accordingly the planning commission recommends that the board approve the special exemption
thank you mr council as it relates to the hours of operation is it fair to say that if we go to
11 p.m no no events later than 11 p.m that would be friday and saturday yes and sunday i meant to
say saturday and sunday uh miss reason could you weigh in on on sunday
because the next day is a work day and that's why people usually don't want
these events to take place late yeah so it would just be saturday on friday and saturday
it's considered the weekend okay and nine o'clock uh sunday through thursday all right
MI 2021-003-219-6114-16 Lansdowne Avenue.
My vote is yes with the following proviso.
No events to take place past 11 p.m. on weekends.
to take place past 11 p.m. on weekends
and events not to take place
after 9 p.m. weekdays,
Monday through Thursday.
Five-year temporary lease
to expire December 1, 2026.
Thank you.
Carol Tenere.
Give me the extra six months
to get up and running.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes,
with provisors.
Professor Plaza yes with proviso
James Snell yes with proviso
Thomas Holloman yes with proviso
Case number 9 MI 2021
003233622 North Sedgwick Street
Mr. Nockamson is the attorney of record
I'm sorry, Chair, I believe we continued
Okay, thank you, I wasn't here for that, thank you
Okay, we go to case number 10. MI 2021-003221, 800 Cotman Avenue. Amy Farrell is the attorney of record. Burholm Community Town Watch and Civic sent a letter of support. And I've also been informed that Councilwoman Parker sent a letter of non-opposition, or is stating that she's not opposed to this.
Ms. Farrell? Ms. Young, are you the attorney on this case? Yes, my name is Natalie Young. I'm from
Kaplan-Stewart with Ms. Farrell. I'm the attorney. Okay, Ms. Young, would you please spell your first
and last name? Yes, it's N-A-T-A-L-I-E, Young, Y-O-U-N-G. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Ms. Tenere has a few questions
for you and she's coming in now as a panelist chair thank you do you hello do you agree to
weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes hello i believe i actually got
disconnected there for a second can you hear me yes so yes you again so do you do agree to weigh
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans
of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do
you have a letter? Yes, to all of that. Okay, great. Thank you. You may proceed. Okay.
Okay. Are you able to see my screen?
Not yet.
Not yet. All right. One second.
All right.
You, but not the screen.
Me, but not the screen. All right. Hold on.
How about now?
Got it now.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
All right, so my name is Natalie Young. I'm here on behalf of Newtown Park Association, who is the applicant in this case. I do have, I believe, Dave Waterman on, David Waterman on with me on this call, and possibly Ben Willner, both of Newtown Park Association.
Okay so this property is located at 800 Cotman Avenue. This property is zoned RM2 and consists
of a multi-story residential apartment building with a one-story component along Cotman Avenue
frontage that's historically housed several commercial tenants. This property has a long
history of small-scale commercial tenants on the first floor that cater to the building
residents and also provide services to the surrounding area. However, those tenants have
often struggled to maintain a commercial presence in the community given the location of the
commercial spaces and the setback from the roadway as the property appears to be residential.
several tenants in the recent years they vacated they miss young do you have any
exhibits you can show us aside from the table of contents yes well let me let me start with
just to put into the record we want to mark all of our uh exhibits that were provided
and we do have um well here's the refusal and then we will start with where this is located
so this is located along cotman avenue um here's where the property itself is uh courtesy from the
um here's where the property itself is uh it's hard to see from the zoning but here's the
zoning but
storefront but it's a mix of uh industrial and commercial uses as well as residential uses
along this area um so it's important to note though that several tenants have vacated in recent years
because um and that the owner has has undertaken a renovation project to kind of increase visibility
to the to the site. And these signs that we're here today for are part of that renovation project.
So here is our application. And so the six, so the application for appeal is based upon a refusal.
There's the refusal. The refusal was for two rooftop signs on their accessory signs.
They would be on the first floor unit, not on the rooftop of the larger multi-story apartment
structure. This would appear on the roof. They're called rooftop signs because they would appear on
the roof of the commercial structure on the bottom. And then the refusal is also related
to two freestanding pylon signs, which would have lighting and show the names of the commercial
tenants who are applying for these spaces.
So a consistent point of discussion with potential tenants has been the concern of
visibility from the roadway and the applicant is seeking a variance to install two roof signs.
These signs will kind of mesh the residential use with the commercial use. They will kind of
indicate, you know, give a name or give a landmark for this property. The two freestanding signs are
where the retail tenants names can be displayed in a manner that's easily to read, visible both
to vehicular traffic and to put traffic, and to gain recognition and support for the new businesses
that would be coming there into the retail spaces. As you can see, the current
so let's go to the aerial photos um here again just to orient yourself to the area
is where we are along cotman um here's the 800 cotman
and here is the street view of the property from google street view i believe this is during
the res during the renovations you can see the one sign um on the corner here
and again here is the the multi-level residential unit here with the commercial space in front
and this is the other entrance and we'll get a little closer look at the sign but
here's the other sign that we're seeking to replace
and again here's another look at that sign
All right so here's a closer look at the front of the building. These are the six commercial spaces.
The space on the end, the right end, let me see if we get a better look up here, I believe is used
as the office building for the Regency Park Apartments and the one roof sign we're looking
to put would be right here on this first floor commercial space.
Here's the existing freestanding sign at the one entranceway that is kind of outdated
and doesn't really fit with the modern look.
Also it's very difficult the way that this sign was placed in order to read the retail
names that are in there.
Same thing with this view, the passing cars cannot read the names of the properties that
are in there.
And then this is the other sign on the other entrance.
It does not display the names of any of the tenants.
So again, our goal is to increase visibility.
We will come back.
these are some of the neighboring properties along Cotman Avenue and the 800 and 900 block
that have similar uses and signs, but we can come back to those. I want to show you the site plan.
So just to blow this up right here, you can see
where we're looking to put the signs. This right here is along that first floor
where we're looking to put the signs. This right here,
the front side one of the two roof signs would be along here. The second roof sign
would be along this side which is also visible from a small street or parking
lot and entrance here. These are the two signs on either side of the parking lot
at either entrance. Okay and here are the plans. So I'm going to keep them blown up
a little. This is currently the way the conditions look here. I don't know how big this is on
your screen if you can see that. Without the sign, this is what's visible right now from the roadway.
We are proposing a roof sign right here that says Regency Park Apartments. This
location here is the office building, I believe, for Regency Park Apartments.
My client can clarify that, but I believe that's where it is located.
And then this is the side of the building. Again, it would also say Regency Park.
Now this was on the far corner. This smaller sign here is what is currently visible
from the roadway. We are proposing a change to the square footage and a modernization of
the sign which would make it more visible from the roadway, gain more attention by
the public and the foot traffic as to the tenants that are located within this strip,
and it would be more modernized and easier to read and include graphics for the retailers
that are applying. Now I'd like to point out, again, that this is zoned RM2, so anything
that we do that's a commercial use, including signs, we have to seek a variance. So for
For each commercial tenant that's going to come in, we will be back to see variants for
these signs because it's zoned RM2.
That's why it was refused.
And then here is the other large sign, which is on the other side of the entrance.
This is what currently exists.
This is what we can expect to see.
And just so that you can get an idea of the size.
This is what we anticipate the signs will look like. It's currently roughly about the same size,
but it increases the area that can be used for graphics and for advertising.
And we did meet with the Bermhold Civic Association, as was noted earlier. We had a
a pretty well attended meeting and it was 14 individuals within the near neighbor
proximity who voted in support of this of the sign project and they were interested in seeing
they were interested that this area was recently remodeled and modernized and they're interested in
having long-term tenants there and we feel that by improving the visibility from the roadway
given the setback of the space from the roadway
that these modern signs would really do well
to bring in and bring recognition
to what would otherwise not be visible retail spaces.
Ms. Young, I think you can summarize
if that would be helpful.
And if you have your client,
we'll have your client adopt your testimony.
Yes, Mr. Waterman, are you there?
Can you raise your hand, please?
yes and he's been allowed to speak good afternoon sir please spell your name and i'll swear you in
we may be having technical difficulties uh you being an officer to court will stipulate that
your client would have adopted your testimony yes correct he would have been adopted that's right
any questions from the board no mr chairman no no anyone else would like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand yes chair we have a calling user ending in one three zero zero
calling user you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair please identify yourself by spelling
your name hi there this is david waterman i apologize i'm
hi there this is david waterman i apologize i might have had some technical issues uh chairman
chico so you're absolutely right i uh let me do this if you don't mind uh spell your last name
and i'll swear you in yes sir waterman w-a-t-e-r-m-a-n you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you ms young hi david were you able to hear my
the testimony i presented yes i was i heard it from the very start okay do you agree that it
is correct or do you have anything you need to add no i think you did a good job on the summary
and presentation i have nothing to add and i agree with your testimony okay so you adopt my
testimony i do thank you anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand
no more hands here thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rm2 residential multifamily at this location
we feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship for the roof mounted signage
but feel that the other proposed signage is largely in keeping with the regulations for
CMX2 commercial use as the property is used and the proposed variances are de minimis accordingly
the planning commission recommends the board deny the variance for roof signage but has no
opposition to the board granting the variances for building mounting and freestanding signs
thank you MI 2021-003221 800 Cotman Avenue my vote is yes
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes
Thank you, that concludes the two o'clock list
If anyone, Phil, they've not been recognized, please raise your hand
No hands, Chair
Thank you. It is 3.55. We'll come back at 4.05. Does that work for everyone?
Sounds good. Yes. See you all back here at 4.05.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.