MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
JUNE 26, 2012, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. Roll Call
PRESENT: Hannah,
McLaughlin, Mead, Pnacek, Senesac, Stewart, and Young
ABSENT: Heying and Tanzini
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Kaye, Director
of Planning and Community Development, Cheri King, Community Development
Specialist, Cindy Winland, Contract Planner and 3 others.
2. Approval
of Minutes
Moved by Hanna, seconded by Young, to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of June 12, 2012. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Public Hearings
None
4. Old
Business
a. Site
Plan No. 313 – initiated by Fishbeck,
Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. on behalf of VC Energy, LLC for site plan
review and approval for a 150,100 square foot thermal island building and fuel
storage barn, located at 602 South Waldo Avenue on 31.42 acres.
Mr. Kaye reviewed the application and explained
that this is a use by right, subject to Site Plan Review. The applicant is VC Energy, LLC, located at
602 S. Waldo Avenue. This is the east
side of Waldo and it is in the midst that is planned
and used for industrial purposes and is intended to be developed in the future
for industrial purposes. It is mostly
wooded at the present time. Nothing has
changed since the site plan was presented two weeks ago.
There
is impact on wetland areas but the petitioner has obtained a permit from the
MDEQ. The applicant has intended that
all the facilities are outside of the wetland area and are already
cleared. They have made the most of what
they have regarding the property. We are
talking about over 150,000 sq. ft.
A
storm water management plan has been reviewed on a preliminary basis by the
City Engineer. Revisions have been made
to the photometric plan to comply with City standards. Updates to the current water and sewer
service plans will be required to ensure a properly looped and pressurized
water system. A landscaping plan or
computation is required. A soil erosion
and sedimentation plan is still needed.
These are considered minor deficiencies that can be addressed by
contingencies to the approval.
The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 12, 2012. If recommended tonight, the application will
proceed to City Council on July 9, 2012.
Staff recommendation is for approval with contingencies. No public comments have been received.
In response to a question from Mrs. Hanna, it was clarified that the
closest residentially used parcel is just over half a mile to the north and
just under one and half miles to the south.
There are no residential properties for over a mile in any other
direction.
The
petitioner is not in attendance this evening.
Mr. Senesac asked Mr. Kaye about when the material comes in, is it in a
usable form? Mr. Kaye stated there are
receiving areas and a conveyance system on the site plan. He does not think there will be any raw
material processing on the property.
They have indicated approximately 50 trucks per day will be coming onto
the site. Mr. Senesac asked about the
ash that is emitted and where is goes. Mr.
Kaye explained that it is stored in bins on the site and then trucked away, but
the application does not indicate the disposal location. Mr. Senesac asked about the saw mill that may
be located next door to this facility.
Mr. Kaye stated that this facility has not been applied for yet but products
would likely be trucked from one facility to the other if it ever is built. There has been no system presented that would
show a conveyance system between the two properties.
Mrs.
Hanna asked about the review by the Fire Chief.
Mr. Kaye stated the Fire Department has no issues with this plan. Mr. Senesac asked about the moving of the
fence back two feet. Mr. Kaye stated
that has been agreed upon.
Motion by Senesac,
seconded by Pnacek, to recommend to City Council the approval of Site Plan No.
313 initiated by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. on behalf of VC
Energy, LLC for site plan review and approval for a 150,100 square foot thermal
island building and fuel storage barn, located at 602 South Waldo Avenue on
31.42 acres with the following contingencies:
1.
A
soil erosion and sedimentation control plan must be submitted for review and approval.
2.
A second water feed across Waldo Avenue and
back flow prevention option will be included and shown on the site plans. Such plans shall be approved by the City’s
Water Department.
3.
All
landscaping shall comply with Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4.
Any
planned or future exterior signage shall comply with Article 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance
Mr. Mead stated he thinks this is a great plan and will be an asset to at
least one of the local companies.
Vote:
YEAS: Hanna,
McLaughlin, Mead, Pnacek, Senesac, Stewart, and Young
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Heying
and Tanzini
b. DNO
Signs and Standards
This
is not meant to be the final discussion of this issue, but it is intended to
open the subject up for discussion. Ms.
Winland showed a map of the Northside Downtown Overlay District and explained
that the downtown has its own overlay district.
Staff has been in discussion with the developers of the stadium project
downtown. This is the first opportunity
to look at the regulations we have and how they fit. Staff is proposing that we look at signs
permitted per tenant and signs permitted per façade. The purpose of the signage being regulated by
both façade and by tenant is needed in order for each business to have signage
for their facility.
Ms.
Winland reviewed the Draft Proposed DNO Sign Standards, as presented in the
packets. In the current draft, one plaque
per street frontage up to 8 sq. ft. in size, a street address with letters up
to 8 inches high and located between 6 and 10 ft above grade, and one blade/shingle
per tenant per street frontage would be permitted. The blade/shingle sign would only be permitted
on the ground floor, up to six square ft in size, it must maintain a minimum
clearance of 9 ft above the sidewalk and it may not be internally
illuminated. As drafted, the logo space
cannot exceed 50 percent of the sign area.
A
sandwich sign would also be permitted for each tenant. Such signs must be two-sided, securely hinged
at the top, properly stabilized with 36 inches of chain or the equivalent and have
a properly screened weighting mechanism.
Up to 2 window signs, totaling not more than 6 square ft, are permitted
per tenant. Window signs would be
allowed in ground floor or second story windows only. Window signs may not be painted.
In
addition to signs permitted per tenant, you could have any three of the
following things per façade:
Ms. Winland stated
that currently, in the DNO District, you could have a wall or a roof sign of 40
sq. ft. We do not regulate the number of
signs, only the square footage. You can
have a little more if you have multiple businesses. You can have more if you have multiple
offices with separate entrances. You can
only have a monument ground sign, not a pole sign. You can have signs in your side setback, but
not in your front setback area.
Mrs. Hanna stated she
has problems with the marquee sign. She
thinks this is unnecessary. There used
to be some downtown but they have been taken down. Ms. Winland stated staff did not choose a
specific style other than an awning.
Mr. Stewart asked
about the verbage from the sign size and wondered if it came from a “form based
code”. Cindy stated it did come from a
form based code but staff attempted to regulate things that needed to be
visible, like a street address.
Mr. McLaughlin asked
about the band sign. Band signs would
not be permitted on first or second stories?
Ms. Winland stated that you could have a band sign on the first or
second stories but the building would have to be at least three stories tall so
there is not a band of signs around the roof line.
Mr. Senesac asked
about the difference between a marquee and a blade sign. He also stated that a sandwich sign would
obstruct any traffic on the sidewalk.
Cindy stated you could place the sandwich sign outside the sidewalk area
or inside an alcove.
Ms. Winland stated
that we could place a minimum size on an açade so there would not be unlimited amounts
of square footage of signage.
Kevin McGraw, Midland
Downtown Partners, stated he worked on the Stadium District. He is pleased to hear the discussion that is
taking place by the Commission. Staff
has done a great job in drafting a form based ordinance. He is a zoning/land use attorney, so he is
used to advising communities. He sees
this as a partnership between them and their anchor tenants, but also with the
City of Midland. When this project first
started, their corporate tenants came and said they wanted to invest in the
community. All the tenants could have
built their own buildings for a much cheaper price but they wanted to help the
community. It helps the existing
infrastructure, brings you to the city center, and younger people want a good
place to live, work and play. They want
to attract everyone to the downtown. This
is not a “one shot” deal. He hopes this
is the first of two or three phases of development. They want to create a sense of place. In this case, the signage is a big part of
that.
On the blade signs,
they are big and they are striking.
However, they are there for a reason.
If they could only do band signs and no other types of signs, they would
have bands all over the place. The
tenants could still back out of this deal if they do not get the types of
signage they want. He wants to protect
against bands because they do not want the building across the street to look
“cheap”. They want to maintain the
integrity of the area. One area they do
disagree with staff about, is the billboard on top of
the center façade. You cannot regulate
content, but this is important to their architects. They want to keep the “mural” sign. The DNO district is smaller. This “mural” sign would be facing the stadium
and you would only be able to see it from the stadium side. This gives it a “sense of place”. Mr. McGraw stated that perhaps more creative
signage could be permitted by a special use permit approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Scott Bonnie, architect
of the Stadium District, stated that, at the last meeting, they talked about
cornices and things. They have actually
put them in the building. They have also
changed the lights to be a more indirect fixture, where the light bounces off
the structure onto the street. It shines
light down. They have incorporated
cornices across the tops of all the facades so there is a consistent look. However, they did not want one style of
cornice all the way across the building.
When sign bands are
created, you get a very static line of signs, so they suggested some of the
signage should be between the first and second floors. Some of it might not be specific to the
restaurant, but talk about healthy foods.
They would also like to have a “Go Loons” sign, which would not pertain
to any specific business in the building.
Another consideration is that most signage is designed for people
driving by in a car. They want this
signage to be for people in a walkable community and be able to be viewed by
pedestrians. They thought it was very
important to give the major tenants in the building. The proposed ordinance allows signs up to 35
feet. They feel that would limit the
signage to about the bottom half of the building. One of the proposed tenants is taking over 50
percent of the building. They would like
to have a variety of signage. They were
hoping to have a flexible layout that they would talk with their tenants about. So far they have nine tenants for the
building. Instead of having a relatively
small address, they could use it as a signature feature, such as the “555”
building is identified.
Scott Bonnie stated
he worked with Mr. Kaye and they have come up with some renderings based upon
the current sign ordinance. You can
barely read the signs. There will be a
landlord who will control all the tenants.
This would provide a review process and will control the amount of
signage allowed each tenant.
The proposed
signature signs are 85 square feet. The
idea of a “mural” makes a lot of sense to him.
They would like to suggest that, not a billboard, but a mural would make
a lot of sense. Perhaps the 24 inch high
letters that can be on a band sign, would be better
for 24 inch letters, not a 24 inch band.
The ordinance is a little unclear.
They would like to have a nice metal canopy. You could have some non-illuminated or
illuminated letters. It would add a
dynamic quality to the area. They would
also like to allow the marquees to be considered “architectural features”, and
count only the area of the letters, as the allowable area. Allow 45 foot corner marquees. Plaque signs should be considered a façade
sign, and not a plaque sign.
Mr. Young commented
that he did not feel the 50% logo restriction as necessary or desirable, citing
McDonald’s and Apple as stores where only a logo might be more appropriate than
having text on the blade sign.
5.
Public Comments (unrelated to
items on the agenda)
None
6. New
Business
None
7. Communications
None
8. Report of the Chairperson
We need
to have a nominating committee to select new officers. Ray Senesac volunteered in addition to John
Young and Gayle Hanna. They will report
back at the next meeting.
9. Report of the Planning Director
Northwood University
is proposing a new entrance off Main Street.
There will be very obvious signs identifying the entrance to the
university. There will also be a
planting buffer along the north side of the road and they will use downward
directed street lighting as much as possible.
This was approved by City Council last evening.
10. Items for Next
Agenda – June 26, 2012
a. Zoning
Petition No. 579 Public Hearing
b. Zoning
Petition No. 580 Public Hearing
11. Adjourn
Adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Bradley Kaye, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION