 with Member Skelcy. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 13 MR. GEDEON: Just a question. 14 These units, these buildings are part of -- 15 on the map it's shown as a condo. At least 16 residentially, if there is a condo, there is 17 a condominium association. I don't know if 18 that's the same situation for business 19 properties or not. But is there an 20 association, and if so, is there any sign 21 rights allotted in that association? 22 MR. GANGADHARAN: There is a 23 condominium agreement in place. I don't 24 think that's (inaudible). I'm not 25 particularly knowledgable about it. I'm not
52 1 sure that I know much to speak about any sign 2 rights. 3 MR. GEDEON: It just seems unusual 4 that there are four parcels, and four units 5 in the condominium association, that only one 6 of the buildings would be entitled to a sign. 7 MR. GANGADHARAN: I'm the owner of 8 all the buildings, the entire condominium. 9 MS. SIMPSON: So if you want to 10 talk as four separate parcels, Anand owns all 11 four pieces. 12 MR. GEDEON: Is there a reason why 13 you want two separate signs and not just one? 14 MR. GANGADHARAN: Primarily this is 15 our headquarters building. We want some 16 identity. We have been Novi Energy for the 17 last ten years. This is our tenth 18 anniversary. And essentially like the Novi 19 Energy address, Novi Road, Novi, Michigan, 20 great, and we have an identity on the street. 21 It was the intention, when we found that, we 22 found the property last year, we said that 23 made sense, we are growing, we expanded. We 24 have come in and built the building out. And 25 wanted a presence on Novi Road. Essentially
53 1 that was the strategy behind coming out, 2 getting that building. It had its own 3 address, the 23955 Novi Road, and hence we 4 took it. 5 MR. GEDEON: Thank you for that 6 clarification. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Ms. Kudla? 8 MS. KUDLA: I was just going to add 9 that I believe the owner of the condominium 10 is this applicant and he's in control of the 11 association. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Actually I have 13 a question for the city. If this was 14 technically an on-site sign, how many square 15 foot would he be entitled to? 16 MS. SIMPSON: I believe it's 30. 17 MR. BOULARD: It may take me a 18 minute to come up with that. What would that 19 to -- the sign that would be in front of the 20 building, so back on the parcel. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Correct. 22 MS. SIMPSON: I have an email here 23 from Jeannie Niland, that indicates a 24 business sign can be 30 square feet and six 25 feet in height.
54 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Including a 2 ground sign for a business? 3 MS. SIMPSON: Those were the 4 details that she gave me for a business sign, 5 30 square feet, six feet in height. What we 6 are asking for is 24 square feet with five 7 feet in height. Which meets the allowance 8 for an entranceway sign that's actually 9 allowed at that type of location. 10 MR. BOULARD: That's correct. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I, too, 12 understand the need, given the circumstances 13 that you have presented it today. So I do 14 not have any problems with this either. 15 Anybody else have any questions or 16 comments? 17 Seeing none, does anybody want to 18 make a motion? Member Ibe? 19 MR. IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In 20 Case No. 11-045, 23955 Novi Road, Novi 21 Energy, I move that we grant the request of 22 the applicant as requested for the following 23 reasons. 24 One, the request is based upon 25 circumstances and features that are
55 1 exceptional and unique to the property, and 2 do not result from conditions that exist 3 generally in the city or that are 4 self-created. 5 Now, this property is located in a 6 very unique position. It has no visibilty 7 and no road frontage from Novi Road where 8 it's located. So that obviously raises a lot 9 of questions as to how do you find this 10 particular business, and the only way 11 obviously that you can accomplish this, is by 12 meeting the requirements or the requirements 13 as proposed the applicant. 14 Secondly, failure to grant relief 15 will unreasonably prevent or limit the use of 16 the property and will result in the inability 17 to attain the kind of returns that this 18 applicant desires for this business. 19 Obviously Novi Energy is supposed 20 to represent what the business does, that's 21 the name of the business, it is an identity 22 with which people will relate to this 23 particular business, so the sign is 24 necessary. 25 Finally, the grant of relief will
56 1 not result in the use of structure that is 2 incompatible with or unreasonably interferes 3 with adjacent properties surrounding this 4 particular building. And it is not 5 inconsistent with the spirit of the zoning 6 ordinance. 7 Let me also state that the 8 applicant owns all four parcels, if I'm 9 correct, on this particular piece of 10 property. And also the applicant did state 11 that they did not intend to have a sign on 12 the building itself, with a building number. 13 And based upon this, I move that we grant the 14 applicant's request. 15 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion 17 and second, any further discussion by the 18 Board? 19 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can you 20 please call the roll. 21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam? 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 23 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe? 24 MR. IBE: Yes. 25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?
57 1 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 3 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 5 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 6 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes fives 7 to zero. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations. 9 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. We have 10 one other request while we are here. We went 11 ahead and put up the full size mockup ten 12 days prior to the meeting, and understand 13 that it's to come down five days from now. 14 Due to the construction nature of 15 that sign, we have to dig a footing and pour 16 a foundation and build a sign, we'd like to 17 know if we can leave that up for any period 18 of time? 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You would have 20 to work with the city on that, ma'am, we 21 don't grant those types of requests. You 22 would have to talk to someone from the city. 23 MS. KUDLA: It is within your 24 discretion. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Oh, is it. So
58 1 what is the specific request, to keep the 2 mockup up there? 3 MS. SIMPSON: We would like to keep 4 the mockup until the permanent sign is done, 5 again, so that people that are going into the 6 Novi Energy don't have issue locating the 7 business. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We have to make 9 a separate motion on that? 10 MS. KUDLA: You should make a 11 separate motion, set a specific time period. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Personally, I 13 don't have a problem with it. Is there any 14 questions for the applicant, or someone want 15 to make a motion? 16 MS. SKELCY: I just want to know 17 when can you start getting the footings put 18 in? 19 MS. SIMPSON: I think the 20 construction drawings are done. Once we get 21 through this process, I'd say we would 22 probably be four to six weeks to completion. 23 So we would start immediately. 24 MS. SKELCY: The end of February be 25 okay?
59 1 MS. SIMPSON: That should be fine. 2 Sure. 3 MR. GANGADHARAN: Mid March? 4 MS. SIMPSON: Mid March? 5 MS. SKELCY: Okay. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Someone want to 7 make a motion? 8 MS. SKELCY: I move that we grant 9 the applicant in Case No. 11-045 Novi Energy 10 located at 23955 Novi Road that we grant them 11 their request for an extension to exhibit the 12 temporary sign until March 15th of 2012. 13 MR. IBE: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion 15 and second, do we need a separate vote or -- 16 MS. KUDLA: No. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in favor say 18 aye. 19 THE BOARD: Aye. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed? 21 Seeing none, that is passed then, too, ma'am. 22 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on the 24 agenda is Item No. 4, Case No. 11-046 for 25 43015 Grand River Avenue, for Banks Vacuum.
60 1 Will the applicant step forward. State your 2 name and address, sir. 3 MR. JOHNSON: Mark R. Johnson from 4 MRJ Sign Company, 256 Narrin Street, 5 Ortonville, Michigan. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your hand 7 and be sworn by our secretary. 8 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 9 to tell the truth? 10 MR. JOHNSON: I do. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead and 12 proceed. 13 MR. JOHNSON: I am here this 14 evening representing Banks Vacuum, a long 15 time business citizen in the City of Novi. 16 In fact, they were originally located on 17 Grand River Avenue about three locations to 18 the west from the subject property. They 19 then relocated to the Novi Town Center, and 20 are now locating back to Grand River Avenue 21 and actually purchasing the building, redoing 22 the interior of the building, and in essence, 23 making it one of their keystone locations in 24 the fact, the interior and everything of that 25 nature in what they offer there.
61 1 Banks Vacuum is a chain of nine 2 stores throughout southeastern Michigan and 3 is the largest vacuum seller in the midwest. 4 Part of his concern when they 5 purchased the property was the fact of that 6 the building was set much further away from 7 Grand River than most of the other buildings 8 between him and Novi Road. He specializes 9 and handles over 12 different brands of 10 vacuums, so he gets and draws people from 11 quite a distance at times, and was concerned 12 that as people came down Grand River, that 13 they wouldn't be able to see him. 14 The previous owner of the property 15 had a variance for both a wall sign and a 16 monument sign, which we have replaced the 17 monument sign with the same size of sign that 18 was there previously for a retailer of home 19 entertainment systems. 20 The issue becomes the fact that 21 since the building is set so far back and has 22 no many varying site lines from, for 23 instance, the intersection there at the 24 service drive off of Novi Town Center, that 25 the freestanding sign out in front needs to
62 1 be quickly associated with the building 2 itself. 3 His plan was to relocate the 4 existing sign that he has at Novi Town 5 Center, which is individual channel letters. 6 The concern was that his faces there are red 7 and when placed against the dark brown of the 8 building, would blend during the day and not 9 provide him sufficient contrast for it to be 10 legible. Therefore, the white backer that 11 you see in the print is just there for during 12 the day, will not be visible at night. And 13 while the sign is 42 and a half square feet, 14 because of that backer to create a contrast, 15 it will only be 24 square feet when actually 16 illuminated. I believe that the previous 17 sign there, which had a slightly different 18 corporate logo and smaller, was approximately 19 18 square feet. 20 In reading staff's comments, if the 21 concern is the additional square footage for 22 the backer itself, we can make -- take the 23 steps of changing the face color in order to 24 create that contrast during the day, which 25 will then place the sign back to 24 square
63 1 feet, which is in, essence, the typical sign, 2 wall sign for 20 foot wide space within the 3 city. 4 But at the same time, keep in mind 5 that if the walls for the monument sign 6 wasn't there, even though it's been approved 7 by a previous variance that went with the 8 property, he would be allowed a much larger 9 wall sign than what he's even asking for. He 10 would be allowed the maximum for that zoning, 11 which I believe is 65 square feet. 12 I'm here to answer any questions 13 you may have. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. Is 15 there anybody in the public who would like to 16 comment on this particular case? 17 Seeing none, I will close the 18 public remarks section and ask our secretary 19 to read any correspondence. 20 MS. SKELCY: Thirty-three notices 21 were mailed, two were returned. There were 22 no responses. Any comments from the city? 23 MS. KUDLA: No. 24 MR. BOULARD: I just want to take 25 the opportunity, if I could, to clarify the
64 1 applicant's remarks. The sign that would be 2 allowed on the wall of the building by right 3 would be -- would be in place of the ground 4 sign that's already there. 5 MR. JOHNSON: Correct, for a single 6 sign, right. 7 MR. BOULARD: So the sign -- that 8 the existing additional sign that is there is 9 17.8 square feet approximately, and that in 10 the previous variance was specific to a 11 particular tenant. Any other questions, 12 please let me know. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Open it up to 14 the board for discussion. Member Sanghvi. 15 MR. SANGHVI: Question for 16 Mr. Boulard. The sign of the current 17 requested variance, the size of the sign is 18 not an issue? 19 MR. BOULARD: I'm not sure I 20 understand completely. 21 MR. SANGHVI: I'm just asking you. 22 The previous sign was much smaller than what 23 used to be on the wall? 24 MR. BOULARD: Yes, that sign was 25 allowed -- that second sign was 17.8 square
65 1 feet was allowed under a previous variance. 2 MR. SANGHVI: My question is, which 3 size of wall sign would be allowed if there 4 was no ground sign? 5 MR. BOULARD: 65 square feet. 6 MR. SANGHVI: So that is not beyond 7 what he's asking for now? 8 MR. BOULARD: No. Except that he's 9 asking for two signs. 10 MR. SANGHVI: I know he's asking 11 for an additional sign. So the variance is 12 okay for the additional sign, and not for the 13 size of the wall sign? 14 MR. BOULARD: Yes. 15 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. You have 16 a very beautiful sign on the ground and it 17 seems to be the only business in that 18 particular segment of the building. Why do 19 you need a second sign? You can very easily 20 see that sign. 21 MR. JOHNSON: Because of the 22 distance between the sign and the building, 23 then also the fact that there is multiple 24 site lines, meaning that you not only want to 25 draw traffic off of Grand River itself, but
66 1 for instance, the traffic coming out of Main 2 Street development going across and things of 3 that nature, and he's very concerned when he 4 bought the building that because of how far 5 back it was set, that his existing customer 6 base wouldn't necessarily follow him across 7 the street. 8 Unfortunately, he is leaving Novi 9 Town Center in order to go out on his own, 10 and I don't know if there was bad blood or 11 whatever the case may be, but they're not 12 going to allow him to say that he was 13 relocated to where he has. So he's trying to 14 make sure that he doesn't lose any of his 15 existing customer base, of course, grows on 16 it. 17 Like I said, though, at the same 18 time, the existing request is primarily 19 background, or at least a good portion of it 20 is. I have a print, if you would like me to 21 share it with you, kindly, kind of doing a 22 comparison of what the sign would like look 23 with a white face, which would then take down 24 the square footage considerably. So let 25 me -- may I?
67 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You can put it 2 on the overhead, so everybody can see. 3 MR. JOHNSON: I do have a copy for 4 everyone. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's okay. 6 MR. JOHNSON: Basically, the facia 7 of Novi Town Center is a light beige. So of 8 course, a white letter there, where he's 9 presently located, would blend in. He 10 prefers the red, that's what he's done with 11 all of his buildings, but in -- when I 12 contacted Jeannie Niland with the city, the 13 square footage calculation is actually based 14 on just the white area, even though that area 15 will not illuminate. But we can instead 16 change the faces, which takes it down to a 24 17 square foot sign, allows him to reuse his 18 existing sign from across the street, and 19 keep his logo intact. And then we'll have a 20 white face against the dark brown chocolate 21 of the building and be able to have enough 22 contrast during the day. 23 The issue also is the fact that he 24 was looking at even possibly changing the 25 building color, but my understanding is that
68 1 there is a process that he would have to go 2 through for that as well, and quite frankly, 3 given the brick color, to go to something 4 light would, you know, look kind of awkward. 5 I mean, it really wouldn't blend well with 6 the brick of the building and things of that 7 nature, with the fire department next to it 8 and the colors that they utilize, kind of 9 stick out like a sore thumb, so he was 10 looking at doing changes to the sign instead. 11 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Skelcy? 13 MS. SKELCY: You know, I drove by 14 today and the monument sign, which is red 15 white, is very visible. I'm not so certain 16 that the second sign is needed. And I would 17 not be in favor of approving a 42.5 square 18 foot wall sign. I would consider a 17.8 19 square foot wall sign which is what was there 20 previously. Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else 22 have any questions? Member Krieger? 23 MS. KRIEGER: I also drove by and 24 given that this building, and it's unique 25 because it's set back, and the speed of Grand
69 1 River, that the ground sign was good that it 2 helped, but I would be willing to accept a 3 wall sign. Thanks. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any comment on 5 the size of the particular wall sign? 6 MS. KRIEGER: It seems proportional 7 to the size of the wall itself, and then he's 8 already asked for the red and white. I don't 9 know if we have to readvertise it, if we 10 changed it. 11 MR. BOULARD: I believe that the 12 board should use -- should you so choose 13 could approve a lesser variance, just not a 14 greater variance. 15 MS. KUDLA: That's correct. 16 MR. BOULARD: The one thing that I 17 don't know is we obviously haven't had a 18 chance to look at the option of the white 19 letters at this point, so I think it be 20 should inserted in there somewhere, if you 21 draw a box around those, which is how we 22 measured those, somewhere in neighborhood of 23 24 square feet, but I can't confirm that. 24 That's what that drawing would be. 25 MR. JOHNSON: It's 18 inches by
70 1 16 feet that includes all the dead space 2 beneath the Banks' copy and, you know, 3 because it has a slight curve, which is his 4 logo. 5 MS. KRIEGER: I'm sorry, I do have 6 a separate question that's not really 7 related. But would the Banks Vacuum be 8 putting in a sidewalk in front, too, when 9 looking at this picture? I don't know if 10 that's related. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you know, 12 sir? 13 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry? 14 MS. KRIEGER: A sidewalk in the 15 front of the Banks Vacuum would be connecting 16 from the fire department to the neighboring 17 building, a sidewalk? 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: She's asking if 19 you know. 20 MR. JOHNSON: No, I don't know. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 22 comments or questions? Member Ibe? 23 MR. IBE: Let me understand this. 24 The ground sign that is currently there, does 25 it say Banks Vacuum?
71 1 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it does. 2 MR. IBE: Now, based on what I hear 3 from the members, will you or client be able 4 to reduce the size of the sign to fit it with 5 what the previous tenant had, is that 6 something that your client would be willing 7 to consider? 8 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sure it's 9 something he would be willing to consider, 10 for financial reasons, I'm sure he would like 11 to relocate his existing sign from across the 12 street, that's he's already purchased and had 13 up, and like I said, what we would be just 14 doing is just changing the face color. 15 But I think also given the fact 16 that the sign at 24 square feet is 17 proportional to the overall building, which 18 in this print, not even all of that is shown, 19 I don't think it's going to be out of 20 keeping, but if he had to go to an 18 square 21 feet sign, I guess he would, you know, be 22 forced to do so, I'd try to figure out 23 another location. But this one, quite 24 frankly, I don't know if that's available or 25 not to him.
72 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can you give us 2 an idea of how much the existing sign would 3 cost, the one he wants the transfer? 4 MR. JOHNSON: Oh, to do a new sign? 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: No. The one he 6 has on the current building you said he 7 wanted to transfer to this building. What is 8 the cost involved? 9 MR. JOHNSON: In doing the 10 transfer? 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: No, just the 12 cost of the sign. 13 MR. JOHNSON: About 5,000 plus 14 whatever the permits are for whatever 15 municipality -- 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: But the cost of 17 the sign as it sits on the building is 18 currently 5,000? 19 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I just one 21 question, I forgot when I was looking at 22 this. Is this the only tenant in this 23 particular building? 24 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: There is no room
73 1 for no other tenant? 2 MR. JOHNSON: No. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: He occupies the 4 entire building? 5 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I was on 7 the fence when reviewing this because of 8 the -- you know, the ground sign, and it's 9 not like it's a multi-tenant building, 10 where -- I understand the situation in terms 11 of how it's situated on Grand River, and how 12 far it is back, I understand those concerns. 13 But I was still on the fence as I'm reviewing 14 this, depending on size, if a second -- 15 MR. JOHNSON: I don't know the 16 distance from Grand River, it's the fact that 17 he's been in Novi Town Center for quite a few 18 years, and he wants those customers, when 19 they come back, you know, and I understand 20 that is the problem with moving. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand all 22 of that. Everybody wants bigger and better. 23 I don't necessarily blame him, but the 24 question is, is it necessary under these 25 circumstances, given our rules and so forth.
74 1 Anybody else have any comments or 2 questions? Does anybody want to take a stab 3 at a motion? Member Ibe? 4 MR. IBE: Not a motion, but just a 5 quick comment. Just so you know where I 6 stand, because obviously we do have a board 7 that is somewhat may be split right now. 8 I can tell you, sir, I am not in 9 favor of multiple signs, absolutely not in 10 favor of it. 11 But because of the past presence, 12 previous tenant, the only way I will be in 13 favor of this is if it meets the same size of 14 what was there before. That's probably what 15 I will go for. 16 Now, one thing I'm going to have is 17 a proliferation of signs everywhere, multiple 18 signs. I mean, once we start going down this 19 road, I can think more people rushing in here 20 everybody is going to have triple signs 21 before we know it. Yes, we understand 22 everybody wants to be seen. Visibility is an 23 issue. But that is definitely not a reason 24 to have multiple signs. 25 Just like Member Skelcy, as well as
75 1 Mr. Chair, I am on the fence as well because 2 of the size, and if your client is willing to 3 amend its request to make what was previously 4 there, then I will be willing to go along 5 with it. 6 But right now, as it is, 7 unfortunately, you may not be able to get my 8 support. Thank you. 9 MR. JOHNSON: Just if I may, just 10 to be clear, I mean, at this point, I am 11 revising my request from the 42 and a half 12 square feet to the 24 square feet that showed 13 on print. And if the board is so entertained 14 to approve the same square footage that was 15 there previously, I would obviously go back 16 to my client and, you know, take that 17 approval back to him and redesign the sign to 18 meet that square footage. I mean, he just 19 feels he needs something on the building so 20 that it's -- the ground sign is associated 21 and so that people, you know, realize where 22 he is relocated to. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If the 24 square 24 foot second sign was approved, the wall sign, 25 could you use your existing sign on --
76 1 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You just have to 3 change the colors? 4 MR. JOHNSON: Correct, just have to 5 change the face. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I know that's 7 not his preference, but you are saying -- 8 MR. JOHNSON: Correct, you're 9 talking a few hundred dollars versus 5,000. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: From your 11 perspective, if he kept the sign, as is, 12 current colors, everything simply moved it, 13 you would need 42 and a half square feet? 14 MR. JOHNSON: The reason being is 15 because you need to have a contrast, you 16 know, the red letters against the white 17 background. You know, if not, we -- the red 18 letter, it's a dark cardinal red, it's not 19 like a bright poppy red or anything, a dark 20 cardinal red, against the dark chocolate 21 brown during the day, most people wouldn't 22 quite frankly, even notice it. There 23 wouldn't be enough contrast between the 24 colors. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Under those
77 1 circumstances, because I am cognizant of the 2 cost and expense, you know, 18 feet versus 24 3 feet, versus 42 and a half. Personally, if 4 you think your client would be willing to 5 accept the 24 square foot wall sign, I think 6 that's probably the way I would go in terms 7 of your request as presented. That's where I 8 would stand on this. 9 Member Gedeon? 10 MR. GEDEON: One final question. 11 Since there has been some discussion here 12 about the previous tenant's 17.8 square foot 13 wall sign, do you have -- without getting any 14 detailed, measuring out, do you have a gut 15 sense or whether or not that Banks Vacuum 16 text would be, you know, how visible it would 17 be in that square footage? 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You mean within 19 the 17.8? 20 MR. GEDEON: Right. 21 MR. JOHNSON: You would taking it 22 down from considerably. The one issue is 23 that he, even though the existing ground sign 24 utilizes his corporate type in the Banks 25 curve, unfortunately, with the upper and
78 1 lower case on the Banks, and it being in a 2 slight arch, if you will, it eats up a lot of 3 square footage. You would be probably taking 4 that sign down -- although it's only -- from 5 24 to 18 is only 25 percent an area. You 6 would be taking it down at least a third in 7 letter height because it, you know, it -- 8 square footage has a way of when you are 9 calculating including the dead space of it 10 not being much more larger in actual letter 11 height, but it adds expedientially to the 12 square footage factor. 13 So to answer your question in a 14 one-line sentence, yeah, to take it down to 15 18 square feet, would be making it 16 considerably less readable than what it now. 17 MR. GEDEON: Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any more 19 questions or comments? 20 MR. SANGHVI: The only comment I 21 would make, if he can't make the decision 22 himself, maybe we can table it, he can come 23 back next month. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Certainly up to 25 the petitioner if you want to move or table
79 1 it. 2 MR. JOHNSON: Well, it matters if 3 the board is willing -- I would request that 4 the board consider the 24 square feet, if 5 there isn't sufficient support for that, then 6 quite frankly, I have no choice but to agree 7 with the tabling of it just not knowing 8 exactly what my client's wishes are. I 9 expect that he would prefer to, you know, 10 save himself $5,000. I would, too. You 11 know, me as the owner of my company, I have 12 no problem building him a new one, of course, 13 but it's hard for me to say. I did talk to 14 him beforehand about the revision that I have 15 shown you here, and he was fine with doing 16 so. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Skelcy? 18 MS. SKELCY: I just wanted to 19 understand, on the white Banks Vacuum, is 20 that the 24 square foot sign? 21 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. It's the 22 exact same letters as the option above it, 23 the only difference is the option above it 24 has a white aluminum backer behind the 25 letters, so that you have contrast during the
80 1 day. So it's kind of deceiving when looking 2 at the prints that were submitted because it 3 almost looks like a box sign, when in fact, 4 really it isn't. It's an individual 5 illuminated letter sign. We just need 6 something so that the red will stand off 7 against the dark brown. 8 MS. SKELCY: I think the white 9 looks better based on the size. I mean, I 10 would be favor of the 24 square foot size 11 based on the lettering shown in white against 12 the brown. I don't care what color you pick. 13 I'm just saying the size. 14 MR. JOHNSON: Right. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 16 comments? I think as a suggestion, if we 17 think we can get support for the 24 square 18 foot sign, maybe we can try that in a motion. 19 If it fails for some reason, we can always 20 move to table it and reconsider this at a 21 different time. Member Ibe? 22 MR. IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 23 Now, sir, if I understood correctly, your 24 client will agree to the 24 square foot sign? 25 MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
81 1 MR. IBE: And you have authority to 2 make -- 3 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. 4 MR. IBE: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Krieger, 6 you want to make a motion, please go ahead. 7 MS. KRIEGER: Case No. 11-046 on 8 43015 Grand River Avenue for Banks Vacuum. I 9 move to approve the request for an additional 10 wall sign at 24 square feet. That the 11 request is based upon circumstances or 12 features that are exceptional and unique to 13 the property. It is set back more from Grand 14 River than the rest of -- a lot of the other 15 buildings in that area, and does not result 16 from the conditions that exist generally in 17 the city, and are not self-created, that the 18 building was previously there. 19 The failure to grant relief will 20 unreasonably prevent or limit the use of the 21 property and will result substantially more 22 than a mere inconvenience or inability to 23 attain the higher economic return. 24 The grant of relief will not result 25 in the use of structure that's incompatible
82 1 with or interferes with adjacent and 2 surrounding properties. Also the speed on 3 Grand River, with traffic coming going up and 4 down you would be able to -- the different 5 views from the entranceway towards the 6 building is at, that with an -- unreasonably 7 interferes with adjacent or surrounding 8 properties and will result in substantial 9 justice being done to the applicant and 10 adjacent and surrounding properties and is 11 not inconsistent with the spirit of the 12 ordinance. 13 MR. SANGHVI: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion 15 and a second, any further discussion? 16 Seeing none, Ms, Pawlowski, can you 17 please call the roll. 18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam? 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe? 21 MR. IBE: Yes. 22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 23 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 25 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
83 1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 2 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes five 4 to zero. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. 6 Next item on the agenda is Item No. 7 5, Case No. 11-047, 43155 Main Street for 8 Mixx Sports Bar. 9 Sir, go ahead and state your name 10 again. again. 11 MR. JOHNSON: Mark Johnson, MRJ 12 Sign Company, 256 Narrin Street, Ortonville, 13 Michigan. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: For the sake of 15 argument, please raise your right hand and be 16 sworn again by our secretary. 17 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 18 to tell the truth? 19 MR. JOHNSON: I do. 20 This case is for the Mixx Sports 21 Bar in the Main Street development. 22 A little bit of background. This 23 is the previous space of Mixx Lounge, which 24 my understanding was more of a martini bar 25 type of situation.
84 1 New owners came in and actually 2 bought the Mixx Lounge, when it was on the 3 virge of bankruptcy, in fact, they barely had 4 time to get the deal closed before bankruptcy 5 occurred for the Mixx Lounge. 6 And they have rebranded the bar as 7 a sports bar with wide screen TVs for your, 8 you know, different sporting events, 9 football, basketball, baseball, things, so 10 forth. 11 Part of the issue is, of course, 12 that it is in the Main Street development, 13 which has a sign requirement that lends 14 itself as the intent of the development was 15 for a downtown type of setting. 16 Unfortunately, because of the 17 economics of the past decade, that 18 development never really came to its full 19 fruition, with the additional buildings being 20 built between this space location and Novi 21 Road, and things of that nature. Where the 22 wall sign is allowed for the tenant, of about 23 44 square feet, a projecting sign is allowed 24 in addition to the wall sign of only three 25 square feet. The reasoning being that I
85 1 believe the intent of that projecting sign is 2 to be a double-sided sign that allows a 3 pedestrian on the sidewalk to actually see 4 that that's the door for this business. 5 Unfortunately, because of the 6 vacancies in the development, between the 7 Mixx Sports Bar down to the east, towards The 8 Post and the intersection that leads, I 9 believe to a residential community over the 10 bridge and things of that nature, in essence, 11 the Mixx Sports Bar is kind of like, you 12 know, the last business in a small town 13 before you hit the sticks. It's kind of out 14 there all by itself for the most part. 15 In so doing, the draw on the site 16 line becomes that you need to be able to draw 17 people not only from Novi Road, or attempt to 18 draw them from Novi Road, in that as they're 19 going by seeing that's there is something 20 down there to go and investigate, but also 21 the fact that you're trying to draw people 22 from the intersection there by the bridge 23 next to The Post Bar. Because the traffic 24 that was anticipated in front of this 25 business, quite frankly, isn't there and
86 1 hence that is why, the previous Mixx Lounge 2 was on the virge of closing and there are so 3 many vacant spaces between them and the 4 end -- or the center of the development, so 5 to speak. 6 We patterned our request off of a 7 previous ZBA case from approximately 8 almost -- well, ten years now ago, for the 9 Mongolian BBQ. The sign that we propose, and 10 the mockup sign that we have put up, is of 11 the same square footage, same overall height 12 off of grade, little bit different only in 13 its projection, by just a few inches, away 14 from the building, as is the Mongolian BBQ 15 sign. 16 The Post Bar sign was subsequent to 17 the Mongolian BBQ and that was even 18 additional square footage. But obviously 19 that's an anchor tenant, if you will, for the 20 development and has more square footage and 21 tenant space and things, but obviously that 22 sign is meant to draw all the way off of 23 Grand River, as is the Mongolian BBQ sign 24 meant to draw from the intersection to the 25 south off of Grand River.
87 1 So the way the variance was 2 written, which I understand the reasoning 3 behind that is that because there are a lot 4 of projecting signs, the variances need to be 5 in relation to, if they allow the projecting 6 sign, what are they requesting, and what are 7 they allowed. But at the same time, in 8 essence, this is not to replace the 9 projecting sign that they're allowed, this is 10 to replace the wall sign. The wall sign is 11 allowed to be 44 square feet approximately, 12 they're allowed three square feet of 13 projecting sign, or the total of 47 square 14 feet to be placed on the building without 15 variance. The problem being is that the wall 16 sign would have to be parallel, of course, 17 mounted to the wall, which at this point 18 gives them exposure only to the street 19 directly in front of them, which has very 20 little traffic. In so doing, it doesn't give 21 them the exposure that they need to be -- 22 quite frankly, be successful and full and be 23 part of the actual development as a whole. 24 Now, I know that previous owners 25 came in back when there was more tenants in
88 1 the building, went before the board. I mean 2 by the previous owners, the previous owners 3 of the Mixx Lounge, were actually allowed the 4 20 square foot sign on the rear of the 5 building, but were, in essence, told to, you 6 know, keep their existing sign on the front 7 of the building. 8 What we are looking at in trying to 9 find this building is, do we go with a single 10 projecting sign that on paper looks like we 11 are asking for the moon, or do we go with two 12 wall signs and come in for a variance request 13 on a second wall sign for on the side of the 14 building, to get exposure at least in one 15 direction. It seems esthetically it was 16 better to go for a single projecting sign, 17 and cost wasn't an issue, because the cost 18 was about the same, in essence, we're 19 building two single wall signs and putting 20 them back-to-back and extending them away 21 from the building on the structure. 22 We decided that a projecting sign 23 would be more in keeping with the development 24 as a whole because of the existence of both 25 the BD Mongolian BBQ and The Post Bar.
89 1 And that while it is a considerable 2 request from what is allowed because it's 3 being compared to a small, in essence, if you 4 will, directional sign, versus being compared 5 to the primary advertising and wall sign that 6 is allowed, that in the end this would give 7 them not only better exposure, but 8 esthetically it would be more in keeping with 9 the overall development as it now exists. 10 Of course, I'm here to answer any 11 questions you may have. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. 13 Is there anybody in the public who like to 14 make a comment on this particular case? 15 Seeing none, I will close the 16 public remarks section and ask our secretary 17 to read any correspondence. 18 MS. SKELCY: Eighteen notices were 19 mailed, there were two returned by the post 20 office and no responses. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any comments 22 from the City? 23 MS. KUDLA: NO. 24 MR. BOULARD: Just a couple 25 clarifications. I was unaware of some of the
90 1 things that the petitioner mentioned in terms 2 of signs on the other side of the building. 3 I don't believe that those were applied -- 4 that there was an application made for those. 5 The one thing I would like to 6 clarify. To the best of my knowledge, the 7 signs for Mongolian and for Gus O'Connors 8 were put up in 1999 prior to the ordinance 9 changing. The best of my knowledge, there 10 are variances for those, the sizes of the 11 signs, that the ordinance originally responds 12 to that. 13 I'm happy to answer any questions. 14 The one thing I also wanted to point out was 15 that there is this design review manual 16 that's tied to this property, based on the 17 specific development and a lot of those are 18 where the goose neck style pictures instead 19 of illumination and stuff like that, the type 20 of the sign. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just a quick 22 question. Back then, when Mongolian BBQ got 23 their sign, that was allowed at that time 24 apparently? 25 MR. BOULARD: That's my
91 1 understanding. 2 MR. JOHNSON: No. I have a copy 3 of -- first of all -- 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Hold on a 5 second, sir. You will get your chance. 6 MR. JOHNSON: No problem. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How many other 8 businesses in this particular district have 9 these types of signs, do you know? 10 MR. BOULARD: To the best of my 11 knowledge, there is two that have the larger 12 size sign. 13 MS. SKELCY: Does that include The 14 Post Bar? 15 MR. BOULARD: Yes, and Gus 16 O'Connors. I believe the ones we described 17 are the ones that Jeannie Niland had 18 indicated to me were from '99 before the 19 ordinance was changed. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will open it 21 up to the board for discussion. Thank you. 22 Member Skelcy? 23 MS. SKELCY: Mr. Boulard, is there 24 a variance for The Post Bar sign, because 25 that sticks out in a similar fashion.
92 1 Although it doesn't look like it -- I don't 2 know if it sticks out as far as -- but that 3 thing is huge. 4 MR. BOULARD: That's where -- my 5 understanding, I stand to be corrected, my 6 understanding is that that was approved prior 7 to the ordinance changing, that was one of 8 the reasons they changed the ordinance, was 9 because those signs were large. That's one 10 of those loopholes there. 11 MS. SKELCY: You indicate that this 12 sign is meant to pull traffic off Novi Road, 13 but there is no way you can see this sign 14 from Novi Road. 15 MR. JOHNSON: It is to draw 16 attention off of Novi Road. The intent to -- 17 MS. SKELCY: You're coming down off 18 Novi Road. I mean, it's not that big that 19 you can see it by the end of the street, but 20 it's really big, except that it is hidden by 21 that tree. Are you going to keep it in the 22 same spot that the temporary sign is at? 23 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. That was the 24 intent and that was the request of the 25 landlord.
93 1 MS. SKELCY: Is this sign going to 2 be illuminated? 3 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it will be 4 illuminated just as the Mongolian BBQ sign 5 is, and Mongolian BBQ's sign variance was 6 approved in 2002. I have copies of that 7 minutes from that meeting. 8 MS. SKELCY: Those are all the 9 questions I have at this time. Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Krieger? 11 MS. KRIEGER: They changed the 12 ordinance because of the Mongolian and the 13 sports bar, but then they don't let -- those 14 two companies don't have to alter theirs, 15 unless someone comes in the future can't 16 duplicate it? 17 MR. BOULARD: I don't have the 18 benefit of what the gentleman has in front of 19 him, but typically when an ordinance is 20 changed things that are in existence prior to 21 the change of the ordinance would be allowed 22 to remain. 23 MR. JOHNSON: I do have a copy for 24 everybody, if you would like them. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just tell us
94 1 once again which one do you believe was given 2 a variance as opposed to existing prior to 3 the ordinance change? Which business was it? 4 MR. JOHNSON: Both Post Bar and 5 Mongolian BBQ received variances from 6 Jeannie Niland. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you know when 8 the ordinance changed? 9 MR. BOULARD: I believe it was '99. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: '99. So they 11 changed it in '02? 12 MR. JOHNSON: Like I said, this was 13 from the August 13th, 2002 meeting that 14 Mongolian BBQ was given their variance for 15 the exact size sign, same height, same style, 16 same method of fabrication throughout. And 17 then The Post Bar, I believe, I did want a 18 copy of that one, and Jeannie emailed it to 19 me today. But I believe since it referenced 20 in the minutes the Mongolian BBQ projecting 21 sign, I believe that was after 2002. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: What is the 23 square footage of the Mixx bar? 24 MR. JOHNSON: The existing sign? 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: No, the square
95 1 footage of the business approximately. 2 MR. JOHNSON: Probably 4,000. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you know the 4 square footage of the Mongolian BBQ and The 5 Post Bar? 6 MR. JOHNSON: I believe The Post 7 Bar is considerably larger. I would think 8 that the Mongolian BBQ would be comparable. 9 I think those stand-alone buildings are 10 usually anywhere from four to 5,000 square 11 feet. 12 And I do believe that the one 13 reason why The Post Bar looks even large than 14 it is, from what I was sent by Jeannie, I 15 believe it is 70 square foot signs, is 16 because they only actually calculated the 17 letters, they run vertically. 18 In so doing, the structure goes 19 back, which is why it wouldn't be very 20 attractive, it's substantial and very 21 noticeable, that wasn't calculated in the 22 sign area. There is no possible way because 23 if it were, it would be well in excess of 100 24 square feet. I mean, that is a substantial 25 piece of signage.
96 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi? 2 MR. SANGHVI: Question. Is it the 3 only business -- identifying sign on your 4 business? 5 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. 6 MR. SANGHVI: Instead of having two 7 signs, you're just having one sign? 8 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. 9 MR. SANGHVI: Number two, I agree 10 with Ms. Skelcy, no way are you going to see 11 this from Novi Road the way it is designed 12 now, but -- I'm not done. I have no problem 13 with the sign. It's a very decent looking 14 sign. 15 How much different is it going to 16 be from the real -- the mockup is different 17 from the real thing? 18 MR. JOHNSON: Not very much at all, 19 other than the fact that we're going to go 20 from, you know -- 21 MR. SANGHVI: Is the real sign 22 already (inaudible). 23 MR. JOHNSON: No, no. If it 24 were -- no. The actual sign will be all 25 aluminum construction with LED lighting,
97 1 energy efficient lighting. In fact, that 2 entire sign will pull about the same amount 3 of power as a 240 watt light bulb. 4 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I have no 5 problem making it a colorful place. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand 7 that point, but I mean, if that's the case, 8 you may have an argument with every single 9 tenant in all those buildings, and that may 10 be become part of the problem. 11 Anyway, any other questions or 12 comments from the applicant? Member Skelcy? 13 MS. SKELCY: I would kind of like 14 to know about the prior variances. I know we 15 are going to go to prior variances, but -- 16 MS. KUDLA: Mr. Boulard went back 17 to see if he could find the information of 18 whether they were actually variances or 19 whether they were grandfathered before the 20 ordinance changed. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you have 22 extra copies, sir? 23 MR. JOHNSON: Of the one I do for 24 Mongolian BBQ. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Why don't you
98 1 pass that out while we are waiting. The 2 reporter has requested a short break. 3 (Short recess taken.) 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Mr. Boulard, 5 have you had a chance to look at this thing 6 the petitioner gave us? 7 MR. BOULARD: I was not able to 8 locate the sign variance for The Post. There 9 probably was -- I stand corrected, there was 10 a variance for Mongolian BBQ. I don't know 11 what was previously -- according to this, I 12 will just read this. Mongolian BBQ located 13 at 43155 Main Street is requesting two 14 variances to our projecting approval for the 15 sign. Mongolian BBQ had previously been 16 granted a variance to erect two wall signs, 17 but would be removing the signs if the 18 variance for the projecting sign is granted. 19 So there were variances prior to that. 20 Unfortunately, I don't have what led to that. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Ms. Kudla? 22 MS. KUDLA: I just wanted to point 23 out, in looking at that section that he 24 provided us with, an action summary, it's a 25 variance from 28-62 of the ordinance that was
99 1 in effect in 2002. As I look at the current 2 sign code, 28.6 was amended in 2006, so this 3 may well have been before what -- the way the 4 current sign ordinance read. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: The current sign 6 ordinance -- 7 MS. KUDLA: Was amended in '06. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I see this on 9 our sheet is says 285 (2) -- 10 MS. KUDLA: Right, so this is -- we 11 are looking at the same section, as to what 12 he is looking at. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So is that the 14 new section that prohibited these types of 15 projection signs? 16 MS. KUDLA: We have projection 17 signs in part of the ordinance. 18 MR. BOULARD: Yes, it is -- 19 MS. KUDLA: So it looks like it 20 used to be 28.6. So I'm thinking the 21 ordinance code was amended. It's not the 22 same. I don't have the -- I have 2002, but 23 it's a different citation for projection 24 signs. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I don't know if
100 1 you're going to know this, but do they 2 measure them different? Because under the 3 current request, it says that the sign area 4 proposed is 49. It says only three square 5 feet are allowed, as to where the other one 6 says the permitted is 40. 7 MS. KUDLA: That's what drew my 8 attention to the number because the variance 9 was different. The size is different. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you can 11 explain, how is the projection, does it add 12 to the square footage of the particular 13 request or how does that effect this 14 particular request? The fact that it extends 15 out from the building? 16 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance as 17 written, that there is an area that's allowed 18 based on the frontage of the suite, along the 19 street. Of that, a portion can be designated 20 for under the ordinance. The current 21 ordinance is, there is a portion of that that 22 can be designated and applied to a projecting 23 sign. That's a limited size. That's what 24 limited in the ordinance. That does not 25 preclude the rest of that -- you mentioned 44
101 1 square feet? 2 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 3 MR. BOULARD: So potentially under 4 the ordinance, assuming that's the case, 5 three square feet could be the projecting 6 sign remaining only one square feet could be 7 afforded in the ordinance. 8 MR. JOHNSON: I believe the 9 ordinance says in addition to any other 10 signage allowed. So I think the three square 11 feet is above and beyond what the wall sign 12 allowance is. I could be mistaken. 13 MR. BOULARD: Well, I would -- 14 provided in the other permitted sign should 15 be reduced by the area of the projecting 16 sign. That was what was I basing it on. 17 MR. JOHNSON: I do have a design 18 showing, just so you see it in comparison, of 19 what -- just like I said, Mongolian BBQ 20 previous to this variance, that variance that 21 allowed them two wall signs. They had a wall 22 sign facing the north, you know, south and 23 they had a wall sign facing Grand River. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm familiar 25 with that. I know that is a corner building,
102 1 too, Mongolian BBQ. I'm just trying to get 2 in my mind, when you come to us, it looks 3 like you're requesting the moon because all 4 the variances, and the nature of the practice 5 and so forth, illumination -- 6 MR. JOHNSON: I think the reason 7 being is that the Mongolian BBQ was compared 8 to an upper level projecting sign, whereas 9 this variance request is based on a lower 10 level projecting sign. Because the lower 11 level projecting sign was meant for 12 pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. That 13 could have been one of the changes in 2006. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is there any way 15 that you can modify the request to reduce the 16 number of variances you're requesting? 17 MR. JOHNSON: Obviously we could do 18 an ornamental bracket. We do believe that 19 this style of sign lends itself to interior 20 illumination versus a halo illumination 21 because it's a projecting sign. To do like a 22 gooseneck on this logo would be pretty 23 difficult, quite frankly, you would need 24 multiple of them, and it would look pretty 25 gangly, so to speak. Versus a three square
103 1 foot lower level projecting sign that is more 2 or less usually a name plate type thing, you 3 know, one by three. 4 But we could obviously do, you 5 know, some ornamental brackets and we could 6 also look at reducing the square footage, in 7 the fact that taking the wall sign that's 8 allowed, square footage, and utilizing that 9 so that the wall sign allowance would be the 10 same size as the projecting sign, which would 11 take it down a few square feet as well. And 12 put it, if you will, just taking the single 13 face wall sign, making it perpendicular. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Here's my 15 position. I mean, in general you're supposed 16 to -- when you come for a request, you're 17 supposed to minimize, come with the best plan 18 to minimize the number of variances you need. 19 Obviously, we don't write the 20 ordinances, City Council does, and they have 21 their own position as to why they have these 22 rules. Of course, there are exceptions to 23 the rule. You have five, six or so 24 variances, you're violating -- you know, I 25 don't know if every single rule they have got
104 1 exceeds your proposed sign, you're certainly 2 violating a lot them. 3 I guess the question becomes, is it 4 unreasonable understand the circumstances, or 5 I mean, you're still entitled to your wall 6 sign. The question is, can you kind of 7 project in a manner you want, and can it 8 be -- I guess, that's the difficulty I'm 9 having with it. 10 MR. JOHNSON: I guess the question 11 would be is it possible to repost the 12 variance and do it in comparison to an upper 13 level projecting sign for a single first 14 floor business, because if that was my 15 original application, and if that were the 16 case, I think you would find that the 17 gooseneck lighting and the height and some of 18 the things wouldn't apply. That would 19 actually lessen the variance number 20 considerably. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Personally, I 22 don't know offhand, but I know in my 23 experience, traveling through this Main 24 Street area, people are aware of Main Street 25 or thereabouts, you're driving around looking
105 1 for -- you're not looking for projecting 2 signs, but you're looking for wall signs. I 3 understand the difference between the two 4 that you have cited, but I don't know if it 5 would make that much of a difference in, you 6 know -- 7 MR. JOHNSON: I think it would take 8 out the -- probably take out the height and 9 the brackets and I think it would take out 10 three out of the five. I'm not sure. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: As you have it 12 now, you know, the position you want, these 13 are all the variances you need. 14 MR. JOHNSON: As I said, that is 15 the way I submitted to it -- for the permit, 16 that was sent back to me, that this is what I 17 needed versus -- I assumed that I needed 18 lesser variances, and that's what I basically 19 base my original request off of, off of what 20 Mongolian BBQ was approved for. 21 So like I said, I don't know if we 22 need clarification, make sure that we are 23 comparing it to what is allowed at the proper 24 ratio. 25 MS. SKELCY: Mongolian got a
106 1 variance under an old rule. What we are 2 looking at today is what the rules are today. 3 You were probably sent this back with all the 4 different variances because this is a first 5 floor location, and first floor location 6 signage applies. So that's, I'm guessing, is 7 why we have all these variances. 8 I am not fan of that sign. When I 9 drove by, I thought it was awfully big for 10 the area, all the other tenants on that side 11 have signs against the wall. I think that, 12 you know, if you find that you have wall 13 signs, but this really sticks out quite far. 14 I am not if favor of it. I am not in favor 15 of what I see on The Post Bar building either 16 though, so I would not be voting in favor of 17 this based on the fact that it not the least 18 intrusive, that you are seeking a 49 square 19 foot sign, which I think is extremely large 20 for this particular frontage on the building, 21 and the fact that it sticks out. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi? 23 MR. SANGHVI: My comment was, these 24 two signs are comparing apples and oranges. 25 It's nothing to do -- the same as the
107 1 Mongolian BBQ. He has a tenant sitting on 2 top of him. A dentist. 3 MR. JOHNSON: Right, who has a wall 4 sign. 5 MR. SANGHVI: You can't compare. 6 Mongolian BBQ, they don't have that problem. 7 You only have one level that is ground level. 8 MR. JOHNSON: This sign is mounted 9 at the same level that Mongolian BBQ's sign 10 is mounted at. 11 MR. SANGHVI: They don't have any 12 other tenant on top of them, just one single 13 thing. You have got two of them, two there 14 on your side of the building. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 16 comments or questions for the applicant? 17 As you know, sir, we have five 18 members here. You need four of the five to 19 pass or reject anything. If you want, you 20 can ask the board to table it, like I 21 suggested before, if you want a particular 22 motion, you can certainly request that. It's 23 up to you. 24 MR. JOHNSON: I guess my question 25 would be when will you have a full seven
108 1 member board? 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You know, sir, 3 it does depend month-by-month. Sometimes we 4 can expect a full board and sometimes we 5 don't. It depends on a particular day. So 6 it's up -- I mean, we can't certainly promise 7 anything. It's your choice whether you want 8 to proceed, which we have no problem with, 9 you are entitled to it, or you can request 10 that we table it. It's your choice. 11 MR. JOHNSON: I think I would 12 prefer to table it because, quite frankly, 13 what I would like to do is see how it 14 compares to the upper level projecting sign 15 that's actually allowed, granted for upper 16 level businesses, but I think that, in 17 essence, once again, if you take and go under 18 those standards, your requested variances are 19 considerably less. And I don't know if 20 that's even possible for it to be written in 21 that fashion or not. I don't know if 22 Mr. Boulard -- 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you are 24 requesting that, I mean, certainly -- is 25 anybody interested in making a motion to
109 1 table it? 2 MS. KUDLA: Consider a date 3 certainly as well. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Did you want a 5 one month or more? 6 MR. JOHNSON: One month is fine. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: When is the next 8 day? 9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: March 6th would be 10 the next available. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: March 6th? No, 12 it would be February. 13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: It's too late for 14 February. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Oh, is it too 16 late for February? 17 MS. PAWLOWSKI: I mean, I guess 18 February 14th we could table it to. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So February 14th 20 would be the next day that would be allowed 21 to advertise and so forth? Would you like -- 22 MR. BOULARD: The February 14th 23 would not allow for advertising, but the 24 advertising would be the expansion, we would 25 have to send out letters again. We could do
110 1 March. I know you've got a time frame we are 2 trying to deal with. 3 MR. JOHNSON: March would be fine. 4 I mean, if you're saying -- especially if 5 we're -- if I understand you correctly, if we 6 do a comparison to an upper level projecting 7 sign, we're at that point, having to 8 readvertise it and also redo the letters, 9 that will require a two-month? 10 MR. BOULARD: I guess I'm -- I 11 don't want to belabor the point, but the fact 12 of the matter is, the first course will be, 13 there is a variance, there is ordinance 14 requirements that apply to first floor 15 suites. This is not a second floor suite. I 16 don't see how -- I don't see how a first 17 floor suite has the sign compared to a second 18 floor suite. So I guess, I don't understand 19 how it would be even possible to readvertise 20 in that fashion. 21 MS. KUDLA: That's correct. There 22 is two separate sections of the ordinance. 23 The upper level and the lower level. Because 24 of the fact that this is the lower level, we 25 wouldn't be able to compare it to -- at
111 1 least, compare it to the upper level. 2 MR. JOHNSON: I understand. In 3 that case then, there is really no reason to 4 table it because the way the -- you know, by 5 going off the pattern previously set, granted 6 under the old rules, we were doing it in 7 comparison to that, you know, to an upper 8 level sign. 9 MR. BOULARD: I guess one option 10 would be to request, to table, take a look at 11 if there is things that you could do to make 12 the sign closer to the -- possibly the 13 ordinance requirements, present that. You 14 could get that turnaround quickly, but just 15 present that under the existing posting for 16 the February meeting, the board could also 17 approve a lesser variance, just not more. 18 MR. JOHNSON: That would be 19 preferable. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Your request 21 would be for the tabling until February 14th? 22 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You don't 24 anticipating asking for more? 25 MR. JOHNSON: Right.
112 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody -- 2 MR. SANGHVI: I make a motion that 3 we table this case until the February 14 4 meeting. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any second? 6 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any further 8 discussion on that particular motion? We 9 need to call roll on that? To table? 10 MS. KUDLA: To table it, yes. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then 12 Ms. Pawlowski, can you please call the call 13 roll. 14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam? 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe? 17 MR. IBE: Yes. 18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 19 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 21 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 23 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes five 25 to zero.
113 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you have 2 anything additional to present at the time, 3 you can do so. 4 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on the 6 agenda is Item No. 6, Case No. 11-048 for 7 41014 Scarborough. 8 Can you please state your name and 9 address. 10 MR. CLARK: My name is Robert 11 Clark. I live at 6055 Jackson Road, 12 Ann Arbor, Michigan. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please raise 14 your right hand and be sworn. 15 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 16 to tell the truth? 17 MR. CLARK: I do. 18 MS. SKELCY: Thank you. 19 MR. CLARK: We are here today, as 20 we are -- the home itself is built to its 21 setback. There is -- when begin began with 22 the project, financially, we don't normally 23 build -- well, I shouldn't say normally. We 24 do build 12 by 12 rooms, okay. Of course, 25 but the customer, when it first started out,
114 1 to say we were thinking more of a 14 by 20 or 2 14 by 18, and with the constrictions, or the 3 variance, you know, we went back to 4 modifying, and trying to figure out what 5 would possibly fit in the neighborhood. 6 I do want to bring out that the 7 homeowner -- there is a lot of choices with 8 our product. I mean, we could build what you 9 would refer to as a shed style unit, and from 10 a cost standpoint, it is a lot less. 11 But their interest really came to 12 fitting with the home, fitting with the 13 surrounding homes, and naturally trying to 14 make sure that the neighbors saw to it and 15 approved for what we were doing. 16 We did make up a letter that they 17 walked around to their immediate neighbors, 18 and we have -- there was four that it was -- 19 five that were presented to. One voiced his 20 positive opinion to us, but did not want to 21 sign anything. We do have three that I can 22 leave with you guys. I did not make enough 23 copies that I can leave it. If you want to 24 add it to the file of approvals for the 25 immediate neighbors east and west and one to
115 1 the south. 2 I do have just a photo, and the 3 homeowner -- I guess we should -- this is the 4 style of room that they have chosen. They do 5 have a two-story home. So I think if we use 6 our imagination to a shed style unit is what 7 we call a single span unit would be to start 8 out high and just come down one straight 9 angle, more of an angled unit. Where they 10 have showed the gateway unit. This is the 11 size, the proper size of the room that we're 12 asking for, which is 12.5 by 12.5. 13 When dealing with the glass 14 solarium, there is a lot of standards 15 involved. And all of this space is within 16 the standard unit rather than going to 17 custom. I have a second photo, though you're 18 seeing a full foundation on this particular 19 photo, we are, due to economics and the days 20 and times, deck installations are a lot less 21 expensive, not just a little, but a lot less 22 expensive. 23 Now, what the homeowner has asked 24 for, unlike you see in this photo, this shows 25 just lattice at the bottom. We are going to
116 1 build a full composite deck adjacent to the 2 unit. And that composite decking would then 3 follow through, where you're seeing lattice, 4 it will be a closed skirt out of composite 5 material, which will help blend a lot better 6 in color, you know, it's a little color, than 7 the wallonized (ph) lattice that you're 8 seeing in this photo. 9 You're familiar with Four Seasons, 10 we build a very quality product. Though it 11 is going to be a three-season room, even 12 though the name, four-season product. 13 They're looking to stay away from the 14 mosquitoes and the bugs. I think if somebody 15 experienced what we had last season, it looks 16 very good for me, with the amount of 17 mosquitoes that were around. 18 What I don't know, and forgive me, 19 I think that the question I would have is 20 what is the setback requirements for an open 21 deck? I didn't ask that of the building 22 department. Does anybody know that? 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We will get to 24 that. 25 MR. CLARK: The reason I ask, there
117 1 was one neighbor, and we're not afraid to 2 mention it, behind them, that was concerned 3 about the projection of the unit and saying, 4 you know, it's close to his house, and you 5 know, privacy issues, so on and so forth. I 6 guess my point to that particular homeowner, 7 whether they're here to speak about it or 8 not, I did speak with them once, and he never 9 really gave me that full objection. But if 10 it's an open deck, let's say 20 feet or 11 25 feet, naturally they have to build their 12 deck much further than what we are asking 13 for. We are asking for a 10.5 setback. I 14 think it's actually listed as -- the room 15 projects 12 foot 6 and 7/8ths. You have a 16 copy of the floor plan. Just the way I 17 understand it, that you have a two-foot 18 projection on the house, which will be the 19 living room section of the house comes out 20 two feet past the mounting point of my room. 21 That two foot is at 35 feet. So that tells 22 me that I'm asking for a 10 foot six inch 23 variance. 24 And I'm pretty sure that's how it 25 was listed. It was listed as 11-foot, so I
118 1 mean, I'm not trying to split hairs, 6 and 2 7/8ths, rather than 11-foot. 3 They seemed to have came up with, 4 what I would call reasonable size. We know 5 about our bedrooms, the homes of today, 6 they're a lot bigger than 12 feet. If you 7 had a ranch home in the past, you have a 12 8 by 12 bedroom, trying to build something with 9 an eight foot model. With an eight foot, you 10 can move the house, and make an eight foot 11 extension off the dining area, then eight 12 foot really works well, but when you're 13 trying to close off, that's required by 14 energy code, 12-foot kind of gives them the 15 space to be able to place furniture and move 16 around. I'm here for any questions that you 17 might have. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. 19 Is there anybody in the public who would like 20 to make a comment on this particular case? 21 Seeing none, I would close the 22 public remarks section. 23 MR. CLARK: They have one. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm sorry. I 25 didn't see your, hand. State your name and
119 1 address. 2 MR. HUANG: Chris Huang. I live at 3 41154 Clermont Avenue, and I'm neighbor on 4 the south side. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: To the rear of 6 the property? 7 MR. HUANG: Yes. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your right 9 hand and be sworn. 10 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 11 to tell the truth? 12 MR. HUANG: Yes. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 14 State your case. 15 MR. HUANG: We discussed it with 16 our neighbors, and we are good friends, 17 neighbors. And basically, we are the direct 18 opposite on the south side, both these houses 19 as mentioned, was built on lots that were 20 very fit. Actually when we were building our 21 own house at that time, there was 22 restrictions wherein, we actually were -- 23 supposed to be a three-car garage, and the 24 lot was not big enough for making the garage 25 come up in the front, and so the builder
120 1 ended up, you know, making a two and a half 2 car garage because it wouldn't fit. 3 Similar to that, I mean, just to 4 show that how these lots are, they just made 5 to fit. The houses, the two lots are unique 6 in the sense. They are kind of -- when you 7 see from the rear, they look pretty close to 8 each other, despite looking as it is right 9 now. 10 I have no problem with the sunroom 11 building and stuff like that, it's just the 12 question of, you know, down the road if I 13 have to sell the house, again, resale, it 14 might be a minus point, you know, again, as 15 you know, sometimes, when I look out, I see 16 another house, which is kind of closer. That 17 was my main concern. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you oppose 19 this structure? 20 MR. HUANG: On conditional 21 approval. You want to go ahead with this, my 22 only request was, for privacy sake, if we can 23 put some trees to cover it up, couple of them 24 decent size, and that would help at least in 25 the privacy part, not to make it very
121 1 obvious, because this is a full glass 2 structure, as you can see. It is living 3 space inside as opposed to a deck, you know, 4 you use it, but you're not living there, so 5 to speak. That was my only hope to discuss 6 this. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do they seem 8 that they would want to put some shrubbery or 9 some -- 10 MR. HUANG: Yes, some spruce trees 11 or something like that. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 13 MR. HUANG: I extend the comment to 14 approve that also. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We will get to 16 that. Any other comments you have? 17 MR. HUANG: No, that is it. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. 19 Is there anybody else from the public with a 20 particular comment on this case, please raise 21 your hand. 22 Seeing none, I will close the 23 public remarks section and ask our secretary 24 to read any correspondence. 25 MS. SKELCY: There is an email from
122 1 Wayne Wrobel, ZBA members, this email serves 2 as notice to the ZBA that the applicant 3 requesting a setback variance in ZBA 11-048 4 has not yet submitted plans or received 5 approval from the Willowbrook Farm homeowners 6 association to build a sunroom at 41014 7 Scarborough. The homeowner will not be 8 allowed to build a deck or sunroom at this 9 address until permission is received from the 10 Willowbrook homeowners association, as is 11 stipulated in the association covenant and 12 bylaws. Signed Wayne Wrobel, president of 13 the Willowbrook homeowners association. This 14 is dated Monday, January, 9th, 2012. 15 In addition, there were 35 notices 16 mailed, none were returned, two approvals, 17 two objections. 18 The other objection is from Jacob 19 Lee, L-e-e, or 41033 Scarborough Lane. He 20 states, I am strongly against the request. 21 Thirty-five feet setback is minimum distance 22 we need. It will encroach on our privacy if 23 approved. 24 From Chris and Anu, A-n-u, Huang, 25 H-u-a-n-g, states my house is adjacent and
123 1 completely shares the rear yard boundary with 2 Vaishnav's house. Hence, are directly 3 impacted. Both of these houses were built on 4 lots that could barely fit, by the builder. 5 Hence the houses are close to each other 6 already. Building a sunroom would make it 7 even closer, compromising our privacy and 8 hence resale. Being good friends and 9 neighbors of the Vaishnavs, we have verbally 10 discussed and agreed to approve the following 11 stipulations. A, at least two trees be 12 planted in their yard in a position desirable 13 to me for privacy and such that they obstruct 14 the view of the sunroom as seen from my patio 15 door wall and kitchen window. B, the trees 16 should be blue spruce evergreen at least 17 9 feet tall. C, these should be planted 18 within a month of project completion or as 19 soon possible weather permitting. D, these 20 trees should be maintained in good health and 21 replaced when necessary to provide continued 22 privacy. 23 I have no written objections though 24 in here. 25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: I considered the
124 1 first one sort of an objection. 2 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any comment from 4 the city on this one? 5 MR. BOULARD: Just for -- the 6 question came up, and if you don't mind, 7 Section 2907 of the zoning ordinance, where 8 it talks about porches and decks, in part 9 reads as follows. An opened, unenclosed and 10 uncovered wooden deck may project in the 11 required rear setback for a distance not 12 exceeding 18 feet. But this shall not be 13 interpreted to include or permit a fixed 14 canopy. 15 So also, with regard to the 16 11 feet, I think that the application, it's 17 my fault it's 11, the original application 18 was 10 feet. When I started doing the math, 19 I got more than 10 feet, we were doing 20 telephone tag, I put 11 feet in the 21 advertisement, to make sure we were covered. 22 MR. CLARK: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything else 24 from the city? 25 MS. KUDLA: No.
125 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will open it 2 up to the board for discussion. Member 3 Skelcy? 4 MR. SANGHVI: Ms. Kudla, we can't 5 do a motion that includes all these requested 6 situations pertaining to the property and 7 plantation of trees, can we? 8 MS. KUDLA: If you think that the 9 conditions are related to the variance and 10 that it would reduce the impact of the 11 variance and it is directly related, you 12 could put some conditions on it. 13 MS. SKELCY: Okay. What have you 14 done to get approval from the homeowners? 15 MR. CLARK: We would never 16 proceed -- when I came to the building 17 department, they told us we had to get a 18 variance. The city would never allow us to 19 proceed without the association approval. I 20 think what I'm trying to say, they have to 21 have association approval to proceed. 22 Without your approval, then the association 23 approval means nothing. 24 MS. SKELCY: Actually, typically in 25 the past we have requested that the homeowner
126 1 obtain the association approval first. 2 MR. CLARK: I would have done that, 3 if I thought it was necessary. I apologize. 4 It wasn't done intentionally. I will not 5 proceed with any movement without an 6 association approval. 7 MS. SKELCY: You know, I wouldn't 8 able to agree with this without the 9 association approval. We may want to table 10 this to another month. Those are my 11 thoughts. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi. 13 MR. SANGHVI: I just want to -- 14 MS. KUDLA: If you want to do it 15 conditioned on the association approval, have 16 it being presented to the building official, 17 that could work, too. But it is up to you 18 whether you want to see it personally first. 19 MS. SKELCY: Thank you. 20 MR. SANGHVI: Just one comment. If 21 I am correct, understanding the ordinance, it 22 is preferable to have the approval, but it is 23 not obligated? 24 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So you're saying
127 1 technically they don't even need -- 2 MS. KUDLA: What would happen is 3 they have their private cause of action under 4 their covenants and restrictions. That's 5 nothing that we as the city are able to 6 enforce their private covenants. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I gotcha. 8 Member Gedeon? 9 MR. GEDEON: In regard to the 10 homeowners association, I think from a public 11 image perspective, I don't think it's a good 12 idea for the Zoning Board to be coming in 13 first, it may give the wrong impression that 14 we are ignoring the will of the homeowners 15 association. That's just my opinion. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else? 17 Actually, I am in agreement with my 18 colleagues. In general, again, you don't 19 have to come in with pre-approval. To me, it 20 doesn't -- because they have restrictive 21 rights and covenants, and I presume 22 Mr. Wrobel is correct, you have to have the 23 permission. I think you're pulling the cart 24 before the horse. So my thinking is, if you 25 have approval, that's something we should
128 1 consider, then find out, do you really come 2 within the confines of our law, then we can 3 make the decision. 4 MR. CLARK: I don't have any 5 problem with that. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I don't know how 7 long it will take. 8 MR. CLARK: It won't take long. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We can table 10 this for February or March. 11 MR. CLARK: February would be 12 preferred. I will make sure that -- I can do 13 it all through email. I send my blueprints 14 to them. I will let them know I was with you 15 and that you requested I come to them. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Skelcy? 17 MS. SKELCY: I would also like you 18 to discuss with your client their feelings 19 about these stipulations that the neighbors 20 requested. 21 MR. CLARK: We spoke about it 22 already. I mean, as much as they don't 23 really want to put trees in their backyard, I 24 mean, that's not the -- what they would 25 prefer to do, but if that's something that
129 1 has to be done, we certainly will discuss it 2 before we come back. 3 MS. SKELCY: Please do. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi? 5 MR. SANGHVI: Your client is 6 present here, right? 7 MR. CLARK: Yes. 8 MR. SANGHVI: If he wants to make 9 any comment, he should come forward, do it 10 now. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can you state 12 your name and address. 13 MR. VAISHANAV: Heresh Vaishanav 14 41014 Scarborough Lane. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Spell your name 16 for our court reporter. 17 MR. VAISHANAV: H-e-r-e-s-h, last 18 name V-a-i-s-h-a-n-a-v. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your right 20 hand and be sworn. 21 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm 22 to tell the truth? 23 MR. VAISHANAV: Yes. Just couple 24 of comments. I think there was a comment 25 from the lady that if you ground -- it would
130 1 be conditional to the approval of the 2 homeowners association, that we don't lose 3 this time in coming up again in front of you 4 and wait for a month. We would like to start 5 as soon as possible, even in the winter 6 months and get that going. 7 Will it be possible to grant 8 conditional approval on the conditions that 9 the association approves? 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Of course it is 11 possible, but it's at the discretion of the 12 board. I mean, the board could make the 13 conditional motion to approve, it could make 14 a motion to deny, it could a motion to table. 15 MR. VAISHANAV: Would it be 16 possible to do that now or -- 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand 18 that would be your request, correct. 19 MR. VAISHANAV: So may I request 20 that we -- I don't know the word properly, 21 request that we grant on the conditions that 22 we have to get the approval of the homeowners 23 association. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's something 25 we can consider. Do you have any other
131 1 comments, sir? 2 MR. VAISHANAV: Yes. In terms of 3 the objections that we have received, we 4 really don't want to offend people. I mean, 5 we have no intention of looking in other 6 peoples house. I mean, all I want to do is 7 have a nice sitting room. We do not have 8 enough space in our house to live. But this 9 is something when the sun is out, and our 10 house is facing the sunny south, we get 11 plenty of sun, so that's why we decided to 12 get a sunroom. And we just want to kind of 13 once in a while, when the sun is out in the 14 evening or the weekend and just sit there and 15 do some reading or enjoy a glass of wine or 16 something. So that's the only reason. We 17 have no intention of looking in other 18 people's house, that's not our intention. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. 20 Anything else? 21 MR. VAISHANAV: No. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody have any 23 comments or questions, especially with regard 24 to their request to have the condition of the 25 homeowners approval. Member Ibe?
132 1 MR. IBE: Sir, with all due 2 respect, I do understand your position and 3 your desire to obviously have a porch. But 4 this is just my suggestion, you don't have to 5 go with it. But I think it's probably a wise 6 idea, if I were you, to get approval first. 7 Because if you were ask me to vote today, 8 while we have the discretion to grant you 9 conditional approval, I will not do that. I 10 would prefer obviously getting it from the 11 homeowners first before we make a decision. 12 If you go ahead today, then your request will 13 be probably be denied. 14 It might be a wise idea, if I were 15 you, I would probably listen to the man who 16 you hired to work for you. Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else 18 have any comments or questions? 19 Okay. Anybody want to make a 20 motion whether it be approved, denied? 21 Member Krieger? 22 MS. KRIEGER: I move in Case No. 23 41014 Scarborough that we table the meeting 24 until February 14th, the next ZBA meeting. 25 MS. SKELCY: Second.
133 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any further 2 suggestion on that particular motion? Member 3 Sanghvi? 4 MR. SANGHVI: I just want to make a 5 comment, and suggest to the homeowner. You 6 should talk to your neighbors and get this 7 sorted out before you come back. So that we 8 don't have to worry about the approval, 9 disapproval, the locations. That makes life 10 a lot easier and lot a better for the 11 neighborhood and the people around you. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We are done with 13 you, sir. I just have one question for you. 14 You're going to be constructing it, correct? 15 MR. CLARK: Yes. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How long does it 17 take to construct this? 18 MR. CLARK: About six weeks. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Even if he came 20 in February, he'd still get three full 21 seasons? 22 MR. CLARK: Sure. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any further 24 discussion on this? Seeing none, 25 Ms. Pawlowski, can you call the roll.
134 1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam? 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe? 4 MR. IBE: Yes. 5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger? 6 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi? 8 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy? 10 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes five 12 to zero. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You're adjourned 14 until February. We would suggest that you 15 come back with those types of things. 16 MR. CLARK: Okay. 17 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next item on the 19 agenda is other matters. Is there any other 20 matters before we adjourn? 21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: No. 22 MR. BOULARD: If you would be so 23 kind as to -- the cases that we tabling, if 24 you want to put those in your folder, we can 25 be green about those.
135 1 If it's the -- not sure what would 2 be the best way to handle it, but if it's 3 your contention, that in every case you would 4 prefer to have the homeowners association 5 approval prior to hearing a case, we will put 6 that recommendation on the application. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's what I 8 would suggest. 9 MS. KUDLA: If you want, you could 10 even put a recommendation in your rules of 11 procedure to that. It's not in there right 12 now. If it's something, a fact that would 13 help you make a decision. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: For me it's just 15 a different personal preference. 16 MS. KUDLA: You could always table 17 it in a case where they don't have it, but 18 right now, I don't know that there is 19 anything written in direct relation to that. 20 MR. BOULARD: Are you recommending 21 that we change the rule right now? 22 MS. KUDLA: Not necessarily. We 23 can take a look at it. If we want to discuss 24 it, that seems to be a preference, we could 25 rule on the procedure.
136 1 MS. SKELCY: In the meantime, we 2 could just have the city advise them or give 3 them like a little note. 4 MS. KUDLA: We could put a note on 5 the application. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything else? 7 Any other matters? If not, entertain a 8 motion to adjourn. 9 MR. SANGHVI: So moved. 10 MR. IBE: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in favor say 12 aye. 13 THE BOARD: Aye. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed? We 15 are adjourned. 16 (The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.) 17 ** ** ** 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
137 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN ) 2 ) ss. 3 COUNTY OF OAKLAND ) 4 I, Jennifer L. Wall, Notary Public within and for 5 the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify 6 that the hearing above, that the statements given by said 7 individuals was stenographically recorded in the presence of 8 myself and other, afterward transcribed by computer under my 9 personal supervision, and that the said statements are a 10 full, true and correct transcript of the statements given by 11 the individuals. 12 I further certify that I am not connected by blood 13 or marriage with any of the parties or their attorneys, and 14 that I am not an employee of any of them, nor financially 15 interested in the action. 16 IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at 17 the City of Walled Lake, County of Oakland, State of 18 Michigan. 19 20 21 ________________ _________________________ Date Jennifer L. Wall CSR-4183 22 Oakland County, Michigan My Commission Expires 11/12/15 23 24 25
|