| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, January 8, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I'd like to call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have all members present this evening, so all cases heard will be final. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a Board empowered by the City Charter to hear appeals
seeking a variance from the application of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes at least four members present to approve a variance, and a vote of a majority of members present to deny a variance. The Board consists of six members, and we have a full Board this evening, so all decisions will be final. Rules of conduct that we govern our meetings under is: Each person desiring to address the Board shall state his or her name and address. Individual persons shall be allowed five minutes to address the Board. An extension of time will be granted at the discretion of the Chairperson. There shall be no questioning by the audience of persons addressing the Board; however, Board Members may question that person with recognition from the Chairman. No persons shall be allowed to address the Board more than once unless permission is granted by the Chairperson. Only one spokesperson for a group attending shall be allowed ten minutes to address the Board. Are there any questions or additions to the agenda for this evening?
MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. Take November 5th, 2001 minutes off there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other additional corrections or updates? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, I would move that the agenda as amended be approved. MEMBER BAUER: So moved. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will use the December 4th minutes then. Are there any additions or corrections to the December 4th minutes? (No response.) MEMBER BRENNAN: Vote to approve. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to approve the December 4th minutes. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All those opposed?
(Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion is carried. At this point we have a public remarks section. Anyone that would like to address the Board may do so at this time. If you have something pertaining -- that's not to a case before us this evening, this would be a time to address the Board. (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close the public remarks section and we'll call the first case, Case 01-089, filed by Gregory Gnatek of 2023 West Lake Drive. CASE NUMBER 01-089 MR. GNATEK: Good evening. This is a continuation of the case that we had last month. What I've done is I've taken the plans and moved my garage a little bit, hopefully to address some concerns that we had at the last meeting. The changes I made, I've tried to address everyone's concerns and still give me the proper space to service the well that I do have close to my house. And what I've done, the changes I have made, the closest point of the garage that I
have proposed is sixteen feet from the street on the south side and twenty-two feet from the street on the north side. The changes also move the garage three feet from the easement as opposed to two feet from the easement, what we had last month, and this will also give -- keeps my garage four feet eight inches from the north side property line. And this garage is necessary to keep additional vehicles off the street. This will also give you the room to park five vehicles in front of my house as opposed to three. And in certain times in our area, I don't know if you've all been through the area, but the amount of vehicles that we have on our street, it makes it very difficult for travel during snow storms or summer weekends when people have a lot of company out there because there are just so many vehicles on the street. My intentions with this garage, and anything I do to my home or household, is just to improve the area. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the
audience who would like to input into this case? Sir, would you step forward, please. MR. ROSS: Yeah. I'm Jerry Ross, 1911 West Lake Drive, a neighbor of Mr. Gnatek's. I've lived at that same residence for almost 28 years, and in that time I've seen a lot of change in the area, and I encourage change, and when Mr. Gnatek came in the area and built this nice home -- and I think he just wants to continue to improve this area. Personally, I'm tired of seeing the cars in the driveways, and any garage would be a benefit to this area. I'd like to see this Board approve Mr. Gnatek's plans. I know that he's made some changes that you've recommended the last time, and I also know that the last time he was here there were no immediate neighbors that, you know, were against this proposal. I see no reasons that this Board should not approve what Mr. Gnatek has offered to improve our neighborhood. Again, if you've been in our neighborhood, you know the problems with the cars in the yards, and this would just enhance everything that he wants to do.
I encourage you to vote in a positive manner to this concern. Thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input in this case? Would you step forward, please. MR. Hager: Good evening. My name is Jeff Hager, 2109 West Lake Drive, and I live one house adjacent to the applicant. And, actually, I had no intentions on coming here tonight except I spoke to Mr. Gnatek a couple of days ago and he had mentioned that they had -- the Zoning Board had tabled his application, and when I had asked why he gave me a reason, and I said well, that seems reasonable, it's a process what one must go through, and then he had commented that there had been some letters that had been sent in in objection to his request, and I briefly had an opportunity just to evaluate some of the comments. And my comments relative to that are, people in our area need to put in its proper perspective that we live in an area that needs construction, it needs new construction, and we're in a situation where is -- there are homes that are in a surrounding area that are condemned, and the
applicant actually purchased one that was. And I had been in the area since 1994 and he had purchased a home that was essentially condemned, it was unmortgageable, and he bought that land and developed it into a brand-new home and improved the appearance, improved the property value, and produced an incredibly well-architecturally correct home. In that time period, he had commented about wanting to put up a garage, and I take the position that if something doesn't directly affect me in a negative way, then I certainly don't have a problem with that, and one of the reasons why I didn't attend the previous ZBA meeting that he had was because I couldn't imagine anyone would have any objection to that. So here's an individual that bought a piece of property that was essentially a condemned home, it was unmortgageable. He leveled it, built a brand-new home, and I am here to support anything that this individual would like to do. Thank you for your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input
into this case? Please step forward. MR. OLIVER: Good evening. William Oliver, 2009 West Lake Drive. I live three doors down from Mr. Gnatek. Mr. Gnatek has one of the nicest houses in our neighborhood. I know he's spent considerable time trying to achieve the look that he has. I know his architect personally, and know the lengths that he went to get that look. We've discussed the building that he wishes to construct, and I don't think it would in any way detriment our community. As the previous speakers have noted, he's done every effort to improve our community, and me, being in that community, would hope that you grant him this variance and let him continue to improve my street. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir, would you step forward, please. MR. KOSEY: Good evening. My name is Brian Kosey, and I live at 1523 West Lake Drive. And as the other comments you've heard, you can't help but notice the time and the cost that Greg went through to make his house look correct. His house is absolutely beautiful. I think that the
job he's done in that neighborhood can only make things better for the City of Novi. I strongly encourage you to approve his garage. I think that living on the lake and having docks and boats and all the other things that go along with living on a lake, it makes sense to have a garage, and the practicality of it, I think, far outways any encroachment or problems that he's going to create in the neighborhood. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close the audience participation. There were thirty-seven notices sent out, we received seven approvals and four objections -- four were sent back. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, at the last meeting there were two issues that were brought up, one being the fact that -- I believe Miss Gray brought it to everybody's attention, if we could
center the garage within the property rather than being so close to the property line. That was one of the concerns that we looked at. And the other issue was a setback. The setback of the garage from the front property line, it was only 15 foot, was not enough to get a car off the road at that time unless it was parked in a parallel position to the road. I believe those were the two major concerns. We did have to repost for -- or renotice for this particular change, and this is basically the information that's presented to you tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. One other thing I want to note on the objections is the objections that were raised about being an overbuilt lot and one wanted to see it further away from one side of the lot, but none of the objections came from West Lake Drive. They were all Penhill and Pickford. Board Members, comments and discussion? Mr. Brennan? MR. BRENNAN: Well, Uncle Don stole my thunder. I was going to tell the applicant that
there were two requests, he fulfilled them both, and I support the plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I wanted to make the comment that I wasn't so concerned about centering the garage on the property. I was more concerned that the -- increasing the width so there was adequate room around on both sides in the event fire equipment was necessary. Quite frankly, I wouldn't have a problem if he built on the easement line because I know nothing's going to be built on the easement; however, that may not be acceptable or appropriate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: This little dot, again, is your well? MR. GNATEK: That's correct. MEMBER FANNON: I think you've done a great job, too, and I have no problems supporting
the motion if Member Brennan made one. MEMBER BRENNAN: I sure will. In Case Number 01-089, I would move that the petitioner's request be granted as presented tonight due to lot configuration. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request as presented this evening. Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?
MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department for necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck. MR. GNATEK: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-095 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case 01-095, filed by Carl Wizinsky of 26850 Wixom Road. He's appealing the decision of the Planning Commission regarding a preliminary site plan approval of the Novi Prominade project. Sir, would you be sworn in by our secretary, please. MR. WIZINSKY: Sure. My name is Carl Wizinsky and this is my wife Marcia Boynton. We live at 26850 Wixom Road. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand. MR. WIZINSKY: Oh, sorry. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth?
MR. WIZINSKY: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case. MR. WIZINSKY: Our home is located on an 11.77 acre parcel on Wixom Road directly south of the Novi Prominade project which was approved of with a preliminary -- for a preliminary site plan on November 11th. We share a 770 foot property line to the south of their property, the north of our property. The Prominade property is actually zoned I-1. Our property is zoned R-1, but the use is RA, one home on 11 acre -- or 11.77 acres. The -- a consent judgement was reached by -- between the City of Novi equity partners in July of this year, after -- to -- which enables the owners of the property to build a 375,000 square foot retail center with four out lots on their property. The reason we're here this evening is to appeal the -- not the entire approval of the preliminary site plan but the approval which allows only a six foot berm between their property and our
property. We believe that this really does not meet the intent of the ordinance to provide buffering between noncompatible uses. We believe that we got to this position because of a long series of decisions from the City starting well over two years ago, and the chronology of that is included in your package. We also believe that during the meeting on 11/7, that the commissioners were presented information about a noise ordinance that was, basically, incorrect. Commissioner Kanetta asked some very specific questions about the noise ordinance and our protections through an ordinance, the noise ordinance. And, basically, I just believe they were unaware that truck noises are excluded or exempt from the noise ordinance. The -- I know this may be difficult to see, but this is the Target Store. The Target Store is going to be 125,000 square feet. And this is difficult to see, but these are semi-trucks. What they have done is, 50 feet from our property line they have- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Mr. Chairman -- why don't you bring this closer and
use this mic over here. Thank you, sir. MR. WIZINSKY: What the -- the consent agreement allowed for 50 feet of screening between our residential property and the I-1 property being used as commercial. And this is actually drawn to scale. I hired a landscape architect to do some drawings that would actually show the reality of the situation. The fifty foot berm -- a fifty foot allowance for the berm allows for a six foot berm. Now, semi-trucks are thirteen feet tall, so what we will have is a twenty-four foot brick wall, semi-trucks going in and out with a six foot berm. Now, the ordinance does allow -- or says a minimum six foot berm. But the ordinance -- the intent of the ordinance is to provide buffering and screening. The top of the berm -- and I will quote Linda Lemke in your minutes from the November 7th meeting. Linda Lemke indicates that the usual or the customary interpretation of the level of the berm is from the first floor of adjacent residential.
The top of the berm is the same level as the first floor. Actually, it's a little bit below the first level of our home. And that is, really, the basis and the reason why we are appealing this. We believe that we will have a substantial amount of noise pollution, visual pollution, and in speaking with another resident in Novi, Nancy Midst, who lives behind a warehouse, also the odor. I didn't even think about that, but diesel trucks also create odors. So a six foot berm, the same level of our house, the semi-trucks, is not buffering, is not screening. I just don't believe that if this would have gone through the normal process, through a Planning Commission, that this drive would be here at all. In your packet, at the very end of the -- I kind of thought there would be someone from the developer here with some more charts, but the entire -- at the very end of the consent agreement there is a diagram of the entire project. I believe that the drive could have been put on the industrial side and not the residential side. Basically, this goes north to Grand River, and
there will be two more large stores to the north, and those will be -- have their truck access on the east side, from Grand River, and they could have put the drive right down here. There's no reason in the world why the Planning Commission would not have said let's put the truck drive against the industrial property to the east rather than to the residential property to the south. In addition to, you know, Linda's comment, that traditionally or generally the berm starts at the residential level, that is also a part of, as you saw in the package, the ordinance -- the landscape ordinance has been under review for a while. The proposals in that do make that a requirement in the new ordinance. During the Planning Commission meeting, the developer showed a diagram of what the berm would look like. And, literally, they showed a diagram that covered the entire building with green. What I had contracted Greg Bowman, the landscape architect, was what this will look like in the winter at two years, not twenty years but at two years, and that's it. So that's the screening that is provided currently.
This is the scale of the building from sideways view. It's a 400 foot long concrete masonry building. I just can't believe that this would be approved. It's just hard for me to believe when, as you saw from my -- our appeal, we were not allowed to build a 30 by 40 pole barn for our horses within a hundred feet of the property line towards vacant industrial 12 years ago, so we moved our barn because they wanted a hundred feet for our horse barn, 30 by 40, and now we have truck access 50 feet from our residential property. I think that's about all I have for the appeal. We're certainly open to questions. My understanding is the Zoning Board of Appeal can amend something that the Planning Commission has done, and that's what we're here to ask for, for relief. I mean, if -- I'm not asking for the moon here. I mean, if I -- if we had gone through the Planning Commission, and I had the opportunity to go to the Planning Commission, I would have asked to move the drive to the east side, or I would have asked for a ten foot berm. It's still
I-1. I-1 requires a minimum of a ten foot berm. I didn't ask for that. I asked for an additional six foot brick wall. There's already a foundation in, there will already be a six foot brick wall. I ask for six additional feet to provide twelve feet of screening. We can -- we do not know that this -- we do not understand how this could impair or impede any of the intent for the use as commercial property. The only reason I can believe that the -- because I've asked the developer after the meeting if he would do that. So the only reason I believe that that -- they would not want to do this is the additional cost. I believe the cost of this entire project is about $80 million, so if -- the cost of the additional six foot brick wall on $80 million is probably a decimal of a fraction. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 20 notices sent out and we received no approvals or no objections. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Carl, would you please explain to the Board your other concern regarding the elevation of your home in reference to -- in reference to the property line? That was one of your concerns that you brought before me when we had a discussion. MR. WIZINSKY: Well, the- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Could you use the microphone that's there, please. Thank you. MR. WIZINSKY: Our house sits at about 987, and the property -- it really sits on a ridge, so it really drops going north and south. So the property to -- going north towards the development does drop, and the top of the wall -- and, of course, our house is an older home built in about 1915, and it actually has -- so there's probably an additional three-and-a-half feet from the ground to where -- the level of our house. So to -- from the ground to the first floor of the
house. The property does roll down, and the store is actually being built on eight to ten feet of fill, so -- they're actually two nonessential wetlands underneath the store, about right here and right here, that are the low spot, and the store -- there's -- the store will be built on eight to ten feet of fill to bring it up. So this line here actually represents a six foot wall. The -- my belief is is that whoever negotiated the consent agreement did not understand that you cannot get a six foot berm on fifty feet when you're not working on a level plane, and when you bring in the eight to ten feet of fill and you bring it down to the property line, you obviously -- the developer is going to be eight to ten feet above the property line because of the fill. Then when you try to add six feet to that, you can't get that in with a one to three in fifty feet. So they did put in this wall in order to have a berm on our side and a wall on their side to get the six feet. Is that what you were asking for,
Don? MR. SAVEN: Yeah. It was just to give a visual appearance of what it would be like from your property to -- the property line to where the berm's located, and I think that was it. MR. WIZINSKY: Right, and I -- I mean, I will admit, we do have some very large evergreens up here in front, but when you get towards the house, there's an opening here, that's to the garage, and we believe that we're going to be able to see, you know, a substantial amount above our garage because, again, the property rolls right down from the house. So this garage is actually much lower than the house, and then the property line continues down. So even with the eight to ten feet, we're going to see a lot of the building. And the main concern is really the truck access. I mean, if it was a six foot berm and all we were talking about is a regular parking lot, we may not be here, but with a truck access next to residential, we just believe that six feet is very inadequate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Building
Department, anything further? MR. SAVEN: No, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I spent a lot of time on this case. This is one of those toughies. And I visited the site, and it is quite apparent that the -- where the Target Store is going to be, by the time they add ten feet of fill, it's going to be very elevated. As I read the letter that we received from Mr. Schultz, it appears to me that we -- our first action needs to go on record as deciding whether this applicant is a person aggrieved, and I'd like to make a motion that yes, indeed, this person is, indeed, very much a person aggrieved because he is the adjoining property owner on residential property, a longtime Novi resident, abutting new commercial. So with that motion made, if there's a second- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Second. MEMBER BRENNAN: Laverne, you can call it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There's been a motion moved and seconded to find that the applicant is the aggrieved petitioner in it. Before moving on that motion, is there any further discussion on that? MEMBER SANGHVI: Not on the aggrieved party part, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: With that out of the way, continue on. MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. As I
understand it, now that we have found that the applicant meets the legal challenge, we can move on whether either to amend Planning's decision, or send it back, I would think, is the other option. I believe that there's enough evidence before us that we can amend their decision. I think that there's been significant information presented. And I have to acknowledge the applicant. He's done a lot of work, he spent a lot of money out of his own pocket to bring this before us. I think that he has presented a very strong case. I think the fact that the developer is already building a brick wall -- and by going another six feet we're asking him to put some more concrete, I can't imagine that that's a big deal. I have complete support for the petitioner here, and I think that he has been -- it's been unfortunate. At least he's had an opportunity to seek relief, and the relief is through our Board. I support him a hundred percent. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion?
MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with the previous speaker. Also, I just want to say that even though the berm meets the requirements, it doesn't really serve the purpose. There's -- obviously, the whole idea is to provide you screening. This is a residential piece of property, and I support the additional six feet. And on a side note, I'm glad the horses are not right next to the property line today. So I will also be supporting the additional six feet. MEMBER BAUER: I understand this- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Mr. Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: I understand that the wall will be on top of the berm? MR. WIZINSKY: Well -- yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: A wall going, and this would be an extension of the wall. MR. WIZINSKY: Yes. Actually from our side, and I really thought there would be other drafts and charts from the developer here tonight,
but this is actually a berm -- this is a berm going to the north. MR. CHAIRMAN: The bottom one shows it, I think probably because you have a wall there and the berm is going up to the wall. MR. WIZINSKY: Yes. You can barely see the wall, but basically that black line is the top of the wall on our side. On the other side there is between five and six feet of brick wall, and what I'm requesting is -- which I requested at the other meeting also, is an additional six foot brick wall. Leave the berm where it is. I believe there will be a requirement in the final site plan for opacity because the opacity doesn't even meet the requirement currently, so what I'm looking for is the six foot brick wall and then to meet the opacity standards in the current ordinance. Right now, the winter opacity is about 40 percent, and it -- I mean, it's required to be 80, so -- I don't think I have to take that up with you guys. That's -- other people will take care of that, but if we have the six foot additional brick wall with the required opacity, I think there will be substantially more screening.
Again, if we were to start from scratch, it doesn't even belong there. It belongs on the industrial side. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Schultz, do we -- if I understood Mr. Brennan's comment correctly, we have the right to say that although we may agree with the petitioner's request, we could send it back to Planning and say here's something, make them meet it; in other words, do the berm correctly? Is that another one of our options? MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the difficulty that I had with the way it was framed by Member Brennan is the use of the word amend the site plan. What this Board has the jurisdiction to do is to determine with Mr. Wizinsky's appeal whether or not the Planning Commission read the ordinance requirement correctly and applied it correctly. The Board doesn't have the authority to amend the site plan that's been approved by the Planning Commission. It has the ability to
determine whether or not it was read correctly. If you are able, after making that initial determ -- if the Board were to initially determine we think that the Planning Commission read it incorrectly because of X, then you would have the ability -- you would do one of two things: You would then either have a clear distinction in your mind as to what is required and you would say here's what we believe, as the reviewer of the Planning Commission's decision, is required; or the other alternative of saying we think the Planning Commission has read it incorrectly and we want the Planning Commission to go back and review the site plan with our proper interpretation, which is this is how it's supposed to read. And I guess, frankly, that's the problem that I have with the appeal here, because if -- either if you make the interpretation or you send it back to the Planning Commission, you're stuck with the problem that the language itself is pretty clear and pretty unambiguous. The ordinance has minimal requirements. That's the way zoning ordinances work, and the question is did the Planning
Commission correctly find that the minimum requirement, even if it may not be appropriate, even if it may not accomplish the intent and the purpose of the goals for this project because of elevations or whatever, if that minimum requirement is met, the Planning Commission is obligated under State law that gives the City the right to enact the zoning ordinance in the first place to approve that. The idea is that they're supposed to be objective standards and they're -- it's not supposed to be a question of intent or goals or objectives. It's supposed to be a calculation, do they meet the requirement, and that -- if you send it back to the Planning Commission without some explanation as to why six foot doesn't mean six foot, then they're going to have trouble understanding what you want them to do. If you make a determination here, your task is going to be to say we review or we mean -- we read this section not to require just the six foot wall or a six foot berm but to require a six foot berm and something else, and in the course of making that determination you're going to
need to rely on something more than -- I don't want to use the word sympathy, but an agreement with the property owner that he isn't protected by the ordinance. The ordinance is, unfortunately, what it is, and that's what your job is to do today, is to say what is that language in the ordinance mean. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. One of the things, when I was looking at this was, my first initial reaction, and having worked in the Planning Commission, being that -- and in which this discussion took place, was how could this happen. If the ordinance itself says that the elevation is established at the first floor of the house where the residential property's being protected, then they have -- they've clearly not met the ordinance, either the actuality or the intent, and I had a problem with that. I can certainly sympathize with the petitioner who lives at property -- on the property that is not only zoned residential but is also master plan residential, and we as a City have an obligation to protect his health, safety and welfare; indeed, his livelihood and his enjoyment
of his property, and if that means to me that -- I'm not thrilled with the idea of putting a six foot wall on top of a six foot berm. I just think it's going to be -- from the Target side it's going to be wonderful protection, but I don't think it's going to accomplish -- so I'm just throwing out some additional thoughts. I think the more appropriate action might be to send it back and say build the berm the way it needs to be built and meet the actuality of the ordinance. Thank you very much. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: The question being whether the berm is really the correct interpretation of the level, and what I see here is that it is not, and -- so that is where the legal interpretation comes in, the definition of where you determine the height of the six feet from, from the applicant's -- Mr. Wizinsky's side or the other side. And what do you read in that? MR. SCHULTZ: First, I want to agree with you, the first part of the statement, that we're really talking about a berm. I know there's
been discussion about a wall here, but there is no ordinance that talks about a wall. We're talking about a berm requirement in 2509(b) and how is that- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) I'm talking about that. MR. SCHULTZ: What the proponent has said is that that berm height should be measured from the first floor elevation of my house, and our reading of the ordinance -- but, ultimately, this is your call. This is what you're here to do tonight -- is that the ordinance -- and I attached it in the letter. You won't find that language about third floor elevation of Mr. Wizinsky's house anywhere in the ordinance. What the ordinance says is that it's a six foot wall -- or a six foot berm, and then the cross-section shows basically that it's measured -- that six feet is measured from the bottom of the berm to the top of the berm. Where you start the measurement -- or which side of the berm you start the measurement from is addressed in the ordinance, and it says you start it at the side that is the most beneficial to the adjacent property.
So if you had a property line that sloped down, as this one does, towards the neighbor's property, you wouldn't measure on the low side, you would measure on the high side so the property owner got the six feet over here and you might have the bottom of the berm over here being nine feet, not six feet where it matters. That's all the ordinance talks about. It doesn't say anything about first floor elevation. It talks about which side you measure from so you can be generous to the person affected. But it's still six feet, and you're talking about which toe of the slope, which base of the slope, you're starting your measurement from. Is it inadequate for screening this property? I don't think anybody disagrees that it is. The question is where -- what language in our ordinance would you find to make it be measured from the first floor elevation of the house, and I'm suggesting that's a difficult interpretation to make, but that's the question. MEMBER SANGHVI: So- MR. WIZINSKY: (Interposing) May I
-- MR. SANGHVI: Excuse me. This leads to another question. Really, we are talking about the letter of the ordinance or the spirit of the ordinance. The spirit of the ordinance, to me, really tells you that you need to provide adequate screening, and- MR. WIZINSKY: (Interposing) Just a minimum- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Just one second, please. And -- so, if it doesn't provide adequate screening, even though the letter of the ordinance says six feet is adequate but it doesn't provide the screening, or obscure or whatever word you want to use, that is not adequate. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the way I would respond to that is a court is going to look to the spirit of an ordinance instead of its actual language only if it finds it to be ambiguous. And if that's what you do, if you find the language that's in 2509(b) to be ambiguous and you're going to look at the intent of the ordinance, then you need to make that clear. You need to first find
that it's not as clear as the consulting supplier. The idea is the objective standard, but if you find it difficult to interpret, then you need to look at the intent. MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan -- or Mr. Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: I'm having a little trouble with the consent judgement itself, so when the consent judgement specifically says the buffer shall be a six foot landscaped berm, how can the City of Novi Planning Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals overrule a consent judgement? How can we take a position that we're a higher body than the judge that signed this order? That's one of my questions. MR. SCHULTZ: I think the Planning Commission actually asked the same question, and the response is that the Planning Commission, in addition to interpreting the ordinance and applying the ordinance, is interpreting essentially that consent judgement. We've all agreed that it's a six foot
berm. The question is where is it measured from, and the consent judgement doesn't give anymore explanation than that, so it really points you back to the ordinance, six feet as required by the ordinance, and that's the question; where is that six feet measured from, the property line or the first floor elevation of Mr. Wizinsky's house, and that's the tough question. MR. CHAIRMAN: My, I guess, feeling and thought on that line is that the intent of the ordinance and berm is to screen the difference in zoning of the pieces of property, and if what is presented is not doing that job, then there's a problem. Board Members, further comments or discussion? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm willing to make a motion just to see where the board sits. MR. SAVEN: Further discussion. I would like, if I can- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Please. MR. SAVEN: Couple things. We have two issues here. One is the height of the berm,
and the other is the inadequate screening which is being presented here tonight. And there's the screening which we all are concerned about in trying to meet the spirit and intent. Mr. Wizinsky is absolutely right. I dealt with the issue with a similar project in reference to a residential project dealing with a berm which exists adjacent to a residential development, even though it is very intense as far as the screening is concerned. What's being presented right now is a screen that we're looking at, is this adequate. Did the Planning Commission see this? MR. WIZINSKY: No. MR. SAVEN: They have no knowledge of this? MR. WIZINSKY: No. Again, I had to hire someone to do this presentation. Their presentation, unfortunately, it's not here, but they showed a car on the other side of the brick wall. Well, I'm not concerned about the cars. I'm concerned about the trucks. And their presentation of the screening, as I said, was way -- I mean maybe
twenty years. They represented it as two years, but it was just not realistic. It was wrong. MR. SAVEN: I guess the point that I'm trying to deal with is a berm has to be constructed, okay. You know that. To put a brick wall on top of a berm is inconceivable to me. I am really sorry. I can't see this. I would be more concerned about failure in that wall and something happening to that wall such that I've got a lengthy wall which is "X" amount of feet long and, certainly, the issue of the unstable ground conditions that's associated with that berm, and if I've got seven foot of fill in that area with a berm and the wall, the chances are any movement's going to take place, and any movement in a brick or block wall which allows moisture, it's going to be a maintenance nightmare. MR. WIZINSKY: If I may, Don, currently what has been approved does have a six foot brick wall- MS. BOYNTON: (Interposing) Retaining wall. MR. WIZINSKY: Retaining wall. MR. SAVEN: A retaining wall at the
top of the berm? MR. WIZINSKY: No. MR. SAVEN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to- MR. WIZINSKY: (Interposing) Okay. If I could -- I might be able to present some copies of stuff. If I could have this thing turned on. I'll pull you some -- MR. CHAIRMAN: If I'm correct, Don, there's going to be a six foot wall and berm built up on that, and they want six foot on top of that existing wall? MR. SAVEN: Right. MEMBER GRAY: Or somewhere on top of the berm. MR. WIZINSKY: Now, let me assure you, we are very open to the ten foot berm, and I want to repeat, that property is zoned I-1. I'm zoned R-1. That requires a ten foot berm with landscaping on top. MS. BOYNTON: But for the consent decree. MR. WIZINSKY: Arotta Royal, at that meeting, said that was not a special use. And that
I'd like to understand. If it's not a special use, then how can you put commercial -- how can you put retail on I-1 without special use? If it's a special use then we should have a ten foot berm. I am very open to a ten foot berm with landscaping on top, but you can't do it in 50 feet. I mean, that's- MS. BOYNTON: (Interposing) We're looking for a solution that's realistic. MR. WIZINSKY: Well, what I hoped was a very reasonable solution. What I need is to either move the truck access or a ten foot berm. I'm open. My priority, move the truck access. That's the most reasonable thing to do; number two, ten foot berm; number three, six foot wall. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: The resolution to this man's problem is it has to be done in Planning. There's no question it has to be by Planning, and I'll go back to my statement that I'm prepared to make a motion to move this along. MEMBER FANNON: Can I just make one last -- before you make your motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fannon?
MEMBER FANNON: If the property wasn't rezoned -- I'm not trying to be a lawyer here. This is not rezoned and today it is I-1 and will remain I-1, even though the consent judgement allows the use of B-2 and 3. Why doesn't the I-1 berm stay with the property if it wasn't rezoned? MR. SCHULTZ: The way the consent -- this consent judgement, like any other consent judgement, works, when you -- when you -- rather than rezone the property, if you enter a consent judgement and you allow different use on the property, in this case B-2, B-3, then those -- all of those- MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) Everything goes with it then? MR. SCHULTZ: Everything's carried along with it. And I guess, just to make this very clear, the City Council has taken a lot of this out of the ZBA's hands in the sense that it's determined where the driveway's going to be, it's determined what the uses are going to be that are allowed, and it's determined that there's going to be a six foot wall, and the only -- really, the
only question -- or, I'm sorry, a six foot berm. The only question here, as a matter of interpretation is, where do you -- how do you measure that six feet, and that's your job as the ultimate interpreter of the ordinance. The consultants have said you measure it the way the pro -- the Novi Promenade has measured it, and it meets ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission has said we read the ordinance the same way, the six foot is measured from the property line at the property line on their side, and that gives the greatest screening. Your decision is simply are those -- is the Planning Commission reading that correctly, and if you think it is not reading it correctly then you need to tell them -- if you're going to send it back, you need to tell the Planning Commission why they're not reading it correctly and how they're -- how they're incorrect. MEMBER FANNON: So -- just to finish, if you were to make a motion, what basis would you do this? Before you make it, can you give us an idea, a peek, of what -- how would you give
this -- how would you send this back? MEMBER BRENNAN: Number one, I think there's enough sentiment on this Board that this petitioner has demonstrated that the design as it sits today does not provide screening to residential property, as simple as that. I'll leave the design and how they fix it, to Planning. That's not our job. The petitioner has come before us and said what's being prepared to be done doesn't protect me, and I, quite frankly, agree. I don't have to get anymore detailed than that, that I agree with the petitioner that the screening is not sufficient, in addition to our previous motion that we've already agreed, that he is a party aggrieved. I think that in itself- MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) I have no problem sending it back, but I would imagine that the Landon (ph) Group will be right back in front of this judge. MR. WIZINSKY: If we have to go back to the judge we'll go back to the judge. MEMBER FANNON: I mean, I just don't know what basis we're sending it back to the
Planning Commission other than we think that's not fair. I'm not saying that I think that the I-1 should -- this is -- the City Council should hear loud and clear. But of course, it was a consent judgement, so it's not fair to bring it up, so whoever negotiated it must have talked, there must have been reasons and we weren't involved in that. MS. BOYNTON: I think you're -- can I speak, Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. BOYNTON: I think that you -- you asked earlier, Mr. Fannon, what the -- how you can act within the context of the consent agreement, and as you look at it you'll see that it specifically reserves the Planning Commission's rights to do the necessary combination of plantings and obscuring features, whatever it is, to -- with the objective of providing the screening contemplated in the zoning ordinance. That's on page 12 of the consent decree, and I think that that creates an opportunity, too. For clarification; simply say that the -- however the
additional object securing and screening is accomplished, wall, screening, berm height, that those are powers that still remain in the Planning Commission. MEMBER FANNON: We're just not being very specific what we're doing, that's all. That's what bothers me, and if you were very specific, I don't think any of this -- this is more -- I have no problems doing this, that they're not -- the Planning Commission has not provided you the screening as contemplated in the zoning ordinance, then they ask us what do you want. MS. BOYNTON: What do you want, yeah. MEMBER FANNON: I mean, that's the problem for me. I have no problem sending it back. MR. WIZINSKY: And, again, I think we're here because there was a tremendous lack of communication on behalf of the City. I'll review, again, from my letter, we came to this Board seven years ago when the property directly behind us was being completely gutted, and someone in administration made a decision not to do a site plan, which took away the need for a berm.
We came before the ZBA and they said -- they were -- they were sort of appalled that administration would not require a site plan which -- with such dramatic -- well, they gutted the entire building. They spent twice as much on the renovation as they did on the property, and someone made a decision not to do a site plan. So they -- and we got our -- we got the berm there, but I do -- I do want to go back to Linda Lemke's note. This is addressed to Mr. Schultz. Linda Lemke indicates that, typically, this section of the ordinance has been interpreted to be measured at the first floor elevation. If that's a correct statement, then that's -- and I have not done the research on this, but, you know, I've done a lot of work on this. I really wouldn't mind some City support on this. It would be good if someone could do some research. If this is how it's been interpreted before -- and, you know, Linda sits in a lot of meetings. Then what's the issue? Why wasn't it interpreted this time from the base of the floor? I mean, since -- and I have a copy of the proposed landscape ordinance changes. It's in there quite clearly, and that --
I see a draft from April of last year. If that would have been passed, we wouldn't even be here tonight. So if the interpretation historically has been from the first floor, then that's how it should have been interpreted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: I think in some respects I agree with Mr. Wizinsky, that you're presented -- if the question really narrows down to okay, we've got a six foot berm requirement, where do we measure it from, in a way that (inaudible) even further than the question of are we measuring it from the property line or are we going to measure it from some other benchmark like the first floor elevation. I think that it is a accurate statement that Miss Lemke, on her properties, has measured the height from the first floor elevation. She indicated at this time that her view of the ordinance, after reviewing the ordinance and after -- not just on this project but on other projects, is that it's hard to find an ordinance basis, hard to find language in what's in
front of you, that permits that interpretation, first floor elevation. If, though, you're inclined to make an interpretation that it's measured from somewhere else other than the property line, that really is your only other option in terms of deciding what the ordinance means. And you may want talk to Miss Lemke to find out how this has been administered over the years. The problem with doing that, there's -- you're still back to the simple question of does the ordinance language support that reading that it's measured from the first floor elevation. If you find that it is, fine; if you find that it's not, then it may just be a new interpretation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Where -- Don, do you know where we're in the -- looking at the revision of the landscape ordinance? MR. SAVEN: I can't answer that question. Maybe -- Lauren? At this time I would like to introduce Lauren McGuire from the Planning -- Plan Review Center, which -- she's the new kid on the block and she's getting faced with some real tough stuff right now.
So, Lauren, maybe you could answer that question. MS. McGUIRE: I could answer that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you step forward, please. MS. McGUIRE: I certainly will. Currently we had a session with the Ordinance Review Committee last week, or not -- what's today? This week -- and at that time they are sending it back for one more review. That will happen in February. And that -- then, at that point, it will go to -- go forward from there to the City Council. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If -- my question is, with the new revision, how would that apply to this situation? MS. McGUIRE: Mr. Wizinsky is correct. In the new revision, it does specifically state that it will be measured from the elevation of a residence, if that provides the greatest screening. In the ordinance now, the way it's worded, it says the berm height shall be measured from whichever side provides the most height for screening the residentially zoned property. That's
how it's quoted. It doesn't say from where. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Board Members, any further -- Board Members have any further questions? MEMBER BAUER: On page 12 of the consent, under B it says with an object, foundation and plantings on the berm shall be determined as part of the site plan review and approval, with the object providing the screening is contemplated in the zoning ordinance as permitted. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess I feel that the -- what we're looking at in the -- again, we're going ahead for interpretation of what the intention of the ordinance is, and in the ordinance review, that this is one of the things that they're looking at addressing that would rectify this situation. I think we need to take that into account and what direction we're giving from our decision this evening. I think that's what you addressed, Mr. Brennan, am I correct? MEMBER BRENNAN: That's one of my questions. I wanted to know when this ordinance was going to be looked at at taking the ambiguity
out of the whole situation. I still feel compelled that, given what we have in front of us today, without this being passed by Council, that our ordinance is ambiguous and it's not -- I think Planning needs to take another look at this. Planning needs to see this information. I think it will be very clear to Planning when they see this information that something needs to be fixed. MEMBER FANNON: If there was plantings all the way across there, six foot high pine trees all the way across, if we sent this back and said that the plantings on the landscape berm don't give the health, safety and welfare protection to the residents, is that something that we- MS. BOYNTON: (Interposing) I spoke with -- MEMBER FANNON: Can't we say that the landscaping -- I'm just trying to -- I know what's going to -- I'm not an attorney, again, but if this thing isn't passed right now, we're dealing with what we got on the books today. MS. BOYNTON: (Interposing) Well
-- MR. FANNON: -and these guys are pretty sharp. They've already been to court once, so our Board, I think, has to be very careful on what we do with this so that it just doesn't get overturned by some court and you end up with nothing. So I'm trying to figure a way myself to get it back to the Planning Commission with something specific other than- MS. BOYNTON: (Interposing) With a directive. MR. WIZINSKY: I spoke with Paul Evans of the Farmington Hills ordinance department, and -- because I was -- I'm beginning to do my research on decibel levels and noise. And, actually, just for your information, Novi's is very high. Sixty decibels is higher than a lot of communities that do have retail or industrial next to residential. Novi does not have a lot of experience at this right now. I mean -- and the ordinance shows that. But he said that they had found that the trees do not abate much noise for trucks, so -- and that's why I went with the wall.
But, again, the right-of-way -- if this would have gone through a Planning Commission -- I've sat at enough meetings to know they would not have allowed a drive on a residential side when there was a very clear other option on the east side, very clear option. So that is what really should be done. Second, a ten foot berm, it is still industrial; and, third, I went with the easiest solution, but if Don says that this is not a long -- this is not a good solution, I'm going to go with Don's -- with what Don says. That means we need another solution. Now, I want to get back to my other point about the communication on this process, and that's why I was talking about my 1994 encounter with the ZBA to get the berm. Our knowledge from the City of our desire for appropriate screening is very well documented, very well documented, and the City negotiated a consent agreement for a 375,000 square foot commercial center that is 25 percent bigger than the Home Depot and Kroger center on Grand River and Beck Road. It's a huge commercial
center. They did not communicate with me once, not even after it was finalized. I was notified by the DEQ that there was going to be a review, a wetland review. That was my notification from the City after 26 years. That -- that's negligent. It's wrong. Thank you for allowing me to- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: Hopefully, one last comment. I think the Board has to recognize that it can't solve issues that may have been created by the way the Council went about it. Settling the case and entering into a consent judgement, you're stuck with that consent judgement. There's simply no way around it. And related to that is, if we're looking at where we measure the six foot wall from, I think it's important to know that, with respect to this site, and it was permitted to be developed under this consent judgement, there's no way that they can get a berm in that met the interpretation they measured it from, the first floor elevation of the other property.
So I think you have to take that into consideration. And, you know, I wonder whether we're really talking about, from Mr. Wizinsky's point of view, the berm height or whether we're really talking about screening. And the problem with saying there's not enough screening as required under the ordinance, and we talked about the opacity that's required in the ordinance, 80 percent or whatever, unfortunately really isn't here in front of this Board tonight. Maybe that leads into what Mr. Brennan's getting at, and maybe what the Planning Commission or somebody ought to be looking at is, is the screening on top of the berm, which the Planning Commission found to be the right height, does that meet ordinance requirements. But that question may not be before you tonight. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: May I suggest that the ambiguity of the interpretation of the ordinance in the past, where Miss Lemke has stated it's generally been, I think that might be enough of an
interpretation for us to send it back to Planning because of our concerns not only with the height of the berm and from which side it's measured, but also the screening. I think Mr. -- I think the petitioner has the right -- or should have the right to readdress this with the Planning Commission through their -- through proper channels, because it's so difficult to try to figure out how this is going to be resolved from where I'm sitting. There's too much ambiguity, because if you continue looking through the consent judgement, not only what it says on page 12 but on page 17 under general terms, basically says however, where the express terms of this consent judgement deviate from City ordinance, the terms of the judgement shall govern. So we have contradictory statements on pages 12 and 17, and as Mr. Fannon said, how can we overstep -- I think the ambiguity of the interpretation in the past of this ordinance may be enough to send it back to Planning for them to take a hard look at it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go out on a limb here and I'm going to ask Mr. Schultz for your help. If the past ordinance has been interpreted that the measurement is from the bottom of the house, from the base level -- first level of the home, and this property cannot be measured that way, then, therefore, why could we not apply that a berm would not be used and, therefore, just a wall could take place of that berm? And I'm referring to page 3329 of the ordinance, letter C, and I'm -- like I said, I'm out on a limb here, but based on what you've just said, based on what Sarah's saying, based on all the other members, I'm just trying to put it back. And if we're supposed to do an interpretation, my suggestion would be that the interpretation is this: Given the facts that we have been given, that the determination has been in the past, even though it's not in print, and we are aware of that, that the measurements in the past -- and we can ask for support on this, or previous cases to document this -- but in the past, if the level has been measured from the first floor of the
house, therefore, that would give us a reason to measure this particular piece of property. Step two would be that if -- the fact that we're measuring from that house based on our interpretation, if this berm can't be measured because there's only 50 feet, then why can't the berm be done away with and a wall could be installed? And I don't know if that's out of our jurisdiction. I'm looking for support on -- or suggestions from other Members or the city attorney. That's -- I said I was going out on a limb, and that's my suggestion. I just hate to see these poor people bouncing back and forth here and it ends up in our lap interpretation, and we understand that we're supposed to do an interpretation and we can't solve all the problems, but maybe if we just jump out here, that might give us some direction. Thank you. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess, in a sense, it doesn't sound all that dissimilar from what Member Gray said a moment ago, that if you're
unsure about the history of how the ordinance has been applied in the past, or maybe you want some further guidance on that, starting with the Planning Commission then possibly coming back up here. In terms of whether or not if -- if the information is that a much larger berm would be required that could be placed there, then the ordinance does allow, in certain circumstances -- I'm not sure whether they apply here -- the wall could be substituted. Again, you're back to the same issue. In order to screen here, it would it be one tall wall. Sending it -- I don't think there would be any problem with sending it back to the Planning Commission for further information on the record about how the ordinance has been applied in the past, number one; and then, number two, for some sort of review of what's on top of the berm as it's proposed, is six feet measured at the property line, and whether or not the Planning Commission and landscape consultants can look at that part of their review to make sure that they, you know,
properly apply the ordinance. I think that will be, certainly, permissible. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Ready for a motion, or do you want a pencil version first? MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've covered enough. MEMBER BRENNAN: Let me try it and if somebody wants to doll it up they can, but I would make a motion on Case 01-095 that the petitioner has presented sufficient information to lead us to believe that there's ambiguity to the interpretation of the ordinance, as well as the presentation material presented tonight, which Planning has not seen, that would lead us to believe that, perhaps, there's not sufficient screening, we would recommend that this be returned to Planning for further review. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded that the case be returned to Planning for further review. Is there any further discussion on the motion?
(No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: We hope with that direction it will rectify that situation. MR. WIZINSKY: What does that mean, turning it back to Planning? I mean, this has been approved -- a preliminary site plan has been approved, and I don't quite understand what this means. MR. CHAIRMAN: What we're -- go ahead.
MEMBER BRENNAN: The evidence -- we have an ordinance that says that the measurement is taken in this regard, and yet we have Linda Lemke saying it's done over here. Well, we have some conflict. I'd like them to decide which is right, until we have it clarified by- MR. WIZINSKY: (Interposing) How do you open up a closed- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Let -- let me just -- I'm going to explain what my motion said. I'm confused on how we measure, number one; and I'm satisfied that you've presented me information that Planning hasn't seen, that tells me that you don't have sufficient screening. I'd like them to see this evidence, and that's what my motion said. MS. BOYNTON: He hopes that they'll act on it by reopening the- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) I don't know. MS. BOYNTON: What's their method? MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, you're not -- certainly, as I understand the motion, the Board is not telling the Planning Commission to go back
and re-open its decision on the site planning. At this point you've asked for information from the Planning Commission on how the ordinance has been applied in the past at its level, and more information regarding the -- and, essentially, possibly to look at whether or not the screening has been reviewed correctly, and I think the Planning Commission- MR. WIZINSKY: (Interposing) Then does it come back to the ZBA? MR. SCHULTZ: It would have to come back. MR. WIZINSKY: So you're just asking for clarification on an issue- MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) Correct. MR. WIZINSKY: -and then it comes back here. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MR. WIZINSKY: Does that mean I need to do anything? MS. BOYNTON: We need to make a presentation to Planning Commission because they won't-
MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You need to make a presentation to Planning. MR. WIZINSKY: So how do I get -- how do I do that? MS. BOYNTON: Because it won't be on the agenda. MR. WIZINSKY: Do I have to pay another hundreds of dollars to do this? MS. MARCHIONI: I can contact the Planning Department and there won't be a fee, and they'll put you on the next agenda hopefully. I don't know if they're -- how many cases they have. MR. SCHULTZ: Their next available agenda, this will be on as a matter referred back from the ZBA. And there won't be- MR. WIZINSKY: (Interposing) And then I have to come back here again? MS. MARCHIONI: You'll have to make another presentation to the Planning Commission. MR. WIZINSKY: And then come back here again? MS. MARCHIONI: And then come back here. MR. WIZINSKY: Well, this has been an
incredible amount of work. I've done this -- this is the second time I've done it, and I just wish there was an advocate from the City on behalf of the residents in these situations. Again- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) You heard it. MR. WIZINSKY: -it's not here. MEMBER BRENNAN: You just heard it. MR. WIZINSKY: Well, yes, but that means I have a lot more steps to do, and there's -- I have no support from the City. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the best direction and the best help we can give you at this point. MR. WIZINSKY: And I appreciate it. I'm just- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) And -- MR. WIZINSKY: It's just -- MR. CHAIRMAN: And, unfortunately, not everything is correct the way it should be aligned here, and I agree with you on that, but we're giving you the best direction (inaudible).
We agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and this is only way that we see and feel that we can address to help your situation out. MR. WIZINSKY: Okay. Thank you very much, and I know I'm a little grumpy, but it's been a long haul, and I guess I got farther to go. MS. BOYNTON: Full employment for lawyers. This is full employment for landscape and architects. CASE NUMBER 01-096 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case 01-096, filed by Don Marhofer representing Saratoga Circle and Camden Court. Is the petitioner here? Would you be sworn in by our secretary, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. MARHOFER: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: State your name, please.
MR. MARHOFER: My name is Don Marhofer. I represent S. R. Jacobson Development. MR. CHAIRMAN: Present your case, please. MR. MARHOFER: We presently are requesting an extension for a sign permit for two signs we have located -- I believe you have the maps in front of you. We're simply asking for an extension of those signs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me a moment. Would you take your discussion out in the hallway? MR. WIZINSKY: Yes. I apologize. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue. MR. MARHOFER: I was going to say we're asking for an extension for the sign permits. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: This is just an extension of sign permits. What I would ask Don is probably
to brief the Board on how many lots you have available. MR. MARHOFER: We have a total of a hundred and ten lots between the two sites. And, presently, we have fifty-two lots sold between the two, so approximately forty-eight percent to occupy. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were a hundred twenty-nine notices sent. We received one approval, thirty-five were sent back. That would have been my first question. Mr. Saven's addressed that. Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: Is there other things that have been put on these signs as we're seeing them today? MR. MARHOFER: As you see the -- I provided you photos of the actual signs. MEMBER FANNON: Yeah. Is that today -- up-to-date signs? MR. MARHOFER: To my knowledge, those are. MEMBER FANNON: Okay. I could have
swore I saw a little bit more on those signs tonight than what's here. So, there's a motion being passed based on what you have here? MR. MARHOFER: Correct. MEMBER FANNON: Nothing else, just in case I'm right. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think there's something that says odd lots available. MR. MARHOFER: You could be right. I can't tell you for sure if it's -- MEMBER FANNON: Well, due to market conditions and September 11th, I would make a motion that we approve the variance for one year based on the signs that we were presented tonight and no additional signage on the signs, if there is any. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request as requested. Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department. We wish you the best of luck. MR. MARHOFER: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-097 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number 01-097 filed by Chris Costello representing Autumn Park, is requesting an extension of one year for existing trailer located on lot 127. Would you give your name and address and be sworn in by our secretary, please.
MS. SKOLTON: Yes. My name is Colette Skolton. I'm with John Richards Homes. We're the builder in Autumn Park. Chris Costello was unable to make it this evening so I'm here in his absence. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MS. SKOLTON: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case. MS. SKOLTON: We currently have a construction -- a contemporary construction trailer on lot one twenty-seven in Autumn Park. We still have twenty-five more homes to be built in Autumn Park and would like to request an extension for one more year for allowing that construction trailer in that same location. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience with input into this case? (No response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: I have no objection. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm assuming that the -- it's been maintained and there's been no complaints or anything of that nature? MR. SAVEN: The location of the trailer is such that it's away from the homes. It's in a pretty good location. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 13 notices sent and we received no response. Board Members? MEMBER BAUER: Make it one year or until sold out. MR. CHAIRMAN: What level are you at at this point? MS. SKOLTON: As far as sales? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MS. SKOLTON: We still have 25 homes in there to build -- to sell and build, so we're hoping that in the year that we could be out of the construction trailer for sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board Members? MEMBER BRENNAN: Was that a motion,
Jerry, and I'll second that if it was? MEMBER BAUER: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request for an extension of one year. Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Is that one year or until sold out? MEMBER BRENNAN: Correct. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your petition request has been granted. See the Building Department for the necessary permits and we wish you the best of luck. Hope you sell out in six months. MS. SKOLTON: I hope so, too. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. At this time, the Board will take a ten minute recess and we'll continue on from that point. (A short recess was taken. CASE NUMBER 01-098 MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would like to reconvene the meeting and call our next case, Case Number 01-098, filed by Danelle Marshall of 1315 East Lake Drive. Is the petitioner present? MS. MARSHALL: Yeah. It's Danelle. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please give your name and address and be sworn in by our secretary. MS. MARSHALL: My name is Danelle Marshall, and I'm the owner of Little Nel's Custom Canine, which is in Novi, 22150 Old Novi
Road. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MS. MARSHALL: Yes. I just want to say I might be a little nervous. I'm not good at public speaking. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just relax. MS. MARSHALL: Okay. I'd like to start out by saying thank you for letting me at least come and try to get this variance. I've been a business owner in the city of Novi for three-and-a-half years, and I recently discovered an opportunity to not only continue my business relationship in the city but to become a homeowner, too. As you know, I'm requesting a variance for the city to run my business out of a second home on the property located in Novi. The front house, which is currently subdivided on 1350 East Lake Drive, would be my primary residence, along with my husband and daughter. The
second house, which is approximately 35 feet behind the front house, is where my business would be located. I'd like to stress that these homes are located on a main road and the six to eight customers I service a day would not greatly increase traffic. Currently, there's three separate families renting from the property, and the traffic level from that is higher than just a single-family home. My business hours are 8:00 to 5:00 Tuesday through Saturday, and I'm flexible if, for any reason, you would like to shorten them. And most of my customers drop their pets off in between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m., and generally pick them up between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m., a time when most people are at work normally. There will be no outward signs of a business present, and all dogs will be required to be on a leash while on the property. I'm not going to let dogs be running freely. I know many of the neighbors are concerned about barking. The business -- where my business is located now, I have about three houses
around me and -- very close to me, and I've never had one complaint of noise. Granted, it's a commercial building, but I've never had one complaint of noise. The noise from the dogs in the house would be controlled at all times, and I will purchase sound absorbers if needed, if there's a need. But, like I said, I don't have problems now. I have no intentions of keeping dogs overnight or letting dogs run freely on the property. My business is in no way a kennel or boarding house, nor do I want it to be. In closing, I feel a home occupation would create a more stable, loving and comforting environment in which to raise my daughter. This is the most important reason for my family's request that a variance be granted, because this would be give me the capability to be home with my daughter while I'm working. She could be there with me. Where I'm at now, it doesn't give me that freedom. Hopefully you'll take into consideration my plans and welcome me and family into the city of Novi. I feel the care a homeowner gives in his or her property is noticeably
different than the care given by renters, thus increasing the value of the home and homes in the surrounding area. Again, thank you, and hopefully you'll consider this opportunity for me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case? Ma'am, would you step forward, please. Could we have your name and address for the record, please. MR. SATELLA: Yes. I am -- this is -- I'm Mark and this is Eisley Satella (ph), my wife, and we live at 1317 East Lake Drive, the property immediate to the south of -- that's adjacent to the property that Miss Marshall -- Mrs. Marshall wants to have rezoned. And our objections aren't to anybody that wants to move there. Now, my wife and I are making our objection to the requested variance for the following reasons: We object because a business would be conducted in the business -- at the rear of the property. It's currently a
residence, thus turning the usage of that building from residential to commercial. Mrs. Marshall states in a letter, which there is a copy enclosed that you mailed to folks around -- that her family will live in the front house and the business will be conducted from the house in the rear of the property. We believe this is a violation Section 201(b), home occupation. It says the home occupation is conducted wholly within the main building by the residence, so for her to conduct a business in the back thus makes that a commercial building, which are other issues there all to begin with, turning residential now into commercial property. Mrs. Marshall also states in her letter that a privacy fence would be erected in the back of the property to obscure a designated potty area for her approximate 25 to 35 customers, dogs, per week to use. You know, the noise, the smell, let alone the sanitation issues generated by the feces and urine from such a large amount of animals is objectionable. I believe it's also a violation
201(b), home occupation, any home occupation that creates objectionable noise, fumes, odor, dust, electrical interference or normal residential traffic shall be prohibited. Lastly, in the letter we received from Mrs. Marshall, it states that three families that currently reside on the property and the traffic -- that currently reside on the property, and the traffic flow from her business would only increase as compared -- slightly as compared to the traffic flow from the three families. MS. SATELLA: That's not true. MR. SATELLA: Yes. My wife and I, we're the next door neighbors to these families, and, in affect, these families generate very little traffic. They're very quiet and they don't have pets that run around, again, urinating and defecating on the property. So, pretty much, we don't object to Mrs. Marshall buying this property for her and her family. It's the commercial aspects about it that bother us. And, you know, we wish Mrs. Marshall and her family well, but the business should be in a commercial setting in a commercial environment,
and we're not saying this to be as a cranky neighbor. My wife and I both are small business people. We own Vettestorations in Southfield and, consequently, being small business owners we know that businesses that -- businesses, no matter what you do, there's other things and other -- pretty much ordinances and things you have to and should fulfill for a commercial business, no matter how small the owner might perceive it to be. The fact is, you still have a great deal of traffic over and beyond now that's making a path into a residential area, making egress, so you would have issues of widening the road now, perhaps make a deceleration lane. MS. SATELLA: Handicap parking. MR. SATELLA: Handicap parking and things like that, and I just don't think it would be beneficial for Mrs. Marshall, nor would it be for the neighbor -- for the neighborhood itself. And I think it would also be damaging to other properties, the value of other properties in this neighborhood. Particularly, we looked at this property and we're leasing this property. I would
not lease this property to another business. I have business 15 hours a day. I want to come home to peace and quite. That's why when we saw this -- and, again, it's not impuning Mrs. Marshall at all, or her business, but being in the automotive repair business, a lot of our associates do have dogs and animals and they do bark, and then when you get two or three that bark at each other and bark at each other's property and who's who, so -- that's all. It's nothing personal, but I believe a commercial business should be put into the proper commercial venue. Thank you. MS. SATELLA: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? Sir? MR. OLSON: Good evening. I'm Paul Olson and this is my wife (ph) Mehe Olson. We live at 1312 East Lake Drive, catty-corner across the street from the proposal here. We also are against the zoning variance here. I couldn't have said much more than what Mark had said here. I would like to talk though about the additional traffic, the fact that it is residential, the fact that we did do some
improvements on the road recently to put in some bike lanes and pedestrian lanes and so on. It is a lake community where we have a lot of across-the-street traffic for pedestrians, so the less the traffic the better, as far as the residents go, as far as safety goes, and I think that's really the main concern. The other things that Mark had mentioned, such as noise and smells, and the fact that it being a business in a residence is just not something that we would care to have. Our property values are important also. MS. OLSON: And if you approve one, what if somebody else asks for another one? How do you stop them? MR. OLSON: We would like to have some new residents come in, you know, some permanent residents, that type of thing instead of -- a rental property would be fine with us, but the business just isn't something to have in a residential area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir? MR. Hessell: Hi. I'm Rick Hessell,
1314 East Lake Drive. I've lived there for about fourteen years with my wife. Approximately five years ago we built a new house on the same property, and we moved there initially and we stayed there and rebuilt a house on the property to raise our family in the neighborhood. It was a great neighborhood. It still is a great neighborhood. We have children now. They are two-years-old, four-years-old, and six-years-old, and we object to the proposed variance, the dog grooming business. We want to keep it a residential neighborhood. First and foremost, a dog grooming business will take animals with unknown propensities. I understand that she said that they will be on leashes and things like that, but dogs do get loose. We are concerned about the propensities that even the owner that will own the home and the dog grooming business is not aware of, concern about the health, safety and welfare not only of our small children but all the other children in the area. There are many more small children, two-, four-, six-years-old,
eight-years-old and so on. We're also concerned with, when it comes to the children, again -- there is a bus stop approximately -- I'm sorry. Let me go back to, we are the house directly across the street from this property. We are also concerned with the other children in the area. This dog grooming business would be about two houses from a bus stop where there's also small children being picked up on a daily basis. What about parking? We're concerned about the parking. There's a long driveway that goes in the back of the house, but there's not much parking behind the house. We're also concerned with the future, what other variances they may ask for, whether it be signs, fences, making it look like a compound to our residential neighborhood. We're very concerned with the possibility of the future boarding. Right now, if there's the dog grooming business in the house in the rear, there's also, as she had stated, two renters in the main house; one on the main floor and one in the lower level. We're concerned with that lower level possibly becoming a boarding business.
If approved, it opens the door to other homes in the area. There's many other homes in the area -- or property in the area with two homes on the property, and we're concerned with the future of more people asking for other businesses in area. In closing, we object to this variance. We're extremely concerned about the safety of our children, the esthetics of our residential neighborhood, the excessive noise and the value of our property. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience with input into this case? Please step forward, Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. Asa Smith, 1294 East Lake Drive. I think my neighbors have summed it up pretty well how we feel in the neighborhood. We are trying to make our neighborhood, as you all know, as pleasant and as residential-oriented as possible.
We have the request for a business that we do not believe should be located in a residential area, especially a business of this type. This type of an operation is designed and should be located in a commercial area. We would like to, as my neighbors have said, keep this as residential and as peaceful and as quiet as we possibly can; so, therefore, we are requesting that -- this evening that you deny the request for a variance and let's keep this property residential as it should be. And thank you for your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to input into this case? Sir, please step forward. MR. LEVY: Good evening. My name is Rubin Levy. I'm at -- going to be moving in shortly to 1509 East Lake Drive, and I'm on the other side of the fence here so to speak from everyone else. I currently take my dogs up and have had them groomed by Nel up there for probably about a year-and-a-half. When I go up and drop my dogs off --
I've known Nel for a long time. I think that she's been a great person up there. I drop my dogs off, usually in -- when I take my dogs in, I pull up, take them out on their leashes, they go in. There's very few dogs there. Usually I'm the only car in the parking lot. And I'm in there -- if I chitchat for maybe five minutes, because usually it's on my way to work in the morning when I drop the dog off if I do that, maybe I've seen one or two other cars pull up at that time, drop their dogs off and leave within the five minutes when I've been in and out. I know that the other residences around the area were talking on some of the things -- I will be moving onto East Lake Drive myself, as I said, and I would definitely not like a house that I'm building right now -- I was up here before a number of you oh, probably about a year-and-a-half or so ago, to get some variances, which we did obtain and finishing up there. It would definitely not be an area that I would be interested in building out and commercializing by any means whatsoever. I'm just recently married, going to
be starting a family soon. I know one of the gentlemen who was up here spoke on concerns about the dogs. I haven't seen any -- I probably have the biggest dogs that go up there, and I have a Dalmatian who sheds a lot unfortunately, so I get them bathed every two weeks up there, and he's about twelve and he has trouble jumping in and out of the back of my car. Most of the dogs that I've seen whenever I've been up there are smaller size little poodle-types and things along those lines, so from the standpoint of someone taking up the dogs and concerns about dogs getting out, I don't think that people would be taking dogs along those lines up and getting them groomed that are along the lines of angry dogs or violent dogs or anything of that nature. The potty area that's out there, I heard that as a concern. I highly doubt that that would be something -- I know that's cleaned every time I take my dogs up there, and what Nel has now is a pea gravel area where the dogs will go. You take your dog over if it has to go, usually goes to the bathroom. I've never seen an excess, and I'm
up there at least every two weeks with my dogs. I've never seen an excess of any feces or anything, nor have I noticed any smell unless it's coming from my dogs who just went to the bathroom up there. Traffic, as I said, if that's a concern by other people, it's been extremely, extremely minimal. I've been going up there for a year-and-a-half. I'm in, drop my dogs of, I'm in and I'm out of there, and it's during business hours. I'm a business owner also in the city of Novi myself, so I'm very aware and keen of having a business and running it and doing that to raise a family and get things going along those lines. Pets running around, once again, I know that they, at one time -- if I'm up there longer, might take my logs out on a leash at that time, stand out there and they might go to the bathroom and that would be it. I always pick the dogs up during the day at the same time. Usually when I pick up I'm in five minutes and out of there. Let's see. I heard a couple people talking about that being a concern during business
and you'd want to come home and you wouldn't want that because you're working all day. I do the same thing myself. I work very hard all day like most of us all do, but like Nel said, her hours are during normal business hours. So concerns along those lines, I always refer to the bus stop and things along those lines with children being there, I'm sure that if you were to allow a variance along those lines for Nel that it would be something that she would be more than willing to talk with the neighbors and finding when the bus hours were and things along those lines and broadening her hours around those types of situations to take away that -- any concern along those lines. The additional traffic, I'm sure there will be a little bit more additional traffic there. Like I said -- or like Nel said, excuse me she's cutting down the number of people that she has currently as customers. And I know that the lady who grooms my dogs right now and had her own group of customers is leaving, so I'm sure that that's going to be -- cut down quite I bit. In even talking to Nel about this for
the little while that I was talking to her, she explained that to me, along those lines, so a lot of extra traffic I wouldn't really see as a major increase. I can't tell the future, but from what I've seen and up there in the year-and-a-half, I haven't noticed that myself. And parking, things along those lines, as somebody stated, I park there for five minutes, I'm in and I'm out, so I know that that wouldn't be a concern along those lines. And the future of a boarding business, the last time when I was talking to Nel about this she said she was wanting to not have this business going for the rest of her life and not extremely long-term. My conversations with her up at the shop -- and I had just gotten a call from Nel today and asked me about coming up here and talking, so I just thought I'd mention those things. I'm moving in, like I said, on East Lake Drive, too. I bought my house, and I'm with everyone else in here with the idea, you know, that area is building up and making the houses
nicer and making the residences nicer and increasing values for all of us there. And, like I said, I'm going to be looking at starting a family here very shortly. I have a nephew who's five-years-old and another nephew who is four-months-old now, and I would never be looking to be in a situation, at all in any shape or form, that could put those children in any sort of danger along those lines. I've had my dogs, like I said, and they hug and tug and the whole nine yards on them, and that's the type of animals I've seen up at Nel's place also. So, that was my two cents. I was a little outnumbered here tonight I see, but hopefully you'll take that into consideration and- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Thank you. MR. LEVY: -I appreciate your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else in the audience. MS. WILLIAMSON: Hi. My name is Rebecca Williamson. I'm also a client of Little Nel's. And just a couple of quick
comments. It's always good to hear the concerns of the citizens, but my understanding is that she's looking for a variance for usage of the back house for the home occupation. Had she chose to use the home -- do the home occupation under the guidelines of the ordinance as I read it, I believe she could do it in the current house if she wished to do it in the basement. I don't -- I don't believe that that is her intent. Of course, she wanted to separate that from the house. I also have been taking my dogs for approximately two years up to Little Nel's. My dogs are my kids now because my child is in college, and I handle them with great care, as most people do. If somebody's bringing their dogs to a groomer, they're usually very well cared for, many times they're very expensive, there's always on a leash. My habit is to walk my dogs around the building first because they're Bichons, they're really hyper and they get very excited. And never once have I ever seen any dog feces or any waste outside, not once. I have
been to several groomers before. She's very conscientious. She does a great job. The building is always clean. It's -- certainly, there are children in every neighborhood, and I don't think we're on any campaign here to ban dogs in neighborhoods, because everyone's allowed to have a dog. Anyone's dog could get loose and hurt a child. I would think it would be more likely that a homeowner's dog might get stray or might get away from their own yard versus an animal that might be coming with their owners that are on leash. And we have leash laws to protect the animals in this regard. There's plenty of parking. I've been on the property. There's approximately six parking spots. The property is already a nonconforming use. Again, there are three tenants in two existing buildings. The first building would be turned into a single family residential home, and the second building in the back would be used for what -- the dog grooming business under the home occupation guidelines as they already stand.
It is not a commercial use. Again, it would be a business under the home occupation guideline. And if there would be a privacy fence that would be put up, as a homeowner and for property values it would improve the property. There is one property that is -- abuts this existing home that, you know, I guess if I had a home there, or even a business, I probably would want some privacy screening because it's not very well maintained, and in order to create more of a peaceful environment, that might be another reason you put up a privacy fence, not just to barricade or enclose in the property. I would just like to say that I would support Little Nel's business being in the area, would like to continue using her. She would like to have her business close to her home where she can be with her small child versus having to travel back and forth. Her child, of course, is just as important to her as the others in the neighborhood. I think that you will find that she's going to improve the property. She's talked about
several things that they are going to do, things that need to be done right now that are not going to be done. And that property is not going to be improved as it sits there as long as the current owner owns it. And you will not have -- you're not going to have the traffic that you think you're going to have. Whenever I've been up to the grooming building, I've never had to wait, as this gentleman mentioned. Very seldom is there more than one car there, so people come and go as in a situation like a day care. It's going to be very similar to that type of traffic or activity that you might have. So I appreciate your time and hope that you consider this variance so that she, you know, doesn't perhaps have to readdress and use -- put the business in the main house. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience with input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Building Department?
MR. SAVEN: Basically what you're going to be looking at is the fact that this is -- is this a home occupation pursuant to the ordinance in itself. Number one, is it -- there is an addition of a home to the rear of the building, the existing structure there; and, number two, is the fact that is there any objectionable noises, odors, trafficking, and that's why she's here today. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were thirty-nine notices sent out, and we received ten written objections along with the other input we received here this evening. Board Members, comments or discussion? Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Mrs. Marshall has been a viable part of the community on Old Novi Road just south of Thirteen Mile, and I am aware of her traffic volume that she generates. Living in the area, Mr. Reinke, I'm sure you are, too. I'm also fully aware that there are many -- not many, but quite a few commercial
buildings in that immediate area that are going up for sale right now. I know from living in the area and being active in the area for many, many years how hard we have fought to get the traffic down. The only existing other commercial occupancy within the Twelve -- Thirteen Mile to Fourteen Mile stretch was at 1320 East Lake Drive, which used to be Lillian's Party Store. And some, perhaps, 15 years ago a gentleman purchased it and converted it to residential. The old party store frontage is now a two-car garage. There is existing commercial zoning up on the corner of Fourteen Mile and East Lake, which at some point will probably be built. There's existing commercial at Fourteen and Decker, there's proposed commercial at Thirteen and Decker. In reviewing the terms under the code, the home occupation is conducted wholly within the main building by the residents. The second building probably at one time was a garage that was converted, as many of these -- the old cottage area was converted into multiple -- years
and years ago. As Ms. Williamson said, the area -- this property is already nonconforming. I would have a major problem in increasing the nonconformity when what our intent should be is to get that to single family residential. As far as home occupation shall not be carried on to an extent so as to require parking in excess of that required for the residential structure in which it was located, if it's a triplex now, you would have potentially six vehicles, figure maybe twenty cars a day. She's talking thirty-five to forty-five clients a week. I thought I heard I her say sixty-eight a day- MS. MARSHALL: (Interposing) Six to eight. MEMBER GRAY: Six to eight? MS. MARSHALL: Yes, sorry. MEMBER GRAY: I'm also looking at 30 -- in her letter she says 35 to 45 dogs a week. If they're dropped off in the morning and they're picked up in the afternoon, that's a minimum of 70 to 90 trips additional a week for that property. No matter how much screening you put
in, you cannot screen adequately for pets. My next door neighbors have all sorts of screens up, they have privacy fences, and when I go out at night, when I turn on my back light, I hear three dogs barking. Now, I don't mind the dogs barking because they bark when they hear something. That's what I appreciate them doing. Finally, any home occupation that creates objectionable noise, fumes, odor, dust electrical interference or more than normal residential traffic shall be prohibited. A dog grooming business, a dog sitting business, any home business that is not incidental, and by incidental I consider that to be an office perhaps -- says right in here shall be prohibited. Piano lessons, we don't prohibit that. That's incidental. Art classes, we don't necessarily prohibit. That's incidental. This is a different ball, and I would hesitate to open the door, because as other neighbors have said, there are so many multiples in that area that used to be garages that were converted to apartments years ago, that if we open the door for one we will be seeing more people in
here, and I don't think that's what the City wants in that immediate area. This is a residential collector street. It is not a main road. The main roads are Thirteen Mile, Old Novi and Decker. This is a residential collector street. And with that, I will thank the Board for your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Other Board Members, discussion or comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to act on Miss Gray's comments, that I live up in the area also. I've driven by your business, and everything is maintained very well, but I can't support putting this type of business in a residential neighborhood. As much as I understand it -- and I would like to see the area and the house that you're looking at fixed up and everything, but I can't pay that price for -- to be fixed up that way, for that kind of use. Board Members, comments or discussion? (No further discussion.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the Chair would entertain a motion in the case. MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, just a quick comment before the motion, just to point out that this is use variance and we're looking at the hardships -- the unnecessary hardship standard rather than the more deferential practical difficulty standards. You have the unnecessary hardship standard for a use variance, can the property be used for any use already permitted under the ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone venture a motion on this case? MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, in Case Number 01-098, I would make a motion that the variance be denied due to the fact that there is -- there hasn't been shown any unnecessary hardship that the property can't be used as zoned. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny the variance as requested. Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, would
you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Mr. Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your petition has been denied. MS. MARSHALL: Okay. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-099 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number 01-099, filed by Lisa Parmentier of Patisserie Parmentier. Could we have your name and address and be sworn in by our secretary, please. MR. PARMENTIER: Hello. My name is
John Parmentier, Patisserie Parmentier. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. PARMENTIER: Yes, I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please present your case. MR. PARMENTIER: Okay. We're looking for a mixed use variance. We've been in Novi doing business for the last five years. We're trying to get into this building on Grand River. Right now it's zoned for complete retail. We're looking to do retail with some wholesale, which is what we do now. We're in a very small business looking to expand. We can't do so in the place that we're at. So we're in a large industrial building where we take over a small piece of that. We're looking to increase our retail part of our trade where we do all custom retail. It's not a storefront where you would come into and just buy doughnuts or bread or something like
that. We do custom work where we do sculpted cakes and wedding cakes and sweet tables and things like that. We're looking to have a larger area where our customers come to meet with us, and we got a display area with various cakes and things set up and plan parties. We do a small amount of wholesale. We do like Whole Foods Market Stores. But, again, it's custom work where we do custom cakes and things for orders that are done at their stores and sent out. We have very little traffic that comes in and out. We get a couple deliveries a week, not really large trucks. We get one semi that comes in a week and one other small truck from deliveries. And then our deliveries are made in a small -- just a regular van, which is what will continue to be. We're not looking for a lot of increase in traffic because it is just meetings where people come into, and then most of the cakes and things we deliver to different hotels and clubs and Temples and things within the area.
That's basically it. That's what we're looking for. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience with input into this case? Could we have your name and address for the record? MR. BRYANT: Yes. My name is Bill Bryant, and I own the property, and I think that -- the building sits way in the back of the property. It was built there a long time ago, and I think his business would be very good seeing as there wouldn't be a lot of traffic on the road nor coming in and out. I think it would be a good -- good for me, good for him, and good for the community. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. BRYANT: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please step forward. MS. McGUIRE: Lauren McGuire, landscape architect from the Planning Department. I do have two aerials here that I think might be helpful to you in making your decision. This is the property right here.
There are -- this is RN-1 behind it, and it's NCC zoning on either side of it. This is the same piece of property just in a larger scale, if that helps you to visualize it. I believe this is the building. It is located behind the other building, so it's difficult to see from the roadway. MR. PARMENTIER: I do have photos showing the building in the front and the building in the back, if I can. This is Grand River right there, and then this is -- the building in the back is the building we propose to use, and it sits behind this other building. It's the -- a scuba place. The building right next door to it is a -- it's a new building going in, the Brateman (ph) Medical Center right next to it, so we sit a good -- MR. BRYANT: Behind Grand River, you're about 270 feet from there. MR. PARMENTIER: From the road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience with input into this case? (No response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: There were twelve notices sent and we received one approval and two were sent back, one objection. The objection says we don't need more development in the city -- commercial development. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Once again, this is a use variance. Basically what Tom had indicated before in the previous case would apply in the particular area. What you'll really be looking at is the wholesale -- amount of wholesale work that's being performed on this particular job. The intensity of that particular use is probably something I would be looking at. As indicated, this is NCC district where retail is required. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. If I'm interpreting this right, really, with the wholesale business, that would actually generate less traffic than complete retail, am I correct in that? MR. PARMENTIER: Yes, it does. It's much less because we're not looking to have a lot of traffic. We set up meetings to do things. We
do custom work where it's larger parties, so we have a few customers a week. Our wholesale -- we've got one main store that we deal with, and it's our small van that goes out each day, once a day, and that's the extent of what the traffic is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board Members? Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Parmentier, one of the questions I had that I didn't see addressed in here, and if I overlooked it I apologize. What is the percentage of retail versus wholesale that you do? Perhaps that might help us make our decision. MR. PARMENTIER: We're -- at this point we're probably about -- this is approximate. We're about, probably, 40 percent retail and 60 percent as far as our sales goes, give or take. What we're looking to do is increase -- I don't want to increase wholesale. Our biggest thing is the custom work. That's what's we do. Wholesale, unfortunately -- I mean, it's pays, you know, it pays a portion of the bills, and that's
what it is. I want to increase the customers. I got a great customer right now. It pays our bills on time. We don't need anymore hassles with that. So we're looking to -- that's why we want to move, because where we are we can't have a good -- we don't have a large area where we can meet with customers or have nice displays set up. It's just -- we're just within one kitchen. We'll have a small kitchen area and a nice meeting area and display area. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. I've been in this building before. I was in it when the limo company was in it, and I really think that we need to be a little more flexible with this economy. I know that's not a basis for a hardship or for a use variance, but I really don't have a problem with -- with this use going in there. I think it is an ideal location. It's certainly going to be less noise than some of the past occupants have been, and that's a concern with the residential to the rear and to the side, but I certainly can understand why they would want to be here, and I think it makes sense. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the thing is, too, is looking at the use of what they're working at and what they're working towards. They're really working towards the intent of the ordinance, of going towards retail rather than wholesale, and the wholesale is -- like he said, it's paying the bills right now until the other part is built, so I think really that they're almost beating the basic intent of the ordinance as they're operating. Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: Kind of a lead in into my going out on a limb here a little bit. I think it's important for the Commissioner -- for the Board to recognize that the use variance is for -- every petitioner comes before you, it's supposed to be a pretty hard thing to get in the sense that it's a high standard. In this case, I think you have an alternative way of looking at it that both Member Gray and the Chair have pointed out. You're throwing out the word wholesale, and I guess to me that's Awrey's or Wonder Bread or something like that. I'm not sure what this petitioner is describing for you tonight really wouldn't fall
under the intent of retail as opposed to wholesale. I think it would be within the Board's purview, if it wants to consider this -- I'm not suggesting that they do it -- to -- rather than granting a use variance, determine that the use that they have put in the written documentation, the use that Mr. Parmentier has discussed today is permitted, you know, based on those facts that have been presented as akin to a retail use and not the kind of wholesale use that the ordinance is trying to preclude. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board Members, further -- Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: If the Board's so inclined to look at this favorably, I would suggest that we keep this to this petitioner. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Further comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: One last parting word. It ought to smell a lot better, that's for sure. This a tough location. This is buried back there, and if these guys can make it
work, I'm -- I'll support this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Only comment is I'm distressed to find that he hasn't brought any samples with him. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: No further discussion, Chair would entertain a motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I move in Case 01-099 the petitioner's request be granted due to the hardship shown because of the location of the business. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Discussion. And we want to limit it to this party only, the variance to this party only. MEMBER SANGHVI: And the variance would be just to the current applicant. MR. CHAIRMAN: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: I thought we needed to change that this is not going to be a use variance.
MR. SCHULTZ: It's up to the Board. I guess -- I question whether it meets the use variance standard, but I certainly would not have a problem with the Board saying, as a matter of interpretation, this is a permitted use based on the use that was described and limited only to that use. You know, obviously, it's the Board's motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that's really been covered and addressed in the motion (inaudible), whether it's presented as the use. Further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department for any necessary paperwork. We wish you the best of luck. MR. PARMENTIER: Okay. Thank you very much. And can I ask for a five-day waiver so that we can start getting the permits. MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: Can you handle that? MR. SAVEN: We'll try. MR. PARMENTIER: Okay. CASE NUMBER 01-100 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number 01-100 filed by Michael Zambricki representing Scott Shuptrine. MR. ZAMBRICKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael Zambricki here on behalf of Scott Shuptrine. Also with me is Mr. Brian Noble, the store manager, and
Mr. Ed Phillips of Phillips Signs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you give your name and address and be sworn in by the secretary. MR. ZAMBRICKI: Certainly. My name is Michael Zambricki. My office is located at 6500- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let me stop and repremis it. Are you an attorney? MR. ZAMBRICKI: Yes, I am. MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't need to do that. Sorry about that. Please proceed. MR. ZAMBRICKI: Okay. We're here today for the sign variances that's outlined on the agenda. I wish to point out that the agenda does mention that there are two variances. I spoke a little earlier with Sarah to try to clarify that since there was really only one sign variance that we were requesting in the application. She deferred to Mr. Amulch (ph) who requested that two sign variances go on the agenda simply to note to the Commission that there are currently two signs existing on the property. And as indicated in my letter, and I
hope you all received a copy of my letter, it's a two-pager that was sent with the application. In addition to some of the sign -- excuse me, the renderings that were provided that do show what it is that we're intending to achieve here this evening. What I would like to do is to show the rendering on the overhead, if I might that indicates the sign as shown to scale. This is a 125 square foot sign as measured under our ordinance. It's approximately 61 inches by 295 inches in size. The hardship that has been displayed right here is that we've got a significant size building. The location of the building is currently on the inside of a curve as you enter into the West Oaks Shopping Center. And, of course, it's a very busy shopping center. And I hope you are familiar with the location of Scott Shuptrine. We're trying to make it easier for more people to find the location of Scott Shuptrine. Currently, it has the two signs at the extreme right and left edges of the building as
you face it from West Oaks Drive. And on a typical day, the store manager has advised me that he'll typically get between ten and fifteen calls per day asking where our store is located. He will typically provide information to them saying that it's located at this shopping center somewhere in between the Art Van Store and the Value City Furniture stores, and it's pretty well up to the consumer then to try to locate it within that area. And from time to time we do have a number of customers who are unable to find the sign -- or the store simply because they drive by it. What we're trying to achieve here is to relocate one of the signs to show the sign above the entrance as is displayed here. Currently in that area there is no signage at all. As I mentioned before, the two signs are at the extreme edges of the building. We feel that by locating the sign to the central entrance, it's typically where the eyes are drawn from the consumer who's looking for the location of the building that they're driving to. There are a number of neighboring
stores in the vicinity, all that have significantly larger signs than our current signage, and even larger than the signage that we're requesting here. For example, some of our competition, Value City, has a 236 square foot sign; Bed, Bath, and Beyond, Jo-Ann's and Kohl's all have larger signs, and I've indicated the size of those signs in my accompanying letter. Some of the other furniture stores in the area, some of the other competitors, all have larger signs than Scott Shuptrine does, including Gorman's right on Novi Road, which has two signs, a monument sign in addition to the building sign; Ethan Allen, Newton's, Art Van Furniture, Hagopian. So there are a number of precedents that we feel have been logically made, that the Board has made the appropriate decisions in those determinations, and we take no exception to that because we feel that, given the commercial nature of those properties, that it's appropriate for -- for the City to make it easier for customers to find their destination. The orientation of this building and
of the signage that we're requesting would be simply to the middle of the shopping center, would not create any additional confusion, any traffic confusion simply because it's directed toward the interior, not on any major thoroughfares such as Novi Road. We feel that the scale of the 125 foot sign is appropriately and tastefully done. It's discreet. The lettering will be black lettering against a white background. We feel that we've shown good faith in trying to work together with the community. There is one other point I'd like to mention, is that because of the way that the ordinance measures the signs, we take a look at, of course, the highest points and widest points and essentially box it in and calculate that as being 125 square feet. But you notice that there's a lot of air. It's because of the stylized Ss and the height of those Ss in the sign that we've had since, what is it, 1927, that -- the size of the sign really doesn't look at all as large as the 125 square foot that it's measured to be.
So we believe that the spirit and intent of the ordinance would be achieved by granting this proposal. If I might also turn to another rendering I got with the 40 foot sign that would be allowed by ordinance, I think that it looks a little bit small according to scale, and it doesn't stand out. This one does stand out much better, the other one that was shown before, and I think it does so in a tasteful manner. And those are the reasons that we're requesting this variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience with input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 16 notices sent and we had no response. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: I'll indicate that -- that there are going to be two signs on this building. One will be taken down, correct? MR. ZAMBRICKI: Correct. MR. SAVEN: And this other one you're
proposing to install. The location of this building is very peculiar. (Inaudible.) If everything was done according to the interior of the complex rather than facing out towards -- facing out towards Novi Road where there's definitely visibility at that time. And, as always, yeah, we do calculate air. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Well, I've looked at this building for a long time, and I -- one of the three things I really like about this building is the fact that the facade has always been so elegant, and I really hate to see you put a sign on there. I don't have a problem with the two signs that are there, and what I have been wondering since this case came before -- came in the packet is, why aren't you contemplating putting directional signs on the road? You had -- could do it over on the north side, you could do it on the south side and on the west side of the building. We have directional signs on roads throughout other shopping areas in the city. In fact, we, as a
City, are even putting them up on Twelve Mile Road to direct people to go to the various shopping areas. And rather than clutter up the front of your building, which is very beautiful architecturally, I'm wondering why -- and you may have considered them, but why aren't you coming forward with a proposal for directional signs down at street level where people's eyes are? Thank you. MR. ZAMBRICKI: Well, it's our belief -- thank you very much, if I may answer. In response, we think that, you know, a single elegant sign like this -- and I think that it is in the eye of the beholder, but we believe that it really does look very tastefully done. Most of the people that we've shown this to -- as a matter of fact, all the people that we have shown the suggested rendering to have thought that it was very well achieved. We think that by putting multiple signs would really clutter up the landscape, and we're trying to leave that as clean and tasteful as possible. We'd rather have the focus -- a singular focus, that being toward the entrance of this main
building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, I've been in your store many times, and I have always been struck why there wasn't a sign over the entrance. I would suggest that you take your existing sign and move it to that location, and it might solve many of your problems. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members, comments or discussion? Mr. Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: I was trying to figure out, couldn't you just take one of the signs that's there now and put it over the front door? MR. PHILLIPS: Excuse me a minute. My name is Ed Phillips, Phillips Sign and Lighting, 40920 Executive Drive, Harrison Township. The sign construction that presently exists at that site is halo lit channel letters. That does not lend itself at all to this application. Number one, they're too small. They're going to be much like the drawing you saw a
moment ago, the 40 square foot drawing; number two, they are a halo. They're a back lighting situation. On a curvature in a very varied background such as all the code moldings and all the molding, the structure -- the elements that make this thing so pretty. The lighting would not work. There would be highlights, low lights, very inadequate, totally the wrong halo light on the walls of this building. And just as you can see, it would not work. It would be highs and lows in the lighting, and that would not be even. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm not a sign guy, but that 40 square foot sign showed on the rendering is not what's on the wall. What's on the wall right now is 67- MR. PHILLIPS: (Interposing) Exactly. MEMBER BRENNAN: -which is another 50 percent larger than 40 square foot- MR. PHILLIPS: (Interposing) Right. It's a little thinner -- MEMBER BRENNAN: So don't tell me that this sign looks like this because it doesn't.
MR. PHILLIPS: It's a pen stroke on the wall right now. MEMBER BRENNAN: It's significantly larger. MR. PHILLIPS: Right. The lighting aspect of it would absolutely not lend itself. MEMBER BRENNAN: There's been signage on that building since 1990. I haven't seen a going-out-of-business sale. I think the signs are in the wrong location. I'm not stating that I don't like them, but I'm not compelled with what's been presented thus far that there's any reason to grant a larger sign. MR. ZAMBRICKI: What we're requesting is that the reason for the larger sign would just be for practical difficulty that people do have in finding the building. We feel that the variances that have been granted to the other businesses in the community have been done for good reason, and we'd rather come up to standard by having something that's smaller than those signs but be granted equal footing with those other businesses that we have to compete with. MEMBER FANNON: Both signs that you
have up there now equal how many square feet? MR. ZAMBRICKI: One is 67 plus the other's 57, so it would be 127. MEMBER FANNON: 134.1. MR. ZAMBRICKI: Excuse me. MEMBER FANNON: Is it adding the 67.5 and 34.1 which was back in 1990? It's about a hundred square feet of sign? MR. ZAMBRICKI: That's correct. MEMBER FANNON: So why wouldn't you ask to take both signs down and put one over the door? MR. ZAMBRICKI: What we would like to do is have one sign on the front of the building and the other sign on the rear aspect of the building so that the customers who are driving in from the other access road off of Novi Road would be able to see it from that direction as they're coming in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER BAUER: I personally can't see any problem with what he's asking for.
MR. SANGHVI: No, I don't either. MEMBER BAUER: None whatsoever. It's for identification. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) It's a very elegant store, and I think he deserves it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's an elegant store, and I think for the approach that they're using, signage, location and direction is better than what's there. The only problem I have is I don't think it really warrants a hundred twenty-five square foot sign up on top of the building. That's where I have a problem. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it at all. MR. ZAMBRICKI: If I may counter, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, the other buildings can be seen from quite a distance; Value City, Bed, Bath, Beyond, Jo-Ann's, Kohl's, all those other buildings can be seen from Novi Road. You can't see anything from Novi Road. MEMBER SANGHVI: I know. But that's why they need a larger sign, that far back. You are not visible from Novi Road at all, so the
size of the sign is not going to make you visible from Novi Road, whatever sign you put on there. You are located in a different place. Those signs are bigger because they can be visible from the distance from Novi Road, so they are not comparable. You are comparing apples and oranges. MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Yes, sir. MEMBER BRENNAN: They're only allowed, by the ordinance, one sign? MR. SAVEN: That's correct MEMBER BRENNAN: So in 1990 we solved this problem of identification and we gave you two signs and gave you larger signs at that time. I will reiterate, I think one sign is probably misplaced. It should be over the entranceway. Every other sign is over the entranceway. MR. ZAMBRICKI: If I may, once again, we're trying to undo the mistake that we believe that was made in that earlier time. We're relocating and having a better size sign. You look at some of the other companies that I just mentioned, a number of them have multiple signs.
Great Indoors has, I don't know, ten or eleven signs. I know there are different circumstances for each of these. We don't feel that this is an unreasonable request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: Is there anything less than a hundred twenty-five square feet that works on the top of the building? MR. ZAMBRICKI: Once again, what we're trying to do is do something to scale. I think if you wanted to reduce the size of this sign, something close -- as close to 125 as could be achieved would be what we would be seeking to do, so whether that's 120 or 115 or 125. That's really what we're seeking to do. We think that 125 is the right number because it looks so appropriate when you look at the scale of the building. Of course, this is just a small part of the facade of the building. The entire building is much larger than this. This is just the truncated portion of that building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've discussed the variances that -- if we need to address something, and of course- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) May I make a motion, sir? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: I would like to make a motion that we grant the request from the applicant due to the hardship related to the location of the store and being not adequately visible. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's variance request as presented. Any further discussion on the motion? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I do. I would like to clarify that -- I would like to suggest that both the signs that are currently on the building, seeing how they serve no purpose as stated by the petitioner, be removed and that this sign be served as its -- be added as the replacement sign for those two signs. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an existing
motion on the floor. If that's- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) I'm sorry. That was for discussion. MR. CHAIRMAN: And is there any discussion in reference to the motion that's on the floor? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department for necessary permits and we wish you
the best of luck. MR. ZAMBRICKI: Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 01-101 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case 01-101, filed by Lee Mault representing Haggerty Pumping Station. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, If I may at this time, I would like to introduce Nancy McClain. She is on our staff in the Plan Review Center. She's also involved with this particular project and prepared to answer any of your questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Sir, would you give your name and address? And are you an attorney? MR. MAULT: I will give my name and address. No, I'm not an attorney. My name is Lee Mault. I -- my personal residence is at 7594 Dell Road in Saline, Michigan. I'm professional engineer representing the Clearwater Team, a joint venture that is doing the design build project for the Detroit water and sewerage- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I have
to interrupt you- MR. MAULT: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: -and have you be sworn in before you continue on at this point. MR. MAULT: Yes, sir, absolutely. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. MAULT: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. MR. MAULT: As I was saying, the -- I represent the -- I work for Tetra Tech, MPS. We're the design arm of a design build team, Clearwater Team, that is currently working on the Haggerty pumping station project. It's a booster (ph) pumping station for the Detroit water and sewerage department and includes a ten million gallon water reservoir. Both items are infrastructure improvements that were negotiated prior to us entering the agreement with DWSD -- between the City of Novi and Detroit in order to provide increased pressures for water in the city of Novi
and points west and north. The -- at the Planning Commission meeting on the 19th of December we received preliminary site plan approval, except that we had a need for, as it turns out, two variances. The variances that are in front of you, the parking variance, was decided by the Planning Commission that the industrial use was not -- did not really apply, and it was within their purview to grant that two parking spaces were appropriate, so that item actually is not needed to be considered by the Zoning Board today. The second item is the requirement for a 30 inch berm abutting the right-of-way along the road. I've brought a -- I believe this is the same drawing that each of you should have had in your packet, and what you see is, up at Fourteen Mile Road the portion of the project that we have along Fourteen Mile compared to the site itself, the south boundary here and these west boundaries and these two north boundaries, this portion, which has a wetland on the east side, is very narrow, and the relief in this area, the relief of this whole site, is rather severe.
The topography goes all over the place. In this area, the -- towards the wetland, towards the drain here, the Sealy (ph) Drain, this drops off very quickly, and we did not consider practical -- and the Planning staff agreed with us, that the 30 inch berm really was not a practical consideration on this property. Now, what we have agreed to do as a team is provide landscape plantings along there to provide the same intent, but we're asking to eliminate the 30 inch berm because there's really no practical way to do that, the sidewalk and all the other things that need to be done in that area. So that's the -- that's the request for deletion of the berm. I guess I should just reiterate that that's not a request for deletion of screening, we understand that, and that's not the intent. The last variance that we're requesting is actually for minimum building separation, which is actually a portion of the zoning ordinance that refers to multiple dwellings, and by extension and some very -- some references within the ordinance itself, it bounces back and
forth to get you to the multiple dwelling requirement. To separate these buildings based on formula that -- that, when applied -- and I'll take their word for this because I've had trouble applying it myself -- requires a 66.92 foot separation between the two structures. Now, one of these structures is the pumping station and the other is a water reservoir, so I just want to make clear that I've had some people tell me make sure they understand that, really, only one of these is a building, the other is a tank. The petition as it reads here is in line with what was submitted to the Planning Commission in November, which was a 44.69 foot distance between the buildings. Between the time of that submission and now, we realized we made an error in our -- in the way we set up the tank. We did not have an adequate cover for the footing and foundation for frost heave, and we were trying to reconcile the conflicting requirements of MDEQ not wanting an entirely buried tank with this other requirement which got overlooked.
In addressing that issue, I should state that the 44.69 feet was the maximum we were able to obtain with the direction that the pumping station be as far west as possible to meet the setback requirements, and the reservoir be as far east as possible to not encroach on the wetland. We have to maintain the wetland buffer area and we have to protect the Sealy Drain in that area, and those were things we were very cognizant of. But in order to -- we have two different contractors doing the two structures, so practically we wanted to separate them as far as we could. When we did that, the -- in trying to do that, the 44.69 feet was the maximum we could obtain and still -- we have the retaining wall that is part of this landscape plan as you can see, so we weren't trying to really save money. We were trying to do what we could to make this work. It's a very difficult site for this infrastructure improvement. However, the application I submitted actually requested the granting of a 30 foot distance between them which would increase the variance requirement, and I wanted to make sure I
noted that for the Board here. The planning folks and I were kind of in a quandary because what we'd given them to look at was based on the -- before we realized we made this error. The drawing you've seen here and that was in your packet show the 30 foot separation, and that is what we need to meet all the setbacks, to meet all the design and construction requirements of Chapter 11, to make MDEQ happy and stay off the wetland and still get this built and meet all DWSD requirements. And I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience with input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Let's talk a little bit about the separation of the two buildings. MR. MAULT: Yes, sir. MR. SAVEN: What was initially proposed was a separation of, I believe- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing)
44.69. MR. SAVEN: 44.69. MR. MAULT: Yes, sir. MR. SAVEN: And now we're saying that we're going to go for 30 foot separation? MR. MAULT: Yes, sir. MR. SAVEN: We were advertised for the 44.69 feet. MR. MAULT: That's what went in front of the Planning Commission with the submission on the 13th of November, yes. It was in discussion with Matt Gundy (ph), tank manufacturer, that we were discussing piping interconnections and talking about -- we were actually talking about the facade. We were talking about the brick and trying to coordinate the whole facade portion of the package, and the tank manufacturer said to us in this conference call well, four feet of the tank is going to be buried anyway, we have to have that for the -- for the foundation to have frost cover, and we realized that we had taken the MDEQ idea that they didn't really want the whole tank buried. They wanted some but they wanted the one side down. The
foundation would not work structurally, and so I went back to our site engineers and asked them to look at the situation and see what we could do without changing the storm water detention, because we have to have the tenured, we have to have one foot for sediment said, we have to still be able to build the retaining wall, and we still have to be able to stay away from the wetland. And what I was asked is, the only way that's going to work, and we can still make the grading come in within all these requirements we have, is to move the reservoir to the west. And- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) I saw you have to reduce the space? MR. MAULT: What's that? MR. SANGHVI: I saw doing this you have to reduce the space. MR. MAULT: Yes, sir. In order to achieve the grades that -- to make this thing work. Unfortunately, it created a quandary for Planning and for us, and I didn't want to come before the Board a second time and say I told you
something that was wrong the last time. So I apologize for giving you any different message here, but I think we've corrected the problem, but we do need a 30 foot separation, and that's -- that's the minimum we're going to need to make this work on this site. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I want to interrupt on two things. One is, there were ten notices sent out and we received one objection. The objection states we currently feel that a berm is necessary as a buffer at the rear of the property and that shrub hedge is also recommended. Occupants of our property should not have to face the structure and feel a berm and a tree line will mitigate the unsightly view. Thirty inch berm does not present a hardship to applicant. The second thing, so then, really, read it in the variance of 22.3, we're up to 37 feet? MR. MAULT: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, are we going to need to readvertise that? MR. SAVEN: I sure hope not. One of the concerns that we had here is that in the
ordinance itself there is no definition that we have for separation of these buildings, and I think that maybe we can try to work that out in that area in terms of the separation between the buildings on a similar case for a building which is a storage tank -- a building and a storage tank. Take a look at it from that standpoint. There was really nothing we could relate this to, okay, and for the best choice that we had was a multiple dwelling; is that correct, used that formula for multiple dwelling? MS. McCLAIN: That's correct. When we went through the ordinances, the best we could relate it to was -- going back through was there is footnotes, and it came out with this rather convoluted formula, but it -- that formula usually applies to multiple resident dwellings. MR. SAVEN: This is a very, very gray area, but we know that we had to have a separation from the -- of the two buildings, and that was definitely something to take a look at, something that was a possibility. Based on the formulas that we had, we tried to use that to the best of our ability.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: If I understand your testimony, if you did not have the separation at 30 feet and you pushed it out wider, you'd be back here for variances on setbacks on the pumping station? MR. MAULT: One way or the other, something is going to have to give. MR. CHAIRMAN: If he's going to go the other route and separate it further, then he's going to be intruding into the wetlands, correct? MR. MAULT: Yes, sir. MEMBER BRENNAN: My first reaction is, I don't have any problem with this. My only concern is that we advertised 22 feet and it said 36 feet. Can we do it without having to readvertise? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I really think that -- the only objection we received, in a sense, of the deviation of this and where the property is located and everything, I really don't think it has that much of an affect, and is the berm extreme, and I think what he's talking about screening wise and where he's talking about eliminating the berm
really doesn't relate to the objection that the person presented. MEMBER SANGHVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: So I really don't think that we need to go back through the process of readvertising. MR. SAVEN: Again, that will be up to the Board. The only thing I'm going to tell you is that we had nothing to use as a separate case other than the formula. It is a gray area when we try to deal with something like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: And the thing is, if the applicant hasn't tried to meet the intent of what the ordinance was looking at, and I think if we're going to -- we have to deviate a little bit, we're better to deviate between the buildings rather than to intrude into the wetlands or other areas. So, I mean, we've done the best we can with what we've got to work with. Board Members, further -- Mr.- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Yes. I don't think we have to worry about separation of
the buildings other than the tank itself. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I think the only thing comparable would be something you get out at Northville Sewerage Treatment Plant, and that's in a very isolated location. The first thing that struck me about this site is that -- the incredible awkwardness of site itself, and knowing that area topographically, you know, maybe the argument could be made that, you know, there's a difference in elevation and maybe we could somehow apply that in the setback or separation of the two. I think the screening to the west may be important, and I do understand the petitioner's position in understanding that the berming does not alleviate the need for screening, but I think if the neighbor -- was it the neighbor to the west, Mr. Reinke, that complained about the berm? MR. CHAIRMAN: We're talking about to the south. MEMBER GRAY: To the south? What is on the south? MR. MAULT: Trees, lots of trees.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They were- MR. MAULT: (Interposing) It's vacant land. MEMBER GRAY: I know. And it was the neighbor to the south that was complaining about the- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Right. The neighbor addressing the berm buffer area to the rear of the property. And we're not even addressing the berm- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) No. MR. CHAIRMAN: -in that area or the screening in that area, so that's why I don't think it's really -- they're going to have any complications with what the petitioner's -- or neighbor was objecting to. MEMBER GRAY: That's what I was trying to figure out, exactly where the neighbor was that was complaining about that. If it's to the south -- I mean, there's not a whole lot you can do in that area anyhow because of the configuration, the topography, and the features, the wet- MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm looking -- if I
may make a motion with respect to Case 01-101, that the petitioner's request for the deletion of the berm and a building separation of 36 feet be approved due to lot configuration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thirty foot variance? MR. MAULT: The variance would actually be 36.92 feet? MR. SAVEN: 36.92 feet, yeah. MEMBER BRENNAN: Building separation of 30 feet. MR. SAVEN: And the parking. MEMBER BRENNAN: No. The parking was looked at. He said it was fixed by somebody else. MR. MAULT: The Planning Commission took that under their purview and said they didn't see the industrial use as the right interpretation, and they said unmanned station is okay. I had to put this together on the 13th. MEMBER BRENNAN: Is there support? MEMBER GRONACHAN: I support. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the variance request for the
deletion of the berm and building separation. Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department for whatever is necessary and proceed. MR. MAULT: Sir, I have one question. I did read that there's a -- you have to request a variance of -- or a waiver of the five-day waiting period. I'm not sure we're going to have to have
that, but we are trying to move very quickly on this project, and I'm wondering if at this point asking for that would be- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Are you on the Planning Commission tomorrow night? MR. MAULT: No, sir. MS. MARCHIONI: He's done with preliminary site plan approval. MR. SAVEN: That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can waive the five days. MR. MAULT: Thank you, sir. I would like to thank the Board very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-102 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, 01-102. Sarah, is this the one we tabled to next week -- or next month? MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I have your name and address for the record. MR. SAVEN: My name is Don Saven. I'm the Building Official for the City of Novi. I
serve in capacity of advisor to the Board. At this particular time I'm not going to be acting as an advisor to the Board. I'm going to be acting as a member of the building authority. I will be replacing Mr. Craig Klaver for tonight's petition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Since you're in that propensity, would you be sworn in by our secretary, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. SAVEN: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. If you would please present your case. MR. SAVEN: Before you tonight is a entryway sign that has been constructed at -- from Meadowbrook Road. I'm sure everybody had the opportunity to see this particular sign. Entryway signs are rather peculiar, especially for the location, as it is located in the boulevard. There are some extenuating circumstances based upon, certainly, the issue regarding maintenance and snow, packing of snow,
and the ability to raise the sign up a little bit so we didn't have a maintenance problem. But more so, and not as an issue regarding -- if you took a look at where the sign is in relationship to the center line of the road as in the setback for this particular sign, if it was considered a ground hole sign we would not be here before you but are a ground sign -- I'm sorry, ground sign because you would be allowed one square foot of sign for every two foot of setback. This sign sets back eighty-four -- excuse me -- eighty-six feet from the center line of the road, which would allow roughly a forty-three square foot sign. So what we're dealing with is something that could have been within the ordinance, we would allow it to be in such a manner that it would be considered a ground sign, but it's not. It is an entryway sign. The maximum allowable for an entryway sign is twenty-four square foot. You still have the requirement for five foot in height. The problem this sign presents is that the basic sign in itself is a three by eight.
It meets that requirement. It's the dome portion of the sign which kicks it into a sign which is over area in size. Again, as I indicated, the sign height, placing the sign above the ground to about a point where it's about a foot-and-a-half is certainly an issue where it becomes a maintenance issue. If you take a look at any entryway sign in the city, you'll see that it is elevated above the ground. In this case it's no different, but, unfortunately, in this case, when it's located in the boulevard -- and, certainly, from plowing the snow and things of this nature, it could become a maintenance problem. Anyhow, based upon those particular issues, our two entryway -- there are two entryways to this particular facility, but we're only dealing with the one sign. As you're well aware, that there is another sign on the property which was -- which has been approved by the Board, and this was for a construction identification "Now Leasing" sign, which is a real estate type of a sign, which is to
be -- due to be taken down in June. So that's where -- that's where we're at. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: There were eighteen notices sent out. We received two objections. Mainly, one relates to saying not only where the sign is and for a larger sign here it's already difficult to get out onto Meadowbrook Road. The other one just said they object. I guess there's a couple things I'm disappointed on. One was, it's put up and there. MR. SAVEN: Understood. And I will take the full responsibility for that sign being installed and being up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Saven, what drove the design to this that required such a variance, or why couldn't this have been a square sign or a rectangular sign?
MR. SAVEN: I think it was the design of the sign in itself, the cattails, which were part of -- I don't know, for whatever reason cattails become incorporated into the design of the sign, and in doing so it created the dome shape, which part of that is, again, air space and part of it is the dome that is considered part of the sign. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you know what the cost of the sign was? MR. SAVEN: I have no idea, sir. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you know who paid for it? MR. SAVEN: No, sir. Actually, I believe the City of Novi paid for it. MEMBER BRENNAN: So it's taxpayer paid for? MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. MEMBER BRENNAN: Without a permit? MR. SAVEN: That's correct. MEMBER BRENNAN: If this wasn't my money, I'd tell you to tear it down. Seriously. MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. MEMBER BRENNAN: If this was Joe Blow standing in front of us, didn't pull a permit, put
the sign up, it's too tall, it's too big, but I paid for it. And I think that we hold our Planning Commission liable, we hold the City Council liable to watch our money, and it disappoints me that I'm compelled to vote for variances to our own Building Department. I don't want to embarrass you. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Brennan, again, I will take -- again, I will state to you that the City Council had nothing to do with this particular sign, nor did the Planning Commission. It was my responsibility. I did not follow through on this responsibility and I take all of that particular issue. MEMBER BRENNAN: Okeydokey. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I make a motion, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: That we grant the applicant's request in case 01-102 due to the configuration and the landscape hardship. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's variance request. Is there any further discussion on the
motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Your variance has been approved. See the Building Department for a permit. MEMBER BAUER: And we're very glad you're going to move that over from that center island. It saves maintenance and that- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I'm sorry. I did not understand what you said.
MEMBER BAUER: Well, it saves maintenance if you're moving it over there, keeping it out of that island with snow and so forth. MEMBER FANNON: It will save money because of maintenance. MR. SAVEN: No, no, no, no. That is staying there. It's just elevated. MEMBER SANGHVI: I think it is appropriate at this point, I would like to make -- I know it's on the agenda, but I would like to make a little comment on a motion if I may. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: I would like to make a motion that we congratulate Mr. Saven for all his accomplishments to the Michigan Builder, and also thank him for his input in the proceedings of this Commission. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we even have to take a vote on that. MEMBER BAUER: I don't know. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that would be a unanimous consent of the Board. I would like everybody to say aye in support.
(Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Saven. MR. SAVEN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Other matters. Planning Commission action summaries. You're looking for opinions? MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. What do you think? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't like it. There's not enough -- I don't feel comfortable they have enough detail. MS. MARCHIONI: (In audible.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please, because a lot of times it's used as -- kind of point to refresh myself on, and just to look at everything, and plus to refer back rather than asking for it, and I don't feel comfortable with that. Next item. Court reporter. Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I think this is beautiful work. I love this. This is the best documentation we've had in -- as long as I've been on the Board. It's nicely done, it's easily read,
it's very good work. Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Do you like -- I'm sorry. Do you like the synopsis type this, the short form, or do you want -- I like this style. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the same thing. MEMBER GRAY: I like this much better than the- MR. BRENNAN: You ought to show that to Planning and Council. MS. MARCHIONI: (Inaudible.) MEMBER GRAY: I prefer them in this format rather than the full. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. May I say something? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Being the newest member on this Board, and going back and using these minutes, I think it's very important. When I came onboard, unfortunately we were caught in something where a tape broke and there was information missing, and I think this is penny wise, and I want to be on the record to say that I
wholly support this a hundred percent. It gives me a peace of mind that we're doing a better job. And in regards to, if we need to cut costs someplace else, I would like Mr. Saven to call me in regards to that, in regards to the delivery of the files to my house at seven, eight o'clock at night on a Friday, and I would volunteer to go pick up my own packets if it's going to cut costs as opposed to having somebody working overtime and bringing me my packets. And ask that you give the Members -- in regards to that, I drive past City Hall three, four times a day. MR. SAVEN: The reason why this was brought up was because we're going to be going into a new budget, which means that we were probably be in consideration for increased costs for Zoning Board of Appeals fees. No reason why we have to pass this on. I mean, this is the cost of doing business. We should incorporate this into our fees and deal with this particular matter. So we can look forward now, based upon what we're talking about, we're going to sit down and evaluate what we're dealing with here as
far as sign permit applications and people coming to the Board. Not that we want to bleed our citizens for this, but part of mind is we have to do business. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think to have this in this form like this is beneficial to us and to any citizen who would want information or want a copy of the minutes to be able to look at it and see everything that's there and have it verbatim for what was in the meeting, but I think it's very crucial to the operation of the Zoning Board, in my opinion. Is there anything else on that topic? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to Fountain Walk signage. What are we addressing there? MR. SAVEN: Okay. Last meeting we had a discussion in regards to the opinion from the city attorney, and one of the issues that we were looking at was a consideration for setting forth a standard, was the issue of those interior signs which are located facing the interior, that that distance that we would be looking at from the
outside wall in would be utilized at 25 feet as a criteria for the line-in-the-sand that we're going to look at for those signs which we would not have to bring before the Board. Anything beyond 25 foot on the interior, that's considered inside and it's not part of the sign ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you talking about an interior wall? MR. SAVEN: Talking about the interior wall. MEMBER BRENNAN: That ought to clean up a whole lot of that. MR. SAVEN: That's what the whole process was about. That was the opinion we received from the attorney. It has to be visible. So it would be visible from the street, and then we start going around well, what can it be. We have to do something, put the line in the sand, this is what it is, and we'll go from this point. Anything on the interior we're not going to mess with, whether it's banners or signs, as long as it stays within 25 foot of that exterior wall. Anything beyond that now comes back before the Board, so -- where we will not be seeing as
many cases as what was initially proposed. MEMBER BAUER: That -- question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER BAUER: You say 25 feet. I don't see the wall sign on the building right here, but I can see the one on this side, so that's why I- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I think -- MEMBER BAUER: You said 25 feet in. That took care of the whole inside. MR. SAVEN: Everything on the inside of the building. If -- that which faces the inside. If you took the whole -- if you just follow the footprint of the whole outside of the building, where you have a walkway that comes through, that private drive, so-called private drive and the courtyard, interior courtyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, I think for clarification, could you just take one of the footprints and just outline the area? MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. I will have it before the Board- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Give us a copy for the next meeting?
MR. SAVEN: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: And then that way we have something visually that would help everybody define as to what we're talking about? MR. SAVEN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it would be very helpful. MR. SAVEN: Again, if it's something that's obvious that you're going to be looking at, sometimes you'll have projections above the building line which is part of the interior. Well, you know, if I can see it I'm going to be -- I want to be -- I'm going to probably be bringing these people back before the Board. That's the question, for those which are facing the interior. I think it's good. I think it's something we can work with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I -- it would help me, and I think it would probably answer a lot of questions that anybody has as to okay, now it's in here, it's defined, it's represented, we know where everybody's talking about. Anything else? Miss Gray?
MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke -- Mr. Reinke, I'm going to bring this up because I don't know in what other form to do so other than a personal phone call. When I was checking out 1350 East Lake for consideration of this, I found from the Water Department that this particular property, although it is represented as having three occupants, it has but one sewer tap with two accounts and it has one water tap, and I'm just wondering how that can be in a multiple situation. And, Mr. Saven, if you could pursue that to discuss how that -- because the water just went in last year, and I know there's one meter at the house and I know there's a line from the house back to the garage. I was told that. I don't know if it's under your jurisdiction, but I- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I'll refer this to water and sewer department. MEMBER GRAY: Okay, because there is one sewer tap with two accounts being billed on it, but there's three people with three separate living units, and there's one water tap. And at the cost of, you know, those of us with city water
subsidizing this, I don't think it's quite right. The other issue I wanted to address, if we could get into it for a future meeting, refers to parking at the Lakeview Bar and Grill and the parking that continues to go on across the street at the old Boron station. It's a difficult situation, I know. If we can discuss that at some future point, and maybe we can do it not necessarily in this forum. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything further this evening? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. (The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.) Date approved: February 5, 2002 ___________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary - - -
C E R T I F I C A T E I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of 174 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|