1. Chair Holtrop called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

2. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Artz.

 

3. Roll Call:

Members Present:  Betsy Artz, John Helder, Dan Holtrop, Ed Kape and Laurie Sheldon,  Members Absent: Ed Swanson, Frank Vander Hoff,  Don Yokom and Johngerlyn Young
Others Present:  City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder and Planner Joe Pung
 
Motion by Commissioner Sheldon, supported by Commissioner Artz, to excuse Commissioners Swanson, VanderHoff, Yokom and Young from the meeting.
 

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Swanson, VanderHoff, Yokom and Young absent-

 

4. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact

 
Minutes and Agenda were approved as drafted.
 

5. Approval of the Agenda

 
Motion by Commissioner Helder, supported by Commissioner Artz, to approve the agenda for the February 28, 2012 meeting.

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Swanson, VanderHoff, Yokom and Young absent -

 

6. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.

 
            There was no public comment.
 

7. Old Business

           
            There was no Old Business
 

8. Public Hearing

 
            There were no public hearings.

1. Work Session

 
            There were no Work Sessions.
 

10. New Business

 
Motion by Commissioner Sheldon, supported by Commissioner Artz, to set a public hearing date of March 27, 2012, for:  Case #2-12 – Marriott Residence Inn – Special Land Use and Site Plan Review for a Hotel Located at 4441 28^th Street; and Case #3-12- Fox Hyundai/Kia- Major Change to An Approved PUD Site Plan located at 4101 28^th Street SE

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Swanson, Young, VanderHoff and Yokom absent -

11. Other Business

 

1. Training Session (Jeff Sluggett)

 
Attorney Jeff Sluggett presented a general training session highlighting a range of zoning decision topics which included:
 
First principle: municipalities in Michigan have limited powers:
 

• Cannot adopt any regulation they choose

 

• Have only those powers expressly granted or reasonably implied

 

• What does this mean?

 

• Example - plan reviews largely limited to site design issues (e.g., number of parking spaces and landscaping)—not operational matters  

 

• Legal basis - authority granted by law:

 

• Michigan Zoning Enabling Act - Act No.  110 of the Public Acts of 2006, as amended (formerly relied on one of several zoning acts which were repealed July 1, 2006)

 

• Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Act No. 33 of the Public Acts of 2008, as amended

 

• Zoning Ordinance

 

• Only apply standards in zoning ordinance

 

• Objective standards

 

• Limited subjective standards (what is the scope of this?)

 
 
Second principle:  zoning stays with the land, not with the property owner.  It “runs with the land.”  
 

• Critical to carefully craft any necessary conditions so that the buildings or use operated in particular manner, regardless of ownership.

 

• Important because ownership (who owns) does have a tendency to influence decision.  For example, imagine a SLU where X comes in. Know and trust X. He says as part of use he will maintain landscaping in a particular manner … but his successor????

 
 
Third Principle:  important to understand who, under the zoning ordinance, is responsible for particular decisions
 

• Zoning ordinance must designate which official or entity responsible for particular decisions (Pl Comm., City Commission, ZBA, or Zoning Administrator)

 

• But not always the same (e.g., site plan review may be staff, zoning administrator, Planning Commission or governing body)

 

• Zoning ordinance must be clear to avoid misinterpretations by different administrators.

 
Fourth Principle:  conditions imposed must relate to a particular project and must be based on standards contained in the zoning ordinance
 

• Planning Commission, governing body, and staff are usually authorized to impose reasonable conditions in the case of site plans, special land uses and planned unit developments precipitated by project

 

• Zoning Act expressly permits

 

• Note:

 

• Basis for conditions must be identified in the motion (why is city requiring this?) and

 

• Standards on which decisions are based must be found in the zoning ordinance

 

• City can (and should where appropriate) impose conditions that are reasonable and related to use or structure in question.

 

• In a nutshell, conditions should be used to ensure that a use or development doesn’t unreasonably impact public or neighbors

 

• Any conditions imposed should be site-design based

 

• Typically, public infrastructure, landscaping, screening, trail ways, etc.

 

• Off-site improvements – careful !!

 

• Be explicit!!!

 
 
Fifth Principle:  enforcement mechanisms should be built into decisions and ordinances
 

• For example, add language to zoning ordinance authorizing a SLU to be revoked by PC in event of violation of conditions

 

• Use development agreements

 

• Encourage PUDs

 

• Have zoning permits expressly reference and incorporate conditions of approval

 

• Consider availability of conditional rezoning

 
 
Sixth Principle:  public body is subject to the Open Meetings Act
 

• Presumption is openness.  Courts consistently take the position that “close calls” support openness; exemptions relied on to avoid open meetings are viewed very strictly         

 

• General Rule -- ALL (1) “meetings” of a (2) “public body” must be (3) open to the public unless an exemption specifically applies.  (MCLA 15.262(b):  “meeting” means the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy.)

 

• Formal meetings.  Without “trappings” can still have a meeting for OMA purposes (an “informal” meeting)

 

• Prohibited meetings: 

 
            Informal advance meetings to deliberate regarding formal action to be taken          (straw votes by phone)
 
            E-mail discussions to deliberate regarding formal action to be taken telephone        conferences to deliberate regarding formal action to be taken interaction among     members is common theme
 

• E-mails as public records

 
 
Seventh Principle:  each case must be considered on its own merits and documented
 

• A thorough record is critical. Record must show facts of the case and detailed, specific reasons must be given for decision.  Not simply “request meets (does not meet) standards of zoning ordinance.”  This is important for a number of reasons

 

• Should the issue be litigated, it provides the court with a full understanding of why a decision was made.  Decisions made by the court are made on the basis of the record, not as a result of additional testimony. 

 

• It helps avoid the concern of setting a precedent.  Every case must be heard on the merits of the facts presented and the decision based on the standards of the ordinance.  Should the case be reviewed at some point by a future zoning administrator, it helps diminish ambiguity surrounding the rationale for the decision.

 

• Process of making a decision focuses on discussion among the members; purpose is to synthesize the pertinent facts from the information presented and seek a majority viewpoint. 

 

• In undertaking this task, remember:

 

• All discussion must be in public and should be audible (limit “side bars”).

 

• The public is not involved in this discussion unless the hearing body brings them in.

 

• The discussion should focus on the standards in the zoning ordinance that must be met in order to approve or deny the applicant’s request.

 

• The discussion should proceed long enough for someone to feel confident in proposing a complete motion that embodies the most important findings.

 

• Differences of opinion are acceptable. 

 

• Motions.  The motion to approve, deny or approve with conditions should state the conclusion, and the rationale for the conclusion, indicating how the facts support the decision reached.  A motion must have:  a maker and a “seconder”; a description of the nature of the request; the action taken (approval, approval with conditions, denial, tabling), any conditions attached to affirmative decisions; and, the reasons for the action taken (applicability of standards).

 

• Concerns with past practice

 

• Meeting efficiencies

 

• Discussion on the issue, if thoroughly documented in the minutes, may be adequate to provide enough information related to compliance with the standards of the ordinance.  Otherwise, a summary of the discussion is appropriate.  Referencing staff reports, when available, is also appropriate.

 

2. Commissioners’ Comments

 
            Sheldon stated she may not be at the March 13, 2012 meeting.       
 
 

3. Staff’s Comments

 
Schweitzer stated that the City Commission authorized the distribution of the draft Master Plan for public comment at their February 21 meeting. He indicated that State Law requires a minimum 2 month time period to solicit feedback from Kentwood residents and businesses as well as adjoining communities and other public agencies. An open house is being planned for mid April to invite the public to the Library to review the plan and highlight the sub area plans.
 

12. Adjournment  

 
Motion by Commissioner Helder, supported by Commissioner Artz, to adjourn the meeting.

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Swanson, VanderHoff, Yokom, Young  and absent -

 
Meeting adjourned at 8:45p.m.
 
 
                                                            Respectfully submitted,
 
                                                            Don Yokom, Secretary