MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON TUESDAY,
OCTOBER 23, 2012, 5:30 P.M.,
COUNCIL OVERFLOW CONFERENCE ROOM CITY HALL,
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. Roll Call
PRESENT: Hanna,
Heying, Mead, Senesac, Stewart, and Young (Mr. Young arrived at 6:15 p.m.)
ABSENT: McLaughlin, Pnacek and Tanzini
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Kaye, Director
of Planning and Community Development, Cheri King, Community Development
Specialist, Cindy Winland, Contract Planner, and no others.
2. New
Business
a. Public Meeting Hearing and Decision Procedure
Discussion
Mr. Kaye explained that
we are picking up from an earlier discussion on the current processing methods
of the city regarding applications. He
suggested that we begin by reviewing the issues behind this discussion to
ensure that we are all in agreement on them.
Mr. Senesac asked for permission to make a general statement, indicating
he felt the two-meeting process was effective, pointing to the public hearing
for the development at the corner of Ashman and Waldo Ave. as an example. No one can say that was not a better site
plan after the two meetings, where the neighbors offered input. Discussion at the second meeting made it a
much better site plan than originally proposed.
Then Mr. Senesac stated he tried to think of an example of where the
second meeting led the Commission to a worse decision than would have been made
after the first meeting. From a “quality
of decision” point of view, erring on the side of the
two-meetings does not lead to a worse decision, but the second meeting clearly
has led to better decision-making. Mrs.
Hanna agrees.
Mr. Mead stated he is
generally in favor of the two-meeting process.
However, there are times when he feels items can be handled at one
meeting.
Mr. Heying responded to Mr. Senesac by stating that proving a second
meeting did not result in a worse decision was trying to prove a negative. He expressed his support for a more
streamlined decision process when warranted.
Mr. Kaye clarified that no one is contending that lengthening the
process produces worse decisions, only that a more efficient process can also
produce quality decisions.
Mr. Kaye stated that
there is generally no discussion by the Planning Commission following the
public hearing. The public hearing is
closed and they move on to the next topic.
This makes it difficult for staff to know how the Planning Commission is
feeling about the petition and what types of questions they might anticipate at
the next meeting. Applicants find this
difficult and frustrating since they must then wait another two weeks before
hearing any feedback on their project.
Ms. Winland stated there
was an issue that Mr. McLaughlin brought up at the last meeting. This would be to generally approve petitions
after one meeting, but, under certain conditions, they could table a petition
and reserve further discussion until the next meeting. The types of conditions under which a
decision would typically be tabled would be determined by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Senesac stated he
would like to turn it around and have the two-meeting process be the norm and
offer approval at the first meeting if there are no issues, no one speaks
against the project and it is a “slam dunk”.
He feels a motion to approve at the first meeting should be by a
unanimous vote. If anyone has a problem
voting at the first meeting, it should be postponed. Mr. Kaye and Ms. Winland each expressed
serious concerns with this approach, as they do not believe that one person
should be able to hold up the entire process.
Mrs. Hanna stated that
the developers know it is a two-meeting process. You get in trouble if you start mixing it up
where sometimes it is a two-meeting process and some meetings it is a
one-meeting process. Mr. Kaye
acknowledged this was a concern but reiterated that there needs to be some
solid reason if we decide to retain the current two meeting process. Just because we have always done it this way
does not make it right. The one meeting
process, with decisions tabled where warranted, would be more efficient and
understandable and would be more acceptable to the applicants coming before
us. Mr. Kaye also expressed his concern
that approving an application in one meeting, under the default two meeting
process that currently exists, would require a motion waiving our procedural
by-laws every time we felt a decision was warranted at the first meeting.
Ms. Winland drew a
timeline on the board of the way the process is handled at the present time.
15 day notification – This is required by law. We can do nothing about this.
First
Planning Commission Meeting – Public hearing (15 days)
Second
Planning Commission Meeting – Decision (30 days)
First
City Council Meeting – Set a public hearing (45 days)
(Notices are required to be
sent out and published for 15 days)
Second
City Council Meeting – Hold public hearing & decision (73 days)
There is more need for
site plan approval in a shorter time frame so projects can get underway
sooner. Any delays in a project are
costly to an applicant. It is true that
certain Planning Commission members may be uncomfortable voting at the first
meeting. If the majority of the Planning
Commission is ready to decide on an application, however, majority rule should
prevail.
Mr. Kaye explained that
the current meeting process, both at the Council and Planning Commission
levels, also adds additional costs to the approval process on the part of the
City. The meetings have to be advertised
in the newspaper on multiple occasions, additional staff time is required to
prepare additional reports, and additional staff time is required
administratively to handle the process itself.
As staff resources continue to be reduced, this becomes more and more
problematic.
Mr. Young stated that it
is still easier to table a decision on an application when warranted than it is
to waive our procedures to deal with an application in a single meeting He previously served five years on another
Planning Commission and stated that this is an extremely long period for a
developer to wait to have a site plan approved.
Mr. Kaye stated that
there are three primary conditions under which staff would
suggest that a second meeting would be warranted, including:
·
There is incomplete information.
·
New information is introduced that requires further
research.
·
The public raises an issue that requires further
research to determine factual information.
Mr. Senesac stated that, if a second meeting is held, action must be
taken at that meeting. City Council does
not need to routinely hold another public hearing (saving four weeks and
avoiding passing a resolution to set a hearing) when action is recommended by
the Planning Commission and there is no public opposition. Ms. Winland pointed out that site plans
unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission and on which no public
opposition has been received are approved by City Council on the consent
agenda.
Mr. Senesac stated that, if there is incomplete information, the Planning
Commission should never see it. Ms.
Winland stated that the public could raise issues that staff did not consider
and that could be perceived as incomplete information.
Mr. Kaye asked the commission for their opinion on what applications
should, or should not, require City Council action. Mrs. Hanna stated that we really do need the
two meetings. When the City Council sets
their public hearing, they could do it all in one meeting.
Mr. Kaye clarified that he was asking which applications should require
City Council approval. With site plans,
for example, there is very little discretion.
Therefore, they are often reviewed at the Planning Commission level or
staff level. Ms. Winland stated that
there is no legal issue that states both the Planning Commission and City
Council have public hearings. A public
hearing could be held at either level.
Moving forward with this
process, staff will bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for further
discussion. The next step will be for
staff to outline the process that would result if the process were to be
changed. Staff will also address the
issues with City Council concerning their process of setting and holding public
hearings.
3. Adjourn
Adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Bradley Kaye, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
MINUTES ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION