| 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, February 4, 2003. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call this meeting to order. Sarah, you want to call the roll? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We've got a quorum. Ladies and gentlemen, the agenda has some rules of conduct that I would hope that you take a moment to take a look at and review and adhere to them. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four. members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority of the members present to deny. We have five members, and it will take at least four of the five members tonight to grant a variance. If this troubles you with the numbers and you would care to wait until we have a fuller board, you may do so now; otherwise, we'll continue on. Any hands? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Agenda. Any issues on the agenda; any changes, modifications? MS. MARCHIONI: Nope. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have the minutes from January 7th. Any changes or modifications? Move for approval. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: So the January 7th meeting minutes are approved. Public remarks. We open the meeting at this point to anyone who wishes to approach the board on any issue that is not on our docket tonight. Anyone wish to talk to us about something else that's not on here? (No response) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right. We will move on. CASE NUMBER 02-065 MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to call our first case, which is 02-065. This is filed by Mick Bodrie, 305 Duana. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I was recused from this case before when this member -- or when this resident came up, and I will do so after swearing him in, if that's okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, this is- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Mr. Chairman, I point out that we only have four members of the board, means that this gentleman would need all four. MR. BODRIE: Well, it happened the last time, too. I just- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I just want to point that out. MR. BODRIE: I guess the question is, when do you ever get a full group? MR. CHAIRMAN: You'll have to talk to the city council about that. They're the ones that appoint people to the board, and we're lacking one, and we're also lacking our alternate, so -- I hate to put you in that position, but I mean you're -- it's your call. MR. BODRIE: I'll try it again I guess. MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, this is a continuation of a case from September, so you're already sworn, so why don't you tell us what you want to do now. MR. BODRIE: Okay. After we met in September, I had proposed an attached garage, which my neighbor that was right adjacent to that attached garage objected to. Per your request, I met with him, came up with a solution. Even though it doesn't fit within the variance, the zoning, it seems to work within us, and so we wanted -- I wanted to propose that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Great. MR. BODRIE: Am I correct? I just wanted to make sure that -- when we talked about it, I just wanted to make sure that we're all square on that. What I -- the existing property has a garage on it at this point. It's -- it's pretty small, pretty yucky. It sits directly on the property line. What I'm proposing to do is locate it basically in the same space as far as setback from my home but to put two feet off the property line instead of the required six feet. The reason to hold it within two feet of the property line is just the pure narrowness of the lot. I also cut back on the size of it. I would really have liked to have gone at least a 20 by 24, but by doing that I would use so much of my backyard it would basically render it useless for any practical purposes. So I've basically tried to come up with a plan that would satisfy some basic need for me for a garage and shelter and satisfy the neighbors and hopefully satisfy you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, thank you. When we have cases before us that involve neighbors, we hope that ultimately we come to some degree of mutual satisfaction. Sir, if I'm not mistaken, you were the gentleman that was- UNIDENTIFIED: (Interposing) Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll hold just for a second. There were 30 new notices sent; no approvals, no objections. So let's have the building department comment here. MR. SAVEN: Basically, this gentleman had tried to reduce a number of variances from the last time he was before us. As you can recall, the building was attached at that particular time, and it -- with that being such that there were several variances that were required at that particular time, he is planning on taking down the existing garage, so that's something that's a positive feature here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. All right. We're open for discussion. Any members have questions? MEMBER REINKE: Anybody in the audience that wanted to- MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Anybody in the audience wish to say their piece? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: You're happy? UNIDENTIFIED: I'm happy. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all we needed to hear. Members of the board? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman has went back and reworked this to what we were looking for and worked with his neighbors to come up with a solution. It's like, in most cases, we don't get exactly a hundred percent of what we'd like to have, but it still suffices for what our needs and so forth are. And this gentleman's done a good job on it, and I can support the petitioner's request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER GRAY: I'm glad you reconsidered. I'm still not thrilled with the two feet off the property line because I really don't feel that that gives you enough room to get in and maintain as I think you should, but if your neighbors are in approval with this -- and they're the ones who have to live next door to it -- then I would support the position of the rest of the board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry, you all set? MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, If I may, if you do decide to vote positive on this, I'd ask that, because of the type of construction, it's located as close to the property it is, watch the fire protection and also the drainage from the roof runoff, make sure you put a gutter on that and divert the drainage back onto the property. MR. BODRIE: That's no problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that all part of the building permit process? MR. SAVEN: It could be, but I just wnat to make sure that he- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) It's on the record now. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion in Case 02-065 that we approve Mr. Bodrie's variance request subject to the conditions Mr. Saven just brought up, that he watch the runoff and the construction and observe all fire code due to the smallness, the layout of the property, and the lot configuration. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Any further discussion? MEMBER BAUER: Should they also enter that the old garage be taken down? MEMBER GRAY: I think they have to to build the new one. MR. BODRIE: It sits right on the same spot. MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Sarah. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you've got your variances, and soon you will have your garage, and soon you'll be writing a check to the building department, so see them next. MR. BODRIE: All right. Thanks. MR. SAVEN: Check to the building department first. CASE NUMBER 03-001 MR. CHAIRMAN: How about the Guidobonos, come on down. This is the request for a larger-than-allowed garage in the subdivision on Beck. Help me here. MR. GUIDOBONO: Bellagio. MR cHAIRMAN: Yes, Bellagio. Sir, would you give us your name and if you're not an attorney raise your hand and be sworn. MR. GUIDOBONO: Mark Guidobono of Cambridge Homes, and I'm not an attorney. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. GUIDOBONO: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I should interject here that this is Case Number 03-001. Sir? MR. GUIDOBONO: Here representing the Petrillos. They're the homeowners for lot 17, Bellagio. Mr. Petrillo is out of town, Mrs. Petrillo is with me today. We're -- we are the developers of this subdivision, and the builder. And what we have is a garage that is over 1,000 square feet, and according to city ordinance, requires a maximum allowable of a thousand and we're at 1,340, I believe somewhere in that area, which we feel is, for a home this size, necessary. We've designed the home and split the garage into two, actually to try to make the garage have less -- or more of an appealing appearance on the site. If you have the blueprints in front of you -- I do have a set here. If you'd like, I can pull it out -- but looking -- if you look at the floor plan, you could see how we've split the garages into two separate two-car garages, very similar to our model, if you've been in our model in Bellagio. So it's a very similar situation to that. We find that more attractive when you get into a four-car garage; although, I will admit there's a lot of four-car garages that we have not split in Bellagio, they're together in most cases. But when you can split them like this, it is more architecturally pleasing. So that, and the fact that for the size of this house, it's over 7,000 square feet, we feel these garages are reasonable and fit this house. We kind of believe that the ordinance really was -- maybe when it was adopted it was really trying to take into account more of an R-2, R-3 or R-4 zoning. We are currently in the RA zoning district. We do have the lot size reduced though to nine-tenths of an acre because we use the preservation option. We were here before on that issue. But the lot is 39 -- over 39,000 square feet, so it's over nine-tenths of an acre. It's a large lot, and we feel this is normal. So we feel it just unreasonably prevents the owner from using the property for their permitted use. They have some cars, and most of these people have -- require a four-car garage. And this gentleman has motorcycles and things like that that he likes to store in his garage, plus bikes and things of that nature. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board has. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll throw a few your way, I'm sure. We had twelve notices, and two approvals which are residents that are nearby, if not next door. Anybody in the audience care to comment on this case? (No response) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, we'll move to the building department. MR. SAVEN: As Mr. Guidobono had indicated, that this is an RA zoning district. This lot is nine-tenths of an acre. If this lot was one acre, technically he would have been allowed to have up to twenty-five hundred square foot based on the RA zoning. The fact is that he's under an acre, which is triggering this particular variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: And if I recall, in looking at the minutes from the meeting that we had, it was this board's preference for the layout of that development that saved a lot of woodlands. MR. GUIDOBONO: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: And made it the attractive site that it is. MR. GUIDOBONO: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, questions? MEMBER REINKE: Well, I think that -- Mr. Chairman, with just the only variance request is size-wise, 343 square feet, and with the garage being split, and the visual appearance, it doesn't even show up at all. And for the size of the house, the size of the lot, I think it's a minimal intrusion into the request for the size building that they have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? (No response) MEMBER BAUER: I don't really think (inaudible). MEMBER GRAY: Well, I think that -- I like what's being proposed. I guess part of my quandary I have is, you know, this lot, if it was a little bit bigger we wouldn't even be having the discussion, and based on the lot configuration, it's on a cul-de-sac that's a wedge shape -- I mean, I'm not -- I'm not thrilled with giving out variances to support people's hobbies in collecting cars or anything else; however, I do like the look of this. I think it's architecturally pleasing, and I would have no trouble supporting it based on that because of the lot configuration. I do have trouble with an RA zoning and not being able to give the larger accessory structure because of that, so I can support this. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur a hundred percent, especially since the lot size. It's the biggest -- that's our biggest drawback. And as repeated -- and I stress very importantly, that if this was one acre you wouldn't be here, and it fits right into the building, hobby or not, and so I would be in support of this as well. Thank you. I can make the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: You sure can. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'll make the motion in Case 03-001 for Cambridge Homes, I move that we support the variance of 343 square feet based on lot size and configuration. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Any discussion on that motion? (No discussion) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands flying, we'll call the vote. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. GUIDOBONO: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the building department. Congratulations. MR. GUIDOBONO: Thanks. CASE NUMBER 03-002 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case Number 03-002 filed by David Cook. This is with respect to a prospective acquisition of a parcel in the Idlemere subdivision, and I guess before you buy this piece of property you're interested in hearing whether we might be interested in granting a number of variances. MR. COOK: Exactly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You want to raise your right hand and be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. COOK: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You got it. MR. COOK: Well, there's not a whole lot to say. I mentioned it all. I'm interested in building a house down south of the lake by the park. I noticed this parcel was for sale and I'm inquiring into building a house on it. I haven't done this before, so when I first did my variance I went and talked to the building department. They had me talk to the neighbors. I talked -- the ones I talked to didn't seem to have any issues, but I understand there have been a few comments on it. When I first did my first layout, I was under the impression that when we have the meeting we could kind of adjust it if it wasn't satisfactory. Now that I know a little bit more, I realize that if I have to move the house back I have to get another variance, which doesn't seem to be a big deal, I can be back here next month, because that seems to be the biggest complaint against it, is my front setback off of Bernstadt. MR. CHAIRMAN: It may be your first time here, but we'll help you through the process, believe me. MR. COOK: I think you guys have -- I should have given them copies of -- like an aerial photograph that I kind of- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That was in our packet. Thank you. Hope you didn't have to rent the helicopter. MR. COOK: No. I got this from the City. I was actually pretty impressed that the assessing department could pull that up for me and send me a photograph. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were thirty-five notices; there was one approval and seven objections, and we'll probably give you some guidance along those lines. Anybody in the audience care to -- come on down, please. If there's anyone else, just line up behind. Give us your name and address if you would. MS. MARTINI: Sure. Okay. And basically I'm -- I'd like to pass this around. I'm here as the spokesperson for the resident of 114 Bernstadt. Her name is Corey Elizabeth Martini. I'm her mother, Eileen Martini. She is out of town on business, and she knew that there was no way she was going to be able to delay the business trip, so she asked me to speak her concerns on her behalf, of which I'm very happy to do. And I'm sending around the letter that gives me authorization to be her spokesperson. And basically Corey has three concerns about the prospective plot plan. On the plot plan, the neighbor's garage and the neighbor's house is 114 Bernstadt, so I'm speaking for the owner. Basically her three concerns are: The first concern is that, placed as the house is, most -- well, almost all of my daughter's driveway would be obstructed. As my daughter would back up from her garage and she was going down to the street, the house would actually almost entirely block her view of Bernstadt Street. And there are a large number of children on that street that are playing. It's a very young neighborhood with a lot of young families and young children that are out there on their scooters and bikes and everything, so she was concerned as to the -- of the fact that as she's backing out it would be very difficult for her to be able to look down the street and notice if there was anybody coming as she was backing out. Basically, her second concern was also with the house being as close to her garage and her house as it would be, in case of a fire it would be -- the fire would spread very quickly from the house to the garage to her house at 114 Bernstadt because they are in quite close proximity. Basically, her third concern was also kind of a question, too. Her well is right directly behind her garage, and she was not sure with his house being so close to her garage, she wasn't sure if there was any code as far as to how far a well would have to be from the next -- house next door, so I guess that was another one of her concerns, is she just didn't know how close his house was going to be to her well. So those are basically her three concerns about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's move to the building department. MR. SAVEN: Okay. There was one concern I wanted to bring up to everyone. One of the reasons why these variances are so great is there is a street called Owenton there. Owenton has not been vacated; so, therefore, you're dealing with an issue regarding a corner lot. The wiggle room that this gentleman would have and try to maneuver this house back and to the side, there may be a potential to do this, but I'm just cautioning everyone here that Owenton has not been vacated. If it was vacated, the gentleman would have more opportunity to move that house over a little bit -- hopefully, if the property was shared between neighbors, that he would have a little more property to deal with as far as locating the house. I know of no plans to vacate Owenton at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it functionally a road? MR. SAVEN: It is not functionally a road. It is noted as a road. MR. COOK: It's a grass field with three pylons blocking traffic from driving through it. You can't see them in the picture. They're about a hundred feet further in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, questions, comments, debate? MEMBER GRAY: May I- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Sure. MEMBER GRAY: -share some information since I also live in the same sub but not on the street? One of the reasons Owenton has not been vacated is because the young lady who bought 114 is one of three properties that has back lot entrance off Owenton. There are three more to the west; Mrs. Lucas, Mr. and Mrs. Henley, and then Caswells who also own on South Lake at Owenton. They regularly use this street to get into their backyards for storage of their boats and other large items. The reason the City put grass on there was to try to help keep some of the less desireable looking-for-dark-street traffic off, and putting the barricade in farther to the west has helped a lot. There's also a landlocked piece of property -- not quite landlocked -- to the south behind the two houses shown south of here. There is a building site in here. Whether it will ever be built or not is quite arbitrary, but they have to be able to get in somehow. It's not platted, it's not part of the subdivision, but there is a lot back there, so -- or there's a parcel of land back there. So much for that history. If you look at a plat of the subdivision, these three pieces of property are the south half of each of three lots that used to run north to south. Mr. Schultz, if these three pieces of property represent the south half of three lots -- MR. SCHULTZ: I'm sorry, just so I'm looking at the right map -- MEMBER GRAY: Turn it so north is up. See where the diagram of the house is supposed to be? MR. SCHULTZ: Right, okay. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. These three lots used to run north to south, so this is the south half of the south half of the south half. If they are the south half of the lot and the north half is now where 114 has their garage and part of their house, does this mean that these three pieces make it originally deeded and platted? MR. SCHULTZ: It doesn't sound -- I guess I'd have to research the question. It doesn't sound like it would be part of the original plat. On the other hand- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Well, they were platted but they were platted north and south. MR. SCHULTZ: Right. But I guess the question would be whether this is still a lot of record and, therefore, a buildable parcel. MEMBER GRAY: Right. MR. SCHULTZ: I assume that's where you're going with it. MEMBER GRAY: That's where I'm going, because some of the neighbors have called me and asked me specifically about that. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I can't answer that question tonight without a little bit more history. Certainly that would be something we could research through the assessor's department. It is a lot in existence, and presumably of record, and that's what I would expect to find, but I can't answer that question tonight. MEMBER GRAY: But the fact that it's the south half of three different lots -- MR. SCHULTZ: I don't think that that necessarily precludes it from being a lot of record. MEMBER GRAY: That's the question I have at this point. If I may continue, I have a problem with so many variances, and I realize it's a very difficult lot, and if you take out the factor that Owenton is a street, although it is with minimal usage, very minimal usage, it doesn't give you a whole lot of room. Have you thought of switching and putting the garage in the back? MR. COOK: I have. Actually, I don't know if I'm allowed to pass around anymore information, but I have done another plot plan, keeping in mind some of the comments I've had. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what you're going to find tonight is you're going to get some feedback. MR. COOK: Well, yeah, I'm going to need a backyard variances, so -- MEMBER GRAY: I have a problem with the setback request from the front because- MR. COOK: (Interposing) The 17 feet. MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. MR. COOK: Yeah. I've made that twenty-five on my latest one. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I'm just looking at what you've got proposed here. I do share Corey's concern. Is is Martini? MS. MARTINI: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Ms. Martini's concern about the proximity to her garage. And we just granted a variance not too long ago, maybe two years ago, to put that garage there, maybe three. There's a legitimate concern about the well. I don't know when water is being proposed for that street, you know. That's something you'll have to work with your neighbors on with a special assessment district, but at this time, with the well where it is -- and you'll have to drill a well, so where are you going to put your well. And, again, these are just comments that you're going to want to listen to and take note of and be prepared to give answers later. I'm not thrilled with the setback. I want it pushed back farther. There's very few houses on that street that are closer than 20, 25 feet set back. It's an old sub, it's an old neighborhood, but this would be way too far forward and would put it totally out of line. And so with some of that -- I know it's a difficult site -- and I also want to note people want lake access, so you'll just have to do the best you can. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Miss Gray's comments. There's way too many variance requests. It's too close to Bernstadt. The deal with Owenton, I really don't know how to deal with that because you're brining up a topic -- it is a street. It's not used as a functional street, but yet what's to say that it's a platted street that doesn't turn into being a viable transportation point down the road and then we have a house sitting right on top of it. As presented, I couldn't support. It's really a problem. That size lot to deal with is hard almost no matter which way you look at it. I don't have an answer. It's going to take a lot of creativity is all I can say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject something here, based upon all of the concerns that you've heard tonight, one of the concerns was how close you were to the neighbor's property line with your building. MR. COOK: Right. MR. SAVEN: I would also caution you the fact that your front porch is projecting out towards that -- we'll call it the front yard off of Owenton to the limitation. I'm talking about to the limitation. Start to think about moving this over. You're going to be right there at the property line. So I would ask that you give this consideration possibly for the width of your house. Also, in regards to moving your house, you're going to do this so that you're not projecting closer to Owenton. That's going to create a safety condition for the residents that own. MR. COOK: All right. Yeah. The particular house I'm looking at now, I'm trying to put up a modular home. It's going to be a two-story cape, and it comes in two sections. Some are familiar with, some aren't. Everybody wants you to buy a 28-foot modular. I just, the other day, found a company that has a 24-foot one, and I'm just starting to get prices from them. Basically there's is, like, the rock bottom price, one which I'm trying to avoid, but if I add options to it, it will probably be the same quality of the other ones I wanted to build. So I'm looking into that right now. I found a 26-foot house but they want $15,000 more, which is kind of hard to justify. It comes with marble window sills and stuff. So I am looking at that option of making the house skinnier. I really don't want a big house. It's just that's what they sell. MEMBER GRAY: Well, you're going to have to be very creative building in this area. As you look around the houses that are already there, and around the lake, there are some wonderful houses on very, very skinny lots, and I would certainly urge you to look outside the envelope and be as creative as you can, not that I'm trying to spend your money but, you know, just to try to put something in there. MR. COOK: Well, I just recently came across a manufacturer of a 24-foot house I saw. I'm getting the new floor plan to see if they can make something- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Why don't we do this. You're here to get a little education on how this whole process works. MR. COOK: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Number one, we're always very sensitive to any construction on the north end of our lakes; number two, we're always very sensitive to existing homeowners; and, number three, we're always incredibly sensitive to new construction when you have a clean piece of paper. I would encourage you to come up with maybe a couple of different concepts, couple different thoughts, find out who your neighbors are, in particularly those that voiced some disapproval. MR. COOK: I've talked to Corey, so -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And rather than us voting to deny or anything, why don't we save you some money and we'll just put this off until you're ready to come back. MR. COOK: All right. I was expecting that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Does that sound like a plan? MR. COOK: All right. Just out of conversation, does a 24-foot house sound reasonable? That's about as skinny as I can go until I start building a custom home, which almost puts the project out of my- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Sir, I'll guarantee you that we have unique homes around that lake based upon the property in itself. To ask this board whether or not 24-foot -- we're asking for something that's agreeable, and as it exists right now, I can't answer, none -- neither can any of the board members here. I'd ask that you try to work the situation out as much as possible with your neighbors. That's what they're indicating right now. MR. COOK: All right. MR. SAVEN: And based upon the information that's here -- 24-foot, even though that sounds great, it might not be conducive to this lot and to the members of this board. MR. COOK: That's what I'm asking. Is that -- that's pretty much my next step, is to step down- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You got to shrink it down. MR. COOK: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think looking at the letters that we have from the neighbors, they feel that what you've proposed is overbuilt than obviously what's permitted, and what you're proposed is substantially different. What's allowed is 25 percent lot coverage, and you've proposed 33, so right out of the gate we've got a problem with the size of the house. MEMBER GRAY: I also have a major concern -- I'm sorry to interrupt -- with only a four-foot setback from the north. MR. COOK: All right. MEMBER GRAY: The ordinance, of course, requires a combination of twenty-five feet. You may not be able to get ten on one side and twenty -- and fifteen on the other, but do the best you can to stay away from Miss Martini's property line, for the obvious reasons. MR. COOK: All right. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Think you got enough to get some new concepts? MR. COOK: Oh, yeah. I'll move around. Thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. SAVEN: Board going to vote to table? MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to do that. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Schultz wants to make a comment. MR. SCHULTZ: One issue, and it's really just a question. Does the board need anything for the next meeting on whether it's a lot of record, or are we past that issue? MR. CHAIRMAN: What? MR. SCHULTZ: Whether it's a lot of -- does the board need any information from the assessor's office on the lot of record issue? MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't know that that was even before us. MEMBER GRAY: That's the issue I raised. MR. SCHULTZ: Raised by Member Gray. Or are you past that. I just want to know whether I need to do anything for the next meeting on that. MEMBER REINKE: Well, the only question I have, brought up by Miss Gray, is I'd like to verify it's a lot of record. That's all. MR. SCHULTZ: We will. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Follow that? MEMBER GRAY: You let the petitioner know whether it is or not so he doesn't spin his wheels? MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I will move that this case be tabled until the petitioner is ready to come back and show us something new. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If you need some help, call Don. MR. SAVEN: That's why I love you guys so much. CASE NUMBER 03-003 MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to call the next one, 03-003, filed by Lawrence Kelly representing Meadowbrook Corp. They're requesting a one-year extension for the construction identification sign on Meadowbrook Road in Meadowbrook Corporate Park. And, sir, when you're ready, give us your name and raise your right hand and be sworn. MR. KELLY: Larry Kelly of Colliers International, Telegraph Road. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. KELLY: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. KELLY: I don't know if you all can see this. Is this clear enough for you? This is a five, six building development of high tech property on Meadowbrook Road south of Twelve Mile. And what we have -- what we've applied to extend for is this sign right here. This is the sign that sits right out on Meadowbrook Road in this location right here. What we have -- we have contracted with Burton Cassman Company, which are the developers for this project. We're the real estate company. And what Burton Cassman has completed so far is these two front buildings, which are a flex-base multi-tenant buildings, 55,000-square feet each. Both of these buildings are up and there's no other buildings that are up at this time. This is depicting what is available in the front two buildings. You can see that the front sections -- or the sections on Meadowbrook Road have been taken up. This is this building right here, and that is Trinity Health, which came out of the Arborium (ph), which was tenants of Burton Cassman Company and they were able to get them over into this building due to their relationship. And this is IKON, which was in Novi originally, and they stayed in Novi and moved into -- so what we have is approximately fifty percent of the first two buildings leased, and I'm here to beg to keep my sign up front, which is critical to our marketing, to compete with the other high-tech properties in the neighborhood so that we can fill the back up. And what we have in the back, it's a little more difficult to fill than it is the front, but we have units from twenty-five hundred square feet all the way up to twenty-eight thousand square feet, if you were to take half of the building. I have about eight proposals out right now, and my law of averages so far has been about one in fifteen are hitting in this economy. So I just think we'd be devistated without the sign. And as soon as these are complete, or if we have a demand, the sign is stating we were able to build a 44,000 square foot office building, or 67,000 square foot office building that's market driven, if we have a demand, we're building it -- or Burton Cassman is building it. And often times, as rudimentary as it seems to just have a real estate sign, we market many different ways, but it's one of our very, very important beacons to help us move a project along. And what I'm requesting is a one-year extension for the sign that's existing right now and just to leave it the way it is. I do have a picture of it, if you'd want. MEMBER REINKE: We have one. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you don't have to beg because we're reasonable people. MR. KELLY: Okay. I was hoping. There were eight notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to give us -- building department? MR. SAVEN: How soon before you start the other buildings? MR. KELLY: Well, it's on a market-driven -- right now we're about fifty percent leased on these right here, but these are a bit different types of buildings. These are two-story office buildings. This is flex-based high tech buildings. So if we have a two-story office user that comes along, we're going to go into the ground as soon as -- it's market driven. MR. SAVEN: The extension for one year is all that you're asking for? MR. KELLY: That's correct. Can't envision the project going on for several years though, a project of this magnitude, and right now we're just hoping for a year. MR. CHAIRMAN: Based on our history, we typically zero in on how much is leased and how much is left, and at 50 percent to lease, I would not personally have a problem with your request. MEMBER REINKE: Is that a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make that motion. I made that motion. With respect to Case 03-003, I would move that the petitioenr's request for a one-year extension be granted for purpose of marketing. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I told you we were reasonable. MR. KELLY: Very reasonable. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 03-004 MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we now have Mr. Perrin. This is Case 03-004, representing Modern Skate & Surf. This is a new development -- a new business in Fountain Walk. Sir, you want to raise your hand and be sworn? MR. LIKEWISE: Actually, I'm George Likewise. I'm the owner of Modern Skate & Surf. Rob is the representative for the sign company, and they're out of Kalamazoo, and they had a lot more inclement weather than we did down this way and he couldn't make it out this evening and had asked me to -- I was going to be here anyhow with him. He's the sign expert obviously and I'm just the retailer, but perhaps I'm here for an education myself. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we'd rather talk to you anyways. MR. LIKEWISE: I did want to stop down this evening and mention that, you know, as the retailer, just to let you know- . MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let me cut you off here a second. We need to swear you in. MR. LIKEWISE: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. LIKEWISE: I do. And I'm, again, George Likewise, owner of Modern Skate & Surf in Fountain Walk, site D106. Unfortunately, when we were building out the space it took a lot longer than expected to get there, and we opened after Christmas, so that wasn't exactly especially the most favorite time to open a retail store, especially in this economy. But we've been there for a month without a sign at this point, and I know our sign people, being from out of town, were unfamiliar with certain requirements that you have to evaluate whether or not we could have it. And I had personally read the ordinance and I called him on the phone and said, you know, there's certain things I think we need to do, you better double-check with them. So last Tuesday we were told to put something up on the wall for you guys to take a look at. And, unfortunately, the weather hasn't cooperated. It's been really windy and snowing, and they were unable to do that. So he asked me tonight, he says do you think we should just ask them to postpone it for another month. I said well, that may be the case but I'd like to at least make a case to ask, as a retailer without a sign on his building in February, to have you consider it. But, on the other hand, if you need to have this thing on the wall to look at, to table it to next month and we'll put this thing up here. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can probably cut to the chase here. We've got tough, tough signage law here, or ordinance I should say, here in Novi, and right or wrong we're -- it's our place to enforce it. Years ago we got caught on a couple of cases where there were signs that were proposed that -- they looked a lot different in reality than they did on paper, and we altered our sign variance sequence to include that we wanted to have a mockup, and whether that's a bedsheet cut to size or whether it's a two-by-four or plywood cut to size, it doesn't matter. We wanted to have a visual reflection of what the actual sign is going to be. Now, you've got a business already open, right? MR. LIKEWISE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you want to do -- we're going to require that mockup, bottom line. You got to have a mockup. If you want to put up a quick and dirty plywood sign that's got your name on it, that's fine. That will carry you over to the next -- our next meeting. It will give you some identity, give you some advertising. Make it whatever you want, but we will require a mockup. MR. LIKEWISE: On the building? Because I have one that was a visual digital photo. MR. CHAIRMAN: That won't work. We got fried on digital mockup. MR. LIKEWISE: I promise you I won't. I understand that. And I know you have your rules, and that's why I wanted to come down and introduce myself, also meet you folks and, again, get my education as to what I need to know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Stick something up there cheap and dirty, put your name on it so you can get some -- MR. LIKEWISE: We have an image to uphold. MR. CHAIRMAN: We want to see the size and we want to see the location, and if it's a piece of plywood with your name on it, that will be fine. MR. LIKEWISE: Okay. And then I take it the next opportunity is next month then? MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe so. MEMBER GRAY: But by putting up the mockup, you're going to get some identity in the meantime. MR. LIKEWISE: Right, right. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I'll ask Sarah that -- because it's my -- always my belief when we ask people to come back, we put them in the front of the agenda, so we'll put you up front and get you out of here early. MR. LIKEWISE: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion that we will table this particular case until next month, which gives the applicant time to put up a mockup. MEMBER BAUER: Have it up and let him notify us. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good idea, because I did go out twice, so maybe when you got it up let Sarah know and she puts an E-mail out. MR. LIKEWISE: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: I made a motion. All those in favor say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other business? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, we'll put the cops back out on the road to pick up bad guys. MR. COOK: I have a quick question. On the subject of vacating Owenton Road, is that something that the Zoning Board of Appeals- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Absolutely not. That's done through city council. MR. COOK: Because that was something else I was going to bring up. MR. SAVEN: I would ask, before you have that consideration, if you talk to somebody in engineering or DPS regarding what is projected for Owenton, or is there anything that might require them to vacate. I'm not sure whether they may want to do that or not. MR. COOK: Right. Well, I have talked to the assessor. I've been around the building department and talked to a few people, and I'm still trying to figure, you know -- I've talked to some neighbors, I've talked to the assessor's office, and they thought it was a good idea, and I guess they need to go before city council. MR. SAVEN: Yes, they would. MR. COOK: All right. MR. SAVEN: But for some reason, because -- I would ask that you talk to the DPS director -- his name is Mr. McCuster -- or Bruce Jerome, to find out a little bit more about what's happening with Owenton or whether or not there's something there that would prohibit them from vacating it so that you need to get the straight and skinny with what's happening. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Jerome was very involved with the work done to put the three pylons in. MR. COOK: Right. MEMBER GRAY: So he'd probably be a good place to start. MR. COOK: Because part of my request to vacate would be that they move those three pylons to allow those people that you mentioned access through Owenton from the other direction. MEMBER GRAY: Which may not sit well. I don't know about partial vacation of roads, so you would- MR. COOK: (Interposing) But I'll talk to Mrs. Parma, she's across the street from me on the other -- I've talked to the people who had the road vacated on the other side. All right. That was something else -- I was going to do the variance first so- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) They vacated on the other side? MR. COOK: Yeah. Owenton Road went wall the way across the street and through the park, and they vacated that part of it. MEMBER GRAY: And I was instrumental in getting that vacated because it went nowhere. MR. COOK: Right. It went nowhere. MEMBER GRAY: This one does. MR. COOK: Yeah. So I was going to do the variance first to make it a buildable lot, purchase the lot and then tackle the next issue, which would be trying to vacate the road, which would -- it's working backwards for me. Thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Any other business? (Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.) Date approved: April 1, 2003 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary - - - C E R T I F I C A T E I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of fifty-four (54) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said stenograph notes to the best of my ability. ------------------------- Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 --------------
|