Planning commission reviews draft allowing ground‑floor parking in exchange for on‑site green space

Clawson planning staff presented a continued discussion of a proposed zoning text amendment to allow developers to locate parking on the ground floor of downtown buildings in exchange for additional green space and an extra story within existing height limits.

The staff presentation used the 150 North Main project as an example to show practical outcomes on a typical lot. Staff said the exercise moved about 27 parking spaces onto the ground floor, reduced ground‑floor residential units and left roughly 9–10% of the lot available for green space. “We get a few more units. We get more green space,” staff said during the presentation, and noted the example was “very rough” but intended to show potential tradeoffs.

Commissioners debated specific numeric thresholds and implementation details. Questions included whether the ordinance should require a minimum percentage of the ground floor be used for parking (staff’s draft used 50%), whether that threshold should be lowered (suggestions ranged from about 33%–45%), and whether the code should require a largest contiguous communal green space rather than allow very small, fragmented pockets. Commissioner Collins asked for “at least 1 green space” to be a communal area rather than multiple narrow strips. Commissioners also pressed staff about how the extra floor would be measured; staff clarified the approach would allow a fourth story while remaining within existing height limits by using shorter floor‑to‑floor heights and required setbacks on upper floors.

The commission discussed site design details that would affect the ordinance’s effect on actual lots: liner requirements for Main Street and 14 Mile (an active liner of about 20 feet depth is required on those frontages), visual screening on side streets so walking routes are not dominated by an exposed parking structure, and options for fully or partially placing parking beneath the building (including ramps to below‑grade parking). Commissioners expressed concern about small, narrow lots where meeting both a liner depth and any ground‑floor parking minimum might be infeasible.

Commissioner Tinland suggested using the planning commission’s discretion on a case‑by‑case basis rather than a rigid numeric minimum, while others pushed for a firm floor so the city receives a meaningful green‑space benefit for the developer bonus. Staff agreed to return with draft language options, renderings or quick visual examples of different percentages, and alternative text (including a proposed “alternative A”) illustrating a requirement for a minimum largest green space plus overall green space percentage. No public hearing was scheduled; staff will provide additional graphics and alternative ordinance language for further discussion.

Ending: The commission held the item for further refinement. Staff said it will provide additional visual examples and draft text showing a range of percentages and a version that requires a minimum contiguous green space. No adoption vote took place at the meeting.