MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
APRIL 10, 2012, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. Roll Call
PRESENT: Hanna, Heying, McLaughlin, Mead, Pnacek, Senesac,
Stewart, and Young
ABSENT: Tanzini
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Kaye, Director
of Planning and Community Development, Cindy Winland, Consulting Planner, Cheri
King, Community Development Specialist, and 2 others.
2. Approval
of Minutes
Moved by Senesac, seconded by Young, to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of February 28, 2012. Motion passed unanimously.
Moved by Senesac, seconded by Young, to approve the minutes of the work
session meeting of March 13, 2012. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Public Hearings
None
4. Old
Business
a. Master Plan Update
Revisions to the density chart
Ms.
Winland presented the proposed revisions to the density chart, summarizing the
density discrepancies between the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan. She explained that we are trying to recognize
the densities allowed by zoning and better reflect those in the Master
Plan. The Master Plan would now define
low density as being 6 or fewer units per acre, medium density as 7-10 units
per acre, and high density as greater than 10 units per acre. A corresponding change that would reduce the
minimum lot size for single family dwellings in the RA-4 zoning district from
7,200 sq ft to 6,000 sq ft is also proposed which would allow a density of 7.26
units per acre. The RA-4 district would
then fall within the medium density range of the Master Plan.
Mrs.
Hanna questioned whether the RA-1 zoning district would be changed to permit up
to six units per acre. Ms. Winland
stated that no change to the minimum lot size in RA-1 was proposed. It will remain 12,000 sq. ft., which would
only allow up to 3.63 dwelling units per acre.
Mr.
Senesac stated this table is a great improvement. It is easier to see what is required. Mr. Mead agreed.
Mrs.
Hanna asked Ms. Winland to explain the discrepancies in the proposed RB
district for more than two-family dwellings.
Ms. Winland stated that, in the Zoning Ordinance, there is no limit to
the number of units allowed, so long as the square footage requirements are
met. We can change the “RB” line to say
“3 or more units” and eliminate the last five lines of the chart.
Future Land Use Map
Mr.
Kaye presented the Future Land Use Map.
At a previous meeting, several areas in the city were identified to take
a closer look at to see if any changes were warranted. Property owners have not yet been consulted
but that would take place if any possible changes are identified following this
review.
Mr. Kaye showed a map of the Stark and Saginaw Road area. These areas have been annexed to the
city. Staff would like to change two
parcels to the west of Stark Road from medium density residential to
Commercial. These two separate
properties are privately owned at the present time. Mr. Kaye stated these proposed changes would
pertain to the Future Land Use Map only and that we are not initiating a zoning
change for these properties. There was
consensus on this change.
Map
Hawk’s Nest Plat is a single family plat with densities of three units per
acre. It is recommended that this be
changed from medium density residential to low density residential to be more
indicative of what is actually happening on the property. Areas to the north are already developed as
commercial. The Planning Commission requested
that staff look at a broader area to the south that is currently designated as
medium density residential. Much of that
was developed as low-density residential.
Ms.
Hanna asked if the adjacent land still in Homer Township was zoned that it
would be compatible with our adjacent zoning.
Mr. Kaye responded that he would investigate this and report back on his
findings.
Map
#4 shows lands near Letts and Perrine Roads extending to the MUGA
Boundary. Staff has no recommended
changes for this area. The Planning
Commission wanted to take another look and just verify the plans for this
area. This is a mixed use area. No necessary changes were identified.
Map
#5 shows a small area northeast of City Forest, including a single family
residential property that is not within the city boundaries. The Master plan currently designates the southwest
corner of Monroe and Eastman for commercial purposes, with the balance of the
area designated for medium density residential purposes. East of Eastman Road
the lands are designated for light industrial purposes. Staff has not identified a need for any
change in this area at the present time.
Commissioners struggled with the idea of this area actually developing
for residential purposes but were not comfortable changing it at this point. The Planning Commission would like to take a
further look at this area. Staff will
contact the property owners as this area is further considered.
Area
#6 is Commerce Drive and Jefferson Avenue.
The area to the north of Commerce Drive is predominantly designated
medium density residential, along with a smaller commercial designation near
the south west corner. Mr. Senesac asked
if the proposed Airport Zoning Map aligns with this map. Ms. Winland stated she has not looked at the
proposed overlay for the Airport Zoning Overlay but it is more a zoning issue
and it is far enough into the future that it will not impact this
activity. The Planning Commission
concluded that this was a mixed use area and no changes to the Future Land Use
Map were necessary?
Area
#7 is in the area of Waldo Avenue, on the north side of the expressway, by
Diamond Drive. This area includes
property that is currently outside the city limits, but within the MUGA
boundary. The zoning showed on the
Master Plan Land Use Map has been recommended by the property owners. The land owner has interest in extending
water and sewer. Mrs. Hanna stated she
does not see that as a heavy commercial area as there is already too much
traffic with people going to work at Dow.
She would discourage any commercial development in this area until that
road can be reviewed and the traffic problems solved. Mr. Kaye stated that we can have the option
of writing those types of concerns directly into our master plan policies. Mr. Mead stated that the way it is now is the
way it is likely going to be for a while.
It was noted that to the south of E. Wheeler Road is property owned by
the city’s landfill.
Area
#8 is at the corner of Saginaw Road and St. Andrews Road. There are two parcels right on the corner
that we are concerned with. These
parcels are currently vacant with residential development behind them. There is currently a low-density residential
designation currently on these parcels.
The Planning Commission agreed that the two lots on the corner should be
designated medium density residential.
Chapters 8 and 9
Chapter
8 is the implementation chapter. In
Chapter 8, the question is do we want to do prioritize the activities directed
by this chapter or should we just leave it as it is. The “Implementation Measure” of S.
Washington/W. Bay City Road Closure/Vacation has already been done. Ms. Winland will check with Engineering to
confirm this. Mr. Senesac stated that,
when the Master Plan is completed, we should review Chapter 8 and start working
those into our agenda. Mr. Heying stated
that we should review this chapter after we complete the full Master Plan
review and see if the issues make sense in relation to the changes that were
made.
Chapter 9 is the detailed performance measures where tasks identified
five years ago were to be implemented. Figure
9.1 on Page 9.3, contains a list of items that were identified and dealt with
first in the ten-year cycle. Mrs. Hanna
asked to look at 2.a. She thinks we
first need a definition of “natural features considerations”. Everyone will have a different idea on what a
natural feature is. In Chapter 9, we
will change the “not done” to “to be completed”.
b. LED Signs
At the last Planning Commission work session, discussion focused around
the use of digital signs and their impact on the community. In 2004, the ordinance standard regulating change
rate came into effect. Signs in effect
prior to that are not subject to that rule.
Most of the signs in the City are subject to that rule. We realize that we need to look at the
enforcement of this rule.
Staff prepared a quick overview of the many digital signs we have, as
well as the areas of regulation that the current City ordinances do not cover. A series of minor amendments to the ordinance
are being recommended.
Digital signs are looked at differently because of their safety
issues. This should be reflected in the
purpose statements of our zoning ordinance standards.
Section
8.04 amendments would add two types of signs to those that are already prohibited. Signs that emit any audible sound of any kind
and mobile digital signs affixed to a vehicle of any kind would now be
prohibited. The Planning Commission felt
strongly that signs that emit any audible sound of any kind must be prohibited
as they are definitely a distraction.
Mr. Heying stated that someday there may be signs that communicate
directly with your IPAD or I-Phone, which might then interfere with your
driving. We should proactively prohibit
such signs.
In
the Sign Design Standards, staff is recommending adding a requirement that
signs with video images must be turned off between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. The Planning Commission was in
favor of this.
Under
“Nonresidential District Signs”, it was pointed out that changeable copy signs
are treated the same way from a size and placement standpoint as any other
sign. Regulations are based on the type
of sign – freestanding, wall, awning, etc., the number of signs, size, height,
location, and any requirements specific to a zoning district or specific lot
type for instance.
In Table 8.2, On-Premise Advertising Sign Standards, Staff recommends
adding language that digital signs are prohibited in all districts adjacent to
or across the street from any residential district and in the Office Service
District. Ground mounted digital signs
may not be located closer than 1,000 feet from another digital sign on the same
side or the opposite side of the road.
Any existing sign would be grandfathered in. Mr. Kaye will contact the City Attorney to
determine his opinion on how to handle applications for new digital signs prior
to the Planning Commission completing their review of this issue. Mr. Pnacek has a problem prohibiting these
types of signs in the Office Service zoning district. Limiting the hours of operation might be the
answer to this issue. Ms. Winland
clarified that public schools’ signs are exempt from the Zoning Ordinance standards.
c. Woodland
Place Apartments – Banner/Flag Signs
Banners were displayed on the property at Woodland Place Apartments. The property is zoned Residential B. Banners and flags are not permitted in this
district. The property manager wrote a
letter to the Planning Commission requesting consideration of this issue. If they are allowed on this residential
property, they would then be allowed on any RB, and they are not all on Saginaw
Road. They could apply for a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
However, the property may not be unique and it would certainly be
self-created. Commissioners felt that
the current standards should not be amended.
5. Public
Comments (unrelated to items on the agenda)
None
6. New
Business
None
7. Communications
a. Letter from Terry Starks
Mr. Kaye provided an overview of the current ordinance standards that
apply to the screening of storage areas.
New and used vehicles initially appeared to fall within this
definition. Upon further review, an
interpretation made back in 2008 was discovered that differentiated between
outdoor storage areas and outdoor display areas. The
definitions used in that interpretation have since been adopted into the Zoning
Ordinance. Consistent with that previous
interpretation, outdoor display areas for vehicles being offered for sale will
not be subject to the opaque screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. Report of the Chairperson
Commissioners
received their copy of the “Michigan Planner”
9. Report
of the Planning Director
A Notice of Public Hearing
has been received from Larkin Township.
They will be considering the adoption of Master Plan amendments
previously presented to the Planning Commission. No concerns to the City were identified in
the initial review of those amendments.
There is a training on the basics of zoning ordinances being
conducted on Wednesday, September 26th at the Isabella County
Building.
Mr.
Senesac stated there is going to be a public hearing on the proposed Airport
Zoning Ordinance on Aril 24, 2012.
10. Adjourn
Adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Bradley Kaye, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION