Planning Commission

STERLING HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL JANUARY 9, 2014 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI. SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held January 9, 2014. Chairman Ancona called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Ben Ancona, Al Kollmorgen, Edward Kopp, Stefano Militello, Donald Miller, Jeffrey Norgrove, Leonard Reinowski, Gerald Rowe. Members absent at roll call: Paul Jaboro (excused). . Also in attendance: Donald Mende, City Planner Clark Andrews, City Attorney Tina Viazanko, Recording Secretary Chairman Ancona introduced Jeffrey Norgrove, the newest member to the commission and welcomed him to the commission. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Militello, supported by Kopp, to approve the agenda as presented. Ayes: Militello, Kopp, Ancona, Kollmorgen, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe. Nayes: None. Absent: Jaboro. Motion carried. PSP13-0022 – MADEK DENTIAL 42545 MOUND Requested Action: Preliminary Site Plan Approval Proposal: One-story office building Location: West side of Mound Rd. between 18 1/2 & 19 Mile Roads in Section 8 Existing Zoning: O-1 (Business and Professional Office) Existing Land Use: Vacant Mr. Mende stated the petitioner is requesting preliminary site plan approval of a proposed office building that will abut a one-family residential district. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a petitioner obtain preliminary site plan approval from the Planning Commission whenever a proposed development abuts any one-family residential district. The subject property is zoned O-1 (Business and Professional Office) and is vacant. Property abutting to the north is also zoned O-1 and is developed with a medical office building. Property abutting to the south is zoned O-1 and is vacant. Property abutting to the west is zoned R-80 (One-Family Residential) and is developed with the Heins Gardens Subdivision and the Chrisman Drain. The site has 332 feet of frontage along Mound Road and is 160 feet deep. This is before the Planning Commission for preliminary site plan approval. The Planning Commission is charged with review of all preliminary site plan developments that abut one-family residential. If he does succeed in getting the Planning Commission preliminary approval this evening, he is still required to carry on with the administrative review through the Building Department, Engineering Department and any other city departments that will have to review the plans. Mr. Mende displayed the site plan. The petitioner is proposing to construct a one-story office building consisting of 3133 square feet for Phase I, and eventually a second Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting of January 9, 2014 Page 2 building of 3000 square feet in Phase II. Screening between this site and the abutting single-family zoned property to the south will include a 6 foot masonry wall, which will match the proposed development. The Office of Planning has completed its review of this request and has determined that the site plan satisfies all of the design requirements of the O-1 District and general standards of Zoning Ordinance No. 278. The Planning Commission may grant preliminary site plan approval, which will allow the petitioner to continue processing plans through the various city departments for final approval. Preliminary site plan approval is effective for one year with one six-month extension permitted. If final site plan approval is not obtained within the one-year period (or the 6 month extension), preliminary site plan approval lapses. The petitioner, Dr. Mark Madek of Rochester, MI was present. He has two offices in Warren and Commerce Twp. and he wants to consolidate them to this Sterling Heights location. He believes his building will look nice and add something to the road. Ingress/egress will be provided by a new drive on Mound Road. Permitting for the drive is coordinated by the Macomb County Department of Roads. The petitioner has provided elevations of the building indicating the proposed exterior materials as well as a floor plan. The building will be constructed principally of face brick and glass. This structure will have stone sill and coin detailing with an asphalt shingled roof. A landscape plan that will exceed the landscape provisions of the Zoning Ordinance has been included with the submittal. Mr. Norgrove asked if the parking lot will be paved all at once. Mr. Mende stated it does not have to all be paved at this point. The City would have no objection paving for just Phase I. Dr. Madek stated it will probably be done all at one time. Chairman Ancona opened the public hearing. There was no audience participation. Motion by Militello, supported by Kollmorgen, In the case of PSP13-0022 Mark Madek (Madek Dental), based upon the facts and information presented which show that all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable city ordinances, standards and regulations applicable to the preliminary site plan review stage have been satisfied, that the location and design of driveways vehicular ingress and egress promote safety and convenience for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, that the traffic circulation within the site and location of parking promote public safety, that there is a harmonious relationship between this proposed use and adjacent uses and that it will not have any unreasonable detrimental or injurious effect on any existing natural features of the site. I move to grant preliminary site plan approval for PSP-0022, Madek Dental, 42545 Mound Road, plan prepared by Stucky Vitale Architects, received date December 19, 2013, and to authorize the Office of Planning to sign on behalf of the Planning Commission. Roll call on motion: Ayes: Militello, Kollmorgen, Ancona, Kopp, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe. Nays: None. Absent: Jaboro. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting of January 9, 2014 Page 3 PZ13-1126 – PLANNING COMMISION/CITY COUNCIL Request for proposed text amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 278, amending Article 28 General Provisions, and any other technical corrections related to Zoning Ordinance No. 278 (adopted September 13, 1989 as amended). Mr. Mende stated this case is a zoning text amendment that they are proposing specifically for the sign provision ordinances as they relate to temporary real estate signs. They first reviewed this at the last meeting in December and the Planning Commission postponed this when there was some discussion about these amendments. City Administration, City Attorney, Council and the Planning Office looked at the placement, duration and construction material for these temporary real estate signs. The City is seeing some problems occur particularly along major roads and the commercial and industrial districts where the signs are not being well maintained. At the last meeting photographs were shown of the problems they are experiencing. With this amendment, they are trying to have some guidelines. Instead of going to the temporary 16 square foot real estate sign the City would like owners to utilize their permanent ground sign if space is available. If available, a panel would be installed on that sign to advertise the space for lease. Secondly, the ordinance states temporary real estate signs would have specified construction material, specifically wolmanized wood and 4 x 4 posts. The City showed examples of different sizes, different material of signs last month that were not weathering the elements all that well. Lastly, the ordinance would require permitting on these signs. This does not apply to single family residential. This only applies to commercial and industrial. This would allow the building inspector and plan reviewer to be able to review the requirements for these types of signs. Also, so they can log it in the BSA tracking system so they can track these signs much better. Mr. Mende stated at the last meeting there were two main issues that came up. First, was utilizing the existing monument sign first. They talked about the 16 square feet that is allowed for a sign. In some instances we may not be able to get 16 square feet on the permanent monument sign. The City still feels it is important to get the “for lease” on the monument sign. In these instances, the City will also allow a sign to go in the tenant space window. Currently the ordinance states you have one year for the real estate sign so the City is lessening that restriction. Secondly, the permanent monument sign is based on the road frontage. Currently, you can have 1 square foot of sign for every 2 feet of road frontage up to a maximum of 150 square feet. The City is proposing to relax that requirement. New signs may be 20% larger (to a maximum of 16 square feet) and owners can dedicate that square footage to the company name and phone number leasing or managing the space. In summary, real estate advertising signs can still be erected as a stand-alone sign if there is no space available on the existing monument sign. If there is less than 16 square feet of unused space available on that sign, the City will allow a window signage to be erected. Currently 25% of that glass area can be allowed for window signage. It would be permitted for 90 days before the lease term ends until the property is leased. The City will also allow the 20% increase in the monument sign advertising the space for availability. Based on the discussion from the last meeting, these amendments will make these signs more uniform and allow the City to track these signs. This amendment will be presented to City Council Strategic Planning later this month. Mr. Miller asked if there were concerns regarding the 15 feet height maximum. Mr. Mende stated the sign ordinance does allow all signs to be a maximum of 15 feet in height and typically these real estate signs are limited to 16 square feet because they are a 4 x 4 ply wood and generally 3 feet off the ground. If someone would want to go with the full 15 feet, the building official would require an engineered drawing to ensure stability. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting of January 9, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Rowe asked if a business decides to post the “for lease” sign on their monument sign and use a window sign, is a permit required? Mr. Mende stated if they are putting in a plastic panel in the existing monument sign, they would not have to get a permit. Mr. Mende stated if the property is on a corner property on two major roads, they would be allowed to put a sign on each major road. Mr. Militello stated he is opposed. He gave the example of Burlington Coat Factory on 17 Mile and Van Dyke. If you put a panel on the monument sign and a window sign, you will never see the window sign. Putting a sign on the monument, people will not see it. Mr. Reinowski asked if it is vacant property then they will have to get a permit to get a 16 square feet sign. Mr. Mende stated that is correct. Mr. Rowe reiterated if space is available on the monument sign the business must use the panel on the monument sign and not use a temporary sign. Mr. Mende stated that is correct. Mr. Militello gave the example of the plaza at 15 Mile and Dodge Park. If you are driving by this plaza, you will never see the “for lease” at the top of this sign. The signs are geared to be eye level. Mr. Kollmorgen stated the only time you have a window sign is when you don’t have 16 square feet on the monument sign. Mr. Mende stated that is correct. Mr. Kollmorgen stated on page 3 of the legal verbiage, item E states see condition 9 below in three different spots. Mr. Andrews stated it should reference 9F below. Mr. Kollmorgen asked if we have an ordinance for signs on vehicles. Mr. Mende stated there is already an ordinance for that. It is called vehicle business sign. Those are prohibited unless the vehicle is being used as part of that business. If it is a delivery van or catering van, for example, it is allowed to have the company name and logo, but it has to be used for that business. Mr. Reinowski stated he noticed some of the spaces on the panels are too small and when the building sits back 500 feet back from the road a window sign will not help. He is not convinced that this is the way to go. Mr. Rowe asked what would be the objection to broaden the choice to have the option that they could file a permit for a temporary sign for visibility so we can regulate the sign. Regulating the sign he has no problem, but restricting them he is not sure. Mr. Andrews stated temporary signs went up for a short period of time and then came down; however, over the last several years temporary signs go up and they never come down. He gave the example of his own building. The vacancy sign has never come down in the last 20 years. This is detraction from the aesthetics of the community. Administration feels we can improve this by the ordinance. Mr. Miller stated that a strip mall expects there will be vacancies and turnover of tenants. Over the life of a strip center it will have to be re-done. It has been an ongoing cycle. That is what helps them improve. Mr. Reinowski asked if there has been any discussion regarding fees. Mr. Mende stated they have spoken internally and he let that be known to the City Manager that the Commission has had a lot of discussion on that. The Council would set the permit fee as part of their budget process. The Planning Commission agreed that they don’t want it to be burdensome on the property owner. The permit fees should be reasonable, but Council will have to make that decision. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting of January 9, 2014 Page 5 Mr. Andrews stated the objective of this ordinance is not to be a moneymaker, but to improve the aesthetics of the community. Mr. Kollmorgen stated he is in favor of the ordinance. Chairman Ancona opened the public hearing. There was no audience participation. Motion by Miller, supported by Kollmorgen, to forward a recommendation to City Council to approve case PZ13-1126 Planning Commission/City Council zoning ordinance text amendments amending Article 28 General Provisions and any other technical corrections related to zoning ordinance 278. Mr. Ancona asked if Mr. Andrews can explain what a no vote would mean. Mr. Andrews stated a no vote would mean you are not recommending that this be sent on for positive consideration by City Council. The matter would go to City Council but without the affirmative recommendation to approve it. It would still go to Council but without support of the Planning Commission. Roll call on motion: Ayes: Miller, Kollmorgen, Kopp, Rowe. Nays: Ancona, Militello, Norgrove, Reinowski, Absent: Jaboro. Motion denied. Mr. Rowe stated he voted yes because some of the shopping centers will always have vacancies and will always have a sign. Do we have a provision on this if the center is fully occupied the sign has to come down. Mr. Mende stated in the current ordinance we do. Mr. Militello stated it may be more of an enforcement issue. Mr. Mende stated because no permits are required, there is no tracking mechanism. Mr. Mende stated if there are other things that the commission would like to see in this ordinance than they can vote on that as well. Mr. Ancona stated if the monument sign was the only alternative the property owner has, then that is why he voted no. If they could put up their real estate sign beside the monument sign, he would have voted yes. Mr. Andrews stated that is where we are now and it is not working. Mr. Ancona stated if we didn’t force the owners to fill the monument sign first than he would have voted yes. Mr. Rowe stated he voted yes because he likes the permitting idea of these signs so there is a record. Mr. Ancona stated he agrees with Mr. Rowe and likes the permitting of these signs for policing. Mr. Militello stated if the City wants to do a permit that would be fine but he didn’t feel there should be a fee. Mr. Ancona stated the Commission has a 4 – 4 vote and now the Commission has the option to have a counter motion to the original motion that adds or eliminates details to Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting of January 9, 2014 Page 6 the first recommendation that was voted on or the 4-4 vote can go to Council as a non- recommendation. Mr. Rowe asked Mr. Andrews if the Commission has taken a vote does the Planning Commission have to take a vote to reconsider. Mr. Andrews stated since there is no prevailing motion you can make another motion. . Mr. Kollmorgen asked if we have the code existing today to rectify the non aesthetics. Mr. Andrews stated in respect to the deteriorating maintenance the answer is yes. In respect to the signs being up all the time and without a tracking system or permitting system the problem with signs being up for a long period of time we will not be able to track that without a permitting system. There were no other motions. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Mende stated every January all three offices are up for re-election. The positions are Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary. The bylaws state you can only have two consecutive terms. Chairman Ancona, Vice Chair Militello and Mr. Miller as Secretary have completed their second term. The process is we will take voice nominations for each office. We will first start with the office of Chairman. Each nominee can either accept or decline. If there is more than one nominee, we will do a written ballot. If there is only one nominee, they are elected by acclamation. The first office we will take for nomination is for Chairman. Mr. Kollmorgen nominated Mr. Rowe. Mr. Rowe accepted the nomination. Mr. Rowe nominated Mr. Militello. Mr. Militello accepted. Mr. Mende passed out the ballots. Mr. Rowe was elected Chairman. Mr. Mende stated the next office is for Vice Chairman. Mr. Rowe nominated Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller declined. Mr. Rowe nominated Mr. Kopp. Mr. Kopp declined. Mr. Reinowski nominated Mr. Kollmorgen. Mr. Kollmorgen declined. Mr. Kollmorgen nominated Mr. Reinowski. Mr. Reinowski accepted. The nominations were closed and Mr. Reinowski was elected Vice Chair by acclamation. Mr. Mende stated the final office is for Secretary. Mr. Rowe nominated Mr. Ancona. Mr. Ancona accepted the nomination for secretary. There were no other nominations. Mr. Mende stated Mr. Ancona was elected Secretary by acclamation. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Mr. Militello, supported by Rowe, to approve the Minutes of the December 12, 2013, Regular Meeting. Roll call on motion: Ayes: Militello, Rowe, Ancona, Kollmorgen, Kopp, Miller. Nays: None. Abstain: Norgrove, Reinowski. Absent: Jaboro. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting of January 9, 2014 Page 7 Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. OLD BUSINESS There was no Old Business. NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Militello, supported by Norgrove, to adjourn at 8:22 p.m. Ayes: Militello, Norgrove, Ancona, Kollmorgen, Kopp, Miller, Reinowski, Rowe. Nays: None. Abstain: Absent: Jaboro Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Donald Miller, Secretary Planning Commission