Planning Commission 12-17-19

001good evening welcome to the December 17 City Planning Commission meeting we'll begin our meeting with a roll call Commissioner woods yes Commissioner Briggs commissioner Mills Commissioner Milstein here commissioner give Randall Commissioner Ackerman Commissioner Sauve Commissioner Abrams here commissioner hammerschmidt here there's actually thinking do we have any introductions this evening we do that would like to introduce Chris frost from our city to use a assistant city attorney in the City Attorney's Office chris has been invaluable in helping us present to you a more a better draft of the sign ordinance and he is here to make sure that I don't get you into any trouble thank you and welcome approval of the agenda do you have a Commissioner they'll move the agenda move back mr. mills seconded by Commissioner Sauve Commissioner hammerschmidt I need to make

002a motion to amend the agenda to remove a 25 North maple I thank you that applicant has withdrawn that petition so I would suggest that we amend the agenda to remove that item from consideration great can we consider that friendly sure so vague Commissioner Mills all right all those in favor of the amended agenda please say aye opposed it is approved moving on to minutes of previous meeting before us this evening we have the November 19th and December 3rd minutes for our approval do I have a commission I'll move those to move by Commissioner Abrams I can it by mr. hammerschmidt do we have discussion Commissioner Briggs just one small correction on the December 3rd meeting absent that it also has me saying things in the meeting so how you did that weasel correct that

003we will get those corrected any other changes to the minutes all right all those in favor of the corrective minutes please say aye opposed all right they're approved reports from city administration City Council Planning Manager Planning Commission officers and committees written communications and petitions our first item is 6a City Council chemistry Aukerman is not here so we will move on to mr. Leonard for the planning manager report yeah and a couple items from City Council as well last evening at City Council of the City Council tabled a proposed contract to award a contract to interface studios as the city's consultants who update the city's future land-use plan they're interested in perhaps a working session to dive into some of the details and potential changes to that proposed contract in more detail so we'll be looking

004to respond to that and probably in the early next year hideaway Lane which was a development project that was previously approved recommended for approval by this board was also approved it also included just and this is something that I think that this board has expressed interest in as well as with some comments about revisiting the plan project modification component of our ordinance and the specific types of benefits that we'd like to see so that some of those comments that you have addressed in the future were echoed there so that might be something we want to consider in our work plan and a resolution that directs city staff and ultimately potentially incorporation the UDC additional protection for trees perhaps identification of heritage trees that would be a category perhaps above landmark trees and an increased amount

005of protection for those so those are some related actions from City Council last night and from the planning complaining report thank you Planning Commission officers and committees written communications and petitions we have we do have some written communications so please take a look at that now is time for audience participation at this time any members of the audience who wish to address the Planning Commission regarding an item that is not on the agenda this evening you will have up to three minutes to address the Planning Commission so if you are here to address an item that is not on our agenda for this evening please uh please step up to the podium state your name and address for the record and you'll have up to three minutes to address the Planning Commission I know we're

006gonna be moving forward with the master plan re planning efforts but I'm hoping that in a somewhat shorter timeframe we might be able to incorporate ways for citizens to register those elements of their neighborhoods those natural features that they find particularly significant and important so that they might be on file for the Planning Commission in the planning office to be considered as more developments come forward I don't want to wait three or four years for the master plan process to be finished before I'm able to start advising someone in the city who has to listen to me about gee this is a this is a very old very large oak gee this is a very significant Grove there I see them all over them now and now I'm paranoid so I'm hoping that we can

007put in place some procedures for registering that sort of thing maybe through the fix-it app you know if if I took a picture of every feature that I found significant and could submit it through the app so that's something I I'm hoping you consider Thanks thank you is there anyone else in the audience who wish to wishes to address the Planning Commission regrets an item that is not on the agenda this evening thanks Jim the Chairman Osteen and planning commission I'm Ken Garber 2387 Hilldale as you know we are in a climate emergency burning natural gas accounts for 27 percent of the city's emissions over half a million tons co2 equivalent emissions a year this gas has burned to heat buildings and any serious attempt to get to zero emissions must tackle this problem we

008need to fully electrify our buildings across the city we should start with new construction since it makes no sense to install gas furnaces and boilers with useful lives of 30 years along with building envelopes designed around the fossil fuel infrastructure only to rip it all out in ten years in favor of air or ground source heat pump technology just in the last six months for California cities San Jose Berkeley San Luis Obispo and Menlo Park have passed such ordinances a month ago Brookline Massachusetts did it to Brooklands law applies both to new construction into major renovations now I know what you're thinking Michigan's building codes must preempt such a ban maybe but I don't think so several of us have looked carefully and we cannot find any pre-emptive language not in the Michigan Building Code

009of 2015 and not in the authorizing legislation the still Duras at hail single state construction Act of 1999 this says quote except as otherwise provided in this act this act does not limit or restrict existing powers or authority of governmental subdivisions and this act shall be enforced by governmental subdivisions in the manner prescribed by local law or ordinance Missy Stoltz has already sent this whole questions in city's Attorney's Office but as yet to hear back I'm told it can take months to get an answer maybe mr. frost can take a look at this in the meantime we should draft an ordinance the Klaw is a good starting point I bands fossil fuel infrastructure in new construction and in significant rehabilitation which is carefully defined the law establishes a board of experts to hear and decide

010waivers and appeals developers here should not still be putting in new fossil fuel infrastructure in 2020 we need to stop the bleeding this is a no-brainer to me cost the city nothing benefits developers in the long run we can't wait until acai finalizes its carbon neutrality plan next March incidentally in my opinion city planning staff should inform all petitioners of the 2030 carbon neutrality target and push fossil fuel free buildings we can't require this yet but let's make it clear that it's our baseline expectation may be mr. Len dirt and his staff are already doing this but if not I think you should start immediately thanks for considering this and for all your fantastic work Thank You Sara anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in RIT's an item that

011is not on the agenda seeing no one will move on to public hearing scheduled for next business meeting we have three public hearings scheduled for the next business meeting on January 7th 2020 if you can believe it the first is the standard at Ann Arbor this is a proposed apartment community with a 10-story structure on the north side and a five-story structure on the remaining portion of a 1.1 acre site located at 425 South Main Street it includes 208 dwelling units ranging from one to four bedroom apartments and to two units proposed to be affordable and 6020 square feet of retail space and a total of 102 off street parking spaces this is a you might know this site is that for the DTE Edison office building on the corner of William and South Main

012then we have to annex a proposed annexations and zoning by property owners one is at 25 11 proposed 25 11 Newport Road an application to annex a 1.5 acre parcel from Ann Arbor township and zone at r1 a single-family residential in order to access utilities no proposed change was no changes proposed to the current single-family use and 27:31 Newport annexation zoning an application to annex a 1.3 acre parcel between white oak and North maple from Ann Arbor township and so on it r1 a single-family residential again to access utilities and no change of use is proposed this will be a very exciting start to our year come January 7th all right unfinished business is next up and the first item there is sign ordinance amendments for city council approval yeah we don't have a powerpoint

013presentation because of the text orientation of this but for members of the audience if you didn't grab it we have plenty of copies of the proposed staff report and draft ordinance there I just want to set the stage and I'm gonna turn it over for Chris to Christian for a brief overview of some of the changes from the last time you saw this ordinance but just to frame a couple of reminders in 2015 through the case of Reed versus the town of Gilbert the United States Supreme Court to turn it determined that content-based signage regulations are presumed to be unconstitutional this decision is based on First Amendment precedent of the Constitution which prevents governments from controlling or restricting speech based on its content so the city is undertaken in the process to revise the sign

014ordinance our sign awareness as our existing ordinance is decades old it has been amended numerous time and likely includes provisions that would not meet this new precedent of the Supreme Court and the test of Reed versus the town of Gilbert so the city has worked with a consultant to develop the majority the draft ordinance since you've last seen its staff has taken that time to make some additional adjustments and incorporate the proposed language of that draft into our UDC format more consistency including consistency with definite existing definitions structure and the like there are also some changes that we're gonna summarize and based on the combination of those changes it is my assertion that this ordinance needs to come back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration based on the level of changes the proposed ordinance that

015we continue to present to you we believe that will now meet the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court utilizing a content-neutral approach we we do this generally by identifying overall requirements that apply to all signs then regulating by the size and type of signs by zoning district and or use specifically we regulate the signage by the D 1 D 2 and C 1 AR or what we are envisioning to be sort of our core downtown districts by other mixed-use non-residential and special-purpose districts this would be inclusive of districts like the remaining commercial industrial office and the like and then by residential districts based on the number of residential units and/or the non residential you status in those districts that might be a school or a church or another use in a residential non residential

016use in a residential zoning district the ordinance also attends to address content neutrality and provide an accommodation and limits on temporary science to provide what we believe is an adequacy of free speech opportunities for all property owners in the city so that is the framing of sort of how we got to where we are why it's coming back to you I'm gonna turn it over to Chris to provide an overview of some of those changes and then we can address any questions that you have either before or after the public hearing Thank You mr. Leonard as you just mentioned that we are moving toward regulation by zoning district in a content-neutral manner this reflects current best practices in response to evolving court decisions and sign regulations some of the amendments are more significant and that's

017what we're back here at Planning Commission and they are they are as listed in the staff board as the following sign area calculation and height is formatted and clarified in code and separated from the table of sign types eliminating marquee signs the existing marquee signs are now non-conforming a new reviews would fall under awning requirements we're eliminating three square foot wall signs in the one and two family residential districts reducing the maximum size of wall signs for three family units and greater from 12 square feet down to 6 square feet and listening exceptions for signs requiring a sign permit under section 5.2 9.2 signed permits which is listed to code some other things that came up during our review our questions and comparisons for the UDC sign ordinance amendments which are proposed for outdoor lighting

018regulations and by our environmental and Planning Commission and the two sets of amendments comparing the the sign code and the lighting code or a light trespass both the sign ordinance and outdoor lighting ordinance identify a limit of point 1 foot candle for light trespass near residential property the sign ordinance restricts by residentially zoned property and outdoor lighting proposal restricts by residential e used property we can go into that further if you have questions the sign ordinance does not limit to limit to non residential zone properties the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance that's a point 2 foot candle limit in such circumstances full cutoff fixtures are required under the sign ordinance and the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance the sign ordinance limits the electronic signs to 5000 nits during the daytime and 100 nits at night so we're

019using the nits and measuring unit both the sign ordinance and the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance limit illumination while property activities are closed the revision suggested at the last Planning Commission review included limiting illumination based on when the business that the sign advertised was closed this has been revised to a slightly broader content-neutral approach that looks at whether all businesses on the lot are now closed in City staffs with not historically received complaints from light trespass from non-residential e zoned or used properties so staff anticipates the proposed lighting ordinance to address this issue or the sign ordinance can be amended in the future what you have also in the staff report is a chart that's what's listing out by zoning district and that's a big change from what was previously done but what the current sign

020code is and what the proposed sign code will now what we're proposing if approved I'm not going to go through the whole chart but I'm happy to go through it if you have questions during our meeting and I'm open to any questions you may have thank you at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing on this item members of the audience can address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes please come up to the podium state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Planning Commission hi I'm Sally we address is 92 Pauline Boulevard professor of astronomy and also leader of the Michigan dark skies community organization I just wanted to say that a couple members from our group are here and we

021are very excited because this is going to be one of the first big steps for controlling light pollution in our community I really want to thank commissioners Mills and Commissioner Briggs for their help with this and just hearing what we have what you've just described on the differences between the sign ordinance and the lighting ordinance that one of them was based on limiting light trespass based on residentially zoned property versus residential II used property it might be desirable for you to think about making those two things consistent that was the first thing the first time that I actually had taken note of that so thank you for pointing that out so thank you very much thank you good evening my name is Jeff Renton RUC hten from 101 I know for brawn and just wanted

022to as a member of the Michigan darts guys wanted to address the Commission and thank them for their support of dark sky initiatives thank you I Karen white 2790 Cranbrook I'm here in two capacities as a supporter of the dark skies initiative because I've been working at the Detroit Observatory for a number of years now and I know what it's like to try to observe the skies in our community at night using telescopes so you don't even have to be an astronomer to know that there's too much light pollution and in my second capacity as just a private citizen I would love to be able to share with my family some of the things that should be able to be seen in the dark sky and currently are not when you're in Indian harbour and

023you have to go quite a ways out of town so I encourage you and applaud you for taking this on and I please hope he will torque down ever more thank you so much thank you 5:06 Kingsley and I'm pleased to hear be here I just wanna briefly say because we've been involved in the monitoring planning and development for for quite a while we think that the efforts made for a community outreach particularly Brett and his staff and Chris have been a significant improvement so we're really pleased about that I sent you a letter sent you an email that sort of outlines a series of questions and some recommendations but I'm not going to go through all that I just want to basically say that the primary concern here is one of a process and

024I want you to understand what it takes this is a complicated document when it gets down to the details of the signs in regards to residential neighborhoods and basically our process first of all we were living in a historic district and we're very very tuned designs in fact we probably report more signed violations and many other people including one just just recently so we're very sensitive to this we're also very supportive of the statement do you make in terms of the avoidance of nyssa nuisance light conditions it says the city finds that due to the concentration of people and activities within the city there is a potential for blight physical clutter excess light noise and visual clutter and we totally totally agree with that the problem is we've been involved in trying to get input

025this for several years when the sign ordinance revision first you know started and we've been in contact with Chris quite frequently so the last iteration of this was August the first before this so we were a contact with Chris to try to find out when this hearing was going to take place and we found out maybe two weeks ago is going to be tonight so we convened our board last Wednesday night to go over what was then the most current one and that was the August sign ordinance and we came up and that was the basis for that letter but then we found out that the latest iteration wasn't going to be available to Friday afternoon in fact we found out at about 4:30 what the latest one was and so we scrambled over the

026weekend to try to read and understand and that was the basis for that letter just keep in mind that in our opinion there should be a far more time for neighborhood groups in particular to sort of understand a complicated ordinance like this it's not just you read it and we respond we have to read it we have to meet we have to think and then respond so we're hoping that this process can change in the future there are a number of other concerns that I have mentioned and I guess the most important of which is temporary sign ordinance which we feel is basically unenforceable the way it's structured but my wife my time is nearly up and my wife Chris will sort of take over from here thank you thank you hi I'm Chris Crocker

027impressive the Old Fourth Ward Association if there's a neighborhood that's impacted by temporary signs it's ours we are the neighborhood just north of campus and we have signed pollution there are some landlords that are particularly egregious about their use of signs there's one in particular who routinely has as many as 8 to 10 signs temporary supposedly temporary signs except they're there all the time she already has signs posted for fall rentals for next year this is just unacceptable and to put the burden on the neighbors who care about the neighborhood those of us who have lived there for decades to constantly report it that is also unacceptable we really need something in this ordinance to deal with a sign pollution it's not enough just to limit the size of permanent signs and then allow landlords

028to have anywhere from 8 to 10 temporary signs posted all over they're unkempt lawns because they never take care of the lawns not a blade of grass is planted not a flower not a shrub nothing it is just sign pollution and I will I can tell you privately who some of those offenders are but we have dealt with banner signs that are illegal and lots of signs that have been permanent we've gotten them taken down we've been doing this for the whole time we've lived in the neighborhood and we really would like some relief from this burden and we hope that you can do this by making giving this sign ordinance some real teeth our neighborhood is probably more effective than any other residential area because we are so close to campus and it's mostly

029rental and the landlord's want to make money and so I probably think if they put 8 to 10 signs on their front lawn they're gonna make money and but to have signs at this time of the year advertising availability of apartments for the fall of 220 is just outlandish it's not necessary so we really need your assistance to address this problem along with others we want you to really take a hard look at this grandfathering because already some of the signs that are posted are pretty awful that there's there's one new manager in town that has a permanent sign on the house and then another huge sign strung up between the pillars of the of the porch totally unnecessary anymore if students can get or any renter get the the contact information they contact landlords

030online so thank you and thanks for all your work thank you is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission where it's this item seeing no one I will close the public hearing and read the motion the in Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.2 for move by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner woods we are in discussion well you're getting started with your comments I'd like to propose a couple of amendments actually to the draft you have I think they're fairly minor and as usual I apologize I'm noticing I don't have page numbers here for you the first amendment is under temporary signs so if you go to section 5.2 4.7 temporary signs then sub

031a sub 3 it's the title on the top of that page is temporary freestanding signs under the exceptions of B there's a reference in the final the final line of unlimited sign that that the requirements sign is subject to the placement requirements in counts for the maximum sign area for freestanding signs provided in table 5.2 four point four - four that should be five point two four - five that was a we had added another table in this draft and failed to include update that reference so I proposed that change for the version you consider and then additionally when you go to section three of their proposed our section two of the proposed UDC ordinance which is where you get into the signed permit section the title of that page says section two that section

032of five point two nine point two it includes a signed permit sub C display a street address this was this is language that originally we held over from our current code essentially it's a check that you couldn't be eligible for a sign permit at a property unless you had adequately displayed the actual address of the property for a wayfinding in public safety however independently of the zoning ordinance chapter two of our city code requires that of all properties that an address not be provided so I don't I think it's duplicative to included here in the UDC and I was just striking item C would those be friendly amendments commissioner mills and woods all right we are in discussion mr. Mill's leave it to the person without much of a voice to start so I'll be

033short the first thing is about the lighting effectively I want to have a little bit of a discussion I appreciate you doing that comparison and I agree that there's a lot of places where they match you note that the lighting ordinance so the lighting ordinance or I'm sorry the sign ordinance now is law is based on district rather than use so it doesn't make a difference what kind how the building is used in a particular district we allow residential properties in many of our districts it's it's a sign to the disk to the disk that right correct so in that way in moving either in moving towards a light trespass threshold that is based on a district there's likely going to be that's less restrictive generally like there's going to be a little bit more

034more trespass because there are a whole lot of properties in residential ii used properties in non-residential districts is that is that a fair associates traffic now the the most protective trespass provision would be where you have residentially zoned property with the presumption that that is always going to be residential ii used except for very few circumstances it doesn't afford the same protection to a residential use property in a non residential zone similarly that property could be used for a lot of different uses other than residential as well and so you're right that it is impacting residential uses potentially differently with the if there's a rationale for it is that a residential use within a commercial or mixed use district is of a different character than a district that might only restrict to residential use this

035solely generally speaking within the UDC the unified development code that's our zoning ordinance how common is it to set standards based on use like for example the screening like the vegetative buffers that kind of things that we have how much of it is based on the use versus the district that it's in I'd have to spend some time sort of inventory in those provisions I've I think we have instances of both but I don't know if one is more prevalent than others from my perspective for for the purposes of this because this entire ordinance is based on a district I don't necessarily want to change that on the fly but I think that this is something that we might want to have a conversation about when the lighting ordinance comes before us again in what

036I just heard was that there would be less cross cross property light pollution if we if we set that trespass based on the use of the property rather than the kind of district in which it's in again because of this ordinance that the sign ordinance that's before us tonight everything is set up based on the district I think that makes sense for tonight but I don't I wouldn't want to I might want to revisit that in the future I'm just I want to put that do you have any admission here do you have any initial thoughts how you would consider a mixed use property like say you had a retail space with residential above I think if it's if it's on the very same property like that then that counts as a a good question

037and I think this is something that we can't we talk to bottle it and this is why when that comes back I think we should yeah so I think I think that might be a rationale to keep it as a zoning district designation but that would be the kind of question we'd want to understand okay a lot more people who have more of a voice talk about that a little bit more I just wanted to get it out there and the other thing that I wanted to ask some questions on tonight I appreciate the kind of comparison it there is as if I'm reading this correctly there is a substantive change from August until now in that in those one and two family residential districts were actually reducing the amount of signage overall that's allowed

038is that correct yeah a change from the sort of the evolution of that change from the from the current sign ordinance we have a provision that allows a sign on such properties restricted to the address and the names of the occupants that is obviously a very content specific regulation our initial draft that we presented to you earlier this year record forwards that opportunity to maintain a sign on those properties talking from a staff perspective and sort of the character of such uses we now are recommending that sort of approaching that from a different lens we provide addresses and in fact require addressing for properties that accommodates similarly what was previously provided and now are reducing as you said what was previously provided as a up to a three square foot permanent sign now we're not

039proposing any such provision of permanent signs for a single and two family residential got it but there is there is what that page will the first edit that you had us make we are allowing for an unlimited a temporary sign that's for unlimited amount of time which can you help explain to the average person how that is different than a permanent sign and by saying that it's freestanding like just the way that I'm reading this now is that we know that in the Old Fourth Ward and in other areas around campus where there are single-family homes that are rented out right or duplexes that are rented out it's very common to have a sign a wall-mounted sign that is permanent I you know every we would all see them as permanent on the house is

040this saying now that they can do that but it has to be freestanding and like is that better yeah that would have to be a free-standing sign to invoke that unlimited duration potential got it so all of those so long as these the districts that we're talking about our our one in our two districts or single or to family uses in residential districts or single or to family uses in a resident in an r3 district our for district then they would have to they would not be allowed to have a sign on their building permanent wall so a permanent wall sign on their building correct they could have a temporary one there could be up for two months and then taken down for 30 days and put back up for two months correct got it

041and can you talk through one the enforcement of that and to what's the rationale for allowing also like again the definition of a unlimited temporary freestanding sign so enforcement for sure will be challenging although right now we have a lot of provisions for temporary signage is a Content specific that have that are equally difficult to enforce we like anything we tend to be complaint driven you know I think you I forwarded responses to that we had received a question about that I don't profess that this is easy or automatic we would have to ultimately document that something is exceeding that duration of enforcement and remind me again of your second question the rationale between behind having something that's identified as a temporary sign with an unlimited duration oh yeah by restricting particularly by restricting single-family

042properties and duplex properties from having a permanent sign we with any content neutrality keep in mind we're I'm trying to find a physical regulation based on a geography or zones we no longer are distinguishing that a real estate sign is regulated different from a political sign and we think that a balance of free speech available to all property owners is important and we think that this is a relatively unobtrusive way to accommodate that if you for example whether say you had a sign that says this house supports immigrants and refugees that we are providing some opportunity for you as a sing in this case a single family property owner to have at least a small portion of unlimited display of some message that we are somewhat oblivious to as to what its content is and

043that's in a temporary fashion which means it can't be lit it has to be under the certain size and other restrictions how dit thinks and there's one more question cuz I did read the some of the letters that came in and the one was about the signs it effectively entrances into subdivisions where it says you're entering whatever estates or whatever so would this then how does this apply to those subdivisions yeah right now we provide an additional sign for multifamily when it is over five units I believe looking for acknowledgment of a permanent sign so for large residential developments you would get a additional fifty square foot freestanding sign so we are limiting such occurrence to a multi-family only to large multifamily for a single-family development such as that would likely not meet that test

044would not be eligible for a monument sign I'm okay with that but I just want to make sure that we know that now that would be a change that and again the the signs out there for the single-family developments I can't I can't think of one but I can only think of from my hometown because you don't see them downtown right it's more on the periphery kind of the suburban design those are not those would be non-conforming and they're okay until it be subject to all the non-conforming requirements of maintenance if they were ever wholly removed they wouldn't could not be reestablished got it thank you and got it kami sure so they the question like billboards marquee grandfathered in signs as it relates to regulating content so it says that the boards are no

045longer allowed but right and so but those are changing so if I look at the proposed sign ordinance on an off premises science no longer regulated separately previously approved billboards may remain no new billboards signs of over two hundred square feet so in context like that the content is still changing allowed on that physical billboard yes so is that the same for marquee signs and other sorts of signs that the content within the physical sign area may be changed like where's that line of modification of a grandfathered sign yeah in the marquees certainly we have a lot of it we have the marquees that we have do you have existing changeable copy the changeable copy of those would continue to be able to be changed I just want to go to the night before maybe

046something more substantial yeah like if you had to if there was like a hand-painted antique marquee you could paint a new name on it or a new message on it can you think of a hand-painted marquee that we have kimly McKinley marquee McKinley building canopy well to be clear awning and canopy signs are still allowed so you could you could totally redo an awning or canopy sign we're thinking more about the marquees like you got the missions likewise at the State Theater like we used to define those differently when you compare them to our actual awning and canopy they are signs on a projection from the building so what would be the beer drive-through or the west gate or the Arbor land or Morgan and York they'd be Morgan New York would be a free-standing

047sign okay beer Depot would be a free-standing sign how are those changes for so those are those would be not those are non-conforming signs if they were they can be maintained but if they were to be reconstructed they would have to meet the requirements of size setback from the property line depending on their high I guess it goes like in because the Billboard we know is a changeable sign versus another kind of non-conforming sign that you might change the content of so I guess that's the question of knowing the type of sign for changeable change ability and grandfathered in and how that's regulated or looked at so clear is so I want to understand the question so a distinction between being able to change the the content of a non-conforming billboard versus if Morgan and

048York became leases yes leases beer emporium yes okay so shall be maintained and repaired in the same four pant Foreman type can't change it to another non-conforming sign shall have any change made in the sign structure you can't make any change to shape type design or mechanical equipment shall be any change there was a different type of greater illumination I think I think it's there on 5.29 point to be no permit is required for changing the changeable copy of the sign unless the changeable copy is being replaced with a permanent sign yeah I guess that's a question of what I would want to go through a couple scenarios like examples to make sure works but I'm sure I do think that you could replace the sign however if you were to change the shape or

049or make it brighter then you would likely not be allowed to do that right I just seem like billboards were a very obvious thing that they're now restricted but the ones that exist are completely changeable yeah but I think you're also know I think that's true and we could work on some clarity to make sure that that is clear I'm just trying to I'm also trying to reconcile some of the the particular examples you're talking about I know also might have had variances in the past I'm sure also thinking recently for example arborlon wanted to change then that also required a variance because it didn't meet this exception wait those to be clear we have that appeal process built-in if somebody can't meet this in any circumstance but I understand what you're saying and that

050I guess I'd want to I would I could spend some more time with some scenarios just in maybe bring you back some examples of how it would apply in some of those circumstances as sort of cases yeah I guess that was just because billboards seem like a very obvious changeable copy in a grandfathered in condition where that might play out and other types of signage and the grandfathering in the clause because that seems obvious in the billboard but then I don't know how it trickles through everything else so that was kind of something that I think would help I think I'm light trespass like generally my position of the sign ordinance here now is that this is making progress and the progress will need to be you know tweaked and amended in the future as

051well but working from a Content regulated sign ordinance to something that is content-neutral for things like the residential zone versus residential use they say we start at zone as we see conditions and maybe it's the same with this content you know billboards versus something else that we start to move the needle by setting kind of a new format generally so I appreciate this coming back and trying to clean it up and get clarity generally Thank You Commissioner Briggs the lighting issue with the zones rather than uses I I think it's perhaps you know still appropriate for us to be using those zones with her relationship to the signs but certainly with outdoor lighting proposal I think it's I would hope that we could continue with the residential use there I think that it is more

052pertinent in that case to have us thinking about uses especially as we are moving our city in general thinking about having more mixed-use properties across the city and I think it's important to be thinking about light trespass everywhere that people live not just in a residential zone so that in terms of some of the questions that got brought up in terms of the Old Fourth Ward Chris do you mind I know that there are some answers that came out to us I don't know how much those were conveyed in advanced Old Fourth Ward if that's useful to go through those answers publicly right now I don't have a copy of their responses but I do know that we had crafted them and sent them out kind of later today so to the public but if

053you've got them I I don't mind if they're shared publicly mr. Leonard yeah I can summarize that this afternoon those responses were provided to them and shortly after I forwarded those same responses to all of the commissioners okay so everybody should be I think I know the caucus were on that email and several other people as well okay and in terms of after this passes tonight what sort should say if this passes tonight what what would be the next steps in terms of when it would be going to council and what's that timeline look like probably the earliest it would progress to council would be first reading at the second January meeting of City Council or the first February meeting so that'd be my estimate one of those two weeks for first reading then it

054would require a month delay before the second reading in public here okay so I would guess final consideration and at public hearing at City Council if recommended for approval this evening would be either the second meeting in February or the first meeting in March okay in terms of the concerns that sort of were raised this evening in terms of process and I am sympathetic because I spend my my day job reviewing sign ordinances and line ordinances and things like that and I know it is very tedious and also very challenging to just have a couple of days to be able to kind of go over there and review them and understand what those substantive changes might look like I think staff did a great job in terms of identifying what those substantive changes look like

055and also looking at the direction that those changes are headed I think that they're more restrictive rather than more permissive which I think is beneficial to the community and I am reassured to some degree that there's going to be a good chunk of time especially over the holidays to and you know a good month to be able to review this more before first reading if anything really substantive should pop out I think that we have a pretty receptive Council to listening to concerns they get they get raised so hopefully nothing gets observed in that time period but I think there is still opportunity for you know changes if something odd gets gets noticed in that time period in terms of enforcement and how those has anything changed in terms of the ability for the city

056to enforce or fines in terms of the update for the sign ordinance I don't believe in any changes to the amount of the fines as far as enforcement this was already mentioned it is challenging we do have somebody on staff that does go out and respond hopefully in a timely fashion to to make corrections before we do issue a ticket but it's probably gonna be as previously stated complaint driven once we receive complaints that's what we really can start our follow up oh and what is the what was the rationale in terms of eliminating marquee signs well as was previously discussed there's not a whole lot of of barky signs out there if there were any changes that were needed you could always go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we still have

057the effect with canopy and awning signs for someone to come out and get an approval first signs of that nature okay sorry I missed that explanation earlier okay thanks commissioner embrance maybe just I wanted to begin with a couple clarification questions like I noticed in the list of prohibited signs 5.2 4.3 C includes exterior penance and I'm wondering anything includes Flags whether those are athletic or other related holiday like I'm and maybe also I'm wondering where half like things like holiday decorations fall in any of this the penance that we would typically interpret that to be our sign penance oftentimes we see them on commercial businesses they tend to be strong maybe long property lines or between buildings there would be however it is conceivable that some temporary sign Walt sign could be in the

058form of a pennant but our intention is sort of those that are strung not a flag that's buy a pole has a yes or a rainbow or if I made the the pennants are also defined in two definitions triangular or irregular so not rectangular yeah I think that was an intention to we we have had again have some issues like where they're just sort of strong to draw attention to a property less intended to define as a single temporary side but more of linear Flags there's an excellent question previously we had provided Flags as an exception I think now they would be incorporated oh you know my definitions are missing d e f g and h though because we made no changes to those letters those flags may be in there may be defined in

059there flagpoles are clearly allowed in all zoning districts my initial reaction is that because we clearly allow those as a as a structure and zoning districts on any property and I think it would be a logical interpretation that we wouldn't require you to put a flagpole up without the flag so I think that's okay yeah um I may be returning to penance for a moment though a resident could not hang like one strand of Tibetan prayer flags or something on their porch sure if it didn't meet the temporary and then my next question relates to figure 24 a calculating the sign area of freestanding signs the last example given shows an non illuminated sign and I wondered what the rationale was behind how the sign area is measured where and one could one could see

060a version of this where the actual sign structure is much larger than what Silla straighted here but the sign area would still be small yeah so the intention there is that if it's not illuminated essentially we'd be providing a sort of potentially more sign area for that definition however if you go to the example above and it was backlit for example in a light box we would be counting the whole in circumstances where the structure on which elsewhere in the code instructed in circumstances where that structure holding the sign is more than three times the area of the sign then we would then proceed to count the full size of that structure towards the sign definition so it's a sort of in short sort of a small incentive if you will to not illuminate your

061sign that allows you have a larger sign if you don't up to a certain proportion okay and then I had a question a clarification question about window signs and which were described in 5.2 4.6 I wondered about like perforated vinyl window Kling which could can in theory cover I mean you know cover an entire window I guess I just wondered whether that counts as a sign like a graphic because I also noticed in here that like window things on display wind goods goods on display don't count correct I know I'm getting nitpicky here but I think there's a lot of nuance and I guess also I think there are like real estate agents who fill the window with signage of properties that I have for sale or for rent and would that be considered goods

062first thing goods on display or or a window sign a sign in a window so that could be considered signage we would we would certainly look at any circumstance and make that determination as it relates to your question about window film this is something that we encountered quite a bit we for example one of the things that we debated in putting together this language was would we restrict wall signage to no more than 25% per window that is you would never be allowed to fill up more than 25% of any individual window we opted for this approach which would potentially allow you to consolidate the area if you had four windows you could cover one window with graphics this does not prohibit you from potentially blacking out windows with a vinyl film so why is

063it's not signage and you will see that circumstance in the city in some cases sometimes it can be challenging to if if it's if it's just like a solid color that's one thing sometimes in the past we've had to make judgments about whether that is such product is acting more as include some graphic and whether it's acting as signage or art and frankly it's so those are some of the challenging interpretations that we occasionally have to make but but to be clear this wouldn't prohibit sort of blacking out a window it would restrict more than 25% of that window area from being filled with signage okay that's it for now thank you Commissioner Hamish right following up on that just for clarification to is are we talking about just the front of buildings or is

064this any like I guess I'm thinking now about like purely residential but you know can you hang penance in your backyard so we this is the the window area is calculated by ground for business frontage we did discuss whether or not to specifically provide regulations around residential windows and opted not we don't have those kind of restrictions in place in that so we're not proposing to invoke any additional restrictions now again I would put that in an interpretive interpretive challenge it's conceivable that you could put up a Budweiser flag in your window at some point we would believe we would have to make a determination in that case but we are not specifically a regulating residential window signage okay chime in also we're only gonna regulate signs that are visible from the public right-of-way or

065from public grounds okay and then I think now I'm thinking about the Old Fourth Ward more and I'm thinking specifically about in these temporary freestanding unlimited signs so landlords or building property managers who have signs on their buildings that will be non-conforming right if it is a one or two family yeah or if it is a three or more unit and it's over six square feet okay so let's pretend these are all like single one or two family houses those can't be there anymore if they want to take them down but they could if they you know needed if it needed to come down for some reason they're not allowed to put it back up they could have a one temporary freestanding sign or is that a commercial message if it's like like a management

066company set I'm just trying to think like is it worse to have these like temporary freestanding signs in the yards of these houses than it is to have like the little phone number so we're not regulating the content of a free-standing sign and that's intentional to provide the flexibility yes it might be utilized by a property owner to say for lease similarly it might be used by a tenant to advocate a position or a political ideology or yeah I have a good advocate for a planet or some or some other some other message so yes they could use that for that purpose we are not specifying the content we're trying to find that balance of an adequacy of free speech and physical constraint of the property yeah no I completely get it I just don't

067want to see like a bunch of temporary freestanding management company signs in people's yards yeah you that is the balance that right that I hope that we've found what this ordinance is trying to find the balance of an adequacy of opportunity for people to invoke their speech and define fashion based on these geographies and it is a balance so if when ever this passes right now the current ordinance as it stands is like well clearly state that but it is not content neutral you will find lots of references to specific types of sign and specific regulations - those are is the amendment process like if we pass this as is but then stuff is found because you mentioned the old ordinance has been amended several times is that amendment process painful that's the same process

068as adoption and one thing that we are also making sure to include in this is while we do have a severability clause in the whole UDC which is sort of a attorney term of saying that if one provision of this is deemed to be illegal it doesn't invalidate the balance of our ordinance so we've added that provision specifically to this I know we're in 2019 but 2015 case law from the Supreme Court is actually still relatively recent and other case law could continue to develop but in short it would be the same process however I think generally it would be easier because we started from this content-neutral structure where I think the changes would probably be perhaps numeric or quantitative as opposed to sort of starting over like we are now I should I feel

069like an imperfect content-neutral ordinance is probably better than what we have yeah um just while we're talking about this I want to make it clear this would this would have the effect of repealing the entire science section of our current chapter UDC so I didn't show you that sort of all deleted but this would replace that provision and then we did show you the sort of track changes version of the other sections of the UDC that would be impacted Sherwood's I just wanted to follow up a little bit more on the Crockett's and some of their concerns and so I wanted to just make sure I'm understanding so currently with the ordinance that we currently have what and either mr. Chang or mr. Leonard could could answer this please what is considered in affright infraction

070right now based upon the description that the Crockett's gave us in terms of saying numerous signs on on rental properties in the Old Fourth Ward it's a little difficult without knowing we'd have to look through the ordinance to find out what is the zoning what's the size of the sign where is it located so we can again we take him on a case-by-case basis and but just to be clear like one example that was brought up as if you had eight temporary signs this new code would restrict no more than four temporary site signs and in some of those circumstances so that'd be one example of how that change would occur I would also say that the sort of non-conforming likelihood of maintenance of a temporary sign versus a permanent sign is probably also different

071so there's probably more opportunities to get those kind of properties into compliance long-term then perhaps a property that has a permanent sign affixed to it that's not good for me okay and those eight signs can would would if this were to pass those would be content-neutral which meant that it could be eight signs for I don't know vote for things like that maybe one that says again we be sure restricting it likely to no more than four freestanding signs they would have to think they could do one of potentially they're full square footage 11th or they could divide that square footage allotment amongst four freestanding signs and you're absolutely right they could be save the whales vote for mayor woods and city planner line art is an idiot I mean I don't so so you're

072you're right they are content neutral we're restricting the size based on the property and they have some flexibility and how they use that size but the limits exist okay and then I was I was also I jotted some notes down in terms of of the remedy for those who might be neighbors to some of these property owners their remedy seems to be that they should get in touch with the community services they call it in well if it's the public right-of-way they would go to community standards but anything on private property they could call the planning or in this case zoning we have a gentleman that we go out and do enforcement okay and I don't I don't necessarily want to say how successful is that but I'm getting the sense that this is an

073ongoing issue for some folks who live in the 4th Ward because this isn't the first time that we've heard it and/or if we drive through that area you can see some of this too and not just to the 4th ward but also some other places in town so as a staff are you feeling fairly confident that this would be a good remedy for those neighborhoods that are experiencing this this kind of phenomena it will this will not solve all those issues particularly temporary signage enforcement I think will continue to be challenging one thing that I think will help address the condition in a more positive way is that we will be standardizing what the regulations are in a way right now our current ordinance has different limitations depending on the size of signage I think

074I don't I don't think the sort of consolidating everything into the same requirements is an automatic solution however I think we'll it added a consistency in our ability to respond frankly just more quickly than maybe spending the time to research a particular sign content ok and this may be something that we'll talk about later on depending on what happens with it here and then on to City Council but how does the public neighborhoods find out about these changes and then be able to realize that it's now standardized which as you said should really make it easier for people to know when someone's in violation yeah this is a good question I think unlike probably this more so than other UDC changes might warrant some sort of communication effort that we could look at as we

075progress to City Council and talk about how we might any ideas we have on to achieve that Commissioner Briggs yeah so I've been kind of pondering the unlimited temporary sign for a bit may feel a little bit guilty because I this isn't a substantive change I mean this was in there in the last draft and I it's still okay to bring it up that's so but I to me this just suggests this just contributes to sine white there are we're providing folks with for temporary signs that can be upped can be placed for sixty five continuous days yes they need to take him down for 30 days for a gap but we're providing pretty ample opportunity for free speech in a variety of different mechanisms with for temporary signs and so I'm inclined to think

076that there's really no reason for us to be providing one unlimited sign on on these properties we already have an exception if the if the building is up for first obviously for sale or lease and this is freestanding which also means it's it's much more visible in in our landscapes which are already quite cluttered sometimes so I don't know I would be inclined to put forward an amendment to strike B from section two in the temporary free-standing signs but I'd like to see if there's any agreement around the table before put that forward as others have been pondering this so if we can get back to that in a minute I have a couple of things that I'd like to bring up um mr. frost thank you for being here I have a question that

077you know we've been slowly moving through the through this change in our sign ordinance does our current sign ordinance open us up to litigation the way it's set forth right now I was thinking mr. frost would answer that since he's here and we'd like to put him on on stage he might ask me to answer that yeah that's not I'm not gonna comment on what risks the city might have all right well thank you at least we got you to speak once so I appreciate that mr. Leonard um I would just say that I believe this draft does put us in a more defensible position I'm just again based on the premise that that Supreme Court case emphasized the importance of content neutrality that is your sign regulation shouldn't require you to look at what

078the sign says in order to make decisions about it I think this ordinance achieves that I think there are current provisions of our current code that do require you to assess the content of it that it would it would give me pause but I'm not an attorney thank you with regards to the elimination of the three square foot wall science I'm one and two family residential districts I'm a little I understand why you'd want to remove it but I guess there's a concern that I have with regards to properties that are rented in the in the one and two family residential districts with regards to you know it takes sometimes when you have an issue with the property and it has and you have a landlords contact information or a property managers contact information to

079reach out to could be helpful versus then just calling the city and having the city do the enforcement I know property managers who are very responsive once they learn about issues and I'm sure many of them would like to learn from the neighbors versus from the city when they're being fined or when other issues come up so I'm not exactly on board for removing those signs and that's the one sign that I that I'm thinking of right now the of having a property managers contact information on a building so that the neighbors have some contact information was there a reason for the removal the we we had a similar discussion keep in mind that if it's provided there's no restriction on content so it could be on a property owner content it could be some

080other message we we did this we discussed it I don't want to speak for everybody but my my rationale for it is that the character of those uses might be more prevalent and our are one in our two districts they tend to be more residential in nature the while not well not while some of them very well very much may be rental properties a number of rental properties and the higher density areas are probably more prevalent and so it was a balance of just what is the appropriate way to address character with permanent signs but I think I would just to link those two comments I think that in balancing the opportunity for free speech that unlimited temporary sign probably should be considered carefully if removed as early particularly to single at one and to

081family signs that don't have as many other opportunities for speech is there any way to I guess it's one of those things where I I think for a lot of neighbors and for me personally when I see when I see a friend sign attached to a building and I see that their lawn isn't cut I make the phone call to the landlord or to my friend who has that property listed or is managing it awesome this adds a there's uncertainty just because if you can go if you go into the city records you're not gonna find out who the owner is if the property is managed by management company so I guess I'm just looking at from just that angle of just knowing who the landlord is of the property so I but I understand

082the other what other message could go up there maybe I'm not thinking about that and maybe that's maybe we don't want that message up so depending on how we vote on this this evening if we table it we might want to revisit that potentially with regards to permit so I did see that residential properties do not need a permit for temporary signs but I did not see for commercial properties that are for lease so the exceptions no permit is required it's as temporary signs and residential zoning districts and then the temporary freestanding signs permitted under Section five all that in all zoning districts does I just want to clarify does that mean there are no permits required for temporary signs in both residential and commercial districts is that correct I believe so the temp temporary

083all temporary signs and residential zoning districts do not require permit and the unlimited sign in all districts don't require permit other temporary signs in non-residential districts would require permit so a commercial broker marking a property for sale would be required to get a permit for a temporary sign yes I think that's probably gonna be an issue that we need to look at just because there's a lot of commercial real estate in town and lots of signs and currently permits are not required again though we can't distinguish a for lease sign from other type of signage so we could we could say that a potential amendment would be temporary signage and non-residential properties do not require a permit mm-hmm so that could be considered and I think that's the direction that I'd like to go on

084and we can discuss that further then in regards to I'm sorry you know in my my field of real estate open house signs are those considered temporary signs probably okay so whether they're put up for two hours or until well technically open house signs don't go in front of a property that is for sale other than one but directional signs to the open house that would be a temporary sign that could potentially be within the required allotment of residential property or running afoul of that and could not be placed in the public right away so a property that is so I'm at the corner of green and Plymouth and I'm outside the right-of-way putting a directional sign on a property that I don't own it's that an allowed use is that an allowed temporary sign

085it would be a free-standing sign so long as they were not didn't already have the maximum number or square feet and it would not require a permit because it's unlikely in that a residential area if it were in a commercial area and that was the currently you would work we would require a permit for a temporary sign okay so corner of Plymouth and green is a commercially commercial property so in order for me to put a directional open house sign for two hours would require me to get a permit from the city yes technically we we can't regulate a sign for a specific duration differently I doubt I I bet that happens and how and the current code how does that so I I did see there's a permission for open house signs and concurrent

086code that is unfortunately content-specific and the US Supreme Court has said shame on such language okay so that's another one and then window signs if we can go back to residential window signs so in condominium complexes some condominium complexes allow for property owners to put a for sale sign into into a window that's a temporary sign would that be considered a temporary sign is it affixed to the window well it might be taped to the window generally we don't regulate residential windows through our sign ordinance now or as proposed we do provide an additional freestanding sign and that would be multiple family which you'd be allowed a temporary wall sign up to 12 square feet I I think the ordinance is silent on it so I think technically it would probably be illegal and that's

087a problem well then that so you and so your goal would be to provide a specific allocation of residential window signage temporary signage I have to look at creating so right now we have two types of temporary signs freestanding and wall we could look at I think we could look at how he would accommodate some use in that regard I don't know exactly how that is come and then I promised this in my last one I'm sorry Alys so we've seen a little bit of actually not not an Ann Arbor quite yet but I recently visited a business that's off of an alley here in town that does have signage on there and you know we're starting to see in a lot of cities major cities that have had really expensive real estate where alleys

088are being revitalized Detroit is one of the places that we're seeing that and I noticed that there's no more you know alleys are now looked upon as the building as a whole for signage was there a reason for getting away from allowing alley signage and making us part of separating it out or no longer separating it out yes we we determined that alley signs would be either wall signs projecting signs or could be potentially a canopy sign it didn't need to be defined specifically they're still permitted within those categories you would have to choose to allocate your square footage to that face your square footage is still based on the building frontage but we determined that it wasn't necessary to define it unto itself because an alley fan could probably more appropriately meet one of

089the forms of the types of signs we've defined thank you um and just as a final thought you know with with an item just brought up like mr. Briggs and some of the things that I've brought up I think it might be worthwhile for us to table this for a little while just to look at some of the issues that have been brought up and get additional community feedback on this before moving forward but I will of course send this off to the Commission to discuss commercial breaks yes I'm not sure if I was just not following their question properly or the answers properly but I'm trying to make sure I'm understanding the temporary freestanding signs and your distinction between residential and commercial use because what I'm seeing is that there is an exception if

090the building it or a lot is for sale or lease and that there are temporary signs that are permitted both in residential multi-family and non-residential so I'm not understanding where a permit is required for a non residential temporary real estate sign I don't understand how that's where am I missed where is that because the we require permits for all signs except for those listed in section 5.2 nine point two that reference there specifically addresses temporary signs and residential zoning districts and the freestanding sign that is the unlimited sign under the temporary freestanding sign that could be amended to reference that section more generally to provide the exception from either the additional signage you get from building or a lot for sale or unlimited sign again keep in mind though that that sub a is not

091a for lease sign you get additional temporary freestanding sign for your property when it is for sale or for at least for that duration it does not require you to use it for that purpose we are content neutral on what you put on that sign that's additional to the what's listed in this table correct and and so the okay I guess I'm I don't know if I'm being obtuse on this or I just feel like I'd be I just don't understand why the the non-residential isn't included where what what exactly would need to be changed to in this section so to to it to adjust for so that no temporary freestanding things would require permit right so the adjustment would be in 5.2 9.2 and it would my initial thought it would read something that

092no permit is required for sub 3 temporary signs permitted under the temporary science section under that circumstance it would exempt temporary wall signs freestanding signs the accepted exception signs from the Spay the area and duration regularly limitations they would restrict any sign under that freestanding category from requiring a permit come ashore break I'm sorry Commissioner Mills so based on what you just said now I understand the permit site but I'm the exceptions for the temporary freestanding signs I read that as exceptions from the time how long from the duration not be amount of signage that you're allowed because I want to make sure that there is a limitation on the amount of for sale for lease signage that's allowed and I understand why we would want to exempt how long if it takes more than

09365 days to sell a property I think that makes sense but I just want to make sure though there are limitations on the amount of signage I think I think you're correct I misspoke I think that the exception in a provides you an exception from the duration of 65 days with a 30 day gap so as long as that building or a lot is for sale it doesn't give you increased area I my apologies okay good I know I think that it's really helpful just to make sure and since we're on this section and I have the things that's okay I agree with I would I agree with what Commissioner breaks said about considering this like permanent temporary signage like unlimited time for a temporary sign the other question that I have that actually maybe

094you can help us answer I forgot your name sorry I is that it stimulates that it has to be a non-commercial message is which is interesting to me given that we're moving away like moving towards content neutrality so how does that work it did that slip through the cracks or was that intentional yeah without getting into this specific provision the courts have left open possibility to regulate commercial signage differently historically commercial signage has been held to a lesser standard standard than non-commercial speech okay so if it is a the way that I'm reading these now with these two exceptions next to each other if a building owner is offering a building for lease the first exception there it falls within there that they can if it takes them three months to lease out or or

095sell that building they can have that temporary sign up for three months and actually that doesn't say whether it needs to be freestanding or it can be on a wall is that correct sorry it doesn't it yeah oh yeah that's yeah whatever temporary signage is allowed in that district then you can have it for sale around a wall but in the case of what Commissioner mill she was saying about wanting to have the phone number for whoever's managing the property who also sends the message like who you call if you want to lease the property right it's a year-round advertisement that's is that gray area become what is commercial I mean in my mind it's sort of commercial right but it could also serve a public safety or like a community standard so like we

096were I was I was reading this as the opportunity that unlimited sign the unlimited temporary sign as the opportunity for the management company to put their three square foot sign up but if it serves the purpose of like advertising how you can lease that property that's commercial to me isn't it the determination of whether it's commercial and that would have to be made on a case-by-case basis maybe code enforcement staff and I think because of that like not knowing how that's gonna I mean and my staff knows how that's gonna pan out because I think we can look at some existing some existing such signs right I I think that this idea of being able to have signs that rotate even if it's the same effective message but that that temporary sign can only be

097there for two months at a time to keep it in good repair in my mind seems to make a whole lot more sense than to allow a free-standing sign which we know has the opportunity to get ratty right to be there for at an unlimited basis so and it resolves this whole like what is commercial and what is non-commercial business in my mind that's my two cents worth on that but I think that there's enough questions in here I think what Commissioner Milstein said about when we require permits requiring permits for real estate signs or any temporary sign and that for that matter I think doesn't I'm glad that you found that like that seems super onerous in my mind I'm sure so they just on the permanent temporary sign we do have a clause

098though that does say that it has to mean to be placed and in good repair as long as it's on display so that would come down to enforcement which actually gets back to the question of fines and enforcement like fines are not in this how are those updated or you know modified and like what it like if if enforcement isn't active enough to deter this the people are gonna just put the signs back up again what is the process of increasing fines or other forms of enforcement I believe the fines are in here yeah $500 section five $500 plus and each day that a violation continues shall be deemed a separate violation so 500 hours a day how often do we find we have had I don't know specifically I can tell you our first

099approach is to try to get the property under compliance our typical process is when a violation is found we will ideally reach out and seek voluntary compliance that's sort of the most efficient use of everybody's resources to accomplish the goal of the ordinance and the event that that doesn't do we typically provide a Notice of Violation which is a letter that we are going to communicate to the property owner that you are in violation of this specific provision will provide some time period for correction that often then achieves a lot more compliance beyond the voluntary and then I don't have the exact numbers but then the next step would be to issue a ticket sometimes that ticket issuance can result in compliance at that point sometimes we end up in court and once we're in

100court we're presenting our case that we believe it's a violation they have the opportunity to dispute that and at that point it's kind of in the courts hands as to whether or not that's going to be upheld or not in the event that it is that gives us a lot more latitude than to ensure compliance is reached or more confidence to start issuing more frequent tickets after that we're not typically in the process of issuing tickets after that Notice of Violation on a daily basis we consider all of those to be deliberate reasonable steps to try to bring the property any compliance is the finding retroactive to the date of a notice or is it no ticket would have to be issued on a daily basis in order to invoke that in Commissioner survey it

101reads not more than $500 not less than $100 but that's a daily limit so it can be 500 hours a day it doesn't go $100 a day up to five days then they're capped out sort of thing it's it's it's interesting you know to hear it's things like even for for the first sale and lease if something's going up for lease fall twenty twenty right now that's allowed to be up for a year right which goes to you know public comments about it that but regulating that content versus something else we're trying to be flexible enough when we're talking about real estate a little bit differently within these residential temporary signs it's a faux goes and play scenarios but I also believe that we're probably planning for a lot of the worst-case scenarios that there

102is enforcement in place and in a way and that I don't I don't know how many violations are gonna come from open house or garage sale signs and if they do start to come then just a clarification on the cruelly signs for fall of 2020 this is the season when you see a lot of those signs rental season begins November 1st and runs through pretty much until August 2020 so it's not uncommon to see signs although there are a lot of them out there right now for their discussion commissioner hamstring temporary freestanding signs but I just want to make sure okay so in this exception when the building is for sale this is the maximum display period for temporary signs on that building a lot should be that so the temporary signs so you said

103you can have up to four temporary signs right and residential temporary signs and non-residential well which are you asking about that well the exceptions for temporary freestanding signs I guess I'm not sure if this reads as if you have a whole for lease in fall of 2020 can you have your three other temporary signs it says look the fact that it says like temporary signs makes me concern that since we're not regulating content if you have a home for lease in a year from now could you have three other signs that just say whatever and those are not regulated and they can just be up until it's leased right but we can't regulate content so I don't know how to yes yes we are providing an exception of timing for the temporary signs during that

104period that it's for sale early temporary signs could say anything correct okay and the places are for lease pretty much always due to the city ordinance that requires the landlord's not to start signing leases until 60 days after the beginning of the lease I mean I don't know that anybody's gonna read the sign ordinance that closely that's all of these landlords all of a sudden they're gonna be like cool I can just have like four temporary signs in my yard at all time because my house is always but it gets back to the light clutter and blight issue that I'm sure residents in neighborhoods with a lot of rental properties are very concerned about as I would be the message could you know there are signs out there right now that say free Heat free

105Wi-Fi so there are it doesn't necessarily say for lease right it just has other messages on them and you can have up to four if the property is technically for lease it is I'd run a I just want to know we could look at if if there was concern about that is extending the prohibition on permanent signs further up on the number of units that would decrease you would still likely have the same temporary signs provisions but you would have less total signage on the property through a combination of permanent and temporary signage well could you also to say that you're limited to one sign it's longer than sixty-five days but any other temporary signs are still subject to you're not regulating the content of that sign but you're just allowing them one it's sort

106of until and we just have to presume which one their designated their choice win no permits required right it might be challenging so I think we have enough feedback at this point or I think mr. Leonard you have enough feedback at this point well I I guess I'd appreciate a little bit more direction so some of the questions that came up that I don't have a clear consensus if you'd like to see changed or what we can provide I'm one I want to be I'm hearing some consensus on eliminating the requirements for permits for any temporary signs I think we can explore that I'm hearing I heard one possibly two voices for regulating residential window signage right now we're sort of quiet on it and being quiet on it so you would like to allow

107residential window signage throughout the city I would like that to count towards the signs that you're allowed so whether it's in my mind whether it's with lower wall it's a building sign that it'd be a temporary sign because then for exam on single and to family we don't provide any permanent signage currently oh that's another question in my mind putting it in a window has the same effect as putting it on a wall in my mind the permanency of it I think is a separate matter permanent window sign permanent wall sign or temporary you know I don't want to add additional signage but I think like the flexibility of putting it in a window we're voting it in a window rather than putting it on the wall is helpful so in a mixed-use building well

108let me think a mixed-use building where you have retail and residential above we only provide signage calculation to the ground floor so in that circumstance any window signage would have to be limited to a temporary status or we would have to provide more signage allowed on that building could it could the signage on the second floor be counted towards the maximum that's allowed that potentially unless the first floor is already used up all the signage allocation then there's none available so that's what I'm just trying to I I would be fine with that at that point if they've used up all the maximum if the business runners just used up the maximum for the building none is available for upper storeys or the landlord or the building owner would then have to renegotiate shrinking the

109sign down on the first floor and or how how does the house as written is that situation handled can people upstairs people window signs in because if you just said that silence means not allowed not allowed then it sounds to me like this the status quo leaving this as is it couldn't do that those people upstairs could not put anything in their windows that's correct so in my mind having collectively right not exceed the the threshold that we put is a better situation than what we're currently in okay there give some upstairs some flexibility then yeah I think we're driving to be the intention and feedback I'm hearing is you want to provide the opportunity for residential window signage not adding design plate replacing instead of wall and that will maybe Commissioner Sylve disagrees I

110mean it's a part of my ticket it feels temporary like when we talked about what might be in an apartment window would be the same thing as single-family residential might put in their yard that it could I know we were not talking about content but it could be a political sign or for sale sign or for lease so I would feel that in the window because it's obstructing feels like a temporary condition where on a wall affixed to kind of the wall outside of any residential use feels more permanent because it's not obstructing another feature in a way and so if we're leaning towards allowing it it feels like it actually falls more into the temporary than the permanent category I don't know how that changes the area calculations and how that's bedded out but

111that would be my leaning to so that if I'm like in a single-family use when you've got four signs if you put three in your yard and one in your window they all just add up to the same thing we're not adding more into it it all feels temporary in my perspective and then we're equally trying to approach all types of housing residential uses in the same way and not that dense dense housing has a permanent sort of requirement where single-family and detached housing has a temporary old stability it's like I have to respond to the zoning districts where it's located yeah I think that's kind of my concern when we do talk about that use versus zoning but we have to start somewhere right but the equity between that who lives where the typology

112of it I am hearing consider removal of the exception for a single freestanding sign subject to the time imitations I just want to say that I it is conceivable that when that comes back I my initial thought is that that is that's a bit of a accommodation from a absolute free speech opportunity for any property owner but we'll look at it and then the provision of a permanent sign for single and two family residential I heard a couple comments about that I don't know if there's a unified vision wonder what you would like to see in regards to that I didn't hear I think this is from Commissioner hammerschmidt and I didn't hear a single sign like taking it from four to one I heard the exception of allowing only one of those signs to

113be up during the period of lease not all four not all temporary signs I think that we should talk about oh you're talking about the sign on the like a management company I'm sorry what a permanent wall sign of up to three square feet on a one or two family residential got it I'm sorry we did talk about that as well though yeah is there any consensus on that could could we add and this is controlling what's on that sign could we know could what if it's contact information only phone number only my initial reaction is that is restricting by contest what if you lowered from three square feet to one that could be accommodated or two swervy I think that would be a but to react well I would be in favor of eliminating

114or of not eliminating signs whether it's three square feet one square foot or two square feet doesn't really matter me you know landlords will figure out a way to make it so they stand out I'm assuming so it's not gonna be a white house with a white sign for example how about a foot and a half mr. Mill's I would prefer that that if we keep in the idea of this unlimited time single sign that it I would prefer it in a window rather than freestanding personally I thought about a wall wall sign yes but I want but I'm like yeah putting back in the housing a one small permanent wall sign on one or two family residence okay I was it this the circumstance thinking about the circumstance that we set up to the

115content that might be provided because we can't regulate content so it's how do we create a circumstance that enables the content that we think is appropriate and so a permanent wall sign of a certain scale of a house that's leased or rented the lessee isn't going to fix a permanent sign to not their property so allowing that permanent sign is probably going to be done by the management or the owner and so the content is going to be something curated by the management or the owner so I feel like that leads you know towards the management number and contact information without actually trying to control what it is right if we do it with the temporary freestanding forever duration sign that is a bit more muddy in terms of like a tenant could just put

116a sign out and let it sit out from November to August so and I think what it would do if we did what we've routed back to the wall sign is it provides that permanent free speech opportunity so if a tenant wanted to stick something on top of that contact information they could so that there is that permanent free speech ability on the wall instead of in the yard blight sort of scenario so I think those two go hand-in-hand that we trade off and find that balance and figure out how that scenario helps lead towards the content that we're looking for without curating the content so basically I think I'm going towards the wall sign because it allows us to redact the temporary permanent freestanding sign possibly an enable permanent free speech but in a

117circumstance where people are releasing it it's probably going to be the management or the owner that is going to put the content on that or can you if we kept the temporary unlimited whatever can you limit the permanent wall signs to just properties for rent because that's not regulating content there's that not I - reaction is I don't like the distinction of changing regulations based on the occupancy tenure a single-family owner should and a single family rental property should be considered I think the same in regulations it is considered differently through other building code requirements but I'm - reaction is that's bite difficult from a zoning perspective Commissioner Briggs since this is getting tabled it appears this is one area that I would love to hear some feedback from neighborhood associations in terms of what

118they would like to see I would I would defer a lot on the wall sign piece on that in terms of whether or not they would feel but that having that contact information would be would continues to be useful but I do like the idea if that it's going to be maintained that it's a smaller size personally I like the removal of the wall signs but I I could be persuaded if it felt like a something that's actually benefiting neighborhoods and folks that are living there regularly that are addressing these issues with regards to the unlimited sign just throw one other piece I know your concern is around free speech to me it seems that we are favoring free speech for those folks who have a yard and have the ability to put up a

119free and on a free-standing sign so I think we are providing greater speech for certain types of individuals in our community and so I'd be curious to see as you guys are discussing this after this meeting how that plays out but I I'm not persuaded necessarily that we're we're offering more but so that point would be that if provided it should be one temporary sign not one temporary freestanding sign personally I don't think we need unlimited sizeable and then open house signs garage sale signs yeah a garage sale sign or an estate sale or something along those lines we could you know I have some you know text about that for us to read that great so you would be interested in some exception that says you can do any temporary sign and for at

120any location so long as it's not present for more than four hours or eight I'm a I'm a soft nail on that boat we can look at it that's all I ask okay so my to do is look at temporary eliminating the requirement for permits for all temporary sign permits look at the potential regulation or provision of residential window signs perhaps as a temporary option evaluate the unlimited temporary freestanding sign could it be eliminated if if kept could it be generalized to provide more choice as to how its realized as the temporary signs that are just freestanding is there any specific provision for temporary time limited signs and adding back in potentially adding back in single and two family three square foot sign and specifically trying to solicit feedback from the community about that particular

121issue seem like it's my thing about if your property is for lease can you really yeah Commissioner woods yeah I'm that so that last part you said that's about those small signs that go on houses information it it seems like with technology and just anecdotally from a lot of my students it seems like people do a lot more online and going to don't even know the names of the apps but to find out where property and things like that or available as opposed to looking at those signs so hopefully eventually we're sort of getting away from those even though I know no we're not well we should because I think it's just adding to what some people are feeling is not the best look so I just wanted to put that in there okay all

122right I would be interested in knowing what percent of your sales are actually from the online kinds of you know Realty doc Gramm's as opposed to people just driving down the street and seeing it on a house here's the on I will mention this the reason why I like for sale signs is when I'm driving through a neighborhood and I'm going to show a house I don't have to look at the street numbers I just see the for sale sign I know I need to pull in that driveway and in some neighborhoods that I have a lot of cookie cutter homes it's very helpful to have that sign there but that's that's my as a real estate agent that's why I like for sale signs and so you never it says you're here and you're

123looking around you're like no I'm not anywhere near here all right mr. Leonard do we have enough to take a motion or do you have enough feedback so that we could table this yes my tabling would allow us to bring it back when we feel like we've addressed all the questions given the opportunity for some additional feedback my initial thought is that I might shoot for the first the second January or the first February meeting all right do I have a motion to table move by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner woods any discussion on tabling all those in favor please say aye opposed all right we are tabled next item on our agenda is to two 6-0 Traber Road annexation and Zoning for City Council approval mr. Leonard mr. Cheney well deliver staff report okay

124the petitioner is located on the east side of Traver Road south of Traver Boulevard there in an ever Township the requesting to annex 3.5 acres and rezoning to r1b which a single-family residential owners requesting sanitary sewers sewer service from the city since their septic system is failing staff recommends approval I'm here for Heaney all right at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in regards to this item please step up to the podium state your name and address for the record and you'll have up to three minutes to address the Planning Commission and regrets this item seeing nobody I will close the public hearing and I will read the motion the in order the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission

125hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved a hoss for annexation and r1b single-family dwelling district zoning two two six zero Traver Road move by Commissioner sauvé seconded by Commissioner Mills do we have discussion none all those in favor please say aye opposed it is approved welcome to the city of Ann Arbor all right moving on to audience participation at this time any members of the audience may address the Planning Commission if there are members of the audience you have up to three minutes to address the plan commission please state your name and address for the record I appreciate and this is why they pay you the big bucks to look at all this is this is really complicated stuff you know so I am very grateful I just when if you want citizen

126input you know give us a call we'd be happy to come in and talk I appreciate Erica making that comment I would just like to say that I think we can do better in enforcement than the current plan in place I mean there are things I was just thinking the other day why is the burden on the neighborhoods why couldn't for example a person who puts up a sign simply take a picture of the sign because if you take a picture on the side of your cell phone you got to be so you have some kind of evidence of what you've done so it would be the obligation of the person who sets up the temporary sign to take a picture of it to date it and if you're a commercial enterprise it would seem

127to me that you perform so that you have some proof so in other words if you don't have that proof and it's it's driven by complaint but guess who does it complain people who are Sarah walk around sort of like us so we make a complaint there's an investigation but there's no proof of when the sign comes up so the proof is the complaint so it could be 30 days 45 days when we'll walk around and notice this house we make a call and the 60 day limit starts from the day the other thing that could be done it would be simple I mean you can create online survey where someone who sets up a sign can goes and just simply enters one they put up the sign on the location doesn't take doesn't cost

128anything but it be some way to record it so I guess what I'm asking is in terms of reinforcement that you least have the conversation to think is there way you know that we can sort of do it better so I would encourage that and the last thing I wanted to say is I'm hoping that part of the consideration is time timing so that neighborhoods and neighborhood groups have an opportunity to review an ordinance goes way it's set up right now I mean we find out about it on a Friday we don't have the staff here is over the weekend so we send in feedback on Monday there's just no time something's not right with that I know at City Council I think they're moving toward you know at least a week between the time

129that a staff report comes in and when there's feedback that to me is a little more reasonable so I would urge you you know basically to think about creatively about enforcement and then in terms of the I mean thank you very much thank you is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission seeing no one any Commission proposed business commissioner Mills I am sad that mr. Garber left because I think what he had to say fits nicely to what we were talking about before were planned projects I hope that mr. Leonard um you could add to the list of potential things to add to the plan projects electrification like not including natural gas hookups that's something that we can definitely treat as a public benefit I think now regardless of

130how they sort out whether how how banning a natural gas connection fits with the either the building code or the energy code and if mr. Garber is listening that's something that I think other cities are interested in too so I've got a group digging into that as well I think so both that and kind of beefing up what we require or what we're requiring in terms of renewable energy through that land project process I think it are two of the key things that I would like to see that mesh with other goals that we have identified them I think that it might be wise to look at that soon so I'm not sure when we can schedule that but now that it's come up in a couple different occasions and we've said it for a

131couple of years to further Commission proposed business so as we're winding down a year I hope everyone has a happy holiday whether you're here on the Commission or the audience or anybody watching at home have a great holiday and a happy new year and I will take a motion to adjourn move back mr. Abrams seconded by Commissioner Mills we are adjourned thank you you