City planning staff presented the current draft of a comprehensive rewrite of Fraser’s zoning ordinance at the Sept. 3 Planning Commission meeting, describing major structural changes and asking commissioners for feedback on several policy choices.
The rewrite, funded by a $50,000 Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) grant, replaces the city’s roughly 30‑year‑old ordinance and reorganizes zoning districts, permitted uses, development standards and administrative procedures. Staff said the draft is still under review with the city attorney, the building official and engineering, and that a revised second draft will return to the steering committee and then to the planning commission before a council recommendation.
City staff summarized the largest changes: updated and clearer organization of the ordinance text; renaming industrial districts from IR/IC to LI (Light Industrial) and GI (General Industrial); removal or consolidation of under‑used districts (for example, rec and OR districts absorbed into other districts); and creation of a new Transitional Residential (RT) district to buffer residential and commercial areas. Staff said the proposed zoning map largely follows the city’s future land‑use map but noted a few specific parcels were adjusted.
The draft adds and clarifies use standards. Staff called out accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as permitted with specific standards rather than a general allowance, and identified where ADUs and other smaller residential forms would be permitted. Duplexes and triplexes would be allowed in specified multifamily districts, and upper‑level residential units would be permitted in the Central Business District if downtown development patterns evolve.
Commissioners and staff discussed tools that support downtown development, including the possible reestablishment of a TIF/DDA or a corridor improvement authority for 14 Mile Avenue and the CBD, and the need for a staff or contracted economic‑development coordinator to market opportunity sites and pursue funding and predevelopment assistance programs such as the RRC program.
On consumer‑facing uses, the draft proposes explicit rules for uses such as tattoo studios, artisan maker spaces, breweries, wineries and distilleries, and mobile food vending. Staff said adult‑oriented businesses cannot be banned outright under state law and therefore are handled as special land uses with buffering and location standards; the commission discussed restrictions that would keep such uses visible and subject to special‑use review rather than hidden in industrial or remote locations.
Parking and access management were revised to include more explicit minimum standards, allowances for shared parking and a maximum off‑street parking rule intended to limit excess impervious surface. The draft also introduces mandatory bicycle‑parking requirements for developments that meet certain thresholds and references preferred bike‑parking infrastructure standards.
Landscaping sections add more specificity than the existing ordinance: required site landscaping, residential frontage trees (one deciduous tree per street frontage for new development was discussed), parking‑lot landscaping, buffer screening, tree‑preservation standards and a procedure for protected versus landmark trees. Staff said protected trees (8 inches DBH and larger) would generally require replacement at a 50% diameter‑equivalent rate if removed; landmark trees (larger species thresholds listed in the draft) would require replacement at 100% of removed DBH.
The draft also formalizes administrative procedures: two tiers of site plan review (administrative review for minor changes versus Planning Commission review for new construction or major changes), clearer definitions about what requires a zoning permit, and procedures for rezonings and conditional rezonings. Staff said the city plans to require physical signage on sites for rezonings and conditional rezonings (applicants to pay for signs) so nearby residents are notified.
Commissioners raised several concerns and requested clarifications. Commissioner Czarnecki asked staff to check the zoning map where some parcels appear relabeled industrial despite current residential use; staff said she would verify parcel designations. Commissioner Meyer asked that the draft coordinate its swimming‑pool definitions and barrier standards with the Michigan Building Code. Several commissioners pushed for more time to review the large draft and to coordinate cross‑references; staff agreed to provide additional time and to schedule further review on a future agenda. Commissioner Toler advocated for permitting backyard chickens and said she would present sample ordinances and support at a future hearing; staff said the steering committee and administration had tentatively decided not to allow chickens in this draft but welcomed further public input.
Staff described next steps: city attorneys will continue review, staff will prepare draft 2 for the steering committee, and the commission will see revised language and maps in the coming months with the goal of a recommendation to council after public hearings. Staff said the final ordinance would be codified into the city’s online code (with cross‑links) and that the process will include additional public hearings before final adoption.
No formal action was taken at the meeting; the item was for discussion and direction to staff only.