Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Marquette commission approves rezoning of three Division Street parcels despite objections, 4–2
Summary
The Marquette City Commission adopted Ordinance 26‑03 rezoning three parcels on Division Street from mixed‑use to general commercial after the planning commission recommended approval; the measure passed 4–2 amid concern that rezoning post‑construction could set a precedent.
The Marquette City Commission voted 4–2 on April 27 to adopt Ordinance 26‑03, rezoning three parcels at 1308/1414/1402 Division Street from mixed‑use to general commercial, following a unanimous recommendation from the planning commission.
The planning commission’s report, read into the record by the city clerk, said the application met the requirements of the city’s land development code (section 54.1405) and was consistent with the community master plan. The recommendation noted the area’s existing pattern of commercial uses and concluded the rezoning did not constitute spot zoning.
Commissioner Gottlieb, who moved adoption, said he was “very impressed with how the planning commission handled this” and described the property and its longtime occupant as an asset to the corridor. Commissioner Davis said he had concerns when he first saw the item but that the planning commission’s deliberation persuaded him to support approval.
Commissioner Larson said he was uneasy with the idea of allowing a development to be built and then seeking rezoning afterward, calling that process “not really how the process here should work,” but added that the parcel’s long history and corridor context made the case different from some prior requests.
Commissioner Hanley objected to rezoning because the structure was already in place, warning it could “open it up to a lot more options for commercial use” if the property were sold later. Hanley also raised questions about buffer and setback conformity, saying the commission should be cautious about creating exceptions because of existing construction.
Planning staff responded that many buildings in South Marquette are legally nonconforming for setbacks because they were built under older standards; staff said the rezoning would not automatically change the nonconforming status for existing buildings but that recently added structures (a hoop house) might have to be shifted to meet current setbacks if the land use changes.
When asked about alternatives, the city attorney replied, “The only thing we can do is approve or deny the request that’s in front of you,” noting the commission’s limited procedural options short of denial and reapplication.
The roll‑call vote recorded Commissioners Davis, Gottlieb, Larson and Mayor Schlegel as yes; Commissioners Hanley and Mayer voted no. The ordinance therefore passed 4 to 2 and the mayor and city clerk were authorized to sign the ordinance.
The commission’s action follows the planning commission’s 7–0 recommendation and does not include additional conditions; staff noted there is no fiscal effect associated with the rezoning itself. The planning record and staff report remain part of the public file for the ordinance. The commission moved on to other business after the vote.
