MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
APRIL 24, 2012, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. Roll Call
PRESENT:
Hanna,
Heying, McLaughlin, Mead, Pnacek, Senesac, Stewart, Tanzini and Young
ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Kaye, Director
of Planning and Community Development, Cheri King, Community Development
Specialist, and 19 others.
2. Approval
of Minutes
Moved by Hanna, seconded by Heying, to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of April 10, 2012. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Public Hearings
a. Site Plan No. 310 – initiated by Central Michigan Surveying
& Development Company on behalf of P & P Opportunities, LLC for site
plan review and approval of Olive Garden Restaurant and retail, located at 6803
Eastman Avenue.
Mr. Kaye explained that
the site plan is not complete and not all the documents have been
submitted. The Planning Commissioners
will look at the information that is available and offer their input on the
proposed plan. So long as the overall design does not change, it may or may not require an
additional public hearing at a later date.
It is recommended that the application be placed on the next agenda of
the Planning Commission for further discussion.
Mr. Kaye provided an
overview of the application. The uses
are by right, subject to Site Plan Review.
The petitioner is P&P Opportunities, LLC, at 6801 Eastman Avenue,
the former Damon‘s site as well as the strip mall behind it. The parcel size is 4.41 acres. The zoning is Regional Commercial. A 7,500 sq. ft. restaurant (Olive Garden) is
being proposed to be built on this site.
There will also be a commercial drive-thru and a future development
area.
The subject parcel is located
on the west side of Eastman Avenue, just east of the fairgrounds. Panera Bread and the Hampton Inn are to the
south, while the Midland Mall is to the east.
There is existing commercial development to the north. It is proposed to demolish a portion of the
existing strip mall and construct a 7,500 sq. ft. Olive Garden restaurant in
this location. A proposed drive-thru is
located at the southwest corner of the site, which will be associated with some
kind of service facility. The site plan includes
lands now used as Saylor Drive, however, this property is owned by the Hampton
Inn.
Mr. Kaye clarified
that an administrative site plan was approved by planning staff in January,
2012. The proposed Olive Garden
restaurant is therefore already approved and could be built in accordance with
that approved plan today. The changes
now proposed are intended to provide better access to Eastman Avenue which the
City understands is desired by both the Olive Garden and the property owners.
Issues include:
·
Access to signalized intersection
·
Cross site access design
·
Future development area
·
Coordination with impacted property owners (Fair
Board, Panera Bread, Hampton Inn)
Mr. Kaye stated that there
is a letter of concern from the attorneys of the Hampton Inn. The letter expresses concern that there is
not an agreement in place regarding the boundary line. They request that these issues be resolved
prior to approving the site plan.
The petitioner, Tim
Beebe, Central Michigan Survey & Development, stated this is about the
sixth revision to this plan. They have
been adjusting traffic flows on the site and received approval from staff to
bring it to the Commission tonight. There
are currently four access points to this development right now. They would like to minimize the impact on
traffic on Eastman Avenue. Traffic
agreements are still being discussed among property owners in the area. The access agreement will take them from the
fairgrounds road, through this development site, across Panera Bread, across the
Hampton Inn, and to the old Chemical Bank site.
Limiting access and focusing it at the light will greatly improve safety
for the site. They would also like to
keep the cross access to the adjoining properties. Mr. Beebe stated he would appreciate any
comments tonight as he will have to very quickly incorporate them into his site
plan revisions to have them submitted in time for the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Mr. Heying asked about
access from the fairgrounds road. Mr.
Beebe stated they have an agreement with them for access, but they will
absolutely not allow traffic to cross the median. Ms. Hanna complemented them in at least
trying to achieve the cross-access from the fairgrounds road.
Mr. Heying asked about
the future development area. Wouldn’t it
have made sense to broaden the traffic access aisle into the parking area
rather than narrow it so quickly? Mr.
Kaye stated that this has been examined by the City’s traffic consultant, who
does not anticipate sufficient traffic volume that this would become a
problem. The traffic study is on file in
the city’s Engineering Department.
Mr. Senesac stated the
philosophy they use with site plans, is that the site plans are published late
the week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Then the public hearing is held and gives the
public an opportunity to speak. Anything
that comes up during the public hearing can be thought about during the two
weeks prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. At the second meeting, new information can be
presented and discussion is held in order to make a decision. With this plan, a new plan was presented when
commissioners sat down tonight. He would
like to have a public hearing after they are able to see a complete plan. The public can then respond to a complete
plan. He would like to hold another
public hearing on the final plan at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Mead stated there is no photometric plan, no soil erosion plan, and no landscape
plan. These are all issues that they
would like to look at prior to approving a site plan. Mr. Kaye stated it is not unusual for
Commissioners to approve plans without photometric plans, signage, or other
minor site design alterations. He does
not think there will be significant changes to the latest proposed site plan,
except for the cross-access through the adjoining properties. We have seen what will probably be the final
plan, with a few minor modifications. I
will now be up to the applicant to have everything ready for another public
hearing in just two weeks.
Mr. McLaughlin stated
there are a significant number of issues that need to be addressed. What happens if they do not have everything
ready in two weeks? Mr. Beebe stated that everything would have to be
present for final site plan approval, allowing for some contingencies that will
be addressed at a later time. Approvals
will probably have to be provided with the legal documents being approved by
the City Attorney. Two weeks will not provide
sufficient time to have the legal documents in the hands of the Planning
Commission. However, there could be a
contingency that addresses the legal access issues. Mr Kaye suggested that the applicant could
bring a letter of agreement between the property owners that they are actively
working on a shared-access agreement.
The final decision was
that the petitioner will bring back a final site plan in two weeks and a letter
of intent from the property owners that they are working on a shared-access
agreement. A second public hearing will
be held at that time.
No one spoke either in
favor of or in opposition to the proposed site plan.
The public hearing was
closed.
b. Preliminary Plat of Trotter’s Pointe – a
residential subdivision of 20 lots on 6.21 acres east of Swede Avenue and south
of East Wheeler Street. The developer is
Midland Building Company.
The proprietor of this site is
Midland Building Company. The site is
5.89 acres in size and has access Wheeler Avenue.. It is zoned RA-4, single family residential. Twenty lots are proposed. There was an approval in 2005, however that
approval was not acted on and the approval has since expired. The preliminary plat is the same as that
submitted in 2005.
Tentative Preliminary Plat approval requires
no outside review. Final preliminary
plat approval requires limited detail and consultation with the County Drain
Commissioner. At this time, the
Engineering and Utility Departments have reviewed conceptually but have not
signed off. The Fire Department has requested
that no parking be allowed on the fire hydrant side of the street. Contingencies are as detailed in the staff
report.
In two weeks time, if the Planning
Commission is comfortable with the plan, they can make their recommendation to
the City Council. The Council will then
hold a public hearing and make a final decision on the plat. From the time a preliminary plat is approved,
the petitioner has two years to move forward with the plan.
Rich Fosgitt, on
behalf of Midland Building Company.
This plat had been approved in 2005.
The configuration is no different than was approved before. Strom water detention is along the east sides
of the development.
They are asking for preliminary and
final plat approval at this time. The
cul-de-sac is actually larger than required.
They would like parking to be allowed on both sides of the street so
they do object to the restriction by the Fire Department of no parking on the
side of the street with the fire hydrants.
Midland Building Company has sold
all 20 lots to a single developer in town.
The zoning on this property is already RA-4. They did not seek to have the zoning changed
on the land. Duplexes are allowed by
right in RA-4 zoning.
The slopes on the detention areas
will be 1:6. There has been some fill
brought into the area around the perimeter of the site. There will some berming left on the perimeter
of some of these lots.
Greg Groninger, 2720 Colony Drive,
stated he has some questions. What is
the requirement for public hearing notices?
Mr. Kaye stated the public notices are mailed not fewer than 15 days
prior to the meeting to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
development. Mr. Groninger stated he
does not believe that he ever received a notice about the development in
2005. He lives across the street from
one of the lots. Will the developer be
bonded so they don’t get part way through the development and run out of
funding? The advertisement on the road
for this site is that duplex lots will be sold.
Will there be bonding of the developer for this site? Mr. Kaye stated that financial guarantees are
required for the streets and utilities. There
is no bond required to assure development of the individual lots. Mr. Groninger asked if there will be any
low-income housing as a part of this? Mr. Pnacek stated he could not imagine this
occurring. Mr. Kaye stated that is
beyond the scope of the review of this project.
Mr. Groninger stated that only certain lots are large enough to
accommodate duplex units. There are a
fair number of small children in the area; what is the slope of the detention
ponds? The developer already stated the
slope will be 1:6.
Judy Radler, 2712 Colony Drive,
stated she has lived in her home since 1990.
She stated she received no notice in 2005 about this development. She has a big concern about that – that
things were approved with no notice in their neighborhood. You could drive by it and all of a sudden
there is a sign for duplexes. She has a
big problem with people saying they sent out notices, things got approved, and
none of the neighbors remember receiving notice of this development. The surrounding property is zoned RA-1. She is concerned about her property
value. This property should never have
been zoned RA-4. Her lot is 100’ x 200’. The proposed lots are significantly
smaller. There is now a big push to push
it through without comment from the neighbors.
Is the traffic flow only going to be in and out off Wheeler or will some
of the traffic come off Plymouth? They
already have trouble with people speeding down Congress and speeding out of
their neighborhood. She is not in favor
of this zoning in their neighborhood nor duplexes in
her neighborhood. She is not in favor of
anyone coming in and trying to rush through a plan that nobody knew about in
2005. This plan could sit there and take
a long time to develop. She does have
concerns about how long it would take to build this area as proposed. She would also like to see this limited to
single-family homes.
Julian Atian, 2720 E. Wheeler
Street, stated his home is just west of this property, lots 1, 2, 3, and
4. He did not own his house in
2005. He is trying to figure out how
this development fits within the city’s master plan. Does it make sense to have RA-1 throughout
this area and then a spot of RA-4 zoning within that area. One of his major issues is that he does not
want to see this rushed through. Even
though the plan was approved in the past, he would like to see the process
follow it’s natural course for public comment.
Scott Pennock, 2719 Colony Drive,
stated he has lived at his property for 17 years. He feels it is a pretty dramatic drop from
RA-1 to RA-4. Could this be changed if
someone wanted it to be changed? Even
though this plan has been previously approved, it should not be automatically
approved at this time. He would like the
Planning Commission to take a fresh look at it.
What kind of steps will be taken to raise the elevation on the lots on
the northeast side of the development?
Jim Mitrano, 2721 Colony Drive,
stated this is zoned RA-4 and their properties are zoned RA-1. This would seem inconsistent with the
surrounding neighborhood. He does not
recall receiving a notice in 2005.
Rich Fosgitt stated in the Midland
Community, most engineers are challenged to get water to run downhill. In this case they have a contour that would
perhaps have walk-out basements. The
detention ponds will provide a good collection of water from the surrounding
properties. The RA-4 zoning is already existing on the site. They are not attempting to change the
zoning. The 20 lots have tentatively
been sold to Mayberry Homes. At this
time, Mayberry Homes has no intention of developing duplexes on these
lots. They would perhaps entertain
language in the deeds that would restrict the lots to single-family homes,
however, Rich cannot commit for the purchaser.
Mayberry Homes is developing lots in Lansing as well as other
communities at this time. Storm water
detention ponds with a slope greater than 1:6 are required to be fenced. These are walkable slopes and do not require
fencing. These will be dry areas that
have the ability to hold water in a storm event.
Mrs. Hanna asked about the
maintenance of the storm water detention ponds.
Mr. Fosgitt stated it will be up to each individual property owner to
maintain their portion of the detention pond.
Mr. Kaye confirmed that the property
was already zoned RA-4 when this preliminary plat was approved in 2005. He will check to see if there was a rezoning
connected with the approved plat in 2005.
Ray Senesac clarified that some
items are outside of the consideration of requirements for a preliminary
plat. The zoning is outside of their
scope of review.
Judy Radler, 2712 Colony Drive
stated that when she came here in 1990, the city limits sign was right by
Congress Drive. She has gradually seen
the city limits sign move back beyond the farm.
No matter how it was zoned before, the city limits did end much closer
to their property than they are now. All
the land on the north side of Wheeler was annexed since then.
The public hearing was closed.
4. Old
Business
None
5.
Public Comments (unrelated to
items on the agenda)
Greg Groninger, 2720 Colony Drive commented
on the proposed table for the Zoning Ordinance that was presented at the last
Planning Commission meeting. Going from
four units per acre to six units per acre in RA-1 zoning is a significant
change. That is significantly more dense. He does
want to point out that a small change in density description does fall in line
with Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development.
Mr. Groninger stated the United States adopted Agenda 21. America is the only country in the world with
the concept of private property. Please
look into Agenda 21 and keep it in mind when you are doing your revision of the
Master Plan.
6. New
Business
DNO
District Signs
Mr. Kaye stated that the signage standards for development in the
Downtown Northside Overlay District have not yet been applied to an actual
development. Now that an application in
this area is pending, staff has determined that the current standards may not
be appropriate for developments of a scale beyond traditional downtown
development. Staff intends to take a
look at this issue and bring some recommendations to the Commission at a future
meeting. There was no opposition to this
concept.
7. Communications
None
8. Report of the Chairperson
None
9. Report
of the Planning Director
Public hearings on
the 2012/13 City budget are underway at the City Council. We will be doing a Building Trades Project
again for the 2012-2013 school year. The contract for this project was approved by
City Council last night.
10. Adjourn
Adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Bradley Kaye, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION