View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, May 12, 2009

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.

Mav Sanghvi, Chairperson
Wayne Wrobel, Vice-Chairperson
Gerald Bauer
Victor Cassis
David Ghannam
Rickie Ibe
Linda Krieger
Donna Skelcy

Elizabeth Kudla, City Attorney
Stephen T. Rumple, Community Development Director

Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, May 12, 2009

3 7:00 p.m.

4 - - - - - -


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.


17 Rumple, will you please call the roll.

18 MR. RUMPLE: Member Bauer?

19 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

20 MR. RUMPLE: Chairman Sanghvi?


22 MR. RUMPLE: Member Wrobel?


24 MR. RUMPLE: Member Skelcy?






2 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ghannam?


4 MR. RUMPLE: Member Krieger?


6 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ibe?

7 MEMBER IBE: Present.

8 MR. RUMPLE: Member Cassis?


10 MR. RUMPLE: You have a full board,

11 Mr. Chairman.


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





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.


16 will delete that part --


18 approve the agenda.

19 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.


21 now we have an agenda. And go to our

22 next --

23 MEMBER CASSIS: All in favor.






1 those in favor of approving the agenda

2 please signify by saying aye?



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.





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.


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





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





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.


15 there anybody in the audience who would like

16 to address the Board regarding this case?

17 (No response.)


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.


24 right. Building Department, any comment?





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





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.


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





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.





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.


23 MEMBER BAUER: Now you can have the

24 house that you want.





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.



10 no issues with the variances requested and I

11 will support the request. Thank you.


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?





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.


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





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?





1 MS. KUDLA: No, there were some for

2 the house, but those will be replaced by

3 these new variances.


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.


14 MEMBER BAUER: That way they have no

15 problem.


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





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





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.



8 discussion?

9 (No response.)

10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Mr. Rumple, will

11 you please call the roll.

12 MR. RUMPLE: Member Bauer?


14 MR. RUMPLE: Member Cassis?


16 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ghannam?


18 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ibe?


20 MR. RUMPLE: Member Krieger?


22 MR. RUMPLE: Chairman Sanghvi?


24 MR. RUMPLE: Member Wrobel?






2 MR. RUMPLE: Motion passes unanimous.


4 of luck.

5 MR. KUBBE: Thank you.


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.


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.



23 identify yourself, give your name and

24 address for the Secretary to record and go





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





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





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.


6 MR. CAVANAUGH: Um-hum.


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





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





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.






2 Thank you very much. Anybody else?

3 (No response.)


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.


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





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.


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





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.


10 much. Yes, Mr. Wrobel?


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





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.


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.


14 question is, what happens when there is a

15 cluster of buildings?


17 question I'm trying to figure out.

18 MR. RUMPLE: It's one is my

19 understanding.


21 just be one for the whole project?

22 MR. RUMPLE: Correct.







1 at this time. Thank you.


3 Mr. Cassis?

4 MEMBER CASSIS: How many total signs

5 you want right now? Two of them?


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?


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,





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





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.





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.


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





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.





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





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





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.


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.


22 here?


24 Okay, anybody else? Yes, Mr. Ghannam?





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





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





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 --


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.


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.





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.


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





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.


23 sign is probably what we use -- we install

24 and make those all the time. Even for





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





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





1 any other questions for you, sir. Thank

2 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





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





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.



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?


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





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.





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.


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?


23 I don't want to put you on the spot or

24 anything, but we've got a similar type





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





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





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





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





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





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





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





1 future buildings would not have signage of

2 their own inside.


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





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.


7 me get in word right now and then I will let

8 you go a third time.



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





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.


23 That's what democracy is all about.

24 MEMBER CASSIS: That's what democracy





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





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.






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





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.





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.


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





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.


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





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?





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?


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?


22 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you.


24 Ghannam?





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





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





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.






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.





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?


7 MR. RUMPLE: Member Cassis?


9 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ghannam?


11 MR. RUMPLE: Member Ibe?


13 MR. RUMPLE: Member Krieger?


15 MR. RUMPLE: Chairman Sanghvi?


17 MR. RUMPLE: Member Wrobel?


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





1 now.

2 MEMBER CASSIS: I just wanted to help

3 these Applicants.


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.


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.


19 adjourn.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


22 motion has been made and seconded. All

23 those in favor of adjournment, please

24 signify by saying 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.)
























1 C E R T I F I C A T E




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.






19 _____________________________

20 Mona L. Talton,

21 Certified Shorthand Reporter



24 May 22, 2009