MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION,
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY, JULY
25, 2000, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. Roll Call.
PRESENT: Commission members – Garner,
Geisler, Lind, Rapanos, Slicker, Wieland, Young
ABSENT: Baker (excused)
OTHERS
PRESENT: James Schroeder, Secretary; Mark Ostgarden, City Planner;
Cheri Standfest, Administrative Assistant, and 7 others
2. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of
July 11, 2000.
It was moved by Senesac, seconded by Geisler, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of July 25, 2000.
Motion carried.
3. Public hearing:
Zoning Petition No. 468 – initiated by the Planning
Commission to rezone property on the east side of Kuipers Drive from
Residential D to Residential B (see transcript).
4. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
5. Old Business.
The Chairman introduced the subject and noted that
it was related to item 6.a. under New Business, pertaining to possible special
uses in the Office-Service 2 zoning classification. It was suggested that the Commission may want
to wait until that time to discuss this zoning petition.
It was moved by Slicker, seconded by Geisler, to
remove Zoning Petition No. 462 from the table.
Motion carried.
Mr. Thomas Shearer, Attorney for Midland Ford,
presented a letter to the Commission, outlining the reasons why the property
should be rezoned to Business B-2. A
copy of the letter is on file. Mr. Tom
McCann spoke in favor of the rezoning.
Commission discussion generally indicated support
for the petition, noting that all other property in the area has bee developed,
and this action would not be detrimental to the surrounding property. Some Commissioners expressed support for the
ability of Midland Ford to utilize this property, but expressed concern about
opening the property up to all business uses, should the Ford dealership move
at some time in the future.
It was moved by Lind, seconded by Slicker, to
recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Petition No. 462.
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
July 25, 2000
Vote on the motion:
YEAS: Garner,
Geisler, Lind, Rapanos, Slicker, Young
NAYS:
Senesac, Wieland
ABSENT: Baker
The Planning Director noted that this would very
likely be on the City Council agenda for public hearing on September 11.
The Planning Director reviewed the location and
surrounding property, and also the proposed changes in the larger area and this
project’s relationship to those changes.
Mr. Tom McCann spoke concerning this issue. Commission discussion included comments about
the possible use of the land, should at some time in the future, the City
decide that it was no longer needed for a parking area. Commissioner Slicker raised the issue of
using the Special Use process for this land, as it had been proposed for the previous
Petition No. 462. Commissioner Geisler
noted that the project could be considered on its merit at this time, with the
Special Use process being a separate action.
It was moved by Geisler, seconded by Young, to
recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Petition No. 463.
Vote on the motion:
YEAS: Garner,
Geisler, Senesac, Wieland, Young
NAYS: Lind,
Rapanos, Slicker
ABSENT: Baker
After a brief explanation of the proposal by the
Planning Director, Mr. Tom McCann spoke in favor of the action. It was noted that he had sent a letter to the
Commission in support of this matter.
There were several letters in opposition to the request.
It was moved by Senesac, seconded by Garner, to
recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Petition No. 464.
Vote on the motion:
YEAS: Garner, Geisler, Lind, Rapanos,
Senesac, Slicker, Wieland, Young
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Baker
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July
25, 2000
Page
3
The Planning Director reviewed the history behind
the rezoning action, noting that this is a recent annexation to the City.
It was moved by Geisler, seconded by Young, to
recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Petition No. 465.
Vote on the motion:
YEAS: Garner, Geisler, Lind, Rapanos,
Senesac, Slicker, Wieland, Young
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Baker
The Planning Director reviewed the request,
providing some additional details about the zoning of the various parcels in
the immediate area. The different zoning
classifications came about at the time the zoning was being applied after
annexation and in response to a desire from some property owners to have their
properties remain residential until such time in the future that a business use
would be feasible.
Mr. Troy Marr, owner of the property, explained his
intended use, noting a need to construct a new garage and make renovations to
the house. Mr. Harold Riggie stated
objections to the change, noting that the area is general commercial, and that
for property development of commercial, consolidation of property would be
necessary. Changing the zoning to
Residential would make the assemblage of property more difficult.
Commission discussion raised questions about the impact
of the change in future development possibilities. It was noted that if the original owner had
requested Residential zoning at the time after annexation, it would have been
put into a Residential classification.
It was recognized that the area is not ready for commercial development,
and at the time in the future this occurs, another zoning action could take
place.
Based on questions raised for the owner approaching
the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, the Planning Director reviewed the
process and the criteria for obtaining what would be a use variance.
It was moved by Slicker, seconded by Young, to
recommend to Council approval of Zoning Petition No. 466.
Vote on the motion:
YEAS: Garner, Geisler, Lind, Senesac, Slicker,
Young
NAYS: Rapanos, Wieland
ABSENT: Baker
July 25, 2000
Page 4
6. New Business.
a.
Proposed Zoning Text Amendments.
The Planning Director reviewed proposed zoning text amendments, the first for expanding the allowable special uses in the Office-Service District, and the other expanding language pertaining to the operation of social services in Residential Districts. The former had come about as a result of a requested rezoning at the southeast corner of Eastlawn Drive and Washington Street. The latter was the result of a letter from the 1016 Treatment Centers, requesting action which would give them additional options in searching for property. The Commission agreed to hold a public hearing on these zoning text amendments, said public hearing to occur on August 16.
b. Consideration of Zoning Petition No.
468.
Chairman Wieland noted that Zoning Petition No. 468 was initiated by the Planning Commission as a result of other actions in the same area, and asked whether the commission wanted to consider this at the meeting. It was moved by Senesac, seconded by Geisler, to consider Zoning Petition No. 468. Motion carried.
It was moved by Senesac, seconded by Slicker, to recommend to Council approval of Zoning Petition No. 468.
Vote on the motion:
YEAS: Garner, Geisler, Lind, Rapanos,
Senesac, Slicker, Wieland, Young
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Baker
It
was moved by Geisler, seconded by Senesac, to adjourn. Motion carried, and the meeting was adjourned
at 9:22 p.m.
Respectfully,
James H. Schroeder
Secretary
JHS:cjr