MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 28, 2012, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. Roll Call
PRESENT: Hanna, McLaughlin, Mead, Senesac, Tanzini and
Young
ABSENT: Heying, Pnacek and Stewart
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Kaye, Director
of Planning and Community Development, Cindy Winland, Consulting Planner, Cheri
King, Community Development Specialist, and 6 others.
Introduction of Brad Kaye, new Planning Director
2. Approval
of Minutes
Moved by Hanna, seconded by McLaughlin, to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of February 14, 2012 as corrected. Motion passed unanimously.
Correction on page 3, item #4, old business, should say “to act on Site
Plan 311”.
3. Public
Hearings
None
4. Old
Business
a. Zoning
Petition No. 578 – initiated by Midland Downtown Partners, LLC to
rezone property at 215 State Street, 614 and 709 East Larkin Street and 608
East Ellsworth Street from Regional Commercial zoning to Downtown zoning.
Ms. Winland stated that
the applicant is Midland Downtown Partners, LLC. Properties are located at 215 State Street,
614 and 709 East Larkin Street and 608 East Ellsworth Street. The current zoning is Regional
Commercial. The proposed zoning is for
Downtown zoning. The entire area is
shown on the Master Plan as Downtown zoning.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the City’s Master Plan. The amendment will be in accordance with the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
It will not set an inappropriate precedent. Conditions have changed since the Zoning
Ordinance was adopted that justifies the amendment. It used to be an industrial use with the
former McKay Press in this area. It is
now a baseball stadium. The amendment
will not grant special privileges.
The proposed zoning is
consistent with the zoning classification of the surrounding land. The proposed zoning is consistent with the
future land use designation of the surrounding land in the City Master Plan. All the requirements in the proposed zoning
classification can be complied with on the subject parcel. The proposed zoning is consistent with the
trends in land development in the general vicinity of the property in
question. The Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on February 14, 2012.
City Council will set a public hearing on March 12, 2012 and City
Council will hold a public hearing on April 9, 2012. No public comments have been received either
in favor of or in opposition to this petition. This rezoning will be subject to the Downtown
Overlay District.
Pat
Gillespie, representing Midland Downtown Partners. This development is the final portion of the
development which includes the Dow Diamond.
The new facility will contain some entertainment uses, offices, medical
offices and businesses. They did
something very similar to this in downtown Lansing and they are looking to do
something similar here. This is a
contaminated site. They have been to the
State of Michigan and gotten brownfield development permits. They have an environmental team there and
have identified all the contaminants.
This is phase I. These are presented
to the State and they oversee the phase II environmental clean-up. That is where they are now in the process.
Motion by Hanna,
seconded by Young, to recommend to City Council the approval of Zoning Petition
No. 578 initiated by Midland Downtown Partners, LLC to rezone property at 215
State Street, 614 and 709 East Larkin Street and 608 East Ellsworth Street from
Regional Commercial zoning to Downtown zoning.
Mr.
Senesac stated it meets all the criteria and he thinks it will fit in well in
the Downtown. Mr. Young stated it will
be a nice addition to the Downtown. Mrs.
Hanna stated she would just like to see the property used properly. Mr. Mead stated that if it has the same
effect as the Loons stadium, he is all for it.
Vote:
YEAS: Hanna,
McLaughlin, Mead, Tanzini, Senesac, and Young
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Heying, Pnacek and Stewart
c. Master Plan Update
To get a sense of which
areas of the map the Planning Commission would like to look at specifically,
Commissioners were presented a copy of the existing land use map and the future
land use map. In the past, there have
been discrepancies between the densities envisioned by the Master Plan and
those permitted in various zoning districts.
The Zoning Ordinance has only one zoning district that limits density to
four or fewer dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Winland showed a
sample area of the community that had 4.4 dwelling units per acre, an area that
has 4.8 units per acre, and an area that has 6.0 units per acre. The lots range from 12,000 square feet to
7,200 sq. ft. Difficulties arise because
we have a lot of land that is zoned for what we typically think of as low
density development, yet would be classified as medium density by the Master
Plan because it has more than 4.0 units per acre. The difference between four and nine units
per acre is huge to a developer. This is
probably something we will need to talk about in the future. Staff is suggesting that six units per acre
would be a place to start. It fits
within the range and is consistent with the future land use map. Low density would be less than six units per
acre. Medium density would be six to
nine units per acre. The impact would
only be realized on undeveloped properties at the time that the City makes
decisions on permitted development densities.
If we have a piece of
property that has been annexed, and we determine that should be low density,
current Master Plan policies would only support development at a density less
than four units per acre. When we
discuss low density, are we discussing 3.6 units per acre or are six units per
acre also considered low density?
The existing Master Plan
identified medium density as 4-9 units per acre. There is a pretty big span between four units
per acre and nine units per acre. Staff
suggests that we need to look at both the upper and lower limits on medium
density to determine if they are appropriate.
This question does impact how the future land use plan looks, are we
meeting our goals when it comes to different types of housing in the community,
and it adds a little reality to what goes on in the ground in the future.
Mrs. Hanna stated she
would like to see low density residential at no greater than four units per
acre. Mr. Senesac stated he would
support increasing the range of low density development up to six units per
acre. There are a large number of homes
in RA-2 zoning that are really RA-1 sizes.
Ms. Winland stated she had trouble finding examples of the various
densities to compare. Different areas of
town have developed at different densities even though they may have the same
zoning.
Ms. Winland offered to
come back to the next meeting with a map to show areas that this would make a
difference in and how those changes would impact the undeveloped areas of the
community. The Planning Commission liked
that idea. If the areas are already
built out, it won’t make any difference.
Mrs. Hanna stated that in looking at the Future Land Use Map, she is
seeing light industrial to the extreme north of Eastman Avenue. Ms. Winland stated that is correct. That area is in the township and there are industrial
areas in most of the townships that have zoning that is not consistent with the
City’s Master Plan.
Mrs. Hanna would like to
revisit the northeast corner of Diamond Drive, from Wheeler to Wackerly, on
Waldo Avenue. The MUGA area is expressed
best on the existing land use map. On
the existing land use map, we show the water areas as blue. On the future land use map it is shown as
industrial. The area is zoned
industrial, even though it is water.
There is an area at the top of the map that was recently annexed into
the city. We will also take a look at
that. Mr. Mead stated there is an area
around the airport in the northwest part of the city that also needs to be
reviewed. Ms. Winland would also like to
look at the recently annexed “Hang Time” area, now McKay Press. This is just west of Stark Road, north of
Saginaw Road. The Mapleton area at S.
Saginaw Road and Bailey Bridge Road is another area we would like to
review. We will also review the area in
the area of Third Street, where Dow Chemical will be purchasing existing homes
for demolition.
Greg Groninger, 2720
Colony Drive, Midland, asked if there was any change in the public/semi-public
areas of the community. Is there any
change in the acreage that would impact the amount of land in these zoning
districts? Ms. Winland indicated that no
changes were presently proposed. Mr.
Senesac asked Mr. Groninger if he felt that changes were needed. Mr. Groninger stated that he was not
proposing a change.
Mr. Senesac asked if
staff could put how much land is built out and how much land is zoned in each
zoning district. Ms. Winland stated that
would be difficult to do as we would have to look for vacant lots. She does not think this would have tremendous
value as most of the city is built out except for the periphery.
Mrs. Hanna asked if
anyone had projected the growth of this town within the next five years. No one has made any projections regarding
population growth other than using historical figures. Family size is decreasing so people are
taking up more family units even though the population is not increasing.
5. Public
Comments (unrelated to items on the agenda)
None
6. New
Business
Mr. Mead stated he would like
to have some discussion on the issue of signs.
He requested that a work session be scheduled for that purpose. Mrs. Hanna stated she would like to discuss
the safety of retention/detention ponds and the safety of neighborhoods. She has given the name of a consultant to
Cindy.
Cindy stated we have had
nothing come in yet for the next meeting so perhaps that could be a work
session on signs. Mrs. Hanna asked that
the retention/detention pond discussion not take place at the next meeting as
she will not be present.
7. Communications
None
8. Report of the Chairperson
None
9. Report
of the Planning Director
None
10. Adjourn
Adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Bradley Kaye, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION