Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Carports topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saginaw planning commission denies proposal to loosen carport rules
Summary
After staff and the fire chief explained a proposed zoning text amendment to allow carports larger than 600 square feet or to encroach into side-yard setbacks under a Specific Use Permit, residents objected and the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny the change.
The City of Saginaw Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny a proposed amendment to the city’s zoning ordinance that would have allowed larger front-yard carports and reduced side-yard setbacks if approved through a Specific Use Permit (SUP). The commission voted on the motion after staff presentations, a fire-department briefing and public comments opposing the change.
The proposal would have modified Appendix A, Zoning Article 8, Section D, to permit a carport’s roofed area to exceed the current 600-square-foot standard and to allow encroachment into required side-yard setbacks with SUP approval. City staff and the fire chief told the commission the change applies only to carports and is not retroactive to existing structures; existing nonconforming carports would remain legal unless removed and rebuilt.
Fire Chief (name not specified), who also oversees the building and code function, said staff is neutral on the amendment and described safety safeguards that would apply if larger or encroaching carports were proposed. "Staff remains neutral on this," he said, while noting the fire department prefers a 10-foot separation between structures and that SUPs would allow case-by-case staff review of fire-safety and drainage issues.
Residents who spoke at the hearing urged the commission to reject the amendment. "This ordinance has been in front of you guys several times this last couple of years … I'm not happy about it," said Deborah Thomas, a city resident of 617 Fox Run, who argued the existing ordinance protects neighborhood character and that allowing large or encroaching carports would create unfair first-come, first-served outcomes. Her husband, Chris Thomas, said neighborhood lots and typical driveway configurations could enable contiguous covered areas that would effectively create much larger roofed structures in front yards and set a precedent the couple opposed.
Commissioners debated whether the city’s existing tools — variances through the Board of Adjustments for hardship and the SUP process for discretionary, case-by-case review — already address exceptional situations. Several commissioners cited public safety and emergency access concerns and said they were reluctant to create a citywide rule without clearer limits on maximum size.
Commissioner Melinda Julian moved that the commission deny the proposed textual amendment; the motion was seconded and the chair announced the motion passed. The hearing record shows commissioners questioned how large a carport could become under the amended language (staff said the ordinance as drafted did not set a numeric maximum and that the 600-square-foot measure refers to roof area), and noted that an SUP application could require an engineered drainage study or property survey if drainage or property-line certainty are concerns.
The commission then moved on to staff project updates. The meeting record shows staff reported park openings and sidewalk completions and noted that Wayside Middle School was entering phase 2 of construction. The commission did not go into executive session and adjourned after a motion to close the meeting.
What happens next: the Planning and Zoning Commission acts in a recommending role; this denial reflects the commission’s action at this meeting on the text amendment as presented.
