[00:00:04]
>> MINE BURNED DOWN NOT LAST SUMMER, BUT THE SUMMER BEFORE IT IN JACKSON.
>> OKAY. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS SHE'S NOW GOING THROUGH WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT?
>> WE ARE GOOD TO GO, WE ARE ROOM SO LET ME STOP THE, [INAUDIBLE] LET ME GET TO MY PAPER SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2024.
IT IS OFFICIALLY 6: 30, AND I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
WE WILL START WITH THE ROLL CALL. SO MEMBER BENNETT.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER TWO ON OUR AGENDA,
[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]
WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS REGARDING AGENDA THIS EVENING OR ANYTHING THAT NEEDS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION? I THINK IT LOOKED GOOD TO ME.
I DON'T SEE ANY NEED FOR. WHAT'S THAT?
>> THERE WE GO. I DON'T SEE ANY NEED FOR ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOTION TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
THIS IS A VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. MEMBER BENNETT.
>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES SO TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS APPROVED.
MOVING ON TO THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 20, 2024.
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER THOSE.I KNOW I DID BRIEFLY, BUT IT LOOKED LIKE YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB IN LIEU OF HAVING A BARE BONES GROUP WITH YOU.
ANY CONVERSATION OR CONCERN, ANY CORRECTIONS NECESSARY? YES. MEMBER KAINICK.
>> COUPLE THAT I SAW UNDER NUMBER ONE CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
THE VERY FIRST THING SAYS CHAIRMAN SOR, I DON'T BELIEVE SHE WAS THERE.
>> AT THE VERY END, IT SAYS ALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND THEN MEMBER FIELD FOSTER.
>> OKAY. MEMBER FIELD FOSTER NO LONGER BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY TWO THINGS I SAW IT LOOKED LIKE YOU GUYS DID A FANTASTIC JOB.
>> IN MY ABSENCE AND BEING THAT I WASN'T HERE.
I CAN'T, OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST THINGS YOU GUYS SAID SO EVEN THOUGH I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, I'M GOING TO PROBABLY ABSTAIN FROM VOTING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ORIGINALLY HAD SAID WHEN YOU WERE HERE.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT I DID HEAR THE FIRST TIME AROUND.
>> I MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
>> THIS WOULD BE A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED FROM MARCH 20, 2024 MEETING. MEMBER BENNETT.
>> I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING.
>> THE CHAIR WOULD ALSO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING.
BUT WE HAVE A THREE YESES, SO THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 20 ARE APPROVED.
MOVING ON WE HAVE NO COMMUNICATION AND NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
WELL WE'LL GET DIRECTLY INTO NEW BUSINESS,
[6.A. ZBA CASE NO. 24-04 (2810 Hannah), Metro Detroit Signs, 11444 Kaltz Ave., Warren, MI 48089]
WHICH BRINGS US TO CASE NUMBER 2404 AT 2810 HANNAH METRO DETROIT SIGNS, 11444 KALTZ AVENUE, MAREN, MICHIGAN, 48089.MR. CHAPMAN, WHAT ARE YOU GOT FOR US TODAY?
>> GOOD EVENING. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ADD TWO WALL SIGNS AT 2810 HANNAH BOULEVARD.
ONE OF THESE WALL SIGNS DOES NOT MEET THE SIZE REQUIREMENT AND ONE DOESN'T MEET THE LOCATION REQUIREMENT ON THE BUILDING FACADE.
THE SITE IS 8.39 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ZONED RP SEARCH PARK.
THERE WAS A VARIANCE GRANTED IN 1999 TO ALLOW 844 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN ON THE WEST FACADE WHERE ONLY ONE SIGN WAS PERMITTED ON THE FRONT SOUTH FACADE.
IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, A BUILD OR A SIGN FACING HANNAH ON THE FRONT FACADE.
HOWEVER, I DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT SIGN.
UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, THE SUBJECT SITE IS PERMITTED TO HAVE ONE WALL SIGN ON THE FRONT FACADE THAT CANNOT EXCEED 40 SQUARE FEET.
[00:05:03]
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL TWO WALL SIGNS THAT READ BIG B COFFEE SQB SLANTING.ONE ON THE WEST FACADE, ONE ON THE SOUTH FACADE.
THE SIGN ON THE WEST FACADE IS PROPOSED TO BE 160.9 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, AND THE SIGN ON THE SOUTH FACADE IS 133 SQUARE FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 93 SQUARE FEET FOR A WALL SIGN ON THE SOUTH FACADE AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE WEST FACADE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN.
WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? ASSUMING, THAT'S YOU [LAUGHTER] COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM HERE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, SIR.
>> IT'S WILLIAM COLLINS, 9165 LAKEVIEW COURT, SALINE MICHIGAN 48176.
>> GOT YOU. NO, I CLEARLY MISHEARD SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I ADDRESSED YOU CORRECTLY.
THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS. ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE CASE THIS EVENING THAT MR. CHAPMAN WAS ASKING?
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK, AND I THINK YOU JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION WHETHER YOU HAD A PACKAGE SHOWING THE PROPOSED SIGNS.
I THINK FROM THE SIZE STANDPOINT, IF YOU HAVE THE PACKAGE IN FRONT OF YOU, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR 40 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WOULD ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 8 BY 5 SQUARE FOOT SIGN.
THE ELEVATIONS THAT OUR PROPOSED SIGNS ARE GOING ON, ONE IS OVER 400 FEET LONG AND THE OTHER IS ALMOST 300, I BELIEVE.
AS WE LOOK AT THE SCALING, AND YOU LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPORTION OF SIGNAGE TO WALL LENGTH IS APPROPRIATE AND ALLOWS FOR VISIBILITY OF THOSE SIGNS.
AS FAR AS I THINK THE OTHER VARIANCE FOR LOCATION.
>> I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS.
>> THE SIGN ON WHERE THE ENTRANCES WAS PERMITTED BY THE VARIANCE.
BUT SOMEHOW WHEN IT BECAME SUBURBANIZE, THE SIGN THAT IS ON THE FACADE FACING HANNAH.
>> APPEARED AND I DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF THAT.
>> SURELY YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED.
>> I UNDERSTAND. AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS SIGNS ON WHAT WE CONSIDER THE MOST VISIBLE ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING.
THE ELEVATION FACING HANNAH, AND THEN THE ELEVATION RIGHT OVER THE ENTRANCE TO THE ARENA.
>> MR. COLLINS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO STAY AT THE PODIUM, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US.
IF THERE ARE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO ADD, OTHERWISE, WE'LL GO GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME AND LIKELY HAVE QUESTIONS THAT WE'LL BE ASKING IN THAT CAPACITY.
>> IF NOBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS CASE, THERE IS NOBODY ELSE IN OUR AUDIENCE, SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE INTO BOARD TIME.
AT THIS POINT, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS ANY QUESTIONS WE MAY HAVE FOR MR. CHAPMAN OR MR. COLLINS AND WHAT WE'RE FEELING ABOUT THIS VARIANCE IN PARTICULAR.
I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO ANYBODY WHO HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SINCE CURRENT CODE ONLY PROVIDES FOR A SINGLE SIGN ON THE SOUTH FACIDE.
TO ME, HIS REQUEST REQUIRE TWO VARIANCES FOR THAT, TO ADD A SECOND SIGN AS WELL AS THE SIZE.
>> BUT HE IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
>> BUT HE'S ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE WEST FACIDE AND A VARIANCE FOR THE SIZE ON THE SOUTH FACIDE.
THERE'S ALREADY A SIGN ON THE SOUTH FACIDE.
THE SOUTH FACIDE WAS NEVER APPROVED, SO THAT DOESN'T COUNT.
>> THAT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF IT EVER BEING.
>> THE FACIDE THERE, IT JUST GETS TO STAY, REGARDLESS.
WE'RE AT A GRAY AREA OF THE SIGN IS ALREADY THERE, IT HASN'T BEEN NECESSARILY APPROVED BUT IT'S THERE.
>> NOW THAT THEY'RE CHANGING IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY TO OUR ORDINANCE.
EVEN THE SIGN ON THE WEST FACIDE, BECAUSE IT'S COMING DOWN, IT'S A DIFFERENT SIZE THAN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE.
THEY'RE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE FOR IT.
>> DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MEMBER TREZISE? DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE?
>> IT DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION.
[LAUGHTER] GIVE ME NEW QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.
[00:10:03]
>> I SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENFORCE AND TAKE THAT SIGN DOWN IF WE CHOSE TO.
>> THAT'S WHAT YIELDS INTO MY QUESTION, WHICH IS, IF THIS IS A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP.
>> I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THAT.
>> THANK YOU. BECAUSE THAT JUST HELPS GUIDE BECAUSE AS WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS, ALSO WE KNOW THAT THESE VARIANCES GO WITH THE BUILDING TO THE NEXT OWNERSHIP.
IF WE HAVE A SIGN THERE THAT'S NOT APPROVED, IF THAT'S COMING DOWN, THAT DOES.
>> BECAUSE THEY'RE CHANGING THE NAME AND WITH THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, THEN THEY'RE REQUIRED TO COMPLY.
>> THEY'RE REQUIRED TO COMPLY SO THIS IS PART OF THAT COMING TO COMPLIANCE.
>> IF THEY CAME BACK AND WANTED TO ADD A SIGN REPLACING THE ONE THAT'S THERE, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER VARIANCE.
>> ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING AND UNDERSTANDING, AND PLEASE, MR. COLLINS, CONFIRM THAT FOR ME, IS THAT THIS SIGN IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THAT SIGN BUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH BEING APPROVED. DOES THAT SOUND CORRECT?
>> ARE YOU SPEAKING DOWN THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE SUBURBAN ICE SIGN IS COMING DOWN.
>> THAT SIGN RIGHT THERE REPLACES IT.
IT'S ONLY ONE SIGN AS OPPOSED TO TWO ON THAT.
>> ON THAT ELEVATION, CORRECT.
>> ON THAT ELEVATION. THAT CLEARS UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> TO MAKE SURE I HEARD CORRECTLY, THE SUBURBAN ICE SIGN IS COMING DOWN?
>> THEN THE BIG SIGN IS GOING UP AND IT'S GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE IN TERMS OF SIZE?
>> THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS.
>> THE VARIANCE IS FOR SIZE ON THAT ELEVATION.
THE FIRST VARIANCE. THERE'S TWO.
>> IS THIS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE?
>> NO SIGN CURRENTLY ON THIS ELEVATION.
>> GOT IT. THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S GOING IN THE FRONT ENTRANCE.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE THERE? I KNOW THERE'S NO SIGN THERE BUT THE VARIANCE IS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THIS ONE TOO?
THAT WAS THE VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED IN 1999.
WE HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT SIGN SO THAT SIGN IS GOOD ENOUGH.
IF THEY WANTED TO, THEY COULD COME IN AND REPLACE THAT SIGN WITH THE EXACT SAME SIZE OF THE SIGN THAT'S THERE.
>> WEST ELEVATION IS SIZE AS WELL. BOTH ARE SIZE.
>> WELL, IF YOU'RE ALLOWING IT THEORETICALLY, YOU'RE PERMITTING THE SIZE AS WELL.
>> IF WE'RE ALLOWING BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS THAT CLEAR AS MUD? [LAUGHTER]
>> BECAUSE IF IT WAS APPROVED IN WHAT YEAR?
>> BECAUSE IT'S LARGER THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED.
>> GOT YOU. THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT.
>> THAT MAKES MORE SENSE. THANK YOU.
>> WHAT'S THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE FOR SIZE? OR WAS IT FOR LOCATION?
>> AS IS, LOCATION IS [OVERLAPPING] BUT SIZE.
ANOTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SOUTH ELEVATION SIGN.
WHAT IS PERMITTED ON THAT? AS THE ORDINANCE STANDS, ONE SIGN IS PERMITTED, CORRECT? IT IS PERMITTED TO BE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION.
>> IT'S 40. WHAT IS THE 40 SQUARE FEET BASED ON?
>> THAT'S OUR RESEARCH PARK SIZE.
>> IT'S NOT LIKE COMMERCIAL WHERE IT'S BASED ON LINEAL FOOTAGE.
>> I'M GOING TO JUST SAY I CAN ALREADY MEET UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE WHILE THIS IS RESEARCH-ZONED, WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS BEING USED FOR, ESPECIALLY BEING THE ICE ARENA IN THE AREA FOR ALL THE SPORTS THAT HAPPENED THERE.
[00:15:03]
ALTHOUGH WE CANNOT STRICTLY MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THAT BUSINESS IN THAT BUILDING AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW, IT CAN TRANSFER OWNERSHIPS, IT CAN TRANSFER USE.THIS FACILITY IN AND OF ITSELF IS BEING USED FOR A DIFFERENT THING NECESSARILY THAN THE RESEARCH PARK ZONE WOULD ALLOW IT FOR.
TO ME, I FEEL LIKE I CAN MEET THAT.
>> I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE THERE IS THAT IT IS SUCH A LARGE BUILDING.
>> IT IS VERY LARGE. IT IS A VERY [OVERLAPPING].
>> NOMINALLY IN A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OR RESEARCH PARK AREA.
I THINK THAT IN AND OF ITSELF, THE SIGN, AND I WILL PUT BLINDERS ON TO THE EXISTING SIGN THAT DOESN'T COMPLY AND DOESN'T HAVE A VARIANCE TO SAY THAT LOOKING AT EVEN THE ELEVATION HERE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, IT STILL IS NOT ECLIPSING ANYTHING IN THAT AREA TO THE POINT WHERE IT WOULD BE, I'D SAY, AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
I CAN ALREADY MEET A COUPLE OF OUR CRITERIA.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FOR MR. CHAPMAN? YES.
>> ONE QUESTION FOR MR. COHEN.
HAS ANYONE EVER COMPLAINED TO EITHER THE PREVIOUS SIGNER THAT DRIVE ALONG THAT COULDN'T SEE THE SIGNS IN THE BUILDING? ESPECIALLY THE ONE BY THE ENTRANCE.
>> BOY, I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT, NO.
>> I FIGURED YOU DID. [LAUGHTER]
GOING TO TWO EVENTS AND GOING TO BIRTHDAY PARTIES THERE AND GOING, WHERE DO I TURN? I DON'T GO THERE FREQUENTLY SO ANY TIME I HAPPEN, IT HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE, IS THAT EIGHT? HOW DID IT GET IN THERE?
>> 8*5, TAKE THAT MERIDIAN SIGN OVER THERE AND SPLIT THAT AND HAVE VERTICALLY.
TAKE THE HALF AND TURN IT. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH AN 8*5.
>> IT'S A PRETTY GOOD SIZED SIGN STILL.
I DO AGREE WITH MEMBER TREZISE, IT'S A MASSIVE BUILDING AND IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ME TO HAVE THE TWO SIGNS BECAUSE YOU GOT TWO DIFFERENT ENTRANCES THERE.
YOU GOT SOMEBODY COMING FROM THE SOUTH SIDE THAT AREN'T GOING TO SEE THE SIGN ON THE WEST.
YOU GOT PEOPLE COMING ON HANNAH THAT BY THE TIME THEY WERE TO SEE THE SIGN ON THE FRONT, THEY ALREADY PASSED THE ENTRANCE OF THAT BUILDING.
>> I DON'T THINK THE WEST SIGN IS EVEN VISIBLE FROM HANNAH.
>> IT'S PROBABLY [OVERLAPPING]. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW [OVERLAPPING].
>> I PERSONALLY DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH.
I HAD THE SAME TYPE OF QUESTIONS AS FAR AS HOW MANY VARIANCES AND ALL THAT STUFF AND GOOD TO KNOW THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT.
THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM FOR ANOTHER DAY.
>> BUT IF A NEW OWNER IS MAKING IT RIGHT, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHERE I CAN FIND COMFORT AND THAT IT'S BEING CORRECTED AND IT'S BEING TAKEN CARE OF AND HANDLED IN THE PROPER WAY THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS, AND THROUGH BUILDING AND PLANNING AND THEN THROUGH US.
THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY AND THAT'S WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
>> NOT THAT IT'S PART OF THIS VARIANCE BUT WE'RE ALSO REDOING THE ENTIRE INTERIOR.
NEW PAINT. WE PURCHASED THREE RINGS.
ANN ARBOR ICE CUBE, IF ANYONE'S FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
>> I'M THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES A WEEK.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE INTERIOR SIGNAGE BUT, MY GOSH, IT LOOKS BETTER THAN IT DID IN 20 YEARS.
WE'LL BE DOING THE SAME THING HERE.
>> THAT'S GREAT. THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR.
>> BLESS YOU. [LAUGHTER] WELL, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR RIGHT OFF THE BAT, MEMBER TREZISE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE SOUTH FACIDE.
>> YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WEST?
>> THE WEST FACIDE SEEMS LIKE AN AWFUL LARGE SIGN.
>> IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD ANYWAY.
A SIGN THERE IS NECESSARY TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT'S INSIDE THE BUILDING AT THE ENTRANCE.
BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE AN AWFUL LARGE SIGN BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK ON THE DRAWING.
>> WHEN I LOOK AT THAT BOTTOM ELEVATION DRAWING OF THE SIGN VERSUS THE FRONTAGE OF THE ENTIRETY OF THAT BUILDING, AGAIN, I THINK, LOOKING AT 42 FEET IS ONE NUMBER, AND THEN YOU LOOK AT WHERE 42 FEET FITS IN ON THE ACTUAL ELEVATION AND IT FEELS LIKE, WELL, OKAY. THAT'S A BIG BUILDING.
>> BUT THAT IS THE ONLY ENTRANCE IN THE BUILDING.
>> THE REST OF THE BUILDING IS PRETTY MUCH BLANK SO I DON'T FIND IT INTRUSIVE.
[00:20:01]
IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A BIG ASK.WHEN I SAW THAT NUMBER, IT DOES SEEM LIKE A REALLY LARGE SIGN. YES, MEMBER KENAN.
>> BUILDING OFF WHAT MEMBER TRICE IS SAYING, WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT OF MOVING THAT SIGN HIGHER ON THAT WALL SO PEOPLE COULD SEE IT BETTER? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE FEET ABOVE THE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL THAT, THE COVER OF THE DOORWAY?
>> WELL, THERE'S DIFFERENT MATERIALS ON THAT WALL OR, AT LEAST, THEY'RE POSITIONED DIFFERENTLY.
IF YOU GO UP JUST A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, YOU GET INTO A DIFFERENT BACKING.
WE THOUGHT WE'D KEEP IT JUST ABOVE, IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE DOORS ARE. GO AHEAD.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT HERE BUT THIS IS A LOWER ELEVATION THAN THE REST OF THE BUILDING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] TO BE BACK. THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> BACK BEHIND THE PARAPET ALMOST.
>> THAT DOES MAKE SENSE. THE LOCATION OF IT FOR SURE DOES.
>> THERE'S NOT REALLY AN EASY WAY TO SEE IT.
>> NO, BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN THINK OF TREES.
LITTLE BIT. A COUPLE OF TREES.
>> THERE WE GO. IT'S GOT A FEW DIFFERENT HEIGHTS THERE.
>> THAT'S LIKE 40, 50 FEET BACK BEYOND THE ORIGINAL ROOFLINE.
>> IT'S HARD TO SEE IT FROM THAT FLAT.
>> THE ENTRANCE ACTUALLY IS RIGHT OVER HERE SO IT DROPS DOWN EVEN MORE.
>> I DO GET WHAT MEMBER TREZISE IS SAYING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THAT BEING THAT 42 FOOT SIGN BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS WILL GO WITH SO BIG ICE CUBE TURNS INTO SUBURBAN AGAIN AND IT'LL BE SUBURBAN AGAIN BUT I DO THINK IN THE SPIRIT OF THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE BUILDING IN THIS PARTICULAR FACIDE, IT DOESN'T FEEL EXCESSIVE IN CONTEXT.
IT FEELS EXCESSIVE BY NUMBER BUT MAYBE NOT IN CONTEXT OF THE BUILDING, TO ME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AS WE ARE TAKING A LOOK? WE'LL TRY TO GET INTO OUR CRITERIA AND SEE IF WE CAN MEET OUR FIVE CRITERIA.
CRITERIA NUMBER 1 EXISTS THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.
THIS IS ONE THAT I CAN MEET PRETTY EASILY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> I THINK, AND ESPECIALLY FROM ANNA, THE PARKING LOT IN BETWEEN THE OFFSET MAKES IT ARE PRETTY LONG WAYS TO THE BUILDING, SO IT IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.
>> THAT BEING A BOULEVARDED STREET AND BEING THE WAY THAT TRAFFIC RUNS ON THAT ROAD ALSO DOES MAKE FOR A PARTICULAR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THERE.
I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA PRETTY EASILY.
CRITERIA NUMBER 2 IS STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.
>> I THINK DEFINITELY BECAUSE IT'S A BUSINESS.
IF YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE THE BUSINESS OR IDENTIFY WHAT IT IS THAT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO HINDER YOU FROM USING IT FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE, SO I CAN SEE THAT.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH MEMBER BENNETT.
I THINK THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE IS GETTING PEOPLE TO GET TO THE LOCATION.
IF WE'RE SEEING A BIG BUILDING ON BACK OFF OF A MAIN ROAD AND IT DOESN'T HAVE SIGNAGE, ARE WE ABLE TO LOCATE THAT, WHATEVER THE BUSINESS THAT HAPPENS TO BE THERE IS DOING AT THAT TIME? IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU GOT TO HAVE SKATERS THAT ARE COMING, YOU GOT TO HAVE TEAMS THAT ARE COMING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THAT THEY CAN'T FIND IT, THEN YOU'RE NOT GETTING TO THAT PERMITTED PURPOSE.
I CAN MEET THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ON THIS ONE.
AT LEAST FOR THE SOUTH ELEVATION, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THEM APART AND MAKE THEM TWO
[00:25:01]
SEPARATE CASES AS THEY WERE, OR IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH PUTTING THEM BOTH TOGETHER, WHAT ARE WE THINKING ABOUT THAT ONE? GO AHEAD.>> FOR ME, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, I'M GOOD WITH COUPLING THEM TOGETHER.
>> THAT'S HOW I'M FEELING ABOUT THEM SO AS LONG AS EVERYBODY IS IN THE SAME.
IN THAT CASE, I THINK BOTH ARE PART AND PARCEL IN THE PERMITTED PURPOSE PIECE THAT SOUTH ELEVATION IS GETTING PEOPLE IN AND SAME WITH WEST ELEVATION, BEING ABLE TO GET PEOPLE INTO THE ENTRANCE BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER CHALLENGE.
THIS IS A VERY MASSIVE BUILDING.
GETTING PEOPLE INTO THE BUILDING ITSELF I THINK IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
I CAN MEET THAT FOR BOTH VARIANCES HERE.
CRITERIA NUMBER 3 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WILL CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THIS ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
I KNOW I SAID IT EARLIER, BUT I WILL SAY, I THINK THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, I DO UNDERSTAND HAVING A SMALLER SIGN ORDINANCE FOR RESEARCH PARK.
I GET IT BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE NOT THIS TYPE OF A VENUE OR A LOCATION THAT HAS MULTIPLE USES, A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN AND OUT AND SUCH A MASSIVE STRUCTURE.
I CAN DEFINITELY MEET MINIMUM ACTION HERE BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE FRONTAGE VERSUS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
WHEN WE LOOK AT SOME OF OUR RETAIL LOCATIONS AND RETAIL ZONING, WE LOOK AT SIZE VERSUS FRONTAGE.
THAT'S WHERE MY BRAIN IS GOING WITH THIS.
THINK ABOUT IT IN A WAY THAT YES, WE'RE IN A RESEARCH PARK ZONE, BUT HOW WOULD WE HANDLE THIS IF IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION? MEMBER KENNETH.
>> I THINK THE SIZE OF THE SIGNS, BASED ON, LIKE YOU SAID, THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AREN'T REASONABLE, THEY'RE BIG, BUT BASED ON THE BUILDING.
THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE THAT'S GOING TO COVER HALF THAT SIZE OF THAT BUILDING, THEN I THINK MAYBE THEY COULD DO A LITTLE BIT SMALL MAKE THE MINIMUM.
>> I WOULD SAY IT'S MINIMUM, BUT IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE?
>> IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE. I GUESS I WOULD LOOK AT RATIO.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AS A PERCENTAGE OF FRONTAGE, IT FEELS TO ME AS REASONABLE IS A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT, AND COULD WE SAY, YES, GO AHEAD AND PUT A 40 FOOT SIDE ON THERE.
SURE. IS IT GOING TO LESSEN THOSE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, THE WAY THAT THIS PARTICULAR VERSION OF IT IS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO LESSEN IT.
THAT'S MUCH MORE. YES, MEMBER BENNETT.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, CALL ME CRAZY, BUT I DON'T THINK THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN AS WITH A RESEARCH PARK IN MIND, LIKE, A BUILDING IS BIG.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO GO OUT ON A LEMON AND SAY THEY WEREN'T THINKING OF A BUILDING LIKE THIS WHEN THEY MADE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS.
>> IT'S ONE OF THE FEW ZONING CODES.
I KNOW THAT HAS AN ABSOLUTE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THAT'S NOT IN RESIDENTIAL AREA.
ALL THE COMMERCIAL IT'S BASED ON SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
>> IT'S BASED ON FRONT EDGE I DO THINK IN THAT CASE, AND ADD THAT TO OUR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE FOR THAT ORDINANCE.
I THINK WE CAN SUCCESSFULLY MEET CRITERIA NUMBER 3.
CRITERIA NUMBER 4 WOULD BE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
IF ANYTHING, I THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO HELP THAT AREA.
>> I CAN SAY IT ENHANCES THAT AREA.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO PUT IT BECAUSE I THINK NOT HAVING THOSE STOP AND GO, IS IT HERE? IS IT NOT? IS IT HERE? IS IT NOT.
HAVING THE TRAFFIC MOVE SMOOTHLY, GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT SAFELY AND LIKE YOU SAID, ENHANCES THAT AREA WITH SOME NEW SIGNAGE.
I WILL SAY, I WILL JUST ADD, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT THE NEW OWNERS WILL COME IN AND COME TO COMPLIANCE AS OPPOSED TO SLAPPING A SIGN UP THERE.
JUST TO SUBURBANIZE FOR WHEREVER THEY PUT THAT SIGN UP THERE.
BUT WE APPRECIATE GOING THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS, WORKING WITH THE TOWNSHIP, GETTING WHAT YOU NEED TO GET IN ORDER TO GET YOUR BUILDING TO BE COMPLIANCE. WE APPRECIATE THAT.
>> FINALLY, CRITERIA NUMBER 5 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTERESTS AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.
I CAN SAFELY MEET THAT CRITERIA.
>> I THINK SO BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION OF THE PRIOR FOUR IT'S THAT IT DOES.
[00:30:03]
>> THANK YOU. WELL, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? MEMBER TREZISE IS CARRIED FORWARD.
>> I MOVE, WE GRANT THE TWO VARIANCES REQUESTED IN ZBA CASE 24-04 FOR 2810 HANNAH AND THIS LANSING. SECONDED.
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE, ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? IF NOT, THIS WILL BE A VOTE TO APPROVE BOTH VARIANCES FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-04-2810, HANNAH. MEMBER BENNETT?
>> AND THE CHAIR VOTES. YES. YOUR TWO VARIANCES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
>> WE APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK GOING THROUGH THIS WITH US, AND GOOD LUCK.
>> WE APPRECIATE CONSIDERATION, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP WITH GETTING US APPLIED AND GETTING BEFORE THE ZBA.
ZBA PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THIS, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WORKING WITH RIGBY FRANCHISEES, TELL THEM YOU CAN'T SPEND TOO MUCH ON SIGNAGE.
>>WITHIN THE ORDINANCE. OUR HOPE IS THAT IT DOESN'T COME TO US, AND WHEN IT NEEDS TO, WE CAN COME TO REASONABLE TERMS.
>> WE TRY TO DO CODE CHECKS BEFORE.
THAT'S OUR SIGN COMPANY'S RESPONSIBILITY.
YOU. NO. THEN COME BACK TO US, AND THEN WE DESIGN AROUND WHAT WE INTERPRET, AND WE'RE NOT ALWAYS CORRECT.
BUT WHAT WE INTERPRET THE CODE CHECK FINE.
WE DON'T ALWAYS HIT IT RIGHT ON, BUT WE DO OUR BEST, AND MR. CHAPMAN WAS HELPFUL WITH THAT.
>> WE HAVE THE BEST STAFF IN THE BIZ. WE DO.
>> WELL, NOW THAT WE HAVE HANDLED OUR NEW BUSINESS FOR THE EVENING.
[7.A. Election of 2024 Officers]
I BELIEVE THE ONLY OTHER THING ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR ELECTION OF OUR 2024 OFFICERS. MEMBER KENNETH.>> I NOMINATE THE CURRENT CHAIR MONSOTO TO BE THE CONTINUOUS CHAIR.
>> DO YOU WANT TO SECOND VERY AWKWARD SECONDING MYSELF. I WILL DO IT.
MOTION FOR CHAIR MONSOTO TO STAY AS CHAIR, AND THAT WAS MOTION BY MEMBER KENNETH AND SECONDED BY MEMBER BENNETT.
THIS IS A VOTE FOR MYSELF, TUESDAY AS THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. MEMBER BENNETT?
>>OH, GOSH, DON'T SOUND SO ENTHUSIASTIC, GUYS.
THESE ARE NON VOTING, CORRECT OR THEY CAN?
>> THEY CAN VOTE. WELL, COME ON, GUYS. MEMBER TREZISE?
>> THEY BOTH VOTED YES, AND I WILL VOTE YES TO MYSELF.
>> YOU CAN STILL BE THE CHAIR.
>> YOU CAN'T SERVE. THE CHAIR VOTES, YES.
I WILL REMAIN AS CHAIR OF THE ZBA FOR 2024.
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE HALFWAY THROUGH 2024, BUT WE'LL GET THERE.
WELL, I HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE.
I MOTION TO KEEP MEMBER KENNETH AS OUR VIE CHAIR FOR 2024.
>>SECONDED BY MEMBER BENNETT. ANY DISCUSSION? DO WE NEED TO WE DON'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE.
SORRY, MEMBER BENNETT. YOUR YEAR.
>> THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE MEMBER KENNETH STAYING AS OUR VICE CHAIR.
>> CHAIR VOTES YES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE YES FOR YOURSELF?
>> STICKING AS VICE CHAIR IS MEMBER KENNETH.
WE ARE ALL SET WITH OUR ELECTION OF OUR 2024 OFFICERS.
I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR NOW TO PUBLIC REMARKS.
CLOSING THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.
THERE IS NOBODY HERE, AND WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
I'LL JUST SAY WELCOME.I KNOW THIS OFFICIAL YET, BUT WELCOME TO MEMBER BENNETT AS OFFICIAL MEMBER OF OUR BOARD, AND TO MEMBER CURTIS, FOR JOINING US, AND MEMBER TREZISE FOR STAYING WITH US FROM THE BOARD NOW.
IT SWITCHING HATS, SO TO SPEAK.
BUT GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. GLAD TO HAVE A FULL BOARD.
>> IT'S GOOD TO HAVE FIVE, AND SO WE'LL DO GOOD FOR IT, GUYS.
ON THAT NOTE, UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY?
[00:35:02]
>> MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.