Traverse City planning commission schedules public hearing on rezoning for bank site near Garfield and US‑31

The Traverse City Planning Commission reviewed a request to rezone three parcels near the Garfield and U.S.‑31 intersection so a bank could add a single‑lane drive‑thru, but took no formal action and set a public hearing for the item.

Scott Hardy, a commercial realtor representing the potential buyer, told the commission the buyer wants the option of a drive‑thru and that “we would love to be able to operate within the HR zone,” but seeking C3 would provide parity with the adjoining property and greater flexibility. Ian Wilson, principal architect at Nolan Carter Architecture, said the planned branch would be a single‑story facility of about 6,000 square feet with a drive canopy and weekday hours roughly 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m.; he characterized projected drive‑thru use as low, about six transactions per hour.

Commissioners focused on whether C3 — a broad, autocentric commercial district — is appropriate at the gateway and how a rezoning would transition to adjacent residential parcels. One commissioner asked staff to show clearer overlays because the commercial‑gateway map in the master plan was difficult to read. Another raised concern that allowing C3 could permit larger parking‑dominated or drive‑through uses that would preclude higher‑density development.

Staff advised the commission that notices had been published and the item had been introduced at the city commission; the rezoning will return for a city commission vote and, if approved, the applicant would still need a special land use permit or similar site‑level review for any drive‑thru. Staff estimated the SLUP process and application packet review could take roughly three months or longer once the rezoning is in place.

During public comment, Kelly Brown, a nearby resident, said she opposed the rezoning because the parcel is bordered on three sides by residences and opening it to C3 or C4 would allow too many incompatible uses at a city gateway. Steve Brown asked whether a variance could achieve the same result without rezoning; staff and the commission explained that a variance that effectively permits a prohibited use is often treated as a use variance or de facto rezoning and would go to the board of zoning appeals.

The commission requested that staff provide: clearer master‑plan and zoning overlays showing parcel boundaries, a comparison of HR versus C3 setbacks and allowable uses, and clarification of the application submittal timeline. The commission confirmed a public hearing is noticed for the rezoning; no vote was taken at this meeting.