REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY COUNCIL City Hall ...

Page 1

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640  989.837.3300 * 989.837.2717 Fax  www.cityofmidlandmi.gov

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY COUNCIL City Hall, 333 W. Ellsworth Street June 27, 2016

7:00 PM AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER - Maureen Donker, Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL -

Thomas W. Adams Steve Arnosky Diane Brown Wilhelm Maureen Donker Marty A. Wazbinski

CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: All resolutions marked with an asterisk are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate consideration of these items unless a Council member or citizen so requests during the discussion stage of the "Motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as indicated." If there is even a single request the item will be removed from the consent agenda without further motion and considered in its listed sequence in regular fashion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1.

* Approve minutes of the June 13 regular City Council meeting. TISDALE

PROCLAMATIONS, AWARDS, RECOGNITIONS, PRESENTATIONS: 2.

Presentation by Michigan Department of Transportation representative on performance of roundabout. MCMANUS

PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.

Approve 2016 Sidewalk Improvement Special Assessment District Roll (also see material sent in the June 13 agenda packet). DUFORD

Page 2

4.

Amendment to the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Fund budget to increase revenues and expenses by $8,000 for paving a portion of Madison Street (also see material sent in the June 13 agenda packet). KEENAN

5.

Amendment to the 2015-16 Downtown Development Authority budget to provide funding for the Downtown Development Authority budget amendment for Downtown Midland Streetscape Redevelopment and Conceptual Engineering Design Study (also see material sent in June 13 agenda packet). TISDALE

PUBLIC COMMENTS, IF ANY, BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. This is an opportunity for people to address the City Council on issues that are relevant to Council business but are not on the agenda. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: 6.

Second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending Section 28-52 of Division 3 of Article II of Chapter 28 - Water Rates. BUSH

7.

Second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending Section 28-163 of Division 3 of Article III of Chapter 28 - Sewer Rates. BUSH

RESOLUTIONS: 8.

Approving three-year agreement with the United Steelworkers Local 14009. STONE

9.

* Appointing Taitia Shelow to the Cable Access Advisory Commission. BEACOM

10.

* Making Traffic Control Orders Permanent. MCMANUS a. * P-16-01 - that parking shall be prohibited on both sides of Russell Street from Wheeler Street to 135 feet north. b. * P-16-02 - that parking shall be prohibited on the south side of Hawks Nest from Dublin Avenue to 60 feet west.

11.

* Approving one-year time extension to Midland County Habitat for Humanity for Conditional Use Permit No. 52 for a single family dwelling in an Office Service zoning district located at 2002 Jefferson Avenue. KAYE

Considering purchases and contracts: 12.

* Currie Parkway Pedestrian Bridge Walkway reconstruction. MURPHY

13.

* Purchase Order Increase to PM Blough for project oversight for the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway project. MURPHY

14.

* Electronic Online Services, Interlibrary Loan Delivery Services and Training from Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

Page 3

15.

* Electronic Services and Materials from Gale/CENGAGE Learning (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

16.

* Library Automation Services from Valley Library Consortium (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

17.

* Services from the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

18.

* Subscription Services and eBooks from Overdrive, Inc. (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

19.

* Studio Lighting - MCTV. BEACOM

20.

* Residuals Hauling Services - Water Treatment Plant. BUSH

21.

* Wheel Loader - Landfill. BUSH

22.

* 2016-17 Sidewalk Replacement Program. MURPHY

23.

* Regular #2 Diesel Fuel purchase from June 17 (4/5 vote required). MURPHY

24.

* E10 Ethanol Blend Unleaded Fuel purchase from June 17 (4/5 vote required). MURPHY

Setting a public hearing: 25.

* Zoning Petition No. 607 - to amend the City of Midland Zoning Map by rezoning property located at 204 Commerce Drive from Residential A-2 SingleFamily Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning (7/18). KAYE

26.

* Zoning Text Amendment No. 158 - to amend the City of Midland Zoning Ordinance to amend section 8.09 of the Zoning Ordinance being the sign regulations for the Center City Overlay (CCO) District (7/18). KAYE

NEW BUSINESS:

TO CONTACT THE CITY WITH QUESTIONS OR FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Citizen Comment Line: City of Midland website address: City of Midland email address: Government Information Center:

837-3400 www.cityofmidlandmi.gov [email protected] located near the reference desk at the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library

Page 4

Backup material for agenda item: 1.

* Approve minutes of the June 13 regular City Council meeting. TISDALE

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18


Presentation by Michigan Department of Transportation representative on performance of roundabout. MCMANUS

Page 19

SUMMARY REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER For City Council Meeting of June 27, 2016

SUBJECT:

Presentation by the Michigan Department of Transportation regarding the safety performance of the Roundabout at B.R.10 and Patrick Road

INITIATED BY:

Brian McManus, City Engineer

ITEMS ATTACHED:

Summary Letter to City Manager

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: No action required SUBMITTED BY:


Page 20

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax

DATE:

June 20, 2016

TO:

Jon Lynch, City Manager

FROM:


RE:

B.R. 10 and Patrick Road Roundabout – Michigan Department of Transportation

A representative of The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will attend the meeting to provide the community a presentation regarding the safety performance of the roundabout at B.R. 10 and Patrick Road. They will be presenting statistics from the opening date of July 1, 2014 until June 30, 2015, a one year period. During the planning and development phases of the project MDOT indicated that they would provide a performance update to City Council after one year of operation and this presentation will fulfill that obligation. MDOT will also take the opportunity to discuss Eastman Avenue construction between Saginaw Road and Wackerly Street slated for this fall. In addition, they will provide a brief update regarding the M-20 bridge replacement project scheduled to begin in February 2018.

Page 21


Approve 2016 Sidewalk Improvement Special Assessment District Roll (also see material sent in the June 13 agenda packet). DUFORD

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32


Amendment to the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Fund budget to increase revenues and expenses by $8,000 for paving a portion of Madison Street (also see material sent in the June 13 agenda packet). KEENAN

Page 33

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER For City Council Meeting of June 27, 2016

SUBJECT:

Amending the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Fund budget to increase contributions and capital expenditures by $8,000.

INITIATED BY: David A. Keenan, Assistant City Manager RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution amends the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Fund by increasing revenue and capital expenditures by $8,000 to recognize the gift from the Mary C. Currie Foundation to partially pave Madison Street, and to provide budgetary authorization to spend said funds.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter of Transmittal 2. Resolution CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 3/5 affirmative vote required for adoption

__________________________________ David A. Keenan Assistant City Manager

Page 34


TO:


FM:

David A. Keenan, Assistant City Manager

DT:

June 22, 2016

RE:

Amending the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Fund Budget

The Currie West Club House is located between two dirt roads: Burch Street/Soper Street lies to the West, while Madison Street lies to the East. Since the construction of the West Club House there have been some changes at Currie that have caused the usage of Madison Street to increase significantly. The primary storage for maintenance equipment and golf carts was consolidated to the new storage facility to the east. Madison Street is between the storage facility and the West Club House property. Also, the driving range was moved from across Currie Parkway to being adjacent to the East Club House, causing most driving range patrons to cross Madison Street to utilize the facility. When the golf carts and course maintenance equipment frequently traverse Madison Street throughout the season, an enormous dust cloud typically results. Depending upon the wind current, this dust cloud drifts towards the cart path used by golfers finishing hole #9, as well as towards the picnic shelter and patio of the West Club House. Golf carts that have been cleaned are sometimes made dirty again by having to utilize Madison Street. Madison Street is a City street but because all adjacent properties are owned by the Currie Golf Course, it does not rise to the level of warranting the use of City street funds for paving. Thus, alternate funding must be used. To that end, the Mary C. Currie Foundation has given the City $8,000 to help pave a portion of Madison Street to alleviate the dust problem. In order to spend this gift, it is necessary to amend the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Fund budget. Amending a budget requires a public hearing and Council involvement at two separate meetings. The first meeting is to set the date for a public hearing, which was set at the June 13, 2016 City Council meeting. The second meeting is to hold a public hearing and approve the proposed budget amendment. The attached resolution for City Council’s consideration would amend the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Budget to increase revenues and expenditures by $8,000 so that these donated funds can be spent for the purpose intended.

Page 35


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, in accord with Sections 5.11, 11.4, and 11.6 of the Charter of the City of Midland, and after having given proper legal notice, and having conducted a public hearing on Monday, June 27, 2016, on the proposal to amend the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Fund budget to increase revenue and expenses by $8,000 to provide budgetary authorization to spend a gift received from the Mary C. Currie Foundation; now therefore RESOLVED, that the 2015-16 Currie Municipal Golf Course Fund budget shall be amended as discussed in the aforementioned paragraph to allow spending of the gift received from the Mary C. Currie Foundation.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all of the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.

___________________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40


Amendment to the 2015-16 Downtown Development Authority budget to provide funding for the Downtown Development Authority budget amendment for Downtown Midland Streetscape Redevelopment and Conceptual Engineering Design Study (also see material sent in June 13 agenda packet). TISDALE

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47


Second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending Section 28-52 of Division 3 of Article II of Chapter 28 - Water Rates. BUSH

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54


Second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending Section 28-163 of Division 3 of Article III of Chapter 28 - Sewer Rates. BUSH

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61


Approving three-year agreement with the United Steelworkers Local 14009. STONE

Page 62

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER for City Council Meeting of 6/27/2016 SUBJECT:

Approval of Labor Agreement, United Steelworkers Local 14009

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution approves the negotiated contract settlement between the City of Midland and the United Steelworkers, Local 14009, for a three-year period expiring June 30, 2019 and authorizes the Assistant City Manager to make the necessary budget transfers.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.

Letter to City Manager from the Human Resources Director.

2.

Resolution approving contract and authorizing Assistant City Manager to make necessary transfers.

COUNCIL ACTION: 1.

3/5 vote required to approve resolution.

______________________________ Carol Stone Director of HR & Labor Relations

Page 63


June 22, 2016

Jon Lynch, City Manager City of Midland Midland, MI 48640 Dear Jon, The following is a summary of the tentative agreement reached between the United Steelworkers of America, Local 14009 and the City of Midland as ratified by the employee group on June 22, 2016. The contract duration is three years from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. 1. Wage adjustments 7-1-16: Implement Hay Salary Study. Net impact 2.5% 7-1-17: 2% 7-1-18: 2% The new salary scale expands progression through the steps from one year to five years with step increases tied to acceptable job performance. 2. Pension: All pension changes are effective 1-1-2017 and include significant changes to the MERS defined benefit plan. Existing Defined Benefit Plan: Bridges the multiplier down from 2.5% to 2.25%. Final Average Compensation amended to include base wages and overtime only. Final payouts at retirement will no longer be included in the final average compensation. A graduated employee contribution will also be implemented: 1-1-17: 2% 1-1-18: 3% 1-1-19: 4% Existing Defined Contribution Plan: The City’s contribution increased from 10% to 12% with a mandatory employee contribution of 5%. Contributions will no longer be split between the MERS DC program and the ICMA 457 Deferred Comp Program. All contributions will be made to the MERS DC program which will reduce the City’s FICA obligations. New Hybrid Plan: All new hires will be covered under a Hybrid plan. The hybrid plan contains both a defined benefit and defined contribution component. The defined benefit plan multiplier will be 1% on base wages and overtime only. There is a mandatory 5% employee contribution to the defined contribution component of the plan. The City’s contribution towards the Hybrid plan is capped at 12% with the difference between the cost of the defined benefit plan and the 12% cap contributed to the defined contribution program. 3. Holiday: Martin Luther King Day added as a paid holiday. 4. Mechanic Allowance: Mechanics provide their own tools. The reimbursement provided to mechanics increased from $550 per year to $800/yr in 2016, $900/yr in 2017 and $1,000/yr in 2018. There has been no increase in the reimbursement amount in over ten years. Garage Service positions will now have the ability to use their own tools and will receive an annual reimbursement of $550.

Page 64

5. Task Coordinator Rate: The rate for serving as a task coordinator increased from 60 cents per hour to $1.00/hr. Assignment as a task coordinator is project/task specific and is made at the City’s discretion. The agreement also includes language allowing the City to establish alternative shifts to accommodate service needs and in response to safety concerns, the ability for employees called in for emergency overtime to use comp time for their next regularly scheduled shift. I’d like to extend appreciation to the Steelworkers and their bargaining team for working with the City to address unfunded pension liabilities and the sustainability of the pension program.

Sincerely,

Carol Stone Director of HR & Labor Relations

Page 65


BY COUNCILMAN RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the final contract document between the City of Midland and the United Steelworkers, Local 14009, for labor contract changes effective July 1, 2016 and expiring June 30, 2019; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Assistant City Manager is hereby authorized to make appropriate transfers and modifications in the current budget to implement the wage and benefits changes identified in the contract. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.

________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

T: Steelworker contract

Page 66


* Appointing Taitia Shelow to the Cable Access Advisory Commission. BEACOM

Page 67

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER for the City Council Meeting of June 27, 2016

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION SUMMARY:

ITEMS ATTACHED:

COUNCIL ACTION:

APPOINTMENT TO THE CABLE ACCESS ADVISORY COMMISSION

This resolution appoints Taitia Shelow to the Cable Access Advisory Commission

1. 2.

Letter of Transmittal Resolution

3/5 vote required to approve resolution

Ron Beacom Manager of MCTV & Library Communications

Page 68

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax  www.cityofmidlandmi.gov

June 22, 2016

Jon Lynch, City Manager City of Midland Midland, MI 48640 Dear Mr. Lynch: Attached is a resolution that appoints Taitia Shelow as an MCTV Access User of the Cable Access Advisory Commission. At its June 13 meeting, City Council accepted the resignation of Bob Granstra from the Cable Access Advisory Commission. Prior to that, on May 31, Mayor Pro Tem Marty Wazbinski and Councilman Tom Adams interviewed Ms. Shelow for another vacancy on the Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Wazbinski and Councilman Adams are recommending that Ms. Shelow be appointed to the Cable Access Advisory Commission effective immediately to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Granstra’s resignation. The term expires June 30, 2017. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely,

Ron Beacom Manager of MCTV & Library Communications RB:pw

Page 69


BY COUNCILMAN

RESOLVED, that Taitia Shelow is hereby appointed as an MCTV Access User of the Cable Access Advisory Commission for a term expiring June 30, 2017. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.

_____________________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

T:\CAAC appt – Shelow

Page 70


* Making Traffic Control Orders Permanent. MCMANUS a. * P-16-01 - that parking shall be prohibited on both sides of Russell Street from Wheeler Street to 135 feet north. b. * P-16-02 - that parking shall be prohibited on the south side of Hawks Nest from Dublin Avenue to 60 feet west.

Page 71

SUMMARY REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER for City Council Meeting of June 27, 2016

SUBJECT:

Traffic Control Orders P-16-01 and P-16-02

INITIATED BY:

City of Midland Engineering Department

RESOLUTION SUMMARIES: TCO P-16-01 – That parking shall be prohibited on both sides of Russell Street from Wheeler Street to 135 feet north. TCO P-16-02 – That parking shall be prohibited on the south side of Hawks Nest from Dublin Avenue to 60 feet west. ITEMS ATTACHED:

1. Cover Letter 2. Resolution 3. Location Maps

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 3/5 vote required to approve resolution SUBMITTED BY:

CONT1607_RPT JNF

Brian P. McManus, City Engineer

Page 72


TO:


FROM:


DATE:

June 21, 2016

SUBJECT: Traffic Control Orders P-16-01 and P-16-02 A resident on Russell Street requested that on-street parking be reviewed near the intersection of Russell and Wheeler streets. Cars parked along Russell Street near Wheeler Street were impeding traffic entering Russell Street from Wheeler Street. Our traffic engineer reviewed the intersection and parking and determined that parking should be prohibited for a distance of 135 feet north of Wheeler Street. A resident on Hawks Nest requested that on-street parking be prohibited near the intersection of Hawks Nest and Dublin Avenue. Our traffic engineer reviewed the intersection and on-street parking and determined that parking should be prohibited on the south side of Hawks Nest from Dublin Avenue to 60 feet west. The traffic control orders have been in place the required trial period. The traffic control actions undertaken are described in the attached resolutions and would become permanent upon acceptance by the City Council. We have not received any adverse comments regarding either of the traffic control orders.

tcos P 160102 ltr JNF

Page 73


BY COUNCILMAN

RESOLVED, that Traffic Control Order No. P-16-01 filed April 27, 2016 pursuant to Chapter 24 of the Code of Ordinances to establish traffic control as follows: That parking shall be prohibited on both sides of Russell Street from Wheeler Street to 135 feet north. is hereby made permanent.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:

I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.


Page 74


BY COUNCILMAN

RESOLVED, that Traffic Control Order No. P-16-02 filed April 27, 2016 pursuant to Chapter 24 of the Code of Ordinances to establish traffic control as follows: That parking shall be prohibited on the south side of Hawks Nest from Dublin Avenue to 60 feet west. is hereby made permanent.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:



Page 75

6/21/2016 1:31:20 PM R:\CADFILES\TRAFFIC CONTROL ORDERS\P-16-01.dgn,1:118.832,Default

W HI SPER RI DGE

RUSSELL

M EYERS

N

P-16-01 WHEELER

LOCATION MAP FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL ORDER NO. P-16-01

Page 76

DUBLI N

FALCON W AY

N

HAWKS NEST

6/21/2016 1:36:31 PM R:\CADFILES\TRAFFIC CONTROL ORDERS\P-16-02.dgn,1:119.088,Default

P-16-02

LOCATION MAP FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL ORDER NO. P-16-02

Page 77


* Approving one-year time extension to Midland County Habitat for Humanity for Conditional Use Permit No. 52 for a single family dwelling in an Office Service zoning district located at 2002 Jefferson Avenue. KAYE

Page 78

SUMMARY REPORT TO CITY MANAGER for City Council Meeting of 6-27-16 SUBJECT:

Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 52.

PROPRIETOR: Midland County Habitat for Humanity. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Action not required. RESOLUTION SUMMARY: THIS RESOLUTION APPROVES A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN AN OFFICE SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2002 JEFFERSON AVENUE. ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter to City Manager. 2. Resolution for City Council action. 3. Letter from proprietor. 4. Map showing location of property. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 2.

Public hearing is not required. 3/5 vote required to approve resolution.

C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services

CBK/djm 6-22-16

ITEM-Attachment-001-c9d3a00db7e14b0ba42575ba319016eet

Page 79


June 22, 2016

Jon Lynch, City Manager City Hall – 333 West Ellsworth Street Midland, Michigan Dear Mr. Lynch: Ms. Jennifer Chappel, Executive Director of Midland County Habitat for Humanity, has requested a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 52. This permit was approved by City Council to permit a single family dwelling in an Office Service zoning district on a parcel located at 2002 Jefferson Avenue. The current approval is scheduled to expire on August 17, 2016. In accordance with Section 28.02 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance, the proprietor is requesting approval for a one-year time extension. The proposed extension approval would expire on August 17, 2017. In compliance with city regulations, this extension approval request has been submitted prior to the current approval period expiring. Staff has reviewed the extension request. In staff’s opinion, the approved conditional land use application and site plan adequately represents current conditions on and surrounding the site and the site plan continues to conform to current zoning ordinance standards. Staff is therefore recommending approval of the one-year time extension. A resolution for Council consideration is attached. Respectfully,

C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services CBK/djm LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL – CUP #25 Extension

Page 80


BY COUNCILMAN WHEREAS, the City Council has received a request from Jennifer Chappel, Executive Director of Midland County Habitat for Humanity, for a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 52 permitting a single family dwelling in an Office Service zoning district located at 2002 Jefferson Avenue; and WHEREAS, the current approval of the Conditional Use Permit will expire on August 17, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request for the time extension of the Conditional Use Permit; now therefore RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby approve a one-year time extension to Midland County Habitat for Humanity effective August 17, 2016 until August 17, 2017, for Conditional Use Permit No. 52 for a single family dwelling in an Office Service zoning district located at 2002 Jefferson Avenue. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.


CUP #52

Page 81

CUP Page 82 #52 - Midland County Habitat for Humanity > 2002 Jefferson Avenue

2018

2016

2013

2010

2011

2006

CLEVE LAND

2017

115

2018

2012

2006

111

205

2002 2009

HALEY

1618

1614

Subject Property

JEFFERSON

1609

1618

1610

108

110

116

118

206 120

210

I

Page 83


* Currie Parkway Pedestrian Bridge Walkway reconstruction. MURPHY

Page 84

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER For City Council Meeting of June 27, 2016 SUBJECT:

Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway project

INITIATED BY: Department of Public Services RESOLUTION SUMMARY:

This resolution authorizes a purchase order to J.R. Heineman & Sons, Inc. of Saginaw, MI for the replacement of the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway not to exceed $120,170, and authorizes the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed $20,000 for any repairs needed on the understructure of the walkway.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter of Transmittal 2. Bid Tabulation 3. Quotation for additional railing 4. Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 3/5 vote required to approve resolution

__________________________________ Karen Murphy Director of Public Services

Page 85

Parks & Recreation  4811 North Saginaw Road  Midland, Michigan 48640-2321  989.837.6900  989.835.5651 -Fax www.cityofmidlandmi.gov

June 21, 2016 Jon Lynch City Manager Midland, MI RE:

Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway project

At the August 17, 2015 meeting, City Council amended the General Fund budget to recognize two generous grants totaling $100,000 from the Charles J. Strosacker Foundation and the Entranceway Initiative Taskforce for renovations to the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway, with the City contributing $34,000 to the project for a total project budget of $134,000. On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, sealed proposals were publicly opened and read for Bid No. 3782, Currie Parkway Pedestrian Walkway. The renovations involve stripping all of the existing wood decking and railing away, having a bridge engineer examine the underlying framework and supporting wooden beams for any necessary repairs, and then placing a non-slip composite material decking that is ADA-compliant along with a metal handrail system that meets current pedestrian railing codes. The low bid meeting city bid specifications was received from J.R. Heineman & Sons, Inc. of Saginaw, MI for $83,000. The City has worked with this contractor on previous projects with success, and has no reservations at this time on hiring them for this project. This bid is significantly less than the original construction estimate because the project designer, PMBlough, Inc., did a substantial amount of research up front on the type of materials to be used for the decking and the handrail system. The handrail system will match the railing that was recently installed on the five river overlook platforms that line the river to the southeast of the bridge. The proposed products that were approved by City staff were provided to the bidders in the bid specifications, thus eliminating the bidders’ need to evaluate and select materials. With the bid coming in at such a favorable cost, the project designer suggested that we continue the railing system from the ends of the bridge along the sidewalk leading up to the bridge on either end. Currently, there is old guardrail at one end of the bridge and a metal railing comprised of a single piece of metal pipe on the other end to keep pedestrians from slipping down the grassy bridge embankments. Continuing the new handrail system will greatly improve the safety factor along the sidewalk and will give

Page 86

Jon Lynch June 21, 2016 Page Two a consistent look to the area as well. With the newly paved trail running along the river, we are already seeing an increased use of that trail system, and we anticipate the pedestrian walkway renovations will entice more pedestrian use of the bridge as well, adding to the need for enhanced safety leading up the bridge on either end. As such, a quote for installation of 180’ of additional handrailing on both approaches to the bridge was requested from J.R. Heineman as an add-on to the project, and the work would cost an additional $19,170. While a structural engineer with experience on the Currie Parkway bridge was consulted with during the design phase of the walkway renovation with regard to the integrity of the understructure, there is potential that once the old wooden decking and rails are removed that there could be additional repair work that needs to be done to the understructure. As such, I am recommending that the City Manager be given authority to approve change orders not to exceed $18,000 for any such repair that is uncovered as the project begins. In closing, we recommend that the bid meeting city specifications submitted by J.R. Heineman & Sons of Saginaw, Michigan be accepted, along with their quote for the additional handrail system, and that the Senior Procurement Accountant be authorized to issue a purchase order not to exceed $102,170 for renovations to the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway. In addition, we recommend that the City Manager be authorized to approve change orders not to exceed $18,000 for any necessary repairs to the understructure that are discovered during the walkway project.

Respectfully Submitted, _____________________________ Karen Murphy Director of Public Services

___________________________________ Tiffany Jurgess Senior Procurement Accountant

Existing approach to bridge from Golfside Drive intersection – note current single pipe handrail to protect pedestrians from slipping down grass embankment. The add-on proposal for handrail extension would replace this with same handrail to be placed on bridge.

Page 87

CITY OF MIDLAND, MICHIGAN TABULATION FOR BID #3782 CURRIE PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY June 7, 2016

BIDDER

LUMP SUM

J.R. Heineman & Sons, Inc., Saginaw, MI

$83,000

Three Rivers Corporation, Midland, MI

$91,205

Fisher Contracting Company, Midland, MI

$98,879

LJ Construction, Inc., Clifford, MI

$175,000

Page 88

1224 N. Niagara Street – Saginaw, MI 48602 Phone 989-753-8483 – Fax 989-753-9644

June 9th, 2016

Pamela Blough, FASLA PMB PM Blough, Inc./Place Studios Grand Haven, MI 49417 RE:

Quote for additional fence for the Currie Bridge Walkway project.

J.R. Heineman & Sons, Inc. is pleased to provide the following quotation for your review. Our quotation includes all labor, material, equipment and supervision to complete the work listed below. $106.50 per lineal foot of Style UAR-250 with Madison top, color Satin Bronze. Our price is for 180lf for a total of $19,170. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to bid this work and if you have any questions please let me know. Please note that we can some of these items can be modified per your request and further discussions.

Exclusions: No Painting No Permits No Plumbing or Mechanical No abatement No over time or weekend work No night work Sincerely,

Dale E. Johnson, Jr., Vice President J.R. Heineman & Sons, Inc. Cell 989 598 4402

Page 89


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, sealed proposals were advertised and received on June 7, 2016 in accord with Article II of Chapter 2 of the Midland Code of Ordinances for Bid No. 3782, Currie Parkway Pedestrian Walkway; and WHEREAS, the City has $134,000 in the current budget to be used for renovations to the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway; and WHEREAS, the project designer did additional research during the design phase to select the materials to be used for the decking and handrailing systems which eliminated the bidders’ need to provide said recommendations; and WHEREAS, as a result the low bid meeting specifications came in low enough to allow additional work to be done to replace the handrail system along the sidewalk leading up to the bridge walkway on both ends; and WHEREAS, a quote requested from the low bidder for the additional work came in at $19,170; now therefore RESOLVED, that the Senior Procurement Accountant is hereby authorized to issue a purchase order to the low bidder J.R. Heineman & Sons of Saginaw, Michigan not to exceed $102,170 for renovations to the pedestrian walkway and installation of the additional handrail along the bridge approaches; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Manager is authorized to approve changes orders not to exceed $18,000 for any repairs needed to the understructure of the walkway that are uncovered during the project. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:

Page 90


____________________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk T: Currie Parkway pedestrian bridge 6-27-16

Page 91


* Purchase Order Increase to PM Blough for project oversight for the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway project. MURPHY

Page 92

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER For City Council Meeting of June 27, 2016 SUBJECT:

Increase purchase order to PM Blough, Inc. for project oversight for the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway project

INITIATED BY: Department of Public Services RESOLUTION SUMMARY:

This resolution increases PO # 2016-00000433 to PM Blough, Inc. by $3,800 for project oversight for the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway project as the total aggregate purchases to this vendor in a year exceed the administrative limit of $20,000.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter of Transmittal 2. PM Blough, Inc. proposal 3. Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 3/5 vote required to approve resolution


Page 93


June 22, 2016 Jon Lynch City Manager Midland, MI RE:

Increase purchase order to PM Blough, Inc. for project oversight for the Currie Parkway bridge pedestrian walkway project

In the past year, the Parks Department has been working on three projects in the Chippewassee Park/Tittabawassee River corridor area as follows: 1) Repaving of the existing pathway in Chippewassee Park along with installation of an additional looped pathway 2) Renovation of five river overlooks between the M20 and Currie Parkway bridges 3) Renovation of the pedestrian walkway associated with the Currie Parkway bridge Due to the proximity of the three projects, the same landscape design architect was chosen to provide all of the design work and project oversight. Since Section 2-19 of the Code of Ordinances states that sealed proposals are not required for contracts for professional services, I chose PM Blough, Inc. to provide the design and oversight for these projects as lead architect Pam Blough also designed the Rail Trail trailhead and accessible canoe/kayak launch and is very familiar with this area of the riverfront. To date this year, PM Blough, Inc. has been contracted with to develop the plans and bid specifications as well as provide project management for the Chippewasee pathways and river overlooks, and to provide conceptual plans for the Currie Parkway pedestrian walkway project. PM Blough, Inc. has also been used this year to assist with the design, bid and oversight of the paved pathways in Central Park. All of this work combined exceeds the administrative approval limit of $20,000 allowed to one vendor in a year under the City’s ordinance. Bids were received in June to move forward with the construction phase of the pedestrian walkway, with work slated to begin in July pending City Council acceptance of the low bid. PM Blough, Inc. has submitted the attached proposal to provide construction oversight for this phase of the project not to exceed $3,800. In order to approve this proposal and utilize PM Blough, Inc. for construction oversight, City Council needs to authorize the increase of existing PO # 2016-00000433 to PM Blough, Inc. by $3,800 in compliance with the City’s Purchasing Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________________ Karen Murphy Director of Public Services

_______________________________ Tiffany Jurgess Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 94

Page 95

Page 96


BY COUNCILMAN WHEREAS, the City’s Parks Department has been working on three projects in the Chippewassee Park/Tittabawassee River corridor area between the M20 bridge and the Currie Parkway bridge; and WHEREAS, Section 2-19 of the Code of Ordinances states that sealed proposals are not required for contracts for professional services; and WHEREAS, staff chose to contract with landscape design architect PM Blough, Inc. for all three projects given the proximity of each project site and having worked with said designer on the nearby canoe/kayak launch project; and WHEREAS, previous contracts with PM Blough, Inc. in total reached the administrative approval limit of $20,000 allowed for one vendor in a year under the City’s Purchasing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, in order to continue to contract with PM Blough, Inc. for the remaining construction oversight work needed for the Currie Parkway pedestrian walkway project, City Council approval of the pending contract proposal is required; now therefore RESOLVED, that City Council authorizes an increase to PO # 2016-00000433 to PM Blough, Inc. not to exceed $3,800 for construction oversight work for the Currie Parkway pedestrian walkway project. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.

____________________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk T: PM Blough PO for Currie Parkway construction oversight 6-27-16

Page 97


* Electronic Online Services, Interlibrary Loan Delivery Services and Training from Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

Page 98

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER for City Council meeting of June 27, 2016

SUBJECT: Purchase of Electronic Online Services, Interlibrary Loan Delivery Services, and Staff Training from the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services

INITIATED BY: Melissa Barnard, Library Director

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution waives the requirement for sealed proposals and authorizes the purchase of electronic online services, interlibrary loan delivery services, and staff training for the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library from the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services for the 2016/2017 fiscal year in an amount not to exceed $55,000.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.

Letter of Transmittal

2.

Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION 4/5 vote required to approve resolution.

Melissa Barnard Library Director

Page 99

Grace A. Dow Memorial Library  1710 West Saint Andrews Road  Midland, MI 48640-2698 989.837.3430  989.837.3468 Fax  www.cityofmidlandmi.gov/library

June 22, 2016 TO:


SUBJECT:

Purchase of Electronic Online Services, Interlibrary Loan Delivery Services and Staff Training from the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services

The Midwest Collaborative for Library Services facilitates resource sharing among libraries, enhances the availability of information resources to member library patrons and coordinates the statewide interlibrary loan delivery service. The Collaborative provides libraries with group licensing of online electronic resources, reducing the costs for individual libraries subscribing to selected databases. Additionally, the Collaborative employs professional staff to respond to staff questions about the products. The library currently subscribes to five databases through the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services group pricing: Value Line Research, Morningstar, Newsbank: Americas Genealogy and Midland Daily News, Mango Languages, and Novelist. High quality training is available from the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services on a variety of topics from marketing to cataloging to the latest technology. The training improves staff knowledge and skills, and gives them an opportunity to learn new technologies. The statewide interlibrary loan delivery service is managed by the Collaborative. They maintain the software and coordinate the delivery service. Our patrons benefit from the ability to borrow materials from libraries around the state. The services offered through the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services are unique to this organization. Seeking sealed bids would be impractical. In accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, it is requested that City Council waive the requirement for sealed proposals and approve the purchase of electronic online services, interlibrary loan delivery services and staff training from the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services in an amount not to exceed $55,000. Funds are available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Melissa Barnard, Library Director ________________________________ Tiffany Jurgess, Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 100


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services is the sole vendor of group licensing of selected electronic online services, statewide interlibrary loan delivery services and staff training not available through other organizations; and WHEREAS, funding is available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget; now therefore RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby determines that sealed proposals are impractical, and in accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, the requirement for sealed proposals is hereby waived and the purchase of electronic online services, statewide interlibrary loan delivery services and staff training from the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services is hereby approved in an amount not to exceed $55,000 and the necessary purchase order authorized.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all of the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.

______________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

Page 101


* Electronic Services and Materials from Gale/CENGAGE Learning (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

Page 102


SUBJECT: Purchase of Electronic Services and Materials from Gale/CENGAGE Learning


RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution waives the requirement for sealed proposals and authorizes the purchase of electronic services and materials for the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library from Gale/CENGAGE Learning for the 2016/2017 fiscal year in an amount not to exceed $30,000.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.


2.

Resolution



Page 103


June 22, 2016

TO:


SUBJECT:

Purchase of Electronic Services and Materials from Gale/CENGAGE Learning

Electronic services have become an essential resource in providing reference services to the community. The library currently contracts with Gale/CENGAGE Learning for a variety of their databases. The electronic databases from Gale/CENGAGE Learning cover a wide range of topics and offer reliable information to users, and include the Biography and Literature Resource Centers, Price It! Antiques & Collectibles and Something About the Author. Gale/CENGAGE Learning is the sole vendor of these databases. The databases continue to be unique in their coverage, easy to use and meet the needs of our users. Additionally, Gale/CENGAGE Learning is the sole vendor of their line of outstanding print reference books, large print and non-fiction books. The titles available through Gale/CENGAGE Learning provide the necessary depth and coverage to maintain a vital book collection. In accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, it is requested that City Council waive the requirement for sealed proposals and approve the purchase of electronic services and materials from Gale/CENGAGE Learning in an amount not to exceed $30,000. Funds are available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________ Melissa Barnard, Library Director

________________________________ Tiffany Jurgess, Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 104


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, Gale/CENGAGE Learning is the sole vendor of the electronic services and materials that are necessary in the provision of library services; and WHEREAS, funding is available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget; now therefore RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby determines that sealed proposals are impractical, and in accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, the requirement for sealed proposals is hereby waived and the purchase of electronic services and materials from Gale/CENGAGE Learning is hereby approved in an amount not to exceed $30,000 and the necessary purchase order authorized.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:

I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all of the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.


Page 105


* Library Automation Services from Valley Library Consortium (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

Page 106


SUBJECT: Purchase of Library Automation Services from the Valley Library Consortium


RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution waives the requirement for competitive bids and authorizes the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library to purchase automated services from the Valley Library Consortium for the 2016/2017 fiscal year in an amount not to exceed $78,000.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.


2.

Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 4/5 vote required to approve resolution


Page 107


June 22, 2016

TO:


SUBJECT:

Purchase of Automated Services from the Valley Library Consortium

Since 1992, the Valley Library Consortium of Saginaw has provided the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library with its online automation services, which includes membership, staff training, system upgrades, and records database maintenance for the automated acquisition, catalog, and circulation modules of our online catalog. Membership in the Valley Library Consortium provides comprehensive automation services at shared costs with the other members who use the same automation vendor. The Consortium is unique in its role in providing cost efficient automated services. In accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, it is requested that City Council waive the requirement for competitive bids and approve the purchase of automated services from the Valley Library Consortium not to exceed $78,000. Funds are available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget.

Respectfully submitted:

_________________________________ Melissa Barnard, Library Director

__________________________________ Tiffany Jurgess, Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 108


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, the Valley Library Consortium is unique in its provision of the automation services that the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library requires; and WHEREAS, membership in the Valley Library Consortium offers the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library benefits from the shared costs with other members for automated services; and WHEREAS, funding is available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget; now therefore RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby determines that sealed bids are impractical, and in accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, the requirement for sealed proposals is hereby waived and the purchase of the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library online automation services, including membership, staff training, system upgrades, and records database maintenance for the automated acquisition, catalog, and circulation modules from the Valley Library Consortium in the 2016/2017 fiscal year is hereby approved in an amount not to exceed $78,000 and the necessary purchase order authorized.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:



Page 109


* Services from the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

Page 110


SUBJECT: Purchase Services from the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative


RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution waives the requirement for sealed proposals and authorizes the purchase of services for the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library from the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative for the 2016/2017 fiscal year in an amount not to exceed $35,000.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.


2.

Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 4/5 vote required to approve resolution


Page 111


June 27, 2016 TO:


SUBJECT:

Purchase Services from the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative

Library Cooperatives in Michigan were established by law in 1977 to provide support and encourage collaboration among public libraries. Cooperatives are funded by state aid. Libraries have the option of joining one of the eleven state cooperatives, although generally select the cooperative in their geographic area. Each cooperative determines the type of services offered based on the needs of their member libraries. Libraries choosing to belong to a cooperative receive additional state aid that is paid to the cooperative. The Grace A. Dow Memorial Library joined the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative in 2003. The Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative is headquartered in Flint and among the member libraries are the Bay County Library System, Public Libraries of Saginaw and Chippewa River District in Mount Pleasant. As a member of the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative, the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library participates in a variety of cooperative services that enhance our operations and services to our community. These services include:  Leadership and representation in statewide initiatives and committees  Continuing education for staff  Scheduling programs for member libraries  Negotiating discounts from vendors  Providing funding for technology needs  Advocacy and Marketing In addition to these services, the state aid that the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library receives for its membership in the cooperative may be used at the discretion of the library. The Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative is unique in the type and scope of services provided. In accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, it is requested that City Council waive the requirement for sealed proposals and approve the purchase of services from the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative in an amount not to exceed $35,000. Funds are available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget. Respectfully submitted: _____________________________ Melissa Barnard, Library Director _____________________________ Tiffany Jurgess, Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 112


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative is unique in the type and scope of the services provided to the library; and WHEREAS, funding is available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget; now therefore RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby determines that sealed proposals are impractical, and in accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, the requirement for sealed proposals is hereby waived and the purchase of services from the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative is hereby approved in an amount not to exceed $35,000 and the necessary purchase order authorized.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:



Page 113


* Subscription Services and eBooks from Overdrive, Inc. (4/5 vote required). BARNARD

Page 114


SUBJECT: Purchase of subscription services, and eBooks and eAudiobooks from Overdrive Inc.


RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution waives the requirement for sealed proposals and authorizes the purchase of subscription services, and eBooks and eAudiobooks for the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library from Overdrive Inc. for the 2016/2017 fiscal year in an amount not to exceed $50,000.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.


2.

Resolution



Page 115


June 22, 2016

TO:


SUBJECT:

Purchase of Subscription Services, eBooks and eAudiobooks from Overdrive Inc.

The Grace A. Dow Memorial Library began offering popular downloadable eBooks in January 2012. The library has a subscription with Overdrive Inc. to provide this service to our patrons. Overdrive Inc. has developed a service that is user friendly and focused on their public library clients. In addition, Overdrive Inc. provides the platform that allows library patrons to download eBooks using a variety of eReader devices. They are also the selection source for eBooks from a wide range of publishers that are compatible with their service. The subscription to Overdrive Inc. is renewed annually. Overdrive Inc. expanded this past year to include eAudiobooks. The library’s collection of eBooks and eAudiobooks from Overdrive Inc. is currently over 6,600 titles with a circulation of 44,763 so far this fiscal year. Borrowing from the collection requires a library card and residency within the city of Midland or in the Midland County townships that contract for library service. Since Overdrive Inc. is the library’s source for eBook and eAudiobook services and collection, and the collection is not transferable to another vendor, sealed bids would be impractical. Overdrive Inc. also provides unique features for ease of staff and patron use. In accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, it is requested that City Council waive the requirement for sealed proposals and approve the purchase of subscription services, and eBooks and eAudiobooks from Overdrive Inc. in an amount not to exceed $50,000. Funds are available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget.


_______________________________ Melissa Barnard, Library Director

________________________________ Tiffany Jurgess, Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 116


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, Overdrive Inc. provides subscription services, and eBooks and eAudiobooks for the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library; and WHEREAS, funding is available in the 2016/2017 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library budget; now therefore RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby determines that sealed proposals are impractical, and in accordance with Section 2-18 of the Code of Ordinances, the requirement for sealed proposals is hereby waived and the purchase of subscription services, and eBooks and eAudiobooks from Overdrive Inc. is hereby approved in an amount not to exceed $50,000 and the necessary purchase order authorized.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:



Page 117


* Studio Lighting - MCTV. BEACOM

Page 118


SUBJECT:

MCTV STUDIO LIGHTING

INITIATED BY: Ron Beacom, MCTV

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution authorizes a purchase order in the net amount of $22,362 to Advanced Lighting & Sound, Inc of Troy, Michigan for studio lighting at MCTV.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter of transmittal 2. Resolution

COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 3/5 vote to approve resolution

___________________ Ron Beacom Manager of MCTV & Library Communications

Page 119

Page 120


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, sealed proposals have been advertised and received in accord with Article II of Chapter 2 of the Midland Code of Ordinances for studio lighting at Midland Community Television; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the 2015-2016 MCTV budget; now therefore RESOLVED, that the Senior Procurement Accountant is authorized to issue a purchase order to Advanced Lighting & Sound, Inc of Troy, Michigan in the net amount of $22,362 for studio lighting for Midland Community Television, in accordance with the proposal and City specifications. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all of the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016. ______________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

Page 121


* Residuals Hauling Services - Water Treatment Plant. BUSH

Page 122

Page 123

Page 124

Page 125


* Wheel Loader - Landfill. BUSH

Page 126

Page 127

Page 128

Page 129


* 2016-17 Sidewalk Replacement Program. MURPHY

Page 130


SUBJECT: 2016-17 Sidewalk Replacement Program

INITIATED BY: Department of Public Services

RESOLUTION SUMMARY:

This resolution authorizes a purchase order to JKS, Inc. of Midland, Michigan not to exceed $85,000 for sidewalk replacement for FY 2016-17.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter of Transmittal 2. Bid Tabulation 3. Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 3/5 vote required to pass resolution


Page 131

Department of Public Services 4811 North Saginaw Road  Midland, Michigan 48640  989.837.6900  989.835.5651 Fax www.cityofmidlandmi.gov

June 21, 2016

Jon Lynch City Manager Midland, MI

RE: 2016-17 Sidewalk Replacement Program The Department of Public Services (DPS) provides maintenance on existing sidewalk which includes grinding down trip hazards, providing temporary patches, and replacing sections of concrete. Minor maintenance is handled by the in-house staff, with the sidewalk replacement performed by a contractor. On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, sealed proposals were publicly opened and read for Bid No. 3786, the 2016-17 Sidewalk Replacement Program. The program will focus on sidewalk replacement requests that are reported by residents as well as some locations identified by the street supervisors that need repair. The low bidder is JKS, Inc. (dba Steve Krotzer Contracting) of Midland, Michigan (see attached bid tabulation for additional detail). Public Services has used this vendor under the name of Steve Krotzer Contracting in the past for sidewalk and curb work, and has been satisfied with the end product. The bid was solicited for unit prices based on estimated quantities of repair, with the work to be authorized by the street supervisors as the budget allows. The FY 2016-17 General Fund budget for sidewalk maintenance includes $85,000 for sidewalk repair. As such, we recommend that the bid meeting city specifications submitted by JKS, Inc. of Midland, Michigan be accepted, and the Senior Procurement Accountant be authorized to issue a purchase order not to exceed $85,000 for sidewalk replacement work from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. The work will be scheduled on a per unit cost basis with the total project not to exceed $85,000. Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________ Karen Murphy Director of Public Services

_______________________ Tiffany Jurgess Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 132

CITY OF MIDLAND, MICHIGAN TABULATION FOR BID #3786 2016-17 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM June 14, 2016

BIDDER

LUMP SUM

JKS, Inc. (dba Steve Krotzer Contracting), Midland, MI

$77,837.50

Northwood Concrete, Midland, MI

$86,100.00

Tri-City Groundbreakers, Inc., Midland, MI

$166,150.00

Page 133


BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, sealed proposals were advertised and received on June 14, 2016 in accord with Article II of Chapter 2 of the Midland Code of Ordinances for Bid No. 3786, 2016-17 Sidewalk Repair Program for sidewalk repair within the City of Midland; and WHEREAS, funding for this project is included in the FY 2016-17 General Fund budget for sidewalk repair in the amount of $85,000; and WHEREAS, the low bidder meeting specifications, JKS, Inc. of Midland, Michigan, has provided sidewalk repair services in the past to the City of Midland with acceptable results; now therefore RESOLVED, that the Senior Procurement Accountant is hereby authorized to issue a purchase order to JKS, Inc. of Midland, MI not to exceed $85,000 for sidewalk repair work for FY 2016-17.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:

I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016. ________________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

T: Sidewalk Replacement 6-27-16

Page 134


* Regular #2 Diesel Fuel purchase from June 17 (4/5 vote required). MURPHY

Page 135


SUBJECT: Approve Fuel Purchase from June 17, 2016

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution waives the requirement for sealed proposals and approves the purchase of 13,001 gallons of diesel fuel from Paxson Oil for $20,775.60 that was executed by the Purchasing Agent on June 17, 2016.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.

Transmittal letter to City Manager

2.

Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1.


___________________________________ Karen Murphy Director of Public Services MMR

Page 136


June 20, 2016 Jon Lynch City Manager Midland, Michigan RE: Approve fuel purchase made on June 17, 2016 At their December 17, 2007 meeting, City Council adopted a resolution that allows the Purchasing Agent to purchase full tankers of unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel exceeding $20,000, and seek approval for the purchase at the next available Council meeting. Fuel is ordered on an as needed basis to maintain an adequate supply to meet the demand of the city fleet as well as to keep a reserve on hand to cover any unanticipated increase in usage. This process was reviewed by City Council on December 21, 2009 and is still deemed to provide significant cost savings to the City. Fuel is purchased through a competitive bid process whereby the Purchasing Agent faxes out a request for a price per gallon for unleaded and/or diesel fuel to a list of fuel suppliers. Interested suppliers fax back their prices the following morning. Due to the volatility of the fuel market, pricing is only valid for the remainder of that day. The fuel purchase is awarded to the lowest price supplier, and the fuel delivery is scheduled for that same day. It should be noted that approval of fuel purchases will require a 4/5 vote due to the need to waive the requirement for sealed proposals as a result of the above-described bidding process. Bids were received using this process on June 17, 2016 for 13,001 gallons of diesel fuel. Bids were received as follows: Paxson Oil, Saginaw, MI Regular #2 Diesel $1.5980/gallon Tri-Lakes Petroleum, Alma, MI Regular #2 Diesel $1.6025/gallon Michigan Petroleum, Port Huron, MI Regular #2 Diesel $1.6840/gallon The low bid was received from Paxson Oil of Saginaw, Michigan, with a price of $1.598 per gallon. The unit price includes the delivery charge, and the total purchase price was $20,775.60 for 13,001 gallons of fuel delivered. We are requesting that Council waive the requirements for sealed bids, and approve the purchase of 13,001 gallons of regular #2 diesel fuel from Paxson Oil for $20,775.60 that was executed by the Purchasing Agent on June 17, 2016. Respectfully submitted,

Karen Murphy Director of Public Services MMR

Tiffany Jurgess Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 137


BY COUNCILMAN WHEREAS, City Council adopted a resolution on December 17, 2007 that allows the Purchasing Agent to purchase full tankers of unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel exceeding $20,000, and seek approval for the purchase at the next City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, City Council reviewed the process on December 21, 2009 and decided to continue as it still provides a significant cost savings to the City; and WHEREAS, the volatility of the fuel market does not allow for staff to follow the usual sealed bid process for purchases exceeding $20,000; and WHEREAS, staff instead uses a competitive bid process whereby fuel vendors fax in prices that are valid for a particular day with the bid awarded to the lowest priced vendor; now therefore RESOLVED, that the requirements for sealed proposals for the purchase of fuel are waived due to the volatility of the fuel market; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the purchase of 13,001 gallons of regular #2 diesel fuel from Paxson Oil of Saginaw, Michigan for $20,775.60 executed by the Purchasing Agent on June 17, 2016, is hereby approved. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.

_______________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk T: Reg Diesel Fuel 06-17-16 for 06-27-16

Page 138


* E10 Ethanol Blend Unleaded Fuel purchase from June 17 (4/5 vote required). MURPHY

Page 139


SUBJECT: Approve Fuel Purchase from June 17, 2016

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution waives the requirement for sealed proposals and approves the purchase of 13,399 gallons of E10 ethanol blend unleaded fuel from Tri-Lakes Petroleum for $21,813.57 that was executed by the Purchasing Agent on June 17, 2016.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.

Transmittal letter to City Manager

2.

Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1.


___________________________________ Karen Murphy Director of Public Services MMR

Page 140


June 20, 2016 Jon Lynch City Manager Midland, Michigan RE: Approve fuel purchase made on June 17, 2016 At their December 17, 2007 meeting, City Council adopted a resolution that allows the Purchasing Agent to purchase full tankers of unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel exceeding $20,000, and seek approval for the purchase at the next available Council meeting. Fuel is ordered on an as needed basis to maintain an adequate supply to meet the demand of the city fleet as well as to keep a reserve on hand to cover any unanticipated increase in usage. This process was reviewed by City Council on December 21, 2009 and is still deemed to provide significant cost savings to the City. Fuel is purchased through a competitive bid process whereby the Purchasing Agent faxes out a request for a price per gallon for unleaded and/or diesel fuel to a list of fuel suppliers. Interested suppliers fax back their prices the following morning. Due to the volatility of the fuel market, pricing is only valid for the remainder of that day. The fuel purchase is awarded to the lowest price supplier, and the fuel delivery is scheduled for that same day. It should be noted that approval of fuel purchases will require a 4/5 vote due to the need to waive the requirement for sealed proposals as a result of the above-described bidding process. Bids were received using this process on June 17, 2016 for 13,399 gallons of E10 ethanol blend unleaded fuel. Bids were received as follows: Tri-Lakes Petroleum, Alma, MI E10 Ethanol Blend Unleaded Fuel $1.628/gallon Paxson Oil, Saginaw, MI E10 Ethanol Blend Unleaded Fuel $1.658/gallon Michigan Petroleum, Port Huron, MI E10 Ethanol Blend Unleaded Fuel $1.750/gallon The low bid was received from Tri-Lakes Petroleum of Alma, Michigan, with a price of $1.628 per gallon. The unit price includes the delivery charge, and the total purchase price was $21,813.57 for 13,399 gallons of fuel delivered. We are requesting that Council waive the requirements for sealed bids, and approve the purchase of 13,399 gallons of E10 ethanol blend unleaded fuel from Tri-Lakes Petroleum for $21,813.57 that was executed by the Purchasing Agent on June 17, 2016. Respectfully submitted,

Karen Murphy Director of Public Services MMR

Tiffany Jurgess Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 141


BY COUNCILMAN WHEREAS, City Council adopted a resolution on December 17, 2007 that allows the Purchasing Agent to purchase full tankers of unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel exceeding $20,000, and seek approval for the purchase at the next City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, City Council reviewed the process on December 21, 2009 and decided to continue as it still provides a significant cost savings to the City; and WHEREAS, the volatility of the fuel market does not allow for staff to follow the usual sealed bid process for purchases exceeding $20,000; and WHEREAS, staff instead uses a competitive bid process whereby fuel vendors fax in prices that are valid for a particular day with the bid awarded to the lowest priced vendor; now therefore RESOLVED, that the requirements for sealed proposals for the purchase of fuel are waived due to the volatility of the fuel market; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the purchase of 13,399 gallons of E10 ethanol blend unleaded fuel from Tri-Lakes Petroleum of Alma, Michigan for $21,813.57 executed by the Purchasing Agent on June 17, 2016, is hereby approved. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016.

_______________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk T: UL Fuel 06-17-16 for 06-27-16

Page 142


* Zoning Petition No. 607 - to amend the City of Midland Zoning Map by rezoning property located at 204 Commerce Drive from Residential A-2 SingleFamily Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning (7/18). KAYE

Page 143

SUMMARY REPORT TO CITY MANAGER for City Council Meeting of 6-27-16

SUBJECT:

Zoning Petition No. 607.

PETITIONER:

Wahlack, LLC.

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: June 14, 2016. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommendation of approval. SUMMARY: ACTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE CITY OF MIDLAND ZONING MAP BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 204 COMMERCE DRIVE FROM RESIDENTIAL A-2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL A-4 ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING. ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter to City Manager setting forth Planning Commission action. 2. Resolution for City Council Action. 3. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated June 8, 2016. 4. Planning Commission minutes of June 14, 2016 (public hearing). 5. Map showing location of property. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Public hearing is required. Date: July 18, 2016. 2. Advertising date: July 2, 2016 3. Public Hearing notification to area residents mail date: July 1, 2016. 4. 3/5 vote required to set a public hearing.

C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services CBK 6-22-16

ITEM-Attachment-001-b9419170a6ed4e989387ed1aa360613b

Page 144


June 22, 2016

Jon Lynch, City Manager City Hall - 333 West Ellsworth Street Midland, Michigan Dear Mr. Lynch: At its meeting on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Petition No. 607, the request of Wahlack, LLC, to rezone the property located at 204 Commerce Drive from Residential A-2 Single-Family Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning. After deliberation on the petition, the Planning Commission took the following action: Motion by Senesac and seconded by Hanna to recommend to City Council the approval of Zoning Petition No. 607 initiated by Wahlack, LLC to zone the property at 204 Commerce Drive from Residential A-2 Single-Family Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning: Vote on the motion: YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:

Bain, Hanna, Koehlinger, Mayville, McLaughlin, Pnacek, Senesac and Tanzini None Heying

The motion was approved 8 to 0. No public comments were received at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. No letters of support or opposition have been received on the petition. The City Council is therefore being requested to set a public hearing to consider Zoning Petition No. 607 for July 18, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully,

C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services CBK/djm LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL – ZP #607 Set PH

Page 145


BY COUNCILMAN WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 for property located at 204 Commerce Drive for the purpose of considering the advisability of amending the Zoning Map of Ordinance No. 1585, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Midland, from Residential A-2 Single-Family Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning; now therefore RESOLVED, that notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council on Monday, July 18, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, for the purpose of considering the advisability of amending the Zoning Map of Ordinance No. 1585, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Midland, as set forth in the following proposed Ordinance, which is hereby introduced and given first reading; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the area proposed to be rezoned by transmitting notice on or before July 1, 2016 and to publish said notice on July 2, 2016. ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 1585, BEING AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE AND RESTRICT THE LOCATION OF TRADES AND INDUSTRIES AND THE LOCATION OF BUILDINGS DESIGNED FOR SPECIFIC USES, TO REGULATE AND LIMIT THE HEIGHT AND BULK OF BUILDINGS HEREAFTER ERECTED OR ALTERED, TO REGULATE AND DETERMINE THE AREA OF YARDS, COURTS, AND OTHER OPEN SPACES SURROUNDING BUILDINGS, TO REGULATE AND LIMIT THE DENSITY OF POPULATION, AND FOR SAID PURPOSES, TO DIVIDE THE CITY INTO DISTRICTS AND PRESCRIBE PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF ITS PROVISIONS BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO PROVIDE A RESIDENTIAL A-4 ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WHERE A RESIDENTIAL A-2 SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT PRESENTLY EXISTS. The City of Midland Ordains: Section 1. That the Zoning Map of Ordinance No. 1585, being the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Midland, is hereby amended as follows: PART OF THE SOUTH ½ OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL ¼ OF SECTION 1, T14N-R2E, CITY OF MIDLAND, MIDLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE WEST ¼ CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE N 00D 00M 46S W 650.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S 89D 59M 33S E 900.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE EAST-WEST ¼ LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE S 00D 00M 46S E 650.00 FEET TO SAID EAST-WEST ¼ LINE; THENCE N 89D 59M 33S W 900.00 FEET ALONG SAID ¼ LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 13.43 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS AND OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHETHER USED, IMPLIED OR OF RECORD. Be, and the same is hereby changed to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning. Section 2. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent necessary to give this Ordinance full force and effect. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:

Page 146



Page 2 of 2

Page 147

ZP #607

Date: June 8, 2016 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT:

ZONING AMENDMENT ZP #607 REZONING REQUEST

APPLICANT:

Wahlack LLC

LOCATION:

204 Commerce Drive

AREA:

18.38 acres

ZONING:

EXISTING PROPOSED

Residential A (Larkin Twp.) RA-4

ADJACENT ZONING:

North: East: South: West:

Residential A (Larkin Twp.) Residential A (Larkin Twp.) Residential A (Larkin Twp.) RB and CC (City of Midland)

ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT:

North: East: South: West:

Agricultural/vacant (Larkin Twp.) Sparse residential (Larkin Twp.) Agricultural/vacant (Larkin Twp.) Developing multiple family residential (City of Midland)

REPORT Zoning Petition No. 607, initiated by Wahlack LLC, proposes to rezone property located at 204 Commerce Drive from Larkin Township zoning Residential A to City of Midland zoning RA -4 Residential. The proposed zoning district would permit both one and two family dwellings, whereas the existing RA-2 district permits only one family dwellings. It is understood that the zoning petition is intended to facilitate future development of the site. BACKGROUND This parcel was the subject of two earlier petitions to rezone both this parcel and the lands to the immediate west. The first petition proposed RB Multiple Family Residential zoning and was rescinded prior to a final decision in 2010. The second petition proposed RA-4 zoning on the parcel to the west, and RA-2 zoning on the lands subject to the current petition. The second zoning petition was approved in July of 2011.

1

Page 148

A subsequent zoning petition was submitted on the parcel to the immediate west in 2014. That petition was approved in July of 2014, rezoning the parcel to RB Multiple Family Residential but with conditions limiting the maximum density to 7 units per acre and the maximum building height to 18.5 ft. Development of that parcel is just now underway. The intent of the Residential Districts is to primarily provide for single family and two-family detached residential development. The RA-1, RA-2, RA-3, and RA-4 Districts have different minimum area, density, and building placement requirements to provide different housing types to accommodate the varied needs of the population. It is further the intent of these Districts to permit a limited range of uses that are related to and compatible with residential land use, and which would contribute to the richness and stability of neighborhoods. Uses that would interfere with the quality of single family residential life are prohibited in these districts. This property was annexed into the City on November 6, 2009. ASSESSMENT In accordance with Section 30.03(D) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission and City Council shall at minimum, consider the following before taking action on any proposed zoning map amendment: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the City’s Master Plan?

Yes. The Future Land Use map of the City’s Master Plan identifies this property as medium density. Medium density is defined as residential densities not exceeding 10 dwelling units per acre.

2

Page 149

The RA-4 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. for single family dwellings and 9,000 sq. ft. for two family dwellings. Deducting 10% of acreage for infrastructure use and assuming all lots are 7,2000 sq. ft., the effective density could be 5.4 du/acre or 100 single family lots on 18.38 acres of RA-4. Using the same method to calculate the maximum density for two family structures in RA -4, and assuming all lots are 9,000 sq. ft., there could be up to 80 lots, each with a two family dwelling on it, yielding a density of 8.7 du/acre. Assuming the maximum density is developed in each of these zoning classifications, the density could be between 5.4 du/acre and 8.7 du/acre, depending on how many lots are developed as single family and how many are two family. This range of densities falls into the medium density category of land use and is consistent with the intended use of RA-4 zoning to implement the Medium Density Residential land use policies of the Master Plan. 2. Will the proposed amendment be in accordance with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance? Yes. In staff’s opinion, the proposed rezoning would promote the intent of the zoning code through reclassification of the parcel as stated (outlined below) in the City’s zoning code. Section 1.02 B INTENT It is the purpose of this Zoning Ordinance to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of Midland by encouraging the use of lands and natural resources in accordance with their character, adaptability and suitability for particular purposes; to enhance social and economic stability; to prevent excessive concentration of population; to reduce hazards due to flooding; to conserve and stabilize the value of property; to provide adequate open space for light and air; to prevent fire and facilitate the fighting of fires; to allow for a variety of residential housing types and commercial and industrial land uses; to minimize congestion on the public streets and highways; to facilitate adequate and economical provision of transportation, sewerage and drainage, water supply and distribution, and educational and recreational facilities; to establish standards for physical development in accordance with the objectives and policies contained in the Master Plan (Comprehensive Development Plan); and to provide for the administration and enforcement of such standards. 3. Have conditions changed since the Zoning Ordinance was adopted that justifies the amendment? Yes. Conditions that impact this parcel have changed since the zoning ordinance was adopted. Commerce Drive was extended to intersect with Jefferson in 2007, creating additional access to the parcel. As a result, the parcel was eligible for annexation, which occurred in 2009. There has been continued commercial development at the mall and on Jefferson with the addition of a large religious institution, senior care facility and two banks in the vicinity. Additional residential development that is multiple family residential in nature but still medium density in form, is developing on the parcel to the immediate west.

3

Page 150

4. Will the amendment merely grant special privileges? No. The immediate area has been planned for residential development for many years by Larkin Township and now by the City. The proposed use of the subject parcel and those of the adjoining parcels are suitable for low and medium density housing in the future. The proposed zoning will coordinate well with existing land uses in the area. 5. Will the amendment result in unlawful exclusionary zoning? No. The zoning amendment would continue a pattern of zoning designation that is consistent with the general pattern of development in the area and in a manner that would not be considered exclusionary. 6. Will the amendment set an inappropriate precedent? No. The zoning petition is supported by the city’s Master Plan. 7. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the zoning classification of surrounding land? Yes. Surrounding lands exhibit a pattern of mixed use and mixed zoning. The proposed zoning will permit one and two family dwellings, which are considered appropriate use types given surrounding one family, multiple family and even community commercial zoning. 8. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the future land use designation of the surrounding land in the City Master Plan? Yes. The current Master Plan, adopted in 2007 and the previous Master Plan, adopted in 1997, support this parcel and the area in general as being appropriate for residential uses. 9. Could all requirements in the proposed zoning classification be complied with on the subject parcel? Yes. The parcel could meet all of the Residential A-4 zoning requirements for new developments. 10. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the trends in land development in the general vicinity of the property in question? Yes. This zoning classification of RA-4 as proposed will be consistent with the existing and anticipated land uses in the area. Commercial and office service development is expected to continue to the south and southwest but can be planned in such a way to be consistent with medium density residential uses in this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the requested zoning change, staff recommends approval of the rezoning petition for the following reasons:  The proposed zoning is a reasonable and logical extension of existing residential zoning in the area.

4

Page 151

 RA-4 zoning is a reasonable and appropriate zoning classification that will permit development of the subject lands for uses compatible with the adjacent development multiple family development and the existing single family residential uses scattered over properties to the north and east.  RA-4 zoning would continue the development pattern envisioned by the City of Midland Master Plan.  The proposed zoning district is considered appropriate given the anticipated future development patterns in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Staff currently anticipates that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this request during its regular meeting on June 14, 2016 and will formulate an appropriate recommendation to City Council thereafter. If recommended to City Council the same evening, we anticipate that on June 27, 2016 the City Council will set a public hearing on this matter. Given statutory notification and publication requirements, the City Council will schedule a public hearings for July 18, 2016 at which time a decision will be made on each proposed zoning change. Please note that these dates are merely preliminary and may be adjusted due to Planning Commission action and City Council agenda scheduling. Respectfully Submitted,

C. Bradley Kaye, AICP Assistant City Manager for Development Services

5

Page 152

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016, 7:00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman McLaughlin 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison by the members of the Commission and the other individuals present. 3. Roll Call PRESENT:

Bain, Hanna, Koehlinger, Mayville, McLaughlin, Pnacek, Senesac, and Tanzini

ABSENT:

Heying

OTHERS PRESENT:

Brad Kaye, Assistant City Manager for Development Services; Grant Murschel, Community Development Planner; and eleven (11) others.

4. Approval of Minutes Moved by Hanna and seconded by Mayville to approve of the amended minutes of the regular meeting of May 24, 2016. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Public Hearing a. Site Plan No. 350– initiated by Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC for site plan review and approval for an 118,416 square foot retirement community, located at 5900 Waldo Avenue. Kaye gave the staff presentation. He highlighted site details and explained that the proposal is a permitted use within the recently approved RB Multiple-Family Residential zoning district. The outstanding items still needed to comply with site plan requirements were noted and explained. The site access issues were discussed, including the comments received from the City’s traffic consultant. Mayville wondered about the driveway distances. Hanna commented that she thinks this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get access correct on this corridor. She does not want single access drives that will result a situation like Eastman Avenue. Kaye commented that the proposal has worked with staff to address these issues. Bain questioned the mechanism for ensuring optimal future driveway distances are developed. Kaye commented that there is no guarantee for future access points to be optimally spaced at this point. McLaughlin commented that he agreed with Hanna. Senesac commented that other areas of the city that are developed are difficult to alleviate congestion because we are trying to retrofit a solution. Now is the time to consider the best development design in this area to avoid another mall situation. He believes a shared access agreement between the subject property and the property to the north would be helpful since there is a chance that the property to the north will not develop exactly as the property owner has indicated. John Morey, D&M Site, spoke as the consulting engineer for the project. He spoke to the details of the site as gave information on the nature of each component of the site development.

Page 153

Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Mark McNeary, general counsel for Primrose Retirement Communities, explained that his team has worked diligently to respond to the comments by staff. He corrected his statement that he made to the City Council the night before by indicating that his construction team would like to get the site developed starting this year, rather than beginning in early spring 2017. The development should not be compared to a Kroger development given the substantially less vehicle traffic that a Primrose development generates. Senesac questioned why Primrose is against the idea of the potential for shared access with the property to the north for future development. McNeary commented that he would need to know the specific conditions of such an agreement before providing an answer. Dave Rapanos, 16 Pinehaven Circle, spoke as the property owner to the north. He explained that he agrees to a single boulevard entrance farther to the north for his property. In his opinion, he thinks the shared access idea works better with commercially developed areas rather than residential. He will accept one entrance off of Waldo Avenue to the remainder of his property to the north of the subject site. There were no public comments in support or opposition of the petition. The public hearing was closed. Senesac and McLaughlin indicated that they believe the outstanding issues warrant a revised plan submitted to the City before a recommendation is rendered; therefore a waiver of the procedural requirements was not made. Koehlinger questioned the comments by the City’s traffic consultant. Kaye reviewed the timeline that leaded to the final comments and decision by the consultant. Following regular procedural requirements, the site plan will be back on the Planning Commission’s agenda during the next meeting on Tuesday, June 28, 2016. b. Zoning Petition No. 607 – initiated by Wahlack, LLC to zone the property located at 204 Commerce Drive from Residential A-2 Single-Family Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning. Murschel gave the staff presentation. He explained the subject area and its proximity to recent rezoning and approved development. He reviewed the rezoning criteria, point by point. The subject property is immediately east of a recent rezoning that contained conditions in order to be later able to permit the multiple family development, Clear Pointe Landing. Mark Wahl, of Wahlack, LLC, addressed the Commission and welcomed any questions. There were no comments in support or opposition of the petition. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Senesac to waive the procedural requirements to delay a decision on the site plan until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Hanna. The motion was approved unanimously. Pnacek indicated that he believes the zoning amendment makes sense given the development patterns in the area. It was moved by Senesac and supported by Hanna to recommend approval of Zoning Petition No. 607 initiated by Wahlack, LLC to zone the property located at 204 Commerce Drive from Residential A-2 Single-Family Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning. Page 2 of 4

Page 154

Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: c.

Bain, Hanna, Koehlinger, Mayville, McLaughlin, Pnacek, Senesac, and Tanzini. None Heying

Zoning Text Amendment No. 158 – initiated by the City of Midland, to amend Section 8.09 of the Zoning Ordinance being the sign regulations of the Center City Authority Overlay district. Murschel gave the overview of the proposed text amendment. He indicated that the ordinance language that was included in the staff report has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. Senesac wondered if there was consideration for allowing the 30 day permits to be pulled consecutively. Murschel indicated that this was considered and due to specific sales or events that run for longer than 30 days, the committee thought it was necessary to allow for consecutive permits. There were no public comments in support or opposition of the proposal. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Pnacek to waive the procedural requirements to delay a decision on the site plan until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Hanna. The motion was approved unanimously. Pnacek commented that the proposal appears straightforward. Senesac agreed. It was moved by Pnacek and supported by Hanna to recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 158 initiated by the City of Midland, to amend Section 8.09 of the Zoning Ordinance being the sign regulations of the Center City Overlay district. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:


6. Old Business 7. Public Comments (unrelated to items on the agenda) None 8. New Business a. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Kaye gave an overview of the plan and indicated that the document is intended to feed the City budget process on a yearly basis. The CIP has a span of six (6) years. Staff intends to bring this item forward for public hearing during the July 12, 2016. Senesac commented that he would like to see additional departments added because the planning process itself is beneficial. He also explained that he thinks the $5,000 threshold is too small and that it should be increased. 9. Communications . The May 2016 edition of the Planning & Zoning News and the Michigan Planner magazines were given to the Commissioners. Page 3 of 4

Page 155

Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016

10. Report of the Chairperson McLaughlin welcomed Koehlinger to the Commission. 11. Report of the Planning Director Kaye provided updates on the approval of the Primrose rezoning request, the approval of the Northwood student housing site plan, the downtown Midland streetscape process and the nonmotorized wayfinding signage. Hanna commented that she would like to visit the gas to energy process because it is such a great asset that recycles waste and turns it into a usable resource. 12. Items for Next Agenda – June 28, 2016 a. Site Plan No. 351 – initiated by Fred Eddy Jr. on behalf of the Dow Gardens for site plan review and approval for improvements at both Dow Gardens and Whiting Forest, located at 2303 Eastman Avenue. b. Zoning Ordinance Revision – Article 9.02 I c. Site Plan No. 350– initiated by Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC for site plan review and approval for an 118,416 square foot retirement community, located at 5900 Waldo Avenue. 13. Adjourn It was motioned by Senesac and seconded by Hann to adjourn at 9:06 p.m. unanimously.

Motion passed


C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Page 4 of 4

Page 156

Page 157

Page 158

Page 159


* Zoning Text Amendment No. 158 - to amend the City of Midland Zoning Ordinance to amend section 8.09 of the Zoning Ordinance being the sign regulations for the Center City Overlay (CCO) District (7/18). KAYE

Page 160

SUMMARY REPORT TO CITY MANAGER for City Council Meeting of 6-27-16

SUBJECT:

Zoning Text Amendment No. 158

PETITIONER:

City of Midland

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommendation of approval. SUMMARY: ACTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE CITY OF MIDLAND ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 8.09 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BEING THE SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE CENTER CITY OVERLAY (CCO) DISTRICT. ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter to City Manager setting forth Planning Commission action. 2. Resolution for City Council Action. 3. Staff Report of June 8, 2016. 4. Article 8 Signs. 5. Planning Commission minutes of June 14, 2016. 6. Center City Overlay District map. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Public hearing is required. Date: July 18, 2016. 2. Advertising date: July 2, 2016. 3. 3/5 vote required to set the public hearing.

C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services CBK/djm 6-22-16

ZTA No. 158

Page 161

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax  wwwcityofmidlandmi.gov

June 22, 2016

Jon Lynch, City Manager City Hall - 333 West Ellsworth Street Midland, Michigan Dear Mr. Lynch: At its meeting on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Text Amendment No. 158 to amend the City of Midland Zoning Ordinance to amend Section 8.09 of the Zoning Ordinance being the sign regulations for the Center City Overlay (CCO) district. This petition was initiated by the Center City Authority with assistance from City Planning Staff. The amendment proposes a revision to the existing Center City Overlay district standards by making modifications to the temporary banner sign and the sandwich board sign regulations. The Center City Authority, together with City Planning Staff, has spent considerable time developing the enclosed draft standards. The recommended standards reflect a balancing of the Center City Authority’s desires to accommodate temporary banner signage for its members and the City’s desire to allow appropriate and reasonable signage in this important commercial corridor. Changes to the sandwich board regulations are intended to provide better clarity while also reducing the square footage permitted, per request by the CCA. After discussion and deliberation by the Planning Commission, it was moved by Heying and supported by Tanzini that the Planning Commission recommend unanimously to City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 158 to amend Section 8.09 of the Zoning Ordinance being the sign regulations for the Center City Overlay (CCO) district. Vote on the motion: YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:

Bain, Hanna, Koehlinger, Mayville, McLaughlin, Pnacek, Senesac, and Tanzini None Hanna

The motion was approved 8-0. No public comments were received at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. No letters of support or opposition have been received on the petition. The petition has, however, been reviewed thoroughly by the Center City Authority Board and the Physical Improvements subcommittee of that Board. Both have supported the proposed text amendment.

Page 162

On June 27, 2016 the City Council is requested to set a public hearing for the July 18, 2016 City Council meeting to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. 158. A resolution, authorizing the proposed zoning text amendment, is attached for City Council consideration. Respectfully,

C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services CBK/djm LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL – ZTA No. 158 set PH

Page 2 of 2

Page 163

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax  www.midland-mi.org

BY COUNCILMAN RESOLVED, that notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council on Monday, July 18, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, for the purpose of considering the advisability of amending Ordinance No. 1585, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Midland, as set forth in the following proposed Ordinance, which is hereby introduced and given first reading; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish said notice on July 2, 2016. ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 1585, BEING AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE AND RESTRICT THE LOCATION OF TRADES AND INDUSTRIES AND THE LOCATION OF BUILDINGS DESIGNED FOR SPECIFIC USES, TO REGULATE AND LIMIT THE HEIGHT AND BULK OF BUILDINGS HEREAFTER ERECTED OR ALTERED, TO REGULATE AND DETERMINE THE AREA OF YARDS, COURTS, AND OTHER OPEN SPACES SURROUNDING BUILDINGS, TO REGULATE AND LIMIT THE DENSITY OF POPULATION, AND FOR SAID PURPOSES, TO DIVIDE THE CITY INTO DISTRICTS AND PRESCRIBE PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF ITS PROVISIONS BY AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 8.09 BEING THE SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE CENTER CITY OVERLAY DISTRICT. The City of Midland Ordains: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 1585, being the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Midland, is hereby amended as follows: See attached Section 2. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent necessary to give this Ordinance full force and effect. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, June 27, 2016. _____________________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

Page 164

Center City Overlay District

Date: June 8, 2016

STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT:

Center City Overlay Zoning District – Temporary Signage Provisions

APPLICANT:

Staff Proposal on behalf of the Center City Authority

PROPOSED:

Temporary Signage Provisions to be added to the Center City Overlay Zoning District

REPORT BACKGROUND In the fall of 2015, Midland City Council approved the establishment of the Center City Overlay Zoning District (CCO) as recommended by the Planning Commission and Center City Authority Board. This district encompasses the full extent of the Center City Authority (CCA), a Corridor Improvement Authority, along South Saginaw Road and Washington Street from Ashman Circle to Patrick Road. To date, the zoning provisions of the CCO district relate to permanent signage, including standards for ground signs, wall signs, projecting signs, and sandwich/board a-frame signs. The district standards do not, however, address any form of temporary signage. In the early part of 2016, at the request of the CCA, city staff began working with the CCA’s Physical Improvements Committee on drafting regulatory standards for temporary signage within the CCO district. In addition, the current sandwich/board sign standards were also reviewed and proposed revisions were drafted. The following outlines the proposed revisions and additions to the CCO district signage regulations, as recommended for approval by the CCA Board during its meeting on April 20, 2016. During the meeting of May 10, 2016, city staff presented the contents of the proposal to the Planning Commission for initial review. After reviewing the information, the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule the public hearing for June 14 on the proposed text amendments in accordance with Article 30 of the Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSAL DETAILS Enclosed following this report is the proposed ordinance language within Article 8, the portion of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates signage, which addresses the amendments explained below. The ordinance language changes have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office. The changes (on pages 8-6, 8-7, & 8-17) are bolded and Page 1 of 3

Page 165

highlighted in yellow. [Example] A review of the proposal details in simple explanation form follows below: Temporary Banner Signs In the Zoning Ordinance, a Banner Sign is defined as “a sign made of fabric or any non-rigid material with no enclosing framework.” This definition includes:  Wall mounted banners  “Feathers” (ground mounted banners that are similar to a tall vertical flag) Proposed Temporary Banner Regulations within CCO:    

Maximum Size: Maximum Height: Type of Sign Permitted: Setback Requirement:

 Permit Required:  Max. Permits Per Year

32 square feet* 15 feet* Plastic or Fabric* Shall not be placed in the right of way. Yes (30 days/permit) 4 (120 days)

Sandwich Board Signs Currently, the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that sandwich board signs must be portable and free-standing in design in all districts where permitted. In the CCO district only, sandwich board signs must be:  Constructed using high-quality materials;  Placed on an improved, pedestrian-oriented surface;  Located within eight (8) feet of the pertaining establishment’s main entrance; and  Permitted outdoors only during business hours. However, the district regulations do not specify how many sandwich board signs are permitted per business establishment. As such, the CCA Board is proposing revised regulations to address this omission and to adjust the amount of square footage allowed per establishment.

Banner Sign Samples

“Feather” Sign Sample

Proposed Sandwich Board Sign Regulations:  Maximum Size:  Number Permitted Per Establishment:

16 12 square feet 1 per entrance, total between all sandwich board signs not to exceed 12 square feet.

Sandwich Board Sign Sample

PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION Staff has brought this proposal in front of the Commission by request of the Center City Authority Board. Following initial review, the Commission directed staff to move forward with the amendment procedures in accordance with Article 30 of the Zoning Ordinance. Article 30 stipulates that a public hearing will be held by both the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the consideration of the amendment. Page 2 of 3

Page 166

The Planning Commission public hearing on this matter will take place on June 14, 2016. If agreeable to the Commission, a recommendation can be formulated to City Council during that evening. If formulated during the June 14 meeting, staff anticipates that on June 27, 2016 the City Council will set a public hearing on this matter. Given the statutory notification and publication requirements, the City Council public hearing would then be scheduled for July 18, 2016. Please note that these dates are merely preliminary and may be adjusted due to Planning Commission action and City Council agenda scheduling. Respectfully Submitted,

C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services /grm

Page 3 of 3

Page 167

ARTICLE 8.00

SIGNS Section 8.01 -- PURPOSE The purpose of these sign regulations is to establish requirements for signs and other displays that are needed for identification or advertising, subject to the following objectives: 1.

Safety. The requirements with regard to placement, installation, maintenance, size and location of signs are intended to minimize distractions to motorists, maintain unobstructed vision for motorists, protect pedestrians, and otherwise minimize any threat to public health or safety.

2.

Aesthetics. Signs should enhance the aesthetic appeal of the City. Thus, these regulations are intended to: 1) regulate signs that are out-of-scale with surrounding buildings and structures, 2) prevent an excessive accumulation of signs, and 3) encourage signs that enhance the appearance and value of the business districts.

3.

Equal protection and fairness. These regulations are designed to be fair to each property owner by establishing uniform standards that provide adequate exposure to the public for all property owners.

4.

Land use planning objectives. The placement and design of signs should further the land use planning objectives of the City, and protect neighborhood character and the value of surrounding properties.

Section 8.02 -- SCOPE OF REQUIREMENTS No sign may be erected, relocated, enlarged, structurally changed, painted, or altered in the City unless in conformance with the standards and procedures set forth in this Article, including the issuance of a permit except as otherwise provided herein.

Section 8.03 -- ENFORCEMENT A.

Plans, Specifications, and Permits 1. Permits It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, alter, relocate, enlarge, or structurally change a sign or other advertising structure, unless specifically exempted by these regulations, without first obtaining a permit in accordance with the provisions set forth herein. A permit shall require payment of a fee, as established in Section 21.29 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Midland. 2. Applications Application for a sign permit shall be made upon forms provided by the Building Department. The following information shall be required: a.

Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant.

b.

Location of the building, structure, or lot on which the sign is to be attached or erected.

c.

Position of the sign in relation to nearby buildings, structures, and property lines.

City of Midland Zoning Ordinance

Page 8-1

Article 8: Signs

Page 168

3.

d.

Plans and specifications showing the dimensions, materials, method of construction, and attachment to the building or in the ground.

e.

Copies of stress sheets and calculations, as required by the Building Code.

f.

Name and address of the person, firm, or corporation owning, erecting, and/or maintaining the sign.

g.

Location and square footage areas of all existing signs on the same premises.

h.

Information concerning required electrical connections.

i.

Insurance policy or bond, as required in this Article.

j.

Written consent of the owner and/or lessee of the premises upon which the sign is to be erected.

k.

Other information required by the Building Official to make the determination that the sign is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Review of Application a.

Planning Commission Review Sign proposals submitted in conjunction with the proposed construction of a new building or addition to an existing building that requires review by the Planning Commission shall be shown on the site plan.

b.

Building Official Review The Building Official shall review the sign permit application for any proposed sign.

c.

Issuance of a Permit A sign permit shall be approved if the application meets all of the standards of this Article or if a variance has been granted for the sign. Following review and approval of a sign application, the Building Official shall have the authority to issue a sign permit. A sign permit shall become null and void if the work for which the permit was issued has not been completed within a period of sixty (60) days after the date of the permit.

4. Exceptions A new permit shall not be required for ordinary servicing, sign face replacement, repainting of an existing sign message, cleaning of a sign, or changing of the message on the sign where the sign is designed for such changes (such as lettering on a marquee). Furthermore, a permit shall not be required for certain exempt signs listed in Section 8.05, sub-section A. However, an electrical permit shall be required for all signs that make use of electricity.

B.

Inspection and Maintenance 1.

Inspection of New Signs All signs for which a permit has been issued shall be inspected by the Building Official when erected. Approval shall be granted only if the sign has been constructed in compliance with the approved plans and applicable Zoning Ordinance and Building Code standards. All signs requiring permits under this Ordinance shall have affixed to them an identification tag as provided by the sign contractor. Said identification tag will be affixed by the City to indicate compliance with the provisions of this Article. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of a sign to see that said identification tag is replaced, should it be removed for any reason.


Page 8-2

Article 8: Signs

Page 169

In cases where fastenings or anchorages are to be eventually bricked in or otherwise enclosed, the sign erector shall advise the Building Official when such fastenings are to be installed so that inspection may be completed before enclosure. 2. Inspection of Existing Signs The Building Official shall have the authority to routinely enter onto property to inspect existing signs. 3. Maintenance All signs shall be maintained at all times in a safe and secure manner. Exposed surfaces shall be cleaned and painted as necessary. Broken and defective parts shall be repaired or replaced. 4.

Correction of Violations a. If the Building Official finds that any sign is in violation of this ordinance, the official shall notify one or more of the responsible persons to correct the violations by repair, removal or other action, within a timetable established by the official. b. The notice provided in Subsection (a) may be accompanied or followed by a written order, sent to the responsible persons, requiring correction of violations by repair, removal or other action within thirty (30) days. Where there is imminent danger to public safety, immediate removal or action may be required. c.

C.

For purposes of this Section, responsible persons include the owner(s) of the building, structure or premises upon which the sign is located.

Removal of Obsolete Signs Any sign that identifies a business that is no longer in operation, or that identifies an activity or event that has already occurred, or a product that is no longer made, shall be considered abandoned and shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having use of the building or structure. Upon vacating a commercial or industrial establishment, the proprietor shall be responsible for removal of all signs used in conjunction with the business. However, where a conforming sign structure and frame are typically reused by a current occupant in a leased or rented building, the building owner shall not be required to remove the sign structure and frame in the interim periods when the building is not occupied, provided that the sign structure and frame are maintained in good condition.

D.

Nonconforming Signs No nonconforming sign shall be altered, enlarged or reconstructed, unless the alteration or reconstruction is in compliance with Article 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the following regulations: 1. Repairs and Maintenance Normal maintenance shall be permitted, provided that any nonconforming sign that is destroyed by any means to an extent greater than fifty percent (50%) of the sign's precatastrophe fair market value, exclusive of the foundation, shall not be reconstructed. Normal maintenance shall include painting of chipped or faded signs; replacement of faded or damaged surface panels; or, repair or replacement of electrical wiring or electrical devices. 2. Nonconforming Changeable Copy Signs The sign face or message on a nonconforming changeable copy sign or nonconforming bulletin board sign may be changed provided that the change does not create any greater nonconformity.


Page 8-3

Article 8: Signs

Page 170

E.

3. Substitution No nonconforming sign shall be replaced with another nonconforming sign. However, the panel containing the message may be replaced with a different message without affecting the legal nonconforming status of a sign, provided that the sign structure or frame is not altered.

Appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals Any party who has been refused a sign permit for a proposed sign or received a correction or removal order for an existing sign may file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals, in accordance with Article 29.00 of the Zoning Ordinance.

F.

Enforcement Placards, posters, circulars, showbills, handbills, election signs, cards, leaflets or other advertising matter, except as otherwise provided herein, shall not be posted, pasted, nailed, placed, printed, stamped or in any way attached to any fence, wall, post, tree, sidewalk, pavement, platform, pole, tower, curbstone or surface in or upon any public easement, right-of-way or on any public property whatsoever. Nothing herein shall prevent official notices of the City, school districts, County, State or Federal Government from being posted on any public property deemed necessary. All placards, posters, circulars, showbills, handbills, election signs, cards, leaflets or other advertising matter posted, pasted, nailed, placed, printed, stamped on any right-of-way or public property may be removed and disposed of by City enforcement officials without regard to other provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 8.04 -- GENERAL PROVISIONS A.

Permitted Exempt Signs A sign permit shall not be required for the following signs, which shall be permitted subject to applicable provisions herein: 1.

Address numbers in compliance with Section 304.3 of the International Property Maintenance Code.

2.

Nameplates identifying the occupants of the building, not to exceed two (2) square feet.

3.

Public signs, including the authorized signs of a government body or public utility, including traffic signs, legal notices, railroad crossing signs, warnings of a hazard, and similar signs.

4.

Flags bearing the official design of a nation, state, municipality, educational institution, or noncommercial organization.

5.

Incidental signs, including home occupations complying with this ordinance, provided that total of all such signs shall not exceed two (2) square feet.

6.

Portable real estate "open house" signs with an area no greater than three (3) square feet.

7.

Real Estate signs, subject to the requirements in Section 8.05.

8. 9.

Construction signs, subject to the requirements in Section 8.05. Plaques or signs designating a building as a historic structure, names of public and quasipublic buildings, churches, schools, dates of erection, monumental citations, commemorative tablets, and the like.

10. "No Trespassing," "No Hunting," and "No Dumping" signs, provided that no individual sign is greater than four (4) square feet in area.


Page 8-4

Article 8: Signs

Page 171

11. Signs used to direct vehicular or pedestrian traffic to parking areas, loading areas, or to certain buildings or locations on the site, subject to the following conditions:

12.

a.

Directional signs shall not contain logos or other forms of advertising.

b.

Individual directional signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area.

c.

Directional signs may be located in any required setback area, but may not be located in a right-of-way.

d.

Any sign not visible off the property.

Window signs.

13. Changing of advertising copy or message on an approved painted or printed sign or billboard or on a theatre marquee and similar approved signs which are specifically designed for the use of replaceable copy. 14. Painting, repainting, cleaning and other normal maintenance and repair of a sign or sign structure unless a structural change is made.

B.

Prohibited Signs The following signs are prohibited in all districts:

C.

1.

Any sign not expressly permitted.

2.

Signs that incorporate flashing or moving lights or screens capable of displaying moving images that flash or move or otherwise change at intervals of less than six (6) seconds. These signs distract drivers and impact traffic safety.

3.

Moving signs, including any sign which has any visible moving parts, visible revolving parts, visible mechanical movement, or other visible movement achieved by electrical, electronic, or mechanical means, including movement caused by normal wind current. These signs distract drivers and impact traffic safety.

4.

Obsolete signs.

5.

Signs affixed to a parked vehicle or truck trailer which is being used principally for advertising purposes rather than for transportation purposes.

6.

Any sign which obstructs free access to or egress from a required door, window, fire escape, driveway or other required exit from a building or premises.

7.

Any sign unlawfully installed, erected, enlarged, altered, moved or maintained.

8.

Signs on street furniture including, but not limited to, signs on benches and trash receptacles.

9.

Off-premise advertising signs.

Temporary Signs Temporary signs shall be permitted as specified in Table 8.1:


Page 8-5

Article 8: Signs

TABLE Page 1728.1: TEMPORARY SIGN STANDARDS Districts Permitted

Type of Sign Construction Sign

Real Estate - sale or lease of individual home or residential lot Real Estate - sale or lease of individual business or vacant lot Real Estate - sale or lease of unplatted vacant Real Estate Development Sign Grand Opening Sign Garage Sale Sign Community Special Event Sign

Type of Sign Permitted

AG, RB, Office, Commercial, DNO, LCMR, Industrial RA-1, RA-2, RA-3, RA-4

Ground or Wall

Residential

Ground

Office, Commercial, LCMR, Industrial, DNO All

Ground or Wall

Ground or Wall

Maximum Size

Maximum Height

32 sq. ft.

15 ft.

Maximum Number Per Parcel

Permit Required

1

No

Required Setback [a]

Ground

Commercial Residential All

Ground or Wall Ground or Wall [e]

From: issuance of Building Permit To: 14 days after occupancy.

12 sq. ft.

3.5 ft.

12 sq. ft.

3.5 ft.

1[b]

No

[d]

32 sq. ft.

10 ft.

1[b]

No

[d]

32 sq. ft.

10 ft.

1[b]

No

[a]

32 sq. ft.

10 ft.

[c]

No

[a][f]

16 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft.

10 ft. 30”

1 --

Yes No

[d] [d]

Remove within 14 days of completion of sale or lease Remove within 14 days of completion of sale land or lease Remove after 75% of units or lots are built 30 days 4 consecutive days

[e]

[e]

[e]

Yes

[d]

Duration of the event

32 sq. ft.

5 ft.

[i]

No

[d]

Remove within 14 days of the election

Ground

All

Permitted Duration [g]

Remove within 14 days of completion of sale or lease

Election Sign

All

Ground or Wall

Banner Signs

CC, CCO RC, LCMR, IA, IB

Plastic or Fabric

32 sq. ft.

15 ft.

1

Yes

[d]

Real Estate Signs

[h]

Plastic or Fabric

32 sq. ft.

15 ft.

1[j]

No

[d]

[h]

Pennants

[h]

Plastic or Fabric

--

--

--

No

[d]

[h]

Personal Special Occasion Signs

Residential Districts

Per definition in Section 2.03

25 sq. ft.

8 ft.

1

No

[a]


30 days [k]

5 consecutive days

Page 8 - 6 Page 8 - 6

Article 8: Signs

Footnotes Page 173 [a]

The temporary sign shall be set back from any property or right-of-way line a distance equal to the height of the sign.

[b]

On a corner parcel two (2) signs, one (1) facing each street, shall be permitted.

[c]

Two (2) on-premise signs shall be permitted on private property within the development and shall not be located within five hundred (500) feet of one another.

[d]

The temporary garage sale signs may be located in the area between the curb or road edge and the property line (the outlawn). Signs located in the right of way. 1. May not exceed 30” in height above the level of the crown of the road. 2. Each sign must have the owner’s name and address on it. 3. Permission from the property owner must be obtained. 4. Signs in the right of way must not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 5. Signs may be placed in the right of way from 8:00am Thursday until 8:00am Monday the week of the sale. Signs must be removed by 8:00am Monday.

[e]

Community special event signs may include banners or other devices advertising a public entertainment or event, if specially approved by the City Manager or his authorized representative.

[f]

Real estate development signs shall not be erected within fifty (50) feet of any occupied dwelling unit.

[g]

The Building Official may require a performance bond to assure proper removal of temporary signs upon expiration of the permitted duration.

[h]

Banners and pennants for the purpose of advertising real estate open houses and builders parade of homes are permitted in all districts but shall be limited to periods not to exceed seventy-two (72) consecutive hours, no more than four (4) times per calendar year. Banners and pennants for advertising special promotions and events are permitted in all nonresidential districts but shall be limited to periods not to exceed one hundred and sixtyeight consecutive hours, no more than four (4) times per calendar year.

[i]

Total sign area, in aggregate, shall not exceed 32 square feet for residentially zoned parcels.

[j]

All properties on corner lots may erect two (2) real estate signs.

[k]

The number of banner sign permits in the Center City Overlay District shall not exceed four (4) per calendar year, equating to one-hundred twenty (120) days, per parcel.

Section 8.05 -- SIGN DESIGN STANDARDS A.

Illumination 1. General Requirements Signs shall be illuminated only by steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed solely at the sign, or internal to it. 2. Non-Glare, Shielded Lighting Use of glaring undiffused lights or bulbs shall be prohibited. Lights shall be shaded so as not to project onto adjoining properties or streets. Signs that incorporate flashing or moving lights, or screens capable of displaying moving images and/or L.E.D. (light emitting diode) sign images shall not be brighter than 500 candelas per square meter during the nighttime hours of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. The sign must have an automatic dimmer control which produces a distinct


Page 8 - 7

Article 8: Signs

illumination change from a higher, daytime illumination level to the designated nighttime level prescribed above.

Page 174

3. Bare Bulb Illumination Illumination by bare bulbs or flames is prohibited, except that bare bulbs are permitted on changeable copy signs and theater marquees. 4. Signs Displaying Moving Images Signs that incorporate flashing or moving lights, or screens capable of displaying moving images that flash or move or otherwise change at regular or irregular intervals (e.g. L.E.D. signs) shall be turned off when the businesses or buildings, that they service or provide advertisement for, are located in, bordering, directly adjacent to, or sharing a common property line with any residential zoning districts when those businesses or buildings are not open for business, or special events or other activities.

B.

Location 1.

Within a Public Right-of-Way No sign shall be located within, project into, or overhang a public right-of-way except as permitted by the City Engineer.

2.

Setback Requirements from Right-of-Way and Street Property Lines See table 8.4 for sign setback requirements.

3.

Sight Lines for Motorists Signs shall comply with the requirements for unobstructed motorist visibility in Section 3.09A(5) – Unobstructed Sight Distance.

4.

On-Premise Advertising Signs On-premise advertising signs shall be located on the parcel of the use to which the sign pertains. If a driveway off the premises services the use, an advertising sign for that use may be allowed at the driveway under the following conditions: a. If the driveway services more than one (1) use, a single sign advertising all uses serviced by the driveway is allowed. b. All provisions of Table 8.2 are met for the use or uses serviced by the driveway.

C.

Measurement 1. Sign Area Sign area shall be computed as follows: a. General Requirements. The extreme limits of the writing, representation, emblem or any figure or similar character together with any frame or other material forming an integral part of the display shall be enclosed in a circle, square, rectangle, or parallelogram. The street address, in compliance with insert cross reference, and the necessary supports or uprights upon which the sign is placed shall not be enclosed in the aforesaid shape. The area of the shape shall be the sign area. b. Double-Face Sign. The area of a double-face sign shall be computed using only one (1) face of the sign provided that the two (2) faces are back-to-back, so that only one face is visible at any given time, and at no point are more than three (3) feet apart. If the two faces are of unequal area, the larger face shall be used to determine compliance with sign face area requirements. If the faces are not back-to-back and/or more than three (3) feet apart at any given point, then the area of all sign faces shall be included in determining the area of the sign.


Page 8 - 8

Article 8: Signs

Page 175

c. Add-On Signs. The area of any add-on signs shall be computed as part of the sign area. 2.

Setback, Height and Distance Measurements The following guidelines shall be used to determine compliance with setback, height and distance measurements: a. The distance between two signs shall be measured along a straight horizontal line that represents the shortest distance between two signs. b. The distance between a sign and a parking lot or building shall be measured along a straight horizontal line that represents the shortest distance between the outer edge of the parking lot or building. c. The distance between a sign and a building or property line shall be measured along a straight horizontal line that represents the shortest distance between the sign and the building. d. Maximum sign height shall be measured from the top of the sign structure to the lowest adjacent grade within ten (10) feet of the sign.

D.

Wall, Ground and Roof Signs All wall, ground and roof signs shall meet the following provisions: 1. Area The aggregate area of the wall, ground and roof signs a use displays may not exceed the maximum area that Table 8.2 allows for in that zoning district. 2. Wall Sign Projection Wall signs may be painted on or attached to or pinned away from the wall but shall not project from the wall by more than twelve (12) inches. 3. Wall Sign Height The top of the wall sign shall not be higher than the lowest point of the roof (e.g. eaves or parapet). 4. Roof Sign Height The top of the roof sign may not be higher than the roofline of the building. 5. Ground/Monument Sign Height Ground and monument sign height shall be determined by Table 8.2.

E.

Projecting Signs All projecting signs shall comply the following provisions 1. Clearance Projecting signs shall clear sidewalks by a least eight (8) feet and may project no more than four (4) feet from a building. 2. Placement Projecting signs shall project from the wall at an angle of ninety (90) degrees.

3. Height The top of a projecting sign may not extend vertically above one and a half (1 ½) stories above grade. City of Midland Zoning Ordinance

Page 8 - 9

Article 8: Signs

Page 176

4. Undercanopy Signs All undercanopy signs shall comply with the provisions in Section 8.07.F.


Page 8 - 10

Article 8: Signs

Page 177

Table 8.2: ON-PREMISE ADVERTISING SIGN STANDARDS Zoning District

Wall and Roof signs Notes a,b,c

12 sq. ft.

1

a,b,c

RD

40 sq. ft.

1

OS – Permitted Nonresidential Uses Community

12 sq. ft.

NC

40 sq. ft.

CC, RC

150 sq. ft.

CCO

100 sq. ft.

e,o,p,q

12 sq. ft.

1

D

40 sq. ft.

d,e,f,g

8 sq. ft.

D-O

40 sq. ft.

d,e,f,g

8 sq. ft.

50 sq. ft.

DNO

Height

See Section 8.05.D

# 1

AG, RA – Permitted Nonresidential Uses RB

Area 12 sq. ft.

Projecting signs

Ground Signs Area 12 sq. ft.

Height 5 ft.

# 1

Notes a,b,c,m

Not Allowed

18 sq. ft.

5 ft.

1

a,b,c,m

b,c

Not Allowed

40 sq. ft.

5 ft.

1

a,b,c,j,m

a,b,c,d

Not Allowed

12 sq. ft.

5 ft.

1

a,i,j,k,m

Not Allowed

32 sq. ft.

15 ft.

1

a,j

40 sq. ft.

8 ft.

1

i,j,m

100 sq. ft.

20 ft.

1

i,j,k,l

r

60 sq. ft.

12 ft.

1

s,t

1

f

40 sq. ft.

8 ft.

1

l,m

1

f

12 sq. ft.

5 ft.

1

l,m,n

e,f,g e,f,g

Area # Notes Not Allowed

8 sq. ft.

1

f

Not Allowed

See Section 8.08 Downtown Northside Overlay (DNO) District Signs

IA, IB

300 sq. ft.

e,f,g,h

Not Allowed

150 sq. ft.

25 ft.

1

i,j,k

LCMR

150 sq. ft.

e,f,g

Not Allowed

100 sq. ft.

18 ft.

1

i,j,k

Wall, Roof, and Ground Sign Footnotes: [a]

Places of worship and other religious institutions shall be permitted one (1) additional on-premise advertising sign for each school, parsonage, or other related facility.

[b]

Public and quasi-public buildings and facilities, schools, and places of worship, when combining the name with a sign as permitted in Section 8.04.A.9, may have a total name with sign area of 32 sq. ft.


Page 8 - 11

Article 8: Signs

Page 178

[c]

One (1) residential entranceway or identification sign, either a wall or ground sign, shall be permitted at each entrance to a subdivision, apartment complex or other residential development. The residential entranceway or identification sign shall comply with the provisions of Section 8.06.D.

[d]

Where a site has no ground sign on a site in the D-O district, a sign may run the length of an awning up to the maximum wall sign area allowed in table 8.2. Wall and Roof Sign Footnotes:

[e]

Where multiple business, office or industrial establishments are located in a single building with common, exterior entrances, the total area of all signs on the parcel may be increased by four (4) square feet for each additional establishment, up to a maximum of thirty-two (32) additional square feet.

[f]

Where multiple business, office or industrial establishments are located in a single building and each has its own exterior entrance, each establishment will be allowed additional wall signage so long as the total wall signage for the entire building does not exceed the Zoning Ordinance requirements. In addition to the maximum sign area permitted by Table 8.2, sign area may be increased based on the street frontage measured at the right of way line on a one to one ratio, up to a maximum of 150 square feet.

[g]

For buildings on corner or through lots, the maximum total area of all wall signs may be increased by fifty percent (50%) where the signage is divided between the two (2) street frontages. The larger of the two (2) signs shall not exceed the maximum sign area permitted by Table 8.2. Ground Sign Footnotes:

[h]

In the IA and IB districts, the size of all wall signs on each wall where signage is permitted, may be increased if 1. Any point of the principle structure on the wall on which the sign size will be calculated, is more than 200’ from the property line abutting a public road, measured from a 90 degree angle at the road right of way. The structure must be located on the property abutting the public road from which the measurement is being taken. 2. There is at least 200’ of frontage on the public road identified in item 1. of this provision. 3. If items 1. and 2. are met, a. The total signage on a wall facing a public road may be increased by 1 square foot for each foot greater than 200’ lineal feet, not to exceed 600 square feet on any one wall. b. Multiple signs may be placed on one wall provided the total square footage on any one wall does not exceed 600 square feet. c. If all walls of the principle structure are less than 200’ from the road, the sign may not exceed 300 square feet of total signage on the parcel, per Table 8.2. d. If the property owner chooses not to place any signage on a wall facing a public right of way on a qualifying structure, wall signage, at the size it would have been had it faced the road, may be used on another wall without public road frontage. e. Total wall signage on all walls on any qualifying structure may not exceed 1,200 square feet.

[i]

For large parcels: one (1) additional ground sign is permitted for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage measured at the right-of-way line over and above six hundred (600) feet. Multiple signs shall be spaced at least two hundred (200) feet apart.


Page 8 - 12

Article 8: Signs

Page 179

[j]

For corner lots: The maximum area of all ground signs shall not exceed the maximum sign area listed in Table 8.2, except where a parcel has frontage on more than one street, an additional ground sign may be permitted facing the secondary frontage provided it does not exceed one half (1/2) the maximum square footage of the primary ground sign square foot listed in Table 8.2.

[k]

Industrial, Office and Commercial Parks: The ground sign shall not exceed 100 sq. ft. in area. Industrial, Office and Commercial Park identification/directory ground signs that list the names of all of the businesses within the park are permitted at the main entrance. In no case, shall this ground sign be located within the public right of way.

[l]

One additional sign is permitted in the RC, IA, IB, LCMR district if the sign is an entranceway identification sign to a commercial or industrial development, is of monument style and does not exceed eight (8’) feet in height or twenty-four (24) square feet. Ground signs are permitted only if the building is set back a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line.

[m]

Only monument ground signs are permitted. Pole mounted ground signs are not permitted due to sign height and underclearance restrictions listed in Table 8.2.

[n]

Ground signs in the D districts shall only be permitted in the side yard setback a distance equal to the building and shall not be permitted between the building and the front lot line.

[o]

In the CCO district, where multiple businesses or office establishments are located in a single building and each has its own exterior entrance, each establishment will be allowed wall signage of 2.0 square feet of wall signage for every lineal foot of tenant lease building frontage, up to a maximum of 100 square feet per tenant. This shall be measured on the face of the building which contains the main entrance to the establishment.

[p]

In the CCO district, business establishments of 30,000 square feet or more of usable floor area may be allowed wall signage of 2.0 square feet for every lineal foot of tenant lease building frontage, which shall be measured on the face of the building which contains the main entrance, up to the amount indicated in the following schedule: Allowed Wall Signage for Large Scale Establishments (CCO District) Usable Floor Area Wall Signage Maximum Area 30,000-39,999 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 40,000-49,999 sq. ft. 240 sq. ft. 50,000+ sq. ft. 280 sq. ft.

[q]

For sites in the CCO district with more than one street frontage (e.g. corner lots, through lots): additional wall signage may be permitted facing the secondary frontage(s) provided it does not exceed 50% of the permitted square footage. For additional secondary frontage signage, one single sign may be no more than 100 square feet.

[r]

Projecting signs shall be permitted provided they are oriented towards pedestrian traffic and have a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet.

[s]

Ground signs in the CCO district must be monument style signs constructed with a base using decorative stone, brick, or enhanced concrete.

[t]

For sites in the CCO district with more than one street frontage (e.g. corner lots, through lots): an additional ground sign may be permitted facing the secondary frontage provided it does not exceed 30 sq. ft. (Half of the maximum square footage of the primary ground sign).


Page 8 - 13

Article 8: Signs

Section 8.06 -- RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT SIGNS

Page 180

The following signs shall be permitted in all districts zoned for residential use:

Table 8.3: GENERALIZED SCHEDULE OF SIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES Type of Sign Number Notes Nameplate

1

Street Address

2 sq. ft. maximum area Shall comply with Section 304.3 of the International Property Maintenance Code

Places of Worship Real Estate Signs

1[a] [b] 1[b]

12 sq. ft. maximum area

Garage Sale Signs

--


Residential Entranceway Signs

1[c]

See Subsection 8.07.D

Home Occupation

1


Non-residential Uses

Shall comply with Table 8.2

Footnotes: [a] One (1) additional sign shall be permitted for each school, parsonage, or other related facility. [b] On a corner parcel, or double fronting two (2) signs, one facing each street, shall be permitted. [c] One (1) sign is permitted at each entrance to a subdivision, apartment complex or residential development.

A. Nameplate and Street Address A nameplate sign shall be permitted in accordance with Section 8.04A. The sign may not project within five (5) feet of any property line. All street addresses shall comply with Section 304.3 of the International Property Maintenance Code.

B. Real Estate Signs Real estate signs shall be permitted in accordance with Section 8.04C.

C. Garage Sale Signs Garage sale signs shall be permitted in accordance with Section 8.04C.

D. Residential Entranceway Signs One (1) residential entranceway or identification sign, either a wall or ground sign, shall be permitted at each entrance to a sub-division, apartment complex or other residential development in accordance with the following regulations: 1. Area The maximum area for such sign shall be twenty-five (25) square feet. 2. Height The maximum height for such sign shall be six (6) feet. 3. Setback All ground signs shall be set back a minimum distance of fifteen (15) feet from any property line or right-of-way line.

E.

Signs for Nonresidential Uses Each nonresidential use in a residential district shall be permitted one wall or ground sign, provided that the type, height, area, and number of signs shall comply with Table 8.2


Page 8 - 14

Article 8: Signs

Page 181

Section 8.07 -- NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SIGNS The following signs shall be permitted in districts zoned for nonresidential use (Community - COM, Office Service - OS, Neighborhood Commercial - NC, Community Commercial - CC, Regional Commercial - RC, Downtown – D, Circle - C, LCMR, Industrial A - IA, and Industrial B – IB Zoning Districts):

A.

Nameplate and Street Address A nameplate and street address shall be permitted in accordance with Section 8.04.A. The street address shall comply with Section 304.3 of the International Property Maintenance Code.

B.

Real Estate Signs Real estate signs shall be permitted in accordance with Section 8.04C.

C.

Projecting and Roof and Wall Signs Projecting, roof and wall signs shall be permitted in non-residential districts as authorized by Table 8.2. 1.

D.

Murals Murals, displaying a commercial message, may be permitted in all non-residential districts provided they adhere to the maximum wall sign area requirements listed in Table 8.2.

Ground Signs Ground signs shall be permitted in the community district, commercial districts, industrial districts, and office districts subject to the provisions of Section 8.05 and the following regulations: 1. Building Setback Ground signs shall be permitted only if the buildings are set back at least two (2) feet from the property line. 2. Number One (1) ground sign shall be permitted per street frontage on each parcel. However, only one sign shall be permitted on lots having frontage on more than one street if a single sign can be located such that it is clearly visible from both streets. In multi-tenant buildings or shopping centers, the sign area may be allocated for use by individual tenants. 3. Sign Setbacks All ground signs shall comply with the setback requirements in Table 8.4:

TABLE 8.4: GROUND SIGN SETBACKS Zoning District

Setback from Property Line

Setback from Residentially Zoned or Used Property

Community

none

25 feet

AG, RA – Permitted Nonresidential Uses

5 feet

None

NC, C, D, OS, D-O

5 feet

25 feet

CC, RC

none

None

LCMR

none

50 feet

Industrial A and Industrial B

none

None


Page 8 - 15

Article 8: Signs

Page 182

4. Pole Mounted Ground Signs Pole mounted ground signs are permitted in the Community, Regional Commercial, Community Commercial, LCMR and Industrial districts. Pole mounted ground signs are not permitted in the Center City Overlay district. All pole mounted ground signs shall comply with the following regulations: a. Pole mounted ground signs shall have a minimum under clearance height of (8) feet. b. Pole mounted ground signs shall comply with the height and area regulations in Table 8.2. c. Pole mounted ground signs shall not be located within the clear vision corner nor shall they obstruct vehicular or pedestrian sight lines. 5. Monument Ground Signs Monument ground signs are permitted in all districts. Monument Ground Signs shall comply with the following regulations: a. Monument ground signs may not be located in the clear vision triangle or otherwise obstruct lines of sight for vehicular or pedestrian traffic. b. A landscaped area including planting beds and/or shrubs shall be provided and maintained around the monument ground sign.

E.

Awnings and Canopies Signs on awnings and canopies in commercial, office-service, community and industrial districts shall be permitted, subject to the following standards:

F.

1.

Compliance with Size Requirements for Wall Signs The area of signs on awnings or canopies shall be counted in determining compliance with the standards for total area of wall signs permitted on the parcel.

2.

Projection Limitations imposed by this Ordinance concerning projection of signs from the face of a wall or building shall not apply to awning and canopy signs, provided that such signs shall comply with the permitted projections into yards for awnings and canopies in Table 3.2.

Undercanopy Signs One (1) undercanopy sign shall be permitted for each business, subject to the following conditions: 1. Vertical Clearance A minimum vertical clearance of eight (8) feet shall be provided between the bottom edge of the sign and the surface of the sidewalk. 2. Orientation Undercanopy signs shall be designed to serve pedestrians rather than vehicular traffic. 3. Size Undercanopy signs shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area.

G.

Types of Signs Allowed in Non-Residential Districts The following types of signs are allowed in the non-residential districts, provided that they comply with all provisions of this Article: 1. Add-on sign.


Page 8 - 16

Article 8: Signs

Page 183

2. Animated sign, including scrolling screens or scenes, provided the movement or change of lighting changes in intervals of six (6) seconds or more. 3. Bulletin board. 4. Changeable copy signs.

H.

Signs in the Downtown, Center City Overlay, and Circle Districts The Downtown and Circle Districts are unique centers for the City of Midland. It is important to capture and preserve the unique character of the both areas in the types of signs permitted. Accordingly, the following additional standards shall apply to signs in the Downtown, Center City Overlay and Circle districts: 1.

Location Signs shall not cover architectural details such as arches, transom windows, moldings, columns, capitals, sills cornices and similar details.

2. Materials Sign materials shall complement the original construction materials and architectural style of the building facade. Generally, wood or metal signs are considered more appropriate than plastic. 3. Illumination In the Downtown and Circle districts only, it is preferred that signs be illuminated using a direct but shielded light source, rather than internal illumination. 4. Projecting Signs Projecting signs shall be permitted provided they are oriented towards pedestrian traffic, have a minimum under clearance of eight (8) feet, and have a maximum size of twelve (12) square feet. 5. Signs Allowed in the Downtown, Center City Overlay, and Circle Districts Only The following signs are allowed in the Downtown, Center City Overlay, and Circle districts: a. Sandwich board signs with a maximum sign area of sixteen (16) square feet in the Downtown district or twelve (12) square feet in the Center City Overlay district. Sandwich board signs shall not obstruct pedestrian access and shall not be permanently affixed to the sidewalks or any structure within the public right of way. Sandwich board signs must be portable and free-standing in design. b. In the CCO district only, sandwich board signs must be constructed using high-quality materials including metal, plastic, wood, composite or hardboard (chalkboard or dry erase). c. In the CCO district only, sandwich board signs must be placed on an improved, pedestrian oriented surface and must be located within eight (8) feet of the pertaining establishment’s main entrance. Each establishment shall be allowed one (1) sandwich board sign per entrance but the total size between all sandwich board signs for each single establishment shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. d. In the CCO district only, sandwich board signs are only permitted outdoors during business hours and must be removed from the pedestrian walkway and placed inside the establishment during non-business hours.

I.

Outline Tubing (Neon) Signs Outline tubing signs, also known as neon signs, are permitted in commercial districts subject to the following conditions: 1.

Construction


Page 8 - 17

Article 8: Signs

Such signs shall be enclosed unless the applicant provides sufficient documentation that unenclosed signs satisfy requirements in the adopted Building Code.

Page 184

2.

Maximum Size Such signs shall be considered wall signs for the purposes of determining compliance with maximum size standards.

Section 8.08 – DOWNTOWN NORTHSIDE OVERLAY (DNO) DISTRICT SIGNS A.

The following signs are permitted on a per tenant on the ground floor with street frontage or per public entrance basis:

TABLE 8.5 Type of Sign

Number

Max. Size

Location

Name plate/ Plaque

1 per street frontage

8 s.f.

Any wall

Street Address


Letters up to 8” high

Any wall 6’-10‘ above sidewalk grade

Non cursive lettering

Blade/Shingle


6 s.f. 9’ clearance above sidewalk

Ground floor

May not be internally illuminated

64”h x 28”w

Sidewalk, not blocking traveled portion

Sandwich

Window


2 per tenant

Directional

Display area of 48”h x 28’w

6 s.f. of total signage

Displayed only when business is open

Ground floor or second story

Other

Example

Must be two sided Securely hinged1 No changeable copy2

May not be painted

Per section 8.04 A. 11.

Securely hinged means hinged at the top and properly stabilized with 36” of chain between faces or the equivalent and a weighting mechanism that is properly screened. 2 Changeable copy using individually placed letters is prohibited on all signs including sandwich board signs. Chalk board are permitted. 1


Page 8 - 18

Article 8: Signs

Page 185

B.

In addition to the signs permitted in item A. of this section, an awning or canopy and any one signs per building façade area is permitted according to the following schedule:


Wall, Band

Wall, Other

Number

Max. Size

1 wall band

2’ H x 20’ W and 80% of building lineal frontage

Up to 3 signs within wall band

1 wall sign

Letters up to 24” high, 3” depth

Not to exceed 5% of square footage of the building facade or 80 s.f.

1 per corner of a building located at the intersection of two public streets and 1 per 250’ of building street frontage.


Not to exceed 70 s.f. Max height = 50% of structure

Other

Example

May not be within 2’ of an adjacent common lot line or boundary of the area permitted to be used by the tenant

Above the second story

Min.8’ clearance above sidewalk

Awning/Canopy

Marquee

Location

Min. 10’ clearance above sidewalk

Quarter cylinder style is prohibited

Signs may be placed on both sides of marquee.

Page 8 - 19

Article 8: Signs

Page 186

C.

The following signs are prohibited:


Other

Example

Freestanding signs

Painted window signs

Temporary

Painted on exterior of buildings

Excludes murals

Any sign feature that has flashing, traveling, animated, or intermittent light associated with it.

Portable, wheeled or otherwise moveable advertising devices

Excluding sandwich signs

Roof

Signs or displays of any kind

Awning

Quarter cylinder style

Sandwich

Moveable letters


Page 8 - 20

Page 187

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016, 7:00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman McLaughlin 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison by the members of the Commission and the other individuals present. 3. Roll Call PRESENT:

Bain, Hanna, Koehlinger, Mayville, McLaughlin, Pnacek, Senesac, and Tanzini

ABSENT:

Heying

OTHERS PRESENT:

Brad Kaye, Assistant City Manager for Development Services; Grant Murschel, Community Development Planner; and eleven (11) others.

4. Approval of Minutes Moved by Hanna and seconded by Mayville to approve of the amended minutes of the regular meeting of May 24, 2016. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Public Hearing a. Site Plan No. 350– initiated by Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC for site plan review and approval for an 118,416 square foot retirement community, located at 5900 Waldo Avenue. Kaye gave the staff presentation. He highlighted site details and explained that the proposal is a permitted use within the recently approved RB Multiple-Family Residential zoning district. The outstanding items still needed to comply with site plan requirements were noted and explained. The site access issues were discussed, including the comments received from the City’s traffic consultant. Mayville wondered about the driveway distances. Hanna commented that she thinks this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get access correct on this corridor. She does not want single access drives that will result a situation like Eastman Avenue. Kaye commented that the proposal has worked with staff to address these issues. Bain questioned the mechanism for ensuring optimal future driveway distances are developed. Kaye commented that there is no guarantee for future access points to be optimally spaced at this point. McLaughlin commented that he agreed with Hanna. Senesac commented that other areas of the city that are developed are difficult to alleviate congestion because we are trying to retrofit a solution. Now is the time to consider the best development design in this area to avoid another mall situation. He believes a shared access agreement between the subject property and the property to the north would be helpful since there is a chance that the property to the north will not develop exactly as the property owner has indicated. John Morey, D&M Site, spoke as the consulting engineer for the project. He spoke to the details of the site as gave information on the nature of each component of the site development.

Page 188

Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Mark McNeary, general counsel for Primrose Retirement Communities, explained that his team has worked diligently to respond to the comments by staff. He corrected his statement that he made to the City Council the night before by indicating that his construction team would like to get the site developed starting this year, rather than beginning in early spring 2017. The development should not be compared to a Kroger development given the substantially less vehicle traffic that a Primrose development generates. Senesac questioned why Primrose is against the idea of the potential for shared access with the property to the north for future development. McNeary commented that he would need to know the specific conditions of such an agreement before providing an answer. Dave Rapanos, 16 Pinehaven Circle, spoke as the property owner to the north. He explained that he agrees to a single boulevard entrance farther to the north for his property. In his opinion, he thinks the shared access idea works better with commercially developed areas rather than residential. He will accept one entrance off of Waldo Avenue to the remainder of his property to the north of the subject site. There were no public comments in support or opposition of the petition. The public hearing was closed. Senesac and McLaughlin indicated that they believe the outstanding issues warrant a revised plan submitted to the City before a recommendation is rendered; therefore a waiver of the procedural requirements was not made. Koehlinger questioned the comments by the City’s traffic consultant. Kaye reviewed the timeline that leaded to the final comments and decision by the consultant. Following regular procedural requirements, the site plan will be back on the Planning Commission’s agenda during the next meeting on Tuesday, June 28, 2016. b. Zoning Petition No. 607 – initiated by Wahlack, LLC to zone the property located at 204 Commerce Drive from Residential A-2 Single-Family Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning. Murschel gave the staff presentation. He explained the subject area and its proximity to recent rezoning and approved development. He reviewed the rezoning criteria, point by point. The subject property is immediately east of a recent rezoning that contained conditions in order to be later able to permit the multiple family development, Clear Pointe Landing. Mark Wahl, of Wahlack, LLC, addressed the Commission and welcomed any questions. There were no comments in support or opposition of the petition. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Senesac to waive the procedural requirements to delay a decision on the site plan until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Hanna. The motion was approved unanimously. Pnacek indicated that he believes the zoning amendment makes sense given the development patterns in the area. It was moved by Senesac and supported by Hanna to recommend approval of Zoning Petition No. 607 initiated by Wahlack, LLC to zone the property located at 204 Commerce Drive from Residential A-2 Single-Family Residential zoning to Residential A-4 One and Two-Family Residential zoning. Page 2 of 4

Page 189

Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: c.


Zoning Text Amendment No. 158 – initiated by the City of Midland, to amend Section 8.09 of the Zoning Ordinance being the sign regulations of the Center City Authority Overlay district. Murschel gave the overview of the proposed text amendment. He indicated that the ordinance language that was included in the staff report has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. Senesac wondered if there was consideration for allowing the 30 day permits to be pulled consecutively. Murschel indicated that this was considered and due to specific sales or events that run for longer than 30 days, the committee thought it was necessary to allow for consecutive permits. There were no public comments in support or opposition of the proposal. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Pnacek to waive the procedural requirements to delay a decision on the site plan until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Hanna. The motion was approved unanimously. Pnacek commented that the proposal appears straightforward. Senesac agreed. It was moved by Pnacek and supported by Hanna to recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 158 initiated by the City of Midland, to amend Section 8.09 of the Zoning Ordinance being the sign regulations of the Center City Overlay district. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:


6. Old Business 7. Public Comments (unrelated to items on the agenda) None 8. New Business a. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Kaye gave an overview of the plan and indicated that the document is intended to feed the City budget process on a yearly basis. The CIP has a span of six (6) years. Staff intends to bring this item forward for public hearing during the July 12, 2016. Senesac commented that he would like to see additional departments added because the planning process itself is beneficial. He also explained that he thinks the $5,000 threshold is too small and that it should be increased. 9. Communications . The May 2016 edition of the Planning & Zoning News and the Michigan Planner magazines were given to the Commissioners. Page 3 of 4

Page 190

Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016

10. Report of the Chairperson McLaughlin welcomed Koehlinger to the Commission. 11. Report of the Planning Director Kaye provided updates on the approval of the Primrose rezoning request, the approval of the Northwood student housing site plan, the downtown Midland streetscape process and the nonmotorized wayfinding signage. Hanna commented that she would like to visit the gas to energy process because it is such a great asset that recycles waste and turns it into a usable resource. 12. Items for Next Agenda – June 28, 2016 a. Site Plan No. 351 – initiated by Fred Eddy Jr. on behalf of the Dow Gardens for site plan review and approval for improvements at both Dow Gardens and Whiting Forest, located at 2303 Eastman Avenue. b. Zoning Ordinance Revision – Article 9.02 I c. Site Plan No. 350– initiated by Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC for site plan review and approval for an 118,416 square foot retirement community, located at 5900 Waldo Avenue. 13. Adjourn It was motioned by Senesac and seconded by Hann to adjourn at 9:06 p.m. unanimously.

Motion passed


C. Bradley Kaye, AICP, CFM Assistant City Manager for Development Services MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Page 4 of 4

N

S

LI

E

R

IE

A

O

M

C

PRINCETON

LL

LL

E

N

CH ER RY VI EW

CO

G

IN

AW

R

IN

TE

NS

SA

AN

N

S

MAPLE

D

IS

G

E

E

AN

HI

P

WALNUT

W

IC

R

IN

EL

CHE RRY

N

O

R

TH

ARBURY

IN

IN

O

E

R

V

E

D

R

I TH

IA Industrial

LINCOL N

P

G

N

S

IA

LE

D

TT

IN

WEXFORD

BYRD

KENT WOO D

MARYLAND

AR

O LINA

CO

U

A

OHIO

C

BRADLEY

B

M

LINDY

EASTLAWN M

A

C

JEFFER SON

AN

A

C

H

M H RA-4 One and D Two Family Residential S D A O R RB Multiple-Family Residential D N E COM Community S N TE W TA C CircleTO S U N I O OS Office Service N L Y N NC Neighborhood Commercial IL IE LE LI N M A K R T H N U CCHCommunity Commercial A E R FO IG G F R R KRC Regional Commercial O N E O G R LCMR Limited Commercial, Manufacturing, Research C

CL EV EL AN D

S

R

N

A

RA-3 Single Family Residential

LEV

M M

E

E

IN

K

DA

PATRICK

LYON

BUS

10

K P AT R IC JAMES SAVAGE

IOWA

NOES KE

DG

E

IS

IL

S

A

LL

RE

District R HI N E S Center City Overlay D O H N G CURRENT ZONING U H R Z E T RA-1 A N Single Family Residential FI R O D D O R RA-2 Single Family Residential N O G

RI

YL BA

LD

W

IN

B

A

AD EL AID E

O

N

B

R

N

S

GLENDALE

AIRFIELD

M

A

N

MONT ROSE

K

H

O

A

SCOTT

CA

IC

EL

DD

WYLLYS

SWEDE

D

RO

I

WASHING TON

LF BA

R N

IS

U

A

AIRCRA FT

TZ

LS

A LE

R

LO

LL

ALLEN

RONAN

OU

R

E

H E

R O

SUNCR IST

ASHMAN

EDWIN

K

IC H

A

BAKER

C

ELGIN

H

COLLINS

N

LOVE

CAROLINA

NELSON

FEDERAL

IC

R

ELIZABETH

A

WALLEN

E

R

R

BO S TO N

D OO

O

N

HO

A

N

VAIL

CORRINNE

DAN

JONES

M

LY R

M

E

NOESKE

ST

VAIL

LING L

KOERNE R

HANNAH

VIRGINIA

Page 191

AN

DR

EW

S

VARNER

DARTMOUTH

Center City Overlay District

L ORAD O

BUS 10 BUS 10

W

ALDO