| 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, January 13, 2009. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3 7:00 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Good evening. 6 It is 7:01 and it's time to call the Zoning 7 Board of Appeals meeting for the City of 8 Novi for January, 2009 to order. 9 May you please call the roll. 10 MR. BOULARD: Yes. Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 12 MR. BOULARD: Member Sanghvi? 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Here. 14 MR. BOULARD: Member Wrobel? 15 MEMBER WROBEL: Present. 16 MR. BOULARD: Member Skelcy? 17 MEMBER SKELCY: Present. 18 MR. BOULARD: Member Ghannam? 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: Present. 20 MR. BOULARD: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 22 MR. BOULARD: Member Ibe? 23 MEMBER IBE: Present. 24 MR. BOULARD: We have a quorum.
4 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Now, Ms. Skelcy, 2 will you lead us in the Pledge of 3 Allegiance. 4 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to 5 the flag of the United States of America and 6 to the Republic for which it stands, one 7 nation under God indivisible with liberty 8 and justice for all. 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. We 10 do have a quorum and the meeting is now in 11 session and I would like to go over the 12 rules of conduct. You can find them on your 13 agenda. 14 Just a friendly reminder, please turn 15 off your pagers and cell phones. Individual 16 applicants may take five minutes and groups 17 may take up to 10 minutes to address the 18 Board. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 19 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 20 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 21 from the application of Novi Zoning 22 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four 23 members to approve a variance request and a 24 vote of majority of the members present to
5 1 deny a variance. Tonight we have a full 2 Board so all decisions made will be final. 3 Let's look at the agenda. Are there 4 any changes on the agenda or anything, Mr. 5 Boulard? 6 MEMBER WROBEL: Motion to approve the 7 agenda. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 9 MR. BOULARD: If I may, just for the 10 point of record, the revised agenda 11 indicating the election of officers is 12 postponed until the February meeting as in 13 your packet. 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right. 15 So, the agenda has been proposed and 16 seconded. All those in favor of accepting 17 the agenda please signify by saying aye. 18 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right, so we 20 have an agenda. 21 Next is the approval of the minutes 22 for November 12th, and December 9, 2008 23 meetings. 24 Are there any additions, deletions on
6 1 the minutes? I think we have received a 2 written communication from outgoing Member 3 Shroyer about some changes in the minutes 4 which I would like to be typed into the 5 minutes so that that correction has been 6 taken care of. 7 If anybody has anything else to add to 8 the correction of the minutes? No? I have 9 one correction and that is on November 10 meeting on page 142, line 20. It should 11 read the lunar year, L-U-N-A-R, instead of a 12 linear which is a typo. 13 Anything else? Anybody else would 14 like to add any additions, deletions to the 15 minutes? If not, I would entertain a motion 16 to accept the minutes? 17 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: Second. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The motion has 20 made and seconded. All those in favor of 21 accepting the amended minutes please signify 22 by saying aye. 23 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All of those
7 1 opposed same sign? Thank you. So, now the 2 minutes have been adopted. 3 Next is the Public Remarks Section. 4 If anybody wants to address the Board 5 regarding any issue other than the items on 6 the agenda tonight please come forward and 7 do so now. 8 Seeing none, I think we can close the 9 Public Remarks Section. 10 11 Moving along we go on to case number 12 one on the agenda. Case number: 08-063 13 filed by Patty Loose of Sign Fabricators for 14 Rojo Mexican Bistro located at 44375 Twelve 15 Mile Road. Is the Applicant here? 16 MR. BROOK: Yes. 17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Patty Loose of 18 Sign Fabricators is requesting a variance to 19 allow one additional 64 square foot wall 20 sign for the Rojo Mexican Bistro suite 21 within Twelve Mile Crossing. The business 22 has a permitted wall sign and the property 23 is zoned RC and located west of Novi Road 24 and south of Twelve Mile Road. Are you an
8 1 attorney, sir? 2 MR. BROOK: No. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Please identify 4 yourself and be sworn in. 5 MR. BROOK: Robert Brook with Sign 6 Fabricators out of Clinton Township. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or 8 affirm to tell the truth in this case? 9 MR. BROOK: Yes, I do. 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Please go ahead 12 and make your presentation. 13 MR. BROOK: From what I understand on 14 this second sign they're requesting due to 15 the conformity of that mall over there, you 16 get a view of the front entrance from the 17 parking lot, but over towards the northeast 18 entrance there is no way of I.D.ing the 19 restaurant and they would like some signage 20 there for anybody coming in that way or that 21 are in the mall area looping around and 22 looking for it, they will be able to I.D. 23 the restaurant that way. That's basically 24 what they are looking for. That's it.
9 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Anything else 2 you would like to add? 3 MR. BROOK: Not at this time. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 5 there anybody in the audience who would like 6 to address this case and make any comments? 7 Seeing none, I will move on to the Building 8 Department. 9 MR. BOULARD: I would like to just 10 remind the Board this is the second sign 11 that's proposed for this business. There is 12 one legal wall sign which has been permitted 13 and is installed on the structure. I would 14 like to defer to Mr. Amolsch regarding the 15 allowable sizes of the sign. But this is 16 for an additional wall sign beyond what's 17 already been permitted and installed. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Before we go any 19 further. Is there any correspondence 20 regarding this case? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: I am used to Justin 22 handing it to me or throwing it at me. 23 In Case number: 08-63, 687 notices 24 were mailed. Two responses. And they are,
10 1 the first one is from Imagine Novi by Paul 2 Glance, ITS manager. "We strongly endorse 3 the proposed variance request. Thank you 4 for your consideration." 5 And the second one is from Chris 6 Brandt of VP of operations, Imagine 7 Entertainment. "We have no objections and 8 support their request." That's it. 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 10 Okay, Mr. Amolsch, do you have anything to 11 add? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: No. Just for the 13 Board's information, the total maximum size 14 for a sign at that location is 65 square 15 feet but only one sign is permitted. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. I'll 17 open it up to the Board for discussion. Go 18 ahead, Ms. Krieger. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you have any 20 information or people that came in and said 21 we couldn't find your business with the sign 22 that's already there? 23 MR. BROOK: They have gotten some of 24 that feedback at the restaurant itself.
11 1 Again, they are just trying to I.D. the 2 people coming in from that north route, the 3 way that loops through that mall that's 4 basically what we're looking for. They have 5 gotten feedback at the restaurant itself. 6 That's why they are looking for a way to 7 identify the building from that direction. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, if I understand 9 right, the northeast corner, that there is 10 the, there is the Rojo sign and then to the 11 side there was the mockup display? 12 MR. BROOK: Um-hum. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, in that same 14 area? 15 MR. BROOK: Right. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Because I had a 17 difficult time understanding with the one 18 sign how somebody driving by, because when I 19 drove by I knew immediately that's where I 20 wanted to be. 21 MR. BROOK: Right. Out from the lot 22 area you can see that it's visible. It's 23 the traffic coming in from the north is what 24 I think they want to cover and the other
12 1 entrance. 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you have a picture 3 you could put up on the display for the 4 people at home? 5 MR. BROOK: I have got one drawing 6 here. It's about as good as you are going 7 to get. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Were you interested 9 in getting attention from the expressway or 10 just the parking lot? 11 MR. BROOK: Driving through that 12 complex. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: That's all I have for 14 now. Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, Ms. 16 Krieger. Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 17 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you. There is a 18 property, I forget the name of the 19 restaurant on the opposite side of the 20 street where this is located. Do they have 21 dual signs? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: Which business are you 23 referring to? 24 MEMBER WROBEL: The one that would be
13 1 on the east side of the street. 2 MR. AMOLSCH: If you had the name of 3 the business I could find that for you. 4 MEMBER WROBEL: No, I can't remember 5 the name. I can't remember, I apologize. 6 I am kind of torn on this one. To me 7 I think most people in there know where it 8 is. I don't really see a substantial 9 hardship. I do see the opportunity for the 10 restaurant to just get additional signage, 11 making it almost visible from the 12 expressway. I will listen to the rest of my 13 colleagues, but I am inclined at this time 14 not to approve it. Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 16 Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. This is a 18 destination place. I cannot see this to go 19 no. People know that it's there, so I could 20 not vote yes on it. 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. 22 Ghannam? 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 24 I just had a couple of questions. You
14 1 understand we have standards that you have 2 to meet in order to get these approved? 3 MR. BROOK: Right. 4 MEMBER GHANNAM: How do you explain 5 that these are exceptional features or how 6 your property unique compared to other 7 properties in the area? 8 MR. BROOK: It's just the 9 configuration of the mall itself the way 10 that's setup. If you are coming in there, 11 one entrance is readily visible, I mean, you 12 can see it from the lot and you're parking. 13 If you are coming in through the mall or any 14 other which way, that other entrance is kind 15 of vague. That's basically what we're 16 trying to cover. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Are there any other 18 -- Member Wrobel was referring to another 19 restaurant or business opposite you. Are 20 you familiar with that? Are there any other 21 businesses in the area that have dual signs? 22 MR. BROOK: Not offhand that I know 23 of. I surveyed this location months ago, 24 and I believe there is a Buffalo Wild Wings
15 1 or something like that in the area. I don't 2 know if they have dual signage. 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do you have any 4 opinions or comments on how this might 5 unreasonably prevent you or your business 6 from using this particular property for its 7 intended purpose? 8 MR. BROOK: No, not offhand, no. 9 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have any 10 other questions. Thank you, sir. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 Well, would anybody like to make a motion? 13 While you think about it I will add my 14 penny's worth of comments. 15 I believe there is a nice big sign 16 already present there and it's very easily 17 visible and recognizable and it's not a hard 18 place to find really where you are located, 19 so I don't know how the second wall sign is 20 likely to add anything to it. 21 All right, Ms. Krieger, go ahead. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case Number: 23 08-063 filed by Patty Loose of Sign 24 Fabricators for Rojo Mexican Bistro located
16 1 at 44375 Twelve Mile Road, I motion to 2 decline the request of the Applicant due to 3 the not enough sufficient evidence for 4 practical difficulty. That it is the area, 5 the area is a destination. That the request 6 is based upon circumstances and features 7 that are exceptional and unique. The 8 failure to grant relief won't prevent them 9 from using their property. And a grant of 10 the relief will not result in use of 11 structure that is incompatible with or 12 unreasonably interferes with adjacent or 13 surrounding properties. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. The 16 motion has been made and seconded. Any 17 further discussion? Seeing none, will you 18 please call the roll, Mr. Boulard. 19 MR. BOULARD: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MR. BOULARD: Member Wrobel? 22 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 23 MR. BOULARD: Member Ghannam? 24 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
17 1 MR. BOULARD: Member Ibe? 2 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 3 MR. BOULARD: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 MR. BOULARD: Chairman Sanghvi? 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 7 MR. BOULARD: Motion passes 6-0. 8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion passes. 9 Your request has been denied. Thank you 10 very much for coming. 11 MR. BROOK: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Moving along, 13 second case on the agenda is case number: 14 08-064 for 41650 Gardenbrook Road. 15 MEMBER WROBEL: Just a question. 16 Since we are down a member without Member 17 Burke here, shouldn't the alternate be 18 voting on this? 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. I thought 20 we -- 21 MEMBER WROBEL: I don't think we did. 22 Did we? 23 MS. KUDLA: If there is a quorum she 24 doesn't have to, but she may vote.
18 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We have the 2 quorum. 3 MEMBER WROBEL: All right. I just 4 want to make sure we're clear. 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right. Carry 6 on. Let's go. Will you please identify 7 yourself, sir, and your name and address and 8 if you are not an attorney be sworn in by 9 our Secretary. 10 MR. COSICK (ph): My name is Tom 11 Cosick. My home address is 22855 Nottingham 12 Drive, Beverly Hills, Michigan. I am a 13 lawyer. 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right. For 15 some reason the lawyers are exempt from 16 being sworn in. Please go ahead and make 17 your presentation. 18 MR. COSICK: I am one of the 19 principals of JKF Investment Company which 20 owns the building located at 41650 21 Gardenbook which is where Ralph Nichols 22 Group would like to put the wall sign on the 23 building facing I-96 Freeway. If you are 24 not familiar with the location of the
19 1 building, it's located just west of the 2 Walsh College. It abuts I-96 Freeway. It's 3 located on kind of a cul-de-sac on the end 4 of Gardenbrook Road which is basically kind 5 of a long driveway off of the west side of 6 Meadowbrook Road, just south of the freeway. 7 The building is somewhat unique in 8 that the base of the building is located a 9 little bit lower than the grade of the 10 highway. Ralph Nichols Group is a 11 franchisee for Dale Carnegie Training. I 12 understand they have been doing it for 13 approximately 40 years. They have an 14 excellent reputation in the business 15 community and they would be an excellent 16 addition to the City of Novi's business 17 community. 18 They are going to be 19 the largest tenant in the building. They 20 will be conducting classes and training 21 sessions in the building and so signage is 22 very important to them as signage facing the 23 freeway will give them exposure to potential 24 students and clients. But most importantly
20 1 it helps their students identify the 2 building and locate the building. The 3 building is not the easiest to find. There 4 is no exit off of I-96 onto Meadowbrook 5 Road. So, you have to go to the M-5 6 connector or find some other way to get to 7 the building. The signage will help people 8 identify the building, help them find their 9 classes. 10 As I said, this is a very important 11 issue to Dale Carnegie and it was brought up 12 early to me in our negotiations. Dale 13 Carnegie currently is actually a tenant in 14 one of our other buildings located currently 15 in Livonia and I have been fortunate enough 16 to convince them to move to one of our other 17 buildings in Novi. 18 But one of the primary reasons for making 19 the move to this particular building was the 20 opportunity to have signage facing the 21 freeway for the reasons that were just 22 stated. I was asked early on whether or not 23 the sign code would allow them to put a sign 24 on the building. I didn't know. I read the
21 1 sign code and given that the building is 2 zoned I-1, abuts the freeway, a single story 3 multi tenant building, I came to the 4 conclusion that the building is entitled to 5 two wall signs and was surprised when their 6 permit was denied. 7 I spoke with Mr. Amolsch to find out 8 why the permit was denied and I learned that 9 it was denied because this business did not 10 have any a first floor pedestrian entrance. 11 First floor pedestrian entrance is not a 12 defined term in the sign code and if you 13 take the plain meaning of those words and 14 apply it to that situation you have got a 15 one story building it's a first floor 16 entrance. You walk into the suite 17 entrances. You don't drive, so it's a 18 pedestrian entrance, so as far as I am 19 concerned they meet the definition of a 20 first floor pedestrian entrance. But it was 21 explained to me that the City interprets 22 that phrase as businesses that have 23 entrances on the outside of the building, 24 external entrances. Not buildings, like in
22 1 this case where there is a common corridor 2 with entrances to the suites off the common 3 corridor. Which I really think is kind of an 4 unfair interpretation of the code. 5 There are other provisions in the code 6 where it specifically says external first 7 floor pedestrian entrances. To insert the 8 word external in this situation where it 9 doesn't exist in the code isn't right. From 10 an aesthetic point of view, I think if have 11 you two buildings, one with suite entrances 12 off a common corridor, one with exterior 13 entrances and you put wall signs on them and 14 if the buildings are otherwise similar, I 15 don't think aesthetically speaking there is 16 much difference between the two buildings. 17 And it's also an unfair interpretation 18 to me as a landlord in these tough economic 19 times, you need all the arrows in your 20 quiver you can have to attract tenants 21 including signage to their buildings, so it 22 puts me at an unfair disadvantage when I am 23 competing with other building with so-called 24 first floor pedestrian entrances.
23 1 But most importantly it creates a 2 hardship for this tenant. As I mentioned 3 they are going to be having classes almost 4 on a daily basis. It's important for their 5 students to be able to find the building. 6 And I understand that we could be entitled 7 to a ground sign. Given the way the 8 building lies below the grade of the 9 freeway, a ground sign just doesn't have 10 enough visibility to allow students or 11 potential customers to find the building. 12 And my final point is, if you do grant 13 the variance, it's not uncharacteristic for 14 that corridor. There is numerous businesses 15 up and down the I-96 corridor that have wall 16 signs that face the freeway. In fact, the 17 neighbor Walsh College have a very prominent 18 sign facing the freeway. And I'm sure if 19 you ask them, they have it for the very same 20 reason that Ralph Nichols would like to have 21 the sign, it gives them great visibility to 22 potential students and clients who are on 23 the freeway. But most importantly it helps 24 people identify the building and locate the
24 1 building for their classes. So, I 2 respectfully ask that the variance be 3 granted and that Ralph Nichols be able to 4 put their sign on the building. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 6 there anybody in the audience who would like 7 to address the Board regarding this case? 8 Seeing none, Ms. Krieger, do you have any 9 correspondence? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case, 08-064, 11 twelve notices were mailed. Zero responses. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good. 13 Building Department? 14 MR. BOULARD: I would like to point 15 out as the petitioner mentioned, this is a 16 multi-tenant building with a common public 17 entryway and would be by Ordinance allowed a 18 ground sign only. Based on the estimated 19 setback from the freeway, on the roadway 20 from the freeway side, the approximate size 21 of that ground sign would be about 50 square 22 feet. I spoke with Petitioner and reviewed 23 their drawings before the meeting, and it 24 appears that the wall sign would be about 45
25 1 square feet in area. So, I thought that was 2 important for the Board to know. 3 I did have one question for the 4 Petitioner, if I may. You mentioned this is 5 a multi-tenant building and they are not 6 taking the entire building? 7 MR. COSICK: That's correct. 8 MR. BOULARD: Would you be then 9 expecting to come back for a variance for a 10 second sign for another tenant or? 11 MR. COSICK: Well, it's always been my 12 position that the plain language of the sign 13 code entitles that building to two wall 14 signs and a ground sign. 15 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 17 Would you like to put that sign on the 18 overhead there so the people at home can see 19 it also while we are talking about it? 20 Thank you. Now, I open the discussion to 21 the Board. 22 MR. COSICK: Where does it go? Right 23 here? 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
26 1 MR. COSICK: Is that good? 2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 3 Mr. Wrobel? 4 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 5 I understand the need for this sign. We 6 have granted variances for other signs in a 7 similar situation. But my concern is, to 8 me -- are they the signature tenant of this 9 building? 10 MR. COSICK: They are the largest 11 tenant in the building. 12 MEMBER WROBEL: So they are the 13 signature tenant so-to-speak? 14 MR. COSICK: Yes. 15 MEMBER WROBEL: I would be in favor of 16 allowing only one sign on the building. We 17 don't want to get in a situation where we 18 are having two or three signs on the 19 building. You might have another client 20 saying, well, you've allowed Dale Carnegie 21 to have a sign. We want a sign. We don't 22 want to get in that situation. I have no 23 problem with just one sign in there, 24 providing that they don't come and ask us
27 1 for other signs. I know they can, but I 2 would not be very in favor of approving 3 further signs on this building. In this 4 case I could go along with it. 5 MR. COSICK: Well, if that would have 6 to be a condition to the variance being 7 granted, I would go along with it. 8 MEMBER WROBEL: This is something you 9 might have to discuss with future tenants or 10 additional tenants or something. But as far 11 as this I have no problem with it. There is 12 a need for it because of the expressway. We 13 have granted this for other buildings. And 14 I see granting this because a hardship does 15 exist. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 17 Mr. Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, I go along with 19 Mr. Wrobel exactly word for word. But not 20 to have two signs up there at any time. 21 This one, yes, sir. 22 MR. COSICK: I indicated I agreed to 23 that. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr.
28 1 Ghannam? 2 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 3 Sir, I do agree with you also. I think the 4 presentation you made does qualify under our 5 standards. I don't think we have to get 6 into an interpretation of are you entitled 7 to multiple signs given your interpretation 8 of our Ordinances, but I think you meet the 9 practical difficulty standard given the 10 situation of where the building is located 11 in reference to the freeway. Say, it's a 12 little bit low, a ground sign may not work. 13 I do understand that. I think you do comply 14 with our Ordinance so I would be in favor of 15 it also. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It looks like 17 everybody is in agreement. Would anybody 18 like to make a motion? 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: I would. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Member 21 Ghannam? 22 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 23 In case number: 08-064 regarding 41650 24 Gardenbook Road. I would move to approve
29 1 the petition as stated and as designed and 2 showed to the Board. I think the standards 3 for granting the sign variance have been met 4 in terms of the practical difficulty 5 standard. I think the request is based on 6 circumstances or features that are 7 exceptional and unique to the property and 8 do not result from conditions that exist 9 generally in the City or that are self 10 created. 11 A failure to grant relief will 12 unreasonably prevent or limit the use of the 13 property and will result in substantially 14 more than a mere inconvenience or an 15 inability to obtain a higher economic 16 financial return and I think grant of the 17 relief will not result in a use of structure 18 that is incompatible with or unreasonably 19 interferes with adjacent or surrounding 20 properties and will result in substantial 21 injustice being done to the Applicant. 22 MEMBER IBE: Second. 23 MS. KUDLA: Mr. Chair? 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.
30 1 MS. KUDLA: Did you want to add a 2 condition to that about no additional signs? 3 MEMBER WROBEL: Can we do that? I 4 thought we couldn't. That each case has to 5 be judged on its own merit. That's from 6 past time. 7 MS. KUDLA: It's a one tenant 8 building, correct, it wouldn't be another? 9 Or is it for two separate tenants? 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: They can have 11 more than one tenant there. 12 MEMBER WROBEL: Multi tenant. 13 MS. KUDLA: Okay, never mind. 14 MEMBER IBE: I did. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, Mr. Ibe, 16 you did. Okay, very good. The motion has 17 been made and seconded. Anything 18 additional? Seeing none, Mr. Boulard will 19 you call the roll, please. 20 MR. BOULARD: Yes. Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MR. BOULARD: Member Wrobel? 23 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 24 MR. BOULARD: Member Ghannam?
31 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 2 MR. BOULARD: Member Ibe? 3 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 4 MR. BOULARD: Member Krieger? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 6 MR. BOULARD: Member Skelcy? 7 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 8 MR. BOULARD: Motion is approved 7-0. 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You're variance 10 has been granted. Congratulations. 11 MR. SOSICK: Thank you very much. 12 Appreciate it. 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, moving 14 along to the next case. The next case is 15 case number: 08-065 filed by Harry Kubbe 16 for 1300 East Lake Road. Harry Kubbe is 17 requesting four variances for the 18 construction of a proposed addition to an 19 existing home and the construction of 20 proposed addition to the detached garage 21 located at 1300 East Lake Road. Are you Mr. 22 Kubbe? 23 MR. KUBBE: Yes, I am Harry Kubbe. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Will you kindly
32 1 identify your name and give your address and 2 be sworn in by our Secretary if you are not 3 an attorney. 4 MR. KUBBE: I'm not an attorney. 5 Harry Kubbe, 1616 Shankton (phonetic) Drive, 6 Walled Lake, Michigan. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or 8 affirm in case number: 08-065 to tell the 9 truth in this case? 10 MR. KUBBE: Yes. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Please go ahead 13 and make your presentation. 14 MR. KUBBE: My name is Harry Kubbe and 15 the potential buyer of 1300 East Lake Drive. 16 As a potential -- and I am representing the 17 current owner, Vincent Diaza (phonetic). As 18 a potential purchaser of this property, the 19 existing home was built in the 1940s. The 20 footprint and the layout would be 21 insufficient to meet my families' 22 need in the future. The current square 23 footage of the existing home's footprint is 24 approximately 916 square feet. We are just
33 1 looking to expand that footprint to around 2 1,288 square feet. And also the detached 3 garage is currently around 400 square feet 4 and we are looking to double the size of the 5 garage to around 800 square feet of a 6 footprint. Both of the buildings would be a 7 major remodel. 8 I have met with my 9 neighbor to the north and they did not 10 express any issue with the plan just as long 11 as it didn't impair any of their view to 12 Walled Lake. This property is directly on 13 the lakeside of East Lake Drive and the 14 front part of the building which is closest 15 to the neighbor on the north is only going 16 out four feet, so it would not impair his 17 view at all. I have attempted to meet the 18 neighbor to the south side. I have driven 19 by his home many times and have been unable 20 to contact him. So I am not sure if he is 21 in Florida or what. 22 But, again, the proposed expansion of 23 the footprint would not impair his view of 24 the lake in any way. Based on the layout
34 1 and remodel plan, there is no change to the 2 lake view from across the road on the east 3 side of East Lake Drive. So, I don't believe 4 any other neighbors are directly affected by 5 this request. I am also working with 6 builder Tom Van Owen who has done remodels 7 or rebuilds on Walled Lake on this size lot 8 of approximately seven or eight homes. So 9 his experience with this type of building 10 project will be very helpful in the final 11 construction. 12 My last comment is, my wife and I plan 13 to remodel this home into a very nice high 14 quality lake home approximately 2,000 to 15 2,400 square feet depending on the final 16 design whether it has cathedral ceiling or 17 not. So, this will not be a huge 18 overbearing structure and it would also not 19 be a unique structure and it would fit in 20 with the neighborhood and enhance the 21 neighborhood along that side of the lake 22 there. There is quite a few remodeled 23 homes. This structure would be very similar 24 in size or smaller in size actually than
35 1 quite a few of them that are there on the 2 lake side of East Lake Drive. Do you have 3 any questions for Tom or myself? 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 5 there anybody in the audience who would like 6 to address the Board regarding this case? 7 Seeing none, Madam Secretary, is there any 8 correspondence regarding this case? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 10 08-065, 42 notices were mailed. One 11 objection. It's from David and Susan 12 Kobelarik (phonetic) on 1270 East Lake 13 Drive. "My wife and I were before the ZBA 14 several years ago when we were planing 15 construction of our house at 1270 East Lake. 16 We were held to a standard of not less than 17 five feet for side yard setbacks. Part of 18 the logic for this was to allow room to get 19 fire equipment return between houses. We do 20 not agree with the requested setbacks and 21 ask that they be limited to a minimum of 22 five foot the same as what we were allowed. 23 Allowing these excessive setbacks would also 24 be detrimental to the homeowners on either
36 1 side if they want to reconstruct or sell 2 their property at a later date." That's 3 all. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Building Department? 6 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. The 7 situation with this lot is not unique among 8 older lots along lakes or in older 9 subdivisions. It's a small lot. The 10 existing garage and house were built very 11 close to the property line. And there is a 12 limit to how much can change about that. I 13 did have one question for the Petitioner or 14 actually two questions. First on the plan, 15 the larger plans that you showed there is 16 apparently a deck between the garage and the 17 house. I wanted to confirm for the record 18 that that's open, there is no roof over 19 that? That's just an open deck? 20 MR. VAN OWEN: There may or may not be 21 at that particular time. That particular 22 roof has -- can we put it up on the screen 23 here? We have a smaller version of it. 24 MR. BOULARD: Sure.
37 1 MR. VAN OWEN: A smaller version of 2 what you have. I don't know if you can see 3 that or not. 4 MR. KUBBE: Is that the one with the 5 deck? Are you talking about where it 6 appears to the steps? 7 MR. BOULARD: On the large plan that 8 was provided in the packets. 9 MR. VAN OWEN: Okay, we are coming 10 down on this. This right here. 11 MR. BOULARD: Between the proposed 12 garage and the house there is this area here 13 with the diagonal lines. I just wanted to 14 confirm that is a deck, not a roof over 15 there, correct? 16 MR. KUBBE: Oh, that was a very early 17 conceptual view and we have eliminated that 18 roof between the garage and the house. That 19 will be open, yes. 20 MR. BOULARD: And the second question 21 was, if you could talk briefly, I know that 22 the existing garage is fairly close to the 23 property line. The addition to the garage, 24 however, is behind the garage and
38 1 technically could be shifted to be six feet 2 from the property line. Could you explain 3 or talk briefly about the practical 4 implications of that of shifting the garage 5 addition away from the property line so that 6 that part could meet the Ordinance? 7 MR. KUBBE: It would be just an 8 architectural thing to keep it consistent 9 parallel addition to the existing garage. 10 If we shifted it in you would end up with 11 two squares off centered. 12 MR. VAN OWEN: Well, actually if you 13 shift it over even four or five feet, number 14 one, that's an idea of course, but what we 15 are trying to do is really we're trying to 16 look at the house and see a grand entrance 17 to the right hand side. So, you see the 18 garage door is on one side, but yet you will 19 see a grand entrance that you walk up to and 20 go to the main entrance of the house. We 21 are trying not to disturb that main grand 22 entrance. 23 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr.
39 1 Boulard. Okay, I'll open the discussion. 2 Yes, Mr. Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: So, you are going to 4 have a 40 foot garage? I mean 40 feet for 5 four cars? 6 MR. VAN OWEN: And a workshop up 7 above. 8 MR. KUBBE: Correct. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 10 MR. KUBBE: Actually you need quite a 11 bit of space in a lake house, in a lake 12 front property to keep toys. 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We will come to 14 you again now. You have done your 15 presentation. We will talk to you in a 16 minute. 17 MR. KUBBE: All right. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, anything 19 else? While they are all looking at the -- 20 I have come over and looked at your property 21 and that part of the city always have had 22 very small what I call postage stamp sized 23 lots and it's very hard to do anything very 24 much without variance, so I understand your
40 1 problem in what you want to do with it. And 2 to a certain degree I have some sympathy 3 with you. My only question is your side 4 yard setback so you leaving so little room 5 that whether there is enough room for a 6 stretcher to go through in case somebody has 7 to run back in the back to pick up somebody 8 who has suddenly taken ill or something like 9 that. These are the safety issues related 10 to this kind of setbacks. 11 And I don't know whether anybody in 12 your department would like to address the 13 safety issue for a fire truck or an 14 ambulance or the side yard setback. 15 MR. BOULARD: In this particular 16 case, the existing house is not going to be 17 coming close to the property line. There is 18 going to be some space on the south side 19 between the property line and the existing 20 house with the addition on it. In that sense 21 we're not making anything worse. Certainly 22 not the ideal situation, but I am not sure 23 how we solve it without moving the house. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. So
41 1 there are no safety issues. Yes, Mr. Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: To the Chair, what 3 about the square footage as far as 4 percentage? 5 MR. BOULARD: One of the variances, 6 the last variance is for a total lot 7 coverage. The maximum total lot coverage 8 allowed by the Ordinance is 25 percent. The 9 proposed lot coverage would be 32 percent 10 and so the final variance request is for 11 seven percent addition. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Ms. 13 Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: A question for the 15 City. For this house I drove by as well. 16 The neighbors' homes don't align directly as 17 in other houses, so each one has a unique 18 need. And, however, in the future, if the 19 neighbors wanted to build a house, how can 20 we do it that there is enough room for a 21 safety issue to be taken care of from front 22 to back if something is going on in the 23 water that a firefighter need to get to? 24 MR. BOULARD: I'm not sure I can
42 1 include everything, but there will be, short 2 of moving this house and these buildings 3 away from the property line, it's going to 4 be difficult -- well, it's going to be 5 impossible to gain a 12 foot wide, a minimum 6 12 foot wide aisle with six feet on each 7 side of the property line. Certainly if 8 there is an adjacent property which is 9 vacant on which a house is to be built or 10 proposed that we would need to, that would 11 need to take into account the required 12 setbacks. It's likely because the lot is so 13 narrow and the setback, the necessary 14 aggregated setback is 25 feet. Leaving only 15 15 feet for your house that builder or 16 developer would need to come before the 17 Board and would be requesting your 18 permission to limit the setbacks. In this 19 particular case I don't think the Board can 20 restrict someone else's property in terms of 21 future buildings. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay, thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 24 Mr. Wrobel?
43 1 MEMBER WROBEL: As far as the maximum 2 total lot coverage, seven percent is not a 3 great number when you look at it. But I 4 have some issues with the setback for the 5 garage. To me, I understand architecturally 6 it looks better the way you have it, but to 7 me that's not a hardship. That's 8 architecture, I would have a hard time 9 supporting that. And I'm trying to figure 10 out between the lot here on the drawing, 11 1296 West Lake Drive, their deck line to the 12 property line, can someone tell me how far 13 that is? 14 MR. VAN OWEN: The deck is to the 15 property line. The house which is 1300 16 which is the house we're discussing right 17 now, the house right next door is actually 18 sitting behind it. It's not really 19 sitting -- if you want to take a look at 20 this real quick you might be able to see the 21 actual house which is now -- granted we are 22 very, very close to the lot line, but if you 23 look to the right, you can see that house is 24 actually sitting behind the first part of
44 1 the house, you know. And, yes, he took that 2 deck and it's about 12 feet it looks like. 3 And that deck runs from his doorstep right 4 up to the lot line. I think that's what I 5 saw over there. 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Excuse me, sir, 7 will you please identify yourself. 8 MR. VAN OWEN: My name is Tom Van 9 Owen. I am president of Curb Appeal Homes. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: And you are not 11 an attorney? 12 MR. VAN OWEN: I am not a what? 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You are not a 14 lawyer? 15 MR. VAN OWEN: No, I'm not a lawyer. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, then maybe 17 we better swear you in before you continue 18 any further. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, for case number: 20 08-065, 1300 East Lake Drive, the 21 information that you have given so far and 22 will continue to give is the truth? 23 MR. VAN OWEN: The truth and nothing 24 but the truth.
45 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 Carry on. 3 MEMBER WROBEL: That's all, Mr. Chair. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Anybody else? 5 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair? 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 7 MEMBER IBE: Will the City be able to 8 address the issue that was read in by Madam 9 Secretary about the objection that we got in 10 this case? Is that really true that someone 11 was denied simply because a rule was said to 12 have a setback, is it five feet? 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Five feet. 14 MEMBER IBE: That was the objection I 15 heard; is that correct? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: That was written, 17 correct. 18 MEMBER IBE: Does anyone from the 19 Building Department want to address that 20 issue just to clarify and make sure -- and 21 how long ago was this if that's true? 22 MS. KUDLA: I don't know that anyone 23 is specifically familiar with that case. We 24 might need to table it. If you really want
46 1 that information they would have to research 2 the matter. 3 MEMBER IBE: It appears to me that I 4 am always interested in making sure that we 5 treat people fairly in the -- if someone had 6 requested similar (unintelligible) before 7 this Board and let's assume were unfairly 8 denied, I would like to ensure that it 9 doesn't look like we prefer some people over 10 all the others. So, it's my contention, and 11 nothing against you, Petitioner, that I 12 would not be in favor for you today unless I 13 know exactly the outcome of what happened 14 with that particular case. So, I am 15 interested in knowing what happened with 16 that before I can cast my vote. It's 17 nothing about your case, I mean no offense 18 at all. It's just that whenever I see an 19 objection, it's only fair that I look at 20 things from an objective point of view in 21 seeing how we have treated parties who have 22 sought the same kind of variance that you 23 are seeking before this Board to see whether 24 or not we are consistent with the decision
47 1 we make or if we are simply inventing new 2 rules as we go along. So I would like to 3 know what happened in that particular case. 4 MR. VAN OWEN: May I speak? 5 MEMBER IBE: Yes, you may, sir. 6 MR. VAN OWEN: Thank you. In the first 7 place I believe it was some time ago. But I 8 do have pictures of up and down the street 9 approximately 12 houses and within those 10 houses there is nobody that's five feet. 11 Now, would you like to see a couple of them? 12 MEMBER IBE: Do you know the party who 13 made that objection? 14 MR. VAN OWEN: I have no idea. But I 15 would imagine it was some time ago because 16 the new houses here are four feet at best. 17 MEMBER IBE: Do you know if the home 18 of the party who made the objection is one 19 of those that you are willing to show me 20 right now? 21 MR. VAN OWEN: What was the address? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: 1270. 23 MR. VAN OWEN: No, I do not know it. 24 I only know 1290 through 1321.
48 1 MEMBER IBE: Thank you very much. But 2 I don't think your pictures will answer my 3 question. I do need the specific property 4 itself to know how long it was. Thank you, 5 but I do appreciate your time. Thank you, 6 Mr. Chair. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 MS. KUDLA: Through the Chair, in 9 addition to that, I think even if the matter 10 is tabled to look into the matter, the Board 11 should take into consideration that every 12 case should be considered on its own merits. 13 MEMBER IBE: Absolutely. 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 15 Anybody else? 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: Mr. Chair? 17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: Sir, I have a couple 19 of questions, especially to the builder. 20 You have done work on this lake? 21 MR. VAN OWEN: Yes, I have. 22 MEMBER GHANNAM: Are there number of 23 four car garages on this lake? 24 MR. VAN OWEN: A number of four car
49 1 garages? 2 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 3 MR. VAN OWEN: No, there are not. The 4 ones that I have done is usually two and 5 three cars. Four cars, no, that would be, 6 that would be a first time for me. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: I am seeing the home 8 next door is two and a half and I know there 9 are other two car garages and so forth. 10 Four seems to be large. 11 MR. VAN OWEN: It's deep. Is that 12 what you mean it's the depth? 13 MEMBER GHANNAM: It's not only that. 14 If you were to reduce it maybe two and a 15 half, three cars, something like that. One 16 of your jobs is to reduce the number of 17 variances you ask for when you come to the 18 Board and here you are asking for four. The 19 question is have you done everything you 20 could to try to get what you want but yet 21 reduce the number of variances you want? 22 And one of the variances is the lot coverage 23 requirement. You had asked for seven percent 24 variance. So, I am trying to figure out --
50 1 and another one of the standards is that you 2 want to be consistent with the neighborhood. 3 Instead of building when everybody has a two 4 car garage you have a four, I mean, that may 5 be unusual for the neighborhood. So, that's 6 what I am trying to find out. 7 MR. VAN OWEN: Well, again, that's why 8 I took pictures. I took pictures because we 9 want to blend in as we do with everything 10 else. If you have driven by this house you 11 will notice that this garage sits about nine 12 feet off to the street. It's very, very 13 close to it, but it's not unusual for that 14 part of the neighborhood to have houses and 15 garages like that to the nine foot mark. 16 Again, I don't recall how deep any of the 17 other garages are. We haven't entertained 18 the notion about having a three car garage 19 with the second floor up on top of it and 20 the house in back of it which would take 21 another approximately, approximately 10 22 feet. So, there would be a three car 23 garage. We haven't really discussed that. 24 MEMBER GHANNAM: I am certainly in
51 1 support of garages in Michigan, especially 2 on the lake. I know we have approved the 3 building of them before. In general this is 4 a somewhat questionable case because you 5 have a little bit harder burden in this case 6 showing a necessary a hardship. I 7 understand the house for some people may be 8 small, you are not even asking for that much 9 of an addition, so I don't have a problem 10 with that as long as no neighbors have 11 issues with you and so forth. 12 The garage is a little bit more 13 questionable. But I wouldn't have a problem 14 supporting it, but it would have to be 15 contingent upon you closing on the property, 16 obviously we wouldn't want to grant these 17 variances and you not close. We can have 18 conditions can't we? 19 MS. KUDLA: We can, but I just want to 20 point out it is practical difficulty. These 21 are non-use variances. 22 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'm sorry, I 23 misstated, it is practical difficulty. But 24 it would have to be conditioned on you
52 1 closing on the property. But I would be in 2 support of it. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Is this going to be 5 owner occupied? 6 MR. KUBBE: Yes. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Ms. 9 Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question. For the 11 second paper, for the four cars, the 12 driveway is going to go from the street to 13 the house so that you can drive all four 14 cars into the driveway from the side? 15 MR. KUBBE: No, it's not a side 16 entrance. The current garage is a front 17 entrance from the street and it would just 18 continue into back farther to have, you 19 know, in fact a four car space. But, again, 20 we're not really looking to store four cars. 21 We just need space for jet skis, kayaks, 22 that type of stuff, so that's what we're 23 looking for. 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question to the City.
53 1 The nine feet of the building to the street 2 in other homes in that area, is that about 3 similar? What's the shortest driveway we 4 have out there? 5 MR. BOULARD: I can't tell you what 6 the shortage driveway we have out there is. 7 There are several houses. In fact, it's 8 fairly typical in that area to have garages 9 in the front setback and fairly close to the 10 road. But I can't provide distances for 11 them. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: That's all for now. 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 14 Anybody else? Seeing none, may I hear a 15 motion from anybody? Go ahead, Member 16 Ghannam. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: If there is no other 18 discussion I will make a motion. In case 19 number: 08-065 filed by Harry Kubbe for 20 1300 East Lake Road on behalf of its current 21 owner, I will go ahead and move that we 22 approve the petition as filed and as 23 designed as its been presented us here today 24 for all four variances. It does appear
54 1 based on the condition of the property that 2 if we do not grant the relief as requested, 3 it would unreasonably prevent the use of the 4 property for its permitted purpose. It is 5 an unusual site. All these lake front 6 properties are unusual, they are narrow, 7 they are long and so forth. Since the 8 existing garage is the closest structure to 9 the street, it does not appear that the 10 addition of the garage nor the addition to 11 the home would affect surrounding properties 12 or owners in the district. There are unique 13 circumstances to the property. It's not 14 certainly self created. There would be no 15 issues with light or air to adjacent 16 properties. We haven't heard any evidence 17 that there would be any fire, danger or 18 public safety issues that didn't already 19 exist. Certainly property values would not 20 be diminished in the surrounding area, I 21 think they would be improved. And it appears 22 that the Zoning Ordinances would be 23 observed. And this would be conditioned 24 upon the closing, the successful closing of
55 1 the Petitioner's purchase of the property 2 from its existing owner. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. A 4 motion has been made. We are looking for a 5 second? All right, I don't see anybody else 6 volunteering, I will enter myself so we can 7 move on, I will second the motion. 8 Any further discussion? Seeing none, 9 Mr. Boulard, will you kindly. 10 MR. BOULARD: I will. Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 MR. BOULARD: Member Wrobel? 13 MEMBER WROBEL: No. 14 MR. BOULARD: Member Ghannam? 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 16 MR. BOULARD: Member Ibe? 17 MEMBER IBE: No. 18 MR. BOULARD: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MR. BOULARD: Member Sanghvi? 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MR. BOULARD: Member Skelcy? 23 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 24 MR. BOULARD: Motion is approved 5-2.
56 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Your 2 request has been granted. Congratulations 3 and thank you. 4 Moving along to case, the next case, 5 Case number: 08-066 MacKenzie South 6 Technology Centre. West of Haggerty Road 7 and north of Thirteen Mile Road. 8 Would you please identify yourself, 9 name and address and if you are not an 10 attorney please be sworn in by our 11 Secretary. Thank you. 12 MR. HUGHES: Good evening. Brian 13 Hughes, 328 (unintelligible) Franklin, 14 Michigan and I am not an attorney. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or 16 affirm in case number: 08-066 to tell the 17 truth in this case? 18 MR. HUGHES: Yes. I am here this 19 evening asking for your consideration for 20 two sign variances for the property that we 21 are developing north of 13 Mile and west of 22 Haggerty Road. There might be a little 23 confusion with the way that I read the 24 agenda item. It's actually two different
57 1 signs because there is two different 2 properties and ultimately two different 3 buildings. 4 The reason why we built the signs the 5 way they are at 32 square feet was this is a 6 pictorial sign and a design that we have 7 been using in our park for quite a few 8 years. Unfortunately we did not realize 9 that the variance had changed which was 10 brought to my attention after the fact by 11 Mr. Amolsch that it's now 16 feet per sign. 12 So, I went out there to look at the signs 13 and our position is that the reality is that 14 the sign at 16 square feet would actually 15 pose a bit of a safety hazard because 16 sitting back as they are off the 17 right-of-way and at the location they are at 18 MacKenzie which bisects into Haggerty Road 19 if you are coming either northbound or 20 southbound, there is quite a bit of incline 21 there. And my concern is that this would 22 pose a safety hazard for people trying to 23 read the sign as they are driving by the 24 park. That is going to be one of the
58 1 secondary entrances to our second phase to 2 the Haggerty Road or corporate park and both 3 of those building will be on either side of 4 Mackenzie Drive. 5 I actually put in your packet some 6 pictures with some measurements. If you are 7 going northbound, there is a sign at 145 8 feet a picture and there is another one at 9 92. So, not so easy to read at 145 and it 10 is easier at 92. And the same then when you 11 are coming southbound at 102, it's not very 12 visible. At 74 it's more visible. But our 13 concern is if it's only 16 square feet, you 14 would be hard pressed at either of those 15 site lines to actually be able to read the 16 sign. So, I appreciate your consideration 17 and I'm available for any questions you 18 might have. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 20 there anybody in the audience would like to 21 address the Board regarding this case? 22 Seeing none, we close the public remarks. 23 Madam Secretary, are there any 24 correspondence?
59 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 2 08-066 there were 541 notices mailed. Zero 3 responses. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Building Department? 6 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. A couple of 7 questions for the Petitioner if I may. The 8 application shows two addresses but a single 9 parcel. And this is a single parcel, 10 correct? 11 MR. HUGHES: Correct. 12 MR. BOULARD: And your one 16 square 13 foot sign would be allowed and you are 14 requesting two 32 foot signs? 15 MR. HUGHES: Actually, Charles, it's 16 going to be two different parcels. Right 17 now the way that's been we don't have the 18 land division for that. It's in the 19 process, so you have basically -- it's two 20 different sites. Two different site plan 21 approvals. They have gone through the 22 Building Department, gone through Planning. 23 We have gotten our site plan approval. So 24 it's actually two completely different
60 1 sites. It's two different buildings, 2 therefore, two different parcels. 3 MR. BOULARD: But at this point it's a 4 single parcel? 5 MR. HUGHES: Right. 6 MR. BOULARD: In the future it's going 7 to be divided? 8 MR. HUGHES: Correct. That would be a 9 technicality. 10 MR. BOULARD: So, at the point in the 11 future that it becomes divided into two 12 parcels, each parcel would be allowed to 13 have a 16 square foot sign. In this case 14 you are asking for a 32 square foot sign for 15 each future parcel upfront. Would that be 16 correct? 17 MR. HUGHES: Correct. 18 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. Nothing 19 else. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I will open it 21 to the Board. Would you put your sign up on 22 the overhead, please. 23 MR. HUGHES: It is, actually. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Wrobel?
61 1 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 It's my understanding looking at the 3 paperwork that you are before us because 4 that you received a violation on existing 5 signs? 6 MR. HUGHES: Correct. 7 MEMBER WROBEL: I understand the need 8 for signs, but I look at this sign here and 9 I am looking, how can I make a sign smaller 10 but yet readable. To me right away looking 11 at other signs, I would take the picture off 12 the sign. You can reduce the size. Reduce 13 the size of your letters -- or increase the 14 size of your letters and maybe get into sign 15 conformity area. To me this is a 16 self-created hardship because of the sign 17 you want to put up there. I think there are 18 other ways around it. I will be more apt to 19 approve a sign larger than the 16 square 20 foot if the picture wasn't there, you moved 21 it around. If the letters weren't big 22 enough to read, then to me would be a 23 hardship. To me based on what I am seeing 24 here, this is self created and I couldn't
62 1 approve it at this time. 2 MR. HUGHES: With all due respect, the 3 reason we have pictures on the signs is the 4 same reason we build the infrastructure and 5 the roadways we put in the parks, sometimes 6 people have to come out and actually see 7 what it looks like. There are a lot of 8 people that are very challenged by the idea 9 of coming out and just looking at a sign, so 10 for us that's something we've done for years 11 and it's very common place to have pictures 12 of the product because that helps the person 13 buy into the idea of being there. They can 14 envision themselves being there more. The 15 same reason we put the investment in the 16 roadways ahead of time so people can 17 actually drive down the road and get a sense 18 of what it looks like. So, I understand 19 your position, but we do that for that 20 purpose. 21 MEMBER WROBEL: I understand your 22 position and I know you guys know what you 23 are doing in your business and everything, 24 and I don't question that. But, I have seen
63 1 a lot the other way and it works too, so 2 it's six in one and half dozen in the other 3 to me. If we can avoid giving a variance, 4 I'd prefer to do that, to take that route in 5 this case. I don't really see any really 6 hardship, hardship because other people get 7 by without pictures on it. You see what I'm 8 saying? I'm not sold. 9 MR. HUGHES: I appreciate that. I 10 still as I mentioned earlier, I think there 11 is a safety issue posed by that. Even if 12 you don't have a pictorial on there, then 13 you are even trying harder to read the 14 writing. I think in as much as the point 15 you are making it has to do with the size of 16 the sign itself and how visible it is when 17 you are coming down Haggerty Road. 18 I mean, when you are driving 45 19 miles an hour it's not that easy to see 20 things. 21 MEMBER WROBEL: And as I said I would 22 be more inclined to approve a sign size that 23 is larger than the allowed if it didn't have 24 the picture on it. If it was deemed at that
64 1 time well the letters are too small that you 2 can't see them that you need it bigger, 3 somewhere between 16 and 32 in there then 4 the size could come up I would approve 5 something like that. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. Mr. 7 Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Al, what is the ground 9 sign square footage, do you have an idea for 10 the park? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: The one that's there? 12 MEMBER BAUER: The ground sign that is 13 in the middle of the road? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: Unless it was just put 15 up recently, you are talking as an entrance 16 sign? 17 MEMBER BAUER: No, just the sign for 18 the name of the park. 19 MR. AMOLSCH: These are real estate 20 signs, not entranceway signs. There is a 21 difference. 22 MEMBER BAUER: I just wanted to know 23 the square footage. 24 MR. AMOLSCH: For an entranceway sign
65 1 to the development would be allowed 24 2 square feet of sign area. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Okay, thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: I have a question. 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. 7 Ghannam? 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 9 Actually I have got a question for the City. 10 Are they entitled to one sign per address? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: Not address, per parcel. 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: And there is two 13 parcels here? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: Currently it's just one. 15 The signs are on one parcel and it's 16 proposed to be split into two parcels which 17 would allow them to have a sign on the each 18 parcel but limited to 16 square feet. 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: If and when this is a 20 split they would be entitled to one sign per 21 parcel? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: Right. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: Up to 16 square foot? 24 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct.
66 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: You are saying that's 2 going through council right now to get the 3 lot split? 4 MR. HUGHES: Yeah, we'll go through 5 the process. We have the approval to go 6 forward from the buildings. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: How about the lot 8 split? 9 MR. HUGHES: That's in the process. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do you know when you 11 expect to receive that? 12 MR. HUGHES: No. 13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do you expect to have 14 any issues with splitting the lots? 15 MR. HUGHES: No. I know we own 200 16 acres still to be developed. That will not 17 be a problem whatsoever. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: And the lots that 19 these signs you intend to put them on, how 20 large would those lots be? 21 MR. HUGHES: I don't really know how 22 large they are. I am assuming they are 23 probably a four acre sites, but I don't have 24 that information with me.
67 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, each site that 2 you intend to put a 32 square foot sign 3 would be about four acres you would say? 4 MR. HUGHES: Correct. It's whatever 5 the proper density would be to allow. The 6 buildings themselves are 52,000 square foot 7 buildings. So whatever that requires. I 8 think it's about four acres. I don't know, 9 Charles, if you would know, but you have to 10 have the parking. It's parked five per 11 thousand. So my assumption it would be 12 approximately that size. 13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do you know when you 14 would start to build on this particular 15 parcel? 16 MR. HUGHES: The north building is the 17 one that we plan on building first. 18 Originally we were going to do one on the 19 speculative, but again with the economy, we 20 are not going to be building them until such 21 time that we have a major tenant. They are 22 designed to be multi-tenant buildings. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: The reason why I ask 24 is because if the Board is inclined to grant
68 1 any type of variance I would recommend some 2 type of time limitation. I don't want to 3 put some kind of time limitation that would 4 be reasonable. Because if you are not even 5 intending on building right now, you just 6 want to put up signs I would want to know 7 how long you would recommend the Board put 8 some type of limitation. 9 MR. HUGHES: You know, I would ask 10 that it would be a minimum of perhaps a year 11 that I would entertain that and that would 12 be appreciated. I understand before the ZBA 13 you have to prove a hardship, so to sit up 14 here and say because of economic times I'm 15 not inclined to do it, but it's the reality. 16 The times today are different than they were 17 two or three years ago. And again we have 18 always done the size of the building and I 19 understand that ignorance is not the excuse 20 for doing it the size of the sign, but we 21 were rather surprised when we were told that 22 had been changed. Because Northern Equities 23 Group has worked hard with the city itself 24 to change the Ordinances to make them
69 1 favorable at the same time fair to everyone. 2 And I was very surprised that this 3 particular portion of the sign Ordinance had 4 been changed. 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: Personally I don't 6 have a problem with the proposal as stated, 7 but I would only recommend it would be about 8 a year and only one side per parcel, so I 9 guess you would be entitled to one, but when 10 the other parcel split, one sign for that 11 parcel to comply with City Ordinances. So, 12 I would be in favor of something to that 13 affect. Thank you. 14 MR. HUGHES: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Ibe? 16 MEMBER IBE: I just want to reaffirm 17 what the last speaker said. I would be in 18 favor as well so long as it is to one 19 parcel. Since you are in the process of 20 splitting the parcel, I think one for now 21 should suffice and until the time that you 22 split into two of them perhaps you can get 23 your second one. But just a real quick 24 comment that was made by Member Wrobel
70 1 regarding the picture. I do know that the 2 sign is for marketing purposes, would that 3 be correct, sir? 4 MR. HUGHES: Yes. 5 MEMBER IBE: Do you have a web site 6 for your marketing this building? 7 MR. HUGHES: Well, it's overall web, 8 www.North.com. It's a company web site. 9 MEMBER IBE: I'm surprised, sir, you 10 don't have it on here. Don't you think that 11 would be more appropriate to have, these 12 days people have visual images on computers. 13 I think you even grandpa in Bolivia on the 14 computer these days can get on the internet. 15 They can see your picture of your building. 16 I can't imagine driving down on Haggerty and 17 saying, whoops, let me stop over and watch 18 that picture and that stuff. 19 MR. HUGHES: My understanding is that 20 it is on the web site. Are you saying you 21 went on there and it's not on there? 22 MEMBER IBE: No, no. I am saying with 23 your sign perhaps if you didn't have your 24 picture on this and you had maybe your web
71 1 site and showing the visuals are on it, I 2 think it would probably be good. People want 3 to see a full number is probably more 4 important. 5 MR. HUGHES: That's why the phone 6 number is as prominent as it is. 7 MEMBER IBE: Yeah, but the picture is 8 I think what Member Wrobel had concerns 9 about and I am thinking, I'm not trying to 10 tell you how to run your business, but I do 11 know with the way the economy is people have 12 to develop better ways to market your 13 product. And it's perhaps something that is 14 missing on your sign. You have a picture 15 that personally I don't think solves any 16 problems. I'm not going to stop and look at 17 the picture, but I would probably look at it 18 on the web site and I would be more curious 19 and find more if I am interested in your 20 development that you have right now. So, 21 perhaps something you might want to 22 consider. But as far as I am concerned now, 23 I will be in favor of one approval for now 24 as well. Thank you.
72 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Ms. 2 Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: For a sign I don't 4 think we can say what can be put on them. 5 But as far as driving by, it's 45 miles an 6 hour on Haggerty and knowing how everybody 7 drives, it's much faster than that. So, to 8 be able to see it, I caught the phone 9 number, but then the rest I don't know how, 10 what you could put on it and what you can't, 11 it would be up to you. So, for size I'm not 12 too sure about what can be done and what's 13 requested. So that's where I'm at. Thank 14 you. 15 MS. KUDLA: Through the Chair, she is 16 correct, we can't really limit what they're 17 putting in their signs. 18 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, real quickly. 19 Just so we have -- perhaps it's a 20 misunderstanding of language or phonetics or 21 grammatics, I don't know. That's not my 22 suggestion one bit at all. It is just a 23 suggestion. 24 MR. HUGHES: No, I appreciate it.
73 1 MEMBER IBE: Times are hard. We can't 2 do business the same old way. Just because 3 it was done that way 50 years ago doesn't 4 mean it works any more. We have have diverse 5 new ways to market your product. It's a 6 suggestion. People take it or you don't 7 have to take it but it might work for you. 8 MR. HUGHES: I wrote it down. Thank 9 you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Just to 11 recapitulate. Mr. Amolsch, please remind 12 me. They are entitled to one sign per parcel 13 and what is the size of that sign they are? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: Sixteen square feet is 15 allowed and 10 feet in height. What they 16 are asking for was 32 square foot sign. 17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. I 18 can just put in my penny worth of comments 19 is so long as there is one parcel there is 20 no need to have two signs. It is way back 21 inside, so I don't know how much of the 22 Haggerty traffic is going to slow to see the 23 signs really. How far back are you from 24 Haggerty Road?
74 1 MR. HUGHES: Eighty feet. 2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I think we can 3 whittle it down to one sign. The next 4 question is whether the 32 square feet is 5 reasonable or not. Maybe we can entertain a 6 motion? Yes, Mr. Ibe? 7 MEMBER IBE: Can I make a motion? 8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead. 9 MEMBER IBE: Very well, sir. In case 10 number 08-066 MacKenzie South Technology 11 Center, I move that we grant the request 12 made by the Petitioner as to one sign since 13 it's one parcel currently and because the 14 request is based on circumstances or 15 features that are exceptional and unique to 16 the property and do not result from 17 conditions that exist generally in the city 18 or that are self created. 19 Secondly, that failure to grant such 20 relief will unreasonably prevent or limit 21 the use of the property and since the party 22 in this case is trying to market the new 23 development, failing to grant would 24 obviously create an inconvenience or
75 1 inability to obtain the economic or 2 financial return expected by the Petitioner. 3 And also, the grant of relief will not 4 result in the use of the structure that is 5 incompatible with or unreasonably interferes 6 with adjacent or surrounding properties. 7 And, also, I would state that the sign, it's 8 limited to I think one year time period. 9 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll second that. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: A motion has 11 been made. Yes? 12 MR. BOULARD: I just wanted to clarify 13 if I could. The motion is for one sign of 14 32 square feet? 15 MEMBER IBE: That's correct. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: And it has been 17 seconded by Mr. Ghannam. Any further 18 discussion? Seeing none, will you please 19 call the roll. 20 MR. BOULARD: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: No. 22 MR. BOULARD: Member Wrobel? 23 MEMBER WROBEL: No. 24 MR. BOULARD: Member Ghannam?
76 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 2 MR. BOULARD: Member Ibe? 3 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 4 MR. BOULARD: Member Krieger? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 6 MR. BOULARD: Chairman Sanghvi? 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MR. BOULARD: Member Skelcy? 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 10 MR. BOULARD: Motion is approved 5-2. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 All right, moving along to the 13 next case. Case number: 08-068 filed by Ed 14 Bezilla of Visual Entities, Incorporated for 15 26750 Providence Parkway, Novi Orthopaedic 16 Center. The Applicant is requesting a 17 variance to install a 9 foot high monument 18 sign for the Novi Orthopaedic Center. The 19 property is zoned OSC and is located west of 20 Beck Road and south of Grand River Avenue. 21 Will you please identify yourself and if -- 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mr. Chair, I would 23 like to recuse myself because I am an 24 employee of Providence Hospital.
77 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. 2 MEMBER BAUER: It has to be voted on. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yeah, well, I 4 don't know whether having a sign like this 5 would make any difference whether you worked 6 for Providence Hospital or not. This is not 7 part to do with Providence Hospital. This 8 is the Orthopedic Center. As far as I am 9 concerned I don't see any problem by you 10 being here. What is the general feeling of 11 the Board? 12 MS. KUDLA: I believe it's a lessee of 13 Providence Hospital. It's not directly 14 Providence Hospital. 15 MEMBER IBE: So, she can stay. 16 MS. KUDLA: I don't think there's a 17 conflict. 18 MEMBER IBE: No, it's not. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: I wanted to disclose 20 it. 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. I am 22 so glad you brought it up and that is the 23 right thing to do and I commend you for 24 doing what you did, but I don't think you
78 1 need to be excused. 2 All right, sir, will you please 3 identify yourself and if you are not an 4 attorney, please be sworn in by our 5 Secretary. 6 MR. BEZILLA: I will be happy to 7 introduce myself. My name is Ed Bezilla. I 8 am with Visual Entities, I am not an 9 attorney, and I am ready to be sworn in. 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 11 08-068 filed by Ed Bezilla of Visual 12 Entities, do you swear or affirm to tell the 13 truth in this case? 14 MR. BEZILLA: I do. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay, thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead and 17 make your presentation. 18 MR. BEZILLA: Yes, sir. We are 19 petitioning to have a variance to allow us 20 to increase the size of the sign to nine 21 feet high compared to the six feet high 22 that's currently allowed. We believe that 23 some of the conditions that exist at that 24 property are creating practical difficulties
79 1 for us. I refer to what I have been told by 2 our client to be conditions such as 3 landscaping and berming that has been 4 required by the City for this particular 5 property. Also the configuration of the 6 road with it being a broad circular kind of 7 serpentine configuration masks the entrance 8 to the property as well as the identity of 9 the sign by drivers on that road. 10 From as little as only 135 feet from 11 the sign location which is actually the 12 entrance location to the building site, that 13 sign is not visible and that's, I don't 14 believe what is intended for the use of that 15 sign in that particular instance by the 16 City. I also mention that because at that 17 distance, 135 feet, while there is no posted 18 speed limit there, there may very well be, 19 it would seem that a 25 mile an hour speed 20 limit might be appropriate and might be 21 agreed upon. At that particular speed 22 limit, the driver only has about three to 23 three and a half seconds to respond to 24 seeing the sign and then making a decision
80 1 to turn into the property. I think given 2 that circumstance, cars entering and exiting 3 that creates a significant hazard on that 4 particular road to the drivers. 5 I think that a failure 6 to grant the variance continues to make for 7 a traffic hazard at that location and I also 8 think that it limits the practical use of 9 that sign as it was intended to by the City 10 by a substantial margin. I don't think that 11 granting the variance would create an 12 economic benefit for the property owner. It 13 would just simply allow their sign to be 14 seen as allowed to by the code and by the 15 City for that particular property. Others 16 do not have those sorts of obstacles in that 17 particular compound, the Providence 18 compound. 19 And I don't think that granting that 20 would make the Novi Orthopedic sign 21 incompatible with the signs that are already 22 on that compound and in that area. There are 23 examples of signs at least that high for 24 identifying and directing people in that
81 1 area. That concludes my presentation. 2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 3 there anybody in the audience who would like 4 to speak regarding this case? Seeing none, 5 we will close the Public Remark Section. To 6 our Secretary, do we have any correspondence 7 regarding this case? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 9 08-068, 105 notices were mailed. One 10 approval, one objection. First one is from 11 Joann Ward on Eleven Mile. "As I previously 12 responded to sign variances, I oppose as the 13 code is clearly written and six feet is high 14 enough. Providence Hospital's property 15 backs up to my backyard and of all the 16 notices I receive for their variances, the 17 only one I oppose to are the sign 18 variances." 19 The second one is from Richard Hurbell 20 on Konisberg (phonetic). "I have no 21 objection to the installation of a nine foot 22 Orthopedic Center sign. There are so many 23 buildings along Grand River it is hard to 24 locate a business location when driving."
82 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 Building Department? 3 MR. BOULARD: If I may, a point of 4 clarification and two questions. You have a 5 drawing that shows the area around the 6 Orthopedic building and then a description 7 of the signs for reference. The Petitioner 8 included a key map of the site and a hatched 9 area is actually the around around the 10 orthopedic building. In terms of questions, 11 if I may, are any of the signs that are 12 proposed intended to replace existing signs? 13 MR. BEZILLA: Yes. If you grant this 14 petition, it would replace the existing six 15 foot high sign that's in that current 16 location. 17 MR. BOULARD: Which location is that? 18 MR. BEZILLA: If I may, I will use the 19 scanner here. If you can see that image, 20 you will notice that that is the existing 21 sign that's at that property. That sign can 22 be seen because it's about a hundred feet 23 from the entrance. I can show you some 24 other pictures from slightly greater
83 1 distances. A 135 for example where the sign 2 is there now is not able to be seen. This 3 is the sign at nine feet from the exact 4 location. What you're going to see in 5 comparison between what's there now and what 6 would be proposed is the impact of the 7 berming as well as the foliage that's the 8 landscape plantings which play a significant 9 role in blocking the signs between April, 10 May and October. 11 This next comparison photo is -- oh, 12 that's a big difference. This is from 198 13 feet. You can not see the sign. It's just 14 on the right-hand side of the picture there. 15 This is current conditions and I believe if 16 any of you have driven the site, you have 17 noticed that we added to that existing sign 18 just to show you at nine feet the impact 19 that an additional three feet would have. 20 This shows that the sign would be able to be 21 viewed from that same distance. 22 And then my last comparison is from 23 135 feet. This is what you see, as I say, 24 between April, May and October. You barely
84 1 make out the top part of the sign. And then 2 this is what we would have if we have 3 another three feet. So, there is, obviously 4 the sign could be seen better at three feet. 5 Their name, traffic can react to the message 6 quicker and get in and out of the property 7 safer. 8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. Thank 9 you. Thank you, Mr. Boulard. Yes, Mr. 10 Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Those bushes are going 12 to grow and you are going to come back and 13 ask for three more feet. It will happen. 14 MR. BEZILLA: It will happen. 15 Landscaping is a dynamic as we all know and 16 it will be the property owner's 17 responsibility to keep them trimmed. 18 MEMBER BAUER: That's something else. 19 MR. BEZILLA: Yes, sir. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Ms. Skelcy? 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Can you guarantee that 23 if you were given a nine foot sign that they 24 would still be able to see it in the summer?
85 1 Because it looked to me from the 2 photographs, the foliage from the trees that 3 you don't really trim would even cover a 4 nine foot sign. Can you guarantee that that 5 would still be seen with all that foliage 6 from the trees in the summer? 7 MR. BEZILLA: I think that the client 8 would be satisfied with that. In all 9 signage there is opportunities to view in 10 between obstacles and that's one of those 11 instances where the angle of visibility is 12 better at nine feet than it is at six feet. 13 So, it's definitely an enhancement to the 14 readability of that sign. 15 Again, as I mentioned to Mr. Bauer, 16 it's going to be their responsibility to 17 keep things trimmed. I don't know what kind 18 of trees those are. I don't know tall they 19 are going to grow. What their canopy is 20 going to be. What the lowest point is going 21 to be. Perhaps they can trim that up a 22 little bit and still keep the beauty of the 23 tree and create a nice window of opportunity 24 for people to view the sign from. In fact,
86 1 maybe in years to come it might even be 2 better viewed because of that. I don't 3 know. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 5 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6 Has any thought been given to moving the 7 existing sign you want a variance on to 8 another location on the site that you might 9 be able to keep at the same size and not 10 have the landscaping problems? 11 MR. BEZILLA: Well, all I can tell you 12 about that is that we found when we 13 installed the existing sign we followed the 14 architect's plan and that was submitted to 15 Planning as the master plan site. It is a 16 cross-section easement, I have no idea what 17 that means. But that is where the sign is 18 placed. In my involvement with the property 19 I understand that there may have been some 20 utility lines running in that area which 21 doesn't allow for a lot of range of movement 22 for that sign. 23 MEMBER WROBEL: As you know we have 24 had a lot of requests for variances on this
87 1 whole property. Quite a few. I am looking 2 at here, I am seeing all the directional 3 signs. If this was the only sign that was 4 out there then I would say, well, yeah, 5 maybe you got a problem, but I see one, two, 6 three, four other signs. I mean if you pass 7 it you are going to catch the next sign. 8 So, to me that's not that big of a deal. 9 This certainly effects some of the traffic 10 it appears coming off of the Grand River 11 entrance because people coming the other way 12 are going to see one, two, three signs 13 before they are even coming from Grand River 14 there is a sign up way up to the north 15 there. It's not like we're going into the 16 industrial park either there. We are looking 17 at very few buildings and most people going 18 to the Orthopedic Center I would say would 19 probably be somewhat familiar when they make 20 their appointment or whatever they know 21 where it is. It obviously is not the 22 hospital, not the big medical building or 23 the hotel. So, by process of elimination, 24 gee, this is the building. I am having an
88 1 issue with that. There are all the other 2 signs that they could use. 3 MR. BEZILLA: Maybe my answer to that 4 would be that if you are referring to the 5 signs that are within the footprint of Novi 6 Ortho, all of those signs are shielded from 7 visibility from the ring road, from 8 perimeter road that the main I.D. sign is 9 viewed from. Those are all behind the berm 10 and can't be seen. Secondly, what I could 11 say about signage is what I know from 35 12 years experience. You put signs up for 13 immediate identification, recognition of a 14 business. But you put it up to that first 15 time user. The second time user if they are 16 tuned in are going to remember that location 17 if they have to go back there again. 18 MEMBER WROBEL: Does the building 19 itself have a sign on it? 20 MR. BEZILLA: They have address 21 numbers, that's it. Yes. 22 MEMBER WROBEL: Because to me it would 23 almost be better to have a sign on the 24 building. You are not going to get the
89 1 visibility. You are not going to deal with 2 the growth of the landscaping and hopefully 3 it will be seen from much more distance. 4 That's all, Mr. Chair. 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 6 Anybody else? While you are thinking, I 7 will put in my. I went there and I saw it. 8 You have quite eloquent directional signs. 9 Novi Orthopedic Center is going to be a 10 destination and I don't see any reason why 11 they cannot be found with your sign that is 12 present there right now. So, I don't see 13 any need to grant you any variance in your 14 request at this point in time. That's my 15 opinion. 16 Any other comments? Yes, Ms. Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: I find that traffic 18 is faster than you would expect it to be on 19 that parkway and that, yes, when you go 20 around that curve, if you don't know what's 21 there, it clues you into that that is the 22 main parking for Orthopedic and I had not 23 remembered if there had been Orthopedic on 24 the building itself. So I find that it
90 1 would be useful to clue someone in to, oh, 2 yeah, that's where I'm supposed to go and 3 park. And that's my observations right now. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Anyone care to make a motion? 6 MEMBER WROBEL: I guess I'll try. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go on. 8 MEMBER WROBEL: In case: 08-068 filed 9 by Ed Bezilla of Visual Entities for 26750 10 Providence Parkway Novi Orthopedic Center to 11 deny their variance to install a nine foot 12 high monument sign for Novi Orthopedic 13 Center since the Petitioner has not 14 presented a hardship and existing signage 15 will be sufficient for the present time. 16 MEMBER IBE: Second the motion. 17 MS. KUDLA: Can I interject, the 18 standard is practical difficulty rather than 19 hardship. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Change the 21 words. 22 MEMBER WROBEL: Okay, I'll change the 23 words. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Any further
91 1 comments by anybody? No, seeing none, Mr. 2 Boulard, please call the roll. 3 MR. BOULARD: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 MR. BOULARD: Member Wrobel? 6 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 7 MR. BOULARD: Member Ghannam? 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 9 MR. BOULARD: Member Ibe? 10 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 11 MR. BOULARD: Chairman Sanghvi? 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MR. BOULARD: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: No. 15 MR. BOULARD: Member Skelcy? 16 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 17 MR. BOULARD: Motion is approved 6-1. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Thank 19 you for your appearance. Thank you very 20 much. 21 MR. BEZILLA: I would just like to say 22 not related to this subject. My company had 23 a great experience with the City of Novi 24 with regard to support and getting this
92 1 petition filed and I just wanted that to be 2 acknowledged. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 4 All right, moving on. The next case 5 is case number: 08-069 for 46100 Grand 6 River Avenue filed by Blair Bowman of 7 ServMan, LLC for Rock Financial. Oh, he is 8 here. He is setting up. 9 MR. BOWMAN: I am trying, yeah. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, Mr. Bowman, 11 for the record please identify yourself and 12 state your address and be sworn in if you 13 are not an attorney. 14 MR. BOWMAN: Well, I'm not a formal 15 attorney. I am educated way back as one, 16 but I am not a practicing one. I don't have 17 a P number. My name is Blair Bowman and 18 tonight I'm representing ServMan, LLC, as 19 well as I'm also the owner and operator of 20 Rock Financial Showplace both of which are 21 located at 46100 Grand River, in Novi, 22 Michigan. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Please swear him 24 in.
93 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, in case number: 2 08-069 filed by yourself for Rock Financial 3 at 46100 Grand River Avenue, do you swear to 4 tell the truth in this case? 5 MR. BOWMAN: I do. 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Please make your 8 presentation. 9 MR. BOWMAN: Thank you very much. 10 Tonight I am before you with a request 11 that's based upon I guess two basic tenants. 12 One which is a request for help and 13 assistance for which I hope to give you some 14 good reason. And the second being as I 15 understand it this is a regulatory body, 16 requiring information regarding ordinance 17 variances for some hardship and other 18 information as far as uniqueness as to the 19 property, the situation that we're involved 20 with. And it's my intention to hopefully 21 provide you with good information and 22 respectfully request that you honor our 23 proposal. 24 I don't need I think to stand before
94 1 you tonight and talk about the challenging 2 economic times. I think that's kind of a 3 given these days. It's very, very difficult. 4 As was mentioned earlier you need to find 5 new ways to reach out and conduct business. 6 What my sincere goal in the first basic 7 tenant is again to request some assistance 8 from the City of Novi. Being a privately 9 funded but yet a major public facility 10 within your borders, there is a limitation, 11 a pretty severe limitation on what can be 12 provided by the community to assist in what 13 yet is still a very major economic generator 14 in the community. In the packet we provided 15 you with a study that was done both 16 initially for the construction of the new 17 facility which showed that in our first year 18 of operation we are expecting to have about 19 a quarter of a billion dollars worth of 20 direct economic impact into the community. 21 We recently did have that updated and 22 reviewed by a CPA firm and they projected 23 that in the 2008 season alone we had over 24 600 million dollars worth of direct economic
95 1 impact in the Novi and surrounding area 2 permeating out of the southeastern, Michigan 3 in general. Typically these types of 4 facilities are fully publically subsidized 5 and operated at a loss and those types of 6 things. We again are a privately operated 7 facility. 8 What we are looking for is a way, kind 9 of the law of unintended consequences when 10 trying to do something good. We originally 11 had granted a conservation easement on the 12 old I-96 rest area which after developing 13 the site in the site plan, came to find out 14 when we went to place our marquis sign that 15 it blocked almost every direction, the 16 opportunity for placement of our marquis. 17 What we have experienced is and you will see 18 in the packet we provided you, testimonials 19 and letters from our major, some of our 20 major shows is that even our old, you know, 21 stick up letter sign at the old facility 22 actually did a better job of delivering 23 information about what was going on at the 24 building than our current marquis does. So,
96 1 what we're asking for tonight is to improve 2 on some existing signage that is there from 3 an expressway billboard signage group. 4 There is two located on our site and 5 actually install one state of the art single 6 mono-pole sign with a double face, one of 7 which would be an electronic LED style sign. 8 We have negotiated arrangements if 9 we're successful where we would be able to 10 utilize 25 percent of that sign for 11 delivering message about what's going on at 12 the facility. I think that going on to what 13 would be then the more technical 14 requirements, the variance base requirements 15 is that this is a unique situation in that 16 our property currently has two signs already 17 on it. We would be looking to eliminate the 18 two signs and put up one sign. So, a two 19 for one exchange. 20 Our property is also 55 acres in size 21 with over a half mile of frontage along 96. 22 I don't think, again, you would find that 23 you would have any other requests that would 24 be able to meet this very unique situation,
97 1 frankly where you have both existing signs 2 that would be eliminated in response for 3 one. Where you have such a sizable parcel 4 with this amount of frontage and then also 5 having a major private center but yet a 6 public draw such as we are. 7 I think that if you 8 look in the package, also I apologize, when 9 we delivered our original package to you, 10 for some reason the photographs did not come 11 through very well, they were kind of dark in 12 nature. So, I did include two additional 13 new photographs. One showing the almost 14 exactly similar sign that is located at I-96 15 and Beck Road that has the LED board on it. 16 And then the other photograph has the 17 existing lower scape signs on them. 18 One of the basic hardships, if you 19 would, that I think that you will see is 20 that with the lower scape signs, we 21 currently on a regular basis have to make 22 application to and by right the state grants 23 the ability to clear cut, remove trees and 24 clear a visual path for view-ability of
98 1 those two existing lower scape signs. With 2 the installation of a new and sensitively 3 placed mono-pole sign we would work with 4 both the state and the city to locate that. 5 Given the topography again with the intent 6 being to deliver an adequate message safely 7 and effectively basically to industry 8 standards as to these types of signs, but it 9 would virtually eliminate the need to 10 continue to cut existing vegetation if 11 placed at the proper height. 12 In addition to the unique nature to, 13 again, the two for one, the major public 14 facility, the size of the parcel and the 15 extensive amount of frontage, what I have 16 placed on the easel here, also that's a 17 large version of what we have kind of cut in 18 half and provided in your package as far as 19 what I just handed you is an aerial 20 photograph which shows that our site is kind 21 of positioned in and amongst many other 22 properties that are similarly situated that 23 have extremely similar if not identical type 24 of signage in and along the I-96 corridor.
99 1 So, we are simply asking that we would 2 receive reasonably similar treatment to 3 other properties that are similarly 4 situated. This property was, in fact, at 5 one point in time zoned for heavy industrial 6 which I understand is a requirement under 7 the Ordinance. I am not sure as to what the 8 reference is in the response letter that we 9 received that it is in too close a proximity 10 to another off premises advertising sign. 11 I'm not aware of any other off premises sign 12 with the exception of the fact that they may 13 be referring to the two existing smaller 14 lower scape signs that we are proposing to 15 eliminate. Beyond that, it meets all 16 proximity requirements of the state. We 17 would simply be looking to install it in, 18 again, a fashion and size to safely and 19 effectively deliver messages as, 20 particularly in our case looking at this, 21 having 25 percent of this message rotation 22 would be critical to allow us to almost 23 instantaneously virtually provide 24 information on current events and coming
100 1 events and in the event that new information 2 was received about an existing event, we 3 could put that in with new a key stroke with 4 new technology versus having the old 5 antiquated style signs. 6 So, in summary, again, asking for some 7 help, hopefully for a reasonable and good 8 basis, also looking at it truly that this is 9 a unique situation where we would be 10 offering the exchange of taking down two 11 existing signs, in that stretch of highway, 12 literally it would be less sign poles and 13 structures than prior to our request and it 14 would give us an opportunity to provide our 15 shows with the ability to expand on and 16 maintain the major economic impact that we 17 have. 18 And our study, I think, is 19 conservatively based and the other piece of 20 information I provided you tonight was a 21 Detroit newspaper article that is referring 22 to a center that's being proposed in Macomb 23 Township. They are going out there. They 24 are going for the same type of business that
101 1 we are currently providing for. Their 2 center is going to be half the size. They 3 have already installed infrastructure for it 4 and are heavily supporting it and are 5 seeking an abatement at the state level for 6 it and, in fact, the governor just needs to 7 sign it and it is law. 8 But they reduced the size that was 9 required for the investment from our quarter 10 of a million square feet, we actually have 11 320,000 square feet to where they are 12 allowing anything over 100,000 square to 13 apply for this abatement. They have 14 suggested in their infrastructure or their 15 investment of 150,000 square feet, less than 16 half of our size that they would create over 17 1,700 jobs and have literally millions of 18 dollars worth of tax revenues. We are 19 already doing that. We are here and we 20 really could use this adequate signage and I 21 believe also have some good basis for your 22 regulatory aspects to decide upon. 23 So, just with that I would 24 respectfully request that you approve our
102 1 signage proposal and would be able to answer 2 any questions. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. If I 4 may request you, would you be kind enough to 5 show some of your photographs on the 6 overhead so the people at home can visualize 7 what we have been talking about? 8 MR. BOWMAN: Sure. 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. I 10 didn't want to interrupt your train of 11 thought. 12 MR. BOWMAN: No problem. This is the 13 existing sign which is at I-96, the 14 eastbound ramp to I-96 off of Beck Road. It 15 is the exact size, I believe if not the 16 exact height, very close and, again, it's a 17 center amount mono-pole structure. We 18 actually submitted plans to the department 19 that has a side shifted pole and also a 20 center mount pole. We are certainly 21 comfortable in installing whatever is best 22 and most sensitive to the environmental 23 features of the property. This is 24 indicative of the type and quality and the
103 1 state of the art nature of the new digital 2 LED boards. Much more visually attractive 3 than what we have currently. 4 This is one of the two existing 5 expressway billboard signs. And you can see 6 again that this is the corridor of trees and 7 vegetation that has been removed in order to 8 maintain that view-ability path. I think I 9 got one more. It's kind of hard to fit all 10 that in. This is the other sign that is 11 furthest to the west. Again, both of those 12 are located in the corresponding red dots on 13 the overall aerial on the easel on kind of 14 the eastern boundary line along the I-96 15 frontage of the show place parcel. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Are you done? 17 MR. BOWMAN: Yes. I will be pleased to 18 answer any questions. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 20 there anybody in the audience that would 21 like to address this case? Any comments? I 22 don't see anybody. Thank you. 23 Madam Secretary, you got some 24 correspondence?
104 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yep. In case number: 2 08-069, 52 notices were mailed. One 3 response. This is from Jim Franken -- I 4 apologize I can't read it. But he's on 5 Foster Tractor, Grand River. "I am in favor 6 of additional signage to help direct and 7 identify the Expo Center. My driveway has 8 become a turnaround for westbound traffic." 9 That's it. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 Building Department? 12 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. A couple of 13 housekeeping comments and then some 14 concerns. In the package that was left at 15 your desk there are some pictures that the 16 Petitioner has provided. In our 17 conversations a full scale mockup sign was 18 deemed to be beyond reasonable expectation. 19 So, I would ask the Petitioner to present 20 some photographs of similar signs in terms 21 of size and height. So, you have those in 22 your packet. 23 In this particular 24 case, the allowable off premises advertising
105 1 sign would be 300 square feet. In this case 2 the proposed sign 14 by 48 is 672 square 3 feet on each of two faces. The Ordinance 4 will allow a maximum of 15 feet of height. 5 The request is 50 feet, three and a half 6 times that. A point of clarification if I 7 may? 8 MR. BOWMAN: Sure. 9 MR. BOULARD: On the application at 10 one point there is, it talks about a static 11 face on the west side and the electronic LED 12 face on the east side or the east face of 13 the sign. Is the LED face, would that also 14 be static and bright or would that change 15 and I guess how often would that change? 16 MR. BOWMAN: The sign would be 17 proposed to be within the state and industry 18 standards. And I believe that there is a 19 rotation of six or seven seconds for the 20 messaging which has been deemed with the, 21 you know, with the expressway model in mind 22 where the traveling traffic is moving at 65, 23 70 miles an hour for the effective delivery 24 and safe delivery of a message. So, it
106 1 would not be static for any particularly 2 lengthy period of time. The only exception 3 to that that I would say would be the 4 inventory that we would receive and the 5 rotation, it may very well be that we would 6 choose to leave up, an example would be 7 like, for example, now showing outdoor-rama, 8 might be up there for two or three of those 9 rotations and stay more static than the 10 balance of the messaging. It would be a 11 static face on one side and then an LED on 12 the other. 13 MR. BOULARD: The current City 14 Ordinance allows a sign to change once a 15 minute. If it was more often than that, an 16 additional variance would be required and 17 that's the section that was advertised and 18 is listed as 28-15. 19 MR. BOWMAN: If I may too on that. 20 When we received the letter there was I 21 think reference to three Ordinance sections. 22 And then when we received the notification 23 there was an additional two references and 24 then possibly the need for more variances.
107 1 Again, kind of here on a bit of a hat in 2 hand, I'm just saying we respect that fully 3 the city process, whatever variances would 4 be needed for this type of graphic and 5 digital sign is what we would be requesting. 6 MR. BOULARD: In all honesty the 7 reasons we include that in the advertisement 8 was to keep you from having to come back 9 again unnecessarily. 10 MR. BOWMAN: Sure. 11 MR. BOULARD: My understanding is that 12 the State has a moratorium on new billboards 13 at this point? 14 MR. BOWMAN: That, again, is what 15 makes this a unique request. We have the 16 two permits that we can retire in this 17 instance and, frankly, along with many other 18 factors of the uniqueness in the site and 19 the ability and the availability of the 20 permits that we have for exchanging the two 21 for the one structure, again, this isn't 22 something that I think would be 23 proliferation of or additional concern for 24 other requests. And the State does mandate
108 1 proximity requirements as well the number of 2 these are restricted heavily. 3 MR. BOULARD: So, for a point of 4 clarification then, the removal of the two 5 other billboards which are smaller than each 6 side of this billboard, correct? 7 MR. BOWMAN: Yeah, I think they are 8 about 65 percent of an individual face, 9 something of that nature. 10 MR. BOULARD: So, the removal of those 11 two would be required for the State to 12 approve as a condition of the State 13 approving the two double faced -- 14 MR. BOWMAN: Right, we have had 15 discussions with them. We meet all the 16 requirements and, in fact, depending on the 17 approval process here they would work with 18 us from the standpoint of allowing us to 19 construct the structure and then remove the 20 two signs. 21 MR. BOULARD: You mention that there 22 is 25 percent of the signage would be 23 dedicated towards the Expo Center? 24 MR. BOWMAN: Right. See, again,
109 1 currently 100 percent of these existing 2 signs are used for typical expressway 3 billboard advertising. In order to I guess 4 incentivize or put the outdoor advertising 5 company into a position of making the 6 investment and they are significant to put 7 in the state of the art technology. They 8 would continue to do 75 percent of that. 9 And I will be -- they have heavily been 10 dealing with our shows as well. It is not 11 only our hope, but I will tell you that it 12 is our intent to see that in addition to our 13 25 percent stock that many of our shows 14 would also be acquiring additional 15 traditional advertising spots on the 16 billboard as well. We would be obtaining as 17 negotiated what our rights would be, would 18 be 25 percent exclusive to the Showplace for 19 the facility. 20 MR. BOULARD: And that would be for 21 the east side, the LED side? 22 MR. BOWMAN: Correct. And let me just 23 say again, that is coming from frankly CBS, 24 that is what they are suggesting. I would
110 1 be willing to, again, work with the City, 2 and certainly, again, the State as to what 3 is the most appropriate side for it. My 4 concern is, again, right now we're being 5 told, and the other point is that on the 6 correspondence and maybe I didn't do it 7 properly, but we had at least four or five 8 of our show producers correspond and we 9 provided those last week, I believe, 10 respectfully requesting that the Board 11 approve our request as well. And they have 12 been consistently for the last two years 13 been telling us about the affect or the lack 14 of appropriate signage. We have this brand 15 new wonderful building but very ineffective 16 ability to tell people what's going on. And 17 it was certainly a nuisance, it was a 18 difficulty before, but now it's the 19 proverbial fight for our life. We are 20 anxious to be able to make the additional 21 investment in this community that we are 22 planing for and currently are looking to 23 frankly sustain our attendance and hopefully 24 improve that in what are very challenging
111 1 times. 2 MR. BOULARD: I think that wraps up my 3 questions. I am concerned needless to say 4 about the size and the proximity to the 5 other signs, although those two are coming 6 down I understand. 7 MR. BOWMAN: That is correct. 8 MR. BOULARD: Is there a sign on the 9 other side of the freeway that's also in the 10 1,200 feet? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 12 MR. BOWMAN: That's what we were 13 referring to in the letter. It's across the 14 freeway just west of Taft Road, so it's 15 within 1,200 feet as verified by TIF. 16 MR. BOULARD: So, even if the two 17 signs on site come down the variance would 18 still be required for the other sign within 19 1,200 feet. 20 MR. BOWMAN: Well, and in that regard 21 and I thought that a freeway might otherwise 22 be a separation at that distance 23 requirement. At least under State standards 24 they don't consider those for proximity. I
112 1 didn't know that the City did. But if they 2 do, we have a half mile of frontage and 3 there is literally a mile and a third there 4 with no other signs. 5 And with all due respect as far as the 6 size is concerned, we are asking for what is 7 a typical and standard time proven size to 8 deliver safely and effectively a message. 9 And that for us is critical and will be of 10 unbelievable value for assisting in the 11 delivery of message to the general public 12 and providing people the information with 13 what's going on at the facility. 14 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes? 16 MS. KUDLA: Mr. Chair, I have a couple 17 of additional clarifications and comments. 18 You indicated that the giving up of the two 19 signs would be your factor of where, you are 20 pointing out that it's your uniqueness 21 factor. Would it be considered unique in 22 that the State would be requiring you to 23 give up those two signs in order to get 24 this? I mean, it's not something that is
113 1 voluntarily, it's something that you would 2 have to do? 3 MR. BOWMAN: No, first of all that's 4 not true. I could with the amount of 5 frontage that we have and permit 6 transferring capabilities and things like 7 that, certainly make application at the 8 state and gain their permission to put up 9 probably three or four signs. But in this 10 instance, and I guess my point was, is that 11 within the borders of this community, I 12 don't believe you will find a formally zoned 13 heavy industrial property of a major public 14 facility that is privately owned with a half 15 mile of frontage on the expressway with two 16 exiting billboards that we're willing to 17 and, of course, currently don't have to do 18 anything in particular, but would be willing 19 then to commit to making those, the removal 20 of those a condition of the approval of 21 this. 22 I am not aware of anything else. I 23 have been up and down this pretty 24 thoroughly. I have identified the white
114 1 dots are basically other expressway 2 billboard signs within this community on 3 very similarly situated properties. And 4 there is only one site amongst all of those 5 that is zoned currently heavy industrial. 6 So, again, very similar situated properties 7 and I think it is unique that we have the 8 two that we would be willing to dispose of. 9 MS. KUDLA: So, it's your assertion 10 that in order to get a double sided sign 11 that the State would allow you to keep those 12 signs there? 13 MR. BOWMAN: If I were to locate, for 14 example, on the far westerly side of my 15 property, a permit request to the State and 16 if were to submit that and if I were to 17 transfer permits from some other location, 18 acquire them from some other signs, up north 19 or along any other thoroughfare that we met 20 their requirements, I could certainly make 21 that application. It would meet their 22 requirements. 23 MS. KUDLA: It would be something they 24 would have to review as a separate request.
115 1 It wouldn't be something that you were 2 automatically entitled to, correct? 3 MR. BOWMAN: As long as I had the 4 permits and met the proximity requirements, 5 I don't think that there would be something 6 that would allow them to deny that. 7 MS. KUDLA: Do you have the permits? 8 MR. BOWMAN: I hold the permits for 9 the two existing signs. 10 MS. KUDLA: Right. I mean as far as is 11 it your intention to seek additional -- 12 MR. BOWMAN: No, my intention is 13 exactly what I have outlined here. It is to 14 retire the two existing permits and signs 15 and erect a single mono-pole sign. 16 MS. KUDLA: I guess the other, the 17 point of clarification that the City would 18 need to make about some of these other signs 19 that you are pointing out as existing signs, 20 some of those signs are currently under 21 review to have a determination right now of 22 whether or not they are in compliance with 23 the Ordinance. So, as far as any 24 precedential value to other signs of that
116 1 nature, especially the changeable copy 2 issue, that that issue is currently under 3 review. 4 Additionally, the specific issue of a 5 changeable copy signs on billboards is 6 within the City's Ordinance Review Committee 7 currently and is something that is coming up 8 very soon to City Council for discussion. 9 At this point it's something that City 10 Council is not in favor of from the 11 Ordinance Review Committee position at this 12 point as far as having a changeable copy 13 sign as a billboard. 14 The State Statute does allow the City 15 to have more restrictive Ordinance 16 requirements than the State requirements for 17 billboards. So, these are just points that 18 we needed to make for all the members 19 consideration today. 20 As far as the issue of the additional 21 permits. It was our understanding from our 22 review of the that Statute that you would 23 have to give up those two signs in order to 24 get a double face sign to put there. So, it
117 1 may require additional investigation in 2 order to confirm. You may need to provide 3 additional information in that regard 4 because it's our reading of the Statute that 5 it would be a requirement to give up two 6 one-sided billboard signs to get a double 7 faced billboard. 8 MR. BOWMAN: That is what I am 9 proposing to both the State and the City. 10 That's exactly what I am proposing. 11 MS. KUDLA: But as far as a 12 uniqueness, for a uniqueness standard under 13 the Ordinance, it would be a requirement of 14 the State and not something that is giving 15 something up per se. 16 MR. BOWMAN: I am just saying that 17 there are existing, two existing billboards 18 that will be eliminated. Forget about 19 what's required at the State or not required 20 at the State. Those will be terminated and 21 eliminated and in favor of and in 22 replacement of a single sign. So, when this 23 process if we're successful will be 24 concluded, the result would be one sign
118 1 versus two. That's my entire point on that. 2 And I don't see any other location within 3 the community that has those same factors, 4 so that I would think would be unique. 5 MS. KUDLA: As far as an additional 6 point, the concurrent billboards, those are 7 currently non-conforming because now I-2 is 8 the only location that you could have 9 billboards. So, at some point those would 10 be, you can't expand a non-confirming use. 11 So, at some point you are looking to expand 12 a non-confirming use which is also not 13 permitted by Ordinance. 14 MR. BOWMAN: What I am looking to do, 15 again, to boil it down to the basic two 16 things that I opened up with is one, seek 17 some assistance from the community in a very 18 limited modest fashion. To install a 19 billboard along an expressway, which is 20 consistent with what's going on outside of 21 the community and is frankly, and I am not 22 sure exactly what you are talking about 23 reviewing as far as conformity or not, but 24 all of those white dots within the community
119 1 and some that are slightly outside of the 2 community are billboards of the same size or 3 larger and we are just looking to do 4 something that is consistent, proven 5 industry standard that no one I think would 6 argue with as far as the placement of it, 7 the location of it. 8 And in addition to that we are 9 going to be eliminating two, as you just 10 pointed out, older non-conforming signs that 11 will remain there for as long as they will 12 and my guess is it's going to be a 13 considerable period of time functioning as 14 they are in favor of a modern messaging 15 board that will allow us to access some 16 extremely important messaging capability to 17 shore up some dwindling attendance at a very 18 difficult time in order to try to maintain 19 the economic impact, the very positive 20 economic impact that this facility has. 21 So, I understand what you are saying, 22 but I also think that there is a little bit 23 of a more basic aspect of this request as 24 well as, I am hopeful showing some of the
120 1 more regularity hardship and uniqueness 2 aspect as well. 3 MS. KUDLA: As for a point of 4 clarification. What I mean by about review 5 is that the City has become aware of some of 6 these other signs and is reviewing right now 7 whether they are in conflict with the 8 Ordinance, and whether enforcement action 9 needs to be taken, so it may be determined 10 that these are not signs that are going to 11 be permitted in the long run. 12 MR. BOWMAN: And I don't know how to 13 respond to that nor do I know how to respond 14 to the Counsel's is reviewing things -- 15 MS. KUDLA: I guess I'm not asking you 16 for a response -- 17 MR. BOWMAN: I don't know if they are 18 in favor or not in favor. I am in a 19 position where, again, I think that what I 20 am looking to do is improve the signage that 21 is there considerably. Be more sensitive to 22 the environmental features. Be able to 23 hopefully deliver a more appropriate message 24 for the attending public and the general
121 1 public which are key and important to us 2 continuing to be successful in this 3 community. That's what I am looking to do. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 5 Mr. Wrobel? 6 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 First off, I really like the facility there 8 and with the hotel going on I think you are 9 going to do well. It's a real jewel for the 10 City of Novi and we want to do what we can 11 do to keep you prosperous, because it keeps 12 us prosperous. Though I'm curious, the new 13 sign is going to be 25 percent for your 14 events? 15 MR. BOWMAN: Correct. 16 MEMBER WROBEL: You already have a 17 sign on the expressway? 18 MR. BOWMAN: Correct. 19 MEMBER WROBEL: So, to me that's two 20 signs on the expressway for the same 21 location. I have kind of a queasy feeling 22 about that. 23 MR. BOWMAN: Well, and that's why again 24 we're not looking to take the hundred
122 1 percent. We are talking about the 2 improvement to the expressway signage aspect 3 of it versus what's there. And, frankly, if 4 you travel and in the location here there is 5 a conservation easement that we granted to 6 the State. And our existing marquis sign 7 with a much smaller reader board than 8 frankly we wanted to have approved to begin 9 with. Is not in any way, shape or form 10 effectively delivering a message for 11 eastbound traffic at all. Eastbound traffic 12 because of the topography and the distances 13 from the expressway has a view of the sign 14 for a long time, but it's not legible, it's 15 not readable. It does an effective job 16 frankly from the standpoint of letting 17 people know it's the Rock Financial 18 Showplace. It does distinctly do that. 19 But as far as delivering information. 20 And, again, I would urge you to read letters 21 and testimony and requests from the show 22 producers, our old changeable copies 23 (unintelligible) sign did a much better job. 24 Again, we're not here asking for something
123 1 gross as far as having that on constantly 2 for our usage, but I do believe it will be a 3 major improvement to the signage and it will 4 give us access to consistent rotation to let 5 people know what's going on. And we're 6 seeing a deterioration in attendance. And 7 with these economic times and we look 8 forward to making the investment that you 9 reference too. But it's all part of the 10 package and, again, there are very few 11 things that the community can do and I would 12 suggest that this one being in and amongst a 13 series of already existing signs up and down 14 that corridor it is not going to be 15 inconsistent in any way, similarly treated. 16 I think that we would just ask that we have 17 the opportunity to use that messaging. 18 MEMBER WROBEL: As I said earlier I 19 want to see your business do well there 20 because it's good for the City, but also we 21 want to do what's right for the City. And 22 now with the Ordinance Review Committee 23 talking about the changeable signs, do we 24 have any kind of a time period that we know
124 1 that something is going to be coming on 2 that? 3 MS. KUDLA: I believe it is the next 4 agenda that the issue is going to be 5 discussed at the next meeting. 6 MEMBER WROBEL: I personally would feel 7 a lot better if we would hold off on this 8 until we get the direction of what comes 9 from the City. That way we know what we're 10 dealing with. We might need variances or 11 request to do it, or we might not. I don't 12 know what they're coming out with. 13 Personally I would think it would wise on 14 both parties to wait on something like this 15 until we know what's coming from them. What 16 is your thought on that? Is that something 17 you would be willing to do? 18 MR. BOWMAN: I certainly would be at 19 this stage because I can see your point. I 20 guess it depends on how everybody is going 21 to vote. And I'm almost not tongue and 22 cheek about that because I went through a 23 process here where I have waited for a 24 considerable period of time. Since you can
125 1 even see in the June, July time frame is 2 when we first started receiving the very 3 stern written comments from our folks. And, 4 again, we're in a position that, again, 5 we're fighting for our market share. Others 6 are coming. Kalamazoo is looking to bond 7 publically a facility. Cobo is expanding. 8 Chesterfield Township is on the move and all 9 it needs is the Governor's signature. 10 So, we are looking to do whatever 11 we can to just stabilize and sustain what 12 hopes to be a positive impact, so any delay 13 in that is of concern to me. And, again, I 14 don't know what the process might hold then. 15 I know what the delays have done in the past 16 and it's something I rather not, but if 17 that's the wish of the Board, then certainly 18 I will respect that. 19 MS. KUDLA: Through the Chair, a point 20 of clarification on the timing. It might be 21 the next Ordinance Review Committee which 22 occurs in January and then the following 23 City Council meeting which occurs in 24 February.
126 1 MEMBER WROBEL: But it's right around 2 the corner basically we're looking at. 3 MS. KUDLA: It's an upcoming topic. 4 MR. BOWMAN: That would be my only 5 question. Again, knowing Ordinances at 6 least enough to be dangerous, are you saying 7 that they would actually enact some type of 8 Ordinance change by February or March or 9 something? I think there would probably 10 have to be -- 11 MS. KUDLA: I don't think there is a 12 specific time frame for an enactment, but 13 it's for the discussion is what's pending on 14 the policy. 15 MR. BOWMAN: Let me just maybe react 16 in this way. Maybe could I ask respectfully 17 that there be a vote? And regardless of 18 what the outcome of that vote, particularly 19 if it would be in a negative to me, then 20 maybe what comes from this committee could 21 yield some other clarification. But if on 22 the alternative the Board would consider 23 what I have laid out as an important enough 24 request that they would see clear to pass it
127 1 currently and now, that would obviously, 2 again, be my desire. 3 MEMBER WROBEL: Another issue I have 4 for the City and I may be a layman and not 5 know everything. So, we are talking about 6 State requirements plus the City 7 requirements. I would just like to know who 8 supercedes who? How are they intertwined? 9 What do we end up following? And I just 10 don't have that kind of information here 11 from what I could tell and I don't want to 12 make a wrong decision. I would like to know 13 exactly what the facts are before I make a 14 decision. Or is it something that I 15 shouldn't be concerned with? 16 MS. KUDLA: It's something that we 17 could put together a legal opinion as far as 18 what the State requirements are currently 19 under Statute versus what the current City 20 requirements are. 21 MEMBER WROBEL: That might be 22 something I would be interested in seeing. 23 If my feet were held to the fire today I 24 would probably vote against it from the
128 1 perspective I would want to see what's 2 coming out from the Ordinance Review 3 Committee. I don't want to jump ahead. And 4 hopefully the discussion will be in a short 5 time period. I just don't want to make the 6 leap right now. I would like to see what 7 they come up with first. Thank you, Mr. 8 Chair. 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. 10 Wrobel. Yes, Mr. Ghannam? 11 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair, 12 I do have some similar concerns as Mr. 13 Wrobel regarding some of those issues and 14 the timing of it. You understand we don't 15 write the Ordinances? 16 MR. BOWMAN: I understand. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: We are just here 18 granting variances if applicable. Because 19 there are, I'm sure cities and states 20 understand there are exceptions to the rule, 21 and that's what we give, exceptions to the 22 rule. We need to know what the rule is, 23 though, if it's upcoming. 24 I have actually got a couple of
129 1 questions beyond that. First, in terms of 2 where these existing signs are and where the 3 new proposed sign will be, who owns that 4 property? Is it your company that owns that 5 owns that property? 6 MR. BOWMAN: Yes, yes. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: Would the sign also 8 be owned by your company? 9 MR. BOWMAN: Yes, ServMan has been 10 established as an LLC, a separate and 11 independent LLC from the main ownership of 12 the Rock Financial Showplace which is TBON, 13 T-B-O-N, The Best of Novi, LLC. 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: You mentioned CBS. 15 What relationship -- 16 MR. BOWMAN: They are the outdoor 17 advertising company along with like Adams 18 and others that do the construction, 19 erection and advertising on a regular basis 20 of these types of signs and structures 21 around the country. 22 MEMBER GHANNAM: Is this sign a source 23 of revenue for your company or CBS or a 24 combination?
130 1 MR. BOWMAN: Well, predominantly for 2 CBS. There is a modest amount of base 3 rental type of a deal. We have negotiated 4 in this new arrangement, again, it's a 5 sizable investment that they would be making 6 in this. And what we are getting 7 predominantly out of that is nothing 8 significantly more than the base for the two 9 smaller signs and what we're looking for is 10 this ability to access the messaging. 11 MEMBER GHANNAM: And just a couple of 12 questions for the City. We are looking at, 13 the way I read it, five different variances? 14 Is that accurate from the proposal? 15 MS. KUDLA: It appears to be five 16 separate variances. And I believe the last 17 one is dependant on because there wasn't 18 very much information or not enough to know 19 how much the changeable proposal was or what 20 the proposal was. 21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Could we even grant 22 that today or deny that for that matter? Or 23 was that properly advertised? 24 MS. KUDLA: It's properly advertised
131 1 in that we are advertising more than what 2 they're asking for, so it would have to be 3 limited to something less than that. So, if 4 they're asking for more than what's 5 advertised they would have to be re-noticed 6 and come back. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: And in terms of the 8 one that pertains to the square footage. 9 For instance, it says there is no more than 10 15 foot in height, and I believe you 11 indicated his is 50 foot, approximately 50 12 foot in height? 13 MR. BOWMAN: Correct. 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: And then the 300 15 square footage in the area. You said one 16 side was going to be 672 and there is going 17 to be two sides. Do we include both sides as 18 part of the variance? Is it 672 times two? 19 MR. AMOLSCH: No, the back to back 20 signs we only take those the one sign, the 21 sign area. 22 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, the variance 23 would be 372 square foot? (Unintelligible). 24 MR. BOULARD: If I can jump in?
132 1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Sure. 2 MR. BOULARD: I believe the wide side 3 of of the V is approximately 30 feet. 4 MR. BOWMAN: Again I think we show two 5 different variations. One which would be a 6 back to back sign on a single mono-pole 7 approach and that's easily constructed if it 8 were to be deemed that it needed to be 9 positioned differently from the standpoint 10 of visibility or site conditions than we 11 could do a side loaded pole. Typically I 12 think those then are constructed in more of 13 a V shape. But we could do either. 14 MR. BOULARD: The reason I mentioned 15 it is because the area of the sign is 16 calculated differently depending on how far 17 the two sides are apart. If the are 18 separated by more than a certain distance. 19 If it's a triangle as opposed to just back 20 to back then at some point, in fact, if they 21 are at no point more than two feet from 22 another, the area sign is taking one face or 23 larger two, the total of the two if it's 24 more than two feet is how I understand it.
133 1 Is that correct? 2 MR. AMOLSCH: Correct. 3 MR. BOULARD: So, in this case if it 4 was the V shape configuration with 30 feet, 5 obviously that's more than the two feet, so 6 both faces would be included. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: So as part of this 8 proposal we would take 672 times two and 9 then subtract 300, and that would be the 10 variance? Does that make sense? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: If that's what was 12 proposed, yes. 13 MS. KUDLA: That would be 300 for each 14 side variance? 15 MR. AMOLSCH: Right. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: Oh, 300 per side? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: Per side on a V side 18 sign. 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, we would subtract 20 600 total? If we would take 672 times two 21 minus 600, 300 for each sign? Okay, just so 22 I get an idea. 23 Another mention is made of the 1200 24 foot distance from the other sign across the
134 1 freeway. Is that a separate variance in 2 addition to the five? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: No, that's included in 4 the -- 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: That's one of the 6 five? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, that's one of the 8 five, yes. 9 MR. BOWMAN: We could easily if that 10 truly is a major concern, we could position 11 the new sign further to the west. And spot 12 it on the west side of the property. 13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Well, I mean, all 14 variances are, of course, our concern. I 15 mean, we have to analyze these things as you 16 bring them forward. In addition to granting 17 five, one of my major concern is the policy 18 that the City might set that may be contrary 19 to what it is now. I am very unclear as to 20 that as well as potential other legal 21 issues. I also heard by the way that there 22 was some kind of moratorium on the signs 23 with the State? 24 MS. KUDLA: The State Statute, you
135 1 have to turn in your existing sign permits 2 in order to get a permit to put up another 3 billboard sign. So there is a whole section 4 of the Statute regarding what you would have 5 to do to get what permit. 6 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, even if we did 7 approve it at some point it's still subject 8 to State approval? 9 MS. KUDLA: Correct. He would have to 10 get State permits. As far as the issue of 11 the changeable copy sign, right now it is 12 prohibited for this type of sign. It's only 13 permitted on business ground sign. This is 14 not a business ground sign. So, to have a 15 changeable copy sign at this point would be 16 a variance from the current rule. And 17 what's being considered by Ordinance Review 18 Committee is specifically with respect to 19 billboards. 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: Again, I too enjoy 21 your place. And I think it's a gem for the 22 City. But in terms of these multiple issues 23 that we have, I would be in favor of either 24 tabling it until we get guidance from the
136 1 committees or the council or potentially 2 deciding against it at this point, which I 3 don't want to do without all the 4 information. That would be my comments 5 right now. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Anybody else? 7 Yes? 8 MEMBER SKELCY: I just have a 9 question. If you were given the variances 10 to have the sign what would you do with that 11 current sign which is unreadable to 12 eastbound 696? 13 MR. BOWMAN: We would leave it in 14 place. It is more, I guess, a monument sign. 15 We would also I think be able to have the 16 flexibility of having the reader board 17 deliver a much more static message and with 18 the inventory of the 25 percent on the new 19 board, it would open up a great deal of 20 flexibility and make it more useable for 21 when it is readable and viewable. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Mr. Bowman, have 24 you prepared kind of a prototype for this
137 1 site what you propose to put on it? 2 MR. BOWMAN: As far as like what it 3 looks like? 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Let me put it 5 another way. If I understand correctly, one 6 side of your sign is going to be static? 7 MR. BOWMAN: Correct. 8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The second sign, 9 25 percent of that area you are going to use 10 as the changeable copy? 11 MR. BOWMAN: No, no. And, again, the 12 prototypical model of it would be similar 13 to, in fact, identical to the Beck Road and 14 96 sign that's there. A full 14 by 48 state 15 of the art LED digital board. We would then 16 get 25 percent of the rotation of the 17 messaging on that. The other side would be 18 a static hard scaped board. And, again, 19 there is another one just to the west of 20 Wixom Road as well. So, if you wanted to 21 see them, and that's when Charles and I 22 spoke about it, he was gracious enough to 23 say that I didn't have to construct a 24 plywood mockup. I would be duct taping a
138 1 lot of TVs to it to make it a digital board. 2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I am just trying 3 to visualize what it might look like. Do you 4 have some artistic impression of anything 5 about what it's going to look like? 6 MR. BOWMAN: Well, it's already up. 7 If you go to Beck Road and 96 on the 8 eastbound ramp to 96 off of Beck Road that 9 is -- 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It is the same 11 thing? 12 MR. BOWMAN: It is the exact type of 13 structure that we would be proposing. 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So, it's not any 15 different than what you already got? 16 MR. BOWMAN: No, that's not on our 17 property. It's not on our showplace 18 property. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 Anybody else? As far as I can see, the 21 issue here is that the current signs are not 22 conforming signs. The new sign would be a 23 larger sign. And do you have a changeable 24 copy part of the Ordinance is being
139 1 reviewed? Do we have enough information 2 regarding the position of the State versus 3 that of the City? And I like this place too 4 much to outright reject this application. 5 Because the application can be performed. I 6 don't know how all of you feel, but I think 7 we should give it a lot more time and energy 8 and consider it before making a hasty 9 decision. Okay, before making a hasty 10 decision. So, I will be inclined really to 11 table this and let us look at it in little 12 more depth another time around. 13 Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 14 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 15 To staff. If we would decide to vote on it 16 and it would be voted down, then he would 17 have to come before us again and start the 18 whole process over again, correct? 19 MS. KUDLA: He would. Do we have a 20 timing requirement in our Ordinance to come 21 back on the same request? 22 MR. BOULARD: No. 23 MS. KUDLA: He could start right over. 24 MEMBER WROBEL: But it would be to his
140 1 benefit if we would table it and that way he 2 doesn't have to start it over again. We are 3 just tabling the issue until we get the 4 information we require. 5 MS. KUDLA: So, you're looking for an 6 additional legal opinion on the State versus 7 the City standard? 8 MEMBER WROBEL: If the rest of my 9 commissioners would like to see that, I 10 personally would. I don't know what their 11 feeling is. I think yes we would. I we 12 would also want to await information from 13 the Ordinance Review Committee. 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. As I said, 15 I would hate to turn it down. It's too 16 important an issue. 17 MEMBER WROBEL: I want to do what's 18 best for him. I don't want him to go through 19 the process again. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It is not just 21 Mr. Bowman here, there are a lot of other 22 implications regarding this business and the 23 different aspects of the City. I think we 24 need to be very, very careful before we turn
141 1 it down . So my feeling is that maybe we 2 should table this. And I don't know whether 3 we should go home and think about it. But 4 to me this would be the best way out at this 5 point time. 6 MR. BOWMAN: If that is certainly the 7 preference of the Board, it sounds like it 8 is, I won't object to that. And would hope 9 to have an opportunity then on a reasonably 10 objective basis to deal with the remainder 11 of the City decision makers on it. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Would anyone 13 care to entertain a motion to that affect? 14 MS. KUDLA: We could make a motion to 15 table it if you are looking to table for a 16 legal opinion. If you are looking to table 17 it for the Ordinance Review Committee, that 18 would have to be a mutual agreement of the 19 property owner. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We don't know 21 the timetable do we? 22 MS. KUDLA: We don't know the exact 23 time period. My understanding is the 24 Ordinance Review Committee is this month and
142 1 then it would be discussed by City Council 2 in February. 3 MEMBER WROBEL: If we table it, when 4 do we table it to next meeting waiting a 5 legal opinion? Or do we want to table it to 6 March when we get hopefully the opinion from 7 Council and the Review Committee? 8 MS. KUDLA: Well, we could have the 9 opinion by the next meeting. We can have a 10 legal opinion by the next meeting. So, if 11 you are going to table it any further than 12 that, it would have to be by mutual consent 13 of the parties. 14 MEMBER WROBEL: It seems like there is 15 two parts. We're looking at the legal 16 opinion and then we are waiting to see what 17 the City is going to say. And I don't want 18 to have to make you come -- 19 MR. BOWMAN: Could I get clarification 20 of what the legal opinion would be about? 21 What exactly are you looking for a legal 22 opinion on? 23 MEMBER WROBEL: I would just like to 24 compare State requirements versus the City
143 1 requirements. Who superceded who and 2 everything of that nature. 3 MR. BOWMAN: And again, unfortunately 4 I have learned too much about this stuff 5 lately. I will tell you that I believe it's 6 already been referred to. That the City is 7 able to regulate signage. And I think has 8 the ability to actually be more restrictive 9 than a State requirement. The State 10 requirement is basically, I'm not sure if 11 they refer to it as a moratorium, but I know 12 they are limited as of the date certain 13 allowed in the past, the number of signs 14 that are allowed on the expressway and major 15 thoroughfares as they call it. And that it 16 was frozen. Now those permits can be 17 transferred, moved around, bought, sold, all 18 those types of things. The only requirement 19 really that they have is a proximity 20 requirement of 1000 feet. They do not 21 recognize across the expressway as something 22 that would be conflicting with that. The 23 expressway is a barrier. And so, again, I 24 am not in any way, shape or form here
144 1 contending that the City doesn't have the 2 right to regulate signs, nor that we don't 3 need variances. I was unclear exactly as to 4 what variances we did need. And all I was 5 saying is whatever we might need to put up 6 this particular type of sign is what we're 7 asking for. And that's probably not real 8 artful or graceful, but that's what we were 9 looking for. 10 If you are looking for a concurrence 11 from me to await some determination from the 12 Ordinance Review Committee and have the 13 opportunity hopefully to actually 14 participate in those discussions and provide 15 input, I would love to have that opportunity 16 and would be willing to wait. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Then why don't I make 18 this suggestion. Why don't we table this 19 for two months. Not in February's meeting, 20 but in March's meeting by mutual agreement 21 so we can have what we need from the City 22 and hopefully you will get some input and we 23 can get some input from the City Review and 24 potentially even City Council if that's
145 1 acceptable to you? 2 MR. BOWMAN: That's fine. 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: I would go ahead to 4 make that motion to adjourn to the March 5 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals by 6 mutual agreement for the reasons we just 7 stated. 8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has been 9 made. A second? 10 MEMBER IBE: Second. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It's been 12 seconded by Mr. Ibe. Any further 13 discussion? Yes? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: Through the Chair, I 15 would like to settle the issue of exactly 16 what kind of sign you are going to be using 17 whether it's going to be a V 18 sign or single face sign? 19 MR. BOWMAN: My preference would be a 20 double faced mono-pole sign not V. 21 MR. AMOLSCH: Okay, because that's 22 what we originally reviewed because they 23 will make a difference. 24 MR. BOWMAN: The only thing I was
146 1 saying, Al, that's why I would be pleased to 2 have it subject to site visitations. Even on 3 the height I would be willing to come lower 4 if height was a major concern if we could 5 find and position it on the site. We have 6 got a half a mile of frontage to work with 7 and I'm all about putting it in the best 8 spot. And the State even suggested that 9 they would come out and have their local 10 representative work with us on that as well 11 too. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. The motion 13 has been made and seconded. And I don't see 14 any further discussion. So, will you please 15 call the roll. 16 MR. BOULARD: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: No. 18 MR. BOULARD: Member Wrobel? 19 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 20 MR. BOULARD: Member Ghannam? 21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 22 MR. BOULARD: Member Ibe? 23 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 24 MR. BOULARD: Member Krieger?
147 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MR. BOULARD: Chairman Sanghvi? 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MR. BOULARD: Member Skelcy? 5 MS. SKELCY: Yes. 6 MR. BOULARD: Motion to table or 7 adjourn until March is approved 6-1. 8 MR. BOWMAN: I thank you very much. I 9 appreciate your time. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. This 11 completes our agenda and there is no other 12 business -- 13 MEMBER WROBEL: Motion to adjourn. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion to 16 adjourn moved, so moved and is second. All 17 those in favor say aye? 18 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Meeting is 20 adjourned. Thank you. 21 (The meeting was adjourned at 22 9:41 p.m.) 23 24
148 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify 5 that I have recorded stenographically the 6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 7 above-entitled matter at the time and place 8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further 9 certify that the foregoing transcript, 10 consisting of (121) typewritten pages, is a 11 true and correct transcript of my said 12 stenographic notes. 13 14 15 16 17 18 _____________________________ 19 Mona L. Talton, 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter 21 22 January 16, 2009 23 24
|