MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION,
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 26, 2008, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1.
Roll Call
PRESENT: Brown,
Eyre, Hanna, King, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Senesac and Svenson
ABSENT: Gaynor
OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Baker,
Planning Director; Daryl Poprave, Deputy Planning Director; Cheri King,
Community Development Specialist; and 14 others
2.
Approval
of Minutes
Moved by Senesac, seconded by
Brown, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 12, 2008. Ms. Svenson mentioned in her Chairperson’s Report that she attended a
class to keep her Citizen Planner certification current. This should be added to the minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Public Hearing
None
4. Public Comments (not related to agenda items)
None
5. New Business
None
6.
Old
Business
a. Site Plan No. 273
from Rowe Incorporated on behalf of Midland Community Center, a request for site plan review and approval for a
14,940 square foot Curling Center at 2009 Jefferson Avenue.
Mr. Poprave gave an overview of the
site plan. The subject property is west
of Jefferson, south of the Eastlawn/Nelson intersection. The property is zoned Community, which
permits this use by right. The land use
map identifies this property as private recreation. The existing land use map shows a public land
use with a little bit of residential on the outskirts. The residential will be demolished to make
room for the proposed expansion. This
will be on 13.85 acres on Jefferson Avenue.
The Community Center received approval for its new parking lot and site
configuration last October. They
received pre-approval for the parking that will be required for this
building. Landscaping was also
previously approved. Because this
building takes up less room than was previously anticipated, storm water
retention will be less intensive than originally planned. There are 389 proposed parking spaces for
this site. Adequate utilities exist to
service this site. Lighting shall not be
cast off site. The public hearing was
held two weeks ago.
Chris Tointon, Executive Director of
the Greater Midland Community Center, showed a color rendering of the proposed
plan of the entire site. The curling
club on Gerald Court has been around for quite some time. There are only four curling clubs in the
entire state of Michigan. They are
excited to bring it to the center of the city where it will have a larger focus
and more people can participate in this sport.
Ms. Hanna asked if ammonia was going to be used in their cooling
system. The architect stated there would
be no ammonia used in this cooling system, it is a
glycol based system.
Mr. Mead stated he is a former
curler. It is a great sport and he is
excited that it is coming more to the center of the city. This will make it much more accessible to
children who want to learn the sport.
Mr. Senesac stated he thinks this is a good site plan and he is in
support of it. He is also a former
curler. He is glad they will be moving
from the former building. Mr. Eyre
stated he is also in favor of this site plan.
It was moved by Hanna and seconded
by Brown to recommend City Council approval of Site Plan No. 273 with the
following contingencies:
1. All
of the contingencies for Site Plan No. 271 shall remain in effect and in force.
2. All
exterior building lighting shall adhere to Section 3.12.
3. The
east elevation of the curling club building (facing Jefferson Avenue) shall be
constructed as presented on the attached elevation drawings, with the brick
face, as it will be visible from the adjacent residential properties.
YEA: Brown,
Eyre, Hanna, King, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Senesac and Svenson
NAY: None
ABSENT: Gaynor
The motion was approved 8-0. This will be on City Council’s agenda on
March 10th.
b. Zoning
Petition No. 546, initiated by Alexander Irigoyen on behalf of Rapanos
Enterprises for property located at 4228 Bay City Road from Regional
Commercial zoning to Community Commercial zoning.
Mr. Poprave showed an aerial
photograph of the site, south of Bay City Road and west of Fast Ice Drive. Rapanos Enterprises has petitioned for a
rezoning of 3.40 acres of property on Bay City Road from Regional Commercial to
Community Commercial. It is located next
to Agricultural zoning on both sides.
Across the street is high density residential. The existing land use map shows this property
is vacant and there is a lot of other vacant property in the surrounding
area. The petition is consistent with
the city’s master plan. It is consistent
with goals 2 and 5 of the master plan.
This change in use will bring a more limited number of uses for
development of this property, which would be more in keeping with the
surrounding developed properties.
Alexander Irigoyen, Woodlawn,
represented the petitioner and offered to answer any questions from the
Planning Commission. There were no
questions. No one spoke either in favor
of or in opposition to this petition.
Mr. Eyre stated this is a good fit
with the master plan and he is in favor of this rezoning. Mr. Senesac is in support. Mr. Mead also agrees.
It was moved by Eyre and seconded by
Hanna to recommend City Council approval on Zoning Petition No. 546.
YEA: Brown,
Eyre, Hanna, King, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Senesac and Svenson
NAY: None
ABSENT: Gaynor
The motion was approved 8-0.
c. Zoning
Petition No. 547, initiated by Bennett Construction to rezone property at 221 West Wackerly Street from
Office Service zoning to Community Commercial zoning.
Mr. Baker showed an aerial photograph of the
area. The property is on the south side
of W. Wackerly, west of the corner of Jefferson and W. Wackerly Street, just
south of US-10. The property is
currently vacant. There is Office Service
to the west, commercial to the east, vacant property to the south and has both commercial
and office service uses to the north.
Current zoning to the east is zoned Community Commercial, Office Service
to the south, Regional Commercial to the north and the subject property is
currently zoned Office Service. The
rezoning request is for a conditional rezoning, being that it is a request to
rezone to Community Commercial, minus the items the petitioner has crossed out
on the table of permitted uses submitted with the petition. This parcel has been before the Planning
Commission at least three times for rezoning, all of which have been turned
down by City Council. This proposed
zoning is not consistent with the city’s master plan. Conditions have not changed in this area that
would justify a rezoning of the property.
The amendment will grant special privileges to this property owner,
however, the state enabling act provides for this in the law, as a conditional
rezoning. The amendment will not set an
inappropriate precedent. The proposed
zoning is consistent with the surrounding land development. There is an agreement with the property to
the west to have shared parking between the two sites. MCVI is the office to the west.
Rich Fosgitt, Wilcox Professional
Services, spoke on behalf of Bennett Construction. All the property surrounding the property
proposed for rezoning is also owned by Bennett Construction. Mr. Fosgitt stated he made the list of items
that would be removed from being built on Community Commercial and took those
items from uses that were deemed to be objectionable in prior zoning request
public hearings.
Mr. Kozakiewicz stated he is in
support of the petition. In remembering
discussions about previous rezoning petitions, he feels they have eliminated
the uses that would be objectionable.
The uses they have left in would be compatible with the uses on the
surrounding properties. Mr. Senesac
stated he feels the uses that have been eliminated would not be viable for this
site anyway. He does not see much that
has been removed that would limit the use of this property. He will vote against the rezoning
petition. Mr. Eyre stated there have
been many people who spoke in the past about proposed uses for this property if
it were rezoned. This time, no one has
come forth and spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. He has no problem with this rezoning
petition, as they have removed the objectionable uses. Mr. Mead stated the triangular area to the
south was included in the previous rezoning petitions and he was against the
use of that property as a detention pond and it has been eliminated from this
petition. He will support this
request. Ms. Brown stated she supported
this the last time and she will support it again. There was much discussion by the neighbors at
the last public hearing regarding this property and this time, there have been
none. Ms. Svenson sees this as a good
transition between the Office Service and the Community Commercial zoning
districts that are already there. Mr.
King stated he has been sitting on the fence.
The future of this property is not consistent with the master plan so he
will vote against it.
It was moved by Mead and seconded by
Kozakiewicz to recommend City Council approval on Zoning Petition No. 547.
YEA: Brown, Eyre, Kozakiewicz, Mead, and Svenson
NAY: Hanna,
King and Senesac
ABSENT: Gaynor
The motion was approved 5-3.
d. Zoning
Petition No. 548, initiated by Wilcox Professional Services on behalf of Thomas
and Lorna Fryer and David and Kathleen Jackson for property located at 102,
104, 110 and 114 West Buttles Street from Office Service zoning to Downtown
zoning.
Mr. Poprave showed the property
north of Ashman, east of E. Buttles, directly across from the County Services
Building parking lot. The future land
use shows this land use as compatible with the Downtown zoning
classification. The zoning map
identifies this property as Office Service.
It is surrounded on all sides by Office Service, except there is
Downtown zoning to the south. In the
surrounding area, there are offices and residences that are used for
offices. The present site is developed
as two buildings that are used for office service purposes. The petition is consistent with the city’s
master plan, specifically goals #6 and #10 of the transportation plan. We also have goals talking about improving
the circle and downtown areas. This is
the US-10 business route and is also a goal to support this area in the master
plan. Zoning to the south is already
Downtown. This rezoning will increase
the size of the Downtown district.
Although this rezoning may increase the size of the Downtown zoning
district, it will not increase the size of the Downtown Development Authority
taxing area. This rezoning is compatible
with the non-residential office service uses.
Those uses are permitted in the downtown. It will expand the restaurant abilities of
the downtown. Council will set a public
hearing on March 10th and it will be held on April 14th. One letter was received from a neighbor who
is in opposition to this rezoning. That
e-mail is in the packet.
Rich Fosgitt, Wilcox Professional
Services, has no comments. There were no
questions for him from the Planning Commission.
No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this request.
Mrs. Hanna stated she opposes this
petition because Office Service is a transitional area and this makes a nice
transition from the residential areas to the Downtown district. She does not see that the property would be
sufficient for a commercial building and their parking. This area is residential yet and many of
these homes are still single family residences.
They are mostly one or one and a half story. This is affordable housing and we have a
commitment in this city for affordable housing.
When we start taking affordable housing away and allowing commercial
uses to come in, we do a disservice to the community to eliminate the
affordable housing in this area.
Mr. Mead stated he is in direct
opposition to Mrs. Hanna. This has been
designated a downtown area and he feels the downtown should be allowed to
expand and this is a move in the right direction. Mr. Kozakiewicz agrees with Mr. Mead. There has been expansion in the downtown and
he feels this trend will continue. This
will be a first step in the growth of the downtown area. Mr. King stated he is in support of this
request. This is something the community
needs and will benefit the community as a whole. Ms. Svenson stated she has a concern about
building heights. Will there be any
height restrictions if commercial buildings were built in this area. Mr. Baker stated that would be taken into
consideration in a site plan review.
This is a rezoning petition. Mr.
Poprave stated they would have to maintain a 25 foot setback if they were to
build a commercial building in this location.
It was moved by Mead and seconded by
Eyre to recommend City Council approval on Zoning Petition No. 548, in
accordance with Section 30.03(d).
YEA: Brown,
Eyre, King, Kozakiewicz, Mead, Senesac and Svenson
NAY: Hanna
ABSENT: Gaynor
The motion was approved 7-1.
e. Zoning Text Amendment No. 146A, initiated by
Wilcox Professional Services, to consider the maximum height of the principal structure change from 28
feet to none in the Downtown zoning district in the City of Midland Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Baker stated we are looking at a
zoning text amendment that would change the maximum height of buildings in the
Downtown zoning district to unlimited height.
He showed a zoning map of the Downtown zoning district and the
surrounding areas. The previous edition
of the zoning ordinance identified the building height limit as none so we
would be going back to the language in the previous zoning ordinance. Mr. Baker stated staff did some research to
see what building heights are in the community.
The new Dow Diamond is 54 feet to the peak of the roof. Campus Ridge is 38 feet. The Doan Historical Center is 27 feet to the
peak in the roof. The new “H” hotel is
89 feet to the peak. The Sloan Building
at Northwood University is just over 41 feet.
Riverside Place is 47 feet on the street side. Greenhill Apartments is in excess of 95
feet. This is the tallest building in
the City of Midland. The Courthouse,
downtown is in excess of 45 feet.
Correspondence from the Fire Department states they are able to fight
fires in buildings up to 95 feet with their current equipment. A staff memorandum does recommend the
proposal to increase the height to 76 feet.
A typical scenario would be a 15-foot first floor and 12-foot subsequent
floors. A second scenario would be a
15-foot first floor and 10-foot subsequent floors. Mr. Baker stated staff feels the master plan
does support this request. Staff did
take this request and the previous request (Zoning Petition #548) to the
Downtown Development Authority and they were in support of both requests,
including the unlimited footage on buildings in the downtown. The Fire Department is here tonight to answer
any questions the Planning Commission may have.
Fire Chief, Lee Garcia and Chris
Coughlin, Fire Marshall, discussed their equipment. They have a 95 foot aerial truck at the Haley
Street Fire Station. They can agree with
the 12-foot per floor. They use 12-feet
per floor as a rule. They can reach the
top of a 7-story building with the angle used to fight the fire. This is assuming a truck distance of 30 feet
from the building. If the building is
taller than what can be reached with the aerial truck, they are relying totally
on the safety features that are built into the building, such as sprinkling
systems, safety corridors and building plan.
Rich Fosgitt, Wilcox Professional
Services, stated there are about five buildings downtown that do not comply
with the 28 foot height, including the Gerstacker Commerce Building, Riverside
Place, and the County Services Building.
Mr. Senesac stated he feels the
staff did a good job coming back with a recommendation. Mr. Mead agreed. The 76 feet is probably not etched in stone
and may be changed someday, however, it would make a lot of sense in today’s
environment. Ms. Brown agreed, as did
Mr. Eyre and Mr. King. Ms. Svenson
stated she has no problem with height in some areas, but if it backs up to
residential, her concern is that there be greater
setbacks required if the property is next to residential.
It was moved by Mead and seconded by Brown to
recommend City Council approval on Zoning Text Amendment No. 146A to increase
the allowable height in the Downtown zoning district from 28 feet to 76 feet.
YEA: Brown,
Eyre, Hanna, King, Kozakiewicz, Mead, and Senesac
NAY: Svenson
ABSENT: Gaynor
The motion was approved 7-1.
7.
Communications
The Commission received the approved changes to the zoning ordinance, a
copy of the Planning and Zoning News and a notebook containing the site plan
for the proposed power plant.
8. Report of the Chairperson
None
9. Report of the
Planning Director
February 25th
ACTION ITEMS
1. Revisions to
Ordinance 1585 of the Midland Zoning Ordinance.
(Approved)
March 11th
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
Site Plan No. 274
from Wilcox Professional Services, LLC on behalf of Mid-Michigan Energy, LLC, a request for site
plan review and approval for an electrical generating station located at 4201
South Saginaw Road on 132.27 acres.
ACTION ITEMS None.
February Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
has been canceled.
None
March 11, 2008 is the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting.
The 2008 PC/ZBA Training Retreat has been scheduled for Saturday April
12, 2008 at Dow Diamond. The session
will run from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 1:00 p.m. Topics will include a State of the City from
City Manager Jon Lynch, meeting etiquette and information from the City
Attorney & MCTV and keynote session on Access Management from LSL
Planning.
10. Adjourn
Adjournment at 8:38 p.m. was unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Baker, AICP
Planning Director
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION