| Mr. Breuckman summarized the staff report. This really is a unique site, as |
|
| City Walk anticipated an amendment to the zoning ordinance when it was |
|
| updated in 2009. That zoning amendment came as a result of the master plan |
|
| that was adopted in 2007. City Walk was developed as a PUD, which was done |
|
| to allow variations to some of the design standards typically permitted in the |
|
| business districts. The underlying zoning is B-2, but there is an existing PUD in |
|
| place. City Walk was designed to be more along the life style center or a |
|
| walkable town-center kind of development that is gaining in popularity. The |
|
| Village of Rochester Hills is the most pre-eminent example of this in the |
|
| community. When the Village was developed, there was a series of very |
|
| detailed sign standards for that development which only applied to that |
|
| development. A walkable development catering to pedestrians demands a |
|
| different kind of sign - a downtown kind of sign. The City's sign ordinance is |
|
| geared toward the large, automotive based viewer of the signs. When you have |
|
| the new styles of retail development that don't mesh with what is permitted by |
|
| the sign ordinance, it creates some dissidence. This was known when the |
|
| Flexible Business district was adopted. In these districts, specific sign |
|
| standards, in addition to what the sign ordinance permits, are included in the |
|
| zoning ordinance because these types of developments require a different kind |
|
| of sign. The site is located within the Flexible Business 2 district. The FB |
|
| districts are overlay districts, which gives the property owner the right to develop |
|
| under the conventional standards or under the new flex business standards |
|
| which are intended to create a more walkable style of development. The |
|
| specific case tonight is that this development was designed along the lines of life |
|
| style center, which is what is permitted in the FB districts, but because it was |
|
| developed as a PUD, it is still subject to the standard sign ordinance. The FB |
|
| districts permit signs that are very similar to what Bar Louie's is proposing. It |
|
| permits signs that are more of a blade sign projecting perpendicular to the |
|
| building up to 36 inches, rather than being a wall sign mounted flush against the |
|
| building. Mr. Breuckman explained that the property owner could go through the |
|
| process of rescinding the PUD and then getting the site re-approved through the |
|
| Flexible Business overlay standards. In that case, the proposed sign would be |
|
| permitted by right. This would be a long process to go through just for a sign. |
|
| That is why the applicant is trying the variance process first. |
|
| Chairperson Colling asked if he understood the scenario correctly - rather than |
|
| go through the onerous process of rezoning the site to a flexible business unit |
|
| from a planned unit development, the Board is giving a variance to allow a sign |
|
| that would be legal under the FB district. Mr. Breuckman confirmed this is |
|
| correct. Chairperson Colling remembers that this Board previously considered |
|
| a variance for a similar corner-mounted sign for the same site when it was |
|
| Shield's Pizza. Mr. Breuckman pointed out that that variance request was |
|
| turned down. However, at that time the FB districts did not exist and the option |
|
| to develop projects under the FB standards and having a sign similar to the one |
|
| proposed tonight, did not exist. Mr. Breuckman indicated the new zoning |
|
| ordinance was adopted in 2009 and feels the new standards represent |
|
| somewhat of a changed circumstance today. Mr. Klein stated he was under the |
|
