Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, January 18, 1994

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in ‎

the Mayor's Conference Room‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Gene Ferrera‎

Jeff Hauswirth‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

George Sadowski‎

Patricia Somerville‎

Absent PC‎: ‎James Rosen‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Lawrence Ternan, City Attorney‎

Jack Sage, Ordinance Enforcement‎

Phillip McKenna, McKenna Associates, Inc‎.‎

Sally Hodges, McKenna Associates, Inc‎.‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1477

November ‎23‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, support by Somerville, to ‎approve ‎the minutes of ‎

November ‎23‎, ‎1993 ‎as submitted‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Absent‎:‎Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved

2000-1478

December ‎7‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Ferrera, support by Nowicki, to ‎approve‎ the minutes of ‎

December ‎7‎, ‎1993 ‎as submitted‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Absent‎:‎Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved

2000-1479

December ‎21‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, support by Ferrera, to ‎approve‎ the minutes of ‎

December ‎21‎, ‎1993 ‎as submitted‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Absent‎:‎Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

Memo to Planning Commission members from Ms‎. ‎Goodwin regarding a ‎

training session with Mark Wyckoff of The Planning and Zoning Center to ‎

be held on ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎94 ‎in the Mayor's Conference Room‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1480

Discussion of proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the Planning Commission packet contains the draft ‎

amendments pertaining to signs, as requested by the Planning ‎

Commission and are now ready for review and discussion‎. ‎Also included ‎

were sign ordinances from several other communities for reference‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin introduced Phillip McKenna and Sally Hodges from McKenna ‎

Associates, Inc‎. ‎She pointed out that their presentation will help give the ‎

Planning Commission a broader picture of signs and sign regulations ‎

throughout southeast Michigan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎McKenna and Ms‎. ‎Hodges have written ‎

sign ordinances for a number of communities and are available to provide ‎

some background and overview‎. ‎She said the Planning Commission ‎

needs to look at whether or not they wish to go into a major sign ordinance ‎

revision or consider only the amendments to the sign ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McKenna said that they work with about ‎50 ‎different communities in the ‎

state of Michigan as Planning Consultants and are also involved in the ‎

preparation of sign regulations‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎McKenna talked about the problem of ‎

regulating signs in the contemporary community‎. ‎Using the City of Ann ‎

Arbor as an example, he said that they relate the size of the sign to the size ‎

of the building‎. ‎This works well in Ann Arbor because they have smaller ‎

buildings, however, it could be a problem for towns with larger buildings‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan noted that the Rochester Hills sign ordinance is about ‎15 ‎years ‎

old and was borrowed from a book by Crawford who writes zoning ‎

ordinances‎. ‎He said that the formula in the Rochester Hills ordinance ‎

allows the size of the sign depending on the size of the parcel or the ‎

frontage of the parcel and how far it sits back from the street‎. ‎He ‎

commented that the Building Department has found this sign ordinance ‎

difficult to work with because of the formula and other aspects of it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McKenna said that some of the factors to consider before delving into ‎

the sign ordinance process is to determine how bad the situation is and ‎

what exactly is the problem‎. ‎Other factors to consider would be political ‎

support, available staff time, resources, costs, etc‎. ‎Since most ordinances ‎

go into affect approximately ‎90 ‎days after they're published, they may want ‎

to consider a moratorium or how much time Mr‎. ‎Ternan has to spend in ‎

court on it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McKenna shared some tips for improving sign character‎. ‎He said that ‎

in some communities, a Beautification Committee can be very effective in ‎

getting the attention of the business people‎. ‎He suggested making a list of ‎

good sign companies that the city would recommend and having them ‎

available for those applying for sign permits‎. ‎They might include with this ‎

list examples of good design and problem signs, defining the city's ‎

standards, etc‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McKenna pointed out that the city of Scottsdale, AZ is a very nice, ‎

attractive community with a lot of commercial development‎. ‎They have ‎

taken an approach that signs should provide information, but not compete ‎

as advertisements‎. ‎Architecture and landscaping were to be the dominant ‎

streetscape element‎--‎not signs‎. ‎In considering this further, Rochester Hills ‎

would have to document and make the relationship between the kind of ‎

community and how important it is to property values and how important it is ‎

to merchandising, tourism, etc‎. ‎In communities that have taken this ‎

approach, they've set up a formal review process for each sign‎. ‎He ‎

suggested that Rochester Hills may want another approach other than the ‎

one that many other communities have taken where the size of the sign is ‎

related to the size of the street‎. ‎He felt that the city would have to make a ‎

big deal about it in the sense that they would need to have a lot of the ‎

community behind it‎. ‎He said that whatever they do, they should start out ‎

with a cooperative spirit‎. ‎Another approach, rather than taking on the whole ‎

community would be to select a particular part of the community and work ‎

on that as a test area or demonstration project‎. ‎He suggested doing that ‎

area first and then get compliance‎. ‎He said to be careful about being too ‎

restrictive because it works against the city and the city needs to work with ‎

the businesses‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McKenna showed slides of various types and sizes of signs, most of ‎

which were in surrounding communities‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan asked the Planning Commission if there was any desire to go ‎

beyond some specific amendments and do a broader based revision of the ‎

sign ordinance‎. ‎He asked that they determine exactly what the problems ‎

are with the existing ordinance and can they be identified and are they of a ‎

limited nature that could be corrected with some amendments or are the ‎

problems more broad based and should there be a re‎-‎writing of the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage said that he's become used to the existing sign ordinance and ‎

wouldn't want to see any major changes to it‎. ‎He said that the sign ‎

contractors he deals with are used to the ordinance‎. ‎Even though some of ‎

the business owners and sign contractors may not like the sign regulations, ‎

most of the time they comply‎. ‎

With regard to message units, Mr‎. ‎Sage pointed out some things he felt ‎

may be in conflict with the current ordinance‎. ‎He didn't see a big problem ‎

with limiting the number of message units‎. ‎The only time he could see it as ‎

a problem is for businesses that have a large amount of square footage ‎

even though they are only allowed a maximum single sign area if ‎100 ‎

square feet per sign‎. ‎For example, a business like K‎-‎Mart may want to put ‎

additional signs for automotive or garden center, and have a sufficient ‎

amount of sign area to allow several signs, but they may be pushing the ‎

message unit limitation‎. ‎Other than that, the only area where there may be ‎

conflict is changeable letter boards‎. ‎He said if we have a business that has ‎

a changeable letter board, this would need to be clarified‎.‎

With regard to cutting down on the negative impact of signs, Mr‎. ‎Sage said ‎

that it seems to him that the biggest concerns are the number of signs and ‎

the height of signs‎. ‎He said there are already provisions in the ordinance ‎

restricting the number of signs to no more than one per property and if there ‎

is enough room, no closer than ‎250 ‎feet‎. ‎It might be a good idea to ‎

increase that distance to maybe ‎400 ‎- ‎500 ‎feet between signs, and lower ‎

the height of the signs to ‎8 ‎- ‎10 ‎feet or whatever might be suitable, or limit ‎

structure signs to one per road frontage regardless of what sign area is ‎

permitted for the site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage pointed out a number of other concerns he had with the existing ‎

ordinance‎. ‎He said if they eliminate pole signs, then they would have to ‎

decide what to do with the word ‎"‎structure sign‎" ‎since this word appears in ‎

the ordinance‎. ‎Structure sign, by definition, is very similar to a pole sign‎. ‎

On note ‎(‎h‎)‎, page ‎6 ‎of the proposed sign ordinance, it refers to premises ‎

with only one occupant, that the maximum height of signs should be ‎8 ‎feet‎. ‎

He thought that multiple tenant sites would be allowed more height‎. ‎He said ‎

that this should be clarified‎. ‎

On page ‎6‎, number ‎10 ‎(‎a‎) ‎of the proposed ordinance regarding Message ‎

Units, it says that the total of all signs on a property shall not contain in ‎

excess of ten message units, except as hereafter provided‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Sage said ‎

that they would have to make a provision for multiple tenant sites, such as ‎

Hampton Village Shopping Center‎. ‎Obviously, they would have more than ‎

ten message units on the entire piece of property‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that in talking with the administrator of the Ann Arbor ‎

sign ordinance, she indicated that a shopping center would not be limited to ‎

ten message units, however, a single business premise would be limited to ‎

ten message units‎.‎

Also on page ‎6‎, number ‎10 ‎(‎b‎.‎1‎) ‎where it talks about gasoline price signs, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage said that currently, in the codified ordinance which also covers ‎

signs, they limit price signs to twelve square feet per road frontage currently ‎

and ‎20 ‎square feet per pump island‎. ‎If the gas station has three islands, ‎

that's ‎60 ‎square feet of price signage‎. ‎He felt that this was excessive‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that the intent in this section was to call out in ‎10‎.‎b ‎

(‎1‎-‎12‎)‎, types of signs that a business could have that would not be counted ‎

as part of the ten message units that they would be allowed to have‎. ‎So, ‎

they could have the gasoline price and have it not count toward the ten ‎

message units allowed on the property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage said that this is his understanding‎. ‎The other side of that is that ‎

the ordinance says they can have ‎20 ‎square feet per pump island to identify ‎

the price‎. ‎He said there's already a provision in the codified ordinance to ‎

cover that and he didn't know if the Planning Commission wanted to go to ‎

20 ‎square feet per pump island‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that he could meet with Mr‎. ‎Sage to discuss any major ‎

concerns‎. ‎He felt that Mr‎. ‎Sage should bring up those concerns which he ‎

feels the Planning Commission needs to discuss and try to get some ‎

direction‎. ‎If not, he would meet with Mr‎. ‎Sage to go over the detail and work ‎

those comments into another draft‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage said that there were probably more language issues than ‎

anything else‎. ‎

The Chair said that he would like to hear comments from the Planning ‎

Commission identifying what the problem really is in Rochester Hills in ‎

order to gain a sense of direction as to where they want to go with this‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that his reason for wanting to take this to another step ‎

of rewriting the entire ordinance wasn't just the issue of the signs in ‎

Rochester Hills, but also how this sign ordinance was structured and how ‎

well it worked as an ordinance enforcement tool‎. ‎Upon learning that Mr‎. ‎

Sage has been working with this ordinance for a period of seven years and ‎

is just beginning to feel comfortable with it, Mr‎. ‎Ferrera felt that this was a ‎

sign that there is something structurally wrong with the existing ordinance‎. ‎

This is why he would want to go on to the next step of rewriting the entire ‎

ordinance so that it is an easier tool that they can use to achieve the goals‎. ‎

He feels that the quantity of signs in Rochester Hills is still excessive and ‎

that the size of the signs and the aesthetics are also excessive‎. ‎

Member Nowicki commented that page three of the proposed ordinance ‎

where it talks about sign area is very difficult to understand‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth doesn't feel the problem is just the size of the sign, but ‎

also the proximity to the street and the entire streetscape‎. ‎As an example, ‎

most of the signs in the Hampton Village Center seem to be placed ‎

somewhat similarly from the distance from the street‎. ‎He doesn't agree ‎

with the kind of streetscape on Crooks Rd‎. ‎south of M‎-‎59‎. ‎He doesn't like ‎

the fact that our sign ordinance doesn't regulate color‎. ‎He also feels that ‎

some of the city's signs are unpleasing in terms of aesthetics‎. ‎He felt that ‎

oftentimes, tenants are competing with one another‎.‎

Member Nowicki said that unfortunately, some of the signs in our city have ‎

been up for ‎20‎-‎30 ‎years, many of which have been there before the city had ‎

a sign ordinance‎. ‎He wondered how to get rid of some of those signs when ‎

the businesses have been there for such a long time‎. ‎He felt that this is the ‎

biggest problem the city faces‎.‎

Member Hauswirth asked how other communities have handled this ‎

problem‎.‎

The Chair recalled a comment made by Mr‎. ‎Luedtke that some of the ‎

communities, through a slow process, help pay ‎(‎through money available in ‎

general fund, tax or grants‎) ‎to bring about conformity‎.‎

Member Boswell said that when businesses start changing and updating ‎

their signs and when new businesses move in, it may help influence the ‎

older businesses to replace their old outdated signs so that their business ‎

will be aesthetically pleasing‎.‎

The Chair said that he would like to see the city moving toward very limited ‎

signage in this community‎.‎

Member Ferrera said he would rather see a streetscape that has very ‎

limited signs‎. ‎He feels that this is a long term goal which may take ‎15‎-‎20 ‎

years to accomplish‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth agreed except that to the extent of retail, he wouldn't be ‎

in favor of the elimination of signs on the buildings‎. ‎He wouldn't mind if ‎

signs by themselves were eliminated in front of large shopping centers and ‎

those which border all the streets‎.‎

Member Hauswirth recalled a very good point made by Mr‎. ‎McKenna which ‎

said if the city is going to dictate signs internally, then the city should ‎

consider the aesthetics of their own signs‎. ‎He said that in the newer streets ‎

in the city, there are a lot of traffic signs in a small amount of space‎. ‎He ‎

said it seems contradictory to the discussion tonight‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero commented that whatever they do with the signs, ‎

whether it would be to restrict the numbers, size or location, they must be ‎

careful that it isn't going to create a safety problem on the roads‎. ‎She felt ‎

that reducing the number of signs or lowering the height of the signs will ‎

create a safety problem because people will be looking for those signs‎. ‎

She asked them to keep in mind that they are dealing with roads like ‎

Rochester Rd‎.‎, Crooks Rd‎.‎, and Walton Blvd‎. ‎where there is a lot of ‎

commercial development, however the road system isn't the same‎. ‎Speed ‎

limits are different, the width of the road is different and the people who ‎

travel those roads may not be as familiar with the area as those who reside ‎

in this city‎.‎

Member Hauswirth said that he doesn't feel it's a safety hazard because ‎

people learn to look for their location ‎(‎address‎) ‎rather than watching for a ‎

specific sign‎. ‎He doesn't doubt that there would be confusion if the signs ‎

were suddenly removed, but he wouldn't agree that without the large signs it ‎

might cause a traffic problem‎.‎

Member Ruggiero said she was suggesting that if they change the ‎

ordinance reducing the size of the signs that they think about the safety ‎

issue‎. ‎When someone looks for an address on Rochester Rd‎.‎, they're ‎

looking at an area from South Blvd‎. ‎all the way to the Rochester city limits‎. ‎

Some of the other communities mentioned are much smaller, where their ‎

main road may only be one mile long‎. ‎Rochester Hills has a much longer ‎

stretch of roadway‎. ‎She said that they need to be consistent in whatever ‎

they decide to do with this ordinance‎. ‎She asked that they keep in mind ‎

that they are dealing with different road uses and different amounts of traffic ‎

traveling on these roadways‎.‎

The Chair recalled several points made by Mr‎. ‎McKenna such as getting ‎

support from the community, do a preference survey and get with people ‎

concerning the development of a beautification program‎. ‎He wondered ‎

what the other commissioners felt the next step should be‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that the Planning Commission has charted the direction ‎

asking for some specific amendments and they can either move ahead on ‎

them tonight or at a later date‎. ‎He asked if they wanted to take a new ‎

approach to signs in general, which falls into two areas ‎-- ‎the structure of ‎

the ordinance and procedure and secondly, the number, size and nature of ‎

signs in general in the city‎. ‎He said that he needs some direction from the ‎

Planning Commission because there are some commissioners who feel ‎

the sign ordinance should be more restrictive and others who feel it ‎

shouldn't be more restrictive‎. ‎He said that he could study the four sets of ‎

ordinances provided in the packet and come back with a new approach to ‎

the ordinance that tries to incorporate the best of the Rochester Hills' ‎

ordinance‎. ‎He didn't feel it would take an extremely large expense to do ‎

this‎. ‎He didn't know whether the Planning Commission would be interested ‎

in reading East Lansing's sign ordinance which is more restrictive or a sign ‎

ordinance similar to that, and make a judgement about that or whether Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin and her staff can advise the Planning Commission on that or ‎

whether they want to have an outside planning consultant advise them on ‎

the question of the size, type of signs and things of that nature‎. ‎If they ‎

choose to have a planning consultant get involved, then that would involve ‎

budgetary issues‎. ‎He said he needs direction as to whether they want to ‎

leave things as they are, other than the four specific amendments, or do ‎

they want to chart a new direction in addition to them and then how ‎

extensively do they want to go into it‎. ‎Other options might be for him to give ‎

the Planning Commission a draft of the best of the various ordinances or, ‎

they may wish to do a further study‎. ‎

Member Sadowski said that he believes the quickest way to clean up the ‎

city is to eliminate the roadside signs‎. ‎He felt that the identification on the ‎

buildings is fine‎. ‎His concern with the elimination of on‎-‎street signs is how ‎

to deal with those signs that are legal non‎-‎conforming signs‎. ‎He wondered ‎

how they could be equitable in that endeavor‎.‎

Member Boswell said that he wasn't sure that getting the signs off the street ‎

would solve the problem‎. ‎He didn't feel they should eliminate them because ‎

it wouldn't be fair to the new businesses‎.‎

Member Hauswirth said that the difficult part about that would be regulating ‎

to the point of distinguishing attractive signs from non‎-‎attractive signs ‎

because the issue, such as color and material could play a large role in ‎

that‎. ‎

The Chair asked the commissioners how they felt about requiring a review ‎

process on every sign as it's done in Scottsdale, AZ‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that this is what they are attempting to do in the ‎

Architectural Review process‎. ‎Some of this can be done within these ‎

guidelines because they give staff an opportunity to look at signs through ‎

the site plan review process for new development‎. ‎The open issue is how ‎

to get at re‎-‎tenanting of the existing lot‎. ‎She didn't know if they could do ‎

anything about color and material of signs as a requirement‎.‎

Member Somerville said that she feels the sign ordinance needs an ‎

overhaul‎. ‎She doesn't see how the city could possibly eliminate any signs‎. ‎

She personally feels that monument signs, not to exceed eight feet in ‎

height, are ideal‎. ‎She feels that we should try and do away with the ‎

excessive height of the signs‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that the Michigan Supreme Court recognized the right of ‎

communities, for the first time, to require an amortization of signs ‎(‎a phased ‎

out removal of them‎) ‎to conform with present regulations‎. ‎That court ‎

decision did not decide whether or not the community that does that is ‎

responsible to pay the value of the sign‎. ‎There's a probability that there will ‎

be a requirement for payment‎. ‎The city could require the signs to come ‎

down within a period of a certain number of years and then there would be ‎

a question of whether or not the city would have to pay for the value of that‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin recalled a comment made by Mr‎. ‎McKenna that if they were ‎

to adopt new requirements, they could also put forth a moratorium so that ‎

no more signs could go up during the time the amendments to the ‎

ordinance were being discussed‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Ruggiero said that she would be in favor of ‎"‎cleaning up‎" ‎the existing ‎

ordinance, specifically with regard to aesthetics‎. ‎While seeking to maintain ‎

consistency throughout the city, they should also keep in mind that ‎

Rochester Hills has different road uses that may cause them to realize that ‎

what might be good for Rochester Rd‎. ‎may not be appropriate for Crooks ‎

Rd‎. ‎or Livernois Rd‎. ‎or Walton Blvd‎.‎, etc‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Ruggiero stated that the sign regulations used on Hilton Head Island ‎

are such that the size and materials are regulated but the inset of the sign is ‎

the signature of that company, be it Taco Bell, MacDonalds, a corporation, ‎

etc‎. ‎The monument that the sign is attached to is regulated so it looks good ‎

but you can identify with that business very clearly by the color and the logo‎. ‎

Hilton Head Island has many visitors to its community; people are driving ‎

slower and looking for signs and this seems to be very effective and ‎

attractive‎. ‎She said that we shouldn't assume that all the people driving ‎

through Rochester Hills are residents who know where most everything is‎. ‎

She doesn't believe that this is the case at all‎. ‎

The Chair said he would like to know more about some of the problems Mr‎. ‎

Sage has encountered from an ordinance enforcement perspective, as well ‎

as what he feels the current sign ordinance really needs‎. ‎He said he would ‎

also like to find out from either a consultant or Mr‎. ‎Ternan about what they ‎

can legally do with regard to regulating colors and would they be on firm ‎

ground regulating materials‎. ‎He said that it would be helpful to have ‎

photographs or something in detail that they can look at to see what kinds ‎

of problems the city has and what could be done with a minimum amount of ‎

intrusion on the businesses to improve things‎. ‎He wondered if a survey had ‎

ever been conducted to determine what amount of business is generated ‎

by signs and whether that can also be refined more to what amount of ‎

business is generated by locals as opposed to strangers ‎(‎or passers ‎

through‎). ‎

Member Ferrera said he believes that the larger scope will take a year or ‎

two to come to some conclusion‎. ‎Prior to that time, he would like to see ‎

some amendments to the ordinance that will reduce some of the sign clutter ‎

that is occurring in the community‎. ‎He said the only way they can do that is ‎

to deal with some very specific issues‎. ‎He said there are a number of ‎

points that he would like to address briefly tonight‎.‎

1‎)‎On page ‎1‎(‎d‎) ‎under ‎Message Unit‎, he is not convinced that going to a ‎

message unit signage allotment, that the city is actually ‎

clearing up the broader issue of whether this sign ordinance ‎

is understandable by the general public and the business ‎

community‎.‎

2‎)‎On page ‎2‎(‎h‎) ‎under ‎Pole Sign‎, he said there needs to be some ‎

clarification between the two terms ‎"‎pole sign‎" ‎and ‎"‎structure ‎

sign‎" ‎since they seem to be defining the same thing‎.‎

3‎)‎On page ‎6‎(‎h‎) ‎he doesn't think that they should reduce the height to just ‎8 ‎

feet‎. ‎He would rather see something around ‎5‎'‎-‎6‎'‎. ‎Secondly, ‎

this appears to only be reducing the height from ‎20‎' to ‎8‎' ‎

when there is a single occupant‎. ‎His position would be that ‎

all‎ pylon signs‎/‎monument signs‎/‎structure signs be limited to ‎5‎' ‎

or ‎6‎'‎. ‎The second part of ‎6‎(‎h‎) ‎says ‎"...‎and such signs shall be ‎

surrounded with low evergreen plantings as approved by the ‎

Planning Director‎." ‎He thought it was strange that something ‎

like this would be approved by the Planning Director, ‎

although he said this is fine‎. ‎His only concern is that he sees ‎

a lot of monument signs ‎3‎' ‎- ‎5‎' tall to have low evergreen ‎

plants and then these signs become difficult to read over a ‎

period of time‎.‎

4‎)‎On page ‎6‎, item ‎10‎(‎b‎).‎1 ‎where it talks about gasoline price signs, he said ‎

that perhaps the language in the codified ordinance needs to ‎

be taken out and then that language inserted in this section‎. ‎

He wouldn't want to see new language written and increase ‎

the quantity of signs‎. ‎He said that this section seems to be ‎

saying that these signs are going on a pump island‎. ‎He said ‎

that's not where they go; they go out on the monument sign ‎

near the road‎. ‎He felt that there was a problem with this ‎

language‎.‎

5‎)‎Page ‎7 ‎(‎3‎) ‎under ‎Business Name‎ where it says if the name of the ‎

proprietor of a business exceeds ten ‎(‎10‎) ‎message units‎. ‎

He's not sure what this is trying to say‎. ‎

6‎)‎Page ‎7 ‎(‎4‎) ‎where it says, ‎"‎permanent signs on vending machines, gas ‎

pumps or ice containers indicating only the contents of such ‎

devices are located within ten feet of a building‎. ‎The sign ‎

area of each device may not exceed six square feet‎." ‎He ‎

commented that gas pumps are never within ten feet of a ‎

building‎. ‎He said he didn't think the Fire Department would ‎

look too kindly on that‎. ‎He said that many gas pumps are ‎

beyond five feet and there has to be some identification on ‎

that pump‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage mentioned that he really doesn't know if they want to include ‎

vending machines and ice containers because the city is having a problem ‎

with that right now‎. ‎The city does not allow outdoor sales‎. ‎By putting this in ‎

there, he feels the city is passively admitting that they do allow it, and they ‎

don't‎. ‎They are debating with proprietors now because they are putting pop ‎

machines outside and this is not allowed‎. ‎Further, they are discouraging ‎

gas stations from putting solvent, oil and tires outside‎. ‎He would suggest ‎

that they remove the language from this paragraph referencing these ‎

machines‎.‎

7‎)‎Page ‎7 ‎(‎7‎) ‎where it says, ‎"‎Signs of a religious institution, school, ‎

museum, community recreation facility or library indicating the ‎

name, current displays of activities, and having an area of not ‎

greater than twenty five ‎(‎25‎) ‎square feet‎." ‎He asked if this is ‎

the current limitation of a church sign and‎/‎or are we saying ‎

that this ‎25 ‎feet would be beyond whatever the current ‎

limitation is so that they would be allowed ‎20 ‎feet or ‎30 ‎feet ‎

that they are allowed now plus the ‎25 ‎feet‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage said that right now they allow churches ‎(‎located in residential ‎

zones‎) ‎20 ‎square feet to identify their premises under the residential ‎

section of the ordinance‎. ‎Under the exemption part in the Zoning ‎

Ordinance, thirty‎-‎two ‎(‎32‎) ‎square feet is exempt for changeable letter board ‎

for churches without interior elimination‎. ‎

8‎)‎Page ‎7 ‎(‎10‎) ‎where it talks about political signs, he said he didn't ‎

remember what the outcome was of the discussion about a ‎

year ago‎. ‎He wondered if whatever happened is consistent ‎

with this language‎.‎

9‎)‎Page ‎7 ‎(‎12‎)‎, he said he doesn't see why they have to have exemptions ‎

for a telephone number or fax number on a building or a pylon ‎

sign‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that his understanding of the resolution they adopted ‎

in November was that the Planning Commission would proceed with these ‎

items and in the background was the major overhaul‎. ‎He recalled that the ‎

Planning Commission was a little unsure of their own position on this ‎

broader picture and in fact, were asking for some direction from City ‎

Council as to whether or not they wanted the Planning Commission to go ‎

through all of this‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that she has not forwarded a resolution to City Council ‎

on this issue yet because the Planning Commission had not received ‎

enough information to clarify their position on whether major revisions to the ‎

sign ordinance are necessary‎. ‎She said that if the Planning Commission ‎

wants her to advise City Council by means of a memo and also have ‎

Member Somerville verbalize it at the City Council meeting, she felt they ‎

were at a better point to do that now‎.‎

The Chair said that the unspoken message that he senses from Mr‎. ‎Ternan ‎

is that, while asking for the Planning Commission's direction, he wonders ‎

why they would want to pursue amendments to the ordinance when they ‎

also want a complete overhaul done‎. ‎The Chair said he thinks that they do ‎

want a major overhaul, and that they probably don't need to take as long as ‎

Member Ferrera stated, but maybe longer than what some of them want‎. ‎

Therefore, the sense seems to be to go forward on the amendments‎. ‎He ‎

said he would tend to want the whole thing done rather than piece meal, ‎

however, he was not adverse to doing it this way‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan agreed that the Planning Commission's next step would be to ‎

seek the City Council's direction on this issue‎. ‎He felt that the City Council ‎

would be desirous of drafting amendments to the sign ordinance‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked if, in the meantime, they were proceeding with the ‎

amendments discussed this evening‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said yes‎.‎

Discussed

2000-1438

Review of Revised Architectural Review Guidelines Manual‎

As mentioned previously, Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that these guidelines will provide ‎

a basis to have a dialogue for the site plan‎. ‎If the Planning Commission ‎

wants ‎"‎teeth‎" ‎in it, he said it should be a request to City Council that they ‎

study it and put it into an ordinance‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that his understanding is that this would delete any ‎

building permit applications from this guideline review except those ‎

applications that would also be going through the site plan review process ‎

before the Planning Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said this is correct‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified Member Ferrera's statement by saying that the only ‎

sites requiring a site plan would need to come before the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎There are some additions that can be approved under a ‎

building permit because nothing about the site is changing‎. ‎

Member Ferrera said that this is not what this language says‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that he sees Member Ferrera's point‎. ‎He said that he ‎

thinks he can make some minor amendments to this to make sure it's not ‎

triggered just by coming to the Planning Commission‎. ‎He said it wouldn't ‎

change the meaning of anything else‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked if Mr‎. ‎Ternan's concern is over the fact that these ‎

guidelines are not an ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said ‎"‎yes‎."‎

Member Ferrera said that if he's of the mind that these guidelines should ‎

apply to face lifts of buildings and other activities which require a building ‎

permit, then one solution might be for him to propose a resolution that these ‎

guidelines be presented to the City Council for their review and request that ‎

they respond to the Planning Commission as to whether the City Council ‎

would like to see these guidelines applied to non‎-‎site plan construction ‎

such as face lifts to buildings‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that a broader question would be to ask City Council if they ‎

want the maximum legal enforceability, if it's possible, for all non‎-‎residential ‎

architectural aesthetic issues‎.‎

Member Nowicki said that they should also look at what this will cost and ‎

would it be a cost to the Planning Commission or as part of the City Council ‎

budget for the enforcement and also the experts that will be necessary to ‎

provide their architectural expertise‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that he hoped that City Council would never adopt an ‎

ordinance without understanding what their financial consequences of that ‎

ordinance is‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that in Florida where they do have architectural review, he ‎

thought they had special architectural review boards‎. ‎He said if they're ‎

going to do it, then they would have to adopt a set of standards that are ‎

legally enforceable and then probably create an Architectural Review ‎

Board‎. ‎He said he's not saying this to discourage the Planning ‎

Commission, but he thinks there are costs involved in this and it may not be ‎

legally enforceable in Michigan‎. ‎He said he hasn't studied it to the degree ‎

he would need to‎. ‎He said if they want to move beyond a dialogue with ‎

developers, then he felt that there must be a policy decision by the City ‎

Council and then an evaluation from a budgetary standpoint also‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that recognizing that there is a financial issue ‎

involved in enforcement of such an ordinance, he would much rather that the ‎

Planning Commission take this to some ordinance condition so that the ‎

developer and the owner knows what they're getting into before they get ‎

into it‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin asked that they keep in mind that we haven't yet tested the ‎

strength of the guidelines‎. ‎

Member Ferrera said that one of his concerns is that the guidelines only ‎

apply to site plans, not face lifts of buildings or even additions to buildings ‎

that don't require a site plan‎. ‎He said there's a large loophole‎. ‎Another ‎

concern is that, as the years go on, that's where most of the development in ‎

this community is going to occur‎. ‎He said it's not going to occur at the ‎

Planning Commission level, but rather in the Building Department with ‎

people trying to put facades on buildings‎. ‎He said these are precisely the ‎

types of activities that are more likely to be a negative condition on the ‎

Planning Commission's likes in this community‎. ‎

The Chair asked why they need the words ‎"‎for new construction,‎" ‎as noted ‎

on page ‎2 ‎of the proposed draft‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that he would leave out the words ‎"‎new construction‎" (‎third ‎

paragraph, page ‎2‎) ‎and also delete Planning Commission in that same ‎

sentence‎.‎

The Chair pointed out in the last paragraph on page ‎2 ‎(‎under ‎

Pre‎-‎Submission Conferences‎) ‎that he doesn't like the words ‎"‎wherever ‎

possible‎" ‎in that sentence‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan suggested language that says, ‎"‎The Planning Department shall ‎

meet with applicants‎...."‎

The Chair asked if it would sound better if it said, ‎"‎The applicants shall ‎

meet with the Planning Department before submission of building designs ‎

to the city‎."‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan agreed that this would be acceptable‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Ferrera, support by Sadowski, that the Planning Commission ‎

re‎-‎adopt the Administrative Guidelines for Architectural Review as ‎

amended with the amendments discussed in these proceedings‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎Ferrera, Hauswirth, Kaiser, Nowicki, Ruggiero, Sadowski, Somerville‎

Nays‎:‎Boswell‎

Absent‎:‎Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no further business to come before the Commission‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair announced that the next Planning Commission meeting will be ‎

February ‎1‎, ‎1994‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the ‎

meeting was adjourned at ‎10‎:‎36 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎