MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
JULY 24, 2012, 7:00 P.M.,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. Roll Call
PRESENT: Hanna,
Heying, McLaughlin, Mead, Senesac, Stewart, Tanzini and Young
ABSENT: Pnacek
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Kaye, Director
of Planning and Community Development, Cheri King, Community Development
Specialist, and 15 others.
2. Approval
of Minutes
Moved by Hanna, seconded by Stewart, to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of July 10, 2012 as corrected. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Public Hearings
a. Zoning Petition No. 580 – initiated by
The Dahlia Hill Society of Midland to rezone property at 2803 Orchard Drive
from Residential B zoning to Community zoning.
(A small triangular parcel of land at 1400 West Main
Street.)
Mr. Kaye stated the applicant is The
Dahlia Hill Society of Midland (Charles Breed).
The property is located at 1400 W. Main Street (2803 Orchard
Drive). It is currently zoned Residential
B. The proposed zoning is
Community. Dahlia Hill is located at the
corner of Orchard Drive and Main Street.
The Community zoning is consistent with the gardens that are located in
this area. This parcel is partially
zoned Parks.
There
are ten criteria we consider. Is the
proposed amendment consistent with the city’s Master Plan? Yes, the Master Plan shows Public Parks and
Recreation on part of the parcel. Have
conditions changed since the Zoning Ordinance was adopted that justifies the
amendment? Yes. Will the amendment grant
special privileges? No. Will the amendment result in unlawful
exclusionary zoning? No. The community zoning is consistent with the
public or semi-public use of Dahlia Hill.
Will the amendment set an inappropriate precedent? No. Is
the proposed zoning consistent with the zoning classification of surrounding
land? Yes, when considered in the
context of the broader surrounding area.
There is an extensive amount of Community zoning in this area. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the
future land use designation of the surrounding land? Yes.
Is the proposed zoning consistent with the trends in land development in
the general vicinity of the property in question? Yes.
No
public comments have been received to date.
Staff recommendation is for approval.
Staff recommends that, since a public hearing was held on the rest of
the property at the last Planning Commission meeting, that the Planning
Commission also make a decision on this portion of the
petition tonight.
Public
hearing closed.
4. Old
Business
a. Zoning Petition No. 579 – initiated by
Schauman Development, LLC to rezone property at 3535 East Ashman Street from
Agricultural zoning to Residential B zoning.
Mr.
Kaye reviewed the ten criteria that are established by the zoning ordinance for
consideration when reviewing a rezoning request. He advised that the application was in
general compliance with the standards and the application was therefore
recommended for approval by staff.
The
public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2012. If the Planning Commission makes a
recommendation tonight, it will go to City Council to set a public hearing on
August 13, 2012 and the public hearing would then be held on September 17, 2012. Two public comments were received at the
public hearing. A number of emails have
since been received and have been provided tonight for consideration. Mr. Kaye described the two easements located
on the property. The easement is 15 feet
wide running along the full length of the western boundary of the property.
The
petitioner stated he had no comments at this time.
Chairman
Mead stated that the public hearing was held and closed on July 10, 2012 but
that people could offer new information on the petition.
Derrell
Steffan – 3816 Collingwood, had a question about the drainage. Will the sewer system for the new development
drain into the existing sewer lines? Mr.
Mead stated that this is a rezoning petition, not a site plan review. Mr. Steffan asked about the property to the
east – he thinks they own all the way back to Mark Twain Drive. The property to the east is currently zoned
Residential B.
Randy
Oliver, 3304 Fuller Drive, stated he has some concerns about the Master
Plan. The Master Plan says it will
protect the quality of neighborhoods. It
shows where they encourage the development in this type of property. He does not think the rezoning is consistent with
the interpretation of the master plan.
Janice
Richter Jones, 3308 Fuller Drive, stated she has sent several e-mails. She received an e-mail at 5:12 p.m. tonight
from Mr. Kaye. In that e-mail, he stated
the Planning Commission is currently looking at the Master Plan but there is no
plan to change the High Density Residential designation, yet this application
proposed to change to current Agricultural zoning.
Kent
Hodges, 3300 Fuller Drive, stated the Master Plan did not take into
consideration anything to do with the corner of Ashman and Waldo. Now he sees lines all the way to the corner
where people are trying to get onto Waldo Avenue to get to work. Just entering Waldo Avenue from Fuller Drive
is difficult. He is asking for a traffic
study to be done to see what would be appropriate in this area. He does not see a lot of data being presented
about the traffic in this area. He is
concerned that there hasn’t been some kind of study done for that
intersection. Mr. Schauman has done one
development, of 24 units. They are not
completely rented yet. Any new traffic
will be in addition to what is there right now.
We should wait until all the units are rented and see then what the
traffic numbers are in this intersection.
Kent
Winslow, 3410 Collingwood, is a 20 year resident there. He thinks that high density up against single
family will decrease the value of his home.
When the time comes to address this area with the Master Plan, he would
like to be a part of that.
Mark
Jones, 3308 Fuller Drive, asked if any studies have been to show that home
values would not decline if this development were to proceed. Mr. Mead stated that this is not our purview
at this time.
Bill
Johnson, 3545 East Ashman, stated he purchased the land 64 years ago. The whole piece was 80 acres and was
requested as Agricultural, so he could build his business. He has gradually added to his business until
the city has seen that this land is more valuable as residential land. He is keeping a small piece of land so he can
continue his business. He has to get rid
of the property in order to pay his taxes.
He would like his lot to remain Agricultural and rezone the remaining
land Residential B.
Motion by Senesac, second by McLaughlin, to recommend to City
Council the approval of Zoning Petition No. 579 initiated by Schauman
Development, LLC to rezone property at 3535 East Ashman Street from
Agricultural zoning to Residential B zoning.
Mr.
Senesac stated he does not believe this property, considering how it fronts
Ashman, will ever develop as Residential A-1 or A-2. He questions if there is some other zoning
that would make sense in the rear of the property but has not been able to come
up with anything. This is consistent
with the Master Plan and he believes this is the best use for the
property. Mr. McLaughlin stated he
agreed. There is nothing of a lesser
intensity that is going to develop here.
Mr.
Heying stated there are some inconsistencies here. There are three residential portions before
you get to the parks. You may have
something that might work. He also was
unable to come up with another solution that would provide buffers to the
adjoining residences. Mrs. Hanna stated
she agrees with what has been said tonight.
There is also single family across the street. It was explained that they are actually duplexes. That would be a good fit. She is concerned about the depth of the
property and the number of single family homes that abut that. She has a problem with the high density
abutting the single family homes and is also concerned about the traffic. She had to get out onto Waldo for twenty
years and it got worse every year. Due
to the additions on the far end, there is now more traffic on this road. She does not see this as high density.
Mr.
Young stated we have talked about RA-1, RA-2 and RB. There are two zoning classifications in
between. He is not sure how many units
could be placed on this property under each zoning classification. How many units could be placed on this
property if it were zoned RA-3 or RA-4?
Perhaps medium density would be a better fit.
Mr.
Kaye stated the Zoning Ordinance requires 10,000 sq. ft. Density would be dictated by parking and
infrastructure needs on this property.
Mr. McLaughlin stated that the petitioner stated he would build 35 units
which equated to five units per acre and that is far fewer units than what
could be built under another zoning classification. They would consider this to be low or medium
density. The easement runs the entire length
of this property. Mr. Kaye stated that
the 15 feet of easement could be a part of a setback.
Mr.
Tanzini stated it was brought up that this is an area of yellow zoning. There has to be a transition somewhere. It is unfortunate that these people are on
the edge of it. He is in support of the
rezoning. Mr. Mead stated he has one
concern, that being the potential of a traffic problem in this area. Mr. Mead would like to see a traffic survey
done prior to doing anything with that property. He feels they owe it to the area to see what
the traffic patterns are and how they would impact the surrounding area. Mrs. Hanna stated she agrees with Mr. Mead
that a traffic study be done prior to their voting on this issue. Mr. Kaye explained that a traffic study would
typically be requested at the time of site plan review, once a specific use of
the property was proposed. The
Engineering Department may also have sufficient information available without
requiring a traffic study.
Mr.
Schauman asked if there is another zoning district that would accommodate
multiple family development and be more appropriate in
this area. Mr. Kaye responded that multiple
family uses other than two family dwellings require the RB zoning
district.
Vote:
YEAS: McLaughlin,
Mead, Senesac, Stewart, Tanzini and Young
NAYS: Heying and Hanna
ABSENT: Pnacek
b. Zoning Petition No. 580 – initiated by
The Dahlia Hill Society of Midland to rezone property at 2803 Orchard Drive and
a triangular piece of property located at 1400 West Main Street from
Residential B zoning to Community zoning.
Mr.
Kaye reviewed the full application for Zoning Petition No. 580. The Dahlia Hill Society of Midland and
Charles Breed would like to change the property at the corner of Orchard Drive
and Main Street from Residential B to Community zoning. The Master Plan shows a portion of this zoned
Public Parks and Recreation. The
criteria are the same as for the prior petition. All of the criteria are answered and complied
with. We have dealt with two public
hearings on this petition. No public
comments were received at either public hearing. Staff recommendation is for approval.
Motion
by Hanna, second by Young, to recommend to City Council the approval of Zoning
Petition No. 580 initiated by The Dahlia Hill Society of Midland to rezone
property at 2803 Orchard Drive and a triangular piece of property located at
1400 West Main Street from Residential B zoning to Community zoning.
Vote:
YEAS: Hanna,
Heying, McLaughlin, Mead, Senesac, Stewart, Tanzini and
Young
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Pnacek
5.
Public Comments (unrelated to
items on the agenda)
None
6. New
Business
None
7. Communications
None
8. Report of the Chairperson
None
9. Report
of the Planning Director
None
10. Items for Next
Agenda – August 14, 2012
a.
Site
Plan No. 314 – Public Hearing – Will not be on the agenda next time as the
application was incomplete.
b.
DNO
Sign Standards (tentative)
c.
Master
Plan Update (tentative)
11. Adjourn
Adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Bradley Kaye, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION