1.   Roll Call

PRESENT:  Baker, Geisler, Kozakiewicz, Liberto, Senesac, Slicker

ABSENT:     Garner, Svenson, Wieland (all previously arranged)

OTHERS PRESENT:  Jon Lynch, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mark Ostgarden, City Planner; Cheri Standfest, Administrative Assistant, and 15 others

2.   Approval of the minutes of the meeting of August 14, 2001

It was moved by Senesac, seconded by Liberto, to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 14, 2001.  The minutes were approved as presented.


3.   Public hearing

Site Plan No. 208– the request of MAC Enterprises for site plan review and approval of an addition to an existing storage facility, with the construction of five new buildings, each of 5,600 square feet, on 1.88 acres on the north side of West Wackerly Street west of Dublin Avenue [see transcript].


4.   Public Comments

Mr. Dick McCreadie of 2700 Washington encouraged the Planning Commission to undertake a study of future transportation needs.


5.  Old Business

  1. Consideration of Preliminary plat of Midland Commerce Park – a commercial/ industrial subdivision of 40 lots on 55.39 acres between Bay City Road and Fisher Road west of the US-10 Expressway.  The owner and developer is Nicolaos Rapanos. 

Jon Lynch provided an overview of the request as well as the public hearing conducted on August 14th.  He highlighted screening along the west property line and a request to provide for continuation of a street to the east as issues requiring additional discussion.  Mr. Lynch pointed out that screening along the west property line would be required as properties are developed.  Zoning provisions would require construction of a six foot tall screening consisting ofr a berm, landscaping, or fencing.

Mr. Jerry Schafer, speaking on behalf of the petitioner, noted that one of the concerns pertaining to the site is water pressure and volume.  He has discussed the matter with the City’s Engineering and Utilities Departments.  A request for construction of a 12-inch water main from Centennial Drive to Fisher Road will be made during the City’s annual capital projects request.

Mr. Tom Webb, 412 Cronkright Street, explained that his family owns property east of the subject site.  He reminded the Planning Commission that provisions for a street being continued to the east are included in the subdivision regulations and that such a street is required. Finally, he noted that the 1988 preliminary plat for this area included a connection to the east.

Mr. Alex Irigoyen, 3717 Woodlawn, also speaking on behalf of the petitioner, discussed the fact that Section 23-50 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that street arrangements SHOULD provide for access to adjoining unplatted areas.  Absence of the phrase “shall provide” leads to the conclusion that there may be circumstances when continuation of streets may not be desirable.  He touched on a similar scenario in Saginaw whereby they were required to build a stub street.  As the surrounding area was developed, the stub street was not utilized. Now the stub street is a maintenance problem on an unproductive parcel.

Mr. Irigoyen also shared several illustrations of the adjacent property that demonstrated how access to interior lots could be accomplished without a connecting street.  He also explained that conditions of the subject parcel have changed since 1988, as the petitioner has donated land for construction of the freeway interchange.

Mr. Webb again commented to the Planning Commission that absence of a connecting street would impede traffic flow and emergency access.  His property has been undeveloped since 1988 because they needed to see what was happening on the adjacent parcel.  Mr. Webb stated that his family would be in a position to share in the cost of constructing a connecting street.

Commissioner Slicker stated that this project represents a good opportunity to improve Fisher Road and Rockwell Drive.  He supports extending a street to the east.  Screening will be provided along the west property line as lots are developed.

Commissioner Senesac also stated that the road extension to the east is a good idea and should be provided.

Commissioner Kozakiewicz felt that extending a street to the east is not necessary, as the property could be reasonably developed without it, and the petitioner would derive little benefit from it.

Commissioner Liberto indicated that the street extension should not be mandated.  Perhaps the property owners of these parcels would negotiate desired access.

It was moved by Senesac and seconded by Slicker to recommend tentative approval of the preliminary plat, conditioned upon approval of the Bay City Road connection location and provision for extending a street to the unplatted property east of this site.

Vote on the motion:

YEAS:  Baker, Geisler, Kozakiewicz, Senesac, Slicker

NAYS:  Liberto

ABSENT:  Garner, Svenson, Wieland

Mr. Lynch stated that this recommendation would likely appear before the City Council on September 10th.


b.   Telecommunications Facilities Regulations Update.

Mark Ostgarden, City Planner, provided the Planning Commission with an overview of a working draft of zoning language regarding telecommunications facilities. The presentation touched on the purpose of the language, goals of the text, and mechanics of implementation.  It was noted that a radio frequency engineer would be contracted to determine how the tower height-to-dispersion variable should be addressed.

Several items were discussed by the Commission and will require additional review including:  requirements in the Community zone, tower height for co-location, form of security bonds, and permitted alterations to existing towers.

6.  New Business

Final Plan Review of Planned Unit Development No. 13, The Village at Joseph’s Run – a residential development of 128 units on approximately 13 acres on the south side of Joseph Drive east of Jefferson Avenue.

Mr. Lynch explained to the Commission that preliminary approval of the PUD for The Village at Joseph’s Run had been granted in February of 2001. At this time, the Planning Commission’s role is to ensure that the final plan is substantially identical to the previously approved preliminary plan.  Mr. Lynch then utilized an overlay map that illustrated similarities of the two plans.

Mr. Mike Lerner of the Royal Castle Companies indicated that the preliminary and final plans are essentially identical.  They would like to begin construction in late September.  Mr. Lerner provided a review of the site and introduced a rendering of a typical building elevation.

Commissioners discussed the detention pond, recreation center, and pedestrian areas.  Ultimately the Planning Commission concluded that the preliminary and final plans are essentially identical.

It was moved by Baker and seconded by Slicker to recommend approval of the final PUD plan for the Village at Joseph’s Run.

Vote on the motion:

YEAS:  Baker, Geisler, Kozakiewicz, Liberto, Senesac, Slicker

NAYS:  None

ABSENT:  Garner, Svenson, Wieland

7.  Communications


8.  Report of the Chairman

No Report

9.   Report of the Planning Director


Mr. Lynch informed the Commission that the City Council had approved Site Plan No. 207.  He also noted that on September 10th the Council would likely receive Planning Commission recommendations on Planned Unit Development No. 13 and the Midland Commerce Park preliminary plat.


On September 4th the driveway standards committee will meet at 3:00 PM.

On September 5th the Ordinance Update RFP evaluation committee will meet at 3:00 PM.


The Michigan Society of Planning annual conference is scheduled to take place from October 24th to October 27th.  Commissioners interested in attending need to contact the Planning Department so that arrangements can be made.


Finally, Mr. Lynch distributed brochures from Michigan State University Extension regarding Citizen Planner training programs.


10.  Adjourn.

Adjournment at approximately 9:22 p.m. was moved by Senesac, seconded by Liberto, and unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,


Jon Lynch, AICP

Planning Commission Secretary