Planning commission hears presentation on comprehensive zoning ordinance rewrite; no votes taken

The Saginaw Planning Commission on March 3 heard a presentation on a comprehensive rewrite of the city’s zoning ordinance but took no formal actions because the meeting lacked a quorum.

Consultants from Giffords Webster reviewed revisions to definitions, building types, district rules, form‑based “MU” (mixed‑use) districts, planned‑unit development (PUD) procedures and proposed map changes. Julia, senior planner at Giffords Webster, and a colleague identified as Andy summarized key policy changes and cross‑referenced state law and court decisions that shaped the draft.

The rewrite consolidates and relocates definitions into a single section, updates sign rules to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Gilbert, and replaces several numeric regulatory tools (such as floor‑area ratio) with clearer building‑height and lot‑coverage rules. The consultants said the draft also introduces new building types (multistory, single‑story, townhouse, urban house and flex space) and a form‑based approach for four MU districts intended to encourage walkable, mixed‑use development.

Julia, senior planner at Giffords Webster, said the consultants “defined all of the new terms and uses that were in the ordinance,” consolidated obsolete terms and altered sign definitions to comply with Reed v. Gilbert, noting that the 2015 ruling prevents governments from regulating sign content. She summarized other definition edits as aligning municipal language to current state agency names (for example, changing DEQ to EGLE) and to licensing definitions for regulated uses such as child care and adult foster care.

Among the substantive numeric changes discussed: the draft lowers a minimum floor area per dwelling from 864 square feet to 600 square feet; proposes maximum building heights of up to 70 feet in several mixed‑use districts; sets a 4,000‑square‑foot minimum lot area for certain MU districts and 40‑ to 60‑foot minimum lot widths depending on district; and specifies setbacks and frontage percentages for form‑based street frontages. The MU3 downtown district retains intensive frontage requirements (85% on primary streets) and allows taller buildings under a discretionary review for very large proposals.

Commissioners pressed staff on several specific impacts. Commissioner Milne and others asked how the new MU1 neighborhood‑mixed district would affect existing single‑family neighborhoods. The consultants said areas rezoned to MU1 could allow new housing types — including townhouses and up to four units on a lot — unless the commission elects to require special‑land‑use review for conversions. “If you guys have issue with that or concern with that, then that’s something we could revisit,” Julia said. Commissioners discussed options including limiting multiunit conversions to new construction only or making conversions a special land use so they would require planning commission review.

The draft also formally proposes accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in some residential districts. Staff described a possible owner‑occupancy restriction for ADUs intended to reduce investor purchases that would convert both a primary unit and ADU to rentals; staff characterized that owner‑occupancy requirement as tied to the city’s rental licensing process rather than to the zoning text for all uses.

On form‑based rules and the riverfront, consultants said buildings abutting or oriented to the river should treat the river as a primary frontage and not locate parking between the building and the river. Commissioners identified ambiguities for blocks one or two streets back from the river (for example, Washington Avenue versus Water Street) and asked staff and consultants to reword the riverfront orientation provisions to preserve planning commission discretion and avoid unintentionally allowing parking or misdirecting street‑facing entrances. Andy, a Giffords Webster presenter, said the riverfront language would be revised after staff review.

Planned‑unit development (PUD) procedures were clarified and modernized in the draft: projects meeting objective thresholds (for example, 5 or more contiguous acres, sites adjacent to the riverfront, locations in a TIF district, brownfields, or mixed residential/nonresidential proposals) would automatically qualify for the PUD process; other projects could be qualified at the planning commission’s discretion. The draft specifies a concept review and qualification step, rules for major and minor amendments, and allows council to require performance guarantees for large projects.

Commissioners and staff also discussed several implementation details that would follow the presentation: fixing split parcel zoning in the GIS map, checking and completing cross‑reference links in the online “clear zoning” navigation, and confirming which existing lot and building standards should be retained, modified or restored (for example, separate lot‑size rules for two‑family buildings).

Public comment was limited to three minutes per speaker. Three residents spoke during the public comment period: Jeff Bulls (2634 Gorham Place) urged at least one public, community‑center presentation that explains the vision behind the changes and gives concrete examples of likely redevelopment; Gary Dawkins (1623 James Avenue) supported broader public engagement; and Steve Moyers (2811 East Tennessee) asked for clarification on map legend labels for R1 and R2.

Because the meeting did not have a quorum, no motions, votes or formal recommendations were adopted. Consultants and staff said they will return to the planning commission with a revised draft addressing the commissioners’ concerns about MU1 conversions, riverfront orientation language and several numerical standards prior to scheduling a public hearing and a planning commission recommendation to city council. The consultants said, timeline permitting, the goal remains to hold a public hearing before planning commission in March and, if needed, continue to April with city council consideration intended for May.

The commission adjourned the special meeting after the presentation and public comment.

Ending: The consultants and staff plan targeted revisions and follow‑up with planning commission and staff before scheduling the ordinance for a public hearing and a future recommendation to city council.