| 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 10 Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, May 12, 2009. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3 7:00 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Good evening. I 6 would like to call to order the May 12, 2008 7 meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals for the 8 City of Novi. 9 Would you please all rise and join me 10 and Mr. Wrobel in the pledge of allegiance. 11 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to 12 the flag of the United States of America and 13 to the Republic for which it stands, one 14 nation under God indivisible with liberty 15 and justice for all. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Mr. 17 Rumple, will you please call the roll. 18 MR. RUMPLE: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 20 MR. RUMPLE: Chairman Sanghvi? 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Here. 22 MR. RUMPLE: Member Wrobel? 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Present. 24 MR. RUMPLE: Member Skelcy?
4
1 MEMBER SKELCY: Here. 2 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ghannam? 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Here. 4 MR. RUMPLE: Member Krieger? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 6 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ibe? 7 MEMBER IBE: Present. 8 MR. RUMPLE: Member Cassis? 9 MEMBER CASSIS: Here. 10 MR. RUMPLE: You have a full board, 11 Mr. Chairman. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. So, 13 we do have a quorum and the meeting is now 14 in session. I would like to point out that 15 the rules of conduct are printed and are 16 available in the back and they are also 17 being telecast, so I am not going to go 18 through and read them all over again. 19 Just a reminder that individual 20 applicants may take up to five minutes and 21 groups can take up to 10 minutes to address 22 the Board. 23 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 24 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City
5
1 Charter to hear Applicants seeking variances 2 from the application of the Novi Zoning 3 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four 4 members to approve variances. A request and 5 a vote of majority of the members present to 6 deny a variance. Tonight we have a full 7 Board so all decisions will be final. 8 Let's look at the agenda. Are there 9 any changes in the agenda, Mr. Rumple? 10 MR. RUMPLE: No. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Do we have some 12 minutes to go through today? Because I 13 didn't see any in my packet. 14 MR. RUMPLE: I don't believe so, no. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. So, we 16 will delete that part -- 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Motion to 18 approve the agenda. 19 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. So, 21 now we have an agenda. And go to our 22 next -- 23 MEMBER CASSIS: All in favor. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. All
6
1 those in favor of approving the agenda 2 please signify by saying aye? 3 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Those opposed 5 same sign. (Unintelligible.) 6 Okay. At this point the meeting is 7 open for public remark section. Is there 8 anybody in the audience who would like to 9 address the Board regarding any topic other 10 than those two items on the agenda? 11 (No response.) 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, we 13 will close the public remark section. 14 And so, this brings us to our first 15 case. Is the Applicant for the first case 16 here? Come over to the front, please. 17 The first case is case number: 09-016 18 filed by Harry Kubbe -- I hope I'm saying it 19 the right way -- for 1300 East Lake Road. 20 And will you please be sworn in by our 21 Secretary and make your presentation. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 23 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-016? 24 MR. KUBBE: I do.
7
1 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. Is your 2 wife also? 3 MR. KUBBE: I have no idea. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Are you going to talk? 5 MRS. KUBBE: I might so I probably 6 should be sworn in too. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 8 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-016? 9 MRS. KUBBE: I do. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 Please go ahead. 13 MR. KUBBE: As the homeowner of 1300 14 East Lake Drive my wife and I are requesting 15 a variation change to allow the demolition 16 of an existing home to allow the 17 construction of a new home at that site. 18 There is two variances. The first one 19 is a side setback. Most of the lots 20 directly on Walled Lake are narrower than 21 practical for building new homes that meet 22 the Novi side setback. In my case the lot 23 is 40 foot wide so I am requesting a side 24 setback variance to construct a 26 foot wide
8
1 home. 2 My original ZBA case 08-065 was 3 originally approved for a 28 foot wide home 4 remodel of the existing home on that lot. 5 But once we got started into the detailed 6 remodel plans, it became apparent that the 7 existing foundation needed a major 8 restructuring to support the remodel 9 changes. 10 As a result of working with Novi 11 Building officials, Charles Boulard and 12 Chris Webber (ph), we feel that a better 13 solution is to tear down the existing home 14 and just start the new one from scratch. By 15 moving the footprint of the house it allows 16 larger side setbacks. This provides more 17 space between structures which resolve some 18 of the safety issues that was discussed in 19 the original request. 20 We are now graded at an 8 foot side 21 setback on the side setback on the south 22 side and created a 5 foot setback on the 23 north side of the house. The second 24 deviation is the total lot coverage. The
9
1 total lot coverage is now calculated at 33 2 percent by the City, so I am requesting an 8 3 percent variance on the total lot coverage. 4 This is not a large house. It is 5 approximately 2,200 square feet a two story 6 home. There are quite a few remodeled homes 7 in that area that would be of similar size 8 and design. The footprint is basically the 9 same as I presented in the original case, 10 that 08-065. With a small 40 foot wide lot 11 it's difficult to stay within the maximum 12 lot coverage of 25 percent. That's my 13 introduction. 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 15 there anybody in the audience who would like 16 to address the Board regarding this case? 17 (No response.) 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, I 19 would request our Secretary to see if there 20 is any correspondence. 21 MEMBER BAUER: There were 42 notices 22 mailed out. Seven returns, no response. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. All 24 right. Building Department, any comment?
10
1 MR. RUMPLE: Thank you. I would like 2 to thank the Board for allowing me to fill 3 in short notice for Charles who couldn't be 4 here this evening. 5 I would like to cover some of his 6 report without reiterating everything that 7 the Applicant stated. 8 Three variances are being requested. 9 First one is to the minimum side yard 10 setback appears to be 5.25 feet on one side. 11 And 5.75 feet on the other side. There is a 12 minimum 10 feet side yard requirement. That 13 would make the maximum variance requested at 14 4.75 feet. 15 Second variance is to the total 16 aggregate side yard setback. The 17 requirement is 25 feet. The proposed 18 aggregate of 11 feet requiring a variance at 19 14 feet. 20 The third and final variance is as the 21 Applicant stated to the maximum lot 22 coverage. Maximum requirement is 25 23 percent. The Applicant's proposal is at 33 24 percent requiring an 8 percent variance. As
11
1 stated also the Petitioner was granted 2 previous variances and as we had gone 3 through the pre-construction meeting and 4 looking at what's to be done on the site, we 5 agreed with the conditions that the 6 Applicant had stated. 7 Closed garage addition will not 8 change. Staff is supporting the request. 9 There is a minimum of 5 feet side yard 10 setback will be maintained increasing the 11 emergency access capability. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. I 13 will open the case for discussion by the 14 Board Members. Any comments by any Board 15 Members? Mr. Cassis? 16 MEMBER CASSIS: You looked at me, so I 17 go. The neighbors that you have both sides, 18 did you talk to them? Did you discuss 19 things with them? 20 MR. KUBBE: I did, yes. I talked to 21 both of them. 22 MEMBER CASSIS: What were the 23 reactions of those people? 24 MR. KUBBE: I think they are positive
12
1 in both cases. The existing house was built 2 in the '30s, '40s. It really needs to be 3 redone. And it's sitting almost on the 4 north, my north neighbor, Vincent -- or not 5 Vincent. Anyway, it's almost on his 6 property line like three inches off. So, he 7 is very happy that we are moving it over. 8 MEMBER CASSIS: Is he probably glad to 9 see that taking place. You know, I 10 appreciate what you are doing. You looked 11 at that house, you saw that it's not in good 12 shape. And I value your courage. You must 13 be doing okay to erect the house, demolish 14 it and build a new one. You said it's like 15 about 2,200 square feet? 16 MR. KUBBE: Yes. 17 MEMBER CASSIS: While you don't have 18 any design I can see some design here. No 19 specifics that will now be elaborated upon? 20 MR. KUBBE: No, we have continued the 21 planning process and it is unchanged from 22 what I presented at the point when I 23 submitted it. We just have more detail in 24 the planning now.
13
1 MEMBER CASSIS: As far as I am 2 concerned I think this is a step in a better 3 direction for that area. I think it will 4 elevate the values of your neighbors. 5 Certainly that area around the lake has had 6 the renaissance of new people coming in and 7 taking the initiative to upgrade everything. 8 So, as far as I am concerned, these 9 variances you are asking for are, number 10 one, not too exaggerated, not too far out of 11 the question. And, second of all, they are 12 actually enhancing the present situation. 13 What there is right now and why they are not 14 self inflicted or what have you, coming from 15 someone who could have done better, I think 16 this ZBA is also here to see some kind of 17 approach to really give some, you know, 18 quality to certain petitioners to really 19 improve their situation. So, I will be 20 voting for it. 21 MR. KUBBE: Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Now you can have the 24 house that you want.
14
1 MR. KUBBE: Right, exactly. 2 MEMBER BAUER: And not only that, you 3 are bringing in more taxes for the city. I 4 think it's a good idea of what you are 5 doing. I think you will come out a lot 6 better than what you did before. Go ahead. 7 MR. KUBBE: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I too have 10 no issues with the variances requested and I 11 will support the request. Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. 13 Ghannam? 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 15 Sir, I also support your request. I just 16 have one question for the City. With the 17 variances that we granted them in the other 18 case, the 08 case, can we or should we 19 terminate those variances? We wouldn't want 20 that being in addition to these if any were 21 different. 22 MS. KUDLA: Was there a presentation 23 or were they granted? Or were they just 24 proposed and coming back?
15
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Well, according to 2 our sheet it said there were about three to 3 four variances that were granted. 4 MS. KUDLA: We can put it on the 5 record that this is replacing those 6 variances. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: And I assume you 8 would have no problem with that? 9 MR. KUBBE: No, no. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't remember 11 exactly what they were but whatever they 12 were, this would be not in addition to those 13 but in replacement of those. You 14 understand? 15 MR. KUBBE: For the house part of it, 16 yes. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. I don't have 18 any other questions. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: In that presentation 21 before did that include the garage being 22 increased? 23 MR. KUBBE: Yes. 24 MEMBER BAUER: We got to make that
16
1 change. Because you want to do away with 2 the whole case, but we gave them a right to 3 go ahead with a larger garage. 4 MS. KUDLA: So, there is going to be a 5 garage separate from the house, separate 6 area to be maintained for those -- 7 MR. KUBBE: Yes. 8 MS. KUDLA: So, we need to accept from 9 that that the previous variances granted 10 with respect to the garage still remains 11 valid. 12 MEMBER CASSIS: But, Mr. Chairman, 13 isn't this a totally new request? 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, it is a new 15 request. 16 MEMBER CASSIS: So, really, I don't 17 know, it depends on our attorney. But I 18 don't think there is any need for separating 19 a garage. 20 MS. KUDLA: The garage isn't changing 21 is my understanding, so those variances will 22 just stay in place. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: Were they all for the 24 garage?
17
1 MS. KUDLA: No, there were some for 2 the house, but those will be replaced by 3 these new variances. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Do you really 5 think it is necessary to void the previous 6 variances? Then we can make a motion for us 7 to do that -- 8 MS. KUDLA: That's not necessary. I 9 don't think a motion has to be made. I 10 think that the understanding on the record 11 of the Applicant acknowledging that these 12 replace the former variances is good enough. 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 14 MEMBER BAUER: That way they have no 15 problem. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's right. 17 Anybody else? Anybody volunteering to make 18 a motion? 19 MEMBER CASSIS: I haven't been 20 practicing making motions on the ZBA, so 21 maybe my colleague will. You go first. 22 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll be happy to. I 23 will go ahead and move in case number: 24 09-016 filed by Harry Kubbe for 1300 East
18
1 Lake Road I would move to approve the 2 Applicant's variance requested as stated in 3 the application with the understanding that 4 as they pertain to the, as these variances 5 pertain to the home, the previous one 6 granted in the 08-065 case would be replaced 7 by these. And certainly we would exclude 8 any variances that were previously granted 9 as to the garage, those would remain in 10 place. 11 I move to approve this one as 12 presented because I think you have met our 13 standards, sir. I think that certainly the 14 variance will provide substantial justice to 15 you and the surrounding property owners in 16 the district. There are unique 17 circumstances regarding this property 18 because it is on the lake. These are small 19 lots. We have seen a number of these and 20 our current codes wouldn't necessarily apply 21 strictly to these smaller lots because they 22 are not self created, you didn't create 23 these. The City did years ago. There would 24 be no issue with land and air as provided to
19
1 adjacent properties. No increase of fire, 2 danger or public safety. Property values 3 will not diminish. In fact, I think they 4 would increase. And certainly the spirit of 5 the Zoning Ordinance would be observed. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Any further 8 discussion? 9 (No response.) 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Mr. Rumple, will 11 you please call the roll. 12 MR. RUMPLE: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MR. RUMPLE: Member Cassis? 15 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 16 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ghannam? 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 18 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ibe? 19 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 20 MR. RUMPLE: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MR. RUMPLE: Chairman Sanghvi? 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MR. RUMPLE: Member Wrobel?
20
1 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 2 MR. RUMPLE: Motion passes unanimous. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Best 4 of luck. 5 MR. KUBBE: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. All 7 right, we will move on to the next case. 8 Coming on to case number: 09-017 at 44050 9 Twelve Mile Road, Stoneridge Office Park. 10 The Applicant is here. 11 Are you gentlemen, any of you 12 attorneys? 13 MR. CAVANAUGH: No, sir. 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, then, will 16 you please be sworn in by our Secretary and 17 then make your presentation. Thank you. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 19 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-017? 20 MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes, I do. 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. 22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Will you 23 identify yourself, give your name and 24 address for the Secretary to record and go
21
1 ahead. 2 Good evening, ladies and gentleman. 3 My name is Pat Cavanaugh. I represent 4 Shannon Development, the builder of the 5 Stoneridge Office Park. We have had several 6 meetings with the City Departments, with 7 Alan in an attempt to try to resolve what we 8 think is our specific issue. He recommended 9 that we petition and then come before you. 10 The property located on Twelve Mile 11 Road has a frontal berm and plantings which 12 make the existing 22,000 feet and three 13 office buildings, soon to be or hopefully 14 soon to be 50,000 feet or seven buildings, 15 they are not visible from the highway. This 16 is a condo development of a total of 50,000 17 feet with a possible 25 condominium units of 18 2,000 square feet each. 19 In this issue we are not dealing with 20 renters, we are dealing with business 21 buyers. As you are aware they all would 22 like their own recognition. We find that we 23 can't work within the ground sign Ordinance 24 and we secondly have a difficulty even in
22
1 the setback just by the nature and 2 configuration of the site. 3 We went at Alan's request and we 4 toured the city trying to find something 5 that we thought would fit for us. We keyed 6 off the Keystone Medical Building to the 7 west of us and that's basically the criteria 8 of the size of the signage. We think we're 9 reaching a compromise on that issue. We 10 certainly can't accommodate 25 2,000 square 11 foot condominium unit owners on that kind of 12 signage. So, we had to make a delineation 13 and say that those buyers that buy more than 14 that are going to have the first signage 15 rights. 16 So, secondly, we derived a plan. We 17 specifically built the boulder front of the 18 project and called it Stoneridge hoping to 19 overcome some of the problems with the berm 20 whereas it would be street identification 21 where a business owner could identify 22 himself as in the Stoneridge Office Park. 23 With that in mind we are now 24 requesting a second sign which simply is the
23
1 identification of a park. Again our goal 2 there is to satisfy the larger unit buyers 3 and to also accommodate recognition for a 4 smaller condominium owner. 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's it? 6 MR. CAVANAUGH: Um-hum. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 8 there anybody in the audience who would like 9 to address the Board regarding this case? 10 Would you please come forward, identify 11 yourself, give your name and address and be 12 sworn in by our Secretary. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your 14 right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell 15 the truth regarding case 09-017? 16 MR. HERTZBERG (ph): Yes, I do. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 18 MR. HERTZBERG: My name is Michael 19 Hertzberg. I am the only owner in the 20 occupied building within Stoneridge Office 21 Park. He have been there for about 10 22 months nows. Myself as the owner of the 23 leasing agent represent the five businesses 24 located within the facility that's occupied
24
1 there. Over the past 10 months our patients 2 and clients have had incredible difficulty 3 finding our location. We have twice had the 4 fire department in our parking lot trying to 5 determine addresses while responding to 6 calls. The need for signage is quite 7 imperative. 8 Mr. Cavanaugh along with ASI Signs has 9 put together a simple yet productive signage 10 proposal. The sign that is being requested, 11 the entrance to the property is very similar 12 in size to that of Keystone Medical Group 13 west of us on Twelve Mile. It provides 14 enough room for business names as the 15 project continues to progress and fill in. 16 It's clean, it's organized and informative. 17 Mr. Cavanaugh has also asked for a 18 signage on the east side of the property. 19 This area of land is a nice piece. It's 20 tree hill side and very visible from the 21 road. Due to the necessary location of the 22 marquee directly at the entrance, this sign 23 will be very helpful for our patients and 24 clients and future clients of businesses
25
1 arriving at Stoneridge. It would provide 2 quite a bit of warning before the marquee 3 coming up which is located just past the 4 driveway. 5 My discussions with Mr. Cavanaugh 6 indicate that if approved the sign will be 7 surrounded by some nice landscaping and 8 such. Stoneridge itself is somewhat hidden 9 by the berm along Twelve Mile and I strongly 10 feel the signage and the surrounding area 11 would help exemplify the beauty of the 12 project and the site that it sits on. 13 I ask of you this evening to allow the 14 signage as proposed to be approved. We need 15 to have the signage. It would really help 16 our business and our patients. Ten months 17 without signage has been very trying for 18 myself and our tenants in our building. We 19 are trying to conduct business in tough 20 times and the lack of signage is not 21 helping. The plan put before you tonight is 22 a very viable solution to the signage 23 challenges that we are facing at Stoneridge. 24 Thank you very much.
26
1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 Thank you very much. Anybody else? 3 (No response.) 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, 5 Mr. Secretary, would you kindly read any 6 correspondence that you have regarding this 7 case? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, there were 189 9 notices mailed, 32 returned, one response. 10 It was an objection from Kathy Gallagher. 11 She states: I am opposed to this variance 12 request by ASI due to the current zoning 13 regulations. We already have too much 14 clutter in this area of Novi. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 Building Department, any comments from you? 17 MR. RUMPLE: Yes, again without 18 reiterating everything the Applicant has 19 stated, I do agree with their request as 20 submitted. However, staff not supporting 21 their request as a failure to grant relief 22 will not unreasonably prevent or limit the 23 use of the property and will result in 24 substantially more than a mere inconvenience
27
1 or inability to attain a higher economic or 2 financial return. 3 The business that is referenced is the 4 Keystone Medical which was a similar 5 project. Keystone was granted variances to 6 an oversized ground sign including tenant 7 identification. However, the wall sign was 8 allowed by (unintelligible) as the structure 9 exceeds 40,000 square feet which is allowed 10 by the Ordinance. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Open 12 it up to the Board now for discussion. 13 Thank you. Go ahead. 14 MR. RUMPLE: I'm sorry, if I could add 15 one more comment. I was out looking at the 16 mockup sign tonight, and one additional 17 concern I do have is the sign that's located 18 at the entryway appears to block pedestrian 19 access coming down. There is not much 20 sidewalk there now, but there will be in the 21 future and my concern is that it's going to 22 block visibility. If somebody comes driving 23 down there in a quick motion it might 24 interfere with vehicular traffic. I don't
28
1 know if that's the exact spot. I am 2 assuming they got it close. But I don't 3 know if that's the exact spot. If a 4 variance is granted for that, I would 5 suggest that we look at that and have the 6 ability to possibly move it back just a 7 little bit just to open up that site 8 distance to the west. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you very 10 much. Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you, 12 Mr. Chair. Mr. Rumple, can you just refresh 13 my memory. What type of signage is each 14 individual building allowed in this type of 15 development for each occupant? 16 MR. RUMPLE: It's my understanding 17 that there is one side allowed. So, the 18 second sign that's being requested, there is 19 one sign allowed. The size is based on the 20 setback. Basically it's one square foot of 21 signage for every two feet of setback with 22 110 feet of setback. It puts them at 55 23 square feet of signage. They are requesting 24 75 square feet, thus the 20 square feet
29
1 variance request, the first variance. And 2 that's all the signage that they are 3 allowed. 4 The second sign at 64 square feet, all 5 of that would require a variance as well. 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: But the 7 first sign is that for the entire lot 8 property or is that for each individual 9 condominium building for that sign? 10 MR. RUMPLE: Ordinance states that no 11 building or parcel of land shall be allowed 12 more than one sign. 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yeah, but the 14 question is, what happens when there is a 15 cluster of buildings? 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: That's the 17 question I'm trying to figure out. 18 MR. RUMPLE: It's one is my 19 understanding. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: It would 21 just be one for the whole project? 22 MR. RUMPLE: Correct. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: That's all
30
1 at this time. Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 3 Mr. Cassis? 4 MEMBER CASSIS: How many total signs 5 you want right now? Two of them? 6 MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes. 7 MEMBER CASSIS: You have one already 8 there? 9 MR. CAVANAUGH: No, we had the project 10 sign which we removed. We're simply looking 11 for a directory -- 12 MEMBER CASSIS: There are no signs 13 now? 14 MR. CAVANAUGH: No. 15 MEMBER CASSIS: Why are you not able 16 to put one sign with all the names of the 17 perspective incoming tenants? 18 MR. CAVANAUGH: It can't be read. The 19 size of the tenant's name becomes miniscule 20 and the sign just doesn't work. I recognize 21 what the Ordinance says. I wouldn't attempt 22 to argue Ordinance, but I think this office 23 condo development is certainly not the first 24 of its kind in your community. But, again,
31
1 the basic issue of landowners or, you know, 2 business owners who want some kind of 3 signage identification. But it's one sign. 4 We went to, again, the signage down 5 the street simply so we could, you know, 6 have a possibility of 16 names which, I 7 don't know what the size is can be read from 8 a passing automobile. 9 MEMBER CASSIS: Whether identification 10 can be read or not, you can come again and 11 petition for a certain sign to give you 12 enough visibility for all the tenants. So, 13 that's the separate thing. What I am trying 14 to say is this, two signs are not allowed 15 under our Ordinance. If we allow you two 16 signs, then we allow everyone down the line 17 two signs and, therefore, we would have all 18 these -- 19 MR. CAVANAUGH: Once again bringing up 20 the example of Keystone. They have a large 21 illuminated sign on the building, plus the 22 monument sign in the front. Henry Ford has a 23 monument sign in front. 24 MEMBER CASSIS: I am familiar with
32
1 that and our director here addressed the 2 situation. The situation is different. 3 That is one building that is a 40,000 square 4 foot building. We gave them that exception 5 to put something on the building. This is 6 totally different. You are going to put two 7 signs right on the road and, in fact, one of 8 them, and I drove by just like our director 9 did, and there seems to be that we need to 10 even have any sign that we would grant you 11 with identification and so on which I would 12 recommend instead of having two signs, will 13 have to be placed in a certain way that it 14 will not interfere with traffic of people 15 walking by. 16 So, as our director said, my opinion 17 is two signs are two too many. I would be 18 entertaining a one sign. And, in fact, if 19 you drive by our commercial properties, our 20 multiple commercial buildings that have 21 several, like Pineridge, for instance, right 22 around here, Ten Mile and Novi Road, they 23 have one sign with all the names of the 24 tenants even in the commercial side of it.
33
1 If you go even across the street from 2 Twelve Oaks Mall, the Jorgenson Center, a 3 big sign and you see now big it is. That 4 center is huge. And we are allowing them 5 one sign with the tenants name on it. So, 6 really we are not giving you anything that 7 is extraordinary or anything that is really 8 against you only. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, in this 10 situation I am working with Alan as far as 11 way finding, we tried to attack this in a 12 safe way with the berm so you cannot see, 13 unlike Keystone which is a huge building 14 that you can see, you can't see these 15 buildings and you are looking to try to find 16 an address, trying to look to where you are 17 going. So, we thought driving westbound we 18 would catch the clients and customers with a 19 nice professional Stoneridge Office Park 20 delineating where you are going before you 21 actually got to the entranceway to properly, 22 you know, have a sign that you could see. 23 But by the time you got to that entranceway 24 it's almost too late if you just wanted to
34
1 have one sign. 2 We thought we would catch them coming 3 to the sign and then each tenant, you know, 4 needs to have their own address, where they 5 are going to kind of confirm that. 6 MR. CAVANAUGH: We can address the 7 issue of a larger sign, but we really do 8 have configuration problems as to with 9 regard to the sidewalk, the amount of 10 distance we have between the wall and then 11 the height of the wall as to where to put 12 this sign. That's why we chose the entrance 13 sign. 14 Secondly, and again, not to argue with 15 the Ordinance or whatever, but there will be 16 50,000 square feet of building here. It's 17 seven buildings, it's individual condo 18 units. The project was built in mind that 19 people are going to buy and it was the real 20 estate, they would invest in a business, but 21 it would be real estate. And that's 22 specifically why we built single story 23 buildings where they could have their own 24 identification and their own entranceway.
35
1 I am not going to argue. Again, this 2 concept is rather new. My point is, I 3 don't, from my perspective I don't see where 4 giving me that second sign is going to set a 5 precedent for anybody because of one 6 building. I think the other consideration 7 has to come in that these are condo units 8 and there really is 50,000 square feet of 9 building. 10 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Rumple, you have 11 seen where the sign would be there and now 12 as it is and you had the same problem I did 13 with its location. Isn't there a way we can 14 accommodate these people by placing a larger 15 sign for them with the identification of the 16 different tenants in a certain way at that 17 site that will help them out and accommodate 18 them as far as where to place the sign? 19 MR. RUMPLE: I think in all cases the 20 sign needs to be moved back to some degree. 21 However, I don't think that you are going to 22 come up with a sign where you can list all 23 the tenants at the front and have somebody 24 read that at the speeds posted on that
36
1 street without coming to a near stop. I 2 think the idea of the Ordinance is based on 3 having a center sign to where people can be 4 directed to this development, Stoneridge 5 Development within there and once they are 6 inside they can be directed to the 7 individual door fronts. 8 MEMBER CASSIS: You know, I agree with 9 you, Mr. Rumple, because whoever takes a 10 condo there and buys a condo, through their 11 literature and through their announcements 12 and through their letter, you know, where 13 they send to their customers and so on, that 14 is the avenue I would say by which they can 15 identify where they are. 16 Number one, that would say we are at 17 such and such center and this is the 18 address. And I don't know with speeds like 19 that, first, they are going to have to turn, 20 the customer will turn their attention to 21 one huge sign in the beginning and then he 22 has to wait to see another sign. I mean, 23 even logistically I don't know if that is 24 achievable to a good extent that every
37
1 customer coming in there will really know 2 where everybody is. If you know what I'm 3 saying. 4 MR. RUMPLE: Yes. 5 MEMBER CASSIS: Do you agree with my 6 logic? 7 MR. RUMPLE: Um-hum. 8 MEMBER CASSIS: And even with two 9 signs that they are saying, it's going to be 10 cumbersome for someone coming in to really, 11 first of all, see the big sign for the 12 center and then identify whoever is in that 13 center. So, this is as far as I am going to 14 go at this time. So, I would yield the 15 floor. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 17 Would you kindly put a copy of your sign 18 there on the projector so people can see and 19 also people at home can see what we are 20 talking about. The one you got here. 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This one 22 here? 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. Thank you. 24 Okay, anybody else? Yes, Mr. Ghannam?
38
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 I just had a couple of questions. Does 3 their argument about the 50,000 total square 4 feet of the entire project have any bearing 5 on what signs that they are allowed? 6 MR. RUMPLE: I think it's an argument, 7 but that's not how the Ordinance was 8 written. I believe it's written that way 9 for a reason. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: How is it written in 11 terms of how it would apply to them? 12 MR. RUMPLE: It would not. It's my 13 understanding that the individual building 14 itself that it would be about 40,000 square 15 feet to qualify for that sign. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: Just a couple of 17 questions for you, sir, or either one of 18 you. The sign that you have up on the 19 projector right now, let's assume that you 20 are only given that particular sign, you are 21 only allowed that sign. Would that help 22 this whole project? I mean, if you had all 23 these tenants listed and the addresses 24 below, does that really help given the size
39
1 and the nature of the lettering and so 2 forth? 3 MR. CAVANAUGH: Once again we came in 4 good faith with what we thought was 5 something to accommodate. We didn't think 6 we were that far out of sync with the -- 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: I am not debating 8 that. I am just saying for the sake of our 9 -- 10 MR. CAVANAUGH: Not that size sign. 11 MEMBER GHANNAM: Well, that size and 12 that type with the lettering as opposed to 13 one sign that says Stoneridge Office Park or 14 whatever, that particular sign with tenants 15 on there, addresses, is that something 16 that's -- 17 MR. CAVANAUGH: That's essential. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: That's essential. Is 19 that something that you think can be seen 20 from the roadway and people will pay 21 attention to, given the speeds and the 22 nature of traffic on Twelve Mile? 23 MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes. And, again, not 24 to continue my argument. The location of
40
1 that which is really dictated by, again, the 2 configuration, the berm of the overall 3 project. It was recommended that we have 4 another sign. And, again, we also have a 5 decel lane there which as they see the 6 Stoneridge and come through the decel lane, 7 there is the tenant roster. At that point 8 they are not coming by full speed if, in 9 fact, they are coming into the complex. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Would that particular 11 sign be written on both sides with tenant 12 names and addresses -- 13 MR. CAVANAUGH: No. 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: Just the one, right? 15 MR. CAVANAUGH: Just the one. Again, 16 with the boulevard the way it is, et cetera, 17 again, we are just trying to work around the 18 existing conditions we have on the 19 boulevard. 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think the 21 Ordinance when it was written had in mind 22 one large building. I don't know of any 23 examples that have seven separate buildings 24 that the Ordinance addresses.
41
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: The reason why I 2 asked the question about this particular 3 sign is because I thought I heard in your 4 presentation you said something to the 5 effect that this alone would not be helpful 6 because people would not be able to read the 7 names at given speeds and the nature of the 8 road. I thought I heard you say that. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was more 10 like -- initially we tried to combine 11 everything into one sign and to get 12 Stoneridge big enough that you know where 13 you are at as well as have the tenants and 14 the address on one sign. It turned out that 15 it's safer and better to have a plat 16 identification or a site identification. 17 Then they decel, they confirm their address. 18 The doctor that they are there to see and 19 then they turn in and everybody is happy. 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand more 21 signage is better for all businesses, but 22 you have to understand, you are trying to 23 come with an exception -- actually two 24 exceptions to two different rules and that's
42
1 what we are struggling with. Whether to get 2 a larger sign that you are entitled to on 3 the one end and then an additional sign. 4 MR. CAVANAUGH: We seem to be caught 5 in the one building rule I guess. 6 MEMBER GHANNAM: That's what I am 7 trying to figure out. Is this going to be 8 that much more? What is this sign the one 9 that you have on the projector? How much of 10 a difference is that going to make and why 11 should that meet our standards for the 12 exception to the sign Ordinance? 13 MR. CAVANAUGH: And I guess to answer 14 that we would have to come back before with 15 you a single sign proposal. And I don't 16 think -- once, again, we keyed off of 17 something we saw trying to stay within -- we 18 really didn't understand that we were going 19 to get into a real problem with the second 20 sign in the one building Ordinance. We 21 thought that was a compromise. 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tenant I.D. 23 sign is probably what we use -- we install 24 and make those all the time. Even for
43
1 Keystone they have tenant and I.D. signs as 2 well as -- I mean, they could easily just 3 say, well, come to Keystone and then get 4 inside and then there is a directory. 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't debate that. 6 You are entitled to a sign within a certain 7 parameter. The question is why should you 8 be entitled to a larger sign and then a 9 second sign? That's what I'm struggling 10 with. 11 MR. CAVANAUGH: We're trying to 12 accommodate -- I am trying to accommodate 13 those condo owners. It's a little different 14 wrinkle, but obviously they are looking with 15 their investment, et cetera as taxpayers 16 they are looking for their maximum signage 17 exposure. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: One of the things we 19 look at as an example are the features of 20 this particular property exceptional and 21 unique that do not result in conditions that 22 are found generally throughout the city as 23 an example. This is the way this whole 24 complex was designed and you got to know
44
1 going in you are entitled to one sign within 2 certain parameters. 3 I am just trying to find out how is 4 this exceptional. 5 MR. CAVANAUGH: Well, I have got to go 6 back and key into your Ordinance again, in 7 saying that we thought the second sign was 8 applicable. But now the Ordinance says only 9 one building 40,000 to 50,000 feet is 10 acceptable for major signage such as the 11 Keystone property has, but our square 12 footage doesn't matter it's the concept of 13 building. So, that's certainly where I see 14 the difference here. And, you know, again, 15 I am kind of babbling here because I am 16 shocked that I am not allowed the same with 17 the second sign. If that's the way it's got 18 to be and then -- and now there is 19 consideration for a larger sign, I guess we 20 address that. We didn't come here this 21 evening to argue. We put a lot of thought 22 in it and we thought it was the best way to 23 do it as you heard us talk about this. 24 MEMBER GHANNAM: Okay. I don't have
45
1 any other questions for you, sir. Thank 2 you. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 4 Anybody else? While you are thinking about 5 saying something. To me the issue that the 6 Ordinance has dealt with the issue of a 7 complex of buildings rather than a single 8 building and a single sign. A land of 9 parcel when you have one single land of 10 parcel and you have seven different 11 buildings, different tenants requiring 12 identification, whether the same rule 13 applies to that or one single building. I 14 haven't seen anywhere in the Ordinance which 15 covers this kind of issue with the seven 16 different buildings in the same complex. 17 This is where the issue of interpretation 18 comes. 19 From my way of thinking, even though 20 this is not one single building, but if it 21 were one single building it would be an 22 enormous project by itself to justify a 23 larger sign and identification of the 24 individual owners of these condos. Because
46
1 they are all different individual owners 2 here in the condos, they are not tenants so 3 there is a difference. 4 When you are investing $250,000 or 5 whatever it is in an office space, if it's 6 part of your business you want that business 7 to be identified and recognized. And, so, 8 this is something I don't think is really 9 discussed and covered under any Ordinance 10 around here. Am I right in thinking that 11 way or what is your opinion, Counsel? 12 MS. KUDLA: As far as how the 13 Ordinance is set up, I don't have any other 14 provision than what we have set forth in the 15 agenda packet. If you want to look at this 16 and consider it as an interpretation rather 17 than a variance, we would have to renotice 18 it and come back for an interpretation 19 rather than a variance request. 20 I guess what I would consider right 21 now is if it was interpreted the way that he 22 is suggesting, how would that change the 23 request today? And would it change the 24 request today? If not, maybe we should just
47
1 proceed on the requested variance. If it 2 would change then it might be worthwhile for 3 the Applicant to come back with a different 4 kind of request for an interpretation rather 5 than a variance. 6 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chair? 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Cassis? 8 MEMBER CASSIS: May I interrupt you? 9 I believe, and Mr. Rumple can remind me here 10 if I am correct or not. But on the Planning 11 Commission we did handle the industrial 12 zoning in a way and I think my colleague, 13 Wayne, may remember that, whereby we allowed 14 under the industrial zoning, we allowed a 15 sign in the front and then each building had 16 its own signage. Am I right, Wayne? 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I believe 18 so, yes. 19 MEMBER CASSIS: Didn't we handle 20 something like that? 21 MR. WROBEL: Yeah, several times I 22 think. 23 MEMBER CASSIS: A couple of years ago? 24 But it begs the problem here, it begs the
48
1 situation which we are under the different 2 zoning. We are now under an office zoning. 3 So, I would suggest, and I don't know if I 4 would be okay or not, I would suggest that 5 do we have -- we might have to go to the 6 Planning Commission for some implementation, 7 committee consideration of maybe altering 8 that Ordinance or changing the Ordinance 9 under the office condo situation and see 10 whether the Planning Commission would go 11 along with some change or not. 12 Mr. Rumple, what do you think? 13 MR. RUMPLE: I think there was a 14 comprehensive review of the Sign Ordinance a 15 couple of years ago and again a couple of 16 years before that for changes made to 17 increase the allowed signage. I know the 18 Ordinance Review Committee Council looked at 19 that or it went through them. I suppose 20 that could be requested that they do that 21 again. I would be concerned that we're 22 changing our sign Ordinance every couple of 23 years because it's my opinion that people 24 are always going to ask for more signage.
49
1 We had a similar request across the 2 street from a tenant that wanted to go 3 (unintelligible). Everybody in the center 4 across the street, those large developments 5 could make the same argument that they all 6 want their individual signs out on the road. 7 And it's my understanding and opinion that 8 Council made some fairly, they looked at it 9 fairly closely and they made some fairly 10 decisive decisions. But that's not to say 11 that it can't be looked at again if you 12 will. 13 MR. CASSIS: It's just a suggestion. 14 And I wouldn't know how the process would go 15 whether it would go through the Planning 16 Commission or whether just the City Council. 17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That is a 18 solution for a future problem. The current 19 issue at hand is interpretation of our 20 current Ordinances and to go by them. 21 Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Mr. Rumple, 23 I don't want to put you on the spot or 24 anything, but we've got a similar type
50
1 development on 11 Mile Road just west of 2 Meadowbrook. And do you offhand happen to 3 know what kind of signage they have applied 4 for and what they have or if they have 5 requested any variances? I don't remember 6 anything. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Excuse me. Don't they 8 just have a sign for the center and each 9 building has their own address on it? So, 10 it's a destination. It's under this group 11 of companies. But here is Stoneridge and 12 then each building would have an address. 13 MR. RUMPLE: I believe that's correct. 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: They would have 15 individual addresses in this case too. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: May I ask a specific 17 question, Mr. Chair? 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, go ahead. 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: For our counsel, does 20 that mean, if I read this Section 28-5(3), 21 that each building within this complex would 22 be entitled to a sign? 23 MS. KUDLA: Under a wall sign? 24 MEMBER GHANNAM: Well, it's reads: No
51
1 building or parcel of land shall be allowed 2 more than one sign permitted under this 3 section. So, would each building be 4 entitled to one sign within this complex? 5 MS. KUDLA: Multiple businesses. If 6 it's multiple businesses -- 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: (Unintelligible.) 8 MS. KUDLA: I would have to review it 9 and interpret it. We haven't had this 10 question come up with multiple buildings 11 rather than multiple businesses with 12 separate entrances. This is a different 13 question here. 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yeah, you are right. 15 I think what I am struggling with is, this 16 section states and this is the only thing we 17 have been provided in addition to the size 18 of the signs, no building or parcel of land 19 shall be allowed more than one sign 20 permitted in the section. So, is the City 21 looking at it like this is one contiguous 22 parcel of land and you get one sign? 23 MS. KUDLA: Well, no building. It's 24 not one contiguous parcel. Once the
52
1 condominium subdivision (unintelligible) was 2 filed, they all got different parcel I.D.s. 3 So, all these buildings are different 4 parcels. 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, how is it that 6 they can apply for a sign in the way they 7 are doing it? Would this apply to a 8 particular parcel where they are proposing 9 these signs to be on? 10 MS. KUDLA: I think the language that 11 they are looking at is the building section. 12 I think that would be an interpretational 13 question, a question of interpretation 14 because technically this is not one parcel 15 of land anymore once the condominium 16 subdivision plan was recorded. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Presumably each 18 building or even maybe a part of the 19 building, but it's subdivided? 20 MS. KUDLA: Right. So, this might not 21 be the most appropriate section to be 22 referring to. 23 MR. RUMPLE: If I may. Except I think 24 where these signs are, these signs aren't
53
1 being asked to be put on the individual 2 condo units. These are probably where they 3 are located in the general common element 4 areas maybe. Where these particular ones 5 are being asked for probably constitutes one 6 parcel. 7 MR. CAVANAUGH: Actually what Alan 8 told us was there was a conflict. I don't 9 want to put words in his mouth, but there 10 was this issue that, in fact, each 11 condominium was a parcel and now we've got a 12 right to individual signage. So, it was no 13 reason to come here as a game. 14 But, secondly, he also told us that 15 any of the signs within this park which 16 cannot be seen from the quote unquote 17 "aren't considered signs" because there is 18 no view from the street. 19 MR. RUMPLE: And I think that gets 20 back to staff's recommendation and the basis 21 for recommendation in that you get a center 22 sign, it gets people into the center and 23 then they have their signage within the 24 center for their identification. Maybe it's
54
1 not considered a sign, it gets them to the 2 right door to walk into and the right 3 building. They are trying to interpret all 4 that. 5 MR. CAVANAUGH: Going back to those 6 individuals putting down their money to be 7 owners, I know how that doesn't fit into the 8 Ordinance necessarily, but I think this 9 issue of condo ownership, and Michael I am 10 sure wants to raise his name because he 11 wants identification at the street for his 12 business. 13 MR. HERTZBERG: If I may, you brought 14 up a point, this sign as it appears on the 15 board here is not visible at traffic speed. 16 When I pull in and I come from the west in 17 the morning, when I come to the Michigan 18 left I am very able to see that sign. The 19 second sign is proposed on the hillside 20 would be able to be seen from people coming 21 from the east. 22 Is there a use for this sign? 23 Absolutely. The problem that I foresee if 24 that's the only sign on the site is that
55
1 there is two electrical poles that stand in 2 front of it. If you push it further back 3 it's going to block it even further. So, if 4 that's the only signage that we are going to 5 be able to rely on on the property, it's not 6 a very useful sign for me as a business 7 owner or for the clients that are coming to 8 it. 9 A sign if it was only there is going 10 to be blocked by some visibility. And quite 11 frankly at highway speed or at traffic speed 12 people are going to pass it before they see 13 it. Or the sign if we just put it on the 14 east side of the property alone someone 15 coming from the west making that U turn 16 wouldn't see it at all. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Do we have to delve 18 into the question as to whether these two 19 signs are on two different parcels or does 20 that make a difference? 21 MS. KUDLA: It's going to make an 22 interpretative difference, I guess, because 23 of the specific terms in the Ordinance. But 24 I think, what we are probably looking at is
56
1 that they are not on a unit. They are 2 probably in a general common element. 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, that would be 4 considered one parcel? 5 MS. KUDLA: Yeah. I don't know if you 6 could confirm whether it's on a general 7 common element or on a unit from your 8 knowledge? 9 MR. CAVANAUGH: No, it would be the 10 general common -- I mean, the units are the 11 units. The rest of it is condominium 12 general elements. 13 MR. HERTZBERG: I think what we're 14 looking for, if these signs are granted the 15 way they are, it would eliminate any future 16 owners -- I know myself, I don't care to 17 have a sign on the building. Once somebody 18 is in there they are in there. An address 19 is easy to find once you are within a 40 20 square foot area. To me, Mr. Cavanaugh 21 obviously has more presence on the project 22 than I do, but I would assume that these 23 signs would be the signage for the property 24 and a precedent would be set forth that the
57
1 future buildings would not have signage of 2 their own inside. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Ms. 4 Krieger? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: I didn't know how 6 complicated this was going to get. But when 7 I -- trying to think about it I guess as an 8 office area with multiple complexes or I 9 think about Novi Town Center which has, when 10 you think of Novi Town Center there is Oris 11 (ph) in there. There is Oberweis. They 12 have the coffee shop. They have two street 13 frontages so that's why they have two signs. 14 Otherwise if, depending on the frontage that 15 they would have the one sign that when I 16 actually drove this from coming west to east 17 you can't identify it. From east to west I 18 did catch the one on the berm, but as the 19 leaves fill in that sign is going to 20 disappear, so, the berm is the difficulty in 21 visualizing it, so it would have to be a 22 destination area. And whoever is coming 23 there that they are going to know this is 24 where I have to go. I need a little bit of
58
1 direction. When I see the sign I know I'm 2 there. And then once I get in there find 3 out which building I need to be at. 4 So, that's my perspective at this 5 point. 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Let 7 me get in word right now and then I will let 8 you go a third time. 9 MEMBER CASSIS: Sure. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: My 11 interpretation is very simple. This is a 12 complex, it's almost like a mini subdivision 13 of office buildings. And you have a first 14 big sign which identified the subdivision is 15 the big sign you have already got now. Now 16 we are talking about identifying who are 17 different people in that subdivision so to 18 speak, and this is because it is a business 19 subdivision that the different businesses 20 need to be identified and different people 21 who own these different businesses also I 22 believe have a right to be identified in 23 front to know that they are inside. Because 24 some of these building are so far away and
59
1 they are never going to be visible from 2 Twelve Mile Road under any circumstances, 3 they need an identification in front. So, 4 from looking from that point of view I have 5 no difficulty in supporting their 6 application. 7 The only question is the location of 8 that sign, that issue Mr. Rumple has raised 9 about where it is. And the thing to do is 10 we are to find an equitable way of putting 11 this sign in the ground in such a way that 12 it doesn't interfere or cause any safety 13 hazard. These are only two issues as far as 14 I can see. 15 Go ahead, Mr. Cassis. 16 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman, you know 17 how much I care for you and I respect you -- 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I know all that, 19 yes, very much so. 20 MEMBER CASSIS: For many, many years. 21 But I hate to disagree with. 22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's okay. 23 That's what democracy is all about. 24 MEMBER CASSIS: That's what democracy
60
1 is all about. But we are dealing with a 2 situation that number one, there is an 3 Ordinance, and I don't know if this 4 particular statement that David was quoting 5 as far as this section is concerned is the 6 only thing we would be looking at. We would 7 have to look at the entire section, that's 8 number one. 9 Number two, you know, a park can 10 become like 14, 15, 16 condos. Are you 11 willing to accommodate the sign that is 50 12 feet by 50 feet so that people can read 13 every individual tenant at certain speeds? 14 It becomes a ridiculous thing. Under our 15 Ordinance for the I-1, we did do something 16 like this, you put a sign in the front for 17 the common condo of all of the industrial 18 uses. Then each building will have its own 19 sign right in the front. A monument sign to 20 identify the number, address and who it is. 21 This way you couldn't have put it more 22 clearly, and I was searching for a way to 23 put it but you just summarized it very 24 clearly. And what she said is, this should
61
1 be a destination. 2 That sign is a destination of a 3 complex of different outfits. That sign 4 will say this is Stoneridge Office Park. 5 And then each condo should be sending 6 letters, sending identification, all kinds 7 of addresses and so on to their customers 8 and so on. So that as soon as they come to 9 Stoneridge Office Park they know where they 10 are and then they proceed. 11 But to carry it to 14, 15, 16 12 different condo people and then allow them 13 where their individual building is and 14 allowing them another sign, you are carrying 15 yourself into three signs now because each 16 condo will have to show the identification 17 of that particular building, of that 18 particular condo. So you will have two in 19 the front and one on each building. Which 20 carries it to another level. So, I think we 21 need to put a certain limitation as to how 22 far we can carry this. And this is my 23 opinion. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I agree.
62
1 MS. KUDLA: From a legal perspective 2 down here, we have been looking through the 3 Ordinance and I think we do have some 4 clarification in that this issue was 5 considered when the Ordinance was put 6 together. If you jump from that Section 3 7 number of on-premises advertising signs 8 permitted where it says no building or 9 parcel of land shall be allowed more than 10 one sign permitted under this section. You 11 need to -- then parcel of land is defined 12 with respect to condominium units, if you go 13 back to the definition section. Parcel of 14 land means a unit of contiguous real 15 property under a common ownership where 16 property is divided into condominium units. 17 Such unit shall not be treated as separate 18 parcels of land for purposes of this chapter 19 except for individual units that have been 20 the subject of separate approved site plans 21 complying in all respects with City Zoning 22 Ordinances. 23 Let me give you an example. A 24 separate, that would be like a site
63
1 condominium project like Beck north where we 2 have individual site condominiums that came 3 back for review of each individual site. 4 We're not talking about something that was 5 all one site plan together which this one 6 was a single site plan. So, this issue was 7 considered when the Ordinance was put 8 together and the Ordinance will treat this 9 as one single parcel. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, that means 11 technically this entire project would be 12 entitled to one sign? 13 MS. KUDLA: Correct. It's subject to 14 that Section 3. 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand that 16 now. That was very important to me. 17 MR. CAVANAUGH: Was that an office 18 condominium or was that written for 19 residential condominiums? 20 MS. KUDLA: For condominiums. I mean, 21 it doesn't distinguish residential or 22 office. It's the definition of parcel of 23 land. 24 MR. CAVANAUGH: No, I hear you.
64
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: If I could make a 2 statement. To me that makes a difference 3 because I don't think they would have, first 4 of all, signs on residential condos, I mean, 5 no one is going to advertise their house. 6 On these types of condos if this entire 7 project is considered one parcel of land and 8 technically one sign, to me that's very 9 burdensome for you. To me that would 10 support your need for an additional sign. 11 If you were entitled to one sign up 12 front and then 25 signs in the park, that 13 may be overburdensome in terms of adding a 14 second sign on the street. If this is going 15 to be their only shot at some 16 identification, to me that made a difference 17 in considering your request and I think I 18 would lean in that favor. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 20 Mr. Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: I think you are going 22 to find out that the individual condominiums 23 or units will have an address, but they will 24 also have a name. Every one of them. So, I
65
1 don't think we can go under that basis. 2 MR. CAVANAUGH: As the developer of 3 the condominium I dictate what will or won't 4 happen within the body of the condominium. 5 And the signage we're proposing will be the 6 only signage. There is within, there will 7 be a monument sign in front of the 8 individual buildings. But once, again, we 9 didn't bring any of that detail because we 10 were told it's not considered signage since 11 it's not anywhere near the road. Without 12 belittling it. 13 I mean, when we interview perspective 14 buyers and we heard from Mr. Hertzberg, 15 signage is an issue, period. We are trying 16 to accommodate condo ownership. 17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good. 18 Thank you. Yes, Ms. Skelcy? 19 MEMBER SKELCY: I just have a question 20 about the number of openings on that sign 21 that's up on the screen right now. There 22 are 16 slots, are you only going to have 16 23 condo owners in that unit? 24 MR. CAVANAUGH: Obviously the project
66
1 is not complete. There are 25 units as 2 platted. For instance, Michael bought three 3 units, that's 6,000 square feet of space. 4 So, we came to a point that, again, trying 5 to adhere to the Ordinance. The bigger the 6 sign trying to accommodate we didn't know 7 how many. So we settled on 16 that the 8 amount of people, the physicians that have 9 interest are bigger users. The market is 10 four and six and eight thousand square foot 11 buyers. 12 So, we fashioned a sign at a possible 13 16. And, again, went to the other 14 subdivision sign, if you will, in order to 15 accommodate if, in fact, there are a smaller 16 2000 square foot unit, et cetera. 17 MR. HERTZBERG: If I may, I think 18 there is 25 units, we have three. So, it's 19 22 on the market, so to speak. The 20 likelihood of having 22 people buy 2,000 21 square feet of space is pretty slim. Is it 22 a possibility? Absolutely. 23 Even though it's three years, have you 24 had anybody look at just 2,000 square feet?
67
1 MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes, but our typical 2 interested buyers are larger than 2,000 3 square feet at this point. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: When I drove by the 5 sign will it stay the color that the mockup 6 is, that tan color? 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's actually 8 going to be a little darker than that. That 9 was the sub straight for the mockup. It is 10 slated to be similar in color. 11 MR. HERTZBERG: That sign was also 12 sitting outside on the ground for about 45 13 days before it got to be erected, so the 14 weather has caused some change in color to 15 it. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: And then the berm area 17 is common area where the Stoneridge, the 18 larger sign is located, that's the common 19 area on your property at the top of the 20 hill? 21 MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. 24 Ghannam?
68
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 Again, I don't want to beat a dead horse. 3 You made a statement that as a developer in 4 the condo documents you can dictate what the 5 co-owners can do within your unit. I would 6 agree, however, as long as it's not contrary 7 to the City Ordinances regarding the sign. 8 For instance, you can allow them, but if the 9 City Ordinance says no, then these owners 10 would not be allowed. But if it was the 11 other way around and we allowed them as in 12 this difference of opinion we might have, 13 but if your condo documents restrict them, 14 certainly you would be I'm sure able to 15 enforce that. What do your condo documents 16 say with regard to signage or does it say 17 anything with regard to signage? 18 MR. CAVANAUGH: Specifically I would 19 have to read it. The reason I made that 20 statement was that if there was some sort of 21 agreement here based on my restriction that 22 would settle the issue with the two proposed 23 signage that I would be willing to do that. 24 MEMBER GHANNAM: Willing to restrict
69
1 the owners within the unit? 2 MR. CAVANAUGH: Yeah. In general I 3 have signage control. I don't know what the 4 specific language is. 5 MR. HERTZBERG: And as far as the 6 association document goes, we're really not 7 too involved in it. At this point if the 8 City request that we change the document to 9 meet the Ordinances that you are enforcing 10 we can do that easy. 11 MEMBER GHANNAM: As a co-owner would 12 you want to do that? 13 MR. HERTZBERG: I have no issue with 14 it. I think that the signage as proposed is 15 going to be very helpful to us as a 16 business. That's really aside from a little 17 sign just maybe right in front of the 18 building indicating what we are, we have 19 stickers in the windows is lettered that way 20 I have no need for additional signage. 21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you. 22 MS. KUDLA: I have a point of then 23 further question if we are delving into the 24 question of the master deed and the
70
1 restriction. Mr. Cavanaugh had indicated 2 that you would have control over what goes 3 on in there as far as wall signs by virtue 4 of the master deed documents, but my 5 question is -- that would only be until you 6 are no longer a co-owner and all the units 7 are sold, then that area of the condominium 8 comes under control of the association who 9 can amend the condo documents. So, I guess 10 that would be my only stipulation to add to 11 that. 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: That's true. 13 MR. HERTZBERG: But if we are amending 14 the document to match the Ordinance wouldn't 15 the Ordinance then have to be challenged to 16 go against that? 17 MS. KUDLA: I don't know that 18 prohibiting a wall sign wouldn't be in 19 conflict -- wall signs would be permitted by 20 Ordinance. So, if you are going to say wall 21 signs are prohibited, that would not 22 conflict with what the Ordinance is. 23 MR. HERTZBERG: I understand. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. Well, I
71
1 think we have had a generous discussion here 2 and different points of view, and time has 3 come to take some decisions. If you are 4 able I would entertain some kind of motion 5 and let's go from there. So, anybody 6 willing to volunteer to make a motion? 7 Nobody? 8 MEMBER CASSIS: I will make a simple 9 motion and I don't know if I would be 10 abiding by all the ZBA rules, but I would 11 really decline -- In case number: 09-017, 12 44050 Twelve Mile Road, Stoneridge Office 13 Park. In that case I would deny their 14 request based, number one, that it is 15 contrary to our Ordinance in effect. It's 16 actually a self inflicted situation here. I 17 don't think it will enhance any desires on 18 the Applicant's sign to really improve any 19 of the conditions that were given relief in 20 this kind of a situation as that multiple 21 signs will not really address that 22 particular situation that he is asking for 23 relief. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Second it.
72
1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has been 2 made and seconded. Is there any further 3 discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Rumple, will 4 you call the roll, please. 5 MR. RUMPLE: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 MR. RUMPLE: Member Cassis? 8 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 9 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ghannam? 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: No. 11 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ibe? 12 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 13 MR. RUMPLE: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 MR. RUMPLE: Chairman Sanghvi? 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: No. 17 MR. RUMPLE: Member Wrobel? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 19 MR. RUMPLE: Motion passes 5-2. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Well, the motion 21 has been made. 22 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman, if I may 23 say something? 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The time is over
73
1 now. 2 MEMBER CASSIS: I just wanted to help 3 these Applicants. 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yeah, but once 5 the motion is done I think we are done with 6 the process unfortunately. This is how the 7 system is. 8 Well, we talked it out and you heard 9 what happened. 10 MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Sorry. Thank 12 you. And that seems to be the final 13 business of today. 14 Is there any other business to come 15 before the Board? If nobody has any further 16 business then we will entertain a motion to 17 adjourn. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Motion to 19 adjourn. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. The 22 motion has been made and seconded. All 23 those in favor of adjournment, please 24 signify by saying aye.
74
1 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All opposed same 3 sign. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. 4 (The meeting was adjourned at 5 8:17 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
75
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 5 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify 6 that I have recorded stenographically the 7 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 8 above-entitled matter at the time and place 9 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further 10 certify that the foregoing transcript, 11 consisting of (61) typewritten pages, is a 12 true and correct transcript of my said 13 stenographic notes. 14 15 16 17 18 19 _____________________________ 20 Mona L. Talton, 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter 22 23 24 May 22, 2009
|