FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

 

MINUTES

 

MARCH 5, 2001

 

A Regular Meeting of the Flushing Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson   Robert Matsko on March 5, 2000 at 7:30 P.M. at City Hall.

 

Present:          Dennis Bueche

                        George Kozan

                        John Gault

                        Ron Johnson

                        Robert Matsko

                        Walker Fesmire

                        Jack Owens

                        John Olson

 

Absent:           C Neil Blackmore (Excused)

                       

 

 

Also Present: Dennis Bow, City Manager

                        Marlene C. Stone, Deputy Clerk

                        Brent Savidant, Rowe Incorporated Planner

                        Edward G. Henneke, City Attorney

 

Pledge of Allegiance:

 

Approval of Minutes:            FEBRUARY 5, 2001 (Regular Meeting)

 

            MOTION by Fesmire, supported by Owens, to approve the minutes of February 5, 2001 as written.

           

            Yea: 6

            Nay: 0

            Abstain: 2

            Motion carried.

 

Meeting open for public comments:

 

            Mrs. Elva Cook            Mr. Jay Johnson           Mr. Nigel Fox

            315 Sunnyside Dr.        186 E Park Ave.          733 Fountain View

 

 

 

 

 

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

MARCH 5, 2001

PAGE 2

 

 

Old Business:             SITE PLAN – SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT -

  730 E MAIN ST

                                                                                                             55-26-576-008

            MOTION by Bueche, supported by Johnson, to remove the item from the table.

 

            Yea: 8

            Nay: 0

            Motion carried.

 

            MOTION by Olson, supported by Bueche, to approve the current Site Plan dated

                        12/14/00 conditioned upon the Zoning Board of Appeals granting the two

                        variances being submitted.

 

            Yea: 7

            Nay: 0

            Motion carried.

 

            MOTION by Owens, supported by Gault to approve the Special Use Permit subject to

                        no more than twelve automobiles being parked in the east lot.

 

            Yea: 7

            Nay: 0

            Motion carried.                     

 

Discussion:

• Mr. Fox spoke to the Commission regarding his request for the amendment to his special use permit.  He asked the Commission to “consider a number that would work for him” with regard to the number of automobiles he will be allowed to park on the east side parking lot.
• Mr. Bow stated administration received an application dated 11/14/00 to amend the site plan in accordance with the special use permit that was approved on 4/3/00.  The application is a request to increase the display area for automobiles.  This was previously set at four spaces for the parking area on the east side of the building.  We did request an engineering and planning review of this application.  We received the review and took public comments at a public hearing on 2/5/01.  There is a variance application pending for two items: 1. That the 15 foot right of way/green belt area to the front of the east parking lot be allowed to remain paved rather than used as a green belt as required in the zoning ordinance. 2. That the fence required, and noted on the site plan, to the east of the east parking lot be eliminated.

 

 

• Mr. Bow also stated that on 4/3/00 two motions were made:

1.      for a special use permit approval.

2.      To approve a site plan as presented with three conditions:

a. 4 automobile display spaces to the east of the building.

b. Soil erosion pemit to be on file with the City.

c. Compliance with all requirements of the DEQ.

 

• Mr. Robert Reh, Rowe Incorporated, spoke regarding the site plan and engineering review letter with regard to location and capacity of drainage on the site.  He stated that section 153.167 (i) of the ordinance requires the location and capacity of existing or porposet storm sewers, retention areas, drainage patterns as well as points of discharge of any drains or pipes to be shown on the plan and none of this information was shown.  Rowe did not have any information to review because it was not provided. Rowe requested contours and grade information after the first site plan was submitted so they could determine the storm water situation and how to deal with it. That information has not been provided.
• Mr. Reh stated two concerns:
1. The opening in the curb toward the west could possibly create a problem of water discharging onto the neighbors property, but without any topographical information he can not determine if this will occure.
2. The closeness of the pavement, in the rear of the property, to the slope to the river could cause erosion of the slope.  Mr. Ray believes there is some evidence already of a problem with the parking lot cracking and sinking. (The cracking area is located at the back of the west parking lot.)

 

• Mr. Bow stated that administration received a soil erosion perm from Mr. Fox this evening.  Administration has spoken to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and they are satisified with the pavement barrio between the contaminated soil and run off water.
• Mr. Bow stated he is not sure if this soil erosion permit negates the need for more drainage information.  Mr. Ray said his concern, as he previously stated, is to check for possible run off to the west neighboring property.  This cannot be done without the information requested.  Mr. Costa, Granger and Associates, said he does have some drainage calculations he will provide to Rowe Incorporated.
• Mr. Costa stated the amount of additional paving, that was not shown on the approved site plan, is approximately 7000 square feet. (This was approximately a 50% paved area increase.)
• Mr. Fox stated that during the recent hard rain storm no water was discharged onto the adjacent property parking area.  All the run off discharged to the back/south.
• Mr. Johnson questioned how the building was able to be occupied with an occupancy permit and not have some type of inspection of the site which would show that some items on the site plan were not finished.  (Items such as fence to the east, dumpster, landscaping, entrance and exit signs, bumper blocks and the addition of pavement.)
• Mr. Bow stated the Building Inspector does review the file for the final occupancy permit.  He believes a temporary occupancy permit was issued and will need to check on the status of the final occupancy permit.
• Mr. Gault stated the site improvements are an asset to the City.  His issue is that additional cars, over the four approved, were displayed without asking for an approval to increase the number allowed.
• Mr. Johnson stated he does want the 15 foot green belt area to be restored as green belt and not used as parking area.  This will be a decision for the Zoning Board of Appeals at a future meeting.
• Mr. Savidant Explained that if the Commission approves the site plan and special use permit  pending ZBA approval and the ZBA does not approve the variances then the plan would come back to the Commission.
• Mr. Edward Henneke, City Attorney, stated the Planning Commission has two decisions to make they needs to decide if they want to increase the number of allowed parking spaces to the east of the building and how they want to handle the site plan.
• Mr. Henneke stated the Commission can approve the site plan as presented subject to the ZBA approval or denial of the 15’ green belt area. If the ZBA denies the request then Mr. Fox will need to have the pavement removed and install the green space.

 

New Business:           SITE PLAN – 210 INDUSTRIAL DR (WENZLICK)

                                                                        55-27-502-044

           

            MOTION by Gault, supported by Johnson, to approve the site plan contingent on

                        obtaining a soil erosion permit. 

            Yea: 8

            Nay: 0

            Motion carried.

 

Discussion:

• Mr. Bow stated this plan has been review by our engineer Mr. Robert Reh and planner Mr. Brent Savidant and the are present to answer any questions.
• Mr. Savidant spoke to the Commission regarding the plan and stated:
1. The applicant is proposing a 18,000 square foot storage building. There is and existing warehouse operation.
2. A minor issue of parking is that no information was provided on the plan to allow the calculation of parking requirements.  (Need to know the maximum number of employees.)  Mr. Wenzlick stated five would be the maximum number of employees on site and they have eight existing spaces.
3. A more significant issue is the 81 foot wide fourth entrance drive being requested.  Rowe recommends removal of one drive and possibly reducing the with to a size smaller that 81 feet.  Mr. Wenzlick stated the wide drive will be for a turn around for large trucks and will help to keep traffic from blocking the road.

• Mr. Reh’s review stated the plan does not show any existing or proposed grading or storm drainage paterns.  Storm water run off generated by the new building or paved areas should be directed to an appropriate outlet. The developer should be advised that the building or grading activity of the proposed development should not adversely impact the existing drainage patterns of adjacent properties.

 

General Discussion: 

 

CAPITAL IMPROVENENTS PROGRAM

 

            Mr. Bow stated that unless the Planning Commission has any changes tonight this

            document will be going to other Boards and City Council for additions or changes and

            then a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council will be scheduled.

 

                        ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (CIVIL INFRACTION)

 

            Mr. Bow and Mr. Savidant stated the process would require a Planning Commission

            Public Hearing and a recommendation to City Council. (We will set the Public Hearing

            for the April 2, 2001 regular meeting.

 

            MOTION by Owens, supported by Fesmire, to set the Public Hearing for the Zoning

                        Amendment for April 2, 2001.

 

            Yea: 8

            Nay: 0

            Motion carried.

 

 

                        SCHEDULE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE MEETING

 

            The Commission will meet on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. for review

            of the ordinance draft already provided.

 

 

 

Adjournment:

 

            MOTION by Fesmire, supported by Gault, to adjourn.

 

            Yea: 8

            Nay: 0

            Motion carried.  Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

 

 

 

mcs