Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves micro-dwelling zoning ordinance after debate over 'ground floor' definition
Summary
The City of Saginaw Planning Commission approved a micro-dwelling unit development zoning ordinance after commissioners debated ambiguous terms including what counts as a 'ground floor' and a provision tying unit size to a neighborhood average; the measure passed by a 6–2 vote and will be forwarded to city council.
The City of Saginaw Planning Commission on the meeting record approved a new zoning ordinance to allow micro-dwelling units after a focused discussion about several ambiguous definitions and measurement standards.
The ordinance, presented by staff in its final formatted form, was approved on a 6–2 vote. The approval followed a public hearing and more than an hour of commissioner questions and debate about how the rules would be applied in split-level houses, how to measure unit size, and whether the ordinance relies on undefined terms.
Commissioners concentrated on two technical concerns. Commissioner (speaker 4) said the ordinance’s repeated use of “Ground Floor” lacked a clear definition for split-level and sunken-floor buildings and warned that ambiguity could invite legal challenges. "Ambiguity is the last thing you want in an ordinance like this," Commissioner (speaker 4) said. The presenter (speaker 5) and other commissioners discussed substituting an established definition such as "gross floor area" to reduce confusion.
Another point of contention was a clause requiring a new unit’s size to be the greater of 400 square feet or "no less than 50% of the average floor area of other single-family dwelling units" within 200 feet of the subject lot. Commissioner (speaker 4) called that provision "repressive" for micro units and urged striking or clarifying the 50% language. Staff suggested using gross floor area, which is already defined in the zoning code, as a technical fix.
Commissioner (speaker 3) moved to approve the ordinance "as written"; the motion was seconded and carried after roll-call and voice responses were recorded. The commission recorded the result as a 6–2 vote; the recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
The record shows the commission has considered variations of this language in prior meetings and that staff framed the current version as the product of months of work and public review. Commissioners asked staff to clarify defined terms and to note any areas that should be fixed before council consideration.
The next procedural step is transmission of the commission’s recommendation to City Council; the commission did not adopt amendments on the dais beyond the vote to send the ordinance forward.
