City of South Lyon
Chairman Weipert
called the meeting to
order at 7:03 p.m.
All
present recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Present:
Commissioners Culbertson,
Leimbach, Weipert, Mosier, Bradley,
Kurtzweil, and Lanam. Commissioners Subotich and
Tartaglia were excused.
Also present were Ben
Tallerico (Planning Consultant), Kristen
Cunningham, Director of Community and Economic Development
Approval of Agenda:
Cunningham suggested the order of agenda items be flipped so that new business
goes first.
Motion by Bradley, supported by Lanam
Vote
Motion Carried Unanimously
Approval of Minutes:
Motion by Culbertson,
supported by Kurtzweil
To approve of the
Minutes for January 10, 2008 as amended.
Leann
Tolinski, the
owner of Gallery Café at 101 South Lafayette, South Lyon asked to address the
Planning Commission. She reported that local business owners have met and they
would like to request a meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the
temporary sign ordinance. She provided documentation of neighboring community
ordinances. The business owners would like to be to use sandwich boards on a
more regular basis because it would have an impact on bringing business into the
stores.
Weipert asked if the
signs are allowed now.
Tolinski stated the cost is $20
to have a sign permit for 30 days but then she must wait 60 days before she can
apply for another permit. It takes a lot of planning to figure out when to use
the signs. She asked the Commission to look at language and see if the South
Lyon ordinance could be changed. Weipert noted the city of Milford’s ordinance
was well worded and she feels they are targeted to foot traffic. She feels the
signs are kitschy and she would support a change in the ordinance. She added the
signs would help show what stores in town offer.
Mosier stated the
Commissioners have been working on the sign ordinance on and off for the past
four years and this is the first business owner to come in and discuss it. He
added that was a great thing.
Bradley asked how wide
the sidewalks were. Cunningham answered approximately eight-feet. Culbertson
asked if anyone knew the background on the temporary sign ordinance. Cunningham
replied she did not know but she would find out. Council member Glenn Kivell,
235 W. Lake stated it was to keep it to one-third of the year but he was not
certain if it had to be thirty-days in a row. Cunningham noted that was how it
was enforced.
Tallerico asked if the signs were allowed in the five-foot walkway.
Tolinski stated she keeps hers on the patio
because it was not allowed in the walkway. She added in Northville the business
put them closer to the curb like where the brick pavers are in South Lyon. The
Commissioners agreed to add this topic to a future agenda and review the
ordinance.
Discussion – Blight/Property Maintenance
Tallerico provided a revised draft as well as comments from neighboring
communities. Weipert asked if Ypsilanti beefed up their code by using the
International Property Code. Tallerico replied yes, however, that only applies
to new buildings. The problem was enforcement. The International Code does allow
more options and it could be tweaked to fit the community’s needs. Weipert asked
if there would still be a need for a blight ordinance. Tallerico stated it would
be for around the building, litter, etc.
Kivell commented it was suggested it was to be used for commercial. Tallerico
replied that was correct. In the past he has recommended communities go around
and give feedback like “nice job with the awning” or “you need to clean this up”
and not have a Gestapo mentality toward enforcement. Kivell noted that is
usually how it was handled in South Lyon, that Joe Veltri was very good at that.
Weipert asked if many places have a blight court. Tallerico replied that would
be up to the Commission to decide what was needed. He did not think the problem
in South Lyon was that severe.
Kurtzweil stated she has been in favor of a blight ordinance all along. The
tougher it is written the better for her. She believes there must be a city
somewhere that has a blight ordinance that works. Tallerico stated it comes down
to enforcement. Kurtzweil stated the blight ordinances she has researched have
procedures that address due process within the ordinances. Kivell stated the
shortcomings were in the appeal portion and that was where the cases were
dragged out. Kurtzweil stated there was a new appeal process that was faster so
if the due process was addressed ahead of time and if the ordinances were well
written the appeal process would not be that bad. Kivell noted the city had one
issue that lasted seven years. Kurtzweil noted she had not reviewed that case
and stated they must look at the big picture and maybe the issue should be
addressed to the government officials to gain support for statutes. Council
member Dick Selden, 62401 Raleigh stated the ordinances had not been revised
since the state made changes in 2006. Mosier commented he feels proper
enforcement was the real issue. Selden suggested contacting the Michigan
Municipal League for their help. Weipert stated rules and ordinances could be
created but without enforcement it would be pointless. The question should be
how far was City Council willing to take it to make sure there would be
enforcement. Selden noted he feels Council was willing to make certain it would
be enforced.
Tallerico suggested looking at the language of the ordinance now and address
enforcement another way. Since it could be a legal issue he suggested getting
feedback from the city’s attorney. Lanam stated if the ordinance addresses the
different levels of punishment it could take away the likelihood of Gestapo
tactics down the road. Tallerico agreed and commented if the process is well
documented than you would always have a case.
Weipert stated in section 3A they had discussed unlicensed vehicles could be out
for only 45 days if a residential property and 60 days if commercial. Lanam
asked if that would apply to any commercial or was it specific to a business
that deals with cars and car repair. Tallerico stated he would work on that
point.
Weipert asked if the timeframe to board up windows would need to be added in.
Tallerico replied yes or at least referenced.
Weipert asked if the punishment could be a stepped-up process with civil
infractions moving to misdemeanor, etc. Cunningham stated mixing them was not a
good idea. It should be one or the other but she would double check with the
city’s attorney.
Weipert reviewed Commissioner Tartaglia’s comments that he sent to her. He would
like to add that during construction on commercial buildings windows should be
covered or blacked out. Weipert also spoke to Commissioner Subotich; however, he
had no feedback on this topic.
Discussion – Building Matrix
Tallerico took the original and made revisions based on the feedback he
received.
There was a general discussion regarding window shapes.
Lanam asked if points should be given for hard landscaping i.e. rocks, slate,
pavers, etc. Leimbach noted this document provides the ability to really work
with the developer.
Bradley questioned the points assigned for building materials. Tallerico noted
that was an error. They discussed how correct it and decided to sort the
sections so the highest value was first.
Lanam asked if the city had a HVAC screen on the roof of the city offices.
Cunningham replied she did not think so. Tallerico stated he felt it should be
added to the ordinances. Lanam stated he felt they should also require the trash
screening to match the no-maintenance building materials. This led to a general
discussion regarding chain-link fencing and landscaping.
Kurtzwiel asked if there was anything in the ordinances that required
maintenance. Cunningham noted that was moving into peeling paint issues.
Kurtzweil asked if they could have a review or something. Tallerico stated it
would have to be part of the approval. Leimbach noted they had the teeth but
need to make sure to follow through. Mosier noted that was enforcement.
There was a general discussion regarding snow shoveling and keeping the
sidewalks clear in the winter.
Weipert asked if there could be a point matrix for landscaping. Lanam stated he
would hate to give points for something that could die. Cunningham noted there
was a one-year guarantee; if something dies it must be replaced and then there
was another one-year guarantee. Kurtzweil agreed that points for vegetation were
a good idea. Culbertson stated he was against the vegetation but in favor of
adding hard landscaping.
Tallerico reviewed what the Commissioners wanted added in to the matrix and
there was a general discussion regarding hard landscaping and general
landscaping.
Leimbach asked if lighting should be added to the matrix. Bradley noted it was
already covered in the ordinance. The Commission decided to review that
ordinance and tighten the lighting requirements.
Kurtzweil asked if they would want to add in values for environmentally green
standards.
This
led to a discussion regarding environmentally friendly lighting and other ways
to support green standards.
Weipert asked how they would determine what bright colors were. Tallerico stated
it would be a negotiation with the building.
Weipert noted that Commissioner Subotich wanted to know how something like the
Winchester House could be avoided. Tallerico asked what would be the chance of
something like that happening.
Discussion – Ordinances
Sign Illumination
Weipert reported that City Council sent back questions on intermittent signs and
whether those types of signs would be allowed. If yes, then what would the
timing requirements be for the changing messages. Council also asked if there
was any research to help determine if they would be a driving hazard. Council
member Ron Morelli, 179 Eagle Crest stated he brought this issue up at the
Council meeting. He believes they are of value but they need to be regulated. He
described some good and bad examples. In his opinion it would be best if there
was only one message then has a clean change to the next message, no scrolling,
and not one letter at a time. Most messages are up for eight seconds and then
jumps to the next message. The size of the sign would also need to be
appropriate.
Tallerico stated there was not a lot of research but what was published report
the signs were not a significant hazard. The issue of size and change could be
added. Bradley noted Walgreen’s has been using these types of signs. Morelli
stated Wixom has a great one and as technology grows they would become more
popular. Culbertson felt it was overkill to control the timing. Cunningham asked
if this was something they would want to see on the downtown historical
buildings. Kivell noted everything has the potential for good and bad. Weipert
asked if Ms. Cunningham was suggesting to keep it out of the downtown through
the DDA. Cunningham stated those type of signs did not, necessarily, have a
place in a pedestrian area. Tallerico agreed and asked if the DDA wanted a more
historical look to the downtown. Cunningham stated they were aiming for
quaintness, in her opinion. There was a general discussion regarding signs in
the downtown.
Tallerico stated he would rework the document to add-in intermittent signs.
There was a general discussion regarding the difference between animated,
intermittent, and flashing signs.
Culbertson asked if they should invite the Chamber of Commerce and the DDA to
review the ordinance. Leimbach suggested a workshop with business owners. Mosier
stated that had been tried in the past and no one ever attends. Weipert noted it
was a good idea to listen to business owners but signs were not the only reason
business is bad. The economy is just tough. Tallerico agreed and stated he had
never seen a sign that made or broke a business. He reminded the Commissioners
that there was a public hearing on this issue and no one attended. Culbertson
stated they should at least extend the offer. Kurtzweil agreed with Weipert and
noted she hoped the Council members would not cave to the mentality that a sign
was going to fix the business owners problems. Weipert stated they have received
input from the Chamber and the DDA and their feedback should be considered but
not necessarily followed.
Tallerico stated if portions of the sign ordinance needed to be reviewed then
time should be made, Veltri should be present and the ordinances could be
reviewed step-by-step. Cunningham agreed it should be discussed one issue at a
time instead of opening up the whole sign Ordinance otherwise the meeting would
be an unruly mess. Kurtzweil suggested advertising the meeting in the Chamber
newsletter. Cunningham reiterated discussing it all at once would not be
conducive to reciveing valuable feedback and input.
Pole/Pylon/Projecting Signs
Weipert reported another suggestion from Council was to have pictures and/or
definitions. Cunningham read an email from the city’s attorney.
Leimbach asked how many billboards were in the city. Cunningham replied two.
Tallerico asked if was worth the fight for two billboards. Weipert noted the
ones not maintained would be addressed in the blight ordinance. There was a
general discussion regarding problem signs.
Kivell stated he felt it would be more interesting to have design lead the way.
Leimbach stated he felt that was the Commissioners points as well. Kivell
replied the intent was to address one guy that no one liked. Leimbach stated he
did not think the sign was attractive no matter the business. Selden noted it
was obsolete because RCA was not around anymore. Weipert believes the blight
ordinance would address some of the problems. Cunningham stated the city
currently did not allow for projecting signs. The city’s attorney’s concern was
the removal issue and nothing else. Tallerico agreed the blight ordinance would
take care of problem signs once they reached that level of disrepair. Leimbach
asked if they would receive notification if it were blighted.
Kurtzweil stated she did not believe that anyone was out to target any
particular business owner; the issue was trying to clean up the downtown area.
Bradley agreed and noted if the blight ordinance covered it than that would be
fine. Kurtzweil stated she has been an advocate to clean up foreclosed
properties and that started the Commission looking at cleaning up the town.
Mosier asked if the wording could be if a business changes hands then
non-conforming signs must change. Tallerico replied it might be worth focusing
on the blight ordinance and then review this topic again in six-months or even a
year.
There was no old
business.
Staff Reports
Cunningham reported there would be another rezoning request for the end of Mill
Street and there might be a special land use request coming as well.
Culbertson reported he would be absent on the 24th.
Motion by Bradley
supported by Leimbach
To adjourn the meeting
at 10:07 p.m.
Vote
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
_____________________
_
____________________
_______
Pam Weipert, Chairperson
Jennifer Knapp, Recording Secretary
________________________
Keith Bradley, Secretary