| 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, September 10, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: THE CHAIRMAN: The board members are all here and we have a little business to take care of before we call the first case. Let's call the meeting to order. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here, MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. THE CHAIRMAN: There are some rules of conduct, please, and they are listed at the top of the agenda. I would ask you to take a little time to walk through those and keep them in mind. We do have a pretty heavy load
tonight but let's try to be not quick, but let's not dilly-dally. We do have a quorum. The meeting is now in session. This is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter hearing appeals seeking variances of the Novi zoning ordinances. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority to deny it. We have five members here tonight. We do not have a full board. To get an approval of the variance, we do require four of five members. So if anyone here tonight would like to hold off until September, when we should have a full board, you should have that option now. You have the option now. Anybody here tonight to have a case heard, if you want to put it off a month, raise your hand and identify yourself. Okay. We will continue on. Any decisions tonight by this board are final. Any changes to the agenda? MS. MARCHIONI: Yes, there are. Number 15, Case 02-085, John Richards, representing homeowner at 20970 Turnberry has been removed and there will be a discussion on 02-080, when we get
through. MEMBER SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address that right now. Basically, the notice went out on a request for a variance. Looking at the front yard, there was an error as far as the notices are concerned. The one foot in itself would require that we notify and all residents in that area. Based on the uniqueness of this case, I would ask that it continue to be heard tonight, due to the numerous setback requirements. As there were some objections in this particular case, it might be good to hear the case that exists now. Which case number is that again? MEMBER GRAY: This would be 02-080, Lot 7071. This required front yard setback with a 30-foot proposal, was at 17.67. That was incorrect. 17.67. Therefore the variance request for 12.3 feet should be 13.3 feet, which is an increase of the required variance. If it was less, we may have been able to deal with that. More of a setback could be required. Again, because of the uniqueness of the case, I ask that it be brought forth.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will hear testimony and hear complaints and lots of yelling and screaming but we will not take any action tonight. Is there anything else on the agenda? MEMBER GRONACHAN: I vote to approve as amended. (Vote taken.) THE CHAIRMAN: Public remarks? This is, of course, from the meeting that anyone wishing to talk to the board can do so, if it's not relevant to a case that's on our agenda, if there's something other than what on our agenda any -- if anyone is here to talk to us, now is the time to raise your hand. If not, we will call our first case, Case 02-061. This is SR Jacobson Development Company. Are they here? Board Members, I will make a move to deny the petitioner's request for grants for no cause, no show. He wasn't here last month. We gave him a another month and he is not here. MEMBER SAVEN: I support. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? Tom, do you have any problem with that? MEMBER SCHULTZ: This is the one that
was -- THE CHAIRMAN: They weren't here. MEMBER SCHULTZ: I don't have a problem. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? (No discussion was held.) THE CHAIRMAN: We got through that one pretty quick. CASE NUMBER 02-063 Case 02-063, Richard Tanielian. This is a table case, so anyone who is going to speak will go under oath. MR. PERLMAN: Michael Perlman on behalf of Richard Tanielian. THE CHAIRMAN: Tell us what's different and tell us how your neighbors are happy. MR. PERLMAN: The neighbors are happy for two reasons. One, they're not here. They have indicated that we could make a representation that they're satisfied with, one, the discussion we had a month ago, that is,as to Lot 6, and we have talked with the neighbor of Lot 8 and it's Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong, and they have indicated their
agreement with the proposal. The proposal as you have set forth in the agenda is a variance of six feet on the north side, which is Lot 6, five feet on the south side for Lot 8, and the variance for both sides together is an 11-foot variance. We have discussed previously that without this variance, a house that would be built there would basically be, at most, ten feet wide. The property has been cleaned up per previous request. It was cleaned up several months ago. The garage there was removed. The request is based on the size of the lot and it wasn't self-created. And lastly, we believe that the variance will not negatively impact either neighbor as previously indicted. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, sir, you it it on the head. We asked you to go back last month and work things out with your neighbors. Obviously, you did. If the board members have questions, I'm sure they will ask it. We did have another thirty-one notices sent. No objections, no approvals. Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this
particular case? No hands are waving. MEMBER SAVEN: I want to qualify one thing. It was not 11 feet, it was 14 feet. I have no further comments. It seems that the best we could do. I will vote to support the applications. THE CHAIRMAN: Any others? You can't give a man a task and him do it and come back and tell him he didn't do it. MEMBER SANGHVI: I will make a motion on 02-063, the request be counted, because of the hardship of the size and the configuration of the lot. MS. MARCHIONI: Support? MEMBER GRAY: Support. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion to support. Any discussion? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman, even though I am not happy with the whole situation, I am very reluctantly going to support this. I do feel that the entire hardship going back through cases back to 2000 was in fact self-created. He owned two properties, adjacent, for 70 feet. He chose to sell one. But, again, he has done what we
asked him to do and he gave more to the north and if the people to whom he's going to sell this property and build this house can live with that, fine. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? I hear none. Motion in support? (Vote taken.) THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, you finally have your variance request for building your house. MR. PERLMAN: Thank you, very much. CASE NUMBER 02-067 THE CHAIRMAN: Case Number 02-067 is VIP Tire and Iron. This also is a table case, so anyone who is going to present, tell us what is different. This is my wife Cindy, who has been meeting with city officials in regard to what we need to do to correct the situation. She can probably best speak as far as. THE CHAIRMAN: We do have and we will put in the file a letter from you, I believe, that everyone here has got. Give us a second to read it over.
MEMBER GRAY: When was this letter written? THE CHAIRMAN: This letter was written yesterday. MEMBER GRAY: It's not dated. That's why I asked. THE CHAIRMAN: You want to give us a quick summary? MR. VALENTINE: The summary is we are going to try to put up a berm on the west side of the property all the way down. We still want to work with the city as far as the front of the property. The only request we make is possibly we can go into the spring, when the construction is completely over with and we have a chance to survive. THE CHAIRMAN: There were eleven notices sent, one approval, no objection. You did get an approval. Is this a new one or is this from the last one? MS. MARCHIONI: That's from the last one. THE CHAIRMAN: As I recall, this is
also a case that had some zoning change over the years, was it not? MR. VALENTINE: Sir, I don't believe so. MEMBER SAVEN: We did meet with the applicant and the planner sat down and we went over all the issues that we thought would be something to take care of the situation, as requested by this board. If it is the board's decision to approve this variance, I would ask that it be contingent upon the approval of our landscape architect, to ensure that the scheming is effective as to what was presented at our meetings. THE CHAIRMAN: Any problem with that? MR. VALENTINE: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience that wanted to say anything regarding this case? MR. WYZYNSKI: My name is Carl Wyzynski, 25860 Wixom Road. I guess is really a question about what is considered outdoor storage on V-3. There is a new Target store being built next to my property and the truck access is 50 feet from my property. As I was reading through the
Valentines case -- and I'm supportive of their issue -- but I question if licensed cars are considered outdoor storage. Are trucks and tractors also considered outdoor storage and if they are, would Target be required to get a variance to leave trucks and tractors on their driveway or in their lot overnight? THE CHAIRMAN: During construction -- Construction is coming to an ends. I understand there is an area for construction as the store opens, Target often leaves trucks and tractors on their property overnight. I'm trying to understand why Valentine would need to come to you for a variance unless RB-3 would, that leaves trucks and tractors on property and they would also need to come to you for a variance. MEMBER SAVEN: I believe if we take a look at the use of what the Valentines are using, they are working on vehicles. They were working on unlicensed vehicles and licensed vehicles and motor homes. This is quite different than what we have in the Target situation, retail sales and dropping off goods and moving on. I think there are two issues we're
looking at. Although they may be similar in some nature, they are dissimilar. MR. WYZYNSKI: As I look at these trucks out my window every day - THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, I'm going to have to interrupt you. We're hearing a case on the Valentines. I did say if there's any matters that need to be brought before the board, they need to be brought over on. If you want to discuss Target, you need to go to the building department. I'm sorry. MR. WYZYNSKI: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Board members, any questions or comments to the petitioner? MEMBER REINKE: I think then petitioner is resolving to reduce the numbers of vehicles and is working very diligently with the city and is very cooperative and I can support what they're doing and extend it on the condition that they wrap it up in the spring. If they follow the directions of the city requirement, I have no problem with the petitioner's request. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER SANGHVI: My only comment, you
used the words you will "try" to do this. MR. VALENTINE: No, sir. We will work with the city. MEMBER SANGHVI: If you will do it or just try to do it, I think that makes a lot of difference. MEMBER GRAY: The only comment I have has to do with using the phrase in here of unlicensed vehicles. I'm presuming that you have transit plates? MR. VALENTINE: We take these on the roads, yes, ma'am. MEMBER GRAY: Even though they're not sold and they don't have plates, they can use their own transit plates. It's just a technicality but I took minor issue with it on here. Based on the fact that they're doing what they're trying to do, I would move that we grant the variance to maintain outdoor storage of licensed and unlicensed vehicles awaiting repair, due to the nature of the business, the fact that he has been in business eighteen years and he's been doing it for some time and only now it has become questionable and that he is attempting to screen or fence.
MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second. Sarah? (Vote taken.) THE CHAIRMAN: We got a clean sweep there. Go see the building department for your permits. CASE NUMBER 02-076 MR. VALENTINE: Thank you. Case 02-076, Tomco Fabricating. This is also an outdoor storage case. THE CHAIRMAN: Raise your hand and give us name and be sworn. MR. HENRY: Don Henry, representing Tomco Fabricating. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm the information **** MR. HENRY: I am requesting a variance that I do not have to put an eight-foot fence to obscure the property around Tomco Fabricating on Haggerty Road. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's short and sweet. There were four notices and one
objection from a Done Henry. That's him? All right. We will continue on. Anybody in the audience that wishes to address this particular case? Building Department? MEMBER SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would like to hear why he feels he doesn't have to screen or number one, why he is allowed to have the outdoor storage in that area. MR. HENRY: When we bought the property it was -- heavy industrial for well over twenty years. We have been storing outside since we have had the property. MEMBER SAVEN: What you have done twenty years ago was consistent with the business that was with the building. MR. HENRY: Yes, sir. MEMBER SAVEN: The outdoor storage you have today is consistent with what you have in the building? MR. HENRY: I can't say it's consistent with the building. We have stored RVs and some cars there. We have used the income as part of the business. Whether that's considered
part of the business or not, I don't know. MEMBER SAVEN: I'm concerned about the expansion of that particular use of the outdoor storage. Usually storage is consistent with the business within the building itself. When you are dealing with something above and beyond that, you are technically pursuant to the ordinance, you are expanding that business, which is in evidence -- in fact not allowed, in terms of the I-1 zoning. This was changed back in 1981, around that particular area. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members? Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: For clarification for the board, when he bought the property, it was zoned I-2 and he might have had a non-conforming use that he could have kept up and extended it for the outdoor storage. But he never did have the eight-foot fence. It was required even back when the property was purchased. Without the screening, he doesn't have the valid non-conforming use. It's essentially a use variance to allow outdoor storage without the screening, because the property was rezoned I-1 classification.
He's here for use variance. The property can't be used for purpose under the zoning ordinance and would work an unnecessary hardship on him. This is not the typical are of non-use variance. This is the higher standard of review of an unnecessary hardship. MEMBER SANGHVI: A question for Tom. Is there any comparative situation involved? MEMBER SCHULTZ: I guess that's what I was trying to get at. He might have been grandfathered, had he had the eight-foot screen wall around the property back when he he started using it for outdoor storage. That arguably would have made it a legal unconforming use. Without that, when it gets rezoned to the I-1 district, it essentially just becomes a use that's not legal. So he needs to establish to the board what it is about his use that would cause you to grant the use variance. THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand what the petitioner has presented the Fabrication business that he's got has nothing to do with him storing cars. MEMBER GRAY: I have a few questions.
Maybe you can help me out here, Tom. I understand what you're saying and back when it was zone, I-2, heavy industrial, whether it was fabricating or whatever it was, they were allowed a certain amount of outdoor storage if it was consistent with their business and if it had a foot screening. Is that correct? MR. SCHULTZ: If it was screened. MEMBER GRAY: When we, as a city, for whatever reason, rezoned it to I-1, simply because he had not pursued screening and still was using outdoor storage on an unpermitted nature, not conducive to his business, no matter what we say, not no matter what we say, no matter what we do, just putting a name for a fence really doesn't not make the use legal, does it? MEMBER SCHULTZ: Unless we grant a use variance. In order to establish that valid non-conforming use in the first instance it had to be legal. Without the screening, it wasn't legal. MEMBER GRAY: It was conducive to the business at hand, whether he needed the fence, to become valid. MEMBER GRAY: When it was rezoned --
before it was rezoned, he started doing storage. I understand need for storage, motor homes, et cetera, but when he started doing the outdoor storage not related to the business, he should have come to the city and asked for a permit or whatever. MEMBER SCHULTZ: That's really what is before us, a use variance. He established a need for the use variance. If you find that he has established that, you can attached conditions or things like that. MEMBER SANGHVI: There are two issues involved. One is the fencing and the second one, he is renting the place for other people to store vehicles there. You're talking about a use variance, because that's not part of his real business. Am I right in thinking that? MR. HENRY: I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time hearing you. I didn't hear what you said to Tom. MEMBER SCHULTZ: Number one is not related to the principal use on the site. Number two, even though it's a use variance, outdoor storage generally is not permitted.
MEMBER REINKE: If you were to permit storage, also, you have the issue of the screening. MEMBER SCHULTZ: You would permit it and you would have the ability to condition that permission on screening, if that's what you choose to do. MEMBER GRAY: One of my other questions, if this has been going on for twenty years, why is it before us now? Did somebody complain about it? MR. HENRY: No. They're starting to build all around me now. Really, when you drive by my business, you don't even know that I'm there. It's really difficult to find. MEMBER GRAY: Did someone complain -- I believe it was an issue regarding the Regency businesses being constructed in that area and they cleared out a lot of property. MEMBER GRAY: How many acres is this, sir? MR. HENRY: 2.95. MEMBER GRAY: How many acres are you using for storage? MR. HENRY: I would estimate about
half of that. I would say it might be closer to one, one and a quarter. MEMBER GRAY: One to one and a quarter acres? MR. HENRY: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Did the previous owners from whom you purchased the property also use it for outdoor storage of this nature? MR. HENRY: I think they were a construction company. They had literally seventy-five trucks in there. MEMBER GRAY: So that was conducive to their business? MR. HENRY: I think. MEMBER GRAY: Was there hindsight and representation to you that this property could be used to this type of storage, not conducive to the business? Was there any representation made to you when you bought the property that you could use the property for outdoor storage, vehicles, boats, et cetera, not conducive to your business. MR. HENRY: I can't really answer that's. MEMBER GRAY: That's all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, we have two things before us. Number one, you should have had an eight-foot fence around this property, even when it was rezoned. Number two, the fact that you are using this property in something over and beyond your general business requires a use variance. You have indicated that you need this secondary business to supplement income and to keep your core business going. Have you investigated what is involved in fencing off this property? MR. HENRY: No, sir, I have not. THE CHAIRMAN: Don't you think that might be an important thing to pursue? MR. HENRY: As far as cost-wise? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. HENRY: Absolutely. I know you are not here to hear my hardship case. The economy is down. Our business is absolutely dead. We're doing everything we can to hang on right now. I certainly don't want to spends the money -- my dad owns the property there on Haggerty Road and he has in for sale. We hope it will be sold within the next year or two. I have to do what I have to do to keep the income coming in, as we speak.
MEMBER SAVEN: You say your dad owns this property? MR. HENRY: Yes. MEMBER SAVEN: It is for sale? MR. HENRY: Yes. He was very close to a deal right before 911. He had been in negotiations all summer long. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan, I guess what I would like to propose is we ask Mr. Henry to come back next, when he has had a chance to figure out whether he is going to be able to afford the fencing to go around the property to screen it or discontinue the outdoor storage. I think there two options here, neither of which has been investigated. THE CHAIRMAN: To meet codes, does the whole thing need to be screened? MEMBER SAVEN: I think the portion where it is subject to use, where you can see the outside storage. When we start getting involved in issues like this, one is outdoor storage. There certainly has to be issued -- as far as what he has there now and if it is the board's wish to grant the variance, then we have to ensure that that use
does not expand and maybe take a look at the limitations of that, if that's what the board's wish is. Certainly, the issue of cleaning up the area, I'm sure you can do that without too much of a problem. MR. HENRY: We should clean it up. MEMBER SAVEN: I think you should concentrate in that particular area, but the bottom line is we're talking about outdoor storage in an I-1 district which is a little tough. MEMBER SCHULTZ: Following up, I was out at that property back before they wrote the Notice of Violation. In addition to outdoor storage, there is a collapsing out building that's if the board has at all inclined to go in that direction, I think -- that would certainly be an appropriate condition of any kind of relief this board gave to have that structure, which frankly looked pretty dangerous, to be removed in connection with any relief you give them. I don't know whether you are going to relief but if you are headed in that direction, that's something that needs to be explored MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER SANGHVI: May I suggest we make the cleaning up and removal of the unsound structure as part of the condition for granting him temporary variance until such time as he has sold the property MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I believe we need to have a better program than that. I think we would like to see the petitioner explore what a fence is going to cost. Come back with some options, what you feel you can do and what you feel you can do what you feel you have to have. We're not trying to run you out of business. We're trying to work with you to resolve the situation and circumstance, if the property is up for sale, you know, what kind of time line, what kind of ways, what potential do you think there is for marketing this property. If the economy starts picking up a little bit, if it's something that's sellable in a year's time, and try to work with you if this is the goal that you are working for and not say cut it off to strangle you until this time and situation. Until we have had the opportunity,
the kind of things that we're looking for has had a chance to go back okay, these are the options. If I comply with everything, it's cost prohibitive to me, I can't do that. But until you sit down and do the leg work or homework on it, either you or we can't make a true assessments of what the situation is and try to be fair to all parties. THE CHAIRMAN: Not to cut Laverne off, but it's a fairly good parcel. If you start looking at what it's going to cost to put a fence a round the whole thing, it's probably going to be pretty pricey. Is there a possibility that the outdoor storage could be contained in one corner and you could look at boxing off one corner? I think rather than move tonight it may be in your best interest to look at another option, given what has occurred from the City attorney and some of our input. MR. HENRY: Terrific. MEMBER GRAY: I would also like to suggest that that building be torn down as soon as possible. MR. HENRY: The problems that you have in tearing the building down, it's an old
piece of property. The building feeds the electric that goes to the actual shop. The well is in that building. That's where we get our water supply from. The City told us to tear that down about five years ago and we explained the electrical problems and water problems and they came back and said board it up, so it's non-accessible and that's what we have done. MEMBER GRAY: The letter of June 6th said the building should be torn down or made safe. I don't know if this is going to make it safe. MEMBER SCHULTZ: The well is in the building. THE CHAIRMAN: We will make that part of your situation as we look over this whole thing. We would like to suggest to give you another thirty days and come back and maybe there's a way we can work this out and not cost a lot of money. All right? MR. HENRY: Terrific. MEMBER SANGHVI: And we provide the screening and number two, whatever way you can make it safe. Both of these are vary importance issues. THE CHAIRMAN: Typically, table cases
are put at the front of the agenda. So we will get you on out of here. MR. HENRY: Thank you very much for your help. CASE NUMBER 02-065 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, do I need to ask board's approval to withdraw from this case. This is my neighbor, and due to past association, I don't think I can do this case justice this evening. THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to ask you. You only have four members left. You've got to get them all. What's your choice? MEMBER GRONACHAN: To be honest, I was on vacation at the last board meeting. The time is running out and I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't know if there's any difference, so I will accept that risk. THE CHAIRMAN: Raise your hand and be sworn. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right hand. Do you swear or a affirm that the
information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. BODRIE: I do. My name is Mike Bodrie. I live at 2140 Garfield Road in Novi. The house at 305 Duana is a cottage for ourselves. What I'm trying to do is make this a very concise -- I know your agenda is very large. The reason I'm here for the variance, the lots were -- the subdivision was platted in the early 1900s, so lot sizes were unbelievably small. It had provisions for chicken coops in the neighborhood. So that's what we kind of started dealing with. In part of this, I tried to design this to match the neighborhood. Just today on the way over here I drove down the road and wrote down the addresses that have very similar side yards. The most -- every house on Duana has the same type situation, where there is two or three foot on each sides of the house. They're all pie-shaped plats, so I have tried to fit within the neighborhood. One thing I do want to call to the attention is that I questioned some of the variances that they're saying that need to be -- I need to have. For example, the coverage, I calculated there's
only 14 percent and it's calculated at 25 percent. I have approximately 10,000 feet of land and all my coverage is 1320. THE CHAIRMAN: We will ask done about that. Why don't you keep going -- The other its the southeast setback is existing. I don't know if that's a standard thing that you put all the variances that this property have or not. The only variance I feel I'm asking for is the two foot on the northwest side, which mimics the neighbor's on that side. He has an extremely small tie, because he has the same situation. He's on both side approximately two feet away from the side yards. THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask who that neighbor is? MR. BODRIE: It's 307. THE CHAIRMAN: He's not too happy with your plans, I understand. MR. BODRIE: I just became aware of that last night and it was on my answering machine. I think my wife left me the message and I tried to address it with him, because he said it was a fire concern. I called him up and I said I didn't even
think about it, to be honest. I mean, of course, there's a fire wall there. You know, it's common sense. His statement was basically -- just made another excuse, he just doesn't want it. Just as much as I don't really want the way his yard looks in my yard, but I have to accept it because we're on small lots and that's the way it is. So I don't know what to do about that. I do know that what I have proposed is very consistent with the neighborhood and that's the biggest thing. I didn't create this problem myself. I think that an attached garage is almost like an in-house toilet at this point, compared to an outhouse over the time that was build and a detached garage is going to cause the same amount of problems. It's going to need the same variances. Those are my -- that's my thinking in that respect. I want to make sure I covered everything that I wanted to say. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sure we will provoke some questions for you. MR. BODRIE: I guess I'm ready for that, then. THE CHAIRMAN: There were thirty
notices. You had one approval and the objection from the adjoining neighbor. Is anyone in the office? Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir you wants to come on up. Are you Henry? MR. GRUZWALSKI: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: This is Henry Gruzwalski. MR. GRUZWALSKI: Well, if he puts up this garage, his garage is going to be within two feet of the property line alongside my house and years ago they had a garage built six inches off the property line and that was because of a fire or emergency, getting back there. If somebody gets hurt or drowns in the water, that would be access to that property. If the house is built the way he is constructing, there is no way you can get back there, either fire or emergency cars. So this is why I'm against it. If he can put the garage in the back, where he has access for fire and emergency to get back there, I wouldn't complain about that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else in the audience? No? Building department? MEMBER SAVEN: Basically, what Mr. Bodrie indicated earlier was the fact that if the board does decide to approve this case, the issue would be fire rating for that one wall two feet from the property line would be required to have more fire protection. I do have a sharper pencil than Mr. Bodrie in terms of block coverage -- MR. BODRIE: May I ask what you have for the lot size? MEMBER SAVEN: I don't have that with me. I used a scratch sheet of paper. In terms of computer your lots size, I had a difference of approximately 1.5 percent difference. THE CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: I think lot coverage is the least of your problems. MR. BODRIE: I understand. MEMBER REINKE: It's too close to the house. I mean you are foot feet -- the unfortunate situation is the lot. I understand that. You have room on that side to be innovative in some way. In moving it back further, you get some distance to
that side lot. But I can't support what you are proposing here, to go that whole building, that whole lot there, two feet off the lot line. MR. BODRIE: It does go to 4.2 feet. I guess my question to you is what would be permissible. I mean basically, no matter what I design will be out of code. I don't want to perpetuate -- MEMBER REINKE: I understand. What I see, to get the two feet up further, to get a larger distance there, this thing is going to have to be moved back. MR. BODRIE: I guess my question is how far back do you want it? Do you want a four-foot setback, a six-foot. THE CHAIRMAN: Why wouldn't you place the garage more in back of the house? MR. BODRIE: There is a lake back there. THE CHAIRMAN: There is a what? MR. BODRIE: There is a lake back there. MEMBER SAVEN: I think you should worry about some unstable ground conditions back
there. I would like to bring to the board's attention you have a front entrance garage. You're dealing with a garage door. That means the minimum he could reduce it down is ten feet to ten feet six, to have any maneuverability whatsoever. MEMBER REINKE: Right now, what is the length of the garage that's adjacent to the house? MR. BODRIE: The proposed garage or the existing? MEMBER REINKE: The proposed garage. MR. BODRIE: The proposed garage is 18 feet. The existing garage -- I'm sorry -- is 18 feet. MEMBER REINKE: The proposes garage? MR. BODRIE: Is 34 feet. MEMBER REINKE: You are saying it's going to be attached to the house. What's the length of the wall in the house? MEMBER SAVEN: That part of the garage that's attached to house, what is that length? MEMBER SAVEN: 9 foot 5, something like that.
MEMBER GRAY: He's 34 feet and he's got 15.5 in the back. MR. BODRIE: It's roughly 15 feet. MEMBER GRAY: About 19 feet. MEMBER REINKE: If you were to move the whole thing back where you maybe four to six feet of that adjacent to the home, would bring that probably away to at least a four foot on the front edge of that and still maintain a 12-foot width. MR. BODRIE: I can accept that. Again, when I first brought this up, I said I want to go right to the lot line and I said realistically there's no way you can do that. I don't know where you want me -- MEMBER REINKE: If you have a wind like you have tonight and you have a fire there, all those houses are gone. There's no question in my mind at all, they're all gone. Any kind of distance that you can get, four foot, I mean, that would be the minimum. I don't know what the distance would be here by moving this back to maybe where you have got, let's say, six foot adjacent to that, because it's going to bring it away further. How much, I don't know. But it would have to be
something like that for me to support it, because I can't support what's there right now. MR. BODRIE: Would you support four foot or not, or do I have to come back with another proposal? MEMBER REINKE: From my point of view, it would have to be a minimum of four foot. This is one board member's opinion and thought of it, because then you are getting at least six foot in between the two and I would like to see more than that. MR. BODRIE: That's reasonable. MEMBER REINKE: But that's my viewpoint. MEMBER GRAY: First of all, when I first moved to Novi back in 1978, I moved into 315 Duana. Now, one those houses on Duana, that's on Elm Court, has an attached garage. This would make this house unique to that area. However, I understand you want an attached garage. My initial reaction, when you look at this, if you wanted a garage, you should be thinking about replacing the one that's there moving, this whole thing back. I'm not thrilled with the idea of anything less
than six feet from the property line. I'm sorry. I still call it Ms. Shyloff's house, 307, is three feet off the property line. These houses were all built in the forties. They're all cottages. I guess the good thing about your house is it's brick and it probably won't burn. All the houses in the back, they were incidental to the amusement park and the casino. There's no house in there that's probably less other than the Knox house at 317, that burned about three years ago. There's nothing in there that's more recent than, I would say, the fifties. So if you want to know what we want you to do, I think what you need to do is you need to plan to move that as far back as you possibly can. I don't want to see anything less than 50 feet on that property line, because the houses are too close, as it is. Understanding Mr. Reinke's comments and mine, and you need four votes, you may want to come back next month. MR. BODRIE: Unfortunately, I understand that at this point. I guess that's about it then. It's just the timing is just a killer, you know.
THE CHAIRMAN: We can't do anything about that. MEMBER GRAY: How long have you owned the property? MR. BODRIE: We bought it in late November of last year. MEMBER GRAY: So you have had all winter, all summer to look at it? THE CHAIRMAN: I would also say that if you come up with an idea -- MR. BODRIE: That's one of the things that was most upsetting to me. I sent a letter to everybody, gave them my plans and told them to call me if there's any issues. MEMBER GRAY: Have you thought of knocking on their doors? I would like to hear what your neighbors on the east also say, between you and the Marlowe's house, to the east. MR. BODRIE: I mean they knew my plans and I talk with them all the time. MEMBER GRAY: It would be nice if they wrote a letter saying "we support what he's trying to do." MEMBER SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may
make a comment here. You have a direction from the board. What I should ask, also, that you do is take into consideration the physical location where you are proposing to place that garage, in reference to your house, because it's got to function. Okay? MR. BODRIE: I understand that. MEMBER SAVEN: Because it's an attached garage, it has to function. That means wherever that's going to be set back, as Mr. Reinke indicated, whatever that attachment is, it still have to function with the original building. MR. BODRIE: Maybe I don't understand your statement. Mare sure I can back a trailer in, for example? Is that what you're saying. MEMBER SAVEN: And whatever that attachment is to the house, you are entering that into the house or do you not plan to have a doorway attached to the house? MR. BODRIE: Yes, I do, and it's in the very back of the house. Moving it back that didn't dawn on me until last night when I was thinking about it, you know, but here I come. All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: If it looks like you can have it done in time to get on next month's agenda, talk to Sarah. Sarah, anything else. MEMBER GRAY: No. MR. BODRIE: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-058 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. 02-058. The petitioner has a request for signage on a new restaurant. Sir, do you want to give us your name and raise your hand and be sworn. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. MS. GRONACHAN: Your name, please? Tim Schaefer, 33560 Gittis, G-i-t-t-i-s. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You're on. MR. SCHAEFER: We are proposing a 30-foot-square sign on the east elevation. It follows what other businesses have had to ask for, for visibility in this shopping district. Also,
we're asking for -- I believe it's a six square foot sign on the rear of the out building. It is more of a directional sign for egress and ingress out for the carry-out traffic. Basically, that's our case. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. There were six notices sent, no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience wish to comment? THE CHAIRMAN: Building Department? We will come back. MS. GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I drove out there and I don't personally feel that there is a need for the sign. With the line of trees, when you are coming in, you get the front view of the sign. But the side sign, I don't think is really necessary or there is a need. You can't see it from the road with the line of trees. MR. SCHMIDT: I think it would be more conducive for people heading northbound on Novi Road, because they can't see that business coming in from the north, heading up Novi Road, as let's say -- what is the store Chez 2, 2 Chez, whatever, where they have the monument sign out next to the road for people heading in the southern
-- MS. GRONACHAN: Let me finish my train of thought. The second side sign I don't believe is a need, because of the line of trees, and I didn't see it from driving up and down Novi Road and going through. I felt -- this is personal opinion from driving around there -- that a directional ground sign would serve you more purpose, in this case, as opposed to a side sign. In regard to the rear sign, I do feel that there is a need because of the fact that there -- you have people driving all over the place and it is an alley type situation coming into the back. But I'm not sure what -- without it, I don't know that you would ever find the back. Walking around, I found it and I wasn't even sure where I was going. Again, driving in the car, I didn't see a full view. THE CHAIRMAN: Did you have anything to input on this case? MEMBER SAVEN: No, sir, I did not. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I take a little bit of a different viewpoint. I think the signing on the building for the name of the
business are direction. They're not obtrusive. I think they identify the business and give direction. My question is really if there is any need for the carry-out sign, because I can't picture that people coming in are going to run around and look for a carry-out sign. They're going to go in the front door, put up their food and go back out the front door. That's my point. MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree. What kind of restaurant is going to be? MR. SCHMIDT: Carrabba's. It's an Italian restaurant. MEMBER GRONACHAN: A lot of them are doing that now. My only question is where is the parking for the back door. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe it would be right out the back door. MEMBER GRONACHAN: You have a curb -- MR. SCHMIDT: I can't believe they're going to have more than four people at a time pulling up there. MEMBER GRONACHAN: But there is no place for them to park, and for all intents and purposes, that's a leading road behind the other
businesses, because there is a stop sign at the end of that. MR. SCHMIDT: I see what you're saying. They're going to have an island there. MS. GRONACHAN: When I was coming down Novi Road tonight to come to the meeting, the only way I could see the sign at the east elevation on Novi Road was when I was sitting at the light southbound on Novi Road. Once I got to the place where there's one tree missing, I couldn't see the sign. So I don't believe it serves any purpose. You can't see it through the trees. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe at night is what they're going for, the visibility at night, with the neon sign. MS. GRONACHAN: And probably in the winter, when there is no leaves on the trees. MR. SCHMIDT: You'll also see the glow, is what will attract your eye to it at night. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I make a motion? THE CHAIRMAN: You want to make a comment? MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead.
THE CHAIRMAN: I agree with Laverne. MEMBER SANGHVI: That's going to be my motion in 02-058, we grant the applicant's request for the signs, minus the curbside carry-out sign for the business. THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have a motion to support? Let's see if we have four votes. MS. MARCHIONI: What was the reason for denying the carry-out sign? THE CHAIRMAN: We didn't give a particular reason but I think the testimony was that we didn't believe that that was going to be a functional sign, as part of their business, that there wasn't sufficient parking. We believe that the carry-out business, if any would come through the front door, which is -- MEMBER REINKE: Plus, it's where the parking is. MS. MARCHIONI: Dr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Mr. Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. THE CHAIRMAN: We're back to discussion. MS. GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman I really don't see the purpose of the second sign. I mean after being out there and looking at it from all angles, especially after being on this board for a historic time, -- from my peers, we don't really give a lot of signs out when it's not necessary. The second sign is pretty close to the first sign, when you are looking at the front of the building. Even when you are pulling into the parking lot, you get the view of the two signs. If anything -- I mean I just don't feel that there is a need. MEMBER SANGHVI: The only reason why I feel there is a need is that this is not just a free-standing building with a main road frontage. Whether we like it or not, it is still part of that mall situation there and that's why people driving in and out could notice this better than without the sign on the north side, as well as the east
side. It would make it a lot easier to be identified for the people who are going in and out of the mall. MEMBER REINKE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the sign is minimal. You've got traffic going in and out to the hotel there and you've got that roadway being utilized more, which helps gives direction that they can go into, also. I think it's a minimal request to help a free-standing building to get some identification. That's my basis for supporting the additional sign. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't want to reference other cases but we have been consistent with buildings that are within the envelope -- not the outer envelope but the inner envelope of a mall. I think that some of the coffee stores and some other restaurants, we have had similar where there is a view available on all four sides. You take any of those stores that are along the outer parameters, I don't find any reason for other thing, other than a front sign, but there is a case where there can be access for quite literally all four signs. MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're saying
because of the multi accesses, it would help in identification. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MS. GRONACHAN: I can go along with that. MEMBER GRAY: Compromise? I also don't like to reference cases. We just turned one down for one of their immediate neighbors not too long ago because we said they wouldn't be able to see it because of the screen. I would like to offer a compromise that the north sign, which is marked on our plans as approved stay, that the east side be eliminated. However, take the wording from the east sign and put it over the carry-out sign in the back. So you have "Carrabba's" and the carry-out on the back. You have no sign on the east elevation and you have your identification sign on the north. THE CHAIRMAN: We have to send it out again. We can't change the location of the sign. That's how it's been posted. MEMBER GRAY: That's my offer of a compromise.
MEMBER REINKE: I couldn't support that, because then we're putting a main business identification over a side door carry-out. You have an entrance door that then has no identification. THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to recall the vote. Can we do that? MEMBER SCHULTZ: I guess I was going to recommend you do them one at a time. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in case 02-058, let's call is a Sign Request A for the side elevation, I move the petitioners variance request be granted due to inner traffic identification requirements. MEMBER SANGHVI: Support. THE CHAIRMAN: Discussion. Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: You are doing them separately? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Next, the rear elevation sign, I move that the request be denied due to insufficient traffic and parking location. MEMBER SANGHVI: Supported. THE CHAIRMAN: Discussion? Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, very much. CASE NUMBER 02-077
THE CHAIRMAN: 02-0077, Beechforest Office Park. Give us your name, sir, and raise your hand and be sworn. MR. FRICKE: John Fricke. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. FRICKE: I do. My name is John Fricke. I work for a commercial real estate company based in Southfield, Signature Associates. We were hired several months ago by the ownership of the soon to be built Beechforest Office Park to do the leasing for them of this building. This is a building that was site-planned and approved approximately a year ago and the site-plan approval, I believe, was extended in July for another twelve-month period. It's an approximately 150,000-foot, four-story office building that's located on the west side of Meadowbrook, approximately a quarter mile north of I-96. It's a building that was designed by an architectural firm Yi Yee (ph.). The primary developer is Ten Mananian. I believe you should be familiar with him. He has developed
several office building in Novi, including the maxim building on Grand River just east of Town Center Drive, and the Pinnacle Office Building, located on Eleven Mile, just west of Meadowbrook, one of which is under construction right now. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, tell us why you want the variance. MR. FRICKE: I just wanted to give you the background. The project in scope is a significantly larger one than anything the developer has entered into before. It will be one of the premiere buildings. Because of the difficult commercial real estate market we are in, the difficulty of financing projects of this scope, we have asked for the ability to erect the project sign that normally would be permitted at the issuance of a building permit somewhat early. We anticipate asking for the building permit next spring, before spring 2003, which would prove for a 2004 delivery date for the building. We will be doing marketing for tenants in the building prior to the construction start-up, which would give the project a much higher level of assurance of being successful.
It's an important part of our marketing effort, in addition to lot of other things we're doing and that's why I'm here. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody in the audience wish to comment on this case? There were eleven notices sent. No approvals, no objections to the building. Building Department? MEMBER REINKE: I have no objection. MEMBER SAVEN: I have no objection. THE CHAIRMAN: Board members? This is pretty consistent with this type of development. We have been in approval of this type of assistance in marketing and given the economic condition today, this is probably in our best decision to support the petitioner. That's my thought. MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a lot of nodding. Can we have a motion? MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a motion in the Case 02-077, that we grant the variance for the future site of this project. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to put some lines on this?
MEMBER REINKE: The only way I can supports it is to have a limitation, because without having, you know, a site plan or building permit issued, this could go on forever and maybe building -- I will support a year and it would have to be just justified to me if they didn't have a building permit pulled by that time, to go for an extension. MEMBER SAVEN: The variance was granted previous for the project, for the final site plan for the extension. Maybe we can keep it in mind. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable? MEMBER SAVEN: July 10, 2002, by that time, you should have a building permit. THE CHAIRMAN: So one year from July 10, 2002. Is that what we're saying? Are you okay with that? MR. FRICKE: Yes. We're certainly happy to come back when you visit the situation, if it needs to be sold. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second and some discussions. It's all part of the record. Any further discussion? Sarah?
MS. MARCHIONI: Who seconded that? MEMBER REINKE: I did. (Vote taken.) THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, see the building department for your sign. MR. FRICKE: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-078 THE CHAIRMAN: Case Number 02-078, 25202 Sullivan Lane. Mr. Dwyer, you want to raise your hand and be sworn. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. DWYER: I do. I'm Tom Dwyer, and I'm looking to build a screen and porch on top of an additional deck in my yard. To accomplish this, I need a variance of ten feet that's noted on the plat plan I think you have in your possession. We like to sit and enjoy the outdoors and we get a lot of mosquitoes from the wetlands and we hope to build the screen and porch. The neighbors don't seem to have an objection.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience with to comment on this case? We did have 33 notices sent. You have approval from Nakki, Morris, Sears and Moletin (ph.). Do you have an association that you would have had to get an approval from? MS. MARCHIONI: It's a plan, I guess under the association. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. The building department? MEMBER SAVEN: As the applicant has indicated, it's on an existent deck, plus it's in pretty good shape. THE CHAIRMAN: Six nearby neighbors have similar screened-in porches in use. Board members? MEMBER REINKE: My standard comment is we have the unfortunate situation, you have lot sizes created and platted. Anytime somebody wants to do something like this, they have to get a variance. The gentleman is not intruding to that length or depth into the rear lot. I have no problem, other than I wish that the lots were a little bigger, so every time somebody wanted to
build something, they wouldn't have to get a variance. THE CHAIRMAN: Duly noted, as well. Any other discussion. MEMBER GRAY: I was going to say on 02-078, I vote to approve, due to lot size. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: I have the motion second dead. Any further discussion. (Vote taken.) MR. DWYER: Would it be possible to expedite the permit? THE CHAIRMAN: See the building department. MEMBER SAVEN: The five-day waiting period is what you are asking to waive? MR. DWYER: Yes. Thank you, very much. CASE NUMBER 02-079 THE CHAIRMAN: 02-079. Do you want to give us your name? MR. HILLER: Yes. Daniel Hiller. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or
affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. HILLER: I do. THE CHAIRMAN: All right, sir. MR. HILLER: I'm here not out of preference but out of need. Four or five years ago, Chrysler abandoned the Eagle brand and they would like to have us redo our sign and we dodged and weaved and so on and so forth. And two years ago the Plymouth brand was abolished. The reality is that we don't own these signs, that they're leased. We have been approach by companies to subcontract with them and Chrysler and it really doesn't make good sense at all, that the facility should have the same brand image. The need for this is one that's being put forth by Daimler Chrysler. It's my belief -- and while I don't have the original variance request, that was granted back in '95, I think our square footage has actually been diminished. I would apologize for the poor duplication of what appears on the front of that building but technicians don't do well on 30-foot ladders, when they're not accustomed to it. Mr.
Amash was able to handle part of this with our monument sign, also, just the verbiage has Plymouth is coming off of that. He said with the square footage, we may be ale to move the -- square footage of the original variance. One way or the other, it doesn't matter to me, other than the expense and time involved, but that's the purpose for that. THE CHAIRMAN: We did have eleven notices sent. No approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience? Building department? It was my impression, also, that the new signs are smaller. They do represent your new business? My only thought, personally, was given the many changes in the corporation with products that perhaps we should consider -- this is the third change in signs at this site, if I'm not mistaken. MR. HILLER: If one more goes away, we're out of business. THE CHAIRMAN: Who knows? Any other boards member comments? MEMBER REINKE: No, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: It seems like a
reasonable request. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that if the petition is granted, that the variance would read for the size signs as depicted. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a recommendation for a motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a motion, in Case 02-079, that it the request be granted with specific size of the sign as already depicted, as per the change in the business. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you granting the elimination of continued jurisdiction, as well? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I'm just saying nothing about it. THE CHAIRMAN: That's part of his petition. So you either have to deny that part or -- MEMBER SANGHVI: And we may as well remove the condition of continuing jurisdiction of this variance. MEMBER REINKE: I will support it but I have a discussion. My question is what are the pros and cons of removing it?
MR. SCHULTZ: As I said last time, I'm not really able to say that. Continuing jurisdiction is kind of a term of art. I think it's something that's involved with the city. If you remove it, what you have granted is a variance from this side. He wants to change it, he comes back -- really, it's enunciating something that really happens, anyway. THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? MEMBER SAVEN: It was just brought up earlier that was for what was depicted or what was presented here as to dimensions. I'm concerned about the fact that the dimension itself maybe elaborated on. We go from the highest letter to the length of whatever that sign is. We could get something a little more intense in that area than what is presented before us today. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? MR. SCHULTZ: Just a clarification. The idea here that you are granting a box, beyond the logo? MEMBER SAVEN: I'm picking up from the board that they're going to grant the box by virtue of dimension. Although the box that we have
here is not as intense in shape, it might be something down the road that they could stay within that parameter and we could say wow, what do we do? MR. SCHULTZ: I think the board could resolve that saying as it's shown now. THE CHAIRMAN: The petitioner has no problem with that? MR. HILLER: No. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have an understanding and agreement, continuing jurisdiction. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. HILLER: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-080
THE CHAIRMAN: Case number 02-080. This is Lots 70 and 71. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MS. SCOTT: Yes, I do. MS. GRONACHAN: Your name again, please? MS. SCOTT: April Scott. I reside at 9560 Deering. I am here representing my mother Jessie Farkas. She is the prospective buyer of 70 and 71 Idlemere Park. Based on the irregular shape of this lot, the building envelope is actually a triangular shape. That's why I'm proposing the setbacks of 13.33 feet in the rear, 13.33 feet in the front. That's actually the area that was on the minutes and the announcement, and two feet on the north side of the yard. The purchase agreement has been signed contingent upon a variance approval to allow a 1053 square-foot manufactured home, including the porch to be placed on a cross-base foundation. The manufactured home is a 1997 Fairmont, which meets all HUD and BOCA housing requirements. This is a
picture of it. I believe you have the documentation in the packet. But this is the interior of the home, all of which meets all the BOCA requirements. It has two bedrooms, two full baths, a large living area, living room, kitchen with the bay window, the easy access colonial-style windows, the laundry room with storm and screen doors. The exterior is beige siding with green shutters and a porch that's approximately 4 feet 3 -- excuse me -- 13 feet wide, which would nicely complement and accent the curb appeal in the area. I have a picture of the home itself. That would be the exterior front, facing the front of the lot. And if you want to see the size of the home, I don't have the actual pictures of the size but I do have the drawing. That's basically what the side view would look like, with the exception of the doors, the doors in the front on the version that I have. This home is not meant for resale. This is something that my mother -- my mother has been in the area for more than thirty years and she would like to reside in the area. She is really active in the community and hopes to stay in the
Novi community. She's currently living in an apartment and hopes to retire in this area. The visual appearance of this property can be very discouraging, but as you can see from the dimensions you have in the packet, as you can see, the dimensions laid out on paper the home selection and placement would be a very good match for this piece of property. The total lot coverage would be 19 percent, which falls within the City's maximal allowance of 25 percent. The placement of the home would enabled the shortest distance to be 21.67 feet in the backyard, which is the dimension right here, this side dimension. The 16.7 feet in the front yard, which is this dimension right here, going to the corner of the home, eight feet on the north side, this rear corner and approximately 22 feet on the south side, posing for the option of a garage in the future, this dimension right here. The conformity should be met to that of neighbors' homes through the shape of the house. The siding is similar to some of the homes in the area and most of the homes are closer than 30 feet to the front of the road. I do understand that
there is a grandfathering in the area, though. Being that the lot has been vacant for over fifteen years, putting housing structure on this piece property would actually increase the value of the homes. I know there are some neighbors that are concerned with the value of the property itself and the value of their homes decreasing. We also took into consideration the size of the road when designing the horseshoe-shaped driveway right here. This would remain gravel until the budget would increase and then that would stretch a cross the front of the property. This would allow visitors to have easy access to the road, while enabling traffic to continue as normal. In addition, we have the proposed triangular-shaped driveway to run from the horseshoe-shaped driveway along the side of the house for side door access, once again allowing for more access for visitors, with the possible option of the garage. Speaking with Mr. Terrence Maroon, Deputy Building Official of the City of Novi, he has informed me that the property is not wetlands, nor is it woodland or floodland. That's being said
it constitutes as a sound piece of property for building. In closing, I would like to state that this is not an idle piece of property, rather, an ideal piece of property for the right individual who is willing to work with the surroundings and to me, I feel that is my mother. She would like to have a piece of property to take care of and keep her home in the area. I want to thank you for the time that you have had to listen to me and hope that I have provided you with all the information you need. THE CHAIRMAN: April, were you here right at the beginning of the meeting? MS. SCOTT: Yes, I was. THE CHAIRMAN: So you heard our comments that we were going to hear your case, we're going to let your neighbors talk to you, hopefully talk to you. That's where we're going to go right now. There were thirty-one notices sent out and there were a number of objections, people in the audience that wish to talk to the board about this. Any hands? Just one? Let me read some of these names and
hopefully you will have an opportunity. Is there any problem with her getting some of these, any particular objections? Mr. and Mrs. Michael Reeves, Chris Posma, Lawrence Wesson, and Henry Berry. Sir, now is a good time -- MR. RUSSELL: I am the realtor involved in this issue. I'm in support of this a hundred percent. THE CHAIRMAN: If you want that to go on the record, come on down here and say it. Give us your name, please. MR. RUSSELL: If it's possible, I have a couple of more things I would like to add. My name is Randy Russell. I'm the realtor involved. I have been involved in the community, I am a property owner in Novi. This property has sat here for a long, long time. The people around it may not want it built on but I think they want it for their own personal gain, to remain vacant land and to devalue this property. This is the highest and best use of this property. This woman has gone through great detail. The property has a small building
envelope. Her mother who just wants a piece of dirt to take care of. This property is ideal for that situation because it's not too large. It's just small enough for her to care for. This is just an excellent situation to happen for this piece of property. It will increase the value of the neighborhood. It also will increase the property taxes to our community. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else in the audience? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Right here. THE CHAIRMAN: Come on down, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: If there's anyone else, please come on down and get in line, so we can save a little time. THE CHAIRMAN: You have seen these letters, April? MS. SCOTT: I have seen these letters. I contacted the Rabees as well as the Posmas and I really didn't get that much of a response. I did try and stop by -- I'm sorry. What was Lawrence's last name? I tried to stop by your house last night but you weren't home. MR. WESSON: Larry Wesson, 30305
Maudlin. Randy said exactly what I said in my letter. This is all about a real estate commission. We're not having a homeowner. There is no homeowner. It is a vacant lot. I would love to see it used but I really can't see approving something just for a realtor and that's what I'm hearing, that this whole thing is sets up for a realtor. Unless you've got questions, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe, we will clarify that a little bit. Building department? MEMBER SAVEN: You said there is a future use of a garage is being proposed. MS. SCOTT: Yes. That's why the side variance is being requested of the two feet versus the ten minimum on the north side. MEMBER SAVEN: Just so that you are aware this is -- we're no longer grandfathering the ordinance. The grandfathering was taken out of the ordinance about a year and a half ago, around that time. So you have a 10- or 15-foot requirements, so when it comes time to build a garage -- MS. SCOTT: Another variance would be needed? Okay. MEMBER SAVEN: Take that into
consideration, as far as the configuration of the property. MS. SCOTT: I wasn't aware of that. Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: I have to disclose that I live at 315 Maudlin. I did not return my notice when it was sent. I feel I can judge fairly. However, if the board would prefer that I sit out, I would be happy to. THE CHAIRMAN: Given your history, Sarah, if you are comfortable with it, I don't have any problem. MEMBER SAVEN: Likewise. THE CHAIRMAN: Continue on. MEMBER GRAY: When I originally saw what you are proposing, the first thing I saw was the 8-foot variance to -- where was the garage going to go sometime in the future. MS. SCOTT: We were proposing. MEMBER GRAY: I figured out where the garage would go. I realize it's a difficult piece of property. This subdivision was platted in 1917. The fact that there are lots does not necessarily mean that everything is buildable. However, it's
not a bad piece of property. It's not a bad use. My concern is if you have the ability to put side variances, both 10 on the north and 15 on the south, I think you should observe them and I think you should skew the house however you want to, to move it over. I don't care if you want to build a garage in the future. MS. SCOTT: I was unaware of the variance for the garage. MEMBER GRAY: Some of my other concerns have to do with the house to the north. Did you get in touch with Rick? MS. SCOTT: No. MEMBER GRAY: His house is less than five off the property line, Larry? It's almost right on top of the property line. Again, these are houses that have been in existence since the forties and fifties. So they predate the setbacks and they are existing and the fact that they're existing doesn't mean you have the right to duplicate what else is being done. I have a legitimate concern with the rear yard setback, although, again, I understand this a very difficult piece of property, but Mr.
and Mrs. Wesson's house is right behind there and they're a little farther off the property line. Larry, how far is your rear property line setback? How far you off the property line MR. WESSON: On the north side? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MR. WESSON: It's probably about 25 feet. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. and Mrs. Wesson's house is about 25 feet off the north property line. Although it doesn't meet current standards, it gives a little bit more buffer to this. I don't have as much a of a problem as it may seem in bringing in a manufactured home. My question is to you -- and I don't even know that it has any bearing on this case -- but is this going to be brought in in two pieces or four? MS. SCOTT: Two. MEMBER GRAY: How are you going to make the turnoff south Laring onto Maudlin? MS. SCOTT: I'm not a driver. MEMBER GRAY: I don't know how they're going to do it, but I'm not going to worry about it. I understand my neighbors concern. I
just have a problem with the side setback. I think if we can get 10 on the north and 15 on the south, whatever we can to make it a little bit more compatible, let's do that. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER REINKE: I feel there is no reason that the house couldn't be positioned on there to have the existing side yard requirements without a variance on one side as a minimum to start with. It's unfortunate for lot configuration. I understand you're trying to work with it and do the best you can, but I couldn't vote for variances on all the sides. MS. SCOTT: I understand and I appreciate your feedback. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? I guess I would encourage you to take some of this input and keep your potential new neighbors informed. That goes a long way in getting variances up in that part of town. I know you had hoped to come here to have us address this case, vote on this case. It's a short board tonight, as well. I think another day will give you enough time to work on this, if that's your pleasure.
MS. SCOTT: Yes. It very much is. MEMBER GRAY: I just want to suggest that you might want to put some stakes on the property to show you're possessing this. MS. SCOTT: Stakes will be made after purchase. Base on the contingency, we don't own the land. Therefore, we don't want to pay for a survey. MEMBER GRAY: That's not what I'm suggesting. I would suggest you get in touch Mr. and Mr. Shearer and if they would allow you to stake where you show what you are proposing -- not survey stakes, just so what you are proposing. You might want to show where you are proposing the garage, maybe, too. I think with the garage, it may be too intense and I just want to let you know that up front. MS. SCOTT: I understand. Thank you. I had a quick question. I don't know if you wanted to address me first of -- MEMBER SAVEN: I would like to do that, please. Mr. Chairman, I would indicate that I know all the board members have seen the plan as it exists now. This is a very unusual piece of
property, so the skewing of that building, as we're trying to achieve a setback requirement may require a more intense front yard setback than what's here right now, or rear yard setback, or moving this building. I just want you to be aware of that. MEMBER GRAY: I understand that and I see it pivoting on the one corner. MS. SCOTT: In reference to the garage, are carports or something along those lines considered a building? MEMBER SAVEN: Yes. MS. SCOTT: That would be. MEMBER SAVEN: It's still the same thing. MS. SCOTT: I just wanted to show you quickly that I did put thought into this layout. I just drafted a couple of, real roughly, what the different layouts of the house would look like on the property, how it would fit best without a variance. MEMBER GRAY: Would you show me where the Wessons' house would be, please? MS. SCOTT: This is actually laid out
wrong. The Wesson's house would be out here. The rest of them will follow suit. So there is this proposal, that I tried to get it to fit this way but there were way too many -- I had to get a setback on all four sides. I went against that and tried for this, slightly pivoting it and won't. Again, it just barely made the sides, but I would still have to apply for the variances up here. I declined on that one, also. This just seemed to be the best fit overall, which is -- I can give it 10.5 here on the new plat plan to allow for this area right here, which is where the driveway is right in here, to make the carport or garage proposal. So this is what I will probably change the proposal to be for the next meeting. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other input from board members or the building department? (No comments by the building department.) THE CHAIRMAN: Then I would move that we move this to the next meeting, where we will have a lot more input and hopefully a lot more support coming from your neighbors. MS. SCOTT: Okay. I thank you for
your time. THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to take a four-minute break. (A recess was taken.) CASE NUMBER 02-081 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 02-081. Ma'am, give us your name and raise your right hand and be sworn. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MS. DUREK: I do. THE CHAIRMAN: Tracy, make your presentation and keep in mind, we are already behind. MS. DUREK: I am Tracy Durek with Sign Art. We are requesting a variance to replace the First Federal of Michigan wall sign that Charter One Bank sign on the front of this building, bearing in mind that we're only about one sign per parcel, per ordinance now. I was out there tonight and you kind of run in a little difficult with the pylon sign, if you're driving
east and on Ten Mile, it's barely visible. If you're driving north and south on Meadowbrook, it's not real visible until you're right there on the intersection. What we were hoping to accomplish was by having the front of the building maybe a little more visible, so people would know where the bank was. Also, I think it's unique, in the fact that it doesn't look like your normal bank. The drive-through in the back of the building to the front of the building, it doesn't really look much like a bank building, so we're requesting a variance. THE CHAIRMAN: There were fifteen notices sent, no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience with to talk to us? MEMBER SAVEN: Just a smaller sign. THE CHAIRMAN: Smaller sign? Boards members, please. MEMBER REINKE: Just a question. Is that a mock-up or is that a permanent sign. MS. DUREK: That's a permanent sign. MEMBER REINKE: I thought it was. MS. DUREK: Actually, they'll
probably put me on a ladder to start taking it down. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? (No questions were posed.) MEMBER GRONACHAN: Case Number 02-081, Charter One Bank sign, I move that we approve the request for the new sign, 27.13 square foot which is a smaller sign than the sign that was previously there. MEMBER GRAY: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? (Vote taken.) THE CHAIRMAN: You have permission to put up a sign. See the building department for your necessary permits. MS. DUREK: Thank you, very much. CASE NUMBER 02-082 THE CHAIRMAN: Now we have the case on 23782 Cranbrooke Drive. Your name? MR. SZCZYGIEL: Stan Szczygiel, S-z-c-z-y-g-i-e-l. THE CHAIRMAN: You want to raise your
hand and be sworn. MR. RAYIS: Omar Rayis, of garage building of Livonia, Michigan. They asked me to speak for them because they speak broken English. Is that fine? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Will you both raise your hands. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. RAYIS: Yes. We're requesting a variance for six feet. The city told us that we need six feet on the east side and six feet on the north side right here. We made an agreement, we wanted to just fill in these two walls. This is an L shape right here. WE just want to make a complete square in the corner. That's what Mr. and Mrs. Szczygiel wanted to do. I have a picture of the house, also. This is the house right now. They just want to bring this over here. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that in the rear yard? MR. RAYIS: Yes, the rear. THE CHAIRMAN: If we have some
questions we will get to them? There were thirty-four notices sent. The petitioner sent in an approval plus two neighbors. Anybody in the audience. Building department? MEMBER SAVEN: Basically, my comment is this is an existing house. They had a nine-foot setback on that side. The six-foot was based on a fifteen-foot requirement. He did have a ten-foot which was okay, therefore it's just making everything right in this particular area, the sum total of the setback. THE CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, he is not exceeding the side yard footprint. This is the scare yard for the existing wall and I have no problem with the petitioner's request. MEMBER SAVEN: Do I understand that you said it's only going to be the back of the house? It didn't say so on this application. Man man: We're building the front of the garage, also. MEMBER SANGHVI: You didn't mention that at all.
MR. RAYIS: Mr. Webber, he just told us about the addition. We need it for the garage also. THE CHAIRMAN: You are okay with the front yard setback. There's no problem there. You are all set. Man man: I understand. I spoke with Mr. Webber last week and that's what he mentioned to me. So I guess there was a misunderstanding. MEMBER GRAY: I don't have any problem with this, because as Mr. Reinke said, they're not going to be intruding any further into Lots 3 than what exists. I would move to approve the petitioner's request for the two variances, based on their presumed need to expand the size of the house. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion to support. Any discussion? (Vote taken.) THE CHAIRMAN: You have your variance. CASE NUMBER 02-083
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next case is Novi Party Store, Number 02-083. Give us your name and be sworn. MR. CARROLL: Yes. John Carroll. THE CHAIRMAN: You are representing Carroll Installation? MR. CARROLL: Yes, we do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CARROLL: The layout of the building is a multi-tenant building. When you get into the parking lot, we need to identify which unit the store is in. It's not in from Grand River. Therefore, the directional sign, the tenants' sign, pylon sign, does not show where the store is, it just shows that it's one of the buildings in there. When you get into the lot, we need to identify which store is there. We have requested signs that meet the ordinance, as far as square footage. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that it? MR. CARROLL: That's it. THE CHAIRMAN: There were fifteen notices. We did have an objection for an adjoining party store, Mr. Quinn.
MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Seymour? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Gilliam. MR. SEYMOUR: We're covering for everyone tonight. Mr. Quinn is in Italy. My name is Phil Seymour. I am here on behalf of the adjoining property owner, George Sanawi (ph.), who is the owner of the fine wine shop. This fine wine shop is located immediately to the west of the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: You are going to address the objection? MR. SEYMOUR: We would address the objection. Mr. Gilliam had a letter faxed over this afternoon. I apologize for the tardiness of it. I have given it to the recording secretary, and it's my understanding that she has given it to each member of the commission. Obviously, the commission is familiar with the standard that must be established by an applicant's requesting a variance. He must show a practical difficulty. There are a number of standards with respect to practical difficulties that there are special circumstances regarding the property.
I think if we look at this lot, I think the property was developed by the owner in such a fashion that it's not unique. They just chose to run the building in a north/south direction. The length of the building is a north/south direction and that does not make it unique to any other property in this district, and as a result, there is no uniqueness of this property allowing the variance. The literal interpretation of the provisions, the second standard would be the literal interpretation of the provisions, would deprive the applicant of the right of common use of the property. They're allowed a sign. They have a sign out in front. That is sufficient to identify the occupants of the store. They can put another name on the side. They can change that ground sign that they have in front, but I think the other thing you have to keep in mind is this building, as I indicated, the north side is on Grand River. It runs lengthwise. All the parking is on the east side the front door. The only entrance to the property is on the east side. Clearly, they don't need another sign
to identify the entrance to this building. If they want to say well, we have a tenant over here and the party store is to the south entrance, it would seem to me that they could identify the tenant by putting a sign inside the building. I believe the ordinance allows window signs that are inside and they could identify the various tenants by those types of signs, that being signs on the inside. Number three would be the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicants. This is where I think they have problems. You have a site plan that was approved for a single-tenant building, I believe. They, on their own choosing, decided to divide this building in two and create two businesses in one. Any difficulty that they may have is self-created and as a result, that standard is not met and they should not be granted a variance strictly on that standard. Now, the other matters are that substantial justice be done. I need not remind the commission that you are here to enforce the ordinances. I understand that you are supposed to attempt to help properties owners and certainly the
applicant is a property owner but your obligation really is to enforce the ordinance and not to grant exceptions, except in unusual circumstances. I don't believe that the applicant has met its burden in this particular matter to establish an unusual circumstance or a practical difficulty. We would ask you deny the variance in this request. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other audience participation here? Building department? MEMBER SAVEN: No comments, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't appear to be relevant but I'm curious as to the comments made about this being approved as a single business and now being sublet. That doesn't really matter to us. I'm kind of curious -- MEMBER SAVEN: As long as the use is approved for that district and they have ample parking for that particular tenant, there should be no problem. It's like changing tenants in and out. THE CHAIRMAN: I indicate that there were fifty notices sent and I had one objection. Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, there
is a sizeable ground sign there in existence. If they're going to have a wall sign, to me, the ground sign should be removed. MR. CARROLL: We need identification on the Grand River side. MEMBER REINKE: You have to have one or the other. You can't have both. MR. CARROLL: We need to show identification in then parking lot. There is going to be two separate businesses and two separate doors. We want to identify where the party store is. They're allowed to have two tenants in the building. One of the main reasons our building is aligned that way, we were asked to confirm with other buildings by the City of Novi. We have agreed to do that and now we are facing the consequences but, you know, were asking for your help in this matter. THE CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER GRAY: I guess you have a party store, a party store going in next to a party store. THE CHAIRMAN: That's been the case
for three years. MEMBER GRAY: I know. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have been there since 1978, just to let you guys know. MEMBER GRAY: I would have to agree with the other board members about one sign is going to have to go. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, you said it is not hard to find this business with just one sign. Either it's on the wall or it's on the ground. I think we were giving an option to them, what they would like to keep, whether they want the ground sign or the wall sign, because I don't think two signs are needed. THE CHAIRMAN: My observation is that this store is very close to Grand River. That building is probably with in 50 feet of Grand River. The basis for variances are granted based on hardship being demonstrated. MR. CARROLL: Did you visit the site? THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, I have lived in the community since 1969. MR. CARROLL: I understand. Did you visit the site, pull into the parking lot?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Did you know what store the sign was going to be in? THE CHAIRMAN: Whether the sign was going to be necessary? My point is the store is very close to Grand River, that the sign on Grand River identifies that business. MR. REINKE: If there were a sign to identify the door of which business was which, it sure wouldn't take a 65 square foot sign from that side of the building from the parking lot that I drove through just again tonight to review the situation as it is. MR. CARROLL: That was the limit in that zoning, so that's why we used 65 square foot. MR. REINKE: Until we see in total what is there, because now as I look at it, just in reviewing this, we now need a sign for the party store. Now, you get another tenant, we come back. Now, we need another sign for this tenant. Until I see the total of what is going up on there, I'm not going to approve any sign. THE CHAIRMAN: Is the other suite leased?
MR. CARROLL: No, because we want to see what happens with the sign first. That's part of leasing the building, telling the tenants what signs are available and it's not going to be very marketable if all we can put them on is that pylon sign. MEMBER GRAY: I think the comment was made, too, that the tenants can put a sign in their building to identify them. So why can't the party store put a sign in the window to identify them, if that's the case? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If I may insert a point, if you guys don't mind, the only objection that you heard from the party that just made this objection was using our property for the last twenty years for parking and now since we improved the site and put landscaping, a bench and lighting and we, quote, used their parking for our landscaping, which is property that we owned, there is some kind of hard feelings now, and I think this is all they can do to kind of justify it. But that's not why we're here. We're here just to take care of our property. MEMBER REINKE: I don't want to get
into a debate on this. His was probably a minimal part of my discussion and feeling on the warranting and justification for the second sign. I just wanted to clarify that point. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the sign looks better on the building. I would take the sign off of Grand River. All the applicants were given an option at the beginning of this meeting to present before a full board. This applicants didn't. If there is anyone who is in a position, unless there is other discussion, we will entertain a motion. MR. CARROLL: You are not going to allow any type of sign at all to define his door, nothing at all? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just want to remind you guys the audio-visual place next door has both a pylon sign and a building sign. MEMBER SANGHVI: We're dealing with your situation at this moment. I think we have already given you a choice, which way you would like to go, whether you would like to have a wall sign or if you would like to have a ground sign. If I don't want to make a choice, we will make a choice for you right now and make a motion.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, I would have to review the marketing for that other unit. MEMBER SANGHVI: If you would like to table the case, I have no problem with that. You can request that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think that's what I would like. Okay. MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Mr. Chairman is it okay? THE CHAIRMAN: I think you just made a motion to do so. MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a motion that this particular request be tabled until the next meeting and give them a chance to -- MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MEMBER SAVEN: Can I ask a question here? Is it such that your business is going to be toward the front of the store if you keep the ground full sign? Is that what you are looking at? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The logic is our building is facing the east. Anybody that's driving east is not going to know we exist, if we don't have the pylon sign. Anybody driving west -- THE CHAIRMAN: Is going to see the
pylon sign? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. But we're going to lose all the traffic that's flowing east, because that's the easy side to get into our building if we don't have the pylon sign. THE CHAIRMAN: Don't you in the course of your business have all kinds of signage in your windows? MEMBER SAVEN: You're talking about thirty days for whatever that time factor is. THE CHAIRMAN: Every party store has got every square inch of window space. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Not that we're encouraging that. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm talking reality. He's suggesting that the pole sign doesn't give him full identification and I disagree. It gives him fine identification for east and west traffic on Grand River. MEMBER SAVEN: I think Mr. Reinke came up with a fine suggestion. You have two tenants that are going to be there. In the big picture, you might give that some thoughts, when you come back to the board for the next meeting.
MEMBER REINKE: No matter who your tenant is, look at some signage that covers two tenants. Look at something that's realistic. If somebody pulls in and parks there, what's it going to take to know which door is which business? Not 64 square feet, that's for sure. I would like you to look at what you have to have as a minimum for two businesses there, so we deal with this at one time and no matter who you come in with, business-wise, you know you have got a certain signage to work with which will help you out, also. THE CHAIRMAN: We have had a motion, discussion. Any further discussion? MR. CARROLL: Is there a limitation on signage in the windows? You are telling us to go inside and put it in the windows but there is a limit to that? MEMBER SAVEN: It has to be ruled within thirty days after it's first displayed and not more than 25 percent glass are coverage and it has to be located in the front. THE CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Reinke's advice is more sound. We're dealing with another business that's obviously down the road, that's
going to require a sign. Let's come back and address both of those suites. Permanent neon in windows is not permitted. MEMBER SAVEN: Just an open sign. One that says open and/or closed, and that's it. I would suggest that you get in to the sign enforcement officer and talk to him. MR. CARROLL: Okay. CASE NUMBER 02-084 THE CHAIRMAN: Case Number 02-084. This is 145 Buffington. Give us your names. MR. HALL: John Hall. MS. HALL: Stephanie Hall. THE CHAIRMAN: Your right hands, please, and be sworn. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. HALL: Yes. MS. HALL: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
MR. HALL: We are asking for a two-foot variance, both front and side yard on a Queen Anne style victorian porch. We are the original tenants, original owners of this house, and had some choice in designs and tried, because of the pie-shaped nature of the lot, tried to anticipate building a porch on the house and have it changed, but because the shape of the lot, could not move it back. So when we went to put on a porch, we want a functional porch, not just a cosmetic across the front. We intend to use it with a porch swing. We have a deck in the back that does not get much use, because of significant mosquito population and so we have tried to work with the designer to meet the style requirements and the functionality and get the least variation from the ordinance with a functional porch. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you must have really done some homework because all your neighbors love it. There was 41 notices sent. We have thirteen very applauding approves. There were no objections. MR. HALL: I took the plans around
personally and showed them. THE CHAIRMAN: That's the mark of a smart man. Anyone here in the audience care to participate? Building department? MEMBER SAVEN: And then there was the building department. Okay. I would just mention that if this was an open, uncovered porch, based on the dimensions he had, it would be something that would be allowable by ordinance, then, dealing with the side yard, two inches for every foot of required setback, but based on the fact that this is covered -- THE CHAIRMAN: Boards members? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has done an outstanding job of doing minimum intrusion into the front and side yard and we fully support his request. I would move in case 02-084 that the petitioners' request be granted, due to lot size, shape and configuration. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion? MEMBER GRAY: Second. (Vote taken.) THE CHAIRMAN: See the building
department for your permits. CASE NUMBER 02-086 THE CHAIRMAN: Case Number 02-086. This is the Eight Mile case. THE CHAIRMAN: Whoever may be giving some input, we will swear you in. MR. ROBINSON: Paul Robinson. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. MASCIULLI: Dean Masciulli, Multi Building Company. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. MASCIULLI: I do. The request is for a variance to allow an over-sized garage, the primary purpose of which is to display an antique car collection. I'm talking about display for the homeowner and the homeowner's personal guests. The description on the variance references the building as 7600 square feet and the variance requested 5100 square feet.
I think that without seeing what that really means on this property and for this home it's a little bit of an exaggeration of what the visual impact of the variance would be. The home itself will be setting 600 feet off the road. The primary building of the house is approximately 7800 square footage and about almost 11,000 square feet total living space. The building in question is -- this is an illustrative photo. This is not the actual photo that would be the design in question, but we have on each side a parking area that would accommodate three cars. Each of those sides would be approximately 1100 to 1150 square feet. There is then a driveway section that would be covered that accommodate the cars moving in and out from these parking structures. That covered area is about 1700 square feet. So the footings on this, about 3800 square feet. The additional 3800 square feet is all underground. It's a basement that will have an access point from here and a driveway that comes up from underground and around the property. So we then look at the surrounding
properties to see how this structure would be viewed by the neighbors. The property, as I say, sits 600 feet off the road. On three sides it's surrounded by tall trees, hundred-year-old mature trees. There is no visual sight into the property from off the property on three sides. On the fourth side, the neighbor has a chicken coop. His hobby, instead of collecting cars, is collecting and breeding chickens and he has a couple of small storage sheds. The house itself is back here and behind the existing chicken coop on the neighbor's property. The garage itself would sit from one corner, 80 feet setback from the property line and from the front corner a 199-feet setback. Because of the building, the existing building of the neighbors being between the house and this garage, it's not visible from the neighbor's property, either. So we have the building that, in effect, will be approximately 1150 square foot here, 1150 square foot here and this covered ingress and egress driveway of about 1700 square feet and then 3800 square feet below ground, that can't be seen from any vantage point. The hardship to the homeowners is
obviously a personal one. A lot of families collect things. Some families collect crystal, some families collect porcelain. This family collects cars. They're not driven in and out of the house on a regular basis. They're used, as I say, for display purposes. They might go out for a parade once or twice a year. There will be two residents driving in this house. Any car that will be driven on a regular basis will come out of the main floor. Really, the bottom floor is really a subterranean display room. A home that's already in existence, as this particular home, it has a similar structure built. The primary difference between the structure that the Levitts request and this one is the fact that in the Levitts request the garage will sit on a slight angle off of the main home, where on the Turnberry home, it creates an L shape. The only feasible way to eliminate the request for a variance is number one, they would have to eliminate the display room in the basement, which would mean that they couldn't accommodate all the cars. Secondly, they would have to
eliminate the covered portion of the driveway area, which would be a structure such as this one here, which would have a separate garage for three cars on this side and an attached three-car garage here. That gives you a square footage for an accessory building for about 220 square feet. There would be no request for the variance. When you do that, you lose the architectural tie-in, you lose the beauty of the home. The Levitts lose the ability to keep their collection, which as I mentioned, is really one of the primary motivating factors in seeking out this property to build this home. If you take a look at the remaining elements of the ordinance, the setbacks and the comparative sides between the home and the accessory building, all of the elements are met. The setbacks from each property line range from 75 feet to 600 feet. There is nothing closer than 75. The footings of this building, even including the driveway space, is approximately one-half of the footings of the main structure of the home and the ordinance allows up to of even footing between the home and the accessory building so they're well within that.
When you consider the size of the property and the seclusion of the property, I think the spirit of the zoning ordinance is met. We don't have a situation where they're trying to put too much home on too small of a lot. We don't have situation where they're intruding the the neighbors' use or enjoyment of their property. It's simply to let them use the house the way everyone does, which is to keep their collections on display in their home. If there's any technical questions about the drawings that you have in front of you, Mr. Matinelli is here from the building company. He can explain the designs. If you have any questions, please, I would like to respond to it. THE CHAIRMAN: There were fifteen notices sent no approval, no objection. Anyone in the audience care to make a comment? We do have someone back here. Give us your name and address, ma'am. MS. VANTON: my name is Barbara Vanton, 41225 Llewellyn. My property actually backs up to this property. Since I had no idea what the plans were, I wanted to come and see
exactly what he was proposing. It was such a huge structure, I didn't know if I was going to be looking out at the garage, the back of a garage. Actually, that's why I'm here. I just wanted to see what he was proposing. MEMBER SAVEN: If I may take a minute, I will take the plan and show what it looks like. THE CHAIRMAN: You want to do that outside and let us continue on here. MEMBER SAVEN: Yes, please. THE CHAIRMAN: Before we do that, building department? MEMBER SAVEN: I feel this is one of the best laid out architectural plans that I have ever seen in terms of accessory structures in taking full utilization of the square footage in this area. I would like to go over a couple of things. If you turn to sheet two, this is the basement area which they're talking about. This basement area is approximately 3800 square foot in size. This is basically a two-story accessory structure, directly over one another and it's always been our intent in the zoning ordinance,
when we deal with accessory structures, once the footprints of the building are laid out, is that it takes up space within that yard. Here, we're taking that space and putting one over another. This is the first time I have ever seen anything like this. They have taken full utilization of that particular area, bearing in mind that they have a portico on the first storage, which is the entrance that was pointed out earlier on. That's complete air space. Unfortunately, they have habitable space above that and that was also counted in the square footage. If you did not utilize that square footage in the computation, you would be losing 1600 or 1700 square foot in that particular area. Even though it's an open space, it was counted in the tabulations for the square footage in the area. At this time I would like to show this lady what the plan is. THE CHAIRMAN: Bored members? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in reviewing the plan, looking at the size, the first thing you think is, my God, we have never seen this kind of request. But there's two factors to this.
Number one is you are looking at what you visually see in the sides of this house. When you are looking at it and looking from the front elevation, it looks like you're seeing a two-car garage because you really don't see the garage doors. With respect to petitioner's hobby of collecting cars, I can understand that and I can commend you, the way this is arranged or laid out, because you can store so many cars and nobody would ever know that there was anything there. It makes it nice that you have them at your residence, so that you can enjoy the toys that you do have. I think they have done a tremendous job. The numbers looked high but in relation to the size of the house and the scope of the building, it really doesn't look like there is anything like that at all. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think it was pointed out, in case anyone is still watching on t.v., this parcel is fourteen acres plus. My only concern when I first looked at the case was the size of this is going to negatively impact somebody nearby. I know that subdivision and that's where they're all huge houses. It seems like a
reasonable request and I think the facts that it's a 7,000 square foot garage is a bit misleading because a fair chunk of that is basement MEMBER GRAY: I have no problem with this because I would much rather see what is proposed as opposed to the possibility of building separate structures in the rear yard or something. I don't have a problem with it. I think it's a beautiful plan. I think it's going to be a wonderful showpiece and your architect is to be commended. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I just want to know if you would like to start collecting horses instead of cars? MEMBER SANGHVI: Can I just make one observation. It is unusual for this part of the world to see this kind of alignment in the rest of the house. These are 200 years old. In the days of the stable they used to have that same thing. I have no problem with it. The only thing, when I read your -- you say use are to store and work on classic cars and I just wondered if we're talking about, you know, reconditioning old cars, also, or just showing them for exhibition only inside your property?
MR. MASCIULLI: We won't be working on it within the underground portion. It's just a display area, as we say. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: As an owner of an old car, we're always working on them. MEMBER SANGHVI: I know. We're talking about painting and that kind of thing cleaning it up and polishing and all that, that goes on all the time. Even if it stays there, you still have to keep removing the dirt and dust, anyway. I have no problem. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. THE CHAIRMAN: What do you think, ma'am? MS. VANTON: I have no objection at all. I just couldn't fathom what this was all about. I have no problem. MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a motion that Case 02-086, the request of the applicant be granted and at the same time, we would like to commend the size of the house and the design and everything else, which is so refreshing. Thank you.
MEMBER GRAY: Second. MEMBER SANGHVI: The reason for the request is they have a special hobby and need a place to store these articles and that's be recognized. MEMBER SAVEN: And the five-day waiting period be waived. MEMBER GRAY: I second again. THE CHAIRMAN: (Vote taken.). THE CHAIRMAN: See the building department. THE CHAIRMAN: That concludes our agenda for this evening, unless there are other matters. MEMBER GRAY: I have one other matter, if I may. Tom, when we asked the petitioners to put up a specimen sign or a mock-up, do we have any set thing in the ordinance, if there is an ordinance that says if you don't get it approved you have to take it down in X amount of time? MEMBER REINKE: They're still up. MEMBER GRAY: They're still up. It
was up yesterday and -- MEMBER REINKE: Would you send them a letter to take it down? MEMBER SCHULTZ: It's not in the ordinance but we can move it. MS. MARCHIONI: It says in the sign requirements down at the bottom. MEMBER GRAY: Is there any way we can highlight that to make them aware if we do. As I was driving here tonight, I noticed that the old banking building, 43381 Grand River is putting up a sign that tonight, even as I was driving here, about home furnishing and decorative stuff, the southeast corner of Grand River and Novi Road. It looks pretty big. MEMBER REINKE: It's good-sized. I noticed that, also. MEMBER GRAY: I like the way they did the exterior of the building but -- that's all I wanted to bring to the table tonight. THE CHAIRMAN: Our schedule for next month is back to the beginning. All right. We will close the meeting. Thanks for coming. (The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.) Date approved: November 4, 2002 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary C E R T I F I C A T E I, Ethel M. Martin, 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 one hundred fourteen (114) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said stenograph notes.
Ethel M. Martin, Certified Shorthand Reporter (Date)
|