Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Low Rise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses council request to define 'low‑rise' as 35 feet/three stories in draft comprehensive plan
Summary
Planning commissioners debated a city council resolution asking that the comprehensive land use plan define low‑rise residential as capped at 35 feet (allowing three stories). Commissioners and staff discussed tradeoffs between specificity (feet vs stories), the plan’s role versus zoning, and the timing of releasing the draft to the public.
City Council sent a resolution asking the Planning Commission to include a definition of “low‑rise residential” that would limit height to 35 feet, allowing three stories, in the city’s forthcoming comprehensive land use plan. Council Member Desch described the action as a request, not a directive, and said the resolution lists tools for the zoning phase that staff and the commission should consider when implementing the land‑use designation.
Commissioners expressed a range of views. Commissioner Adams said the Planning Commission should treat the council request seriously and warned that releasing a draft plan that fails to reflect council feedback could produce confusion and weaken the plan’s legitimacy; he suggested directing staff to revise the draft so the outer bound for low‑rise residential is three stories. Commissioner Norton and others argued for preserving flexibility in the plan: they recommended describing default expectations — “normally up to three stories” — while allowing exceptions where site conditions or community context make a four‑story form appropriate.
Several commissioners urged that the master plan avoid becoming a de‑facto zoning code and noted that precise numeric limits and implementation tools (setbacks, FAR, unit caps) are typically handled in the Unified Development Code (UDC) and rezoning phase rather than the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Wetherbee and others noted that feet versus stories can have different outcomes depending on ground‑floor uses and whether floor heights vary; they recommended framing guidance in stories rather than strict feet to reduce false precision.
Staff and the commission discussed the timetable. Planning staff advised that the draft plan should be released to the public in time for scheduled engagement events and that the commission’s review of the draft will be the main vehicle for responding to council feedback. Planning Manager Leonard said the draft currently reflects prior discussions that had included a four‑story definition for one low‑rise approach; staff recommended publishing the draft as written to allow public review and engagement, then addressing requested edits through the commission’s usual review process and subsequent draft changes.
Several commissioners suggested intermediate compromises to reduce public alarm while preserving implementation flexibility: for example, adding explanatory text that a statement about four stories in the draft reflects preliminary analysis, that final implementation (zoning) will include tools to preserve neighborhood scale, or defining primary uses at three stories while allowing secondary uses up to four stories in select circumstances. Council Member Desch recommended language that the plan recognizes a four‑story scale as appropriate but that further analysis is needed and the zoning phase will explore measures to preserve neighborhood character.
No formal vote or amendment was taken at the working session; staff said they intended to post the draft plan as a public draft on the city’s engagement site and to hold multiple public engagement events where the plan and the council request would both be discussed.
The commission’s subsequent formal reviews will determine the final language the commission forwards to council for consideration; under state law (the Michigan Planning Enabling Act) the planning commission prepares and forwards a capital improvements program and comp plan, but council also reviews and can return the document for further changes before adoption.
