MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION,
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
JANUARY 8, 2008, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1.
Roll Call
PRESENT: Brown,
Eyre, Gaynor, Hanna, King, Kozakiewicz, Mead, and Senesac
ABSENT: Svenson
OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Baker,
Planning Director, Daryl Poprave, Deputy Planning
Director; Cheri King, Community Development Specialist; and 6 others
2.
Approval
of Minutes
Moved by Senesac, seconded by
Brown, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 11, 2007. Motion
passed unanimously.
3. Public Hearing
a. Site
Plan No. 272 from Bartow & King Engineers, Inc., a request for site
plan review and approval for a 2,926 square foot beauty salon at 605 East
Wackerly Street.
Mr. Baker showed a map of the 300’ surrounding area
that was notified of the hearing. Staff
wanted to assure the Planning Commission that this is currently all one parcel
and is still going through the land division process. He wanted to make sure the Planning
Commission was aware that everyone was notified within the 300’ radius. A location map shows it is north of Wackerly,
Nathan Court, Elliott Drive, the current Curves facility, across US-10 is the
Midland Soccer Complex. The entire
parcel is a single existing parcel on which currently the fitness center is
being built. Next to the fitness center is
where the hair salon will be located.
This entire area has been identified for commercial use by the Master
Plan. There is low and medium density
residential to the south. The area is
zoned RC along the north side of Wackerly.
There is RA-1 residential under development and Community zoning to the
north as the soccer complex.
The site plan includes the 2926 sq. ft. building and
includes an above ground storm water detention area. It includes 30 parking stalls and a
landscaped drive approach. The staff
report shows the use is a permitted use within the RC district. The site is relatively flat and abuts a
federal highway (US-10). A landscaping
plan has been provided. Landscaping is
required along the frontage along Wackerly Street. Landscaping is also required relative to the
number of parking stalls proposed for the development. Landscaping meets the requirements of Article
VI of the zoning ordinance. The natural
vegetation that did exist on this site and the adjoining site has been removed
so this is currently a vacant parcel.
There is adjoining commercial development on the west side. Emergency vehicle access has been reviewed by
the Fire Department with a single driveway on Wackerly, with the ability to
circulate the property and get out of the site.
Public sidewalk is proposed.
There are no changes proposed to East Wackerly but one curb cut has been
proposed. They have provided a soil
erosion and sedimentation plan and it is acceptable to the city. The exterior lighting plan has been submitted
and is acceptable to the city. Screening
is not required along the north, east or west property lines. A berm is being provided along the property
frontage to screen the property from the residential development to the
south. Staff has no concerns relative to
health and safety regarding this project.
The property owner has identified a proposed location for a sign on this
property. This will be reviewed by the
city’s Building Department. Parking lot
striping has been included on the site plan to show the box style
striping. Staff recommends approval of
the site plan as presented.
Gayle Hanna asked Mr. Baker about the possibility of
sharing a curb cut with the adjacent property.
Mr. Baker stated each property has to be provided access to their property, however, it was recommended that they try to
negotiate a combined access with the adjacent property. This issue will be discussed at the spring
training session of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mead is in agreement with Ms. Hanna.
Mr. King asked about pedestrian access between the neighboring
developments. Is there a practical way
to walk between buildings along this stretch of road? Mr. Baker stated this would be a question for
the petitioner.
Mr. Eyre asked about the location of the dumpster on
the site. Is there any requirement
regarding where a dumpster has to be placed on the property? Mr. Baker stated there is not, but the dumpster
must be screened. Mr. Senesac stated he
had the same concern.
Gary Barto, of Bartow and King Engineers, stated he
can address the receptacle issue. The
commercial refuse collection firms will be there prior to 8:00 a.m. so it will
not interfere with the times the businesses are open. Discussion was held regarding making a shared
access between this parking lot and the parking lot of the fitness center. This could be done by agreement between the
two property owners. That would
alleviate people having to go out of one driveway and into the next on East
Wackerly Street.
No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to
the proposed changes.
The public hearing was closed.
4. Public Comments (not related to agenda items)
None
5. New Business
None
6. Old
Business
a.
Conditional
Use Permit No. 27, the request of Bartow and King Engineers, Inc. for
a drive through window for a restaurant at a fitness park at 601 East Wackerly
Street on 1.6 acres in the RC District (amendments to approved Site Plan No.
265 – tabled from December 11, 2007 meeting).
Motion to remove this item from the table by Hanna,
seconded by Senesac.
Motion passed 8-0.
Mr.
Poprave showed an aerial photo of the site at 601 E. Wackerly. It is next to another fitness center south of
US-10, located in the RC regional commercial district. To the south is RB Residential, and to the
north is Community zoning containing the soccer fields. All the requirements as previously stated on
this site plan have not changed. The
parking design has not changed. There
was just a minor change in order to get the parking back up to the required
amount. Two spaces have been added.
Mr.
Bartow, the petitioner, has no comments.
Mr.
Senesac stated he is in support and it seems to meet all the requirements. Mr. Mead stated he is satisfied with the site
plan and it works fine for him. Ms.
Hanna stated she appreciates the time spent to make this a feasible plan. Mr. Eyre and Ms. Brown agree.
It was moved
by Eyre and seconded by Brown to recommend City Council approval on Conditional
Use Permit No. 27.
YEA: Brown,
Eyre, Gaynor, Hanna, King, Kozakiewicz, Mead and Senesac
NAY: None
ABSENT: Svenson
The
motion was approved 8-0.
b.
2007 Zoning Ordinance No. 1585 – Revisions to several sections of the zoning
ordinance.
It
was moved by Hanna and seconded by Brown to recommend City Council approval of
the revisions to several sections of the zoning ordinance.
YEA: Brown,
Eyre, Gaynor, Hanna, King, Kozakiewicz, Mead and Senesac
NAY: None
ABSENT: Svenson
The
motion was approved 8-0.
7.
Communications
None
8. Report of the Chairperson
None
9. Report of the
Planning Director
December 17th
ACTION ITEMS
1. Conditional
Use Permit No. 26, the request of the
January 7th
ACTION ITEMS
1. Zoning Petition No. 545, initiated by
the MidMichigan Medical Center,
for property located at 3200 West Sugnet Road from RA-1 Residential
to Community. Approved.
January 22nd
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. None
ACTION ITEMS
1.
Site Plan No. 272 from Bartow &
King Engineers, Inc.,
a request for site plan review and approval for a 2,926 square foot beauty
salon at
December 18, 2007
Meeting
a. No. 07-15 – Alex Rapanos for an area/dimension variance to exceed the
maximum allowable square footage for a wall sign at
None
The public can view the recently adopted 2007 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.
It is that time of year again. Time to discuss scheduling and selecting a date for the 2008
Planning Commission training workshop.
Williams Township (Saginaw County) is proposing an amendment to their
future land use plan that is consistent with the City of Midland’s recently
adopted Master Plan.
10. Adjourn
Adjournment at 8:09 p.m. was unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,

Keith Baker, AICP
Planning Director
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION