REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – NOVI CIVIC CENTER – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Landry called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Landry asked for a moment of silence for all the public safety officers and everyone who gave their lives on September 11, 2001.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Gatt, Margolis-absent/excused, Mutch, Nagy-absent/excused, Paul

Mayor Landry explained that Member Margolis was out of town, and Member Nagy had a deposition and would be present as soon as possible.

ALSO PRESENT: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Rob Hayes, City Engineer

Mayor Landry said Council had been asked to consider and set a date for the City Council Emerging Priorities Session approved at the last meeting for goal setting. A survey was also approved to go out to the City. He suggested Monday, September 18^th at 7:00 P.M. or Thursday, September 21^st at 7:00 P.M.

Roland Heaton was present regarding the activities of the Beautification Committee, Parks and Recreation, high school students, and Member Paul. He shared that a beautiful rain garden had been planted at the entrance of Michigan State’s Toll Gate Farm. Mr. Heaton showed before and after pictures of the entrance off of Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook Roads.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. August 28, 2006 Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of September 11, 2006 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing the City Clerk’s evaluation.

C. Approval of Massage Business License for Identity Salon and Spa, located at 25875 Novi Road, Suite 120.

D. Approval of Agreement with METCO to provide Interim Building Review and Architectural Façade Consulting Services.

E. Approval of request for an extension until September 27, 2006 of the Outdoor Gathering Permit which was granted to the Main Street Merchants Association of Novi for a Classic Car Street Show to be held at Main Street and Market Street on Wednesdays from 4 p.m. until 9 p.m.

F. Approval of resolution to authorize the purchase of additional service credit by City employees.

G. Approval of Updated Signal Maintenance Agreement for the Traffic Signal at Novi Road and Crescent Drive/Fonda Street.

H. Acceptance of Sidewalk Easement from Arnold and Mollie Smith, 47480 Eleven Mile Road, in conjunction with the Eleven Mile Pathway Project Phase II.

I. Approval to Close the Construction Files for Special Assessment District Nos. 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 162, 163, 165, 168, 169, and to issue credits (where applicable) to the owners of record.

J. Acceptance of Walsh College site water main as a public utility. The site is located at 41500 Gardenbrook Drive and is Parcel ID No. 50-22-14-451-024.

K. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 728

1. Consideration of Text Amendment 06-100.36, for the proposed amendments to Chapter 28, Signs, of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, in order to modify the standards for signage throughout the City of Novi. Second

Reading

Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought a provision was added in the TC-1 District where businesses with first floor entrances on public streets could have a wall sign, and a small one by two projecting sign similar to what was in the Town Center. He said this would allow pedestrians to see where the businesses were without having to walk in the street to look up on the wall.

Mr. Schultz replied the new TC-1 provisions are on pages 12, 13 and 14, and he hoped that Roman numeral five (v) was responsive in part. He said with regard to upper level projecting signs on page 16, there was a reference to a projecting sign on an exterior wall.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello didn’t think either one of those covered this. He remembered when they talked about this they had moved some provisions from one section to another in regard to number of signs. This was because there were numbers of signs in areas of the ordinance where there shouldn’t be. He said he was looking for it on page 17, under subsection 3, Number of on-premises advertising signs permitted, and didn’t see it. He said the two Mr. Schultz talked about would not apply because it didn’t talk about the number of signs, but a particular sign.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought they needed that. He said it was allowed in the Town Center District. If walking down Main Street, pedestrians would have to back up toward the curb or into the street to look up. He noted in the Town Center District the 1 foot by 2 foot signs were allowed along the sidewalk, but he didn’t see that in this. He thought it was something they wanted to allow, and it should be under subsection 3 because it would be more than one sign.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he would use Gus O’Connor’s as an example, and he wanted to add provision number 4 on page 18, under subsection g. The idea of this would be if a business occupied two or more stories of a building in the Town Center GE District, they would be allowed to have a sign on the second story, like Gus O’Connor’s had, but then the ZBA made them take the sign down above their door. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said his idea was if on Grand River the sign could be seen, and if in front of Gus O’Connor’s the sign couldn’t be seen. He said he would propose under subsection g 4, that a single business, which occupied two or more floors in the building with a separate first floor pedestrian entrance, may have a wall sign on the second floor of the building. Also allowed would be a second sign over the main pedestrian entrance, or the projecting one by two sign but not both, and no other sign, unless approved by the ZBA. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the idea was they could have a sign on the second floor and a sign over their door, but if they have a sign over their door they couldn’t have a third sign that projected out.

Member Paul asked what size the over the door sign would be. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he hadn’t thought about the size of it. He said Gus O’Connor’s was built into their décor on the front of the door and didn’t extend beyond that. He said he was not looking for a full wall sign again, one above the other. He suggested they could look and see what a reasonable size would be above the door.

Mr. Schultz noted the issue Gus O’Connor’s ran into was the number of signs because they were a corner parcel, and already had another sign on the other street frontage. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if it would be another sign per frontage. Mr. Schultz stated just a sign over their main entrance, and he guessed that was why there was the language "unless otherwise approved by the ZBA". The ZBA might want to allow the other sign on the other entrance above the door because it was on the corner of Grand River and Main, but he didn’t think they would be allowed two signs on each corner.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello noted he was just saying a sign over their main entrance. He guessed that was why the language was "unless otherwise approved by the ZBA". He didn’t think in that district and on a corner, they would be allowed to have two signs on each corner.

Mr. Schultz said they had a projecting sign on the Main Street side, and then the parking lot sign, and it was the new larger sign that required removal through the ZBA condition of the sign over the door.

Mayor Landry asked, for clarification, if they occupied two floors in TC-1 or GE, he could understand they would want their sign higher on the building to be visible farther away. He asked why they would ever allow two signs on the face of the building. He could understand a projecting sign if they chose to put the sign higher, and then have a projecting sign for pedestrians because it was very small. He said a pedestrian walking next to the building couldn’t see the signs. He understood the need for the projecting sign, and personally didn’t have a problem with a sign on the second floor and a projecting sign. However, why would they want two signs on the face of the building? He used Gus O’Connor’s as an example because when parked at Gus O’Connor’s, they really didn’t look up on the second floor. He said they would be looking in the first floor level, and would not see a projecting sign because they would be coming straight on to the building. He felt it would make more sense to have a sign flat on the front of the building as opposed to projecting out.

Mayor Landry said he didn’t have a problem with a projecting sign and a second story sign, but he didn’t have a problem seeing the big Gus O’Connor sign either. He didn’t know if he was prepared to allow someone to have two signs on the face of the building advertising the same business.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said on page 19, subsection l, he wanted the language at the end to say ", without ZBA approval of the non-conforming signs". He thought the language was very definite and seemed to block out any ability of the ZBA to make any decisions in regard to variances.

Mayor Landry asked if it would be a non-conforming sign if allowed under l.

Mr. Schultz said as he understood was the concern that the language was strong enough that somebody might read it to divest the ZBA of jurisdiction to grant a variance for a sign that wouldn’t be permitted. Mayor Pro Tem Capello replied yes, that was all he was trying to avoid. Mr. Schultz said he didn’t mind softening the language a little but the ZBA had the authority to vary any one of these provisions even if it’s written in absolute language. He said Council gave that authority to grant another sign if the variance was requested. He said if it was the definiteness of the language, it could be softened.

Mayor Landry asked if his point was that he didn’t want someone to read this and say the ZBA could never allow a third sign. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said yes.

Member Gatt said, regarding the two story structure and second sign, that Mayor Pro Tem Capello mentioned where he parked at Gus O’Connor’s he didn’t have trouble seeing that first story sign. He asked if he was saying if he parked further away he wouldn’t see the sign over the door, and therefore needed a sign on the second story. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said they have the sign on the second story for traffic on Grand River. He said when he walked up to the building looking for the door on the first floor, if he wasn’t looking up to the second story for the entry sign for the door, he wouldn’t see it. He knew they shouldn’t look at the ordinances as site specific, but the Gus O’Connor sign above their door fit well within the architecture, wasn’t offensive, and looked like it was part of the design. Member Gatt asked if the sign could be seen from Grand River, and Mayor Pro Tem Capello said no.

Member Paul noted the section for inclusion of the second sign above the door was not included in this document either. She said she saw a five foot sign, and didn’t think it would apply. The comment that the sign would be projecting from the first story for walking business made the most sense if there was an awning or permanent structure over the first story. She didn’t have a problem with the projecting sign. She said a second sign over the front entrance door with no permanent structure, was a little harder for her because it allowed pedestrians to look up if they needed to. She said if there was a two story building with the sign on the second story, and a permanent roof structure covering that story, it would be very difficult to see. So, she could understand a projecting sign or a sign over the door. She said if Council had specific language that a permanent structure would obscure someone’s vision that would help her. She suggested a small 1 by 2 or 1 by 3 sign similar to the projecting sign, because she wasn’t looking for another large sign to be seen from Grand River. Member Paul thought, regarding the free standing building on page 19, l, two signs were very easy to understand, and could be on a free standing building. She thought anytime an ordinance was written, the ZBA could be asked whether they could have some other kind of provision. She stated she had no problem with the language. She didn’t know if it was necessary to soften it, because they were making it a little easier for people to have more signage, and not go to the ZBA as often, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t go to the ZBA. Member Paul thought when talking about the signage over someone’s door they had to be very specific about the type of sign. She was not looking for a neon light, but was talking about something visible with illumination from a separate light.

Member Mutch said on page 5, dealing with temporary promotional signs, when that went to the Planning Commission it was limited to "city wide" events or promotions, and the Planning Commission recommended dropping "city wide" from the ordinance. He asked Mr. Schultz to comment on whether he had a problem with that change. He said there was some discussion about the premise of allowing these signs, and that it was a city wide kind of activity that justified allowing some relaxing of the ordinance standards.

Mr. Schultz said the Ordinance Review Committee took the community special event sign, which was something granted by the City Manager’s office, and noticed that Council was directing the City Manager’s office, through a resolution, to issue these community wide event signs. He said the Ordinance Review Committee was looking at it as things the Council authorized as a general area wide event. He thought the Planning Commission took the information from the one person who appeared at the public hearing, and said there was nowhere in the ordinance that permitted the owner of a shopping center to hold an event without getting some sort of variance approval from the ZBA. He said the suggestion to deal with that comment was that the Planning Commission would strike the words "city wide". It did not have to be done; it was a recommendation, and change in policy. It would be permitted, as he thought Council could reserve the authority to grant variations from the sign ordinance, but they needed to consider whether or not it was something they wanted to do.

Member Mutch said on page 11, he thought this came out of Code Enforcement, where the language that dealt with R.O.W. setback was removed. He asked why that was suggested.

Mr. Schultz said one of the things that ORC was trying to do was to look at the ZBA agendas to see what issues regularly came up, and one of the items identified was setbacks from R.O.W. The Ordinance Review Committee thought they should take the advice of the City staff, Mr. Amolsch in particular, and create a role that resembled what the ZBA had been doing, which was putting these things outside the actual R.O.W. or planned R.O.W. He commented three feet off the R.O.W. struck the City staff as an appropriate provision. The language shown in blue that had to be struck was something that should have been struck the first time around with a recommended language. Mr. Schultz said it was the other half of making it the 3 ft. rule off of the R.O.W., and it comported with what the ORC intended to do.

Member Mutch said it talked about 3 ft. from the future planned R.O.W., which Council had discussed. He said the other change that was substantive was page 19, k, which talked about residential subdivision boulevard entrances, with landscaped walls on both sides, entranceway signs on both sides would be permitted. He thought that had been discussed, and the consensus was that it would be fine with Council. Mayor Landry said that was his recollection as well. Member Mutch asked if it just got lost in the process. He said as he went back and read through it, he didn’t see anything that covered this so this addition’s good. He asked if it took care of the intent of what Council wanted.

Mr. Schultz said it took care of the intent that ORC discussed on that issue, but didn’t make it into the final draft. Member Mutch said that’s fine, and that was why it went through the Planning Commission because they caught things that Council missed.

Member Mutch commented on the "city wide" event or promotion. He understood the desire of the business owner to want something that allowed a promotional kind of sign. However, he was concerned that Council would have constant requests coming in, and even if City Administration took care of it, the proliferation of signs that could result from that would be great. He said they already had that with Real Estate signs that spring up every weekend and then go away. He was concerned that’s where they’d end up, and the promotion requests would be great when the Grand River construction was finished. Member Mutch said he didn’t have any problems with holiday event signs, and thought they would be great. However, it sounded like a big loophole to him if it was opened up. Member Mutch said one of the things they didn’t discuss at ORC dealt with lighting for the signs, but he had talked it over with Mr. Schultz. Member Mutch said there was no language that dealt with how signs were lit. They looked at the lighting ordinance, which was part of the Zoning Ordinance, and it was too convoluted for what Council was looking for. He said he put together some language he wanted to share with Council with the intent to avoid situations where there might be lighting from signage shining into a residential area or roadway, and also to avoid light pollution. He said the language he wanted included in a motion would be that "signs may be illuminated internally or externally unless expressly prohibited in this chapter. All sign lighting shall be either enclosed or directed away from roadways, traffic areas and adjacent residential properties. Sign lighting shall be focused on the sign to avoid stray lighting, and shall not be arranged to shine into the night sky. These provisions shall not apply to flags permitted by 28-7A5." He thought that would address the situations of people illuminating their American flag, and obviously they couldn’t get away from the light shining up into the sky. Member Mutch thought this kind of language would help avoid excessive sign lighting that would cause light pollution more than anything else.

Mayor Landry asked if this was a motion for consideration this evening, and Member Mutch said it was.

Mayor Landry asked Council to begin discussing specific amendments to the motion, and that they had Member Mutch’s motion to add to the ordinance being considered tonight.

Member Paul commented she lived in a subdivision where one side entrance had a sign, and there was no signage in the middle boulevard. She said if a new fireman had to find her subdivision, there was no way they would see it. She stated the lighting was blocked because it was down below where the landscaping was, and there was no other side of the sign. If they were coming from the Wixom Rd. fire station, they would pass right by because there was no signage whatsoever. She thought it was very important to have the illumination, and have it directed so that it wasn’t going directly into the sky. She thought this was an excellent provision, and her only concern was she didn’t know where it was to be inserted.

Member Mutch said insertion had not been proposed. He commented he would defer to Mr. Schultz because they had discussed that but had not settled on a location.

Mr. Schultz responded his suggestion would be to add, on page 37, under Construction Materials, an illumination provision as subsection (e) 28-13.

Mayor Landry asked if there was a motion to adopt the ordinance or did anyone want to add or change anything.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said, for clarification, he wanted to adopt the Planning Commission changes in section 22 on page 5 to strike "city wide", changes in subsection 28-5-1-e-1 on page 9 to strike, "or canopy sign". Also changes in subsection 3 k on page 19, to add after permitted on line 4, "If a residential subdivision or condominium development has a boulevard entrance, one, single-face sign is permitted on each side of the boulevard". Mayor Landry asked if that was a motion, and Mayor Pro Tem Capello replied it was.

UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt the Planning Commission changes in section 22 on page 5 to strike "city wide", changes in subsection 28-5-1-e-1 on page 9 to strike ",or canopy sign". Also changes in subsection 3 k on page 19, to add after permitted on line 4, "If a residential subdivision or condominium development has a boulevard entrance, one, single-face sign is permitted on each side of the boulevard". Also subsection (4) on the bottom of page 19, to add on line 8, "in"to with to make it within, and strike "In those instances where a parcel is in a TC-1 and GE district wall signs not of a common style shall be permitted", and on page 14, subsection c 1, to change the word "marquee" to canopy.

Member Mutch commented there were other minor changes, and one was at the top of page 11. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he purposely omitted that. Member Mutch noted a change on page 14, subsection c 1, and Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he would accept that. Mayor Landry said that was to change the word "marquee" to "canopy".

Member Paul asked if they were leaving "city wide" in section 22, page 5. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said no, he changed that. She said then "city wide" out, and he replied yes. He said his motion was to accept the proposed changes of the Planning Commission. Member Paul thought Council should specify a number of events per business per year, and felt that one event or promotion per year would be fair. She thought Member Mutch’s concern was valid that there would be going out of business sales, promotion sales, etc. with big signs and banners throughout the City. She thought if any sign could be put up at any time, there would be too many. Member Paul said the whole gist of this was to be more generous, more business friendly, and to still be aesthetically pleasing. She commented Novi had some very nice business areas, but to have banners hanging temporarily all over the City would not be aesthetically pleasing. She said if that stayed in the motion she would not support that portion of it. She requested that section 22, page 5, read "one event or promotion".

Mayor Pro Tem Capello responded that the provision was a definition of a temporary promotional sign. It did not determine when the signs would go up, how often they were up or how long they were up. It was just a definition, so a temporary sign did not have to be city wide. If someone wanted to have an event at Novi Road and Ten Mile Road, it wouldn’t have to be city wide; it would just be an event. He said Providence Hospital was going to have a gala Christmas event at the Rock Financial Center, and it would not be a city wide event, it would just be an event. He said that was why it made sense to take the words "city wide" out. It was just a definition, and didn’t say when, where or how because that was addressed somewhere else in the ordinance.

Member Paul asked Mr. Schultz to explain where, in the ordinance, there was some provision of control over how many events would be allowed.

Mr. Schultz said the temporary promotional sign provision was in the chart on page 25, (10) for temporary signs. He said there were no specific standards for approval; however, there were items that would be part of an approval by Council if they removed the words "city wide", such as date, type, size, and duration. He said it was not a specific standard like practical difficulty or something that the ZBA would grant, but it’s indicated as something within the discretion of the City.

Member Paul asked if they would come before Council or the Administration, and ask for an example of how that would work.

Mr. Schultz said under this, they would make an application to the City Administration, who would take the information and put it on a Council agenda for determination, presumably with a recommendation from staff. Council would determine whether or not to grant the approval. He said it was a little different than what came out of the Ordinance Review Committee, there’s no question about it that those were city wide events, which on occasion Council might initiate. Mr. Schultz said this would widen it up.

Member Paul commented she was OK with widening it up somewhat, but she had to have a little bit more of a narrow range. She said she was having a hard time with the language written here, and how specific Council could be. Member Paul said for example, if JC Penney’s was having a jewelry sale what type of sign would they be allowed to put up, where, and how would they come through the process.

Mr. Schultz said for the sale itself, unless it was outside and there was some separate review process from the sign ordinance, he thought other than the ZBA, there was no mechanism for there to be signage. He said under this section, it would permit Council to determine whether it would sponsor some sort of a promotional event for JC Penney. He stated he didn’t know if Council would ever issue such a narrow sign approval, but perhaps they would, and Council would be permitted to consider it.

Mayor Landry asked, for clarification, if Member Paul’s example was Penney’s. She said it could be any commercial site. Mayor Landry said in order for it to be a sign within this ordinance, it had to be seen from the roadway. He said any interior signs wouldn’t fall within this ordinance. Member Paul asked if Moe’s Restaurant wanted to have a Thanksgiving breakfast or dinner event, how would that be permitted.

Mr. Schultz replied there would be an application form provided by the City, that person would come in and fill out the application, describe the event, provide whatever information was required on the form, pay the fee, and get on a Council agenda. Mr. Schultz said Council would listen to the explanation of what the event would be. He noted it was not set up for a check list for Council to consider when deciding whether to grant the request or not. In that sense, taking the phrase "city wide" out made it a little bit of a different approval, and that was the policy question Council would have to decide tonight.

Mayor Landry thought those requests would be on a Consent Agenda unless Council gave the City Administration direction that they wanted to see each and every one of them. Member Paul asked what the fee would be. Mr. Schultz said there wasn’t a fee established, and he wasn’t sure they wrote a fee into this.

Member Paul said there would be paperwork involved, and some Administrative time, and there should be some type of a fee. She was not looking for a large amount but thought a small stipend would be appropriate. She said the City Clerk issued other permits similar to this, and perhaps she could suggest what fees would be fair.

Ms. Cornelius thought it would be best addressed through the Planning Department. She noted if it went to her office the application would typically be routed to the different departments, they would gather the information, and provide it to Council. Ms. Cornelius said fees ranged anywhere from $25.00 to $100.00 for the different types of licenses and permits, and it would depend on the amount of time necessary for a review by each department to set a fee.

Mayor Landry commented there was a fee section on page 7, subsection (c), which indicated that "A permit fee shall be paid to the City for each permanent permit and each temporary permit required by this chapter as shall be set by resolution of the Council from time to time". He said he didn’t think the fee was in the ordinance, it would be set by resolution of Council, and he was not opposed to what she was suggesting.

Member Paul stated she was trying to understand the process, and limitations, and wanted to feel comfortable with what was being suggested. She noted she was not completely comfortable yet, and wanted to hear more discussion about it.

Member Mutch said he wanted to clarify one thing he had discussed earlier. He had talked about the Grand River re-opening, and the holiday event. Member Mutch said there were two different provisions that might appear to intersect here. One was the community special event, which by the definition covers charitable, educational or public events occurring within the City. He said that would allow something school related, charitable functions or the public events mentioned before, which were governed by provisions under page 26, (12), to be approved by the City Manager, and would not come to Council. Member Mutch said the portion being discussed now dealing with the temporary promotional signs were governed by the provisions on page 25, (10). He said a couple things he would highlight, not because they were problems but so they were all aware, was that technically there was no limitation on sign size, and that would be set by Council. He said there would have to be something developed by Administration to address type, size, duration, and purpose of the signs. Then, the applicant would come to Council either on a Consent Agenda or otherwise with their request. Member Mutch noted he had the same concerns he voiced earlier regarding the number of requests for these. He thought Mayor Pro Tem Capello’s point that this was by definition was correct, and there was nothing that just by taking out "city wide" necessarily meant that would happen, but he thought the language helped limit it. He said if someone was just doing a promotion for their business center, it would not be a "city wide" event, by definition. So, the number of potential opportunities went from a hand full to everybody in the City. He said that might be the intent, but he was concerned Council would get a lot of requests. To be fair, whatever the first event requested, if they wanted 3 or 4 foot square signs on every corner, Council would have to be consistent. Member Mutch commented Council didn’t want to be in a situation where one business got one size sign, and the next business got a larger sign or more of them, and the perception was created that Council was favoring one over another. He said if the change was adopted, he would want Administration to put in place some standards that would be consistent from event to event, because he didn’t want a perception that Council was not being equitable.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello commented that Member Mutch’s point was well taken, and in all fairness, Member Paul’s example would have fallen under the Community Special Event section, because the sign referred to was free Thanksgiving dinners to the poor, homeless, and elderly. He said that would fall under the Community Special Event as a charitable event, and not a promotional event, and Administration would approve that sign.

Member Paul said recently Novi High School put up a sign advertising Varsity Lincoln Mercury giving away a car, and it said "Win Me" on it. She said the sign on the other side of the sidewalk closer to Ten Mile was cut down on a Friday evening so their whole weekend opportunity was gone, and they were very disappointed. She said the Boosters Club went to the principal as well as Mr. Dion, and had all the approvals. However, they weren’t aware a special permit was needed from the City, and didn’t know what to do. She asked what the school event would fall under.

Mr. Schultz said there was a definite difference between a community special event and Administrative approval. As long as they met the charitable purpose, they were a charitable organization. They were also a governmental organization, and would get their approval through the City Manager’s office. He said it was a permitted sign but they had to go through the process. The temporary promotional event was to deal with things that were not necessarily public, charitable, educational or civic events in the typical phrase. However, they were the kind of things that would still be authorized by the City Council. He said the non-profit Fifties Festival event might be able to fall under community special event, but it wasn’t clear with the relaxing of signs along Grand River, because with the road openings, it was not a community special event in the typical sense. He said a whole new category, Temporary Promotional Events was created, and the intention was it would be something Council did and would be city wide. Mr. Schultz noted it was a policy question and Council could change it. He thought the only question was if there was concern about the nature of the approval process. He said Council had already indicated they wanted to look at some standards, which could be done administratively, and written into the ordinance. He noted there was any number of ways to deal with the fact that Council was considering broadening it into something that might be specific to a smaller group of people than everybody along Grand River, or everyone in the City with the Fifties Festival.

Member Paul said she wanted the size of the sign and the length of time it could be up, written into the ordinance. She thought the duration would help because Ordinance Enforcement would have to follow up on all of this. She thought one or two weeks would be fair, and she would be open to either. However, to have a sign and banner go up for a month for just one business, and there might be many, wasn’t Council’s intent. Member Paul stated she wouldn’t want it to be a massive sign or for it to obstruct vision on the roadway. She felt like there wasn’t quite enough here, Council was giving a little more leniency, and she could live with that if she could have more direction on what the ORC was intending in regard to the sign duration and size.

Member Mutch commented he understood Member Paul’s concerns. He said the concern he had was that these were a variety of events that could trigger or request this kind of sign. He was concerned about writing in provisions that might end up being more or less lenient than Council wanted. He said ultimately the decision would be made by Council as they have to approve a resolution before any signs go out. He said that resolution would spell out the size, duration, purpose, location, and the responsibility would fall back on Council. If Council got a proliferation of signs throughout the community that the residents perceived as trashing up the landscape, they would know who to come back and talk to. Member Mutch stated he would move this forward with the language being open, and with direction to Administration to draft something and come back to Council. He wanted to review and discuss that before approving anything; he thought that would bring Council closer to where they wanted to be. He considered this a trial period, and they would give it a test run. If people are here every week, and signs are cluttering up every corner, he would be the first to push to have it repealed. He said this was not cast in stone, but he wanted to give it a chance, and give Administration a chance to come back with some language that would take into account the variety of events involved. He stated, at this time, he would not support an amendment because he wanted to try it, and see what happened in six months.

Mayor Landry agreed with Member Mutch. He said he didn’t know, in one sense, what they were discussing because as a lawyer he could make an argument that anything was a city wide event. He said if he was having a sale that was open to every member of the City, it would be a city wide event. He said they could spend 40 minutes arguing about what a city wide event was or what was an event, and some creative first amendment lawyer could argue a Penney’s sale was a city wide event. In light of that, he agreed with Member Mutch’s suggestion to just pass it. He agreed with Member Paul that some rhyme or reason was needed for what Council did, and he believed that Member Mutch’s suggestion was a good one. He said let’s look to the Administration to come back to Council before the first one comes to Council so it wasn’t specific as to who the applicant was. He asked the Administration to come back to Council with criteria for Council to consider as a Council policy, and perhaps a fee.

Member Paul said her issue was the number, size, duration, and fee of the sign. She said she wanted specifics, and asked for that information in 30 days. Then, when someone wanted to implement this, Council would have clear jurisdiction of what it was going to be. If it was going to be a one or two week event, there would be specific criteria for the size, number, location, etc. of the signs.

Mayor Landry asked if a motion was needed to adopt the whole motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he had two more issues. He commented on page 19, subsection (3) l, regarding free standing building, he wanted to add language at the end after restaurant use, "without ZBA approval of the non-conforming signs".

Mr. Schultz questioned the use of the word non-conforming, which often was read to connote something that already existed, and then was made illegal. He said Mayor Pro Tem Capello meant additional signs granted by variance. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said if the ZBA had already granted them, they should be OK, and the ZBA had the authority to grant new signs. Mr. Schultz suggested the word "additional" instead of non-conforming. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he wanted to include both. He said if the ZBA had already granted a variance, he didn’t want them to have to take their sign down. He commented either way he wanted them both.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the other suggestion was on page 18, the end of g, 5, to allow one by two projecting signs over the entrance of first story buildings only in the TC-1 and GE Districts,. He said any sign, including these small projecting signs, would have to go through the review process. Therefore, he assumed they would all be consistent within whatever district they were in, and not have a hodge podge of different sizes, just like the Town Center. He said he was dropping the Gus O’Connor amendment.

Member Mutch commented that when Mayor Pro Tem Capello went through his changes, the blue text on page 11, which dealt with the R.O.W., was left out. Member Mutch asked why he didn’t want that change included. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he was correct, and suggested staying on this issue first. Member Mutch said agreed.

Mayor Landry suggested getting through this, and the next motion could be to adopt the whole thing.

Mr. Schultz said, in terms of drafting, where would the one by two projecting sign be added. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said it was for first floor pedestrian entrances. Mr. Schultz asked if it was TC-1 only, and Mayor Pro Tem Capello said TC-1 and GE, wherever it fit.

Mayor Landry asked for a motion to adopt the new sign ordinance.

Member Mutch said he still wanted to know why the language on page 11 was not included. He said from Mr. Schultz’s comments seemed consistent with what Council had discussed. The goal was to have the signs 3 ft. from the future R.O.W. line, which in some cases was the current R.O.W. line, and in some cases a little further back than the existing R.O.W. line. He said the intent was to ensure the setbacks were consistent, and the additional language, "no less than one half of the required yard setback for the zoning district", was unnecessary. If all signs are 3 ft. from the future R.O.W. line, additional language was not needed, as it would always be 3 ft. from the future R.O.W. line. He thought of it as cleanup language. Otherwise, Code Enforcement or whoever was doing the permitting would have to sit there and do the mathematical calculations that say 3 ft. or no less than one half of the required yard setback.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said Member Mutch was absolutely right, and he had misread it. He said his reason for not approving it was Member Mutch’s exact argument. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the language in blue indicated it was coming out.

Mayor Landry said then it was to delete that as it was deleted in the draft.

Member Paul said for background, there was activity going on with repaving of concrete roads, and heavy trucks were going over brand new roads paved last year. She asked what the traffic pattern would be for the heavy haulers to avoid going over new roads.

Mr. Hayes replied he didn’t have a specific answer as to how their traffic plan was laid out, and that a traffic plan would be submitted by the contractor, and they would review it. He said, in general, they try to minimize the impact to any streets as much as possible. Mr. Hayes said any street designed and constructed under the new construction standards could handle any load that was imposed on it and then some.

Member Paul said she understood they tried to minimize that but when the City paid several million dollars to have roads done, she didn’t want to send a heavy truck over a brand new road. Member Paul said her road was falling apart, and she wanted to make sure other roads were protected. She asked if the traffic would come off of Ten Mile, head down LeBost and then go out Scarborough. She commented she wanted to make sure they were not going a long distance or over a brand new paved area.

Mr. Hayes stated he didn’t know the specifics to the majority of those streets. However, he did know that it would be one way in and one way out on LeBost, because they’re constrained where the former berm was located at the north end of LeBost. She asked if there was any way to take them back down LeBost to Ten Mile and not out Scarborough. Mr. Hayes said it was possible, he would look into it, and come up with a traffic plan with the contractor. He said one of the activities they paid for was a pre-construction video, which included the contractors proposed haul route. He said this video would show every foot of the street conditions before construction started. He said then his department would inspect that throughout the course of the project to include a final close out inspection to make sure there had been no damage to the street.

Member Mutch said the maps provided to Council indicated that all the repaving would occur in old Willowbrook Estates. He said Member Paul expressed concern about traffic going out through the new Willowbrook Farms on Scarborough. However, the only access from the old section to the new section was blocked off, so there was no access, and they didn’t expect construction traffic to go north out of that subdivision. Mr. Hayes said he was correct. Member Mutch said then all the construction traffic in that area would be going up to the end of the cul-de-sac and then coming back out. Mr. Hayes said that was correct. He thought that addressed Member Paul’s concern. Member Mutch commented he would be a little concerned about some of the streets in Yorkshire and Chase Farms, as some of the adjacent streets in that area were done last year. Mr. Hayes said no streets were done in Yorkshire. He noted they did very few concrete streets last year. Member Mutch asked how that came about, and if a timing or PASER issue was why those streets weren’t done. Mr. Hayes said Picadilly was on the roster for this year, and last year Ashbury in Chase Farms was done. Member Mutch asked if they would try to consolidate those as they were looked at in future years. He knew it was based on the PASER rating, but from a neighborhood viewpoint, it would be nice not to have construction every couple years. He was less concerned about the impact on the roads because if they were designed correctly, it shouldn’t be an issue. He said his concern was the construction traffic year after year in a subdivision.

Mr. Hayes commented he understood things had been done on a piecemeal basis, and a lot of that was because of the competing resources the City had, and the fact that there were several streets that need to be addressed. He said they tried to prioritize them the best they could.

Member Mutch said in addition to the LeBost changes, the other big change was the streets in Birchwood and Nottingham, which would be taken down to the base and paved. Mr. Hayes said he was correct. He commented that this was a real fast track design, and they only had coring and soil borings every 500 feet, and in the process of design, there were some areas that were worse than what the engineer had identified. He said the contractor’s recommendation, based on what he pointed out, was if doing a life cycle analysis, it made more sense to do a full reconstruction. He said that was just a small portion of the $55,000 they were amending the contract for. He said $40,000 of it was for the LeBost extension, and the remaining $15,000 was for the improved construction methods on the four smaller streets. Member Mutch stated he wanted people to be aware of what was going on in their neighborhoods. He agreed that in the long term it made more sense to do the full reconstruction, if that was indicated by the soil borings and the road conditions.

Ms. McBeth said the applicant had originally provided the signage package for the development currently taking place at the corner of 13 Mile and Novi Road. She said it included quite a number of signs, and the applicant agreed to come in and discuss a reduction in the total number of signs with the City staff and Mr. Schultz. Ms. McBeth pointed out that on the second page of the motion sheet, they had identified what occurred during that meeting. She noted that the applicant did agree to eliminate the ground sign but was requesting the two wall signs that would typically be permitted on a corner lot. The applicant offered to reduce the size from 31 sq. ft. each to 23 sq. ft. each. Ms. McBeth said Mr. Jonna, the applicant, was requesting a pharmacy sign over the front door of about 9 sq. ft., and three additional signs over the front door. She said he offered to eliminate two 17 sq. ft. wall signs that identified a drive through pharmacy. Mr. Jonna also offered to eliminate the drive through pharmacy on the canopy, which was facing the adjacent residential area. He also offered to lower the height of the directional signage below the height of the obscuring screen wall so the adjacent residential area would not see it. Ms. McBeth said that was the current proposal, and Mr. Jonna was present for questions.

Mayor Landry stated they had a preferred alternative, and asked if anyone wanted to make a motion.

Member Mutch said they had correspondence regarding a request that City Council had made at a previous meeting regarding street trees in the R.O. W. He asked Mr. Schultz if he was looking for direction on that issue.

Mr. Schultz said they provided a memorandum to Council addressing the issue of street trees and the sidewalk extension issue. He said the summation was if Council determined it was a policy decision that required individual single family parcels, not within a subdivision, to follow the street tree planting requirements, he thought it would be permissible. Mr. Schultz noted he would need direction from Council if they wanted him to prepare that ordinance.

Member Mutch voiced his support for that change, and based on the review, thought it would make the ordinance more consistent. He said for a relatively small impact on those particular homes, it would provide a uniform landscaping within the City and within the R.O.W.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked, for clarification, if this would include street trees and sidewalks. He asked if it would include not just the single family home development but a non-subdivision, non-condominium, just a parcel split.

Mr. Schultz said pretty much anything that was new construction even though it was single family would be the difference. He said presently single family was exempted, but would be included. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he wanted to include everything.

Member Paul said that would include any home that abutted a major thoroughfare. Mr. Schultz said yes.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 P.M.

_____________________________ ____________________________

David Landry, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

_____________________________ Date approved: September 25, 2006

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean