MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 23, 2010, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1.
Roll Call
PRESENT: Ballard,
Brown, Hanna, Mead, Pnacek, Senesac, and Young
ABSENT: Stewart
VACANCY: One
OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Baker,
Planning Director, Cheri King, Community Development Specialist, and 9 others.
2. Approval of Minutes
Moved by Pnacek, seconded by Hanna,
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 9, 2010 as written. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Public
Hearings
None
4. Old Business
Shawn
Pnacek reminded the Commission that he will be abstaining from action on this
petition as the petitioners are related to him and thus poses a conflict of
interest. This issue was voted upon at
the November 9, 2010 meeting.
Mr.
Baker reviewed the progress of Zoning Petition #573 thus far. The petitioner is F/A Pnacek Ltd. It was recently annexed from Larkin Township
on August 31, 2010. It is approximately
4.72 acres in size. The current zoning
is Residential “A” in Larkin Township.
The petitioner is requesting Regional Commercial zoning in the
city. Public utilities are available to
service the site. Mr. Baker reviewed the
review criteria, as outlined in Section 30.03(d) of the zoning ordinance.
The
property is located on north side of Commerce Drive, which runs east/west
between Eastman and Jefferson. It is
currently vacant, as is much of the property surrounding it. The parcel was created when the road bisected
an 80 acre parcel owned by the Pnacek family.
The parcel to the north has not been zoned to any city zoning
classification. The property to the
south is still in Larkin Township. There
are LCMR and Regional Commercial to the west and to the south the Midland
Evangelical Free Church is zoned Residential B.
On
the future land use map, the property has been identified as suitable for
commercial purposes. In the Master Plan,
the zoning classifications are more generalized and do not specifically relate
to individual zoning classifications.
Mr.
Baker reviewed the ten criteria on which the Planning Commission will use to
make their decision. This rezoning
request is consistent with the Future Land Use map which identifies the area as
appropriate for “Commercial” development.
It is more intensive than Larkin Township’s zoning and master plan
designations for the parcel if left in the township. Staff recommends approval based upon
consistency with the City of Midland’s Master Plan. Three public correspondences have been
received since the public hearing. Two
requested additional study or delay. One
expressed support for the petition.
The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 9, 2010. If the Commission acts on this recommendation
tonight, it will go to the City Council to set a public hearing on December 6,
2010 and Council will conduct its public hearing on January 10, 2011, at which
time a decision will be made on the proposed zoning change.
Ms.
Brown opened the floor to new comments in support of the petition. Mike Pnacek, 2661 Blackhurst Road, spoke on
behalf of the petitioner. This is
something they have been talking about since 2007. They have now decided it is time to annex the
property and have it assigned city zoning.
Mr. Pnacek stated the family would be happy with Community Commercial, which
does not allow outside storage. They
would like a decision to be made on this in a timely manner.
Ms.
Brown asked Mr. Baker to explain the differences between Community Commercial
and Regional Commercial. Regional
Commercial is the city’s most intensive zoning classification. Community Commercial is the next less intense
zoning classification. Mr. Baker
reviewed Table 21.1 in the Zoning Ordinance that showed the differences in
permitted uses in the two zoning classifications. Adult regulated uses are not permitted at all
in Community Commercial and are permitted in Regional Commercial by special use
permit. As it pertains to office,
medical and institutional uses, there is virtually no difference. The petitioner is agreeable with the
Community Commercial zoning. This would
be allowed under the current public hearing process, as it is a lower intensity
use.
John Bartos, 2095 North Jefferson. He lives just north of the property in
question. Mr. Bartos summarized the
points in his letter. Larkin Township
owns most of the land surrounding this parcel.
He ended up purchasing the 37 acres to the north of this parcel. A lot of things have changed in the past five
years in this area. A petition signed by
50-60 Larkin Township residents addressed the differences in land use in this
area. If this zoning is approved, the
Commission is really setting the tone for future zoning in this area. Mr. Bartos stated he and his wife are good
friends with the Pnaceks. They
understand they are trying to protect the zoning of their property. He referred to a couple statements in the
letter from Dr. Rush.
Mr.
Senesac asked Mr. Bartos to explain the changes he referred to in his
presentation. Mr. Bartos stated there
have been a number of new homes developed in this area. You do not see them from the road but he has
pictures of them. Mr. Mead asked Mr.
Bartos to show the areas he is talking about.
Mr. Bartos stated there are about 10 very expensive homes that have been
built to the east of this property. Some
of them were there prior to this annexation but many of them were not.
Ms.
Brown stated there are several questions that need to be addressed. Does the Planning Commission want to table
this and review this area as it relates to the Master Plan? Does the Planning Commission want to consider
lowering the intensity of the recommendation to Community Commercial instead of
Regional Commercial?
Mr.
Senesac asked Mr. Baker to review the legal obligations of the Planning
Commission. Mr. Baker stated there is an
obligation to act with “due diligence” and to act upon a petition in a
“reasonable” amount of time. Mr. Baker
does not feel they should table the request indefinitely. If the Commission wants to hold a work
session on this issue and then set a date in the future when they would revisit
this issue, this would be acceptable.
State law mandates that Planning Commissions review their Master Land
Use Plans every five years. It requires
communities to look at them and not just leave them on the shelf. There is nothing to prevent the commission
from re-evaluating an area if they feel conditions have changed since the
adoption of the Master Plan.
Mr.
Mead suggested that, if the petitioner has no objection to it, they consider
Community Commercial zoning for this property.
That is a little less intensive land use. Mr. Mead moved that they substitute Community
Commercial in place of Regional Commercial zoning. Motion seconded by Hanna. Mr. Baker explained that that issue could be
handled in the motion at the end of deliberations. It does not take a motion at this point. The motion was withdrawn.
Mr.
Senesac stated that reviewing the Master Plan is a very lengthy process. He thinks that delaying it is not an
option. Mr. Pnacek agreed to drop the
proposal from Regional Commercial to Community Commercial and Mr. Senesac
thinks this would be a good use for that property. He feels it meets all the criteria of the
master plan and that it is appropriate for that area. The Master Plan, even though it is reviewed
every five years, it is a very long-range planning tool. He supports the petition in favor of
Community Commercial.
Mr.
Mead stated that, if the commission decides to review the plan, they should not
limit the review to just this area. The
Commission would open themselves up for anyone who would want to come in and
have their area reviewed. The Commission
spent a lot of time reviewing many areas of the city prior to adoption of the
Master Plan. With the reduction of the
intensity in requested zoning to Community Commercial, he is in favor of moving
forward with action on this request. Mr.
Young stated he was in agreement, having been through a Master Plan review in
another community. Mr. Young and Mr.
Ballard both stated they are in favor of the Community Commercial zoning.
Mrs.
Hanna stated that the petition was not addressed in February when the petition
was presented to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Brown stated the petition was not presented to the Planning
Commission – it was presented to the City Council.
Ms.
Brown stated she was here when they worked on the Master Plan and they did put
a lot of time into it. She feels the
city’s Master Plan is fairly consistent with that of Larkin Township and she is
in support of moving forward with zoning this parcel Community Commercial.
Motion
by Senesac, seconded by Ballard, to recommend to City Council the approval of
Zoning Petition No. 573, initiated by F/A Pnacek, Ltd. to rezone property at
800 Commerce Drive from Larkin Township zoning to Community Commercial zoning.
Vote:
YEAS: Ballard, Brown, Mead,
Senesac, and Young
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Stewart
ABSTAIN: Pnacek (due to conflict of interest
– approved by the commission)
Hanna (not
approved by the commission)
VACANCY: One
Mr.
Baker asked Mrs. Hanna to vote one way or the other. She chose not to at this time.
Motion
was approved 5-0. The public hearing
with City Council will be set at the December 6th meeting and will
be held at the January 10th meeting.
5. Public
Comments (unrelated to items on the agenda)
None
6. New
Business
a. Consideration of reviewing Future Land Use
Map designations for Northeast section of the community.
Mr. Baker stated he put this on the agenda
for the consideration of the Planning Commission. He suggested they use their December meeting for a review of
this area as there is no other business at this time for this meeting. Mr. Mead stated he thinks they will open
themselves up to a lot of questions if they pick out a single area for
review. He thinks perhaps letters should
be sent out to citizens if they would like to have their areas reviewed. Mr. Senesac stated the commission spent a lot
of time reviewing this area. They were
aware of what was happening on the other side of Jefferson. In two years they will be doing another
Master Plan update and he feels that would be the time to start reviewing
smaller areas. Mr. Baker stated that the
Master Plan is now three years old and this is the only area that has come into
question. There was one other area that
the commission spent an inordinate amount of time on and that was the
intersection of Wheeler Street and Waldo Avenue. Mr. Baker stated we would do open houses,
public notifications, what are changes that might be considered, and what the
process might look like. The Planning
Commission would eventually go into public hearings and notification of
surrounding property owners. This would
be a lengthy process that would take perhaps six to eight months. Mr. Ballard stated he would not like to do
this process now and then a year and a half later, doing it all again. Mrs. Hanna stated that if we are going to
review the entire Master Plan, 2010 Census Data should be provided and would be
useful in a review of the existing land uses.
Mr. Baker stated the census data should be released beginning next year
and more the following year.
John Bartos stated they are missing a very
important point. In Chapter 9 of the
Master Plan, it states that “this Plan is intended to be flexible and respond
to new information, trends, and opportunities.
The Planning Commission is responsible for recognizing an impetus for
Plan review prior to the legally mandated five year review standard.” Mr. Bartos stated they were not informed
about the notice and that there was a public hearing being held on areas around
his land.
Barbara Rice, 1370 E. Pine River Road,
stated they attended many of the meetings at the city and many “Meetings in a
Box” regarding the update of the Master Land Use Plan. If you wanted input for yourself and your
property, you attended these meetings.
Yes, it needs to be reviewed every five years but she feels the city did
a good job in publishing notice to the community about the Master Plan review
process.
The Planning Commission would like to
start the review process in October 2011 and complete it by October 2012.
7. Communications
The
October edition Planning and Zoning News was distributed.
8. Report of the Chairperson
.None
9. Report of the Planning Director
Keith Baker reported that the city will
sponsor a nine week Citizens’ Academy on Wednesday evening’s beginning in
January. It is a great opportunity to
learn more about local government and tour city facilities. Applications are being accepted at the City
Clerk’s Office up until Friday, December 17th. The time commitment will be Wednesday
evenings from January 12th through March 9th.
10.
Adjourn
Adjournment
at 8:08 p.m. was unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Baker, AICP, CFM
Director of Planning & Community Development
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION