| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Monday, November 5, 2001. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would 2 like to call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to 3 order. 4 Madam Secretary, will you call the 5 roll, please. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 11 MEMBER FANNON: Yes -- here. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 13 MEMBER GRAY: Present. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 17 MEMBER REINKE: Here. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Zoning Board of 21 Appeals is a board empowered by the City charter to 22 hear appeals seeking a variance to the application 23 to the Novi zoning ordinance. 24 It takes a vote of at least four
3
1 members to approve a variance request, and a vote 2 of the majority of members present to deny a 3 variance. The Board consists of six members, and 4 we have a full board, so all decisions will be 5 final. 6 Rules of conduct that the Board 7 follows is that each person desiring to address the 8 Board shall state his or her name and address. 9 Individual persons will be allowed 10 five minutes to address the Board. An extension of 11 time may be granted at the discretion of the 12 Chairperson. 13 There shall be no questioning by the 14 audience of the person addressing the Board; 15 however, the Board members may question that person 16 with recognition of the Chairperson. 17 No person shall be allowed to address 18 the Board more than once unless permission is 19 granted by the Chairperson. 20 And one spokesman for a group 21 attending shall be allowed ten minutes to address 22 the Board. 23 The agenda before us tonight, is 24 there any additions or corrections?
4
1 MS. MARCHIONI: Number six is 2 postponed to December. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's number six? 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And the other 6 changes I wish to propose is that after we deal 7 with case number one -- we have two cases that 8 should be dealt with on a relatively short period, 9 so I want to go from case one to case five to case 10 seven and back to case two. 11 Any other comments about the proposed 12 agenda change? 13 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, 14 there was a letter presented to the Board from a 15 Ron and Cheryl Schomick (ph), and basically it 16 deals with one of the cases that was before you, I 17 believe on June 5th, and there was a question in 18 regards to the square footage, and the Board denied 19 the particular issue. I'd like to have discussion 20 with this, either under other matters or, if 21 possible, to bring this before the Board at your 22 discretion. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we put that 24 under other matters?
5
1 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I do 2 believe they are here tonight; is that correct? 3 If it's your wish- 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) 5 Mr. Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I suggested that the 7 neighbors show up and voice their concerns via 8 public remarks because this issue is not on the 9 agenda. 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Why don't we 11 cover the whole issue under public remarks section 12 so we have it out of the way at that point, if 13 that's okay with the Board members. 14 With the changes that we have 15 addressed, are there any addition or corrections to 16 the agenda that we have proposed? 17 MEMBER FANNON: Move to approve. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of 20 approving the modified agenda please signify by 21 saying aye. 22 (Vote taken.) 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The first item 24 we have is approval of minutes from the
6
1 September 18th and October 2nd meeting. Are there 2 any additions or corrections to the minutes? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Move to approve. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved to 6 approve the September 18th and October 2nd minutes. 7 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 8 (Vote taken.) 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: All those opposed? 10 (Vote taken.) 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Carried. 12 Mr. Saven, why don't you go ahead, 13 and then if the -- if there's anyone in the 14 audience wants to add comments- 15 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I think 16 what we should do, Mr. Chairman, is let Ron and 17 Cheryl speak at this time. 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If they would 19 come forward, please. 20 MR. PAPP: My name is Larry Papp. I 21 live at 46000 White Pine Drive (ph), a neighbor of 22 Cheryl's. I'd like to -- about ten minutes of your 23 time, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you can make it
7
1 briefer than ten. 2 MR. PAPP: Okay. I'll just -- okay. 3 The first plan that was submitted was for a five 4 car garage which was -- first let's -- can I take a 5 look at the property first we're talking about. 6 This is the site before construction 7 started. See the tree line there, and then the 8 nice row of trees there. The first plan that was 9 submitted to you was this one, which was a house -- 10 about forty-five hundred square foot house with a 11 three-car garage and two-car garage, and it was 12 going to intrude into the woodlands that you see 13 over here. 14 We requested that it be changed and 15 thought -- not thought. We discussed it with the 16 woodlands committee. A revised plan come in, and 17 you can see that the house is moved back about 18 fifteen feet. You have a three-car garage, you 19 have a one-car garage, but it's the same footprint 20 of the original plan. 21 In our City Council meetings we had 22 called someone up and asked about the master plan. 23 The master plan that was submitted by the developer 24 was a three thousand square foot house that would
8
1 fit on this lot without going into the woodlands. 2 There were six other lots in the 3 subdivision that could have been used for this 4 house, but the owner -- or the people that bought 5 the property decided to build here. 6 Construction has already started. We 7 -- and what -- one of the letters that came across 8 that they were supposed to be careful with the 9 woodlands and not do any damage to the side or 10 anything, and hand dig if possible. 11 And you see that the tree line that's 12 here now looks like this. You notice that they 13 pretty much cleaned out the woodlands. They were 14 supposed to remove two trees. All the underbrush 15 is gone, the fence is down; however, the fence is 16 back up as of today at five o'clock. 17 He was supposed to hand dig an area. 18 First of all, we'll take a look at the house. 19 You'll see a three-car garage. You see one door 20 here, so you really got a five-car garage with four 21 doors. 22 He's going to construct a wall in 23 here and call it living space, but it's still on 24 about nine hundred sixty-eight square foot of
9
1 aggregate concrete. This footprint was approved at 2 seven fifty. This board denied twelve hundred 3 fifty square feet. 4 And this is how the house looks up 5 front, very close to the woodlands. 6 We're kind of upset the way the whole 7 thing went. This is a map of the woodlands. It's 8 on the City web site. The area we're talking about 9 is right here, 3.14 acres of woodlands. 10 Had he gone with the setback of 11 fifteen feet away from the woodlands, then this 12 woodlands would have been preserved and there would 13 been no trees taken down at all building a three 14 thousand square foot house that was originally in 15 the master plan. 16 I'll let Cheryl talk. 17 MS. SCHOMICK: Cheryl Schomick, 18 46035 White Pines Drive. I live directly adjacent 19 to that property, and in June I was here to speak 20 with you and was very concerned about construction 21 of that house because when I bought the lot that I 22 currently am on and paid a lot premium for it, I 23 was told by the City that that woodlands would be 24 preserved.
10
1 What you addressed that night at the 2 June 5th meeting, of course, wasn't the same in 3 that one and the same real big problem was that 4 two-car garage -- that extra two-car garage. If 5 that had been removed like it had been denied the 6 night of the meeting, that house could have been 7 moved over and that house would not have encroached 8 into the woodlands and would not have been 9 destroyed. 10 And I believe we told you way back 11 when we bought that lot we had a different lot 12 picked out in the same subdivision that -- and the 13 house that we built would have encroached into the 14 woodlands by two feet, would not necessitate 15 cutting down any trees, would not encroach on 16 anybody else's property, but the Zoning Board 17 denied that and told my builder at that time that 18 the house was too big for the lot and we would 19 either have to pick a different lot or build a 20 different house, which we did, we did do. We 21 understood the ZBA's decision. 22 At that time I called the city 23 forester, and he assured me that that was protected 24 woodlands and it would not come down.
11
1 Now, my letter to you this week -- 2 that you got this week states that, indeed, we 3 thought you did your job. As a matter of fact, of 4 all of the things that have happened with this 5 case, I believe the Zoning Board was the only one 6 who did do its job. I don't think the woodlands 7 committee did their job. The City Council was very 8 dysfunctional and was inappropriate in this 9 situation. 10 Our questions, and the questions that 11 I would pose to you in this is, how were they 12 allowed to build that after the Zoning Board had 13 denied them that aggregate floor space; how were 14 they allowed to build that after the woodlands -- 15 Terry Marone (ph) and Sarah can tell you, because 16 we've had several conversations -- said he would 17 not give them a building permit until they 18 submitted the appropriate plan, the plan that the 19 woodlands committee had approved, and, therefore, 20 the City Council had approved. 21 He called me the day -- Sarah called 22 me the day the basement was being dug. And 23 Mr. Papp and I had been to the City Hall that 24 morning, because the day before when I talked to
12
1 Sarah she said they do not have a permit. That 2 morning I came -- they were digging the basement. 3 Mr. Papp and I came up to City Hall 4 and said do they have a permit. They said yes, 5 indeed, they do. So we said well, how did they get 6 a permit, Mr. Marone told me just yesterday he 7 would not give them a permit unless they submitted 8 the appropriate permit, the one that had been 9 approved by the woodlands committee and the 10 City Council. 11 So I went home that day and we found 12 out yes, indeed, they had a permit. How they got 13 that permit, I don't know. 14 Sarah called me and said I'm just 15 calling you back to tell you Mr. Marone said no, he 16 will not give them a permit, not until they submit 17 the right plan. They have submitted no other plan 18 and he said he will not approve that plan. And I 19 said Sarah, they're digging the basement right now, 20 we were just there, they have a permit, where did 21 they get the permit. 22 You can -- I hope you can understand 23 our position on this. How did they get a permit to 24 build the aggregate floor space that you denied
13
1 them? 2 How did they get a permit to build a 3 house that's over three thousand square foot that 4 the master plan for that lot had. 5 How did they get a permit to build -- 6 the floor plan or the plan that they're building, 7 which is not the one the woodlands committee and 8 the City Council approved them of. 9 And I hope you can appreciate why 10 we're upset about this. You can see the 11 destruction to my property is immense. It's -- and 12 things were said at City Council meeting that they 13 don't want to deny these people from building their 14 dream home. Certainly, I didn't want anybody from 15 building their dream home, but they have destroyed 16 my dream home. They've destroyed the property 17 around my home, and I don't have answers to how 18 they got all this, how they got away with it. 19 How does this happen? 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 21 MS. SCHOMICK: Thank you. 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else 23 that wants to speak to this issue right here? 24 (No response.)
14
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven? 2 MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir. There's 3 two issues that's brought before us today. One was 4 the issue dealing with the woodlands permit, and 5 certainly an issue that the City Council acting on 6 an appeal process I believe from the woodlands 7 issue, but what was before you was an issue 8 regarding the garage, the garage itself, the size 9 of the garage, the five-car garage which was shown 10 on the initial plan which was denied by you. And 11 this was denied by you. 12 What they had done in their plan is 13 they converted a portion of the second garage, or 14 the smaller garage to the rear, they took that 15 particular portion of the garage as indicated, I 16 believe, that -- poured in concrete, what have you. 17 There's a wall that's going to go in that 18 particular area, and that section of the house is 19 going to become a habitable area of the house. 20 It's designed as a studio section floor of that 21 particular home. It's not a garage; therefore, 22 it's calculated in the square footage of the 23 house. 24 We also have a similar ordinance
15
1 in -- that's part of the City which we deal with 2 how similar it is, square footage associated with 3 the homes around the area, and this met that 4 specific requirement. 5 So I guess I'm a little at a loss as 6 to where we go from this particular point. This 7 matter was referred to our city attorney, who did 8 the calc -- or reviewed the calculations that we 9 had done through the building department to verify 10 the condition for that approval. 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, in the summation 12 that you put together here, is that -- a copy of 13 that been given to them? 14 MR. SAVEN: I am not sure. I took 15 the square footage, which was part of the- 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I think 17 probably in the documentation they do have -- I 18 would like you to have -- we haven't had a chance 19 to go through all of this, and really, as far as 20 the Zoning Board, if the petition put there, and 21 the square footage of the garage area, which I 22 think they're allowed, what, a thousand square 23 foot, if the square footage is under a thousand 24 square feet, our hands are tied. We can't really
16
1 do anything because they've met the ordinance. 2 The only place I know that you could 3 possibly go is back to the City Council, because 4 there really isn't anything this Board can do for 5 you. 6 MS. SCHOMICK: Question. 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. 8 MS. SCHOMICK: The City ordinance -- 9 and I addressed this the night that I was here in 10 June, only because I wasn't aware of it, it was on 11 the agenda, and I have it with me from that night, 12 the City ordinance raised that for an RA or an R1 13 district, 750 square feet are allowed for a garage. 14 I asked the question that night, and 15 I believe it was Mr. Saven said let me address 16 that. Never really gave me an answer of why the 17 ordinance reads seven fifty but they're allowed a 18 thousand. But it became a mute point, I thought, 19 because you denied them the excess garage, so I 20 didn't pursue it at that time. 21 But the City ordinance now, as far as 22 I know, still, since June, reads seven hundred 23 fifty square feet. It does not say a thousand. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven?
17
1 MR. SAVEN: Basically, the ordinance 2 indicates that you have a basic of 750 square foot, 3 sum total of all accessory buildings on the 4 property. There is an allowance of 1,000 square 5 foot. Another 250 additional square footage can be 6 used for the parking of motor vehicles, 7 recreational vehicles or anything else that you can 8 have within your property. There is sum total of a 9 thousand in an RA/R1 district, and in R1 -- or, 10 excuse me, R4, 3 and 2 there's a maximum of 750 11 square foot -- excuse me, 850 square foot. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Just for the benefit of 13 Miss Schomick, that is an issue that we were 14 directly requested to prepare a written legal 15 opinion on, and I think it would be possible, if 16 she wants, to request, it exists a little more 17 detail on what Mr. Saven just described in terms of 18 how the ordinance reads and how it's been afforded. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know what more 20 I can say. I'd like to be able to do more to help 21 you, but there really isn't anything more this 22 Board can do other than to say that your next step 23 is to take it to the City Council, the information 24 you've got, because the only thing we could do is
18
1 we turned the variance request down. 2 MS. SCHOMICK: You did. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: And now it's back to 4 the ordinances as they are, and any direction or 5 questions you have, or comments, would really have 6 to be directed to City Council. 7 MS. SCHOMICK: Okay. 8 MR. BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman? 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just one last 11 comment, because I feel bad for you, but just to 12 correct your letter, we did deny them and they 13 built it according to our denial. What they did 14 was they've added that half a garage as livable 15 square feet. They've increased the size of their 16 home, their living space. 17 Now, I went in there last night to 18 see if that was a false wall, to see if there was 19 something potentially planned for the future. It 20 appears -- I'm not a builder, but it appears that 21 that is a permanent wall. It appears that they 22 have extra bracing on ceiling, on the studio wall 23 side, so it appears that they plan on doing what 24 their plan says.
19
1 It's unfortunate that they ended up 2 with the same square footage that they came before 3 this Board. They just -- their use is different. 4 MS. SCHOMICK: Okay. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: You got an additional 6 comment, Mr. Saven? 7 MR. SAVEN: Yes. What I wanted to 8 indicate is that in your packet is the opinion from 9 the city attorney. 10 MS. SCHOMICK: Of the thousand square 11 feet allowance instead of seven fifty? 12 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 13 MS. SCHOMICK: Okay, and that's just 14 the City attorney's interpretation of that, or is 15 that legal interpretation? 16 MR. SAVEN: That is legal. 17 MS. SCHOMICK: So what the City 18 ordinance reads, just like many of our other City 19 ordinances, is disregarded? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: It's an interpretation 21 of the language as it's written. I mean, it is- 22 MS. SCHOMICK: (Interposing) Excuse 23 me for interrupting, but it says total aggregate 24 floor space of all accessory buildings on a lot,
20
1 750 square feet in an RA or R1 district. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Just for additional 3 allowable space for parking and storage, there may 4 be up to 250 square feet of space associated with 5 said garage, either physically intergrated with it 6 or in a separate building. 7 So if you have any questions, feel 8 free to call and we can talk about it. 9 MS. SCHOMICK: I appreciate your time 10 and your efforts, and I still believe that the ZBA, 11 in a letter, I informed you that I thought you did 12 the appropriate thing. I'm just not sure about all 13 the loopholes and what it's cost the property value 14 of my property. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 16 17 CASE NUMBER 01-067 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next item on our 19 agenda is case 01-067 filed by Wayne Miller 20 representing Fountain Walk. 21 MEMBER GRAY: Are there any other 22 public remarks? 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Applicant is 24 requesting a variance to allow light pole mounted
21
1 non-advertising graphic banners. 2 MR. MILLER: Good evening. Do we 3 have to be sworn tonight or not? 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Were you sworn -- this 5 is really a continuation. 6 MR. MILLER: Yes, it is. 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. 8 MR. MILLER: Okay. When we were last 9 with you in September, the issue regarding light 10 pole mounted banners for Fountain Walk had been 11 tabled and you had asked us to go back and take 12 another look at the quantity of banners that we're 13 going to be utilizing around the site to see if we 14 could reduce that amount. 15 In working with the owner on the 16 project, and looking at the overall design aspects 17 of the project, we have undertaken to reduce the 18 quantity of banners by approximately forty 19 percent. 20 The banners that we have taken out 21 are the areas that we have outlined in the black 22 dots, dotted outlines. They're predominantly 23 around the theater and then five other locations in 24 front of building C, where we term it building G
22
1 and building H and Great Indoors. 2 The reduction in banners is, by no 3 means, a reduction in light poles. We still have 4 the light poles. We just removed the banners 5 themselves. 6 The banner that we're looking at is 7 this particular banner. It's on a concrete light 8 pole approximately eighteen feet tall with a 9 luminara on the top. 10 The banners are approximately thirty 11 inches wide and six feet in height and they're 12 mounted on the pole such that they are 13 perpendicular to the buildings so that from the 14 parking lots or from the streets you don't actually 15 see the banners unless you are driving parallel 16 with the building or walking down the sidewalk. 17 In essence, we have removed -- we 18 have forty of those light poles that had banners. 19 We have removed seventeen, giving us a total of 20 twenty-three. 21 As I said, in working with the owner 22 and trying to determine how many and where we could 23 delete, that is about the total that we've come up 24 with.
23
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? 2 MR. MILLER: That's it. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the 4 audience who would like to input into this case? 5 (No response.) 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: There were nineteen 7 notices sent, we have zero approvals, zero 8 objections. 9 Building department? 10 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, just as a 11 reminder, this is basically part of the sign 12 ordinance, and in the sign ordinance we had an 13 interpretation from our attorney regarding signage 14 that was located on the interior courtyard, which 15 is not visible from the street, which- 16 MR. MILLER: (Interposing) That 17 would be this area, and this area and this area- 18 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Up to 25 19 feet. 20 MR. MILLER: Up to 25 feet from the 21 ends of the building. 22 Basically, what we're looking for is 23 the allowance to employ banners around the 24 perimeter of the side buildings, and through here.
24
1 We have reduced that number, as I said, by 17. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: If that's correct, 3 then all the interior banners will not have to 4 require a variance? 5 MR. SAVEN: No. It's because it's 6 mentioned that banners are prohibited as part of 7 the ordinance, but it didn't address this -- that 8 as far as signage, other than it being banner is 9 prohibited, so I'm just telling you if we can't see 10 the signs from a point of 25 foot from inside we're 11 not considering them a sign. They're not governed 12 as a sign ordinance in terms of making your 13 decision regarding the issue regarding banners. 14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Maybe just a 30 16 second recap from the last time these guys were 17 here. 18 There was some view on the Board that 19 we didn't like banners at all; however, it was my 20 opinion that this is a unique development, that 21 council, or any other Board within the city, didn't 22 want to deal with this and left it in our hands, so 23 we have to deal with it. 24 When they left last week I encouraged
25
1 them to look real hard at cutting down the 2 numbers. The numbers seemed very great. I think 3 that they've taken a great step in nearly cutting 4 it in half, and I think that's a movement on their 5 part towards an acceptable plan. 6 I was just concerned to get the 7 numbers down. It just seemed too many. They did 8 what I wanted. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer. 11 MR. BAUER: So far they have not 12 shown where it is a hardship or a practical 13 difficulty. I still say that I don't care for the 14 signs, the banners on the light poles, that are 15 shown in the brown around the project. 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board members, 17 comments or discussion? 18 Miss Gray? 19 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I 20 appreciate the fact that they've made an effort to 21 reduce, almost by half, the number of banners while 22 leaving the poles up to continue the lighting, and 23 that then begs the question with me then, if 24 they're willing to remove part of the banners, I
26
1 really think that if the poles can be bare on part 2 of the project, then they certainly can be bare on 3 the perimeter. 4 I don't necessarily have a problem 5 with the banners on the interior, but I just think 6 with all the other signs on this property and all 7 the other -- the directional signs, the big signs 8 up at the front, it's just going to look way, way 9 too cluttered, plus the fact that these buildings 10 are also going to have signs on them, and it's just 11 going to be too much visual, and I would like to 12 see all the poles of this type with the light pole 13 on it, I'd like to see them all without banners 14 because we do have an ordinance. 15 Thank you, sir. 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board members, 17 comments or discussion? 18 Mr. Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I have 20 personally no problem with the banners. It looks 21 festive and everything. My job here is not to 22 direct the ordinances but to interpret the current 23 ordinance in the light of other circumstances and 24 everything like that, and none of those exist, so
27
1 even though I like the idea, unfortunately my 2 decision we should go against the ordinance and 3 allow them to have the banners. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: I -- the exterior 5 banners, I really see no functional reason or 6 rationale to have them there. And as we pointed 7 out, I don't see any hardship for a deviation from 8 the existing ordinance as it stands. Nothing has 9 been shown to me that warrants a change from what 10 is in our current ordinance. 11 Now, if the ordinance is changed to 12 accommodate that, that's a different story, but I 13 really don't see a hardship. 14 Board members, further comments or 15 discussion? 16 Mr. Fannon? 17 MEMBER FANNON: Sarah, what was it 18 that you were trying to -- is it all these blue 19 ones that you're -- do you have -- do you have your 20 color -- I wasn't here at the last meeting. The 21 interior one would be blue and green. I wasn't 22 here at the last meeting, so I apologize. Were 23 they part of this 40 total? 24 MEMBER GRAY: No.
28
1 MR. MILLER: No, they are not. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: They took out the 3 exterior ones that they have. 4 MR. MILLER: The banner types one, 5 which are blue, and the banner types three, which 6 are green, were not part of that forty count. 7 Banner type two, which is the orange-ish color on 8 the site plan, there were forty of those that had 9 banners on them. We've reduced that by seventeen. 10 MEMBER FANNON: So the forty orange 11 ones, and if you count those ones that are in the 12 black dotted lines, there's seventeen of them? 13 MR. MILLER: That's correct. 14 MEMBER FANNON: And that's how you 15 get to 23? 16 MR. MILLER: That's correct. 17 MEMBER FANNON: So -- I apologize for 18 not being here at the last meeting- 19 MR. MILLER: (Interposing) September 20 18th. 21 MEMBER FANNON: Was that a meeting 22 that was changed? 23 MR. MILLER: Yes, unfortunately. 24 MEMBER FANNON: Do you mind
29
1 (inaudible) in about two minutes? 2 MR. MILLER: The hardship for the 3 banners? 4 MEMBER FANNON: Yeah. 5 MR. MILLER: Well, in essence, and I 6 must admit, it really isn't a hardship per se. 7 What we were looking for was another way by which 8 we could make the overall theme of the project work 9 better, and in utilizing banners in a decorative 10 non-advertising motif seemed to us, and the owner, 11 to be a way of achieving that. The overall theme 12 of the project and the scale of the buildings, if 13 you've been there and visited the site, seem that 14 it was conducive to be able to utilize those light 15 poles which are, I would guess, somewhere around a 16 hundred twenty-five feet apart, to make use of 17 those and put seasonal banners up, something that 18 would -- and I hate to use the term advertise -- 19 but I'll say illustrate -- the seasons; Christmas, 20 Thanksgiving, fall, spring, summer, something that 21 would contribute color, something that would 22 contribute an overall and festive flair to the 23 project. 24 MEMBER FANNON: So what we're seeing
30
1 here tonight in this blue and yellow on the signs 2 that's your banner example isn't the banners that 3 you're proposing to have up year-round? 4 MR. MILLER: For -- no. For an 5 initial offering, to give you an idea of something 6 in a banner that would be more graphic or colorful 7 but not advertising. 8 MEMBER FANNON: I understand. I just 9 didn't know that there was- 10 MR. MILLER: (Interposing) And 11 certainly not promoting U of M. We chose that. 12 MEMBER FANNON: I just didn't know. 13 I didn't see where you were going to- 14 MR. MILLER: (Interposing) Certainly 15 not -- 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: These are banners that 17 are going to be up year-round? 18 MR. MILLER: But they will be changed 19 as the season change. 20 MEMBER FANNON: (Inaudible) Of what 21 they look like, so I just -- I'm just trying -- 22 I'm sorry. I'm just trying to -- and that's all I 23 really need to know. 24 MR. MILLER: For instance, in the
31
1 fall, let's say this month- 2 MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) I've 3 seen them. You don't have to -- I can get it. I 4 got it. 5 I would agree with Sarah's initial 6 comments; though, seems like I think I counted up 7 -- there must be over twenty poles now with banners 8 that aren't even being considered in the count, 9 right? 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further 11 comments or discussion? 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, just to make 13 sure that we're all on the same page with the 14 terminology here, I heard the term hardship a 15 couple of times, and I just want to make sure that 16 we're not using the use variance hardship test as a 17 non-use variance that you're going to address under 18 the practical difficulty standard when you make 19 your motion. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we're -- the 21 only reason the hardship came up is that I think 22 they felt that neither was demonstrated- 23 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) I think 24 that's --
32
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: -I think, in the 2 discussion. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further 5 comments or discussion? 6 (No discussion.) 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the 8 Chair would entertain a motion in case number 9 01-067. 10 MEMBER BAUER: I -- I'll make a 11 motion in case 01-067 that the requested variance 12 be denied due to insufficient hardship or practical 13 difficulty. 14 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion on 15 the floor. Is there a second on the motion? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and 18 seconded that the applicant's request for banners 19 be denied. 20 Is there any discussion on the 21 motion? 22 MR. MILLER: Question on the motion. 23 Just so that I'm- 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) One
33
1 moment, please. 2 MR. MILLER: Okay. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the Board's 4 point right now for discussion. I want to clarify 5 that. 6 Board members- 7 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) Just a 8 comment. The sense that I got is that there's just 9 too many? Fill out the motion a little bit. 10 Is that the determination, is that 11 these are mostly detective as opposed to required 12 for purpose of the business so that no hardship -- 13 practical difficulty is -- is the appropriate test 14 here. There's no reason for the inclusion of these 15 banners that's been presented to the Board. 16 I'm just trying to fill out the 17 motion here with some facts. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Fine. We can add that 19 onto it if you wish, please. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further 21 comments or discussion on the motion? 22 (No discussion.) 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 24 Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please.
34
1 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 8 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 12 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance 14 request has been denied. 15 MR. MILLER: Now may I ask a question 16 on the motion? 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. 18 MR. MILLER: Was the motion all 19 inclusive on all the banners or just the ones that 20 we have requested around the perimeter of the 21 project? 22 MEMBER BAUER: Just the perimeter. 23 MR. MILLER: I want to make sure. So 24 within the pedestrian concourse and that east/west
35
1 drive-through that we have identified as 2 Orchard Avenue, we are still allowed to place them 3 there? 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is within 5 ordinance, because we have given no variance for 6 banners. 7 MEMBER BAUER: There's none needed 8 because the attorney- 9 MR. MILLER: (Interposing) That's 10 for the sign. 11 MEMBER FANNON: So is what he saying, 12 the way it is- 13 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) I 14 believe that the opinion that was given related to 15 signage only. The banners are a separate issue and 16 they're not permitted under the ordinance, 17 internally or externally. 18 Don, if you- 19 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) That's the 20 reason why I brought it up right from the very 21 beginning. One of the issues was, as indicated in 22 a previous interpretation from the City attorney, 23 was the fact we could not see a sign on the 24 interior; therefore, it's not a sign. You can't
36
1 see it from the road or a thoroughfare. That's why 2 the question came up with banners being inside. 3 Are you going to treat them the same way as a sign 4 on a exterior street? 5 MEMBER BAUER: These are the only 6 ones that were on the record to vote on for us, the 7 outside ones. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you clear? 9 MEMBER FANNON: I don't want to act 10 confused. 11 MR. SAVEN: I am confused. 12 MR. MILLER: Yes. 13 MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry. 14 MEMBER FANNON: I don't want to act 15 confused. You see, the ones that are -- that -- 16 earlier on that you weren't dealing with, the blue 17 ones and the green ones, I was under the impression 18 those could go up if you couldn't see them or -- in 19 other words, that they were going to put them up. 20 MEMBER BAUER: We are not voting on 21 them. 22 MEMBER FANNON: It may have affected 23 the way I voted if they don't get anything, so 24 that's all I'm saying. It may have affected the
37
1 way I voted. I'm still confused. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. My- 3 MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) And 4 maybe -- 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: My interpretation of 6 what we did is that we allowed no deviation from 7 the ordinance for banners. 8 MEMBER FANNON: Okay. And so if 9 somehow, for another- 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) 11 Whatever they're allowed by ordinance they can 12 have. 13 MEMBER FANNON: So if they can do 14 that, if they interpret it that they can't see it, 15 we have nothing to do with that? 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have nothing to do 17 with that other than in ordinance. 18 MR. SAVEN: Banners are prohibited by 19 ordinance. They are not allowed. 20 MR. MILLER: That's correct. 21 MR. SAVEN: Whether you can see them 22 or not, that's how the ordinance is, prohibited. 23 And it says prohibited signs. It says the sign I 24 requested is interpreted going onto section B2,
38
1 banners, spinners and streamers are prohibited. 2 That's why you can- 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) But let 4 me ask you, Mr. Fannon, in reference to 5 discussion. If hearing that interpretation by 6 Mr. Saven, does that give you a different direction 7 and misunderstanding of what you voted. 8 MEMBER FANNON: No. I would just let 9 the petitioner know that, given the event that it 10 did come on the interior, I would most likely 11 support it, but I wouldn't change the vote on the 12 exterior. That's how I would -- I agree with 13 Sarah. I don't want to put words in her mouth, so 14 I'd like to send them out. I'm just one person, so 15 if they came back I probably would look at that 16 favorably, but I don't have any problems with the 17 way I voted on the ordinance tonight. 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. That's 19 where we stand. Moving on. 20 MR. MILLER: Okay. 21 22 23 24
39
1 CASE NUMBER 01-086 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: The next case that 3 we're going to call is case number 01-086 filed by 4 Delaney- 5 MS. PROVENCHER: Delaney Provencher. 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Representing the 7 homeowner at 112 Rexton. 8 MS. PROVENCHER: Yes. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please give 10 your name and address and be sworn in by the 11 secretary. 12 MS. PROVENCHER: Delaney Provencher, 13 12333 Timbers Road, Carleton, Michigan. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 15 affirm that the testimony that you are about to 16 give in the matter before you is the truth? 17 MS. PROVENCHER: Yes. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would you 20 please present your case. 21 MS. PROVENCHER: I apologize that I'm 22 not as high tech as everybody else. You're just 23 going to have to deal with me as I am. 24 We are requesting -- I gave everyone
40
1 sets of plans of what we are requesting, as well as 2 the set of plans of the existing home. 3 In 1986 I believe it was, there was a 4 second-story addition put on this home, and the -- 5 it's in sort of a salt box, you know, salt box 6 configuration. 7 Mr. and Mrs. Zanotti (ph) need more 8 space so that Mrs. Zanotti's mother can come and 9 live with them because she's around eighty-four, 10 and they are a little nervous of her being on her 11 own at this stage, not that she's of any danger to 12 anybody, but they would like to be able to take 13 care of her. 14 In order to do this, we have proposed 15 to put two rooms over the existing living room, 16 taking the roof off of the front of the house, 17 putting the two rooms up, adding the wall and 18 putting on a new roof. 19 The home at present is around 20 fourteen hundred square feet. What we're proposing 21 to add is another three hundred and thirty square 22 feet, allowing the total living space to be 23 seventeen hundred square feet. This would give a 24 more comfortable living space for the entire family
41
1 as well with the added -- the additional person. 2 It would not affect the basic 3 footprint of the home, but the problem is that the 4 home presently sits within three feet of the 5 sideline and it does not meet the thirty foot 6 requirement from the front of the house to the 7 street. 8 Although it wasn't the initial reason 9 for the requirement of the removal of the roof, 10 we've discovered, in addition -- Mr. and 11 Mrs. Zanotti have gone up into their attic and 12 found that there is some stress that's being 13 created because of the extended span on the roof 14 that we're proposing to take off, so we would have 15 a two-fold answer to a problem here. We could 16 eliminate the stress on the front part of the roof 17 and we could allow Mr. and Mrs. Zanotti to have 18 their additional space so Mrs. Zanotti's mother 19 could move in. 20 And, in addition to that, while it is 21 not, again, one of the reasons for the expansion, 22 it would greatly improve and enhance the property 23 for the entire area. There's a lot of really nice 24 homes that are coming into there, and none of the
42
1 neighbors, to our knowledge -- as a matter of fact, 2 Mrs. Zanotti brought in -- she wasn't aware of the 3 fact that you're supposed to mail them in. She 4 brought in an approval as well. 5 So we're hoping that you will permit 6 us this variance seeing as we are not going to 7 expand on the initial footprint and allow the 8 variance that we are requesting. 9 Mrs. Zanotti's here if you have any 10 other questions regarding the necessity. 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else 12 in the audience that would like to input into this 13 case. 14 (No response.) 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: There were thirty-six 16 notices sent out. We have two responses, both 17 approval. 18 Building department? 19 MR. SAVEN: Bless you on the extended 20 family. I know what you're going through. As was 21 mentioned, this is an expansion of an existing 22 footprint of the building. That's what it's doing. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members, 24 comments or discussion?
43
1 Miss Gray? 2 MEMBER GRAY: I have no problem with 3 it. I'm familiar with the house, and this is going 4 to be an enhancement for their use. It's a win/win 5 situation. It's another one of the -- they're 6 fortunate enough to have two lots which gives them 7 a total of eighty feet. Again, this is north area, 8 small lots, and I think it's going to be very 9 beneficial to everybody involved. 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: I echo the comment, 11 because the thing is basically they're not 12 enlarging the footprint where they're going closer 13 to what is there in existence already, and I really 14 don't see a problem with what they're proposing. 15 Other Board members, comments or 16 discussion? 17 (No response.) 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the 19 Chair would entertain a motion in case number 20 01-086. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I move 22 that case number 01-086 be approved, the 23 applicant's request for the variance, because of 24 the hardships, and also the smaller likes of the
44
1 size of the lot. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and 4 seconded to grant the variance as requested. Is 5 there any further discussion on the motion? 6 (No discussion.) 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 8 Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 16 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 20 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request 22 has been approved. See the building department for 23 necessary permits and we wish you lots of luck. 24 MS. PROVENCHER: Thank you,
45
1 Mr. Chairman. Can I request that you waive the 2 five-day waiting period? At this time we've been 3 waiting for this permit since August. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you handle that? 5 MR. SAVEN: I think so. 6 MS. PROVENCHER: It would be very 7 kind. I have to say that the building department 8 has been wonderful. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: We will include that. 10 MS. PROVENCHER: We're hoping to get 11 them in by Christmas. 12 13 CASE NUMBER 01-088 14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, 01-088, 15 filed by Anthony McGrath representing the 16 homeowners at 12 -- 1256 East Lake Drive. 17 Sir, would you give your name and 18 address to the secretary and be sworn in, please. 19 MR. McGRATH: My name is 20 Tony McGrath. I'm from 28578 North Havenwood (ph) 21 in White Lake. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right 23 hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the 24 testimony that you're about to give in this matter
46
1 before you is the truth? 2 MR. McGRATH: Yes, I do. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 4 MR. McGRATH: I represent 5 Mr. A. J. Harris who is the owner of 6 1256 East Lake Drive in Novi. 1256 has direct 7 frontage on Walled Lake. It is one of only twelve 8 to fifteen houses that do. 9 Mr. Harris is doing a total 10 renovation of the exterior of his home and about an 11 eighty percent interior renovation. Again, there 12 is no footprint extension whatsoever. 13 My variance request concerns a deck 14 that was existing. It will be rebuilt because it's 15 in such terrible shape, but Mr. Harris wishes to 16 put a sunroom on that deck. Again, it's no 17 extension at all. It's not a big box type 18 project. 19 This home has been in this family for 20 fifty years, and Mr. Harris will continue to occupy 21 this house although he is an out-of-town owner. 22 He's from Washington, D.C. 23 I base my hardship on two facts. I 24 was actually granted a building permit to do this
47
1 entire project on the 13th of September; however, 2 when the inspector came out on the 14th of 3 September he said that he missed the sunroom and I 4 should go get a variance because I was too close to 5 the lake. So this isn't a rear lot variance so 6 much as a lake front variance. And, secondly, 7 every house, with the exception of one that I can 8 discern that is a lake front home in this area, 9 doesn't meet the rear yard setback. Some are as 10 close as ten and twelve feet to the water. 11 Mr. Harris would be twenty-seven feet after the 12 construction of this site. 13 I don't believe I have any opposition 14 from any of the neighbors, and we don't block any 15 sight lines with this. Walled Lake angles at that 16 location. The houses are staggered and there's 17 absolutely no blockage, as far as I can discern. 18 That's it. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there 20 anyone in the audience who would like to input into 21 this case? 22 (No response.) 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we had 24 -- twenty-nine notices were sent out, nine were
48
1 sent back, and we received one approval. 2 Building department? 3 MR. SAVEN: Question. On the 4 existing deck, what was the problem on the existing 5 deck? You indicated that there was a poor shape. 6 MR. McGRATH: The spanning was too 7 large, it was two-by-sixes on thirty inch centers. 8 MR. SAVEN: What do you propose to 9 do to beef up that particular design for that? 10 MR. McGRATH: It's a complete rebuild 11 as per the print. 12 MR. SAVEN: That's what I wanted to 13 see. 14 MR. McGRATH: And the deck was 15 actually built before the inspector ever came out. 16 We did have a permit. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department, 18 further comments? 19 MR. SAVEN: No. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? 21 Mr. Brennan? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: We've had other 23 cases like this, and the issues have always been 24 sight lines and whether a building going up is
49
1 going to impact a neighbor. I think if we had 2 problems, pending problems, we'd have neighbors 3 here. We have no objections through the mail. 4 Given we're still working on the same 5 envelope that's already existing, that's going up, 6 I would tend to support the petitioner. 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: I echo Mr. Brennan's 8 comments, because if there's anything that brings 9 an uproar is block somebody's sight of the lake and 10 they'll be here. It's a problem with the size of 11 the lots out there, and trying to do anything 12 without causing a problem for somebody else, and so 13 I think you've done well to work with what you've 14 done and I really don't have a problem with it. 15 Board members, further comments or 16 discussion? 17 (No further discussion.) 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the 19 Chair would entertain a motion in case number 20 01-088. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make that 22 motion. With respect to case 01-088, I would move 23 for approval due to lot configuration. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second.
50
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and 2 seconded to grant the variance that the petitioner 3 has requested due to lot variance. Any further 4 discussion on the motion? 5 (No further discussion.) 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 7 Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 15 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 17 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have to waive 21 the five days -- you're not going to do that part- 22 MR. McGRATH: We're fine. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's good. Thank 24 you.
51
1 MR. McGRATH: Thank you. 2 3 CASE NUMBER 00-091 & 00-101 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now, to go back 5 to where -- case number 00-091 filed by 6 Collins Signs representing Home Depot and Kroger. 7 Mr. Galvin, how are you this evening? 8 MR. GALVIN: Fine, Mr. Reinke. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please 10 present your case. 11 MR. GALVIN: Yes, sir. You have a 12 rendering in front of you of the sign which we are 13 requesting, which is an eight foot sign by twelve 14 foot sign to be built approximately where I am 15 pointing on the diagram of the shopping center. 16 This variance is sought for the 17 fundamental and basic reason that any sign variance 18 is sought, and that is that there are physical 19 difficulties with this particular site which 20 destroy the visibility of the allowable signage 21 under the ordinance. 22 I'm showing you a board that has on 23 it the front elevation of the Home Depot store, and 24 I'd like you to note a couple of things about that
52
1 store. The first thing is the expanse of the store 2 and the relative size of the Home Depot sign. 3 That Home Depot sign is located about 4 seven hundred and seventy-five feet from the center 5 line of Grand River Avenue. It is visible from, 6 but only visible from, Grand River Avenue when 7 proceeding in a westerly direction. 8 Now, in and of itself that, perhaps, 9 wouldn't be sufficient to induce you to find 10 practical difficulties to grant the additional 11 second sign that will be involved in putting 12 Home Depot together with Kroger, together with the 13 identification of the entire shopping center on the 14 monument sign at the front of the property; 15 however, I ask you to consider a couple of other 16 things. 17 The first is the physical constraints 18 in the development of this parcel; specifically, 19 there is a wetland area which is located where I'm 20 indicating on the site plan, and there is an area 21 which has been left for the new interchange to come 22 from I-96. What this does is it creates a 23 triangular-shaped parcel rather than a 24 rectangular-shaped parcel. This causes the
53
1 orientation of the buildings to be canvit (ph) 2 specifically to create the situation where 3 Home Depot is visible only westbound and Kroger is 4 visible only eastbound, another practical 5 difficulty. 6 The clincher is the design and the 7 color of the building. Now, you're all familiar 8 with Home Depot buildings throughout the southeast 9 Michigan area, and I want you to note the large 10 orange band that does not surround this building. 11 Earlier this evening you were talking 12 about banners and identification and the purposes 13 for a sign. The effect of the entire ordinance 14 structure on Home Depot and Kroger at this location 15 is to prevent them from being noticed by traffic on 16 Grand River Avenue except in one direction, and 17 there's nothing wrong with all of that, but put it 18 in the context, if you will, of the importance of 19 this shopping center to the city and the importance 20 of the visibility of these two particular uses, 21 Kroger and Home Depot, which are the anchor tenants 22 in this shopping center, which the City has, for a 23 long time, wished to locate in this region. 24 When you add it all up, I think that
54
1 for this particular sign which is admittedly each 2 of, Home Depot and for Kroger, a second, you have a 3 case of practical difficulties which create an 4 unnecessary hardship in getting that message to the 5 public traveling on Grand River Avenue. This is 6 because of the unique physical circumstances of 7 this property singular to this shopping center 8 within the city. 9 Were it not the case that the 10 interchange were there and the wetlands were there, 11 these buildings would be oriented in a way that 12 their signage would be visible to travelers in both 13 directions on Grand River. 14 For those reasons, I respectfully 15 request that the Zoning Board of Appeals allow a 16 dimensional variance to allow -- I guess it's not a 17 dimensional variance. I want to emphasize it 18 wasn't a use variance -- to allow the construction 19 of this sign with the two anchor tenants shown on 20 the monument sign. 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to 22 address the second part now? 23 MR. GALVIN: Oh. I thought we were 24 doing one and not the other. Certainly, I'd be
55
1 happy to. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you better 3 address both of them. 4 MR. GALVIN: It's the next item on 5 your agenda. I thought they were separate, Lavern. 6 I'm sorry. 7 The other request is for this 8 Home Depot sign which will be located on this wall 9 here. You'll remember that this is the seasonal 10 sales area, so it's located on this wall facing the 11 I-96 expressway. 12 The scale of the two is different. 13 The two signs are identical in size. The letters 14 are both five feet, but the -- this particular 15 rendering, which is of the rear wall, shows the 16 sign to appear to be larger than the one on the 17 front of the building. That is not the case. The 18 purpose of this sign is to pick up the I-96 19 traffic. 20 As I have indicated, there is a 21 similar sign currently located on the Kroger 22 building by virtue of a variance granted by this 23 Board. There are similar situations along the I-96 24 freeway in both Novi and in Wixom, that is, where
56
1 Grand River businesses have signage, like the 2 Corrigan sign, for example, on I-96 to be visible 3 from the expressway. 4 Given the needs of travelers on the 5 expressway to know what is in the shopping center 6 and, again, for the same reasons, and -- I think 7 that the Board ought really consider the fact that 8 by virtue of the design standards which are 9 applicable in the City, you can't tell, as you can 10 from the expressway in other areas, what the use is 11 that's going on in that particular building. 12 For those reasons, and because it is 13 identical, the signs which have previously been 14 granted by this Board, we believe we have 15 established practical difficulties with respect to 16 this sign and respectfully request a variance for 17 it as well. 18 And I will answer any questions that 19 the Board members have. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: We will have. Is 21 there anyone in the audience who wishes to have 22 input into this case? 23 (No response.) 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, building
57
1 department? 2 MR. SAVEN: In reference to the first 3 case that was presented, the issue regarding the 4 signage was one which we're talking about a 5 monument basically. A monument sign on a -- it 6 could be -- and it's construed as a business sign, 7 not a business center sign. Even though you have a 8 business center identification on this sign, you 9 also have two other business signs, and that's the 10 reason why he is here referencing those particular 11 issues. 12 The second request was looking at 13 signage on the rear of the building. This would 14 have been probably allowable in any other district 15 but the B1, B2 and B3 district; therefore, that is 16 why he is here today, because he's got it as a sign 17 that's fronting on another major thoroughfare. 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. What I'd 19 like to do is I'd like to have a general discussion 20 on both signs, because I think we can probably look 21 at both of them. 22 I'm sorry. There were seven notices 23 sent, we have zero approvals or objections. 24 I think we need to look at both of
58
1 them as we're looking at the whole sign package 2 together. I don't want to take from one and then 3 not take the other one into consideration. I think 4 we need to look at the whole thing, so I think our 5 discussion needs to be addressed. 6 Mr. Saven, a question. Do you recall 7 or know what the square footage of the Kroger sign 8 is that was allowed? 9 MR. SAVEN: I'm not sure about the 10 Kroger one, but I believe the Home Depot was a 11 little over a hundred and fifty square foot, if I'm 12 not mistaken. 13 MS. CAPRON: Two hundred and eleven 14 square feet. You talking about the building? 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I'm talking 16 about- 17 MR. GALVIN: (Interposing) 18 Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think we can help out. 19 That was Johnnie Capron, and she's talking about 20 the sign -- the Home Depot sign was two eleven, and 21 I have the minutes from the Kroger request here, so 22 I can get the dimensions for that from the Board. 23 If you can go on to another thing, I'll get you 24 that.
59
1 MR. SAVEN: Then I was mistaken, 2 Mr. Chairman. My apologies. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: But they're already 4 on record as saying both the Home Depot signs that 5 they're proposing are the same size. I have a 6 couple of observations while -- I mean, that's- 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) While 8 he's getting that up, go ahead. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, there's a 10 couple of holes in all of this, and one being, I 11 live out there. I go to that Home Depot often, 12 and -- and that -- the current sign on the building 13 is very, very readable. If you were to agree with 14 your assumption that there is no markings on that 15 building headed eastbound, then why would you want 16 to put the sign on the expressway side? Put it on 17 the south end of the building. 18 And that -- I'll finish first. 19 However, I have no objection with the sign on the 20 expressway side anyways, but I just thought it was 21 worthwhile taking that little stab. 22 As far as that entrance sign on 23 Grand River, I see no reason for it to be as large 24 as proposed, nor as tall as proposed. If you're on
60
1 Grand River you can see everything that's in that 2 development, including Kroger, including a lot of 3 the smaller shops going into the back, so I have no 4 support at all for the petitioner's request in the 5 first case on the ground -- or the monument sign. 6 That's my observations. 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Galvin? 8 MR. GALVIN: I have the elevation on 9 the Kroger, according to the print that was filed 10 to this Board was 150 (inaudible). 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the one on the 12 expressway side? 13 MR. GALVIN: On the back elevation. 14 I have the others. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that's enough. 16 Board members, further comments or 17 discussion? 18 MEMBER BAUER: I was -- Mr. Chairman? 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer. 20 MEMBER BAUER: The height of the 21 monument sign, I think, can stay within the 22 ordinance. I drive that every day at least two or 23 three times. As far as the size, it can be lower, 24 much lower. As far as the sign on the back, on the
61
1 expressway side, it seems to me, and I don't have 2 the calculations, that that was a little larger 3 than the one on the front, but I'm not sure of 4 that, because it does look larger than -- 5 Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. One comment 6 to tack onto. Nobody does not know that that is a 7 Home Depot or a Kroger area, I don't think anyone 8 within miles of this city. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fannon? 10 MEMBER FANNON: Well, I ditto exactly 11 what Jerry just said on both signs. I have a 12 little question here. We have a six foot by fifty 13 foot sign in front of us that says -- it may be an 14 error -- three hundred three square feet, and I'm 15 trying to find out if that was the sign that was up 16 on the building. 17 MR. GALVIN: I'm not sure. 18 MEMBER FANNON: I'm looking at this. 19 It was given in our package. Six foot by fifty 20 something foot. Now, the variance is for a 21 five-by-forty-two, so I don't know which sign was 22 up on the building. It looks like- 23 MS. CAPRON: (Interposing) It's 24 about-
62
1 MR. GALVIN: (Interposing) Excuse 2 me, Johnnie. Would you come up here and maybe we 3 can answer the questions, but let's do it in an 4 orderly way for them. 5 Mr. Fannon, you wanted to know? 6 MEMBER FANNON: I'd just like to 7 know, like Jerry was saying, exactly the size of 8 the sign that's up on the building. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mockup that's on the 10 building. 11 MEMBER FANNON: The mockup. 12 MR. GALVIN: On the side of the 13 building next to the -- it's a little over two 14 hundred square feet. It is five-by -- and I forgot 15 the square feet. 16 MS. CAPRON: Forty-two feet two 17 inches I believe it is. 18 MR. GALVIN: And I agree with you, 19 Mr. Fannon, that the piece of paper that you were 20 given said that it was six feet by fifty, and I 21 would suspect that you would find that this is a 22 larger sign than they have used in other locations. 23 The five-by-forty-two-and-a-half 24 number is that which was applied for, it's that
63
1 which was advertised, and it's that that we're 2 asking for. 3 MEMBER FANNON: That's the mockup 4 sign? 5 MR. GALVIN: That's the mockup that's 6 on the- 7 MS. CAPRON: (Interposing) I can 8 give you this -- 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. 10 MEMBER FANNON: I'm okay. I just 11 want to know the size of the sign that's up on the 12 building. 13 MS. CAPRON: I apologize. 14 MEMBER FANNON: Okay. So answering 15 Mr. Bauer's question, even though it may look 16 bigger, it isn't? 17 MR. GALVIN: That's right. 18 MEMBER FANNON: That's fine. 19 MR. GALVIN: If I may, Mr. Chairman, 20 just one comment. 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. 22 MR. GALVIN: Thank you. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Make it short. 24 MR. GALVIN: Real short. The size of
64
1 the monument sign, if you want to bring it down in 2 height, I have no real difficulty with that. The 3 -- there was no attempt to go on the other -- 4 facing of the -- of the building because we had a 5 sign for the Grand River frontage. We have no sign 6 for the I-96 frontage. That, as I believe Don 7 pointed out, we'd be entitled to in any other 8 district, and it is identical in size, as 9 Mr. Fannon has established, with that which we have 10 in the front. It is proportional to the building, 11 and we would like you to grant that variance as 12 well as perhaps a reduced size variance on the 13 monument size. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I paid 16 particular attention to the Home Depot wall sign, 17 and I think on the top of the hill from the 18 Expo Center I can just about pick it up from that 19 distance there with that. I think it's excessive 20 in size. I don't discount that there is a sign 21 needed there, but it doesn't need to be five foot 22 tall, you know, so I think that can be reduced. 23 The sign on Grand River I really 24 question because, you know, I think the area is
65
1 quite identifiable, and you can't drive ninety-five 2 miles an hour down Grand River anyway, and you got 3 a few stoplights there. But if a sign were to be 4 permitted, the maximum I could see would be no more 5 than fifty square feet and no more than five feet 6 in height. 7 Board members, further comments or 8 discussion? 9 Mr. Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: As far as the ground 11 sign is concerned, it is going to be part mostly 12 just decorative. It's not going to identify the 13 business. They are already identified. We know 14 where Kroger is and we know where Home Depot is 15 before you come to the sign. They can't be within 16 the size of ordinance. 17 And the second sign I have no problem 18 with. It looks big because of the perception and 19 we are much closer to it than it is, and so I can 20 live with the second sign. 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further 22 comments or discussion? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I 24 concur in regards to the ground sign. I, too, feel
66
1 that it's overkill at this point and there's no 2 real need for the size. The area is well 3 identified. 4 I also echo Member Brennan's comment 5 about coming from the east and why not have it 6 properly identified coming down Grand River as 7 opposed to -- and I don't think this sign is going 8 to do it. 9 And I also -- so I can agree with -- 10 I cannot support the ground sign, and I think that 11 the size of the Home Depot sign should be scaled 12 down somewhat. 13 Thank you. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer. 16 MEMBER BAUER: May I ask the 17 petitioner's attorney one more question? 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, go ahead. 19 MR. BAUER: Joe, when are you going 20 to come back and ask for another sign at the corner 21 of Beck and Grand River where the big sign is now 22 for the building? 23 MR. GALVIN: Truthful answer is I 24 don't know, Jerry, because I haven't talked with
67
1 the shopping center owner. I don't know if they're 2 going to continue to pursue that thought. I do 3 know, for the members of Board who may not be aware 4 of it, that at one time it was suggested that there 5 be a sign there. So that is the truthful answer. 6 I do not know whether the owner will pursue that or 7 not. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 10 MR. GALVIN: They hire me one piece 11 of work at a time. 12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further 13 comments on the two cases in reference to the 14 signs? 15 (No further discussion.) 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: If we're done with 17 that, I want to deal with each sign individually, 18 but I want this discussion to cover both signs. 19 MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, just to 20 finish up, I agree that this monument sign can be 21 kept under ordinance, so I wouldn't vote for any 22 variance on that sign; however, I would vote for a 23 variance on the other sign as long as it's a little 24 smaller. It should be the same size. For some
68
1 reason, it does look larger and perception is 2 reality, in my opinion. I saw it the other night 3 coming down the expressway, and it's just a little 4 too large. That's how I would vote. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me clarify one 6 thing. You're still going to have the variance on 7 the monument sign because of the additional sign. 8 They were looking at doing three variances, one 9 additional sign, height, and the size of the sign. 10 MEMBER FANNON: I wouldn't support 11 any variance to the monument sign because I think 12 it's pretty evident that Kroger and Home Depot are 13 in there. When you finally get to the West Market 14 Square sign, you'll know Home Depot and Kroger are 15 there. 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, let me clarify. 17 There is not a West Market sign there, so there's 18 no monument sign involved right now. 19 MEMBER FANNON: Right, but he could 20 put one up that says West Market Square. 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Not without a 22 variance. 23 MR. SAVEN: Time out. We're talking 24 if they chose West Market Square on its own, that
69
1 height requirement goes away. The square footage 2 is still needed to do deal with the square footage 3 based on how far it was from the center line of the 4 road going back. 5 For the height requirement on a 6 business center sign, you're allowed to go fifteen 7 feet, okay, depending how far back it is set from 8 the center of the road, the square footage of that 9 sign. Only when you deal with businesses -- we got 10 four more businesses in there, but if you start 11 putting other signs on it then it becomes a 12 business sign, drops it down to the monument status 13 of five foot and you have to deal with that. 14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let me ask a 15 question. If we would approve this monument sign, 16 could they still, by ordinance, put a business 17 identification sign on the corner? 18 MR. SAVEN: That's what they're here 19 for. You're talking about putting an additional 20 business signs? 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. 22 MR. SAVEN: Then you have more than 23 one sign on the premises. That's an issue. I 24 think he'd be back before us again.
70
1 MEMBER BAUER: That's what I thought. 2 That's what I asked him for. 3 MR. GALVIN: Only if someone hires 4 me. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any further 6 discussion on the aspects of the two signs? 7 Mr. Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: One last thing, and 9 maybe Mr. Galvin can answer this while he's here. 10 I think that there's a good reason why we believe 11 that that end sign, Grand River and the expressway 12 sign, looks bigger. You're dealing with a face 13 that's one-fifth of the size of the other. 14 Is there -- and I'm prepared tonight 15 to make that a bit smaller than what is proposed. 16 You've got the guy behind you nodding his head. 17 Maybe you can get a number for him. 18 MR. GALVIN: I'm wondering how much 19 blood I have to shed. 20 MR. BRENNAN: First you have to pick 21 the mic up. 22 MR. GALVIN: Yes and yes. A four 23 foot sign which would eliminate that problem that 24 you've talked about. They do have one. Remember,
71
1 Mr. Fannon had a six feet sign. What we came in 2 for was a five foot sign. The bare minimum is a 3 four foot sign. And, yes, we're prepared to accept 4 four foot minimum. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you know what the 6 square footage is? 7 MR. GALVIN: I think it's 140 plus or 8 minus. I'll check. 9 MS. CAPRON: One thirty-five. 10 MR. GALVIN: Excuse me. One 11 thirty-five. I missed it by five square feet. 12 MEMBER GRAY: Four by what? 13 MR. GALVIN: Four divided into one 14 thirty-five would give you the other dimension. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. I 16 want to deal -- let me ask the question first. Are 17 the Board members done with the discussion on both 18 signs? 19 (No further discussion.) 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Now, I 21 want to go back and I want to deal with each sign 22 individually so we don't have confusion on the 23 point here. 24 So, first of all, we're looking at
72
1 091, which is the monument sign. 2 Mr. Brennan? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion 4 on the monument sign. At this point I would move 5 with respect to that case, 00-091, that the 6 petitioner's request be denied. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and 9 seconded that the monument sign in the case 00-091 10 be denied. Is there any discussion on the motion? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: We've got Mr. Galvin 12 here who's made his presentation on the practical 13 difficulties. If I could just ask you, 14 Mr. Brennan, to elaborate on the thought process 15 here. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: The petitioner did 17 not present a practical difficulty or any hardship. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: That the current signs 19 are visible and that the monument sign isn't needed 20 for identification? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: So amended. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any further 24 discussion on the motion?
73
1 (No further discussion.) 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Being none, 3 Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 11 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 13 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Your monument 17 sign has been denied. 18 Next case is case 01 -- or 00-101, 19 which is for the wall sign on the expressway side, 20 which would be four foot in height. And what was 21 the square footage? 22 MR. GALVIN: One thirty-five, 23 Mr. Reinke. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
74
1 MR. GALVIN: Yes, sir. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? 3 MR. BRENNAN: That case, 00-101, I 4 move the petitioner's request for a square foot 5 sign of 135 square feet be approved for the purpose 6 of identification. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and 9 seconded that we grant the variance for a four foot 10 high, a hundred and thirty-five square foot wall 11 sign facing the expressway. Is there any further 12 discussion on the motion? 13 (No further discussion.) 14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, will 15 you call the roll, please. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 23 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?
75
1 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Your wall sign 5 is approved. 6 MR. GALVIN: Thank you very much. 7 And I wanted the Chair to know that immediately 8 before this meeting I called my wife and said I'm 9 number two on the agenda so I think I'll be home 10 before 9:00, and then you moved it. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Galvin, I know 12 that you have to report back to your boss. Would 13 you ask him to give some consideration as to what 14 his plans are for that -- for the corner? You darn 15 well he's going to want something on the corner, 16 and finish up the sign package, because we've been 17 dealing with this in piecemeal, and if he's back 18 again down the future -- or in the future we may 19 not be as cooperative. 20 MR. GALVIN: Well- 21 MR. BRENNAN: (Interposing) I'd like 22 to get it done. We've had probably five or six 23 different cases on this parcel. 24 MR. GALVIN: I will -- I have heard
76
1 what you said, Mr. Brennan, and I would point out 2 that my children are out of college, so I'll urge 3 them to put it all in one last shot. 4 5 CASE NUMBER 01-063 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Moving on, next case, 7 case 01-063, filed by Timothy Stoepker representing 8 Jaguar. 9 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, before you 10 get started, I would like to point out to the Board 11 that in case -- in sign cases C through F, there is 12 the same repetitive variance which is being 13 requested. Only -- basically, only one sign is 14 allowed per parcel, and we'll see this consistently 15 in the parcel variances that are coming before you 16 tonight. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. 18 Let's take a short break. 19 (A short recess was taken.) 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would 21 like to reconvene the meeting. Sir, if you would 22 be sworn in by our secretary and give your name and 23 address. 24 MR. STOEPKER: For the record, my
77
1 name is Timothy Stoepker with Dickinson, Wright 2 appearing on behalf of Jaguar of Novi. My address 3 is 500 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan -- 4 500 Woodward Avenue, suite 4000, Detroit, Michigan. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: I stand corrected. 6 You are an attorney, correct? 7 MR. STOEPKER: Yes, I am. 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't need to be 9 sworn. 10 MR. STOEPKER: You never know. 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and make your 12 presentation. 13 MR. STOEPKER: Mr. Chairman and 14 members of the Board, Timothy Stoepker appearing on 15 behalf of Jaguar of Novi, and we are -- we are what 16 we think are in the last permitting phases of this 17 project as the building is being built at this 18 time, and I'd like to express my appreciation to 19 the Board. At the last hearing, which was the 20 public hearing that I attended, or public comment 21 portion, when you granted us the opportunity to 22 have the hearing heard at this time as opposed to 23 waiting for 100 percent completion of the building 24 based upon the timing of sign fabrication, and we
78
1 realize that was a deviation from your practice and 2 we appreciate that. 3 I'm going to deviate slightly from 4 what we submitted to you in the application form, 5 and based upon some changes that were made. 6 The first is there are nine signs as 7 opposed to ten on the site that are at issue, a 8 total of nine. Some are not subject to the number 9 of sign variances because of the number of signs 10 permitted. Some are directional signs, and we'll 11 go into that. 12 The second one, as you had gone 13 through the application materials, the application 14 itself, the Jaguar sign which is located on the 15 monument, or ground sign, which is the sign E 16 located on Haggerty Road was, at one time, 17 contemplated to be at the corner of Haggerty and 18 Ten Mile at a height of approximately twenty-five 19 feet, and that has been reduced to eight feet 20 six inches and is identical in size to the used car 21 or preowned sign -- ground sign which is located on 22 Ten Mile, which is figure F, and I'll show you the 23 exact signage of that. And you've seen it because 24 it is out there.
79
1 So the twenty-five foot ground sign 2 that was once proposed for the property shown in 3 the original site plan submittals has been 4 eliminated, and sign E now conforms to the same 5 type of sign as sign F, and they are both on the 6 site for your visibility. 7 Sign J, which was to be located on 8 Ten Mile Road on the west portion of the property, 9 was eliminated, as was an additional Jaguar sign 10 located between the service and the leaper on the 11 south elevation of the building, which was shown, 12 again, originally in the original applications to 13 you. 14 I'd like to deal with them in the 15 same order that the department commented or 16 prepared the agenda, and that is dealing with, 17 first of all, signs A -- we'll just go right 18 through the alphabet. I think maybe that's the 19 easiest way to approach this. 20 Sign A, under the terms of your 21 ordinance, is a permitted by right sign. It is the 22 -- it is a directional sign as opposed to a sign 23 that advertised product or name. It is simply 24 states service. And that is located in this
80
1 location here, and the particular application of 2 the use of that sign is demonstrated right here. 3 That's service. That's the rotunda at the end of 4 the building. 5 If you will recall from the original 6 site plan applications, the -- that area of the 7 building is inset and, in fact, is glassed to 8 appear as if it is a wall elevation as opposed to a 9 service drive. And for purposes of adequately 10 identifying to the customer who is going to bring 11 their car to the service entrance, we are asking 12 for a variance at that site. We're requesting 13 11.33 square feet. Two feet is permitted. 14 That -- the service area sign, as you 15 know, is recessed actually within the building 16 itself, the cavity of the building area, and 17 considering the distance from the Ten Mile Road 18 area and the site itself, we felt, based upon the 19 lettering and also examining the other service 20 signs at the Infinity store just down the street, 21 and proper visibility, we've tried to come up with 22 a sign that was commensurate with that that would 23 allow proper and adequate visibility. 24 So that sign is permitted by right.
81
1 It's not being asked for as an extra sign but 2 permitted by right. What we're sighting there is a 3 9.33 square feet variance. The total square foot 4 requested is 11.33 square feet. 5 Again, that building elevation looks 6 exactly like a wall. It does not look like a 7 garage door. We want to make sure that we 8 adequately identify for our customers what, in 9 fact, is the service area of the building. 10 The next sign is sign B, is the 11 Jaguar sign. That sign is, again, permitted under 12 the ordinance, and we're asking for a variance for 13 that. 14 That sign is located -- you can see 15 part of it here. The J-a-g is located at that 16 location, and if you -- that's on the Ten Mile 17 frontage, and if you go to Haggerty frontage you 18 see the U-a-r portion of that site. The sign is a 19 total of thirteen feet in length with 20 six-and-a-half feet on Haggerty and ten-and-a-half 21 feet on Ten Mile, and is to provide adequate 22 visibility hopefully to those people going 23 westbound on Ten Mile and then going south -- from 24 south to north on Haggerty Road as to the name of
82
1 -- the specific name of the store as that is the 2 portion that has the most visibility from those 3 areas. 4 There is no other sign on the south 5 elevation that identifies it is a Jaguar store at 6 that location, so it provides visibility for those 7 people going south to north. 8 As you know, obviously, based upon 9 the history, this is a two-frontage site, and we 10 want to make sure that we identify adequately our 11 product, what we sell, our name and our trademark, 12 both to people going south -- actually, four 13 directions here; north to south, south to north, 14 east to west, and west to east, and that 15 accomplishes that. 16 From a percentage standpoint, 17 I think it's important to note that we have 18 two hundred and fifty-five lineal feet of building 19 frontage on Haggerty Road. Based upon my 20 calculations, that's six-and-a-half feet. At best, 21 we consume five percent of the lineal frontage of 22 the building. It would link the six-and-a-half 23 feet. 24 The Haggerty -- I'm sorry. The
83
1 Ten Mile frontage is a hundred and five -- 2 actually, I'm reversing myself. It's one percent 3 of the building frontage on Haggerty and five 4 percent of the building frontage on Ten Mile. 5 Ten Mile is a hundred and five feet 6 in length. Haggerty, the building is two hundred 7 and fifty-five feet, give or take on the 8 percentages. 9 Again, we think it's critical, both 10 particularly from the east to west and south to 11 north. 12 The other element that you see we can 13 deal with at this point is sign C, which we 14 actually think is an architectural element of the 15 building as opposed to a sign, but based upon the 16 sign ordinance, we are required to submit that as a 17 sign. It is the leaper. It is probably the most 18 identified trademark for a vehicle, probably in the 19 world, along with the -- which is critical -- an 20 absolute critical mark to Jaguar. It is a 21 requirement, a required element by Jaguar -- and 22 there's a representative from Jaguar here this 23 evening -- on the Jaguar dealerships that are being 24 constructed across the United States. It is one of
84
1 the most single important elements identifying who 2 we are and the history of Jaguar, and I think on 3 all vehicles that Jaguar sells there is a leaper, 4 except for on one vehicle. There's a leaper on 5 each vehicle, and it is a -- it is one of the most 6 recognized trademarks that exists. 7 Again, we are asking for that 8 because, again, it is an extra sign and is not 9 permitted as a matter of right. It is a critical 10 element and allows adequate visibility coming, 11 again, north to south and, again, east to west and 12 west to east. And we have a video presentation 13 that will demonstrate that. It is absolutely 14 critical from our standpoint from a trademark. 15 Giving example, the stores that are 16 being built, this is a new Jaguar store. You have 17 a leaper there. That kind of gives you the 18 perspective of the Troy store which was built much 19 earlier than the one at issue. You have your 20 leaper again on the sign that's there, much higher 21 sign, a pylon sign. That gives you an idea. It's 22 shown, even across the face of the building itself 23 there as well. It is a critical element. 24 This is another sign again, even
85
1 showing the leaper, so it is a very critical 2 element to Jaguar and was always identified in the 3 models and site plans that we submitted to the City 4 at the time the applications were submitted. 5 The other sign is -- sign D is the 6 Jaguar of Novi sign, which is on the east elevation 7 of the building. This is the one that's actually 8 drilled into the glass. And if my recollection is 9 correct, to give you a perspective of that sign, 10 that Jaguar of Novi sign is here, that is 11 twenty-nine feet in length. It takes approximately 12 eight percent of the lineal footage of the 13 building. This would be the rotunda, Jaguar, and 14 then this is the sandstone that goes down with no 15 signage. 16 The interesting aspect of this sign 17 is it really only has a east/west -- east to west 18 elevation because it is inset. If you go back to 19 the site plan of the store itself, or the floor 20 plan, you'll see this. This is the actual location 21 of the Jaguar of Novi sign with no visibility going 22 from north to south, or even from south to north. 23 The only visibility, again, is for the visibility 24 going from east to west at that location and
86
1 specifically states the name Jaguar of Novi. 2 Again, it is only eight percent of the lineal 3 distance of the building. 4 So if we take the Jaguar sign on the 5 rotunda, which is not even one percent, and it's at 6 eight percent, it's giving the benefit of the doubt 7 of two hundred and fifty-five feet. We're only 8 talking nine percent of the lineal distance of the 9 building in that area. 10 The next sign is sign E, and that is 11 the ground sign which you saw on the site. That is 12 the sign that identifies Jaguar, and this is it 13 right here. That sign is eight feet six inches in 14 height. A ground sign is permitted by right. The 15 maximum height under the ordinance, however, is 16 five feet. 17 What we did is we, again, went 18 through the area to determine compatibility with 19 existing and surrounding signage. There -- in 20 part, the video will identify that, but it's 21 certainly consistent in size to the Mercedes ground 22 sign that is located at the corner of Haggerty and 23 Grand River. Actually, may be less in height. And 24 I think they did require a variance for their
87
1 particular sign. The Infinity sign, which is two 2 dealerships to the immediate north on our same side 3 of the street identifies both the name and the logo 4 which you'll see in the video that we present. I 5 have also separate photographs of that. 6 Again, the Mercedes sign also 7 identifies name and logo as it relates to the 8 building. And I want to go back to that. On the 9 Mercedes store, for example, in relationship to the 10 leaper addressed here, you'll see they had -- they 11 actually have three wall signs and they have -- 12 this is, I think, the Haggerty elevation, but that 13 is their separate logo. And if you look at the 14 Infinity store, they also identify themselves on 15 their building by -- even though they combined it, 16 the logo of theirs also goes above their -- the 17 logo and name kind of go together. 18 What we've done is we've separated 19 that. That's the Infinity logo, and the name is 20 immediately below that. And then, of course, this 21 is the Infinity ground sign at that location. 22 Again, we tried to be consistent with 23 that look and make sure that we were being 24 consistent in both the lettering and in size for
88
1 the purpose of making sure for adequate 2 identification. 3 The important point there is that is 4 the only sign, as you'll see, going southbound on 5 Haggerty that actually identifies the specific 6 store itself and the nature of the product, Jaguar. 7 That is the only one that you'll be able to see. 8 The next one, the next sign is the 9 Select Edition of Preowned Automobiles sign. That 10 is located in area F on Ten Mile. That sign is 11 reflected here, Select Edition Preowned. 12 Basically, the same concept itself. This sign has 13 a totally different emphasis. 14 In most cases you have -- in most 15 automobile dealerships you'll have a primary 16 building that sells new cars and you'll have a 17 separate building, as the Chrysler dealership does 18 next door, that sells used cars, and they are 19 basically different types of businesses. That 20 customer going in to buy the used car is not going 21 the buy the new car, and the customer going to buy 22 the new car is not there to buy the used. 23 We think it's important to be able to 24 identify to those coming to the area that, in fact,
89
1 we are selling preowned automobiles made by Jaguar 2 and that they are select edition automobiles and 3 identify that. 4 If you look at the Chrysler dealer 5 that is immediately to the south of us, they have a 6 separate sign that is on their property 7 identifying, in fact, as a ground sign, their used 8 cars. 9 In addition to that, as you are 10 aware, they also have another ground sign that 11 fronts Haggerty Road identifying the nature of the 12 Chrysler dealership as well as their two sets of 13 wall signs, so the Chrysler dealership immediately 14 next door has two ground signs, as we are asking 15 for, one, identifying who they are; second, 16 identifying that they sell used products. And the 17 other ground -- the other two wall signs that 18 Chrysler has -- and the reason why I bring this up 19 is it also shows the importance of the trademark 20 which, in our case, is being treated separately 21 because the leaper is separate, but you have a 22 trademark here, you have Chrysler Plymouth, you 23 have the trademark again, and then you have Jeep 24 Eagle. Obviously, they're not selling Eagle
90
1 anymore. Someone should tell them to take the 2 Eagle sign down. But, again, we're within that 3 concept. 4 That is the -- as it relates to the 5 ground signs and the proposed wall signs. In 6 addition to that, we are also asking, in addition 7 to the service sign itself, directional signs on 8 the property. 9 Again, if you'll recall, this was a 10 difficult site from a site planning standpoint 11 because of its proximity to Ten Mile, the 12 Ten Mile/Haggerty intersection. In addition to 13 that, it's a dual purpose site. We have the Jaguar 14 store, and immediately to the west of the Jaguar 15 store behind the property line there we also have 16 the medical office building, and one of the site 17 plan requirements that was required of us was that 18 we incorporate the drives into both the medical 19 building off Ten Mile and off Haggerty as part of 20 the dealership entrances to avoid duplicity and 21 curb cuts to the site, as well as making sure that 22 the curb cuts were a sufficient distance to 23 Haggerty/Ten Mile intersection. 24 So, as a consequence, the actual
91
1 intersection for curb cut is extreme to the west of 2 the site. When people turn in, when they see the 3 used car sign, we have an internal directional sign 4 here, on I, which identifies where the reception 5 and service area is. There's arrows pointing to 6 them. 7 We also then -- on the Haggerty 8 elevation, this is sign G, which is at a -- also 9 identifies reception and service, and then sign H 10 we included here as well which, again, is 11 identifying reception and service, and we felt that 12 was important because, again, to distinguish if you 13 go straight here you go into a medical office 14 building, and to make sure that our customers know 15 to turn here as opposed to driving into a different 16 use than that that's being proposed. 17 So for purposes of identifying the 18 actual drive cuts into the property in sufficient 19 time, in sufficient visibility, we requested those 20 signs. They are slightly larger and slightly 21 higher than permitted under the ordinance, but as 22 you'll see from the video, when you look at the 23 Jaguar sign itself it's extremely important from a 24 timing standpoint to be able to identify those
92
1 without missing the drives. If you miss the drive 2 here you have to go past the store and then somehow 3 turn around and come back. 4 One of the traffic issues that we see 5 is if there's not sufficient identification to tell 6 you when and where to turn, then it creates a 7 traffic problem. People turn their heads and they 8 miss the drive, they miss the -- they got to go 9 back and turn around, and it creates confusion. 10 And to make sure that the drives are 11 adequately addressed, and knowing that they're not 12 in the center of the property, we felt that the 13 height that we were requesting and the type of 14 signs we were requesting -- these are not 15 illuminated signs. 16 I'd like to focus on it and we'll 17 look at the video itself. Obviously, we have the 18 dual frontage, and in one sense it gives us 19 advantage in the other sense it gives its 20 disadvantage. To identify your building from one 21 side but not the other side doesn't do you any 22 good; to attract. It's really particularly 23 important in reference to this particular 24 dealership because Jaguar -- there will only be two
93
1 Jaguar stores within the Metro area. Not to 2 reflect badly on the Ford or Chrysler dealership 3 next door, but they are more local in nature in 4 there draw. There are more Chevy dealers, there 5 are more Chrysler dealers in the Metro area than 6 there are going to be Jaguar dealers. 7 As a consequence, you'll have people 8 like me, although I've become very familiar with 9 Novi having worked out here so much, I live on the 10 east side. If I'm going to drive all the way from 11 the east side to go to Novi to be able to find the 12 car, I need to make sure that it's adequately 13 identified for me. In other words, the typical 14 customer base that's going to go to this store is 15 not somebody who lives around the corner, hopefully 16 they do, but there'll be a general broad area from 17 the Metropolitan Detroit coming here. It is 18 critical that they be able to find the store and 19 they're not frustrated with finding the store. 20 So we tried it in the F signs with 21 good taste, within proportion of the other stores 22 within the area to accomplish that. 23 In addition to the dual frontage, we 24 had this wide-split ingress and egress because of
94
1 the curb cut considerations, and to avoid dual curb 2 cuts in the future, and we wanted to make sure that 3 we had signs that adequately addressed how to get 4 into the building and into the site in a safe 5 manner. 6 So we think those issues there, 7 combined with the typical speed limits that you 8 normally face, created the difficulties that we 9 encountered on the property, to make sure that we 10 could adequately identify the stores safely going 11 north, south, east and west. 12 I think the best way to do that is to 13 go -- actually go through the video. We're going 14 to speed one portion along because we have a part 15 that includes the two dealers in Farmington Hills, 16 the Accura and the Honda dealer, which are -- 17 obviously, it's a different community. So if you 18 want to turn behind you here, and hopefully this 19 will work. 20 This is going on -- this is shot 21 going eastbound on Ten Mile. That's the preowned 22 car -- and this, by the way, is going twenty-five 23 miles an hour. 24 There's your leaper, and you just
95
1 missed the service sign if you weren't looking. 2 There's the Jaguar. That's the thirteen foot sign 3 below the leaper. 4 I hope that you had an opportunity to 5 visit the site to see the signs. 6 To the left there would be, again, 7 the service area. And the reason for the -- we're 8 proceeding now into the intersection, and you can 9 just see there to the left slightly will be the 10 Jaguar of Novi sign which is recessed and placed 11 within the glass of the building on the Haggerty 12 frontage. That's the lineal footage of two hundred 13 and fifty-five foot of frontage -- of building 14 frontage on the road there. There's slightly more 15 frontage than that, as you can see. 16 And we just missed the -- we just 17 missed the Jaguar ground sign. This is going 18 towards the Mercedes dealership. We have -- this 19 is the wall sign here, Mercedes Benz of Novi. Then 20 there's another -- on that other angle you see, 21 again, Mercedes Benz of Novi, and coming up on the 22 right is their ground sign, right there, and then 23 there's their logo on the right side. 24 Again, Mercedes chooses to identify
96
1 their logo differently. 2 We're going to skip through this 3 because these two dealerships are outside the 4 jurisdiction of the Board of this city. 5 One thing it does demonstrate is the 6 importance to the car manufacturer of identifying 7 their logo and their name. 8 Here we go. This is the Suburban 9 Infinity sign. This is the one wall sign, which is 10 picked up in the photographs, kind of facing the -- 11 giving the east to west elevation. Again, that's 12 the logo and then the name, Infinity, right below 13 that. 14 Again, we tried to design our signage 15 within the confines of that, and both from a logo 16 standpoint and from a copy standpoint. 17 And then if you look to the left, 18 there's the term service. And, again, our -- 19 basically, the service sign we're proposing is the 20 same type of element; again, to make sure that the 21 customer who's coming to the site can adequately 22 find our service area. 23 And then you're all familiar with the 24 ground sign that's out front -- there it is -- and
97
1 that's a north to south view of the sign. Again, 2 the distinguishing characteristics of the logo and 3 the name. 4 This is the photo -- video of the 5 photograph again, showing logo and name for 6 Chrysler Plymouth, and that's -- that site also has 7 a large service sign, again, in part, because their 8 service area is so recessed. But, again, the 9 lettering we're proposing is not that large. But 10 again, it's critical to the customer who's already 11 frustrated by a service call to make sure that they 12 know where to bring their car. 13 And the concept's different now. 14 There are service writeup areas where you pull in, 15 you meet the technician, they take the car from 16 you, take the keys and you write it up. 17 Immediately out front of here as we 18 go back to the left, not viewed from this angle, 19 but there is the used car sign, and then that is 20 the sign that identifies the Chrysler dealership 21 again, logo. 22 Now we're going east -- we're going 23 south. There is the ground sign. You don't see 24 any sign, now you see the leaper coming out, and
98
1 this is the first point -- you just picked up 2 Jaguar of Novi again, a very quick read, and now, 3 right at the corner, you read the Jaguar sign. 4 And I think your speed was about, 5 what, twenty-five and then slowing down when you 6 get to the intersection, twenty-five to thirty 7 miles an hour. 8 And then the service bay is that 9 glass area right there, and then the -- that does 10 it. 11 We'd be glad to answer any questions 12 that you have. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there 14 anyone else in the audience who would like to input 15 into the signs in this case? 16 (No response.) 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, building 18 department? 19 MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: You got a lot of signs 21 and a lot of leapers. I think you have too many 22 leapers. 23 I don't know where the Board wants to 24 start. Let me start -- backtrack first. There
99
1 were eighteen notices sent out. We received one 2 objection. I'm not going to -- I'm going to 3 paraphrase a few things. 4 I'm getting tired of the variance 5 requests. Jaguar of Novi is built on variances and 6 have become a tower of commercialism, and I won't 7 go into the rest of it. 8 It says that -- they object to it and 9 they think it's just too much and that there should 10 be no more variances, just say no. That was signed 11 by Joyce Trombley on Burton (ph) Drive in Novi. 12 Okay. Board members, where do you 13 want to start? 14 Mr. Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm overwhelmed. I 16 -- this is one of the first cases I've seen in a 17 long time -- I can only imagine the petitioner just 18 took the sign ordinance that we've got and did this 19 and said this is what we got to have. It's too 20 bad. I'm, frankly, disappointed. I don't think 21 that there was a lot of effort put in trying to 22 find any middle ground. I won't say anything more 23 than that because I'd like to hear what the other 24 people on the Board have to say.
100
1 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray. 3 MEMBER GRAY: I would like to make 4 some comments, and if it's all right with the Board 5 I would like to just go right down A, B, C- 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Go right 7 ahead. 8 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Way too many 9 signs, as Mr. Brennan just said. These are my 10 observations. 11 Sign A, the wall sign, I don't have a 12 problem with that. That's the service entrance 13 sign. I think that it needs to be a little bit 14 larger so that it can be seen in the recessed 15 area. I think that sign is fine. 16 The wall sign, Jaguar, that goes on 17 the rotunda, I don't have a problem with that one 18 either. That should be larger, I think, with that. 19 And then sign D, Jaguar of Novi, 20 those three signs with that building, to me, 21 irrespective of the word service, if you take those 22 three sides on those two facades, that building is 23 going to be -- have a very elegant look that would 24 stand out, and set you apart from all the other
101
1 dealers in the area. 2 Now I'm going to go back to sign C. 3 I think the Jaguar leaper on the roof is overkill 4 and I think it takes away from the elegant 5 appearance of that rotunda and the glass area. I 6 realize it's your logo. I realize you deem it 7 critical, but I think it just -- it detracts from 8 it. It doesn't add the appearance of the 9 building. 10 Ground sign E, I was very relieved to 11 see that it was moved from the corner. I'm very 12 relieved to hear that it's been decreased in 13 height. I think where the petitioner is planning 14 to put it on Haggerty Road is not a bad location. 15 I don't have a problem with the leaper at that sign 16 -- at that size, and I would presume it's going to 17 be proportionally decreased. 18 That takes us to sign F, the Select 19 Edition, on Ten Mile. I also don't have a problem 20 with the leaper on that sign. I think it looks 21 good. It looks like the one that's on the pylon 22 sign over, I believe in Troy, and I think that's 23 where the leaper goes. It goes on those ground 24 signs. I would like to see it less than eight foot
102
1 in height. I would like to see it no more than 2 five foot in height, but I don't have a problem 3 with the leaper being on that particular sign in 4 that area. 5 As to the directional signs, G and J, 6 and H and I, I don't have a problem with them but I 7 certainly think that they should be within the 8 ordinance. They should be lower. I don't know 9 that you necessarily have to have your silhouetted 10 leaper on every single one of the signs. It's just 11 overkill as far as I'm concerned. 12 And I like the look of the building. 13 It has -- it does have an elegance to it that has 14 been lacking in some of the other buildings in the 15 area, and I think -- you know, I just don't want to 16 see that leaper up on the top. It just -- I don't 17 like it. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Miss Gray. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman? 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Cindy. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with the 23 two previous speakers, and I will not support the 24 leaper on the roof at all. I sincerely feel that
103
1 it takes away from the building. I understand the 2 importance of it. I don't see the purpose of it, 3 and if anything, I'm willing to work on the ground 4 leaper, but it definitely would take away to have 5 and -- I'm truly thrilled that you're removing one 6 of them and was going to move it because it was way 7 too much for that corner. 8 You don't drive that corner at 9 twenty-five miles an hour. I spent a great deal of 10 time looking out there, and that is our entrance 11 into this city, and here is an opportunity to 12 address that when you're coming into Novi. And I 13 don't care if you're coming from Tennessee or from 14 the east side of Michigan, it is the presence in 15 which -- or the appearance in which that needs to 16 be there. Three leapers in the front is just way 17 too much. The roof leaper actually takes away from 18 that building. 19 You showed a picture in one of your 20 other stores that was a ground leaper. It was a 21 little higher than eight feet, I believe, and I 22 would -- depending on what my other Board members 23 would agree upon, I would entertain something like 24 that, something with elegance, and I don't feel
104
1 that that roof leaper adds that. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board 4 members, other discussion or comments? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, sir. 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer. 7 MEMBER BAUER: First of all, 8 everything they have said so far, plus I'd like to 9 see a Jaguar -- under item B, I'd like to see that 10 come right down to within the ordinance. 11 On the identification signs, I'd like 12 to see those stay at ordinance, and that also -- as 13 I said, for A and F to also be within the 14 ordinance. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fannon? 16 MEMBER FANNON: Just a quick question 17 again. Where did you -- 18 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Stoepker? 19 MR. FANNON: Where did you move E 20 again, just so I understand? 21 MR. STOEPKER: E is -- there is E. E 22 was -- if you want, I can approach if you want. E 23 was- 24 MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) I know
105
1 where it was. I just want to know -- got it. 2 And at the -- one of the meetings 3 that I was at here when Jaguar was here before, is 4 there still plans of putting two or three cars out 5 on Haggerty Road between the road and the building 6 where it curves? There was going to be cars put 7 out there on display, four or five, whatever it 8 was. 9 MR. STOEPKER: There was -- the -- 10 when the site -- on the Haggerty frontage there is 11 a -- there is a display garden that is along the 12 Haggerty frontage, that's correct. 13 MEMBER FANNON: How many cars will be 14 displayed, approximately, on Haggerty Road that 15 probably has the leaper on it, if most of the cars 16 have leapers? 17 MR. STOEPKER: I can't remember if 18 it's five. 19 MEMBER FANNON: Okay. So there's 20 going to be cars along there? 21 MR. STOEPKER: Yes. 22 MEMBER FANNON: So that long blank 23 wall that you talked about that was, like, just 24 blank on here really isn't going to be blank when
106
1 there's five cars in front of it? 2 MR. STOEPKER: That's correct. But I 3 should point out, and I think you're aware, that 4 the whole design of this dealership completely is 5 different from that even of the Mercedes store down 6 the street. 7 MEMBER FANNON: I'm not arguing with 8 you. 9 MR. STOEPKER: Okay. 10 MEMBER FANNON: I'm just asking some 11 questions. 12 So they're not showed on here, the 13 cars- 14 MR. STOEPKER: (Interposing) No. 15 MEMBER FANNON: -with the little 16 leapers on them, right? 17 MR. STOEPKER: Right. 18 MEMBER FANNON: Okay. Well, I agree 19 with everything else that was said, including the 20 fact that we're going to have four or five cars 21 along the side. I think that'll take care of 22 letting everybody know it's a Jaguar dealer. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: From what I've
107
1 heard, there is agreement on one sign thus far, and 2 that's sign A, and the service sign. We have 3 problems with everything else. The other agreement 4 we have as a Board is that sign C is -- there's no 5 support for that at all, and maybe we can start 6 knocking a couple of these down by making some 7 motions on signs where we do have some concurrence 8 and it won't look as overwhelming. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's- 10 MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Let's 11 just start at A and go through. 12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that 13 Mr. Brennan had brought a point. We might as well 14 start with the ones that we really totally agree 15 on, because I think from what we agree on is going 16 to probably establish where we're going to go down 17 the road with the rest of them. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: No problem. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: So let's start off 20 with sign A and let's go from there. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Want a motion? 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Might as well. We got 23 to get started someplace. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Case 01-063, sign A,
108
1 requested variance be granted for identification of 2 service. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved 5 and seconded that the variance request for sign A 6 be approved as presented. 7 Any further discussion on the motion? 8 (No further discussion.) 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 10 Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 18 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 20 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sign A you 24 have.
109
1 MR. STOEPKER: Thank you. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Where do 3 we want to go next? 4 Want to go to C? 5 Okay. Is there any further 6 discussion or a motion on sign C? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll 8 make the motion. In case 01-063, sign C, move 9 Jaguar leaper sign be denied based on based on the 10 fact that there is no need for this location on the 11 top of the roof, no practical difficulty. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved 14 and seconded that we deny the variance request for 15 sign C. 16 Any discussion on the motion? 17 (No further discussion.) 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 19 Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?
110
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 3 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 5 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sign C has been 9 denied. 10 Where do we want to go next? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman? 12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: If I'm not mistaken, 14 B is the one that wraps around the outside- 15 MR. STOEPKER: (Interposing) B is -- 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: -and I think there 17 was some concurrence there with the Board that that 18 seemed an appropriate sign on that corner. 19 So, with that said, I'll make a 20 motion on sign B, be approved as submitted for 21 building identification. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved 24 and seconded that sign B variance be granted as
111
1 requested. 2 Any further discussion on the motion? 3 (No further discussion.) 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 5 Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 13 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Mr. Reinke? 15 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sign B has been 19 approved. 20 I would suggest that we go to the 21 directional signs. I think we can come to some 22 consensus on those, and that would be- 23 MR. STOEPKER: (Interposing) That's 24 G, H and I.
112
1 MR. BRENNAN: We need to have some 2 further discussion with the applicant whether he's 3 agreeable with some of our comments with regards to 4 height. 5 MR. STOEPKER: I think- 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I think 7 that's open to discussion at this point. I think 8 these are the next ones we should deal with. 9 MR. STOEPKER: If we could keep the 10 content of the letters the same, I think we can 11 work with the sign company in reducing -- I think 12 the height maximum is what, six feet, and I think 13 these are at nine, and we could reduce those to 14 six. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: So that takes care of 16 the height part. So we can eliminate the height; 17 is that correct? 18 MR. SAVEN: That's correct, as long 19 as it's six feet maximum. 20 MR. STOEPKER: Right. 21 MEMBER BAUER: That's on G? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: G, H and I. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's G and J. 24 MR. STOEPKER: No. J is eliminated.
113
1 It's G, H and I. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So G, H and I, 3 we're looking at within ordinance of six feet in 4 height? 5 MR. STOEPKER: Right. I think -- was 6 that the only- 7 MS. GRAY: (Interposing) Size 8 variance. 9 MR. STOEPKER: There's a minimal size 10 variance that we -- we asked for seven square feet. 11 Four is permitted. 12 MEMBER GRAY: Three is permitted. 13 MR. STOEPKER: I'm sorry. Three is 14 permitted. We asked for seven feet. 15 MS. GRAY: On one, on two, on G, and 16 on H and I you asked for five square feet variance. 17 Seven is -- two is permitted and you asked for 18 seven. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just a comment. I 20 drove back into the Mercedes dealership to see what 21 they had in there, and I think that they're 22 probably going to be probably pretty close to 23 what's- 24 MR. STOEPKER: (Interposing) We
114
1 actually tried to duplicate their size sign. We 2 went out and looked. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: It seemed 4 reasonable. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Why? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Pardon me? On size. 7 MEMBER GRAY: The height. On height, 8 lower it. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Not on height. I'm 10 talking- 11 MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Seven 12 square feet? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Correct. 14 MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem with 15 that. 16 MR. STOEPKER: H and I, by the way, 17 are internal signs too. They're set back 18 substantially from the property. I don't think 19 you're going to be able to see H from Haggerty at 20 all. It's to make sure you don't keep going into 21 the medical office building. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Shall we make a stab 23 at this? 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, go for it.
115
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sign -- I'll make a 2 motion that signs G, H and I be limited to six feet 3 in height and the size of the sign as -- signs as 4 requested. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Seven square feet? 6 MR. BRENNAN: Yes. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and 9 seconded on signs G, H and I- 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) 11 Different dimensions? 12 MR. CHAIRMAN: What's that? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Identical dimensions 14 they're requesting. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're giving 16 them six feet in height, and he's got seven square 17 feet to use, a maximum of seven square feet. Six 18 foot in height. 19 Okay. Is there any further 20 discussion on the motion? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 23 Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: They get six feet in
116
1 height and then size- 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Seven 3 square feet in area and six foot in height. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: For all of them? 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: All three of them, G, 6 H and I. 7 MR. STOEPKER: Per sign, correct? 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Per sign. 9 MR. STOEPKER: All right. Thank you, 10 sir. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 18 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 20 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That got rid of 24 a few of them. Now, we'll go back to the
117
1 beginning, might as well. 2 Okay. Sign B, which is the indent 3 Jaguar of Novi, correct? 4 MR. STOEPKER: Correct. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: The east elevation? 6 MR. STOEPKER: It's on the east 7 elevation, that's correct. 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't have a problem 9 with that one. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't either. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Neither do I. 12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Over in here. 13 MEMBER BAUER: I make a motion -- 14 I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Case 01-063, sign B be 17 approved as requested for identification. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and 21 seconded that sign B, variance be granted as 22 requested. 23 Is there any further discussion on 24 the motion?
118
1 (No further discussion.) 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 3 Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 11 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 13 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: D is done. Let's go 17 to E. 18 Now, E has been moved to the north 19 end of the building, correct? 20 MR. STOEPKER: Correct. And it was 21 reduced from -- to eight feet six inches. 22 MR. BRENNAN: In height. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So we're going 24 from -- it's going to be eight foot six in height?
119
1 MR. STOEPKER: This is it right here. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: So we really only need 3 a three foot six inch height variance? 4 MR. STOEPKER: Right. And I think 5 that ground sign is permitted, other than the 6 height. 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't see how any 8 sign by itself -- for a number of them. 9 MEMBER BAUER: No, it's not. 10 MR. STOEPKER: I understand. 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if it was 12 permitted, what are we talking about in square feet 13 of this sign? 14 MR. SAVEN: 37.5 feet. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: That is permitted? 16 MR. SAVEN: That's permitted based on 17 the setback off of Ten Mile and Haggerty Road. 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Okay. 19 Board members, discussion on sign E? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, now we're 21 stuck with the -- sorry, I should have asked, but 22 now we're stuck with a large sign, nearly a hundred 23 square feet, and- 24 MR. STOEPKER: (Interposing)
120
1 Actually, it's reduced. It's actually 45.5 square 2 feet, because it was reduced to the exact same size 3 as the other one. The original one was twenty-five 4 square feet -- twenty five feet in height, and the 5 area was 96.25 square feet. We reduced the total 6 area, the base of the sign, down to 8.6, and the 7 exact area of the sign is, give or take a few 8 inches, is 45.5 square feet, thirty-seven square 9 being- 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) We're 11 okay there. I don't have a problem with that one 12 anymore. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Neither do I. 14 MR. SAVEN: Square foot variance. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Three foot six. 16 MR. BRENNAN: Let's take care of this 17 one. I make a motion that sign E, square footage, 18 be limited to forty-five square feet; height, eight 19 foot six inches. 20 MR. SAVEN: Point of clarity. They 21 requested 45.5. 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Forty-five square 23 feet, and we'll have eight foot six inch height 24 total, correct?
121
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Correct. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll give you 3 that. 4 MR. STOEPKER: Thanks. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We got a second 6 on that motion? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion 9 on the motion on sign E? 10 (No further discussion.) 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam 12 Secretary, will you call the roll, please. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 20 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 24 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
122
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We're done with 2 E. Now we're moving on to F. F is Select Edition. 3 MR. SAVEN: Same thing. 4 MR. STOEPKER: Exact same size as D. 5 It's identifying we sell used cards. 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: And, that's on the 7 western edge on Ten Mile, correct? 8 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, you'll 9 notice that the setback from Ten Mile is a little 10 bit different than that of Haggerty Road, so it 11 will be just a little slight increase as the 12 requested variance, keeping the same square 13 footage. 14 MR. STOEPKER: Right. I think 34 15 square feet is permitted, and we're asking for 45.5 16 square feet. That's the standard- 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) 18 Actually, you're -- this would be the identical 19 size as the one we just approved for Haggerty Road? 20 MR. STOEPKER: Exactly. It's, 21 actually, the exact identical sign except the 22 copy's different. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Location is 24 different.
123
1 MR. STOEPKER: And the location's 2 different, and the product will -- 3 MR. SAVEN: Sign height is the same? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Eight six, yeah. 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make the motion 6 that sign F- 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Do we 8 need a separate motion? 9 MR. BRENNAN: Sign F? 10 MS. GRAY: They got a separate sign. 11 MR. SANGHVI: Okay. Let's make a 12 motion then. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: I make the motion that 14 in case F, the square footage be 45.5 square feet 15 with a maximum height of eight foot six inches for 16 identification of Select Edition vehicles. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved 19 and seconded that we grant the variance as 20 requested in sign F. 21 Any further discussion on the motion? 22 (No further discussion.) 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, 24 Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please.
124
1 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 2 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 3 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? 8 MEMBER FANNON: Yes. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. What do we have 14 left? 15 MR. STOEPKER: That's it. Thank you, 16 Mr. Chairman. 17 For the record, because we did 18 change -- I want to submit the -- so it's 19 consistent, the diagrams that I showed you so you 20 have that and the actual signs. 21 MR. SAVEN: That would be very much 22 appreciated. Would you just initial it with 23 today's date, please. 24 MR. STOEPKER: I will. And I also
125
1 will give you the photographs. Do you want a copy 2 of the video? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: No. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 6 MR. STOEPKER: You do want a copy? 7 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 8 MR. STOEPKER: I didn't change the 9 dimensions on here. I'm just- 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's 11 fine. 12 I think that wraps up -- anything 13 else for other matters? 14 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, 15 in your packet you received a letter from Mr. and 16 Mrs. Michael Medrosian that were before the Board 17 before the last meeting with comments about 18 superior service that was performed by this Board. 19 Frank Brennan was acting as chairman, and I think 20 this was very deserving. You guys did a fantastic 21 job for these people. 22 If you can remember, she was the one 23 that was wringing the hanky back there because she 24 was so nervous coming before the Board. She was
126
1 very appreciative in all the stuff that she wanted 2 to go on record to indicate her thanks to you. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: The only other thing I 4 have to say is we had four of our Board members at 5 the planning and zoning conference on 6 Mackinac Island. There is always good information 7 picked up from sessions and talking to the other 8 people, and sometimes just from the Board members 9 sitting down and discussing things themselves. It 10 is, like I say, always beneficial, but God, it was 11 cold. Anyway, there was information and knowledge 12 gained, and we're thankful for the support of the 13 building department to be able to do that. 14 Any other members -- or other matters 15 to come before the board? 16 (No response.) 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: This meeting is then 18 adjourned. 19 (The meeting was adjourned at 20 9:55 p.m.) 21 - - - Date approved: April 2, 2002 ___________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary
127
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby 4 certify that I have recorded stenographically the 5 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 6 above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore 7 set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing 8 transcript, consisting of 128 typewritten pages, is a 9 true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities. 10 11 12 ________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 13 ____________ 14 Date 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
128
|