Ordinances

Ray Township

Planning Commission

Meeting Minutes

June 8, 2010

7:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Pledge of Allegiance – Roll Call

The Monthly Meeting of the Ray Township Planning Commission for June 8, 2010 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Strauchman.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Roll Call as follows:

Present: Ebert, Banach, Zoccola, Penzien, Hancock, Tipsword, Strauchman

Absent: None

Also Present: Chris McLeod of Community Planning and Management

Cathy Cichecki, Planning and Zoning Administrator

2. Approval of Minutes – May 11, 2010

MOTION: TIPSWORD SUPPORT: BANACH

MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.

3. Approval of Agenda

a. Add to Item #6 Old Business – item a: Sign Ordinance

MOTION: TIPSWORD SUPPORT: HANCOCK

MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THE JUNE 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS PRESENTED.

ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.

4. Scheduled Public Hearings

5. New Business- None

Old Business

A. Sign Ordinance

Members discussed the sign ordinance that was sent back from the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees asked the Planning Commission to discuss the color restriction on the ordinance amendment.

Planning Commission Members discussed the sign ordinance amendment in relation to:

1. What the intent of this change was meant to accomplish

2. Where is the proper place to limit the controls

3. Distractions created by flashing, multi-color signs

4. Available studies on the impact of these signs on drivers (There is no conclusive evidence one way or another.)

5. Typically in court cases, the decision has been that once you have allowed this type of sign into a community you have lost your right to say that they cause a distraction. This is normally the case for like signs, so you can argue against color signs but not amber signs.

6. The courts will normally agree with the fact that you have the right to regulate what you do on your side of the road. Township can put up limitations for the safety of those in the township.

7. In reference to the color issue, most ordinances are drafted as red/amber or full color, because that is where the break point is in the pricing of the signs. There is a standard in the industry with a one color sign level and a multi-color sign level. The higher the price the more the sign will do. You get more graphics when you get full color but you also pay for it.

8. Color is not the real distraction; movement is the distraction. Control of the movement of the signs is covered in this document.

9. The MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) is currently doing a study of these types of signs. We have the right to look at the study when it comes out and if there are any conclusions that would make us re-think our decisions; we can go back and look at the ordinance again.

10. This change was made so that the new sign that was allowed at 32 Mile and Romeo Plank would fit the ordinance. The change states amber because that is what the sign is.

11. It is possible to have the ordinance say that the sign be one color, if someone wants to buy a higher end sign they can. The more graphic signs have much more brilliance in the color.

MOTION: ZOCCOLA SUPPORT: PENZIEN

MOTION TO AMEND THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW SIGNS TO BE ONE COLOR.

Planning Commission members discussed the motion as presented.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes: Zoccola, Penzien

No: Hancock, Banach, Ebert, Tipsword, Strauchman

Discussion followed:

a. Should signs only be allowed in one color, amber or red?

b. One color lights with the background light to be on or off.

c. Would it be easier to change the ordinance when necessary?

d. Without this amendment being passed a sign can go up anywhere in the township and in any color combination.

e. Many factors have to be taken into account when deciding to allow these types of signs: 1) do you want those next to a single family home, 2) area traffic, 3) the neighborhood, 4) zoning

f. What was the desire of the Board of Trustees?

g. Was size an issue?

h. Based on the sign industry information that we have, the signs come either with one color or multi-color capabilities.

i. If our decision is to allow for any color lights on these signs and someone upgrades to the type of sign that has multi-color capabilities, they will eventually say I have features available that I can not use. It will then become an enforcement issue because they will start to use those additional features because they have them.

MOTION: TIPSWORD SUPPORT: HANCOCK

MOTION TO SEND THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WITH THE CHANGE OF ALLOWING ONE COLOR RATHER THAN AMBER ONLY BACK TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WITH A WRITTEN NOTE OF EXPLANATION.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

YES: Tipsword, Hancock, Penzien, Zoccola, Ebert, Banach, Strauchman

NO: None

ABSENT: None

MOTION CARRIED.

Presentation

Sova-Drive in at Brookside Storage – No one present

St. John Lutheran Church

Present representing St. John Lutheran Church in reference to the Landscape Plan were:

Ken Keller, Trustee at St. John Lutheran Church
Charlie Bohm, Trustee at St. John Lutheran Church

Ken Keller explained that there are several existing plans for landscaping at the church. The number of trees called for on these plans ranges from 62 – 153 trees, with 89 being the medium number and the plan that was previously approved by the Planning Commission. The purpose of this presentation is to get some landscaping options that can be taken back to the Church Council. Topics of discussion included:

a. On the west end of the parking lot, they would like the option not to do a double row of trees because there are mature trees at the rear boundary of the property.

b. On the south end of property: a single row of trees is requested because the future building plans of the church show the parking lot expanding in that area, which would mean that the double row of trees would need to be cut down. The Church would like the option of a single row of trees in that area.

c. The number of trees required along North Avenue is a concern because when they mature the church may not be visible from the road.

d. Concerned with maintenance for double row of mature trees. If the double row of trees could be put 30 feet on center instead of 20 feet on center it would be much easier to mow around them.

e. Would like to plant spruce trees instead of White Pines and Australian Pines because the pines tend to die from the bottom up.

f. When grading is done, if the berm is large enough to support two trees they will be planted there instead of planting them in the clay that exists in the other areas of the property.

Planning Commission members discussed the following points:

a. The Planning Commission only has control over the perimeter trees and the trees at the roadway.

b. The ordinance requires 25 trees along the front the plan shows seven. One point needs to be made: the ordinance calls for trees along the property line; the original plan was for 1/4 - 1/3 of the trees that would be required if the property line were maintained as the ordinance states.

c. Visibility along North Avenue.

d. Allowing a single line in the back which would allow for the extension of the double tree line to allow for expansion of the parking lot.

e. Natural groupings of trees is allowed as long as the nature of the ordinance is met.

f. Requirements of the new Master Plan vs. the requirements of the old Master Plan.

g. The way the ordinance reads now the property to the north is planned commercial but is residential now and has not been rezoned.

h. Key is to find out whose property the mature trees on the back of the property are actually on. If the trees are on the church line and they provide screening would there be a problem with a single line on the west property.

Charlie Bohm representing St. John Lutheran Church summed up the wishes of the church by stating that they would plant a double row of trees all the way around, planted 30 foot on center and that there would be seven trees across the North Avenue frontage. He further stated that additional trees would be planted around the pond and at the corners of the parking lot.

Chairman Strauchman instructed Bohm and Keller of St. John Lutheran Church that this is a presentation and no approval is given at this time. The Church must submit a site plan to the Planning Commission for final approval. Along with the site plan, the church should also submit pictures of the trees across the back lot line to enable the Planning Commission to determine if they provide sufficient screening per the ordinance.

Report of the Township Board Representative-

a. June 1, 2010 – sign ordinance revision previously discussed.

Report of the Zoning Board of Appeals Representative-None

Correspondence

CPM – Motions

Planning Commission members were given sample motions and what points need to be included in them.

11. Public Comments

None

Chris McLeod explained to Planning Commission members that with the adoption of the

Medical Marijuana issue, municipalities need to look at adopting an ordinance to regulate

caregivers and compassion centers. He further stated that any ordinance drafted now will have

to be revisited because there is so little guidance on the subject at this point.

Chairman Strauchman asked that the Planning Commission be able to review any sample

ordinances that may be available to see the various options.

McLeod will bring samples to the next meeting.

12. Adjournment

MOTION: Ebert SUPPORT: Zoccola

MOTION TO ADJOURN THE June 8, 2010 MEETING OF THE RAY TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:00 P.M. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.

__________________________ ___________________________ ________

Alvin Strauchman, Chairman Dennis Tipsword, Secretary Date

Respectfully submitted,

LuAnne Kandell, Recording Secretary