| 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 the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, December 6, 2005. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, December 6, 2005 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 MEMBER FISCHER: I would like to 6 call to order the December, 2005, City of Novi 7 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 8 Ms. Backus, would you please 9 call the roll. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Present. 22 GAIL BACKUS: All present. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: We do have a 24 quorum, so the meeting is now in session.
3
1 I'd like to go over a couple 2 rules of conduct, that can be found on the 3 agenda. Just a reminder to turn off all 4 cell phones and pagers, please; and that 5 individuals will have five minutes to 6 address the Board; and groups will have ten 7 minutes. Although, we might cut that down 8 to one, so we can get home in time to watch 9 Michigan State play tonight. 10 The Zoning Board of Appeals is 11 a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 12 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 13 from the application of the Novi Zoning 14 Ordnance. It takes a vote of at least four 15 members to approve a variance request, and a 16 vote of the majority present to deny a 17 variance request. Tonight, we do have a 18 full Board, so any decisions that are made 19 will be final. 20 Let's go ahead and look at our 21 agenda. 22 Are there any changes to the 23 agenda? 24 Ms. Backus?
4
1 GAIL BACKUS: Yes. One change. 2 The applicant for Case Number 3 05-099, filled by Soave Corporation for the 4 proposed PInebrook Professional Building 5 called and requested to be tabled until the 6 January meeting. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. So case 8 number eight on the agenda or Case Number: 9 05-099 will be tabled until January. 10 Any other additions or 11 deletions from the agenda? 12 Okay. Seeing none, I'll 13 entertain a Motion to approve. 14 BOARD MEMBERS: So moved. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor 16 say Aye? 17 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: We have an 19 agenda. 20 We do have Minutes from our 21 previous meeting, November 1st, 2005. 22 Are there any changes to the 23 Minutes? 24 Seeing none, I'll entertain a
5
1 Motion for approval of the Minutes? 2 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor 5 say aye? 6 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: The Minutes are 8 approved. 9 At this time I would like to 10 open the meeting to the Public Remarks 11 Section of the Board meeting tonight. 12 Is there anyone in the 13 audience to wishes to make comments not 14 relating to a case on the agenda tonight, 15 please come forward. 16 Seeing none, we will close the 17 Public Remarks Section of the meeting. 18 However, I would like to make 19 one comment under that. Tomorrow, Wednesday 20 the 7th is the last day, at 4:00 to put in 21 application for to be appointed to the Board 22 and Commissions, and we do have openings 23 here on this Board. 24 So if anyone watching or if
6
1 anyone in the audience is interested, I 2 would encourage anyone to do that. 3 4 And that said, we'll move on 5 to Case Number 05-081 filed by Patti Krula 6 of Metro Detroit Signs for Huntington Bank. 7 Is the Petitioner here 8 tonight? 9 It appears the Petitioner is 10 not here, so we'll move that to the end of 11 the meeting. 12 13 That brings us to Case number 14 two on the agenda, which is Case Number 15 05-093 field by Graham Clements Management. 16 Is the Petitioner here today? 17 Excellent. 18 The Petitioner's requesting a 19 ten foot parking setback variance for a 20 parcel, located south of Nine Mile Road and 21 west of Ashbury Drive. The Petitioner is 22 also requesting a ten foot parking setback 23 for a second parcel, which are abutting. 24 And your name, sir?
7
1 MR. LECLAIR: Thank you. 2 Dan LeClair from Alpine 3 Engineering. 4 MR. CLEMENTS: And I'm Graham 5 Clements, the owner of the property. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 7 If you could please raise your 8 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 10 or affirm that the information that you're about 11 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 12 MR. LECLAIR: Yes. 13 MR. CLEMENTS: I do. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: If you could 15 state your address and proceed with your 16 presentation. 17 MR. LECLAIR: Dan LeClair, 18 Alpine Engineering, 46892 West Road, Novi. 19 MR. CLEMENTS: And I'm Graham 20 Clements Management, 12125 Dixie in Redford 21 Township. 22 MR. LECLAIR: We have an 23 aerial photograph with us tonight that just 24 kind of gives you a little perspective of
8
1 the property. Rockhill Drive is located 2 right here. 3 The property currently 4 consists of two buildings, both under -- the 5 parcel is one ownership; and currently, he 6 is -- had a request to lease out one of the 7 buildings. And the way that he wants to 8 lease it -- being a triple net lease -- he's 9 looking to break out -- kind of break out 10 the property into two separate lots. 11 What we're looking at is 12 there's currently a parking lot between the 13 two buildings with a couple of islands. And 14 he's looking to basically divide the 15 property right down the middle of the 16 driveway. 17 And the variance requested 18 includes a setback variance, as well as 19 greenbelt buffer variance from the property 20 line, which is required in the zoning 21 district. 22 MR. CLEMENTS: As you know, 23 this is existing buildings. They've both 24 been there for quite some time. And one of
9
1 the problems I have is -- in leasing the 2 buildings, when you triple net a lease, I 3 have to break out taxes. Well, I get one 4 tax bill. And I've also got a person that's 5 interested in buying the other building. 6 And in this case, I would not be able to 7 sell or differentiate the taxes between 8 either building the way it is. 9 The buildings have been there 10 for approximately six years. So I'm just 11 trying to -- originally, there were four 12 lots of that subsection, 8, 9, 10 and 11. 13 Originally, I used to get four separate tax 14 bills. But just in the last couple years, 15 they've combined them all into one. And now 16 I've got two buildings sitting on one 17 parcel. And that's why we'd like to ask you 18 to please (unintelligible) splitting those 19 two buildings, so I'd have a lot for each 20 one. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 22 Does anyone in the audience 23 wish to address the Board regarding this 24 case?
10
1 Seeing none, I'll let the 2 Board know that there were 14 notices 3 mailed; and zero approvals and zero 4 objections. 5 Does the Building Department 6 wish to comment tonight? 7 MR. SAVEN: Basically the fact 8 that the applicant is proposing practical 9 difficulty; and basically it's dealing with two 10 separate buildings on a single parcel of land as 11 it exists right now. It's technically located on 12 a corner lot. 13 Also, I think it's important 14 to note -- I did not (unintelligible) I'm 15 sorry. 16 Property division includes 17 access near the base of the cul-de-sac. 18 This is off of Rotell Drive. You can see 19 that on the division where they're 20 separated, two buildings. And this is 21 dealing basically dealing with the existing 22 parking lot. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Any further 24 comments?
11
1 Mr. Schmitt? 2 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you very 3 much, Chairperson Fisher. 4 We just want to confirm that 5 the applicant has the appropriate cross 6 access easements; and shared parking 7 agreements are in place, because the 8 property line does, in fact, split the 9 access point. 10 So we would just like to 11 confirm those are put in place, if this is 12 granted, or already in place. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 14 much. 15 And I'll open it up for Board 16 discussion. 17 Member Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: One thing that 19 the notice states is the applicant is requesting 20 a parcel split. We cannot split. It has to be 21 done by Council, am I correct? 22 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 23 Basically we we're looking at 24 is, there is a situation where it does not
12
1 meet the Zoning Ordinance, and you're 2 dealing with that Zoning Ordinance setback. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other Board 4 comments? 5 My question along those lines 6 then would be, often we see that Council or 7 the Planning Commission recommends 8 something, approves something that as long 9 as they get a variance from us afterwards. 10 Is it okay to have the 11 procedure going this way, would they then go 12 to Council -- 13 MR. SCHULTZ: They may. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: -- to have a 15 parcel split? 16 Mr. Schultz? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: This parcel split 18 would actually be accomplished by the Assessor's 19 Office, who I'm sure told the proponent they 20 can't do the split for you because you would be 21 out of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance 22 because of the parking setback. 23 If you granted the variance 24 with the (unintelligible) Mr. Schmitt, then
13
1 as far as I can tell, (unintelligible) would 2 be in place for Mr. Lemon to grant the 3 property split administrative. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you for 5 that clarification. 6 MR. CLEMENTS: That's what he 7 indicated, as well. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 9 Other Board Members? 10 Member Canup? 11 MEMBER CANUP: I don't see any 12 problem with it, you know, with the 13 situation if it were (unintelligible) 14 property, it might be different. 15 (Unintelligible) buildings (unintelligible) 16 back at the end of a cul-de-sac, I don't see 17 where it's going to create any problem. 18 And with that, if there's no 19 further discussion, I would be glad to 20 entertain -- to make a Motion that we grant 21 the variance as requested, due to practical 22 hardship; with the stipulation that the 23 documentation needed for the split -- 24 Is that correct, Mr. Schmitt?
14
1 MR. SCHMITT: It would actually 2 be the easements. 3 MEMBER CANUP: -- easements -- 4 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. 5 MEMBER CANUP: -- be in place 6 before this variance could be enacted. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 9 Motion and a second on the table. 10 Is there any further comments? 11 Member Gronachan? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup, 13 can I offer a friendly amendment? That you 14 change it from practical hardship to practical 15 difficulty? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, that's 17 fine. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay, fine. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: And the 20 seconder, do you agree? 21 MEMBER BAUER: No problem. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 23 Motion and a second, amended. 24 Any further discussion?
15
1 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 2 you please call the roll. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 14 Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 17 to zero. 18 MR. LECLAIR: Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 20 has been granted. Good luck. Please see the 21 Building Department. 22 MR. CLEMENTS: Appreciate it, 23 thank you. 24
16
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Brings us to 2 Case Number: 05-094 filed Pulte Land Development 3 for Townes at Liberty Park. 4 Is the Petitioner here 5 tonight? 6 Please step forward. 7 The Petitioner is requesting a 8 variance to allow placement of a swimming 9 pool, pool house and tot lot within a front 10 yard, through a lot located at 28300 11 Declaration Drive. This is property is 12 located north of Twelve Mile, west of Dixon 13 Road. 14 Please be sworn in by our 15 secretary. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 17 or affirm that the information that you're about 18 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 19 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: I do. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state 21 your name and address for the record, and 22 proceed. 23 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Kevin 24 Christiansen, Pulte Land Development
17
1 Corporation and Pulte Homes, 450 West Fourth 2 Street, Royal Oak, Michigan, 48067. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: You can go 4 ahead and proceed. 5 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: I'm here 6 this evening as indicated in the public 7 notice and in the agenda before you this 8 evening on behalf of Pulte Land Development 9 Corporation and Pulte Homes. 10 We're requesting a variance 11 for the location of a pool house, pool, tot 12 lot, and parking area for the Townes at 13 Liberty Park -- which is on the northside of 14 12 Mile Road, west of Dixon Road -- to be 15 located within a front yard of what is it 16 considered by your Ordinance as a double 17 frontage lot. And as such, because it is a 18 double frontage lot, the location of this 19 facility is only possible; based upon the 20 unique configuration of the property, the 21 unique circumstances because of the site 22 configuration, the layout of the site -- and 23 approve to locate it within a front yard 24 area.
18
1 There are no other prudent or 2 reasonable alternatives. As such, we have a 3 practical difficulty in meeting your 4 Ordinance requirements for locating this 5 facility within any other area, but a front 6 yard. And we're requesting the variance 7 from you for that location this evening. 8 All other aspects of the pool 9 meet your requirements for building and 10 construction, as well as State requirements 11 for construction of swimming pools for 12 residential facilities. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Sounds good. 14 In this case, there were 12 15 notices mailed, with zero approvals and zero 16 objections. 17 Is there anyone in the 18 audience that wishes to comment on this 19 case? 20 Seeing none, I'll move to the 21 Building Department to see if you wish to 22 make any comments? 23 MR. SAVEN: Basically just about 24 everything this gentleman has said -- he is
19
1 proposing a practical difficulty, because this is 2 a through lot with two frontages; one off of 3 Gwinett Loop and one off of Declaration Drive. 4 You'll also notice on the plot 5 plan, if you take a look at two major 6 wetlands areas -- wetlands number two and 7 wetlands number three as to how close it is 8 to the proposed development; but yet, the 9 property is being proposed for a swimming 10 pool, and those areas (unintelligible) which 11 it can be built. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 13 Mr. Saven. 14 Mr. Schmitt? 15 MR. SCHMITT: Just a little bit 16 further background, as to why (unintelligible.) 17 This is the last piece of the Twelve Mile 18 expansion project. In fact, I have plans on my 19 desk (unintelligible) going to sign off on them. 20 The reason we're here is 21 because, in reviewing the judgment and 22 reviewing everything else for the Townes at 23 Liberty Park, this came up. And the only 24 thing we can call it was an accessory
20
1 structure; it's an accessory to everything 2 else that's out there, as a support function 3 for the rest of the development. As such, 4 you can't put it in the front yard. 5 It is a through lot, as 6 Mr. Saven mentioned; (unintelligible) 7 wetland on either side. There's really no 8 other configuration, other than the front 9 yard. The side yards are taken up, as well. 10 So that's really why we're 11 here this evening. I will be happy to 12 answer any questions (unintelligible) this 13 area development (unintelligible) why the 14 Planning Department came to that 15 interpretation. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 17 Mr. Schmitt. 18 Board Members, I'll ask for 19 comments? 20 Member Gronachan? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have a 22 question in regards to -- can you describe for me 23 the material that is going to be going around the 24 pool?
21
1 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: The fencing 2 material? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Uh-huh. 4 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: The fencing 5 will be standard swimming pool fence. It 6 will be a vertical picket rought iron type 7 fence. It will be an anodized bronze 8 material of a dark color, either brown or 9 black. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the 11 height of that fence? 12 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It's 13 required. It's a 36 inch fence with an 14 internal locking gate. There will be 15 several gates for access that will be 16 latched. In fact, I can tell you that they 17 will be personally managed by staff during 18 season. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: One of the 20 concerns that I have in looking at a practical 21 difficulty is to make sure that there's no 22 exposure; or further detriment to public safety 23 and welfare. And given that this pool is this 24 close to a thoroughfare, what is going to be
22
1 between that fence and Gwinett Loop? 2 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: I think as 3 indicated, and Mr. Schmitt can attest to 4 this, the staff report that was prepared for 5 Council for final approval, which included 6 this facility, there's screening that will 7 be around the entire perimeter of the site. 8 Those plans haven't been submitted to the 9 City. I'm not sure if you have those in 10 your possession. 11 So there will be screening 12 around the perimeter of the site, and in 13 these areas. And again, that fence runs the 14 entire perimeter of the pool house, of pool. 15 The gates are internal self-latching. 16 Again, I'll indicate that they are staffed, 17 and there's screening around the entire 18 perimeter. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And so, the 20 likelihood of a car coming around that bend and 21 landing into the pool house, that has been looked 22 at? 23 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Well, I 24 think if you take a look at the setbacks of
23
1 the facility, the facilities are setback in 2 accordance with your setback requirements, 3 as outlined in the Consent Judgment, and 4 through your planning requirements. 5 As far as the landscaping and 6 the pool fencing, those extend out from the 7 setback areas out towards the road. I can 8 tell you that that roadway is a very slowly 9 traveled internal multiple family road; so 10 it's not a high traffic, high volume area. 11 And if you look at your plans, 12 you'll see any vehicular traffic coming into 13 this facility, comes in off the main 14 thoroughfare, the collector road, which is 15 Declaration Drive. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 I don't have anything further. 18 Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Just for 20 clarification. I believe you said it is a 36 21 inches fence. It says four feet, correct? 22 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: The 23 requirement, I think, of your Code is 36. 24 With the landscape, do we go
24
1 to 48? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: It's a four 3 foot -- 4 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: If we went 5 to 48, it was for our concerns with safety. 6 So I think we might have added the foot. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 8 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Your 9 minimum is 36. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 Because the person that was -- 13 the applicant that was applying for this has 14 given that he has practical difficulty 15 because of his two frontages, and that he is 16 looking to take care of safety, I would be 17 willing to support a Motion for it. 18 Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 20 Member Krieger. 21 Other Board Members? 22 Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: If there's no 24 further discussion, I would make a Motion.
25
1 It's going to be somebody 2 else's turn the next time. 3 I would make a Motion that in 4 Case Number: 05-094, that we grant the 5 variance has requested, due to the practical 6 hardship of the property being fronted on 7 two streets, on both back and front; 8 therefore, it's hard to decipher which is 9 the back and which is the front. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Friendly 12 amendment, again, practical difficulty in this 13 case. 14 MEMBER CANUP: That's fine. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Fine. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Both agree. 17 Any further discussion from 18 the Board? 19 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 20 you please call the roll. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
26
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 8 Fischer? 9 A. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 12 to zero. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 14 has been granted. Good luck. Please see the 15 Building Department. 16 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Thank you. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sure Mr. 18 Schmitt will be happy to sign off on that and get 19 it off his desk, then. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: We'll be 22 happy to do that, as well. 23 Thank you. 24
27
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Let's move 2 along to Case Number: 05-095, filed by David 3 Knipper of McNish Sporting Goods. 4 The applicant is requesting 5 one sign variance to allow business center 6 sign, located at 45283 Grand River, which is 7 east of Taft and south of Grand River. 8 Is the applicant here today? 9 Please come forward. 10 And just on a side note, if 11 anyone else has come in regarding Case 12 Number: 05-099, filed by Soave Corporation, 13 that has been tabled until January -- just 14 in case someone's stuck here expecting that 15 case to be heard today, so. 16 Could you please raise your 17 hand to be sworn in by our secretary. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 19 or affirm that the information you're about to 20 give in the matter before you is the truth? 21 MR. KNIPPER: Yes. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state 23 your name and address for the record, and 24 proceed.
28
1 MR. KNIPPER: Yes. 2 I'm David Knipper. I'm 3 representing McNish Sports, 45283 Grand 4 River, Novi, Michigan, 48375. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: You can go 6 ahead and proceed. 7 MR. KNIPPER: As the notice to 8 Council Members says, we are requesting a 9 one sign variance for Albers Center sign for 10 Albers Commerce Center, which is located at 11 45283 Grand River. You may know that it's 12 east of Taft and south of Grand River. 13 And I believe you have in your 14 package the suggested mockup of the Albers 15 Center sign. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Any further 17 comments? 18 MR. KNIPPER: No. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 20 Is there anyone in the 21 audience that wishes to comment on this 22 case? 23 Seeing none, I'll let the 24 Board know that there were 22 notices
29
1 mailed, there were zero approvals and zero 2 objections. 3 Does the Building Department 4 wish to comment on this case? 5 MR. AMOLSCH: Just 6 clarification for the Board's sake. 7 The Sign Ordinance allows 8 (unintelligible) either they all have to 9 have wall signs or they have one business 10 sign (unintelligible) have all the names on 11 the sign. 12 So the Petitioner's asking for 13 a variance to allow the business center sign 14 (unintelligible) to allow any names of the 15 businesses on it, to have lettering on that 16 sign indicating the business center sign. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 18 Mr. Amolsch. 19 Any other comments? 20 Seeing none, I'll open it up 21 for Board discussion. 22 Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 24 Mr. Chairman. I thought this was a
30
1 resurfacing of an existing sign; rather than 2 a new sign. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: It is not a new 4 sign. He wants to (unintelligible) existing 5 business center sign, right. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: So the 7 variance is really not for erecting a new 8 sign, but changing (unintelligible) 9 resurfacing on it, and so I don't see any 10 problem of resurfacing the existing sign; 11 (unintelligible) nothing else has changed 12 (unintelligible.) 13 Thank you. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 15 Member Sanghvi. 16 Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Is what we're 18 looking at here is what you are going to 19 want the new sign to look like, right? 20 MR. KNIPPER: The current one 21 that's up there is just slightly different. 22 I might point out the numbers, the street 23 numbers are raised under the arch of Albers 24 Commerce Center. Secondly, we do note it's
31
1 up there is a draft, if you will. And it 2 may very well be that some of the fonts that 3 are used will change just to improve the 4 clarity. 5 But beyond that, this is 6 essentially what is proposed to put on the 7 east and the west side of the canopy 8 structure. 9 MEMBER CANUP: Thank you. 10 MR. KNIPPER: Uh-huh. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 12 Member Canup. 13 Any other comments? 14 At far as coloring goes, is 15 this going to be in black and white, or are 16 there going to be colors to it? 17 MR. KNIPPER: That's a good 18 question. 19 For example, Michigan Fire 20 Sprinklers, specifically requested that fire 21 be in red. We know ours, McNish Sport and 22 Trophy right now is in black. And visually 23 as we've looked at it the last two weeks, we 24 do think that the black shows up quite well.
32
1 Ultimately, the way it's going to be is it 2 very well may have some color. It may end 3 up being mostly black for clarity. But the 4 words and the letters will remain unchanged. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 6 MR. KNIPPER: (Unintelligible) 7 suggested that I do mention though, when we 8 were erecting that sign, we noticed that the 9 canopy, itself -- it's been there for 10 perhaps 12 or 14 years, is in need of 11 repair. And so in the spring time, we will 12 need to simply shore it up, if you will, and 13 rebuild that canopy, but there will be no 14 departure from the existing set up as you 15 now see it. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 17 Any other Board Members? 18 MR. KNIPPER: Mrs. Backus 19 (unintelligible) also point out that we 20 expect it to be lighted, too. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Yeah. 22 MR. KNIPPER: I know currently 23 it is not, but I don't think that will 24 present a problem, and lighted by
33
1 floodlights. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Canup, 3 did you have further comments? 4 MEMBER CANUP: I'm a little 5 bit concerned about the differences, sign of 6 different colors. We're talking about 7 Michigan fire Sprinklers wants to be -- have 8 theirs in red; is that correct. 9 MR. KNIPPER: They requested 10 the word fire be in red. And currently, 11 there are no colors up there in the 12 prototype. 13 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, thank 14 you. 15 MR. KNIPPER: You're welcome. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you exactly 18 know what you are going to put up there? 19 MR. KNIPPER: Would you repeat 20 that, please. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 22 Do you know exactly what kind 23 of sign you're going to erect? 24 MR. KNIPPER: Yes.
34
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: You're talking 2 about the fonts may change. 3 Do you have any idea what the 4 final appearance is going to be? 5 MR. KNIPPER: I think at best 6 the fonts may end up a bit more like McNish 7 Sports and Trophy because of the clarity. 8 But beyond that, we're only talking font. 9 And so essentially this is it right here. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I 11 would like to know exactly what's going up before 12 I really consider giving a variance 13 (unintelligible) a variance without knowing what 14 exactly is going up and what colors are going to 15 take place and all that. I think it's premature 16 to make this decision. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi, 18 I would tend to agree. 19 MR. KNIPPER: Could I make a 20 suggestion. It would be essentially just 21 like this. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Let the Board 23 finish and we -- 24 What I was going to continue
35
1 is that -- you know, when looking at these 2 signs, and it's important to make sure that 3 they're esthetically pleasing to the 4 community, the business community down 5 there, and residents driving through there. 6 And not knowing the exact particulars of 7 colors and everything, I would be hesitant, 8 as well. 9 I'm not, per se, requesting 10 that a full-fledge mockup go back up, but I 11 would at least like to see something in the 12 packet -- such as what we have here -- but 13 the exact copy of what the sign would be. 14 Where does the Board stand on 15 something like that comment? 16 Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 18 Motion that we table this case until our 19 next regular scheduled meeting, to give this 20 Petitioner an opportunity to submit to this 21 Board a rendering of exactly what he wants, 22 in color. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 24 Motion to table.
36
1 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: This a Motion 4 and a second to table this case until January. 5 Further discussion? 6 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 7 you please call the roll. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 21 to zero. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: At this time, 23 your variance has been tabled till January, just 24 so the Board can get an exact idea of what you're
37
1 requesting. 2 But we will ask that the 3 Petitioner be put at the very front of the 4 agenda for January. 5 Thank you. 6 MR. KNIPPER: Thank you. 7 8 MEMBER FISCHER: We'll now call 9 Case Number 05-096, filed by Robert Gardner for 10 1533 West Lake Drive. The Petitioner is 11 requesting four variances for the construction of 12 a new home at said address. 13 They are looking for a north 14 side yard setback of nine feet; a south side 15 yard setback of four feet; a combined total 16 of side yard setbacks of 13 feet, and a lot 17 coverage variance of three percent. This 18 property is zoned R-4, and is located east 19 of West Park Drive and south of Pontiac 20 Trail. 21 You are the Petitioner? 22 Can you please raise your 23 right hand to be sworn in by our secretary. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear
38
1 or affirm that the information you're about to 2 give in the matter before you, is the truth? 3 MR. GARDNER: I do. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: If you could 5 state your name and address for the record, 6 please, and please proceed with your 7 presentation. 8 MR. GARDNER: My name is Rob 9 Gardner. I live at 1533 West Lake Drive, 10 and I'm here to request variances for the 11 new home I'd like to build on that lot. 12 Okay. I'll use this chart 13 here, that you should have in your packet. 14 I've outlined the existing home in yellow, 15 along with an attached garage; and the 16 (unintelligible) new home in orange. 17 First -- in terms of the 18 existing home, it's a cottage on Wall Lake, 19 built before 1930. In fact, there's records 20 of it even being built. So as you might 21 imagine, it's small; it's very old and in 22 need of significant upgrades; and doesn't 23 really fit the future plans for myself, 24 fiancee, and family.
39
1 So what our goal is to 2 demolish that home and build a new more 3 modern home, as shown on the diagram. So in 4 terms of the new home, we are requesting a 5 few variances. 6 As you know, the lots on Wall 7 Lake, many of them are only 40 feet wide, 8 like mine, so any sort of reconstruction or 9 renovation requires a request for a 10 variance. So on the side yards, what we've 11 done is taken an approach to try to be 12 conservative, and left six feet on each 13 side, between the home and the property 14 line. 15 From all that I could learn, 16 that appears to be consistent or even more 17 conservative than any of the ones that come 18 before the Board, and still allows for a 28 19 foot wide home, which is narrow but 20 certainly we consider that acceptable. The 21 other variance that we're requesting is 22 three percent for lot coverage. That allows 23 to us build roughly a 2400 square foot home, 24 which we think would be suitable for the
40
1 family. And in terms of it being overbuilt 2 for the neighborhood, we're certainly 3 confident that it's consistent with the 4 other new homes that have been built in the 5 area, and is not overbuilding. 6 So I guess in summary, we're 7 requesting a side yard setback, given the 8 narrowness of the lot; and also the three 9 percent lot coverage variance in order to 10 get the 2400 square foot home. 11 I really only have two other 12 comments. One is, at the same time we're 13 moving the home back away from the lake by 14 about three feet, and that's to improve the 15 sightline for my two adjacent neighbors. 16 And secondly, the neighborhood is certainly 17 going through a renovation. Just a little 18 over a year ago, we all paid to have our 19 roads paved; and many of the old cottages 20 are being taken down and new homes are being 21 built. 22 And I am certainly confident 23 that this home would be consistent with 24 those that are being built, and just add to
41
1 the rejuvenation of the neighborhood. 2 Certainly take any question, 3 if there are some. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 5 At the appropriate time, we 6 will -- might have some questions. 7 In this case, there were 34 8 notices mailed; five approvals and zero 9 objections. 10 Madam Secretary, would you 11 please read the correspondence. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 13 Thank you, Chairman Fischer. 14 The first approval is from Pat 15 Vernack at 1601 West Lake drive. The 16 variance request appears reasonable, and a 17 new home should enhance the overall 18 appearance of the neighborhood. 19 The next request is -- or the 20 approval is from Bruce Barnat, at 1517 West 21 Lake Drive. The next approval is from Bryan 22 Cosian at 1523. Rob and Cathy have done a 23 great job of informing me of there 24 intentions. I welcome these improvements to
42
1 our neighborhood. The variance requests are 2 minimal that are needed to build a 3 functional home. I encourage the Board to 4 approve the variances. 5 The next approval is from Tim 6 Richardson at 1511 West Lake Drive. And 7 then the final approval is from Joanne and 8 Ned Aleo, at 1529 West Lake Drive. The 9 Aleos indicate that due to the special 10 circumstances of the narrow lots of Wall 11 Lake, and the fact that Mr. Gardner will not 12 be obstructing lake views, we support his 13 request for the side yard setbacks and lot 14 coverage variances. 15 Our only concern is that 16 ground around the outside of the house has 17 to be build up, which would result in water 18 draining away from his house onto our 19 neighboring property. This situation did 20 occur on West Lake Drive, several properties 21 to our north, and we feel that the 22 inspectors should have protected the 23 neighbors from this situation. 24 And that concludes the
43
1 correspondence this evening, Chairman 2 Fischer. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 4 Madam Secretary. 5 Is there anyone in the 6 audience that wishes to make comment on this 7 case in front of the Board? 8 Please come forward. 9 MR. GANNETIK: Hi. My name is 10 Greg Gannetik, 1947 West Lake Drive. I 11 think the applicant has done a very 12 tremendous and meticulous job in developing 13 plans and moving his house back, creating 14 additional sightlines for his adjacent 15 neighbors. I think it would be a great 16 asset to the neighborhood. I hope to see 17 you approve the plans. 18 Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 20 much. 21 Is there anyone else? 22 Okay. 23 MR. OLIVER: William Oliver, 24 2009 West Lake Drive. I've had a chance to
44
1 review Rob's proposal. It appears to be 2 pretty conservative in his request. And as 3 he's indicated, it's not going to be 4 overbuilt for the community. And it's 5 (unintelligible) down there, and I think 6 it's going to be a great improvement for the 7 community as a whole. 8 Nothing further. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 10 Anyone else that -- 11 MR. COSIAN: Good evening. My 12 name is Bryan Cosian and I live at 1523 West 13 Lake Drive. I'm Rob and Cathy's neighbor 14 two doors north. First, I would like say 15 that Rob has done an excellent, excellent 16 job of informing all of us of what he 17 intends on doing. 18 The variances he requested are 19 reasonable in order to build a functional 20 home. I stood in front of this Board in 21 1998, asking for almost the identical 22 variances. I have 28 foot wide home; and I 23 cover 28 percent lot coverage. I have in 24 the last eight years found no problems with
45
1 the six feet on each side. And I think it's 2 important, if you want to build a two-car 3 garage and have a front entrance, you need 4 28 feet; and that's what really generates 5 the width of these houses. 6 The other choice is you have a 7 two-car garage, and as you drive down West 8 Lake Drive, all you look at is a garage 9 door. You find yourself walking beyond the 10 garage in order to go inside of the house. 11 It looks like you have a garage on a piece 12 of waterfront lot, and it does not -- I feel 13 -- look the best. And I'm sure the City 14 would rather have a nice front entrance. 15 I wish that you would approve 16 the variances as they're requested. 17 Thank you. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 19 Is there anyone else in the 20 audience that wishes to make comment on this 21 case in front of the Board tonight? 22 Seeing none, I'll ask the 23 Building Department if they have any 24 comments?
46
1 MR. SAVEN: Basically the 2 applicant is proposing a practical 3 difficulty based upon the zoning as it is 4 today, which requires a eight foot frontage; 5 10,000 square foot property. 6 In this particular case, he's 7 got a square footage of 5,843 square 8 footage. That's only half of the 9 requirement for the lake. Also, that he 10 does plan on taking down the existing home 11 that's on the site, and the garage, so it's 12 a plus. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 14 Mr. Saven. 15 Any other comments? 16 Open it up for Board 17 discussion. 18 Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: This is one of 20 the few that we've seen come before us since 21 I've been on the Board, which is a long 22 time, that seems to be done with some sense 23 of reality rather than asking for a lot -- 24 you know, a two foot side yard variance,
47
1 things like that. We have six foot 2 (unintelligible.) 3 Ask these people to live 4 within the Ordinance, they'd have a 14 foot 5 wide home; that's clearly not practical. 6 So, I would support a Motion 7 to approve this as requested. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 Member Canup. 10 Member Sanghvi? 11 Board Member Gronachan? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 13 I concur with Member Canup. 14 The only thing I would like to caution the 15 residents up at the north end that -- I 16 would remind them that we hear each case on 17 it's own merit. And although we look at the 18 entire community as a whole, please don't 19 get in the trap because we did one, we're 20 going to do all. Each case is reviewed. 21 You did an excellent job. You 22 also went beyond the point, I think, of 23 contacting your neighbors, educating them. 24 It doesn't seem to be any question, with the
48
1 exception of that one resident in regard to 2 the water buildup. That resident lives next 3 door to you? 4 MR. GARDNER? Yes. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 MR. GARDNER: To the north. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So are you 8 working with them or what are you doing to 9 address that issue? 10 MR. GARDNER: Certainly we'll 11 take that into account, and I will continue 12 to work with her like I have with all of the 13 other neighbors to insure that everyone's 14 satisfied with the plan and the final 15 result. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 And again -- I'm not a 18 builder, so forgive me. 19 MR. GARDNER: Nor am I. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay, great. 21 We make a great team. 22 Who is going to make that 23 determination of building up that property 24 up around the house for the drainage so this
49
1 isn't a problem? 2 MR. GARDNER: I have a 3 representative of my builder and architect 4 here, and if it's all right, if I just -- 5 MEMBER FISCHER: That's fine to 6 answer the technical question this Board is 7 asking, but if you could just raise your hand and 8 be sworn in for us and then state your name and 9 address. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 11 or affirm that the information that you're about 12 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 13 MR. BELNAK: I do. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: And your name 15 and address. 16 MR. BELNAK: Chris Belnak, 17 address is 345 East Eight Mile Road, Hazel 18 Park, Michigan. 19 And the answer to that is 20 we're going to have an engineer look at the 21 site and determine (unintelligible) direct 22 proper drainage to conform with the City 23 requirements. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay.
50
1 And also that this resident to 2 the north does not have in the drainage 3 problem. 4 MR. BELNAK: Yes. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 MR. BELNAK: Absolutely. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I just want 8 it on the record that her concern was addressed 9 and that you are aware of it, and that you 10 will -- stated here this evening that you will 11 work with her. 12 MR. BELNAK: Yes. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have every 14 confidence that you will (unintelligible.) 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 16 Member Gronachan. 17 Member Sanghvi? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chairman. 20 I just wanted to go on record 21 to say, this is just a situation where this 22 is continued (unintelligible.) This 23 particular applicant has done a great job of 24 preparing the application, talking to the
51
1 neighbors, and everything else, and I want 2 to commend him for doing that. 3 And at the same time, I would 4 like to take this opportunity to make a 5 Motion in Case Number 05-096, we grant the 6 variances requested by the applicant because 7 of practical difficulty, due to the 8 configuration of the lot. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 12 Motion and a second. 13 Any further discussion? 14 Seeing none, please -- 15 Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have a 17 question about -- for the amendment to add 18 regarding the leveling the earth and the 19 water drainage, you need that? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm not sure 21 that we can do that. And the applicant and the 22 engineer, or representative, has stated that they 23 would take those considerations into matter and 24 --
52
1 Mr. Saven, would you like to 2 make comment? 3 MR. SAVEN: Yes, I would. 4 (Unintelligible) improvement 5 permit as a grading plain will be presented 6 at the time -- 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: They want to 8 hear you at home. It's educational. 9 MR. SAVEN: Okay. 10 On every building that comes 11 into this City, there is a grading plan, a 12 plot plan, that's dealing with grading and 13 structures and making sure that the grades 14 are met for those particular buildings. I 15 don't know what happened in this other case, 16 whether it's an issue of landscaping or 17 whatever. This does happen. 18 But I will tell you that prior 19 to us approving it for a certificate of 20 occupancy, we do know at certain times of 21 the year we cannot issue a certificate of 22 occupancy, because obviously you can't grade 23 in the winter time. But until such time 24 that grade is met, then we will issue a
53
1 certificate of occupancy; which is inspected 2 by the City Consulting Engineers. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: And I 4 understand, especially given that variance that 5 is being requested but, I'm always confident in 6 Mr. Saven, as well as the Petitioner stating it 7 on the record. 8 So if there's no further 9 discussion, I'll ask for a roll call, Ms. 10 Backus. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 21 GAIL BACKUS: And Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 24 to zero.
54
1 MR. GARDNER: Thank you very 2 much. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 4 has been granted. Good luck to you; and please 5 see the Building Department. 6 MR. GARDNER: Okay. 7 8 MEMBER FISCHER: And we'll move 9 along to Case Number 05-096, filed by Dennis 10 Miller with Flagstar Bank. The applicant is 11 requesting two variances for the construction of 12 a bank branch located 39900 Eight Mile Road. 13 They're seeking a variance of 1.131 acres for the 14 allowance of front yard parking; and a seven foot 15 variance to accommodate stacking space and an 16 emergency escape lane on the east side yard 17 setback. 18 The property is located on the 19 northeast corner of Eight Mile Road and 20 Orchard Hill Road. 21 Would you please raise your 22 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 24 or affirm that the information that you're about
55
1 to give in the matter before you is the truth. 2 MR. GERMAINE: I do. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: If you could 5 state your name address for the record, and 6 proceed. 7 MR. GERMAINE: Tim Germaine, 8 engineer of record, (unintelligible) 1310 9 North Stevenson Highway. 10 With me tonight is Dennis 11 Miller, vice president of Flagstar Bank. 12 As you stated, we seek two 13 variances for the redevelopment of this 14 parcel at Orchard Lake and Eight Mile. 15 Primarily, the first one is 16 the easy one, to allow parking with the -- 17 front yard parking in the district, that 18 requires a two acre minimum. Our site is 19 only .87 acres. Due to the narrowness of 20 the site, the adjacent similar use parking 21 in the front yard, we seek that variance. 22 The second variance has to do 23 with the encroachment into the eastern 24 setback; due to the requirement for stacking
56
1 spaces and emergency bypass for the fire 2 department on our drive-up lane on the east. 3 Again, because of the similar 4 use through the property to the east of us, 5 an existing bank, we have substantial 6 vindication. They're a gray differential 7 and severe slope. The landscape is going to 8 block all of that area. 9 So we're seeing the two 10 variances presented this evening. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 12 much. 13 In this case there were 11 14 notices sent. There were zero approvals and 15 zero objections. 16 Is there anyone in the 17 audience that wishes to make comment on this 18 case? 19 Seeing none, I'll ask the 20 Building Department for their comments. 21 MR. SAVEN: Once again, I'll 22 (unintelligible) Mr. Schmitts to make 23 comments. 24 Again, this is one of those
57
1 issues of practical difficulty; and the 2 property in question must be at least two 3 acres to construct upon. This is less than 4 two acres. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: You're not 6 doing very well with your microphone tonight. 7 MR. SAVEN: It's been a long 8 day. 9 Anyhow, the other issue is 10 that if you take a look at the property on 11 your plan, look over the east property line, 12 there is a difference in the width from 13 front to back of the property, 14 (unintelligible) substantial amount of 15 (unintelligible) approximately seven feet, I 16 believe. (Unintelligible) in that one 17 particular point all the way to the front. 18 (Unintelligible) want to take 19 that into consideration. 20 Tim? 21 MR. SCHMITT: Just to add a 22 couple comments from the Planning Department. 23 The side as it exists, you may 24 be aware it's currently a day care facility.
58
1 It does have front yard parking. So in that 2 sense, it is an existing non-conforming 3 situation. (Unintelligible) we wait the 4 Board's decision. (Unintelligible.) Front 5 yard parking (unintelligible) this district 6 that requires two acres for front yard 7 parking. 8 As to the setback, we've gone 9 back and forth with the engineer on this. 10 Original design, net setback would be 11 (unintelligible) stacking (unintelligible) 12 stacking, (unintelligible) setback. We are 13 in the process as a staff (unintelligible) 14 Planning Commission to amend our Ordinance 15 regarding stacking for financial 16 institutions, and stacking is a whole, 17 really. 18 As to whether or not we're 19 requiring too much pavement for driveways 20 and (unintelligible) recurring theme with 21 banks, as to the number of spaces at 22 windows. So, the question becomes whether 23 or not we're striking a balance. And we're 24 internally trying to decide that. We'll
59
1 probably be bringing forward in January or 2 February (unintelligible) address that. 3 Until such time, the situation 4 now is they need a -- they requested a side 5 yard setback variance. 6 And I'd be happy to answer any 7 questions as to the process, thus far. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 Mr. Schmitt. 10 I'll open it up for Board 11 discussion? 12 Member Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: My question to 14 Mr. Schmitt. 15 Can this property be used in 16 any other way? 17 MR. SCHMITT: Certainly. 18 It's being used as a day care 19 right now. 20 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 21 That's enough. 22 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. 23 MEMBER CANUP: I guess we went 24 -- we saw a case similar to this -- not that
60
1 it's a (unintelligible) setting, but where a 2 small piece of property; large building. 3 And we have just an overlay of that. And my 4 position really hasn't changed on that. I 5 think it's on the corner of Beck Road and 6 Grand River. 7 And I think here is an example 8 of trying to overbuild. Our Ordinance is 9 very clear. It's two acres. This is just 10 an acre .7 or .8. That's one thing. But 11 you're looking for a 1.13 acres variances. 12 That's substantial, very substantial. And I 13 guess in light of the fact that this 14 property can be used as it is, as it's 15 zoned, it does render it a useful piece of 16 property. 17 And it's a case here where 18 it's just a gross overbuild within our 19 Ordinance. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 21 Mr. Canup. 22 Anything further? 23 Miss Gronachan? 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you,
61
1 Chairman Fischer. 2 I concur with Member Canup. 3 Mr. Schmitt, I need 4 clarification. This property as a day care 5 center, did it require variances for it to 6 be a day care center? 7 MR. SCHMITT: To my knowledge, 8 it predated the OSC Ordinance. It may have 9 required variances, but not under these 10 standards, what you're looking at this evening. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 12 So in all likelihood, although 13 it's not been presented this evening in 14 front this Board, this property could be 15 used currently with a business that meets 16 the OSC, and not very likely would require a 17 variance, correct, but that has not yet been 18 established. 19 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, actually. 20 If you're saying could a 21 business just move into the existing 22 building; certainly. It's there. It's an 23 existing non-conforming use; as long as the 24 use is consistent with the requirements in
62
1 that district, it would be permitted. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: When you say 3 an existing non-conforming, you're referencing 4 the day care; is that correct? 5 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 That's all I needed. 8 Thank you (unintelligible.) 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 10 Member Gronachan. 11 Member Krieger? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. I have 13 a concern also that the area has three lanes 14 for stacking, which leaves a safety issue 15 open. 16 Where would fire and police be 17 able to go, as from what I read from this? 18 That was my question, thank 19 you. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 21 MR. SCHMITT: It is actually 22 drawn in front of you, a bypass lane for the 23 emergency vehicles. They have a dedicated nine 24 foot wide (unintelligible) nine foot bypass lane,
63
1 which is actually where the variance is coming 2 in, and the dedicated stacking. So there's a 3 separated lane that's something that is, from our 4 perspective, entirely non-negotiable. 5 (Unintelligible) there has to be a bypass lane. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 7 Mr. Schmitt. 8 Other comments? Other 9 questions? 10 Regarding the side yard 11 setback, Mr. Schmitt, do you see alternative 12 that could be proposed aleviating or 13 lessening variances requested? 14 MR. SCHMITT: As I mentioned, 15 the alternative previously was the first 16 integration of this project didn't have the 17 stacking, and didn't need the issue. So from the 18 perspective of -- I guess looking into the 19 future, if we were to amend the Ordinance, this 20 setback issue will likely become moot. Because 21 we will likely -- we are looking at lessening the 22 number of spaces that are required. 23 Real world data that we're 24 gathering does not steam to support six
64
1 spaces per window. So, from that 2 perspective in the future -- but right now, 3 with a bank use, it would probably be 4 difficult -- it would likely be difficult to 5 design without a setback problem, because 6 of -- the answer to Mrs. Krieger's question, 7 required dedicated bypass lane. 8 It could -- I mean, as Member 9 Gronachan asked me at Ten and Beck 10 (unintelligible) slide everything over. I 11 haven't designed it, so I can't 12 (unintelligible) but it appears as such. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 14 I'll ask the applicant. 15 You've taken that under 16 consideration. 17 What are your comments in 18 regard to removing one of those stacking 19 lanes? 20 MR. GERMAINE: That was 21 discussed all the way through development. 22 This is our third attempt on this site. We 23 got through planning, as Tim had mentioned. 24 We chose the lesser of the two evils. We
65
1 went with stacking, and fit within the 2 requirements for the parking setback. That 3 was declined because we were told we needed 4 the proper amount of stacking spaces to the 5 Ordinance. 6 So we put those back in, 7 believing that the lessor of the two evils 8 would be to allow the encroachment next to a 9 existing use, simply for the reason that the 10 existing Ordinance provides that a required 11 number of stacking spaces that were meeting 12 Ordinance. 13 Setback also discussed a two 14 acre minimum. Mr. Schmitt says, yes, we can 15 keep the existing non-conforming day care 16 use there as a suitable business. I'd be 17 hard-pressed to see if he could put any 18 other business in there with the 19 requirements for parking and not have that 20 same request for the variance with any 21 development for a two acre minimum. It's 22 simply just too small of a site. It's zoned 23 OSC. They didn't zone it OSC to try and put 24 a development in there. And frankly,
66
1 whoever would come before you for this size 2 of development or this parcel would have the 3 exact same variance. 4 The parcel is what it is. We 5 put actually a custom building which is much 6 smaller than any other Flagstar Bank in 7 other communities to fit this site. It's 8 been narrowed up substantially. So that's 9 -- 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Can I ask you 11 to briefly describe any alternatives that you've 12 looked at so you wouldn't have to request a front 13 yard set -- front yard parking? Have you looked 14 at alternative plans? 15 MR. GERMAINE: We had the 16 building in three different places. We've 17 shifted it around in three different areas; 18 moving it away. We believe that if we put 19 the parking out of the front yard setback, 20 it would cause a condition where customers 21 and people would be crossing through the 22 drive-thrus in the back to get to the 23 entrance of the building; which would be an 24 unsafe condition.
67
1 We believe that the location 2 of that parking is safest where it is. It 3 matches the existing building -- the bank 4 next to it; and it matches the existing use. 5 We've looked at this in many different 6 instances. This is the best concept that we 7 could get through the Planning Commission. 8 And Tim is aware that we met several times 9 to discuss what would work on the site, and 10 then we chose the lessor of the two evils. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 12 Mr. Schultz? 13 Other Board Members? 14 Member Gronachan? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm having a 16 tough time tonight, I'm telling you. 17 Mr. Schmitt, what the 18 Petitioner just said -- and evidently I'm 19 not getting -- is any business coming in 20 here would need a variance, because of the 21 two acres? 22 When I said to you, can any 23 other business -- can a business who fits 24 the OSC fit in here, the two acres would not
68
1 be -- 2 MR. SCHMITT: The only time the 3 two acres would be kicking in is due to the 4 redevelopment of the site. The site as it 5 currently stands has front yard parking. That is 6 a given, currently. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Given the 8 type of use, correct? 9 MR. SCHMITT: Given to the 10 building. 11 Assume the building was empty, 12 taking the day care out of the equation for 13 a second. There is front yard parking 14 existing. It is already there. It's 15 already a non-conforming situation under our 16 Ordinance. Just like any other 17 non-conforming situation, if they're not 18 expanding it, there is no need to appear in 19 front of this Board. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Understood. 21 MR. SCHMITT: So if they're not 22 reconstructing the parking lot in the front yard, 23 there would be no need to appears in front of 24 this Board. That was the reason for my
69
1 answering, if you just took that building as is, 2 you would already have the situation in place to 3 not need a variance for the front yard parking. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: What about 5 the two acres? 6 MR. SCHMITT: The two acres and 7 the front yard parking are the same variance. I 8 apologize. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So then the 10 Petitioner's indication that anyone else would 11 need a variance is really not a true statement. 12 Am I understanding that 13 correctly? 14 MR. SCHMITT: I think -- I think 15 we're talking generally about the same thing, but 16 I think the difference is, the Petitioner 17 indicated that -- and I don't know for certain -- 18 but the building is likely pretty antiquated, and 19 would need to be taken down to begin with. So 20 they're probably indicating the fact that the 21 site is going to be reconstructed with a new 22 user. 23 My assumption is that, given 24 your question, someone just moved into the
70
1 building, it would be okay. So it's kind of 2 two different answers, but they are correct. 3 If you come in and rebuild this site, you're 4 probably going to need this variance. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 Thank you. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Saven? 8 MR. SAVEN: I believe 9 (unintelligible.) 10 MEMBER FISCHER: It's up to you 11 guys. 12 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my 13 question is, if he didn't need front yard 14 parking, you could build a building there 15 that did not need front yard parking, and 16 you could live within the Ordinance; is that 17 correct? 18 MR. SCHMITT: Certainly, you 19 could. 20 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. So it 21 could be built without front yard parking, 22 and not need a variance to do that. The 23 front yard parking is the problem. It's not 24 necessarily a problem. It's a want by the
71
1 Petitioner, which our Ordinance states that 2 you need two acres; and there's reasons for 3 that. 4 Mr. Saven? 5 Excuse me. (Unintelligible) 6 the Chair, I'm sorry. 7 MR. SAVEN: I guess I would also 8 point out the fact that is a corner lot, so 9 you've definitely got two front yards in this 10 particular scenario. You're getting bit on one 11 half and getting bit on the other half, too. 12 I just wanted to point that 13 out, too. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schultz, 15 you've been so quiet. I'd love to here you 16 tonight. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I promised I 18 wouldn't raise my hand all night. 19 Just in a comment. 20 On the plan, you see that 21 dashed outline of where the front yard 22 setback would be just -- you can see how 23 much property is left if you're actually 24 redeveloping the building within that
72
1 attached rectangle (unintelligible) what 2 Mr. Saven was pointing out about the two 3 front yards. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: I'd like to 6 make a Motion that in Case Number 05-096 7 that we deny the request as stated due to 8 the fact that the property can be developed 9 without variances; and it's a gross request 10 when the Ordinance calls for two acres, and 11 the Petitioner's supplying a .869. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: There is 13 currently a Motion. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 MEMBER CANUP: I want to also 16 included the two request; the 1.13 acre 17 request and the seven foot variance request. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 19 Motion -- 20 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 22 seconds. 23 Any further discussion? 24 Ms. Backus, would you please
73
1 call the roll. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 3 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 15 to one. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: At this time 17 your variance has denied. 18 19 We'll move to Case Number 20 05-098, filed by Todd Smith of Thompson 21 Brown, 43700 Expo Center Drive. The 22 Petitioner is requesting extension of a 23 variance previously granted by this Board, 24 located west of Novi Road and north of Grand
74
1 River. 2 This is for two sign 3 variances. 4 Would you please raise your 5 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 7 or affirm that the information that you're about 8 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 9 MR. SMITH: I do. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: State your name 12 and address for the record, and proceed. 13 MR. SMITH: Todd Smith from 14 Thompson Brown Realtors 43700 Expo Center 15 Drive, Novi, Michigan. We're asking for an 16 extension of a variance of a real estate 17 sign, oversized, that faces along I-96, the 18 old Novi Expo Center site. (Unintelligible) 19 the Rock Financial Center. 20 Due to it's unique location, 21 our only (unintelligible) frontage is along 22 the expressway, and difficult to meet the 23 sign size, as the traffic moves at a high 24 rate of speed in order for them to be able
75
1 to see the size. We ask that you grant an 2 extension for the existing sign that was 3 granted, I believe, about a year ago. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 5 In this case, that were seven 6 notices mailed, with zero approvals and zero 7 objections. 8 Does anyone in the audience 9 wish to comment on this case? 10 Seeing none, we'll move to the 11 Building Department. 12 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: And we'll open 14 it up to Board discussion. 15 Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Were there any 17 complaints on the sign? 18 MR. AMOLSCH: No. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 20 comments? 21 MEMBER BAUER: So 22 (unintelligible) up for another 18 months. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that a 24 Motion?
76
1 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah. 2 MEMBER CANUP: I'll second it. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Friendly 4 amendment? 5 For 18 months or if they are 6 to lease it out, obviously, to pull it down. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Correct. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: The seconder 10 agree? 11 MEMBER CANUP: So -- yes. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Any further 13 discussion? 14 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, 15 please call the roll. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?
77
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes 5 six to zero. 6 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 8 18 months or you sell it; and 9 good luck with that. 10 11 Is it the Board's pleasure to 12 continue or to take a quick break? 13 We'll go ahead and take this 14 case, at the advice of the Vice Chair. 15 Go ahead and call Case Number: 16 05-100, filed by National City for 48648 17 Grand River. The property is located east 18 of Wixom on the northside of Grand River. 19 The applicant is requesting 20 three sign variances to allow two wall signs 21 and one ground sign for National City Bank. 22 Would you please raise your 23 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear
78
1 or affirm that the information that you're about 2 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 3 MR. LENON: Yes, ma'am. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And, sir, are 5 you testifying, as well, or no? 6 MR. HICKS: I'll be glad to 7 swear. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 Can you swear or affirm that 10 the information you're about to give in the 11 matter before you is the truth? 12 MR. HICKS: Yes, I do. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 14 And could you both please 15 state your name and address and proceed with 16 your presentation. 17 MR. HICKS: I'm. Will Hicks, 18 National City Bank. 19 MR. LENON: I'm Gene Lenon 20 with DP Group, address is 520 South Main 21 Street, Akron, Ohio. 22 We are requesting variances 23 for signage; one for a ground sign and one 24 for two wall signs. If you take a look at
79
1 the overhead, we're requesting for a ground 2 sign at this location here along West 12 3 Mile. The reason being is, in our opinion, 4 we have two frontages -- one off of Grand 5 River Avenue, as well as West 12 Mile. 6 In traveling down Grand River 7 Avenue heading eastbound, I've noticed that 8 there is a high area of traffic in which any 9 vehicles heading eastbound, you know, it 10 would be give them a little bit of 11 difficulty in turning -- making a left-hand 12 turn into the site. I do feel that most of 13 the traffic at the intersection of West 12 14 and Grand River would most likely take West 15 12 Mile; thus bringing them to our curb cut 16 or our entrance on the West 12 Mile -- the 17 northside of the site. 18 And due to that case, I 19 believe that, you know, a definite ground 20 sign would be needed, especially at 21 nighttime to give an indication of where the 22 entrance is to the bank. And I also have -- 23 as you can see here, a plan view of what the 24 monument sign will look like. We are
80
1 keeping within the Code of only having a 30 2 square foot sign; five foot in overall 3 height; thus, again, meeting the Code 4 requirements. 5 We're also asking for a 6 variance for two wall signs, one to be 7 located here; and one to be located here. 8 Both of them only being 20 square feet. 9 If we were to be allowed for 10 the variance for the two wall signs, per 11 Code, we would be allowed to have one wall 12 sign -- if we had it for both frontages -- 13 to be a minimum of 48 square feet, in which 14 we're only asking for 20 for both; which 15 would be a total of 40 square feet. We're 16 not asking for any more signage to be 17 revealed from the street. As you can see, 18 the landscaping around Grand River Avenue, 19 would pretty much hide the National City 20 sign that's located at the entrance. 21 In our opinion, it's merely a 22 directional sign; giving the patrons or the 23 customers, you know, the impression of where 24 the entrance is. We're also -- in looking
81
1 at the building, itself, we basically put up 2 on easel there, a proposal that we've used 3 at another branch prior. As you can see 4 it's not very big. 5 The difference over here -- 6 MEMBER FISCHER: If you'd want 7 to take the microphone -- the other microphone 8 behind you. 9 MR. LENON: The difference 10 here is that the National City sign you see 11 here as exterior raceway. That raceway 12 would be hidden inside the wall; thus, only 13 revealing the letters on the exterior. And 14 if you take a look at the overhead 15 projector, and you can see what the 16 building, itself, would look like without 17 the National City sign. 18 In our opinion, would not do 19 justice to the building in terms of for the 20 City or National City Bank. 21 In closing, we merely, you 22 know, we have reasons for requesting the 23 variances. We truly appreciate your 24 consideration for allowing the variances.
82
1 Again, the ground sign, again, indicating 2 where the curb cut or entrance is off of 3 West 12 Mile; as well as the overall 4 appearance of the building. We just wanted 5 to make something that was pleasing and 6 acceptable to the City, to the Community, as 7 well as to National City. And I believe 8 this proposes it. 9 I'll be happy to take any 10 questions at this time. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 12 much. 13 In this case, there were 14 14 notices mailed; with zero approvals, zero 15 objections, and two returned. 16 Is there anyone in the 17 audience that wishes to comment on this 18 case? 19 Seeing none, I'll ask the 20 Building Department if they have any -- 21 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schmitt? 23 MR. SCHMITT: (Unintelligible) 24 interject about a sign very often, but as
83
1 submitted, the ground sign at 12 Mile, 2 (unintelligible.) Their curb cuts on Grand River 3 are right in -- (unintelligible) right out for 4 the (unintelligible.) We have do agree that we 5 think you're going to get a lot of traffic off of 6 12 Mile Road; that is their full-time access 7 point. Given the design of the site, it should 8 be where most traffic is (unintelligible) access 9 to the traffic light to pull out on 12 Mile. 10 (Unintelligible) trying to 11 work within all of our Ordinances has 12 obviously caused sign problems. Sometimes, 13 that's the nature of the beast. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 15 Mr. Schmitt. 16 Any other comments from the 17 Building Department? 18 Seeing none, we'll open for 19 Board discussion. 20 Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Ladies first. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 23 Gronachan? 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Amolsch,
84
1 the Petitioner indicated that because this is a 2 corner lot that he would have two signs -- one on 3 12 Mile; one on Grand River. 4 Did I hear him correctly or -- 5 I need clarification. 6 MR. AMOLSCH: It not a corner 7 lot that I'm aware of. It's a through line. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry? 9 MR. AMOLSCH: It's a through 10 line. It fronts on Grand River. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So he could 12 have two signs. 13 MR. AMOLSCH: No. 14 (Unintelligible.) 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 MR. AMOLSCH: It never comes 17 up very often or (unintelligible) never 18 addressed it. (Unintelligible.) 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So I'm clear, 20 this piece of property, would be not be able to 21 have two signs. 22 MR. AMOLSCH: No, he would 23 not. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay.
85
1 (Unintelligible) heard what I 2 heard. 3 Sir, I'm confused as to the 4 sign that you're going to have two 20 square 5 foot signs? 6 MR. LENON: Yes, ma'am. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Side by side. 8 Why not front and back? 9 MR. LENON: Because of the 10 entry of the building, we felt that -- 11 esthetically, if you look at the entire 12 building, itself, this gives it -- in our 13 opinion -- a better esthetic than what it 14 would be if we were to install one National 15 City sign on the front and on the back, it 16 really doesn't give it uniformity in the 17 front entrance. I mean, we tried to make 18 (unintelligible) front entrance for the 19 customers for National City, to give it a 20 pleasing look. 21 If we were to take one off and 22 put it on the back, it just -- in our 23 opinion -- we feel it would take away from 24 the entrance to the bank.
86
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 2 So, having those two signs 3 there, side by side, has nothing to do 4 (unintelligible) your identification from 5 either angle (unintelligible.) 6 MR. LENON: Absolutely not. 7 It's merely, like I said, (unintelligible) 8 directional sign, as well as esthetic sign. 9 It's -- we're not trying to go above and 10 beyond the Code, and we're not trying to 11 getting more than what any other bank in the 12 area would want. Like I said, if -- you 13 know, if we were to go with only one sign -- 14 if we were to utilize a wall sign, we would 15 be able -- by Code -- to have a wall spine 16 that would be 48 square feet, I believe, 17 would be maximum. We're not trying to do 18 that. We're not trying to overkill signage 19 on the project. We're just trying to make 20 it an esthetically pleasing building for 21 everybody involved. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 23 MR. LENON: Thank you. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't know
87
1 that I can support esthetics. I agree with the 2 Planning Department (unintelligible) ground sign. 3 I'm leaning towards supporting this, based on the 4 Petitioner's information provided before us 5 tonight. But I'm not wanting two signs on the 6 Grand River side. 7 So I'll wait (unintelligible) 8 other Board Members. 9 Don't all jump at once. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 12 Mr. Chairman. 13 (Unintelligible) really quite 14 clear to me, apart from identification of 15 the business; they have frontage on two 16 separate roads. You have to have a sign for 17 each side. To me, I mean, it's quite 18 understandable to have those kinds of signs. 19 So, I have no problem in 20 supporting this application far all the 21 variances they have requested. 22 Thank you. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 24 Member Sanghvi.
88
1 Member Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 3 Regarding the bank, that it 4 would be (unintelligible) designation. So 5 that if they had the sign posted on the 6 ground sign, they wouldn't necessarily need 7 the sign on the building. 8 That was my thought. 9 Thank you. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 11 Member Krieger. 12 Member Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: Looking at 14 this picture (unintelligible) looking at the 15 corner of the building; and actually the 16 building parallels Grand River. 17 (Unintelligible) so, that is -- it's 18 somewhat misleading looking at the corner 19 there. 20 Also, 12 Mile Road is 21 basically a closed road it's really not a 22 thru road. It deadends at the expressway. 23 So it's not well used (unintelligible.) 24 It's not for people who are going -- passing
89
1 (unintelligible) stop at the bank. So, I 2 guess I would have a difficult time wanting 3 to support any of the variances they've 4 requested. I don't see, you know, the need 5 for it. 6 I think other banks have come 7 in. We've sent them back to live within the 8 Ordinance. I feel this is could be very 9 well identified within our Ordinances. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other Board 11 discussion? 12 I would tend to agree with 13 Member Sanghvi. Looking at this parcel, and 14 you know, we have 12 Mile Road -- 15 I'll actually ask. I'm not 16 sure if anyone -- (unintelligible) loaded 17 question. What's planned for that section 18 of 12 Mile Road? I mean, do we no what's 19 going on there, used car lot -- 20 MR. SCHMITT: I'll actually 21 answer that (unintelligible) master plan we've 22 got. This property is obviously ripe for 23 development. National City has been approved. I 24 believe this is under construction.
90
1 (Unintelligible) are already there. Next 2 property between National City and the Court is 3 actually zoned (unintelligible) last piece of 4 (unintelligible) zoned for general commercial. 5 So we have eventually expect 6 that will redevelop into some retail 7 component. The road actually cul-de-sacs 8 (unintelligible) West Market Square 9 (unintelligible.) My understanding 10 (unintelligible) that's actually the 11 City of Wixom. (Unintelligible) Lincoln 12 Mercury (unintelligible) car lots. 13 Given what I know about their 14 operation (unintelligible) Novi 15 (unintelligible) I don't anticipate that 16 changing any (unintelligible) in the future. 17 (Unintelligible) in Novi they do lose that 18 (unintelligible) overflow parking, in 19 general. And obviously used car is an 20 existing use there. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 22 And a point of clarification 23 here, the -- on this sheet right here, M-82, 24 I have an x on it. A sign that's already
91
1 approved? 2 MR. LENON: Yes. 3 (unintelligible.) 4 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 5 (Unintelligible) 6 Okay. Given that and given 7 the comments regarding 12 Mile Road and it's 8 lack of usage, I'm not completely in 9 support. (Unintelligible) I am in support 10 of the two wall signs. I think it is 11 esthetically pleasing. And given the 12 surrounding area (unintelligible) business. 13 (Unintelligible) we have the new Rock 14 Financial Showplace. (Unintelligible) have 15 people coming from all over, and trying to 16 identify a bank in town that you don't 17 belong to is not easy. 18 (Unintelligible) I would be 19 willing to support those two wall signs. 20 Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: 22 (Unintelligible) by's not finding a bank in 23 Novi, you would have to be blind not to find 24 one in Novi. We've got banks on every
92
1 corner. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: (Interposing) 3 (Unintelligible.) I want to find my bank. 4 Member Gronachan? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I will not be 6 supporting this in that case. I disagree that 7 the back part of this building off of 12 Mile 8 (unintelligible) regardless of what 12 Mile is 9 currently. I think that the back part of this 10 building should be properly identified. Somebody 11 (unintelligible) what this is. They're going to 12 know it's a bank; not that it's National City. 13 (Unintelligible) but as it 14 stands now, I will not be support this. 15 (Unintelligible) overkill. I concur with 16 Member Canup. Going down Grand River, 17 it's -- you only see one sign. I'm sorry, 18 but in my rule book, esthetics isn't a 19 hardship. So I cannot support that second 20 request. 21 So at this point, I either 22 suggest that the Petitioner going back to 23 the drawing board, redo something. But I 24 will not be supporting this as it stands.
93
1 Thank you. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a 4 suggestion, sir, that maybe we should consider 5 the two signs separately, separate Motions. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Wall spine and 7 ground sign. 8 I'm not sure we have 9 (unintelligible) for that, (interposing) 10 (unintelligible) for those certain cases. 11 Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: I like 13 (unintelligible) do away with the one on 12. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: I think that 15 would be a good suggestion to ask if the 16 Petitioner is willing to table it. 17 Where do the Board Members 18 standing on something of that 19 (unintelligible?) 20 Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: I think in the 22 light of good sportsmanship, I would 23 probably support something like that. 24 (Unintelligible) move rear of building and
94
1 (unintelligible) it may not fit. So I think 2 he would need -- my opinion -- he would need 3 (unintelligible.) It would be difficult to 4 vote on something tonight not seeing that 5 rendering, or seeing what -- it may look 6 terrible, based on what the back of the 7 building -- 12 Mile is the backside. 8 (Unintelligible) 12 Mile (unintelligible) 9 closed road. It's more of an actual access 10 road, and it probably will never be open to 11 the fact (unintelligible) off the expressway 12 on Beck Road. 13 So, that's never going to be 14 open. It's never going anymore than a 15 access road, which is what it is now. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Correct. 17 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 18 Motion to table this case (unintelligible) 19 Petitioner's approval -- I would make a 20 Motion we table this case until our next 21 regular meeting. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Support. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Ms. Backus, 24 please call the roll.
95
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes 14 six to zero. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Your case has 16 been tabled. (Unintelligible) I believe we have 17 next month. 18 MR. LENON: When is the 19 meeting? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 21 e.) We look forward to seeing you next month. 22 MR. LENON: Okay. 23 Do you know what that date is? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: We have a
96
1 schedule right in front of us -- 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The 10th. 3 MR. LENON: The 10th of 4 January. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 6 e) ten minute recess; reconvene at 9:02. 7 8 (A brief recess was taken.) 9 (Back on the record.) 10 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Let's reconvene 12 the Zoning Board meeting for the City of Novi, 13 December, 2005. 14 15 And we'll go ahead and move 16 along to Case Number 05-101, for Mahle 17 Powertrain, at 41000 Vincenti Court. The 18 property is zoned I-1, and located north of 19 Grand River and east of Meadowbrook. 20 The applicant is requesting 21 the placement of two above-ground fuel 22 storage tanks. 23 And you are the applicant. 24 MR. SPURL: Yes.
97
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you please 2 raise your hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 4 or affirm that the information that you're about 5 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 6 MR. SPURL: Yes. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state 8 your name and proceed, please. 9 I'm Tom Spurl, facilities 10 coordinator at Mahle Powertrain. 11 MS. DUNLAP: I'm Donna Dunlap, 12 (unintelligible) manager for Mahle 13 Powertrain, LLC, located at 41000 Vincenti 14 Court. 15 MR. SPURL: We're requesting a 16 variance because the nature of our business 17 has changed to include diesel engine 18 testing. Prior to the this, in the last 20 19 years we've been testing gasoline only 20 engines. Now, we have a chance to do diesel 21 engine testing. 22 We currently have testing 23 scheduled through 20006 for diesel engine 24 testing, if we can get fuel storage.
98
1 MS. DUNLAP: Basically without 2 this variance, we're not going to be able to 3 fill our dyna cells next year, and that 4 would create a financial hardship for our 5 organization. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Your what 7 cells? 8 MS. DUNLAP: Our dynamometer 9 cells. We do engine testing. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. Any 11 other comments? 12 MS. DUNLAP: Well, basically, 13 the tanks are in the back of the building. 14 Those are not specifically screened. Really 15 someone driving up Vincenti Court can't see 16 them. Our neighbors really can't see them 17 either, because we have a cooling tower on 18 one side; and then on the other side, we 19 have additional equipment. 20 MR. SPURL: Along the north end 21 of the building, along the lot line, there's 22 an eight foot concrete wall, so it would be 23 very difficult for anyone to be able to see 24 these.
99
1 MS. DUNLAP: We have taken all 2 environmental precautions. We are within 3 all regulations with the State, so from an 4 environmental perspective for a release, 5 that is very unlikely to happen. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 7 In this case, there were 23 8 notices mailed; zero approvals, zero 9 objections. 10 Does anyone in the audience 11 like to comment on this case? 12 Seeing none, I'll move to the 13 Building Department? 14 MR. SAVEN: Basically, the 15 applicant is requesting for a use permit for 16 placement of these two tanks, which are greater 17 than 600 gallons. These are conditions of the 18 Ordinance, as far as the size of the tanks. 19 I did contact the fire 20 marshall in regards to this particular 21 issue, do you have a note in the file. He 22 Indicated that he didn't have a problem 23 (unintelligible) fire suppression code. 24 MS. DUNLAP: Uh-huh.
100
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schmitt? 2 MR. SCHMITT: I would just add 3 this request. (Unintelligible) we had to meet 4 with Tom, I think to talk to about originally. 5 Part of the reasons they're above ground, my 6 understanding, is because of right now, they only 7 have a contract through 2006 to do this testing. 8 (Unintelligible) there may be an opportunity for 9 that contract to be extended and become a 10 successful program (unintelligible.) But given 11 the short time frame, I think that's the original 12 reason to have them above ground. 13 MS. DUNLAP: That is correct. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 15 comment from the Building Department? 16 Open it up for Board 17 discussion? 18 Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I've 20 got some questions for the Petitioner, and 21 why is it that you need 1000 gallons of fuel 22 and why isn't the 600 gallons enough? 23 MS. DUNLAP: Well, to do the 24 diesel engine testing, you run at a fuel
101
1 rate of 22 gallons an hour; versus gasoline 2 which runs at five gallons an hour. So 3 that's almost quadruple what you would do 4 when you're just running an engine test for 5 gasoline. So because of that, we'll need a 6 greater volume. Otherwise, we'll be having 7 fuel deliveries you know, once a day. And 8 that just having that happen on a more 9 frequent basis, just isn't conducive to safe 10 -- we're trying to keep it so that we don't 11 have to have as many fuel deliveries. 12 Because every time you do a 13 fuel delivery, you have a potential for 14 release; and we're trying to avoid to the 15 minimum number of fuel deliveries possible. 16 MEMBER CANUP: You're burning 17 22 gallons an hour. That's -- do you work 18 24-hours a day? 19 MS. DUNLAP: No. 20 MR. SPURL: At this time, no. 21 But there is the possibility we would be 22 running two 12-hour shifts. 23 MEMBER CANUP: Possibility. 24 Well, if you were running 22
102
1 gallons an hour in 12 hours, that's 2 somewhere in the area of what, less than 300 3 gallon per day. 4 MS. DUNLAP: Well, that 5 depends on how many cells are running at any 6 given time. 7 MEMBER CANUP: You have diesel 8 engines that burn -- you're going to test 9 diesel engines that burn 22 gallons an hour? 10 MS. DUNLAP: That's 11 approximately the fuel rate that we were 12 given when we were doing our air permitting 13 with the State. 14 MEMBER CANUP: I guess -- you 15 know, fuel trucks -- I'm in the construction 16 business, and we run generators 24-hours a 17 day for a year. And none of our tanks are 18 above 300 gallons. And 22 gallons an hour 19 is pretty close. And it would also run you 20 somewhere in the area of 30 hours at that 21 rate with a 600 gallon tank. 22 Fuel trucks are not a big deal 23 to have -- I don't know where you buy your 24 fuel from -- I'd be glad to give you our
103
1 suppliers -- they'd be glad to come out 2 every day to fill your tanks for you. And 3 as far as the possibility of a spill in 4 filling tanks, I think that's pretty nill -- 5 at least from our experience. 6 And these tanks, I would 7 suspect, meet State fire Code, etc. 8 MS. DUNLAP: Yes, they do. 9 MEMBER CANUP: Double wall 10 tanks (unintelligible.) I still can't see 11 why you can't get by with 600 gallons of 12 fuel at this time. 13 So that's my comments. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: You're talking 16 about gasoline. You are requesting for 17 diesel. 18 MS. DUNLAP: Correct. 19 MEMBER BAUER: So you'll have no 20 gasoline there. 21 MR. SPURL: Well, we still do 22 gasoline -- 23 MEMBER BAUER: You won't have a 24 thousand gallon tank for gas.
104
1 MS. DUNLAP: Our gasoline -- 2 we have underground storage tanks. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Oh, these are not 4 above ground. 5 MS. DUNLAP: Right. The 6 gasoline are not. The diesel is what we're 7 requesting as a temporary measure. To 8 convert any of our underground storage tanks 9 is very costly at this time for us. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: And Member 12 Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 14 Mr. Chairman. 15 Just wanted to understand this 16 clearly. 17 These diesel over the ground 18 storage tanks you're applying to give 19 hopefully if your project continues, they 20 you might transfer them underground later 21 on. 22 What kind of tank do you 23 have -- are you looking for the over ground 24 storage tanks?
105
1 MR. SPURL: We have double 2 wall tanks right now that hold -- each tank 3 holds 1000 gallons, 990 gallons. 4 MS. DUNLAP: The timing -- 5 MR. SPURL: Oh, I'm sorry. 6 MS. DUNLAP: Probably 18 7 months. 8 MR. SPURL: We're hoping for a 9 very long time. But if the contract 10 extends, we'll be looking at burying the 11 tanks underground; but probably a year and a 12 half. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay? 14 And calculating from what you 15 are telling me, you will be using 528 16 gallons in 24 hours? 17 MR. SPURL: That's per engine. 18 MS. DUNLAP: That's per 19 engine. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Then you have 21 two thousands, four day supply. 22 MS. DUNLAP: Correct. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: You have two 24 shifts every day. I don't think it's too huge
106
1 myself, considering the (unintelligible) you're 2 in. And you are doing this temporary for a 3 period of about two years. 4 Mr. Chairman, I have no 5 problem granting their application. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 7 Member Sanghvi. 8 Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have 10 question. 11 I don't know -- Alan or Tim 12 could answer it, regarding the fire 13 department, (unintelligible) they'd be able 14 to put out a 600 (unintelligible) if there's 15 much difference? 16 MR. SCHMITT: The difference in 17 a burn between 600 and 1000 gallon tank, is more 18 of a matter of time that it would take to burn 19 itself out. They're going to be on the scene, 20 fighting the fire in the same amount of time. 21 In terms of putting it out, 22 their process wouldn't change based on how 23 much is there. What will change, is after 24 they put it out, the safety measures. They
107
1 take it to insure there's no restart of the 2 fire. But, the only function would be if it 3 ran uninnondated, it would burn longer 4 (unintelligible) thousand gallon tank. But 5 a double wall tank, it would have to be a 6 pretty hefty explosion to start diesel on 7 fire. Diesel is not the most combustible of 8 the gases, so it's a little safer in that 9 regard. (Unintelligible.) 10 The fire fighting capabilities 11 aren't diminished, given the size of the 12 tanks. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 14 Thank you. 15 I will be able to support, if 16 there was a Motion regarding that. 17 Thank you. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 19 Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: What are the 21 size of these tanks, physical? 22 MR. SPURL: I think they are -- 23 they're about four foot wide, by 15 or 16 24 feet long, maybe 20 feet long, something
108
1 like that. 2 MEMBER CANUP: 3 (Unintelligible) horizontal? 4 MR. SPURL: Yes. 5 MEMBER CANUP: They're not 6 vertical. (Unintelligible.) 7 MR. SPURL: Yes. 8 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I don't 9 have a problem with that. I do, but I 10 don't. 11 I'll vote for it probably, if 12 you'll let us have a tour of your facility. 13 MS. DUNLAP: Absolutely. 14 MR. SPURL: Absolutely. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, yeah, 16 that's what I want to look at now, a thousand 17 gallons of diesel. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Just to 19 clarify, that that has no bearing on the 20 decision. 21 How does -- water building. 22 How tall is that building? 23 MR. SPURL: It's a ten foot 24 concrete wall that stores our water. We
109
1 have an enclosed system for engine cooling, 2 and we store the water in that. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 4 Given the comments from 5 Mr. Schmitt, as well as the correspondence 6 between ourselves and the fire department, I 7 have no issue with the size of the tanks. I 8 was more concerned with the screening. But 9 given the (unintelligible) facilities, I 10 would be willing to waive that, as well. I 11 feel it's adequately screened from view of 12 any outsiders, basically. 13 So, I would be willing to 14 support, as well. 15 I'll open it to Member 16 Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, 18 may I make a Motion that in Case, 05-101, the 19 request of the applicant be granted for the 20 variance they've asked for; and they have 21 demonstrated practical hardship, and that will be 22 a variance in principal from the fire department, 23 and this variance be granted for the period of 24 two years.
110
1 Thank you. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Member Sanghvi. 4 There's a Motion. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 6 Friendly amendment to the word 7 practical hardship. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. Make 9 it difficulty. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 11 Thank you. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Undue hardship, 13 is that the word we're going for? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Practical 15 difficulty? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 17 This is a temporary. I think 18 you ought to use the non-use 19 (unintelligible) practical difficulty for 20 this particular request. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 22 So just to clarify, we've used 23 the test of practical difficulty regarding 24 this case.
111
1 I would have a friendly 2 amendment, just to ensure that the 3 Petitioner complies with the International 4 Fire Code and NFPA-30, (unintelligible) 5 Code, as requested by the fire department. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: No problem. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Does the 8 seconder agree to the amendments? 9 Do you second the Motion? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: And do you 12 agree with the amendments? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 15 Is there any further 16 discussion? 17 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 18 you please call the roll. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
112
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 8 to zero. 9 MR. SPURL: Thank you very 10 much. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 12 has been granted for the period of two years. 13 Good luck. 14 MS. DUNLAP: Thank you. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 16 17 Next I'd like to call Case 18 Number 05-102, filed by Federated Retail 19 Holdings for a property located south of 12 20 Mile Road and east of Novi Road. The 21 Petitioner is requesting a 40 foot south 22 setback variance for the construction of an 23 addition to the existing Marshall Field's 24 store at Twelve Oaks Mall.
113
1 The property is zoned RC, 2 located as stated. 3 Can you please raise your hand 4 and be sworn in by our secretary. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 6 or affirm that the information that you're about 7 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 8 MR. EGGERT: I do. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state 11 your name and address for the record and proceed. 12 MR. EGGERT: I'm John Eggert 13 of the Taubman Company. My address is 200 14 East Long Lake Road, Bloomfield Hills, 15 48304. 16 Good evening, again. I'm John 17 Eggert of the Taubman Company; the parent 18 company of Twelve Oaks Mall. Thank you for 19 the opportunity to appear before the Board 20 this evening. 21 Federated Retail Holdings are 22 the parent company for Marshall Field's. I 23 was authorized by the Taubman Company to 24 speak on their behalf concerning this
114
1 application. A letter to that effect has 2 been submitted to the City Staff. 3 Twelve Oaks Mall opened 28 4 years ago. An expansion of the mall as now 5 planned; that would included a 60,000 square 6 foot increase to the existing Marshall 7 Field's store from 240,000 square feet to a 8 total of 300,000 square feet inside. Having 9 received a positive recommendation from the 10 Planning Commission, City Council has 11 recently approved the preliminary site plan 12 for the mall expansion; subject to approval 13 of certain variances by this Board; one of 14 which is the application now before you. 15 In conjunction with the 16 original development of Twelve Oaks, 17 ownership of the overall mall property was 18 divided to allow for separate ownership of 19 parcels by the various department stores and 20 the developer of each entity owning it's 21 respective building, as well as a portion of 22 the adjacent parking. 23 There's an operating agreement 24 amongst the property owners, whereby all
115
1 stores and their customers are allowed 2 uninhibited access throughout the mall. And 3 the site, also which has been designed to 4 operate as a single unified development 5 would seamless property boundaries. 6 You can see from the graphic 7 here, the existing Marshall Field's building 8 is located 60 feet from the adjacent 9 property located to the south, which is a 10 portion of the parking lot owned by the 11 Taubman Company. A 100 foot building 12 setback for new construction is now required 13 for the Zoning Ordinance. 14 Marshall Field's proposed 15 expansion of the building, would be 16 consistent with a building -- with the 17 existing building configuration, and it's 18 proposed would maintain the existing 60 foot 19 setback; thereby resulting in a 40 foot 20 deficiency for the building's expansion 21 area, with respect to the current 22 (unintelligible) setback requirement; 23 (unintelligible) to their request and 24 approval of a 40 foot variance.
116
1 Twelve Oaks is a unique 2 property in the City of Novi, being the only 3 department store anchored in a shopping 4 center in the City; and this is a unique 5 circumstance arising out of the nature and 6 configuration of the property and it's 7 ownership. (Unintelligible) of the property 8 is not possible at this time, it is our 9 position and strict interpretation of the 10 Ordinance (unintelligible.) 11 This request creates no 12 negative impact to adjacent property owners. 13 The issue at hand here is essentially one of 14 internal lot lines, which effects no one 15 outside of the mall ownership. The adjacent 16 effected property is the portion of the mall 17 parking lot owned by my company, and we are 18 in full support of this application. 19 I appreciate your 20 consideration of this request, and also pass 21 along the appreciation of Federated 22 Department Stores. 23 I'd be happy to address any 24 questions from the Board.
117
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 2 much. 3 In this case, there were 18 4 notices mailed; with one approval, zero 5 objections. 6 Madam Secretary, please read 7 the correspondence. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The approval 9 is from Bruce Lloyd from Meadow -- Meadow 10 Management, Inc. I see no problems, and I'm in 11 the area all day in this area all day, excluding 12 Saturdays and Sundays. And Mr. Lloyd's address 13 is 27780 Novi Road, suite 110, Novi, Michigan. 14 And that concludes the 15 correspondence. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 17 Madam Secretary. 18 Is there anyone in the 19 audience that wishes to comment on this 20 case? 21 Seeing none, I'll move to the 22 Building Department for comments. 23 MR. SAVEN: Basically, the 24 applicant is proposing a practical difficulty due
118
1 to the existing conditions of Marshall Field's, 2 as it relates to the existing store. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schmitt? 4 MR. SCHMITT: The Ordinance 5 actually anticipated this sort of property line. 6 There is a footnote in section 2400, that 7 specifically allows for, in this power centers, 8 regional centers to allow these into your 9 property line. The issue here is really the 10 configuration. If you look, they've run that 11 property line very appropriately, not cutting 12 through any parking spaces. If you look actually 13 at one of the other property lines on the site 14 cut some parking spaces. 15 So this one is actually in the 16 appropriate location to properly designate 17 which parking spaces belong to each person. 18 To get that setback you'd have to drop it 19 down 40 feet, which is going to start 20 slicing parking spaces into thirds and 21 halves; and it's not necessarily the best 22 situation. 23 So, from the perspective of is 24 this an odd situation it's not odd at all.
119
1 It's really what's anticipated in the 2 Ordinance, because of the ownership of 3 anchor tenants, usually. The issue is 4 really the configuration internally of where 5 that line seemingly had to go back in the 6 '70's and '80's when it was split. 7 So that's really our 8 perspective. We anguished over this to try 9 to figure out under that provision to allow 10 it, but there really is no way for to us 11 allow it administratively, which is why 12 we're in front of -- why the applicant is in 13 front of you this evening. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 15 Mr. Schmitt for that clarification. 16 Board members? 17 Member Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you, 19 Chairman Fischer. 20 I feel that a woman should 21 speak about Marshall Field's, because that's 22 where I spend my Saturdays. I think that 23 the Petitioner has exhibited the true 24 essence of why this variance, why I should
120
1 vote -- let me try that again. Why I will 2 be supporting this variance. I got tongue 3 tied at the last sale. I think this is a 4 unique circumstances, based on the area and 5 shape of the property. 6 I don't feel that -- or I feel 7 that if we did not pass this, it would 8 prohibit Marshall Field from doing -- 9 continuing there business in Novi, and let's 10 face it, Novi's growing, and Marshall 11 Field's does have to grow. 12 When the mall was built in -- 13 MR. EGGERT: 1977. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 15 -- there was probably -- don't 16 quote me on this -- probably the population 17 was what, 10,000? 18 MR. SAVEN: Pretty close. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Now we're 20 pretty close to 50,000. We have a new Civic 21 Center (unintelligible) the Novi Expo Center 22 supporting new businesses and growth, and I feel 23 that given the current situation, that I would be 24 in full support, based on the testimony this
121
1 evening. 2 That's all I have to say. 3 Thank you. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 5 Member Gronachan. 6 I would like to point out that 7 I wasn't part of that population, because I 8 wasn't even born at that time. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Then you can't 10 vote on this. 11 MR. SCHMITT: (Interposing) 12 (unintelligible) I wasn't born either. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: See. 14 Mr. Schmitt wasn't either. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I was still 16 in high school. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 18 But I think it's also 19 important to note that the note or the map 20 that the condition already exists for the 21 building before the expansion; and the 22 expansion that's bringing them before us. 23 Is that a correct assessment, 24 Mr. Schmitt?
122
1 MR. SCHMITT: That is correct. 2 When this was originally split, it appears to be 3 split at the 60 foot line. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 5 MR. SCHMITT: And likely the 6 Ordinance was then enacted after this to require 7 the 100 foot setback. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: So we are 9 basically, taking that line and taking it 10 straight out, as opposed to cutting it out; from 11 what I can see. 12 I would be in support of that. 13 Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: If you would 15 support it, I'd be glad to make a Motion. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Please. 17 MEMBER CANUP: I'd make a 18 Motion that in case 05-102, correct? That 19 we grant the variance as requested due to a 20 practical hardship. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you done? 23 MEMBER CANUP: I'm done. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a
123
1 Motion and a second. 2 Any further discussion? 3 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 4 you please call the roll. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 15 GAIL BACKUS: And Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 18 to zero. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 20 has been granted. Best of luck with your -- that 21 variance, as well as your total expansion. 22 MR. EGGERT: Thank you. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: And we'll call 24 Case Number 05-103, filed by Taubman Company for
124
1 Twelve Oaks Mall, as well, located south of 12 2 Mile and east of Novi Road. The variances 3 requested in this case are three variances, one 4 being a 40 foot height variance for the maximum 5 height of a light fixture adjacent to a 6 residential use; number two is a variance to 7 exceed the maximum ratio of 4:1 for average light 8 levels for parking lot lighting; and variance to 9 the requirements -- and lastly, variance to the 10 requirements for irrigation for certain 11 landscaped islands on the property. 12 And will you be speaking on 13 this case, as well? 14 MR. EGGERT: Yes, I will. 15 So we don't need to swear him? 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Please raise 18 your hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 20 or affirm that the information that you're about 21 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 22 MR. EGGERT: I do. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Please --
125
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's a 2 separate case. He's swearing to tell the truth 3 in this case. That's why. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Please sate 5 your name and address for the record, again, and 6 please proceed. 7 MR. EGGERT: I'm still John 8 Eggert of the Taubman Company. My address, 9 200 East Long Lake, Bloomfield Hills, 10 Michigan, 48304. 11 Again, the Taubman Company is 12 the parent company for Twelve Oaks Mall. In 13 addition to other Taubman Company staff, 14 including our mall manager with me tonight. 15 I have our architect, electrical engineer, 16 and the landscape architect, if there are 17 technical questions at some point in the 18 program. 19 We have three requests for 20 your consideration this evening. With the 21 Board's permission, I would like to present 22 the first two items, which are 23 inter-related, and I'd ask for the Board's 24 consideration of these items
126
1 (unintelligible) proceed to the third item. 2 All three request derive from 3 the planned expansion of Twelve Oaks Mall, 4 as related to the prior Marshall Field's 5 application. 6 I've got a graphic here that 7 just shows in general the work that we're going 8 to be doing, with respect to the expansion. 9 Nordstrom, in addition to the shopping center, 10 will be added on the east end. Those both are 11 two stories. We'll also be reworking some areas 12 of the parking field adjacent to those areas. 13 The Marshall Field expansion -- 14 which I alluded to a moment ago, the subject of 15 the prior application -- will be a 60,000 square 16 foot expansion to their existing three story 17 building; and some reworking of the parking 18 areas. 19 We are also adding a 450 space 20 new parking area on the southwest perimeter of 21 the mall property, in order to meet parking 22 requirements to the overall site. The proposed 23 expansion will increase the size of the center by 24 approximately 25 percent. Again, including the
127
1 addition of Nordstrom's and the expansion of 2 Marshall Field's. The expansion project is 3 anticipated to be complete in the fall of 2007, 4 just to given you a perspective. 5 The first item I'm going address 6 is the height of the parking lot light fixtures. 7 The Zoning Code calls for a maximum light fixture 8 height, not exceeding the maximum building height 9 allowed (unintelligible) district, which is 45 10 feet in the regional center, RC District. 11 Additionally, the property is adjacent to a 12 residential district or uses. The maximum height 13 is reduced to 25 feet. 14 There are multiple family 15 residential properties adjacent to our east 16 property boundary, as you can see on the aerial, 17 that I can't see, but that you can on the 18 pedestal in front of you. The mall existing 19 parking lot light fixtures are 65 feet in height 20 already. In order to conform with the height 21 fixture (unintelligible) and the relative spacing 22 of the existing parking lot. So we are 23 requesting a variance to allow for the 65 foot 24 height to be maintained, as we relocate the
128
1 existing fixtures in conjunction with the 2 proposed expansion of the shopping center. 3 The drawing in front of you now 4 is the one that's included in your packet. I 5 have simply highlighted some of the colors on 6 there to make it stand out a little bit better, 7 although it's not showing tremendously on this 8 overhead. The first step of our proposal is to 9 remove a total of eight existing fixtures light 10 poles from the Nordstrom expansion area. These 11 light poles to be removed are shown in yellow on 12 the graphic. I'll simply point them out here. 13 Some of them fall on the actual 14 building area to be constructed, and some within 15 drive aisles, as proposed; and typically closer 16 to the building than they necessarily need to be 17 in the new configuration. Of these eight light 18 poles that will be removed, three will be 19 relocated. Two of which will be placed in the 20 parking area adjacent to Nordstrom's, in the 21 location shown in green -- here and here. 22 The third relocated pole would 23 be placed in the new parking area to be 24 constructed in the southwest area of the mall
129
1 property; and that's down here. The other five 2 light poles to be removed, will be appropriately 3 discarded or recycled off-site. The overall 4 result of the preceding will be a reduction of 5 five fixtured light poles on-site, as a whole, 6 compared to the number currently existing. 7 There would be no negative 8 impact on adjacent properties associated with 9 this proposal, inasmuch as any current impact on 10 adjacent residential areas would actually be 11 lessened due to the fact that the overall number 12 of fixtures on the property is being reduced; and 13 also since the relocated fixtures will be placed 14 further away from the residential area; and the 15 even greater number of fixtures being removed. 16 Given the need to provide 17 consistent lighting throughout the center, and to 18 maintain uniform pole and fixture height 19 throughout the mall parking area, as a whole, it 20 is our contention that the alternative placement 21 of a far greater number of low light replacement 22 light poles would pose a practical difficult. 23 This is further reinforced by the fact that 24 placement of numerous lower height poles would
130
1 impair the effectiveness and limitation of the 2 mall's ongoing snow removal program, given the 3 heavy equipment utilized in this endeavor; and 4 the relative difficulty of this equipment having 5 to work around a far greater number of parking 6 lot obstructions. 7 Additionally, the placement of 8 numerous lower height poles could potentially 9 result if lost parking spaces at the center, and 10 thus potentially jeopardize our ability to meet 11 minimum building requirements. 12 In closing, I would also like to 13 point out one final note (unintelligible) site 14 characteristics at Twelve Oaks, (unintelligible) 15 public roadways, mainly 12 Mile and Novi Road. 16 The shopping center largely sits in a hole; thus, 17 effectively reducing the impact of increased 18 structure height, at least, as perceived by 19 passers-by. 20 I'd like to move on to item two 21 at this point, and that is the ratio to average 22 to minimum light levels for parking lot lighting. 23 The Zoning Code calls for a maximum ratio of 4:1, 24 with respect to average light levels of the
131
1 surface being lit, compared to the lowest light 2 level of that lit surface. 3 And the affected areas impacted 4 by the proposed reconstruction and new 5 construction to be undertaken in conjunction our 6 proposed expansion, the proposed lighting which 7 is consistent with the existing lighting 8 currently located throughout the mall parking 9 lots, would generally exceed this 4:1 maximum; 10 and we're requesting a variance to allow this to 11 occur. 12 From a practical standpoint, 13 this condition is a direct and fundamentally 14 incurrable consequence of the 65 foot light pole 15 height addressed in the prior item. This is due 16 to the fact that all of our fixtures need to be 17 comparatively brighter, and bring relatively -- 18 and being relatively fewer in number. 19 (Unintelligible) fixtures will influence 20 comparatively greater expanse of the lit surface 21 sequestered; thus, resulting in greater 22 (unintelligible) of light levels. 23 Given the height of the light 24 poles currently used and being proposed for use,
132
1 in terms relocation throughout the mall parking 2 areas, it is our contention that the achievement 3 of the 4:1 average to minimum light ratio, with 4 the alternative placement, again, of a far 5 greater number of lower height replacement light 6 poles with the fundamentally only alternative 7 solution of (unintelligible) practical 8 difficulty. 9 As described in the previous 10 item, the situation is exacerbated by the fact 11 that placement of numerous lower height poles 12 would impair snow removal operations at the 13 center, due to relative difficulty of effectively 14 using the heavy equipment required. Also 15 described in the prior item, placement of 16 numerous lower height poles could possibly result 17 in lost parking spaces at the center. Again, 18 potentially jeopardizing the ability of the site 19 to meet building requirements. 20 There would be no negative 21 impact on adjacent property associated with this 22 request; inasmuch as any variation to average the 23 minimum light levels at Twelve Oaks, 24 fundamentally only effecting mall property, as
133
1 opposed to off-site owners. 2 In any event, there would 3 arguably be no adverse off-site impact. The 4 proposed condition would be comparable to the 5 existing condition already on the property. 6 I appreciate your consideration 7 of these two items, and I'd be happy to address 8 any questions from the Board. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: And if there's 10 no objection from the Boards or any procedural 11 rules, you can go ahead and discuss this one and 12 (unintelligible) your presentation concerning 13 (unintelligible.) 14 Any objection from the Board? 15 All right then. 16 In this case, there were 14 17 notices mailed; zero approvals and zero 18 objections. 19 Is there anyone in the 20 audience that wishes to comment on this 21 case? 22 Seeing none, I'll ask for the 23 Building Department's comments on those two 24 issues?
134
1 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 2 MR. SCHMITT: From one 3 perspective, I think Mr. Eggert hit the nail on 4 head. The existing light poles are 65 feet in 5 height, and they're not effecting -- with this 6 construction, the whole parking field. So to 7 bring the entire parking field into compliance 8 with today's Ordinance standards, would be an 9 impossible task, because blending a 65 foot pole 10 and a 25 foot pole to meet the mean 4:1 ratio, 11 would not work. 12 The lighting Ordinance was put 13 in place in the mid to late '90's. 4:1 14 ratio would be great on most sites. This 15 isn't most sites from our perspective. This 16 is a hundred plus acres, with a substantial 17 parking field. The 65 foot poles -- given 18 that they're existing on-site, the Planning 19 Department wouldn't have a major concern 20 with them. They are eliminating five poles. 21 They are pushing them a little bit further 22 away from the residential. 23 So from that perspective, our 24 concerns were originally met. And the 4:1
135
1 ratio (unintelligible) great ratio. You 2 just can't meet it this tall. I think that 3 any electrical engineer that would design 4 this type of (unintelligible) field would 5 tell you that it's just not possible with 65 6 foot poles. 7 Given the snow removal issue, 8 we have actually discussed that with respect 9 to other landscaping items (unintelligible) 10 Planning Commission (unintelligible) and we 11 understand this is the exception to the 12 rule, so that is taken into account in our 13 decision making. So we are relatively happy 14 with the design of this lighting. It's a 15 pretty solid proposal for a facility of this 16 size. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 18 Mr. Schmitt. 19 Board Members? 20 Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: I didn't see 22 any problem with this at all. 23 (Unintelligible) rest of the Board 24 Members -- if there's no discussion,
136
1 (unintelligible) anybody has any problem 2 with it, I'll make a Motion that we grant 3 the request as stated for the lighting 4 portion. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 7 Motion and a second. 8 If I could just ask one quick 9 question. 10 What will the light ratio 11 actually be, or any guess? I understand it 12 won't change much from what it is now. 13 MR. SCHMITT: It would still be 14 zero, because they're going to have portions of 15 the site (unintelligible) that won't have 16 lighting. Not that won't see the lighting, 17 because it will be all around you. But given the 18 light (unintelligible), there are -- could be a 19 couple of (unintelligible) zeros, more than 20 likely. So you can't actually (unintelligible) 21 ratio. You would be dividing by zero. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Infinity. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 24 Motion and a second.
137
1 Any further discussion? 2 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 3 you please call the roll. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 15 Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 18 to zero. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Those variances 20 have been granted, if you want to proceed with 21 issue number three. 22 MR. EGGERT: Thank you very 23 much. 24 Issue number three is
138
1 irrigation in landscaped islands. 2 The Zoning Code calls for all 3 newly landscaped areas to be irrigated. 4 I've got a graphic. Again, this is included 5 (unintelligible) packet. It is showing the 6 areas as we have indicated that we were 7 looking for relief in our application to the 8 Board. We did request relief from the 9 irrigation requirement in two locations 10 effected by the proposed expansion. 11 The first being the portions 12 of what was referred to as area C. That's 13 over here, which consists of new end island 14 adjacent to the mall (unintelligible) up 15 near Nordstrom's. The second location being 16 what was referred to as area B over here, 17 consistent with a new end island adjacent to 18 the ring road in the area of the southwest 19 mall parking lot expansion proposed. 20 After several conversations 21 with City Staff, we have elected at this 22 point to drop our variance request with 23 respect to the island in area C; the one 24 circled in red on this drawing. And again
139
1 that is the extent that we were looking for 2 relief in area C. The other portions of 3 area C were already proposed to be 4 irrigated. 5 (Unintelligible) to have an 6 open discussion with them on this issue, and 7 commend them for convincing us as to the 8 sense in reasonability of dropping this 9 portion of our request. We all due respect 10 to the staff, however, we'd still like to 11 persue our request pertaining to area B. 12 Currently, perimeter islands 13 on the mall property, as a whole, are 14 largely not irrigated. To provide the water 15 source to irrigate the islands in this area 16 would require trenching in additional paved 17 areas not currently planned for disturbing, 18 as far as this expansion. (Unintelligible) 19 practical difficult, given the site in red 20 to be (unintelligible) in order to 21 accommodate this (unintelligible) and a 22 considerable amount of pavement repair in 23 road resurfacing work (unintelligible.) 24 Additionally, the impact for
140
1 related trenching work on existing 2 underground facilities are not fully known 3 and could potentially be significant. 4 Twelve Oaks landscaping has historically 5 feared well, without benefit of irrigation 6 in most areas. As in the past, Twelve Oaks 7 management is committed to continuing the 8 practice of ensuring proper maintenance for 9 all (unintelligible) landscape. All new 10 plant materials installed in conjunction 11 with this expansion will be guaranteed for 12 two years, thus allowing adequate time for 13 replacement during the initial acclimation 14 period. 15 In closing, we respectfully 16 request for consideration of this final 17 request. I greatly appreciate your time and 18 attention to all items this evening. 19 Again, I'm happy to address 20 any questions the Board may have. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 22 Anyone in audience that wishes 23 to comment on this part of the variance? 24 Seeing none, Building
141
1 Department? 2 MR. SAVEN: I'll refer to 3 Mr. Schmitt. 4 MR. SCHMITT: Certainly, we're 5 are very close (unintelligible) request for C. 6 All along you've maintained the areas 7 (unintelligible) to begin with, (unintelligible) 8 installing (unintelligible) exception of a water 9 line. So, we are certainly pleased with that. 10 Our staff landscape architect, 11 Mr. Shipman, still maintains the 12 (unintelligible) should be irrigated. 13 Regardless, new construction is held to that 14 standard. The plant material that is going 15 to be placed in those end islands warranty 16 for a period of two years, from the City's 17 perspective. After that, it becomes an 18 enforcement issue with the Code, through our 19 Neighborhood Services Department. 20 Mr. Shipman is currently of 21 the opinion that truly until five years, 22 you're not going to find out whether it 23 really survived. And then after that, a 24 long period of drought could still kill it,
142
1 due to the harsh environment. 2 (unintelligible) area where it is planted. 3 So it's not getting a great deal of 4 infiltration. (Unintelligible) irrigation 5 system, the onus truly is going to be on 6 Twelve Oaks for the long-term maintenance of 7 this. 8 Historically, we have 9 successfully enforced maintenance action in 10 court. So, we are happy that area B is 11 going to be irrigated. And should area 12 B(sic) be granted for a variance, the 13 applicant is aware -- we met with him 14 several times and they've been very 15 accommodating with us. The applicant is 16 aware that long term, we expect this to look 17 the same as it did when it's installed. We 18 expect it to survive and we expect the 19 plants will flourish under their watering 20 program. 21 And if it doesn't, we will get 22 into long term enforcement issue, we don't 23 want to deal with that. They have had a 24 good track record out there (unintelligible)
143
1 look relatively good with respect to the 2 there watering program. So they clearly do 3 have a good program going. But just given 4 the expansion, we would expect to see it 5 irrigated. This is a unique situation for 6 us. The first request we've ever had of 7 this. 8 That's all I have at this 9 time; be happy to answer any questions. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 11 Mr. Schmitt. 12 Board Members? 13 Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Given what 15 Mr. Schmitt just said in regard to -- I mean, we 16 know what's going to happen for section B. 17 Do you have a plan, if you do 18 not have an irrigation system out there? I 19 mean, you're obviously not going to make the 20 mall look bad. 21 MR. EGGERT: No. And again, 22 we're committed to maintaining the 23 appearance of the shopping center just as we 24 have over the years. I mean, to the extent
144
1 something needs to be, you know, replaced -- 2 (unintelligible) warranty period, we've got 3 coverage on that. After that, you know, 4 it's our responsibility. It's on our 5 nickel, as the case may be. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you will 7 accept that responsibility, based on information 8 presented before us this evening. 9 MR. EGGERT: Absolutely. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm just 11 curious. 12 Are there any other irrigation 13 or irrigation areas at the mall now? 14 MR. EGGERT: There are some. 15 They're sporadically located. To a large 16 extent, the irrigation is surrounding the 17 building. Again, where you've got heavily 18 landscaped areas that are more interactive 19 in terms of the customers. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: But nothing 21 on the perimeter. 22 I believe it there maybe some, 23 you know, unique spot areas. I'm not fully 24 cognizant of where all the landscape areas
145
1 (unintelligible) I'm not sure that we have the 2 full grasp of where all irrigation is out there. 3 Historically, (unintelligible) may or may not be 4 running and what may or may not be active at this 5 point. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 All right. I can support this 8 request for the Petitioner, given the 9 information from the Planning Department and 10 from the Petitioner himself. And this 11 business, Twelve Oaks, they've been a long 12 time client and business -- established 13 business in Novi. I don't feel that in my 14 heart's heart that they're going to 15 (unintelligible) look bad. 16 Given the expansion and the 17 size of the expansion, and their level of 18 commitment to the Community, I'm willing to 19 support this variance. 20 Thank you. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 22 Board Members? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Was that a 24 Motion?
146
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I thought I 2 could get away with it. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: May I ask a 4 question while you think of your Motion? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sure. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: What is your 7 current schedule for watering, and are you going 8 to change it? 9 MR. EGGERT: In terms of 10 watering in what sense? 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Not watering, 12 maintenance in general. 13 MR. EGGERT: I can't speak to 14 that, but if you like I can bring our mall 15 manager up, and he can address that issue. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Is he readily 17 available? 18 MR. EGGERT: He is. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: My main goal 20 here is just to see what's happening now and to 21 ensure that it's not going to change in the 22 future, so we didn't have any issues. 23 MR. JONES: Well, in the 24 (unintelligible)
147
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 2 please raise your right hand. 3 Do you swear or affirm that 4 the information that you're about to give in 5 the matter before you is the truth? 6 MR. JONES: I do. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Do you want to 9 state your name and address for the record and 10 proceed. 11 MR. JONES: I'm Daniel Jones 12 with Twelve Oaks Mall, 27500 Novi Road. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: So as far as 14 the schedule goes that we've been discussing 15 here. 16 MR. JONES: Well, you know, 17 (unintelligible) of watering is on an as 18 needed basis. You know, this past year we 19 came in early in the year and watered -- 20 hand watered some early plantings in the 21 spring. For the most part, we were pretty 22 fortunate. We didn't have a really dry 23 summer. But, you know, it's really -- you 24 know, a lot of the outer islands that we're
148
1 discussing, we try to pick vegetation that's 2 not going to be real sensitive to, you know, 3 heat, stress and so forth. But it's 4 certainly on an as needed basis. 5 I mean, I'm the guy that 6 inherits the project, so from my 7 perspective, you know, I've been here since 8 2003, and we've spent quite a bit on plant 9 materials. So there's definitely a focus on 10 these areas and, you know, it will not lack 11 in maintenance. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 13 That satisfies my concern. 14 And Member Gronachan, would 15 you like to proceed? 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 I move that in Case Number 18 05-103, filed by John Eggert with Taubman 19 Company for Twelve Oaks Mall, that the three 20 requests for variances be granted -- I'm 21 sorry. That the one request -- the -- that 22 the one request for the landscaping be 23 granted, based on the information presented 24 to us by the Petitioner. indicating that
149
1 they're accepting full responsibility to 2 manually maintain this island; and that it 3 would not have -- by not granting this 4 variance would have a negative impact on the 5 entire projection. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 8 Motion and a second. 9 Any further discussion? 10 Ms. Backus, please call the 11 roll. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 14 MR. SCHMITT: I just want to 15 clarify that we are talking about area B(sic) 16 (unintelligible) the first question 17 (unintelligible) will ask me tomorrow. 18 Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Right. 20 (unintelligible) with the 21 Petitioner? 22 With everybody -- Mr. Schultz? 23 MR. EGGERT: Uh-huh. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay.
150
1 Ms. Backus, please call the 2 roll. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: No. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 16 to one. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Your last 18 variance has been approved. 19 Once again, good luck with 20 your project, and please see the Building 21 Department. 22 MR. EGGERT: Thank you very 23 much. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl
151
1 e) Case Number 05-104, filed by John Carroll for 2 Game Workshop located at 27793 Novi Road. The 3 applicant is requesting one sign variance to 4 allow additional identification wall sign for 5 said property, west of Novi Road, south of 12 6 Mile. 7 Please raise your hand and be 8 sworn in by our secretary, please. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 10 or affirm that the information that you're about 11 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 12 MR. CARROLL: I do. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 14 MR. CARROLL: My name is John 15 Carroll of Carroll Installations, 29350 Wall 16 Street, Wixom. We're here to request had a 17 sign variance for Game Workshop. The 18 business is located in a secondary building 19 in the parking area within West Oaks Two 20 location. The building has no visibility 21 from Novi Road, therefore, the 22 (unintelligible) parking through ways -- 23 parking lot through ways. The business is 24 located in the corner unit of the building,
152
1 which means it also has two entrances which 2 we feel need to be identified individually. 3 As well as in (unintelligible) 4 Jennifer Convertibles, (unintelligible) 5 situation (unintelligible) variance for two 6 signs. 7 That's it. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 9 In this case, there were 15 10 notices, with zero approvals and zero 11 objections returned. 12 There is no one in the 13 audience to make comment, so I'm providing 14 the opportunity to the Building Department? 15 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: And Board 17 Members? 18 Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Do you have a 20 letter from the manager of the property? 21 MR. CARROLL: I do not, sir. 22 MEMBER BAUER: You should have 23 that. 24 MR. CARROLL: No, I do not.
153
1 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 2 When you do get that, can you 3 send a copy to us, please? 4 MR. CARROLL: Sure. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Other Board 6 Members? 7 Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, this 9 building is located right in the middle of 10 the parking lot and needs to have 11 identification. 12 I have no difficulty 13 supporting his request for this variance. 14 And if I may, I'll go ahead 15 make a Motion and we'll continue from there 16 on. 17 Case Number 05-104, the 18 Petitioner's request be granted for the 19 (unintelligible) business identification, 20 because of the location of the building 21 being in the parking lot. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Bauer, 24 if you want to make a friendly amendment?
154
1 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 2 A long with the letter that 3 will be forthcoming. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: (unintelligibl 5 e.) 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Conditional 7 upon a letter from the management company. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: (unintelligibl 9 e.) 10 MEMBER BAUER: You do have to 11 have it. 12 MR. CARROLL: In the sign 13 permit application, we need one, correct? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: There you go. 16 Then do you need that 17 amendment on there? 18 MR. SCHULTZ: That should be 19 part of the Motion. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 21 Does the seconder agree? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 24 Any further discussion?
155
1 Seeing none -- 2 Other than Mr. Amolsch? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: (unintelligible) 4 for this Petitioner only or the building? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: For the 6 Petitioner -- 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: For this 8 particular business only. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Does the 10 seconder agree? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Ms. Backus, 13 will you please call the roll. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes? 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 24 GAIL BACKUS: And Member
156
1 Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 4 to zero. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 6 has been granted with those conditions. 7 Good luck. 8 MR. CARROLL: Thank you. 9 Good evening. 10 A. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Moving along on 12 the agenda? 13 Case Number 05-105, what is 14 the Board's pleasure? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 16 e) for them to show up. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm not 18 suggesting that we wait for them, by any means. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just table 20 them. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Did we get any 22 correspondence or did we tell them to not come 23 until ten or something? 24 GAIL BACKUS: No.
157
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. Just 2 want to make sure. 3 So case 14 and 15. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi 5 ble) and then Case 05-081, our first case that 6 never showed. 7 MEMBER CANUP: This has been 8 our policy, when nobody shows up and nothing 9 is sent (unintelligible.) 10 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 11 e) 12 MEMBER CANUP: It can't be 13 very important to them, if they didn't show 14 up. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You know, 16 anything could have happened. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: There could be 18 extenuating circumstances that (unintelligible.) 19 MEMBER FISCHER: I would -- 20 Ms. Backus? 21 GAIL BACKUS: I just have a 22 question about the first case for Huntington 23 Bank. They were on -- they've asked to be tabled 24 twice. And I sent them a letter that December
158
1 was their last month that they could be tabled, 2 and then they would have to go back to the 3 beginning. 4 So do you want them to be 5 tabled again? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. 7 GAIL BACKUS: This is three 8 months -- 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Let's take care 10 of case number one. 11 I'll entertain a Motion to 12 deny that case. 13 BOARD MEMBERS: So moved. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Second? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Do we take a 17 vote on that? 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?
159
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 5 Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: And then as far 8 as case number 14 and 15 go, I'm going to 9 actually agree with Member Canup, because if any 10 extenuating circumstances do arise, you always 11 have the right and the possibility to reconsider 12 the Motion from the previous meeting. 13 So if -- that would be my 14 suggestion then. 15 To deny both of them based on 16 -- I would move -- 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi 18 ble) discussed this in the past that we weren't 19 going to deny a case that didn't show up, that we 20 would give them a table, correct? 21 MR. SAVEN: I don't believe so. 22 I think we have (unintelligible) a discussion in 23 regard to the amount of time that's spent sending 24 out these notices (unintelligible) and certainly
160
1 dealing with issues whereby, if we'd had the 2 ability to put somebody on, if they weren't going 3 to show up. That's not fair to the other person. 4 So I believe there was a 5 policy established that if they didn't show 6 up, then they would be denied. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: I had always 8 thought -- 9 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 10 extenuating circumstances -- 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Bring them 12 back. 13 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 14 even mention for the fact (unintelligible) 15 put them back on the agenda. 16 MEMBER BAUER: No problem. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 18 MEMBER CANUP: I agree that we 19 should deny the case. But to bring them 20 back is not fair to people who may want to 21 testify in that case (unintelligible) 22 because they don't know that we're going to 23 rehear the case. We'd have to go back and 24 -- I think we'd have to go back and renotice
161
1 everybody that you notified before 2 (unintelligible.) If we had an audience out 3 there and (unintelligible) for a particular 4 case -- 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 MEMBER CANUP -- they didn't 7 show up. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schmitt, do 9 you have any comment -- 10 MR. SCHMITT: Typically in 11 cases -- the Planning Commission's run into this 12 on very few occasions. When we have to bring a 13 case back for reconsideration (unintelligible) we 14 actually do publicly notice for it. It's the 15 first thing on the agenda. It's reconsideration 16 of a previous action. So in that regard, I 17 think, you know -- if the Building Department 18 asked us how we did it, (unintelligible) public 19 notice for it again. 20 MEMBER CANUP: Public notice 21 meaning posted on a board or notified? 22 MR. SCHMITT: We actually go 23 through the full public notice procedure and send 24 (unintelligible) to all of the property owners,
162
1 (unintelligible) to the papers. 2 MEMBER CANUP: That's an 3 expense for the City. 4 MR. SAVEN: But they pay again. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Why not 6 readvertise the whole thing, set it up as a 7 new case then? 8 MR. SAVEN: Half dozen in one, 9 six in the other. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So we'll just 11 deny (unintelligible.) 12 MEMBER FISCHER: I would make a 13 Motion to deny Case Number 05-105 and Case Number 14 05-106, based on the premise that the applicant 15 is not here to prove their case. 16 BOARD MEMBERS: Second. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Ms. Backus, 18 would you call the roll. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
163
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 8 And lastly, I'm not sure if 9 anyone's aware, but Mr. Saven was recognized 10 as the recipient of the 2005 Building 11 Industry Association's Thomas Rickets Award, 12 to the Region's Outstanding Building 13 Official. And this is something -- from 14 what I understand -- yes. I understand is 15 given by the peers, as well as builders 16 around the Community -- if that is a correct 17 assessment. 18 And I think it's good to point 19 out the qualified and great individual we 20 have to work with. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, we 22 already knew that. It's about time the rest of 23 the Communities found it out. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Did we know that?
164
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, we did. 2 Come on. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Well, 4 congratulations, Mr. Saven. 5 I'll entertain a Motion to 6 adjourn? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Wait, before 8 you do that, I would like to take the opportunity 9 to wish everyone a Happy Holiday, because we 10 won't see each other until next year. 11 So see you next year. 12 Right. We're waiting for 13 Mr. Saven, the man of the hour to 14 organization the holiday Christmas party. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll entertain 16 a Motion to adjourn? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor 19 say Aye. 20 BOARD MEMBERS: 21 MEMBER FISCHER: This Board 22 hereby stands adjourned. 23 (The meeting was adjourned at 24 10:15 p.m.)
165
1 - - - - - - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
166
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 4 do hereby certify that I have recorded 5 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 6 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and 7 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify 8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (158) 9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript 10 of my said stenograph notes. 11 12 13 ___________________________ Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 December 27, 2005. (Date)
|