City of South Lyon

Planning Commission Meeting

April 10, 2008

 

Chairperson Weipert called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

 

All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

 

Present:            Chairperson Weipert, and Commissioners Kurtzweil, Culbertson, Lanam and Bradley, Mosier and Leimbach.  Commissioners Tartaglia and Subotich – excused absence. 

 

Also present were Ben Tallerico (Planning Consultant), Kristen Cunningham, Director of Community and Economic Development.

 

Approval of Agenda:

             Motion by Mosier, supported by Kurtzweil

To approve the Agenda for April 10, 2008

Vote                                                               Motion Carried Unanimously

 

Approval of Minutes:

Motion by Bradley, supported by Lanam

To approve of the Minutes for March 13, 2008 with the following changes:

 

Page 1 – First paragraph – Public Comments section, on the fourth line down. “Business owners would be Add (able) to ….. (Chairperson Weipert).

Page 3 – Fourth paragraph – second line discussed how __________________?

Page 4 – Second paragraph – Add (digital) signs…. (Planning Consultant Tallerico).

 

Vote                                                               Motion Carried Unanimously

 

Public Comment

No public comment.

 

Old Business

1.      Discussion – Sidewalk Signs

 

Weipert - Mr. Tallerico has prepared a sample ordinance for us.

 

Tallerico – After reviewing the ordinance I started out with a few different definitions that we could use for what a sandwich board sign is.  I would like comments from the board on the definitions.

 

Weipert – What is a T-frame sign? Tallerico – Not a sandwich board, it is more like an upside down T.

Weipert – I drew pictures.  I would like to make the signs uniform looking if we are going to do this.

Tallerico – That is a good point.  It could be included.

 

Culbertson – I have no problem with the difference with the signs Bradley – This is one definition or the other.  Strike A, B is the one. Weipert – It allows for more of a variety or a wider range.  We will stay with B. Culbertson – This allows some flexibility you never know what will happen.

 

Tallerico – On the second part I put together some regulations. I think we have some challenges with the width of the sidewalks downtown.  The sign maximum is 6 sq. foot per sign with a maximum height being 42”.  I put in some criteria for the type of material allowed for signs (steel, iron, metal or wood).

 

Mosier – There are signs that use a cardboard like material but it is plastic. Tallerico – So, add plastic to #2.  Number 3 is one (1) sign per business. Mosier – One (1) sign per business entrance.

 

Discussion continued on amount of signs per business entrance and the amount of feet (6’) where the sign can be placed from the front primary entrance.

 

Weipert – This would also include regulating signs on private property and would be an enforcement issue. 

Leimbach – Just say one (1) board per business or one (1) per entrance if there are multiple businesses.

 

Culbertson – What is the difference between those and all the garage sale signs?

 

Tallerico – The sign ordinance prohibits temporary signs without a permit and this would be an enforcement issue. These signs go up on the weekends and come down by Monday.  One (1) sign shall be permitted per customer entrance regardless of the amount of tenants in a building.  .

 

Does the Commission like the one that says one (1) sign shall be permitted per customer entrance?

We would add the second part regardless of the number of tenants.  That is what we will change #3 to.

We will eliminate the first part and use 2C from Northville.  Sign to be placed 6’ from primary business.  Garage sale signs could be regulated also.

 

Lanam – If you put them on the pavers, is it 8’ to the pavers? Cunningham – It is 5’.  There is an issue with putting them on the pavers and vehicle access.

 

Randy Clark, 417 S. Lafayette-  I am chair of the DDA and I have been part of numerous discussions with some of the businesses about this issue. Parking issues are here, some of which you have already touched on.  A concern was where they would be located in the downtown and we looked at other cities and because of the size of our sidewalks, it almost appeared to be a better location if the signs were placed on pavers where the light poles are.  The light poles were placed in spots that would not interfere with the door openings when cars were parked in the spaces.  We don’t have very many set-back doorways downtown.  Another issue is that some of the businesses outside of B-2 were looking to do something with signs.  Right now all you can do is place them behind the sidewalk and get a permit. There could be enforcement issues and that is why a lot of the signs are out and stay out.  How does the Commission feel about other areas of the City having sidewalk signs behind the sidewalk on private property?

 

Tallerico – This is for the Central Business District.

 

Clark – That is the other question, do you use the zoning district or the Downtown Development Authority boundaries as a definition or look at only the areas that have the streetscape done.  There are a lot of possible definitions. 

 

Tallerico – I always recommend the zoning district. Clark – B-2 is a small area – Detroit to Liberty streets. Tallerico – In the other direction, Wells to Washington.

 

Cunningham – These signs are intended for pedestrians not cars passing by. 

 

Tallerico – Someone is always left out.  We are trying to create a friendly downtown.  I suggest doing it by zoning district not just by DDA.  This way the City has much more control over it. 

 

Clark – Our DDA district is really small. Weipert – The B-2 district is even smaller than where the street scape is.  We would be cutting off the streetscape and it is suppose to be encouraging people to walk.

 

Cunningham – Ben, could we do an over-lay?

 

Culbertson – Why are we not just making it City-wide?  Why should others be restricted?  The signs are to advertise specials. 

 

Tallerico – The goal is to get people out of their cars and to walk.  It is a tool the business owners could use downtown.

 

Discussion continued on other areas that could use sidewalk signs.

 

Clark – I am surprised at the comment you made about the signs being for pedestrians.  I spoke to three (3) business owners in Northville.  People would drive by and see the signs then stop.  Traffic moves slow through our downtown and is backed up at least for a light.  I think you need to be careful to not say it is just for pedestrians.

 

Tallerico – It is whatever you want your downtown to be.  The goal is to create a dense downtown with walk ability.  Make it easy to cross the streets, or use sandwich boards and eliminate phone numbers on the signs so people have to get out.  It is a series of things you do to get to the end.  It would be a benefit to give the downtown business owners the ability to use the sandwich board signs.  I think it is a great idea for downtown and people in Brookfield and other “outside” areas don’t need it.

 

Clark – The businesses should be allowed to put a sandwich in front of their business on their sidewalk in the shopping center, but not out on Pontiac Trail.  On the distance of the signs being 6’, it may be physically impossible to place the sign within 6’ of the doorway.

 

Tallerico – I put that in for a starting point for discussion.  We can go with any amount of footage the Commission desires.

 

Cunningham – Everything we have based on the streetscape is 5’ of walkable space.  That is what we require.

 

Culbertson – I was reading this as applicable to all businesses within the City limits.  Not just downtown, the DDA or B-2. I assumed it was applicable to the shopping centers, etc.

 

Leimbach – Traditionally this kind of advertisement is pedestrian oriented.  You would associate it with the downtown area rather than a shopping center.

 

Tallerico – This was written just for the downtown.  I would have to revisit it if I was looking at this City wide.

 

Kurtzweil – Drive down Pontiac Trail and McDonald’s has one of those white plastic signs with black letters  right by the road.  There are approximately 5-6 businesses with the sandwich board signs in the Brookdale Mall.

 

Tallerico – Those are usually temporary signs that were paid for to obtain a permit.

 

Kurtzweil – The charm of the sign is wonderful like in Milford or Northville.  When I was on Pontiac Trail today, I saw that white plastic sign and it was ugly.  I was hoping that in addition we also include some architectural requirements.  The sign would have to have the character of the business.

 

Weipert – There is something like that in one of these ordinances that it has to coordinate with the business.

 

Clark – An example was Harvest Bread.  It still becomes objective.

 

Leimbach – I think we want to be careful about how we allow digital type displays.

 

Culbertson – I don’t see anything in these illustrations that could not be used by any business in town.

 

Leimbach – You can’t have a sign so large it obstructs the sidewalk.

 

Kurtzweil – Put together a brochure (the DDA could) and take some pictures and make a personal call on these businesses and say this is what we hope that you would do.  Some sort of an educational campaign.  We are looking for signs that are upscale.

 

Clark – That is a good idea.

 

Tallerico – If we are going to expand this City wide, we ought to at least let the Chamber know, so it is not perceived that the DDA and Planning Commission are dictating to the businesses. 

 

Cunningham – Once you give this you will never get it back, so if it looks bad, we can never get it back. Limit it to the downtown.

 

Tallerico – The downtown is the purpose it is set-up for.  You made valid points that maybe it is too confining and we may need to expand it a little bit.

 

Leimbach – I think we are opening Pandora’s Box if we expand this to the whole City.  The intent for these kinds of signs is for downtown.  That is what other communities have done.  I don’t want to see them in all the shopping centers.

 

Weipert – If it is limited to the downtown, it seems like it is a little more of a special place.  We want people to walk and shop down there.

 

Bradley – I like the overlay.

 

Cunningham – I think an overlay is the only way we are going to be able to do it.  The DDA district does not necessarily include all of the businesses. Maybe include the streetscape and make it part of the downtown.  Ideally it would run from the railroad tracks down to Reynold Sweet.  It is walk-able.

 

Lanam - The businesses right downtown have a disadvantage because of parking compared to the malls so this is something special for the downtown.  With the concern of the maintenance of the signs, maybe add something to the effect of “a like a new appearance”.

 

Cunningham – It is a yearly permit so it will be reviewed.

 

Tallerico – The majority of the people will want a nice attractive sign. 

 

Culbertson – I think these signs can work in the shopping center with the same exact language.  I don’t see why this should not apply to those types of businesses.  People walk through the mall areas.

 

A vote was taken on this ordinance for the CBD vs. Citywide.  Five (5) for CBD, two (2) for Citywide

 

Tallerico – What did we say about 6’ from the entrance?

 

Weipert – Clark’s concern is that if we are putting them in that space on the far side of the sidewalk and we are trying to get them in a position where they don’t interfere with car doors opening, that they may end up   being farther than 6’ from the business doorway.

 

Clark – I’m thinking about 12’.  Leimbach – What about 6’ from the faηade instead of the entrance.

 

Tallerico – As long as it is in front of the business. Number 4 we are changing to 5’.  Number 5 – a temporary sign permit is required.  Only one (1) temporary sign permit or sandwich board is allowed per business.

 

Cunningham – Can we change the temporary sign language to sidewalk sign for clarification?

 

Tallerico – For the permit I chose a calendar year.  The fiscal year is June 30 – July 1.  It is easier enforcement if we go with the calendar year.  It gives more control for sign maintenance issues also.  Limit the cost of permits for the people who conform and charge a higher cost for non-conformer.  It should be a nominal fee $25.00 for compliance, $125.00 for non-compliance.

 

Cunningham – They do spend time if they have to go out and it’s not a money making scheme, it is to cover cost.  The Building Department should cover its own cost; it should not be a drain on the general fund.  It is only $25.00 per year.

 

Tallerico – Dimensions, materials, location must be attached to the permit.  Application must be approved and signed.  It is standard procedure.  Sandwich board signs shall not be illuminated nor shall they contain movable parts.  Put them out and bring them back in to prevent theft.  Signs must be removed from public sidewalk if there is any snow accumulation.  Signs only displayed during business hours and placed inside the business at all other times.  Sandwich signs placed in violation of this section will result in immediate removal of the sign and the temporary sign permit privileges will be denied for the remainder of the year.  Boards displayed without approval shall be disposed of at the owner’s expense.  Sandwich board signs in the public right-of-way may be removed.  Signs must be in good repair to be displayed. 

 

2.      Discussion – Blight Ordinance

Weipert – Mr. Tallerico made the changes.

 

Tallerico – I moved the description/definitions to the front.  We need to discuss the junk automobile residential, junk automobile commercial and junk automobile repair.  The difference between the three (3).

 

Weipert – In the ordinance I found they are all suppose to be inside anyways.  How can we tell how long the vehicle has been there if it is inside?

 

Tallerico – If it is inside and is enclosed, a roof is not required.  If you want junk in your garage that is your business. 

 

Weipert – Do we have any junk automobile commercial here?

 

Tallerico – We need the definitions of residential, commercial and excluding all auto repair businesses. (60-60-90 days).

 

Leimbach – For the commercial no matter how much they move vehicles around, if it is on the property, it can only be there for 60 days.

 

Lanam – If it is enforced you would have the option.

 

Leimbach – Some people have this down to a science where they move the vehicles around.  All vehicles on property are still there they have just been moved.

 

Tallerico – I think it is implied.  You cannot just move it around the property.

 

Culbertson – There are a lot of junk vehicles sitting in the trailer park and some have been there for years.

 

Kurtzweil – Our ordinance should be able to fine the owner of the property (such as the trailer park).

 

Weipert – The owner of the property and the occupant will be fined.

 

Lanam – Is the trailer park considered residential?

 

Tallerico – I moved open storage to the front and no changes on the second page.  On the third page you can see #8 which I moved to the front.  On #10 is open storage and I moved that to the front.

 

Weipert – On page four you took storage and recycled materials and moved that to the bottom of page one.

 

Tallerico – Causes of blight I added in the first sentence ‘which is allowed’.  Then a, b and c is where I get into definitions of residential, commercial except for auto repair as defined and an area zoned for auto repair as defined.  Cannot store on any property junk automobiles unless in an enclosed building.  I changed B to D and C to E. 

 

Leimbach – Under G – it use to say securely locked windows kept glass or boarded and still applies for residential.

 

Cunningham – Do we have to keep ‘boarded up for commercial’? Weipert – For commercial we just wanted the tinted glass.  It will look better than boarded up.

 

Tallerico – As may be required by City ordinances and that was the last of my changes.

 

Weipert – Can we say that in a residential area they have to have glass and cannot be boarded up?

 

Kurtzweil – Post a notice of a responsible person that can be contacted.  If there is a foreclosure, the bank has someone come out and change the locks.  If they can change the locks, they can post a notice saying in an emergency contact …..  It can even be on a 3 x 5 card. Cunningham – Can we put that on vacant buildings too? Tallerico – All properties.  All vacant or foreclosed properties. Leimbach – If we issue three (3) tickets, it then becomes a felony. Tallerico – I will bring this back with the changes and it will go to Attorney Lee next. 

 

3.      Discussion – Building Matrix

Culbertson – Start off with some sort of a pattern.  Take three (3) of the latest projects and see how they would have stacked up against this matrix.  We then come up with the scores and we can see how they would have scored. 

 

Lanam – If they needed points they could use all brick if they got a minus for their windows.  Work with the developer.

 

Kurtzweil – On the points, we would aim to reach a total or score a minimum depending on materials used.

 

Tallerico – We don’t want the buildings all looking the same, you would have the same percentage of windows in the front, etc. this way, if they want to do any of this they have a whole lot of other choices to get additional points.

 

Weipert – In some cases, people are required to put up fences or walls and some put up cinder block walls or cyclone fences.

 

Tallerico – Yes, we did talk about putting up decorative fencing up. 

 

Lanam – It will be hard to assign the points. It will be hard to determine a points system.

 

Weipert – One item was decorated fencing.  In some cases people are required to put up fences or walls. 

We also talked about landscaping and retention basins. 

 

Culbertson – I think there are a thousand different choices of landscape materials.  What if someone comes in and we don’t have that particular item listed?

 

Lanam – Take a couple of projects and go through them and see if we want to make adjustments.  Then we will know.  We can sit here and argue the points and everything else, but until we apply it to a project we won’t know whether we are getting close.  Ultimately, we need to come up with something in the end that this many points is a platinum project etc….

 

Tallerico – That is tough since you don’t get your certification until the building is done. Cunningham – We are going to have to assume they are going to do and it would have to be noted on the site plan.

 

Tallerico – This could outweigh a lot of stuff that we think is visual.  Like HVAC or a roof we don’t even see and it will diminish what we want to see.

 

Cunningham – Bring three (3) examples in for the meeting in May.  Then discuss after Ben rates them.  Then we will do the matrix. Tallerico I will change from ‘too high’ to ‘take out’.

 

Weipert – The meeting is May 8, 2008.

 

4.      Discussion – Landscape Matrix

 

Tallerico – The City has a good tree ordinance. Leimbach – What we are trying to accomplish having this as part of the site plan review is that the developer knows landscaping is an important issue. We are not looking to just get a minimum.  This does not connect to the building matrix.  They are two separate issues.

Kurtzweil – I will volunteer to re-do this matrix.  They only put in what they are required to.  I will e-mail it to Kristen. (Leimbach to work on matrix also).

 

New Business

Parks and Recreation Mater Plan Review

 

Weipert – Do we need to approve this? Cunningham – No you do not.  You just need to review it and know that it is going forward and these are the projects they are looking at doing.  You don’t have a whole lot of input on it between Council and Parks and Recreation anyway.

 

Weipert – Some of this is really what we do.  Asking people to continue to link their developments to the rails to trails and encouraging community parks. Tallerico – If you did a full update of the Master Plan it could be referenced. Cunningham – It is mostly just so you are aware that these are the three (3) sections that they updated and those are the changes that they wanted to make.  They are having their public hearing in May. Culbertson – I have a general comment just as a citizen.  There is a lot of coverage about different cities and parks putting in senior trails with exercise.  I see nothing in the five (5) year plan.  I would suggest they at least give it some consideration. Cunningham – We talked about that for McHattie Park.  I encourage you to come to the public hearing meeting too. Weipert – Do we need to do anything to formally approve it?

Cunningham – No, I just wanted you to be aware of it and if you have any comments you can come to the public hearing and get on the record. (May 7, 2008).

 

Staff Reports

Blight Ordinance in two (2) weeks.  Public hearing for the re-zoning for 40 acres at the end of Mill Street.

They are asking to rezone the IRO to RM-1 with conditions.  Look for a mailed packet. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Culbertson, supported by Bradley

To adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.

Vote                                       MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

 

_____________________                              _   ____________________   _______

Pam Weipert, Chairperson                             Marianne Jamison, Recording Secretary

 

________________________

Keith Bradley, Secretary