MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,

WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,

OCTOBER 23, 2007, 7:00 P.M.,

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN

 

1.   Roll Call

PRESENT:  Brown, Eyre, Gaynor, Hanna, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Senesac and Svenson

ABSENT:    King

OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Baker, Director of Planning & Community Development, Daryl Poprave, Deputy Planning Director; Debbie Marquardt, Technical Secretary and 35 others.

 

2.    Approval of Minutes

Moved by Kozakiewicz, seconded by Hanna, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 9, 2007.  

 

3.   Public Hearing

 

      a.   Zoning Petition No. 546, initiated by Agree Realty Corporation to rezone property at 4710 Eastman Avenue from Office Service to Regional Commercial zoning classification. 

 

Mr. Poprave introduced the petition and showed the location as being east of Eastman Avenue and south of Saginaw Road.  The existing land use map shows this as commercial. This is currently zoned office service and adjacent to regional commercial on the north.  This is an L shaped area that is zoned office service.  They are not proposing to combine that portion of the property. 

 

This is a conditional rezoning request.  They have listed uses that they would like removed from the allowed uses in the regional commercial zoning. 

 

Mr. Poprave summarized the site history.  Zoning Petition No. 506 was to rezone this parcel from OS2 to BB1.  At the time of the Walgreen’s development Planning Commission recommended denial of the petition and so did the City Council. 

 

There is a five-foot concrete wall and there is no agreement that the wall stays up.  The Planning Commission could make it a condition that the wall or buffer stay intact.

 

 Mr. Senesac asked about requiring a deed restriction and this means if the fence came down the zoning would be removed.  When he goes through the table, they ended up with neighborhood commercial, plus pet shops and fast food restaurants.   On Master Plan Goal #8 he is not sure it meets that goal. 

 

Ms. Hanna looked at the documents with Bill Knapp’s and there were several feet of green space.  Was that to be continued on with this petition?

 

Ms. Gaynor asked about the 35 foot buffer, is it on the north side or south side of the wall.

 

Mr. Poprave stated that he believes it is on both sides of the fence. 

 

Mr. Senesac asked what the status is of that agreement.

 

Mr. Eyre asked about the setbacks on the south, are they different between regional commercial and office service.

 

Mr. Poprave stated that he is getting more into the site plan than zoning request. 

 

Mr. Senesac stated that he sees neighbors and wondered if any communications were received.

 

Rob Cohen, Agree Realty, Farmington Hills, Michigan.  They are working in conjunction with a proposed restaurant operator who has expressed some interest in the property.  They have marketed this property for medical offices with limited interest.  Their intention is to exclude uses that are not compatible with the surrounding residents.  They met with residents to hear their concerns.  They are committed to working with all appropriate parties.  There is a five-foot brick wall on the edge of the property.  They are committed to leaving it in place and potentially adding additional landscaping.  The drive through circulation can be further evaluated through the site plan process.

 

Ms. Brown asked what the resident’s top concerns were. 

 

Mr. Cohen stated that they were the use and the drive through.  They are working with their engineers on alternatives to see how they can place the drive through by buffering and placement of landscaping.  They would like low level or no lighting on the south portion of the property.  Through the site plan approval process they will address them.

 

Ms. Hanna stated there is concern about noise level and loitering on such a site.  Landscaping would probably not be a sufficient buffer.

 

Mr. Cohen doesn’t feel it will be a place for loitering.  A variety of ages will be there.  The drive through is critical to this operation.  This is a national operation.

 

Mike Fales, 7 Burrell Court, they have lived there for 16 years.  His property is the second parcel in.  They directly abut this parcel.  They adamantly oppose this rezoning.  People are using this term buffer pertaining to the wall.  The history states why this was zoned office service.  That is the buffer between commercial and residential not the wall.  Years ago with Bill Knapp’s, that parking space on the south side was the office zoning and that was the reason for it.  A drive through window restaurant and the ingress goes between the wall and the building and go around the building.  The conditional land use states compatibility with surrounding uses.  You cannot contemplate a wall as a buffer.  They have been trying to sell or lease this property for years.  He also invested in his property.  They will erase his and his neighbor’s investments.  There are not many little kids on the court.  There will be cars with loud mufflers and speakers.  There will be loitering and littering.  They had a meeting with Agree Realty and the perspective purchaser and he was looking for a high impact area.  The traffic to the restaurant will be extremely dangerous and it is attracting the younger driving customers.  This is the wrong thing to try to rezone this office parcel and it is wrong for everybody.  It is wrong for the citizens.  The buffer is the office zoning not the wall.  He is 5’ 9” and he is taller then the wall.

 

Sally Stebleton, 6 Burrell Court, Mike Fales stated just about everything she wanted to say.  There is a place that sells ice cream on the corner of Saginaw Road and Dartmouth Drive.  She cannot see this business so close to their residents.  Please consider what Michael has said.

 

 Dale Fales, 11 Burrell Court, the third parcel that abuts the property in question.  They built the house 23 years ago.  At that time it was quiet and close to amenities.  Now when Bill Knapp’s was there they deeded the 25 feet to the property owners and pledged to keep that woods as a sound buffer between that property and theirs.  So it has long been recognized that this is a potential problem.  The trees have matured so the leafy portions are above the wall so that is no longer much of a buffer.  Age has taken its toll on all of us.  Two years ago they struggled with an agreement and came to a compromise for that area and he thought it was reasonable.  If they kept it BB2, it would solve most of the problems.  To rescind that agreement and rezone it to be close to a residential area is beyond his imagination.  Then the traffic problems arrive.  Traffic will come in one way and zip out the other just to miss the stop light.  The whole thing comes down to a point.  This seems so impossible to him.  He is for a business proposition but he doesn’t want to take a hit for Agree Limited Partnership.

 

Chris Lauckner, 3 Burrell Court, he is totally opposed to this project.  Living in the corner home and having that property and having it maintained he deals with bottles and trash he still has to pick up.  If there is garbage now, there certainly is going to be more if they have a fast food facility.  The idea of a drive through to the south side, buffered by the now famous brick wall is not an adequate buffer for this project.  The traffic would absolutely increase.  The cut through would also increase.  The environmental impact and health concerns should be taken into account.  One of the things they dealt with were the birds, sea gulls and garbage.  There was clean up after the birds and that could be a health hazard.  Is there adequate drainage and a sewer system?  The noise issue would be heard from his patio.  The intercom system would also be loud and be heard.  Cars could be stopping and the fumes and exhaust from the cars would be going into their back yard is another issue.  Take his comments into consideration and conclude that this is not the best use for this particular property.

 

Hugo Schaefer, 26 Burrell Court, he has lived there 55 years.  He opposes the proposed zoning amendment at 4710 Eastman Avenue and they are the same as the ones he was against for Zoning Petition No. 506.  He listed 10 reasons why he is against the petition.  The property was originally zoned residential and it is now office service.  The buffer was zoning.  He hopes the Planning Commission will stand up as in the past and make this an enjoyable place to live.

 

Leo Stebleton, 6 Burrell Court, he has been there 51 years.  So far they have been successful in not changing the zoning.  He wants to go on record as being in opposition.

 

Robert Zimmerman, 4613 Eastman Avenue.  He lives across the street from this site.  Every day he picks up cups, napkins, and wrappings.  The other element is the kind of accidents on the corner.  People coming around the corner accelerate so that if anybody is stopping they are apt to be hit.  He feels the traffic would be an over burden.

 

Rob Cohen believes the use is compatible and they are not trying to hide anything.  There is total commitment to work with the city and residents.  The hours of operation are seasonal.  There is an assumption that this is for the younger crowd but this is for all ages.  The chain operator is local and is committed to the community.  Traffic accident data has not dramatically increased as a result of the Walgreen’s development.  Noise will not travel into the residential area.  The ordering board will be on the northeast side and not on the residential side.  They are not suggesting that the wall is there to control the noise and light but it is a plus.  There will not be any light poles on the south side and any light will be shielded.  They reduced the number of curb cuts from five to two.  He will continue to work with the residents and discuss ways to make this a first class development and the site plan standards are met and adhered to.

 

Public hearing closed by Chairperson Svenson.

 

      b.   Conditional Use Permit No. 26, the request of the County of Midland for a proposed county jail at 101 Rockwell Drive on 30 acres.

 

            Mr. Baker gave an overview of this petition for a 250 bed county jail.  Fast Ice Drive serves both the ice area and will serve this parcel.  The zoning is Community.  The majority of the property near this location is vacant. 

 

            There are significant setbacks in regards to a correctional facility.  There are two points of ingress and egress.  One is on Fast Ice Drive and the second would be off Rockwell Drive.  Sidewalks are recommended on Fast Ice Drive.  They are not requiring sidewalks on Rockwell Drive.  The facility will have a maintenance building and it will be fenced.   There are two parking lots, one on the north side and one on the east side. 

 

            A photometric plan has been submitted.  Screening is proposed for the dumpster location and along Rockwell they will have a berm.  The berm will be adjusted and be outside the utility easement.  The building could accommodate up to 400 beds in the future. 

 

            The paving of Rockwell Drive will be completed by both the city and county. 

 

            Mr. Gaynor asked about sidewalk and why put it on Fast Ice Drive and not on Rockwell Drive.  To get to Fast Ice Drive you have to walk down Rockwell Drive.

 

            The county will pave Rockwell Drive using county standards with deep ditches. 

 

            Mr. Gaynor doesn’t see fencing and it is a one story jail with lots of windows.

 

            The outdoor recreation area is enclosed inside the building.  There will be no fencing.  The inmates will never be outside.

 

            Ms. Brown asked about the potential of other counties leasing space.

 

            Ms. Hanna asked if the mobile home park is within the city limits.  She asked how you can pave the road to county standards and not city standards. 

 

            There are different levels of city street standards.

 

            Ms. Hanna stated that only 300 feet away is a trailer park.  Why couldn’t they move it further back on the property?

 

            Mr. Mead asked about the detention area and if it is shallow enough to not require fencing.

 

            Dave Benda, 5201 Nakoma Drive, Administrative Controller for Midland County.  The new jails don’t require fences.  They would lease space.  If there are troublesome inmates, they can ship them back.  The farther away from Rockwell Drive the farther they have to drive and pave.  The may want the property to expand and use it for something else.  They didn’t want to sit in the middle of the property.  The process has been going on for about 20 years.  In 1989 they started studying and discussing a new jail.  In 2001 they actually decided to build a jail.  They tried several times to use a site.  This building will be in the community for at least 50 years or more.  They want it to look nice for the neighbors but also stay within budget.

 

            Rich Fosgitt, Wilcox Professional Services, the project team is Midland County and Sheriff Jerry Nielsen.  They hired a construction manager from Lansing.  The existing jail has 98 beds and 41 inmates residing in other counties.  They propose a 250 bed facility with the ability to expand up to 400 beds.  They moved the berms outside the sewer easement.  The sally port is the main entrance to the facility.  The maintenance building is outside so the workers don’t have to go inside.  They are required to provide an outside safe haven to evacuate if necessary.  They have the lighting go all the way around the outside of the facility with security cameras.  The storm water detention pond will always have water and will be a nice landscape feature.

 

            Mr. Fosgitt showed the ground level floor plan.  All of the cells are interior to the building.  There is video visitation area.  The kitchen area is to the back of the building.  There will be no roof top mechanical equipment; it will be in the mechanical court yard.  There are two levels in the general population area.

 

            Ms. Hanna asked if there were any wetlands on the site.  Why couldn’t they put the jail on the west side to further protect the housing area?

 

            Mr. Fosgitt stated that two of the main considerations is utilities and budget.

 

            Mr. Kozakiewicz asked about hours of operation.

 

            Mr. Fosgitt stated that the facility will be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year.  They can take access from Fast Ice Drive or Rockwell Drive. 

 

            Mr. Senesac asked about safety for the neighbors. 

 

            Mr. Fosgitt stated that if someone is sentenced for more than 12 months it is a prison, and under 12 months would be considered a jail.  Inmates in this facility would be less dangerous, the crimes would be minor in nature.  This will be built to current standards and the latest thinking to jail design.  That is why HOK is involved and is state of the art.

 

            Mr. Senesac asked about the history for escapes from other types of state of the art facilities.

 

            Mr. Benda stated that there are very little escapes.  There are some design flaws in others.  They have gone out and looked at other facilities.  Once they get into the secure perimeter they cannot leave the facility.  The windows allow light to come into the facility but inmates cannot get to them.

 

            Mr. Senesac asked about prisoners being transported to the courthouse and back.

 

            Mr. Benda stated that they are put in a sally port and then in a van.  You don’t hear of any escapes from a transport van. 

 

            The only reason they will have to be transported out is for court. 

 

            There will only be two trips a day back and forth from the jail to the court house. 

 

            Mr. Senesac asked about visitation to inmates and what has the experience of visitors been.

 

            Tracy Thomas, 3220 Fuller Drive, in his 16 years he has never heard of an incident by visitation.  A lot of them are local residents. 

 

            Ms. Hanna asked if there would be an alarm system if there was a problem for the neighboring people to be aware.

 

            Mr. Benda stated that nothing is planned right now for an alarm system.  They don’t expect anybody to get out.

 

            Senesac moved to extend the meeting and seconded by Gaynor, all approved.

 

            Stephen Graham, 3567 Oakbrook Drive. He has a few questions:  Is this classified as a correction facility?  What are the setbacks from the dwellings?  Are Rockwell Drive and Fast Ice Drive considered major thoroughfares?  Why was it tucked right by the edge of the roads and not moved back?

 

            Elaine Rapanos, 1400 Avalon Street.  They gave them the land for the facility.  She feels the front façade can be improved and the city is famous for their architecture.  She showed pictures of the Bay City jail and it looks nice.  The juvenile center also looks nice when you drive by.  She is on the Entranceways Initiative Task Force committee and they discuss building facades and they put together certain criteria of things the city would like to see and the jail doesn’t fulfill any of them.

 

            Rich Fosgitt stated that this is considered a correction facility by the definition of the zoning ordinance.  The setback is 300 feet from the building to the residential dwellings.  Fast Ice Drive has not been classified yet since it is a new road and Rockwell Drive is classified as a local street.  They wanted to have immediate access to Rockwell Drive and it would cost more to move further back on the property. 

 

            They had a residents meeting and they are still working on what the façade is going to look like.  They sent communications to the architect to break that up with different color and size of brick.  They have asked for alternatives.

 

            Steven Graham stated Article 9 addresses the setbacks and thoroughfares. 

 

            Mr. Baker went over the definition of thoroughfares.  They will show the setback of the actual correction facility at the next meeting.

 

            Public hearing closed by chairperson Svenson

     

4.   Public Comments (not related to agenda items)

 

      None

                                                                     

5.   New Business

 

      None

 

6.   Old Business

 

a.    Site Plan No. 268 from Latitude Engineering & Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Suburban Inns, a request for site plan review and approval for a 100,000 square foot hotel at 810 Cinema Drive.

 

Kozakiewicz moved to remove the petition from the table and it was seconded by Hanna.  All approved.

 

Mr. Poprave explained where they are with the site plan.  They are located east of the Kohl’s development and west of the movie theater.  This is an amended site drawing since the last meeting.  They relocated the loading area so it does not intersect with the parking lot.  This drawing shows a number of signs and they will have to have them removed or seek a variance.  He then went over the contingency items.

 

Mr. Eyre asked about the dumpster location and if there are any standards.

 

Mr. Gaynor asked why this site plan was tabled. 

 

Travis Underhill, with Travis Underhill, the Beukemas could not make it tonight since they won some awards and are in Dallas, Texas.  Daryl did discuss the outstanding issues they had.  The only other issue would be the sign.  They will be applying for a variance after site plan approval.  The reason for tabling this item was they received the soil sample and since it was a five story building they took some time to work it out.  They will be providing that information to the city as a matter of record and the city is getting ready for road improvements in that area. 

 

Ms. Hanna asked about what might be done around the detention pond and do they now have the property.

 

Mr. Underhill stated that they have an agreement to purchase the property once the site plan is approved.  The detention pond has not changed.  They will be making some changes and digging some out and replacing it with a wall as well as upsizing the pipes within the site. 

 

The requirement is a six-foot chain and that leaves ample landscaping space.

 

 Mr. Senesac asked if they should have a contingency for the purchase of the property.

 

Mr. Poprave said that they didn’t have a contingency on the Spring Hill Suites and most site plans petitioners don’t purchase the property until after the site plan is approved.  They might want to have a contingency regarding the easement.  This is a commercial condominium development and the master deed defines the unit.

 

Mr. Gaynor is impressed with the site plan and doesn’t have any issues.

 

Ms. Brown stated that all issues have been addressed.

 

Mr. Mead stated that everything makes sense.  Everything has been explained.  Ms. Svenson agrees.

 

 

 

It was moved by Senesac and seconded by Hanna to recommend City Council approval of Site Plan No. 268 based upon the following contingencies:

 

      1.   All parking spaces shall be delineated by the “box” style striping pattern per Section 5.01(D)3 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      2.   All exterior lighting shall adhere to Section 3.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      3.   Stormwater detention plans shall be approved by the Engineering Department.

      4.   Site landscaping shall adhere to Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      5.   The easternmost driveway on Cinema Drive shall be constructed in cooperation with the adjoining parcel to accommodate future shared access.

      6.   The dumpster enclosures and the electric transformer shall be screened in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance provisions.

      7.   The second ground mounted sign shall be removed from the Cinema Drive side.

 

YEA:    Brown, Eyre, Gaynor, Hanna, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Senesac and Svenson

NAY:   None

ABSENT:   King

 

The motion was approved 8-0.

 

      b.   Site Plan No. 270 from Dow Howell Gilmore Associates, Inc. on

behalf of King’s Daughters and Sons of Midland, Inc., a request for site plan review and approval for a 16,917 square foot addition at 2410 Rodd Street. 

 

Mr. Baker gave a brief overview and showed the location of the property.  There is a public parking lot adjoining the facility.  The zoning is Residential B.  The revised plan shows the changes in both the dumpster location and the ingress and egress off Nelson Street. 

 

Julie Roberts, 4300 W Sugnet Road, the plan shows the alternate dumpster location.  They would ask to not have to relocate the dumpster and provide a screening. 

 

Mr. Baker stated that they should approve the plan with the alternate dumpster location and it is outside their approval. 

           

            Mr. Eyre thinks this is a good addition.  He was sorry about bringing

            up the dumpster location.  He is all for this.  It is needed.

 

            Ms. Hanna agrees.

 

Ms. Brown thinks it is a good plan and asked about the number of parking stalls and they are right at the 20%.

 

            Mr. Mead is good with the plan.

 

It was moved by Mead and seconded by Eyre to recommend City Council approval of Site Plan No. 270 based upon the following contingencies:

 

      1.   The stormwater detention system is designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Midland Engineering Department specifications.

      2.   All landscaping shall comply with Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      3.   All exterior lighting shall comply with Section 3.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      4.   All exterior signage shall comply with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      5.   All parking spaces shall comply with Section 5.01(d) of the Zoning Ordinance and be delineated by the “box” striping.

      6.   Reverse parking stalls and one-way vehicular traffic in Nelson Street parking lot.

7.    Screen existing dumpsters and they should be set as in SP 2.0 alternate site on their property and screen generator on the south side of the building.

 

YEA:    Brown, Eyre, Gaynor, Hanna, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Senesac and Svenson

NAY:   None

ABSENT:   King

 

The motion was approved 8-0.

 

      c.   Site Plan No. 269 from Ron and Mike Lapham, a request for site plan review and approval for a 3,600 square foot garden center at 1314 West Wheeler Street.

 

      Mr. Baker gave an overview and stated the property is located on Wheeler Street.  The property is currently vacant and wooded.  The two items considered was the screening of the toters and the location of the drive approach. 

 

      Mr. Eyre asked about temporary structures in the zoning ordinance.

 

      They can operate out of a temporary structure as long as they meet the building code and fire code. 

 

      They don’t allow temporary uses only temporary structures.

 

      Mr. Mead asked about right in and right out with the traffic flow.

 

      Rich Fosgitt, Wilcox Professional Services, showed a colored drawing showing traffic flow.  They are adding a driveway on a thoroughfare so that is what is triggering this review.  Legally they have to ask City Council to use the Wheeler Street access.

 

      Mr. Mead asked about the screening of the totes and bathrooms.

 

      Mr. Senesac asked for comments on the drive onto Wheeler Street.  One of the things they are giving a lot of emphasis to is access control.  They might look back and say it should not have access to Wheeler Street.  Or you could say it is a temporary structure and it could be changed. 

 

      Mr. Kozakiewicz stated that there aren’t many accesses to Wheeler Street. 

 

      Mr. Gaynor stated that the property is almost 400 feet in length.  Limiting access is not any access and with one curb cut in 400 feet that is not outrageous to him. 

 

      Ms. Hanna stated that they have worked on an agreement with a preexisting business so that is commendable.

 

      Ms. Svenson stated that this is a traffic pattern for a few months out of the year and people will have to keep getting used to it all over again.

 

      Mr. Mead stated that this is a confusing situation and a lot of action there.  That this just doesn’t feel right.

 

      Mr. Eyre stated that the conditional zoning was unique and now this use is unique. 

 

      Mr. Baker said that further down the road they could fully develop the property with a site plan review.  The potential does exist.

 

It was moved by Hanna and seconded by Gaynor to recommend City Council approval of Site Plan No. 269 based upon the following contingencies:

 

1.   The storm water detention system is designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Midland Engineering Department specifications.

2.   All landscaping shall comply with Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance.

3.   All exterior lighting shall comply with Section 3.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.

4.   All exterior signage shall comply with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.

5.   All parking spaces shall comply with Section 5.01(d) of the Zoning Ordinance and be delineated by the “box” style striping.

6.   The proposed Wheeler Road driveway is subject to City Council approval.

7.    Screening is required along the north property line and east property line.

 

YEA:                Eyre, Gaynor, Hanna, and Kozakiewicz

NAY:              Brown, Mead, Senesac and Svenson

ABSENT:        King

 

The motion was denied 4 to 4.

     

d.    Conditional Use Permit No. 25, the request of Rowe Incorporated on behalf of Thomas Spencer for a 3,494 square foot automobile filling station with a drive up window at 6801 Jefferson Avenue on 1.8 acres.

 

Mr. Poprave gave a review and showed the location, which is on the corner of Joe Mann Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue.  This property is zoned Regional Commercial.  The use is permitted.  The restaurant with the drive up window is the conditional use.  The site is vacant.  Adequate parking has been provided.  Two ground signs are permitted.  

 

Stacie Tewari, Rowe Incorporated, they did an analysis of the site and there were 200 trips generated in the peak hour of time.  The dumpster is on the south side for ease of access. 

 

Ms. Hanna asked what happens in the event of a spill.

 

Thom Spencer, Spencer Oil, Roseville Michigan, there are basins under the pavement and if the gas goes over it leads right back into the tank.  If a hose breaks, they have absorbent pads to help contain it.  If it is really bad, they call the fire department. 

 

If the hose breaks, there is a stopper to keep it from coming out.  If it goes on the ground, they go out and clean it up as quickly as possible.  The vapors are what causes the problem and could ignite. 

 

The diesel fuel does not evaporate like gasoline does and they are trained on how to handle the situation.

 

Ms. Mead asked that less than 1/3 of an acre will be effected by the wetlands.  Will they have ethanol? 

 

Mr. Spencer would like to reserve the right for 24 hours of operation to see if there was a need for it.  Canopy lights will be turned out when the store is closed.  He does not sell alcohol at any of the locations.

 

Stephen Graham, 3567 Oakbrook Drive, he has concerns regarding the assessment.  With respect to the traffic study he would like to know when it was taken.  Was it taken during the time of soccer games?  What about the two banks that are being built.  There will be traffic into the convenience store and there isn’t protection for pedestrian traffic.

 

Ms. Tewari stated that there are currently no pedestrian cross walks now.  She isn’t sure if there were soccer games during the day they did traffic counts.

 

            Service station is a permitted use by right.  They will also be required 

            to install sidewalk.

 

Mr. Senesac thinks they have met all the standards and doesn’t have issues.

 

            Ms. Brown feels they have addressed all issues. 

 

            Mr. Gaynor thinks it is good plan.  Mr. Mead agrees.

 

            Mr. Eyre agrees even though they just gave two curb cuts he agrees.          

 

It was moved by Gaynor and seconded by Hanna to recommend City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 25 based upon the following contingencies:

 

      1.   All off-street parking spaces are delineated by “box” style striping per Section 5.03(D)3 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      2.   All exterior lighting shall comply with Section 3.12 and the canopy lighting adheres to Section 3.12(A)7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      3.   Five foot wide sidewalks are constructed adjacent to Jefferson Avenue and Joe Mann Boulevard.

      4.   All signage adheres to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.

      5.   All of the requirements of Section 9.02 C and G of the Zoning Ordinance are adhered to.

      6.   All landscaping adheres to Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance and clear vision is maintained adjacent to all driveways.

 

      YEAS:             Brown, Eyre, Gaynor, Hanna, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Senesac and Svenson

            NAYS:

            ABSENT:        King

     

            The motion was approved 8-0.

 

7.  Communications

 

     Received the Planning & Zoning News.

 

8.  Report of the Chairperson  

 

     Three of the members went to the Michigan Planning Conference.  Gayle  

     and Diane took the Citizens Planner course at the Planning Conference.

 

    

9.  Report of the Planning Director

 

     Ray Senesac stated that he would be interested in having the fire

     department speak on what they look at when reviewing a site plan.

 

 

            CITY COUNCIL

                                                                                                               

October 22nd

                        PUBLIC HEARNIGS

 

1.          Midland Greater Community Center - George Street Vacation (Approved)

 

2.            2007 City of Midland Master Plan and Future Land Use Map (Adopted)

 

            ACTION ITEMS        

 

                        1.   Site Plan No. 264 from MidMichigan Medical Center-

                              Midland, a            request for site plan review and approval for a

                              67,000 square foot proposed addition to the Harlow Drive

                              Building at 4005 Orchard Drive. (Approved)

 

2.   Site Plan No. 267 from Mark Robinson & Associates, on behalf of Midland Investments, a request for site plan review and approval for a 10,000 square foot expansion at 3600 Centennial Drive.  (Approved)

 

3.    Site Plan No. 271 from Greater Midland Community Center, a request for site plan review and approval for a new parking lot, recreation fields, walking paths, playground and a 16,500 square foot curling club at 2001 George Street. (Approved)

           

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

November 13th  

            PUBLIC HEARINGS 

 

1.   Zoning Petition No. 545, initiated by the MidMichigan

      Medical Center for property located at 4005 Orchard

      Drive from Residential A1 to Community.

 

            ACTION ITEMS        

 

1.    Zoning Petition No. 546, initiated by Agree Realty Corporation to rezone property at 4710 Eastman Avenue from Office Service zoning to Regional Commercial zoning.

 

2.    Conditional Use Permit No. 26, the request of the County of Midland for a proposed county jail at 101 Rockwell Drive on 30 acres.  This property is located in a Community zoning district.

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

 

October 16, 2007 Meeting - Canceled

 

PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEWS

 

None  

 

DIRECTOR’S NOTES

 

November 13, 2007 is next the regular Planning Commission meeting. 

 

The public can view the newly adopted Master Plan Update by accessing the City’s website at www.midland-mi.org and going to the Master Plan Update link on the homepage.

 

Planning staff would like the Planning Commission to consider setting a public hearing to consider the proposed zoning text amendments that have been previously identified and discussed. 

 

Planning Commission packets are now available on-line at the City of Midland’s web site.  Meeting agenda items are highlighted and residents can “click” on the link to view all of the supporting documentation.  The city’s web site address is www.midland-mi.org.

 

10.  Adjourn

Adjournment at 11:45 p.m. was unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Keith Baker, AICP

Director of Planning and Community Development

 

MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION