MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2005, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
1. Roll Call
PRESENT: Baker,
Kanuch, Kozakiewicz, Mead,
Plotzke, Svenson and Wieland
ABSENT: Eyre and Senesac
OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Lynch, Assistant City Manager;
Daryl Poprave, City Planner; Cheri Standfest, Community Development Specialist;
and 8 others.
2. Approval
of Minutes
Regular Meeting of
It was moved by Wieland and supported by Plotzke to approve the minutes
of April 12th. The minutes were unanimously approved.
3. Public
Hearings
None
4. Public
Comments (not related to agenda items)
None
5. Old Business
A. Zoning Petition No. 519 –Consideration of a petition
initiated by the City of Midland Planning Commission to zone property at 31
Cheryl Drive, owned by Donovan & Carrie Ellis from Township zoning to
Residential A-1.
The site is a ½ acre of property off of Isabella. It is located just east of Cheryl Drive, just
inside the city limits. It is a single
family medium density zoning district.
The public hearing was to zone this property RA-1. An e-mail was received from the owner in
support of the RA-1 zoning for this property.
The parcel immediately to the north has recently received the Regional
Commercial zoning classification.
Commissioner Wieland thinks this is pretty straight
forward. This has been discussed several
times. He thinks there was general
consensus prior to the public hearing to zone this property Residential
A-1. Commissioner Kanuch is also in
favor of this zoning.
It was moved by Wieland and seconded by Mead to recommend
zoning for this property as Residential A-1.
The vote proceeded as follows:
YEA: Baker,
Kanuch, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Plotzke, Svenson and Wieland
NAY: None
ABSENT: Eyre and
Senesac
Motion passes unanimously.
B. Zoning Petition
No. 521 – Consideration
of a petition initiated by Todd Bennett to zone property on West Wackerly
Street located north and east of Northgate Drive and owned by Bennett
Construction from Office Service zoning to Community Commercial.
At the public
hearing, they received significant public input regarding this zoning
petition. Input covered a wide range of
issues, including the location of the retention basin. The subject property is located next to
Community Commercial zoning. A portion
of this property already falls within the Community Commercial zoning district
as this property is divided by zoning districts. The future land use map indicates the entire
corner area should be Office Service.
However, the corner is all zoned Community Commercial.
Rich Fosgitt –
Bartow & King Engineers – stated that Bennett Construction would agree to
leave the triangular area as Office Service zoning, occupied by the storm water
detention pond. Mr. Fosgitt read another
letter in support of the rezoning from another small business owner on
Wackerly, Heidi Allis.
Sheila Messler,
representing Bennett Construction, spoke in favor of the rezoning. It is an ongoing construction site, so they
are maintaining the bags to keep the storm water on site. Ms. Messler referred to Zoning Petition #513,
from Mr. Weckesser, also on W. Wackerly.
She stated there are several similarities to this project and this is
the side of town businesses want to grow on.
She states this is a good spot for commercial and it is a good location
for small businesses to locate.
Jeff Dulude spoke in
opposition to the rezoning. His office
is at the south end of the detention pond.
He feels if this area is rezoned, anything allowed in commercial zoning
could go in there. He prefers not to
smell gas or food when he opens his windows while he works. He built his office here as it was built in
Office Service and that is what he would like it to stay.
Mead – asked what
the proposed grade of the new building is?
As it is now, it sort of slopes off toward the Office Service
properties.
Rich Fosgitt stated
that the land does slope toward the Office Service buildings. If they build a building in between, they
would step it down so it is at a lower grade.
Mead – asked if
there was going to be water in the detention pond continually through the
summer?
Fosgitt stated that
those ponds are no different than the ponds around the mall or by Kohl’s. The pond by Kohl’s has about a foot of water
in it all the time. Once it is all
developed, you will get vegetation that will thrive in that type of
environment.
Mead – Thinks the
offices look very nice behind this area.
The commercial development backs up to the offices and looks very nice,
also. He would support the
rezoning. He would like the pond area to
remain zoned Office Service, however.
Baker – The rezoning
of the pond is irrelevant.
Wieland – This came
before us several years ago. At that
time, I did not support it. There are
some buildings there now that were not there then. Development has proceeded on the corner, of a
commercial nature. This has been a
positive addition to the city. This is a
much more limited request than it was several years ago. He will support the rezoning request, with
the understanding that the retention pond not be a part of it.
Kanuch – He would
also support. The owner has done a
tremendous job on that corner already.
He doesn’t think this one lot will make a big difference.
Plotzke – Thinks the
Community Commercial would not severely impact this area, except for the
triangular area. This is not in
conformance with the Master Plan. He would
not support the rezoning.
Kozakiewicz agrees
with Plotzke. This is not in conformance
with the Master Plan and he will not support the rezoning.
It was moved by Mead
and seconded by Wieland to recommend Community Commercial zoning for the
northerly square piece of property, but not the triangular shaped portion.
The vote proceeded
as follows:
YEA: Kanuch, Wieland, Baker and Mead
NAY: Plotzke, Kozakiewicz and Svenson
ABSENT: Eyre and Senesac
Motions passes 4-3.
C. Conditional Use No. 15 – Consideration for a conditional use
permit for a commercial parking lot at 425 Waldo Avenue on behalf of the Judith
Ann Rapanos, Inter-Vivos Trust, submitted by Richard Fosgitt of Bartow &
King Engineers.
The subject parcel falls within the Residential A-4 zoning
classification. They have an L-shaped
parcel at the corner of Waldo and Bay City Road. It is generally surrounded by the Residential
A-4 zoning classification.
The subject area currently accommodates a restaurant. The second parcel is used for the catering
service. The curb cuts are on Waldo
Avenue and Bay City Road, for the support of the business parcel. Entry to the parking lot would be from Waldo
Avenue. Landscaping is noted as being
provided with a berm and some landscaping along the perimeter of the
parcel. During the public hearing, the
Planning Commission received testimony in opposition to the use of this parcel
for a parking lot, due to noise and odors.
Tonight the Planning Commission received two letters of support,
including one from Stasik’s Market and customers of the restaurant. A letter in opposition was received from the
7-11 across the street. We did receive
some photographs from the petitioner, intended to demonstrate the need for
parking. Looking south, you can see the
building that accommodates the catering business. There are vehicles parked in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance, on an unimproved surface.
The petition before
the Planning Commission tonight is a conditional use permit, which has
different criteria for review than the usual rezoning petitions.
Rich Fosgitt, Bartow
& King Engineers – stated there will be a “No Parking” sign posted so no
one can block the entrance to this driveway.
There is a curb cut and a driveway along the Waldo Avenue side of this
property. If this petition is approved,
this driveway will be closed and landscaping will be placed along the street
side. They are also proposing a fence
along the southern portion of the proposed parking lot to screen the house next
door. The house is only setback 3 feet,
so it is also a legal non-conforming structure on the lot.
Bill Wall – Owner of Bone Daddy’s Barbecue stated that he
and his wife opened this business and they never expected the business to take
off the way it has. They have put a lot
of time and money into this building.
They have a good thing going and they need the additional parking. With the civic center going in that part of
town, it is nice to have a good restaurant in the area.
Fay Wood, 3501 Bay City Road stated that there is going to
be a parking lot just three feet from someone’s bedroom window. Couldn’t the parking lot be shortened up a
little bit? People buy their homes with
a certain understanding.
Mike Misze of 419 Waldo Avenue stated that a six foot fence
will not help him at all. Instead of
having a nice view out his window, he will be looking over the top of a 6’
fence. It will not help with the noise
or headlights. He has lived there since
1985.
Jon Lynch stated that the total number of parking spaces
will be about 42 spaces. You are talking
about 81 trips per day under the number of trips generated.
Plotzke does not think the issue is the popularity of the
restaurant or the popularity of the food.
He will vote against the conditional use permit to protect the
residential uses in the area. This is
also a school zone and he is concerned about the safety.
Svenson – Agrees.
Mead does not think we owe the restaurant the extra parking,
however, he thinks it fits within the requirements of the conditional use
permit language. He will support.
Kanuch is in opposition to it. It is a close call. You have the land, the building, the business
owner, you have the residents who have been living there for quite a while, and
you have the city and the Master Plan.
When he weighed all the issues, the land owner came in and is trying to
push this development on the local residents.
Wieland stated this is the fourth time this has come up
since he has been on the Commission.
This is one of the more difficult issues we have looked at. He did support rezoning this property on
several past occasions. However, that
was before the existing business was even there. His rationale was that it was across from
commercial property (Stasik’s Market).
The conditions for approval in this case, are certainly not more
stringent. He has heard the arguments
for and against. He will vote to
recommend approval of the conditional use for the parking lot.
Baker thinks the business moved in there knowing there were
problems with parking in this area. He
will vote for approval with some reservation.
It was moved by Mead and seconded by Wieland to recommend
approval for the conditional use permit with the following contingencies:
1. The
front yard setback is increased from 15’ to 25”, or the parcel is combined with
the adjoining parcel to the north.
2. Parking space 33
is eliminated if recommended by the fire department.
3. Six foot tall
fence is recommended for screening.
4.
A concrete curb of wheel chocks are provided along parking spaces 34-43.
The vote proceeded as follows:
YEA: Baker,
Kozakiewicz, Mead and Wieland
NAY: Kanuch,
Plotzke and Svenson
ABSENT: Eyre and
Senesac
Motion passes 4-3.
D. Code of Ordinances Amendment –
Consideration of
amendments to Section 25-10 of the City of Midland Code of Ordinances to permit
storage of trailer coaches with wheels and / or tires removed.
John Muste stated that Section 25-10 talks about trailer
coaches. You need to look at the
definition of trailer coaches in the ordinance.
Section 25 also requires a permit to use and occupy a trailer coach on
someone’s property. He feels that the
removal of Section 25-10 would be the most appropriate.
Kozakiewicz – On the merit of the safety concerns, he is
opposed to changing the ordinance.
Wieland agrees with Kozakiewicz. He did check around a little bit. He asked some folks that own RV’s, realizing
this was a controversial issue when the zoning ordinance was written. He feels it should remain as it is.
Baker – Agrees with Wieland and Kozakiewicz.
Svenson – Agrees for the same reasons, especially the safety
issue. This is a big concern.
Plotzke – Agrees with the other comments.
It was moved by Kozakiewicz and seconded by Svenson to
revise the Code of Ordinances to repeal the ordinance to permit storage and
trailer coaches without wheels.
The vote proceeded as follows:
YEA: None
NAY: Baker,
Kanuch, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Plotzke, Svenson and Wieland
ABSENT: Eyre and
Senesac
The motion was denied.
6. New Business
A.
Vacation of Public Property – Consideration of a
petition from The Dow Chemical Company,
Michigan Operations to vacate East Ellsworth Street from Haley Street to
Third Street; to vacate Lyon Street from East Ellsworth Street to Buttles
Street; and to vacate Patrick Street from East Ellsworth Street to Buttles
Street.
The aerial photograph shows Buttles Street, East Ellsworth
Street, Patrick Street and Lyon Street. The
Dow Chemical Company owns the property on either side of the streets in all of
these directions. The subject area
petitioned for vacation falls into two classifications, the Regional Commercial
along the northerly portion, and the Industrial A zoning classification on the
southerly portion. The Master Plan shows
the entire area within the Industrial land use category. The petitioner states the continuance of the
public streets are unnecessary, given the alternate access to this area. The City Council will hold a public hearing
on this issue.
Patrick Street from East Ellsworth Street to Buttles Street
was vacated in 1997.
Engineering, Fire, Public Services and Utilities Depts. do
not object to vacation.
Utility easements should be maintained. Upon vacation, the ownership of the street
area would revert to Dow Chemical Company as they own the property on both
sides.
There is no public hearing required for the Planning
Commission. The ordinance that deals
with street vacations assigns this to the City Council.
Kanuch would be in favor of it.
It was moved by Svenson and seconded by Kanuch to recommend
vacation of these street vacations as requested by Dow Chemical Company.
The vote proceeded as follows:
YEA: Baker,
Kanuch, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Plotzke, Svenson and Wieland
NAY: None
ABSENT: Eyre and
Senesac
Motion passes unanimously.
B. Receive Draft Subdivision
Ordinance – Receive a report from the Subdivision Ordinance Review
Committee and schedule a public hearing for May 10, 2005.
The proposed ordinance will be available on the website and hard copies
will be available if necessary. A copy
will be available at the Library and at the Planning Department. A notice of the public hearing will be sent
to the Homebuilders’ Association and a notice will be published in the
newspaper.
7. Communications
Members received their copies of the
Planning & Zoning News.
8.
Report of the Chairman
None
9.
Report of the Planning Director
May 9th
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
§ Zoning Petition No. 514 – 3705 Letts Road to Residential D
§ Zoning Petition No. 515 – 3721 Letts Street to Residential D
§ Zoning Petition No. 516 – 6201 W. Wackerly Street to Residential A-1
§ Zoning Petition No. 517 – 4412 Waldo Avenue to Residential A-4
§ Zoning Petition No. 518 – 4705 Isabella Street to Regional Commercial
§ Zoning Petition No. 520 – 6305 W. Wackerly Street Residential A-1
ACTION
ITEMS
§ Set Public Hearing; Zoning Petition No. 519 – 31 Cheryl Drive to Residential A-1
§ Set Public Hearing; Zoning Petition No. 521 – W. Wackerly at Northgate Dr. to Community Commercial
§ Set Public Hearing; Conditional Use Permit No. 15 – 425 Waldo Avenue for parking lot
§
Set Public Hearing; Vacation of Public Property
– East Ellsworth street from Haley Street to third Street and Lyon Street from
East Ellsworth Street to
§ Receive Planning Commission Recommendation - Tires on stored recreational vehicles
May 23rd
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
§
Conditional Use Permit
ACTION
ITEMS
May
10th
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
§ Conditional Use Permit No. 16 – 305 E. Reardon St; Cingular Wireless
§ Conditional Use Permit No. 17 – 1305 E. Sugnet Rd; Cingular Wireless
§ Proposed Subdivision Control Ordinance
ACTION
ITEMS
May 24th
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
ACTION
ITEMS
§ Conditional Use Permit No. 16 – 305 E. Reardon St; Cingular Wireless
§ Conditional Use Permit No. 17 – 1305 E. Sugnet Rd; Cingular Wireless
§ Proposed Subdivision Control Ordinance
May 17th
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
None
10. Adjourn
Adjournment at approximately 8:50 PM and unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Lynch, AICP
Assistant City
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION