Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
A Regular Meeting of the Flushing City Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, November 3, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Kevin J. Keane, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: C. Neil Blackmore
Daniel D. Borgerding
John C. Gault
Kevin J. Keane
Karianne M. Martus
Robert Matsko
John C. Olson
Absent: Dennis Bueche
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Olson, seconded by Matsko, to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2008 Regular Meeting, as written.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Karianne M. Martus took this opportunity to introduce Katie Bigelow, a member of the Flushing Youth Council, who will be attending the Planning Commission meetings.
Chairperson Keane, on behalf of the Planning Commission, welcomed her to the meeting.
MEETING
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
William J. Neall, 1141 Pleasantview Drive, voiced his concern with the day care center. He stated that there is a foster children home across the street from the proposed center, and added that the proposed center looks like it’s already operating.
C. Madalen McGuire, 1136 Pleasantview Drive, stated that things are changing, and she always thought there could be no businesses in a residential community.
Elva Cook, 1459 Flushing Road, addressed the item under Old Business (Office/Residential Zoning Language) by stating that Borgerding’s business is there, the guy’s apartments and the chiropractor. There’s stuff already there, so there’s no need for language.
Flushing City Planning
Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
Page Two
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearing – Special Use Permit – 1201 Pleasantview Drive (55-25-511-014) – City Manager Dennis Bow gave an overview of the application for an in-home group day care. These facilities, up to six (6) children, are regulated by the State of Michigan. Beyond six requires going through the local regulations.
In accordance with the District Regulations, a Special Use Permit may be issued for a group daycare home, subject to the following conditions:
1. The facility is licensed by the State of Michigan as a group daycare home.
2. Fencing is provided around any outdoor play area.
3. The building retains the appearance of a single-family residence.
4. The use does not exceed 16 hours of operation in a 24 hour period.
5. The use is no closer than 1500 feet to another licensed group daycare home.
The proposed use is not the same as a foster care home.
General
Standards.
The Planning Commission shall review each application for the purpose of determining that each proposed use meets the following standards and, in addition, shall find adequate evidence that each use at its proposed location will:
(1) Be harmonious with and in accordance with the general principles and objectives of the City of Flushing Master Plan.
(2) Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character or the general vicinity and that such a use will not change the essential character of the area in which it is proposed.
(3) Not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future uses in the same general vicinity.
(4) Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police, fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewage facilities and schools.
Flushing City Planning
Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
Page Three
(5) Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person, property or general welfare by reason of hours of operation or excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, vibrations or odors.
At this time City Manager Bow read the written comments submitted by Kelly Nigrine, 1221 Pleasantview Drive, requesting that the Planning Commission keep the following characteristics in mind when considering the request for a special use permit: 1) that the business continues to fit into the neighborhood, 2) that there be little awareness of the business, and 3) that it continue to be quiet, generate no more traffic than it currently does, and not have any signage. Mr. Merle Roberts, 1203 Clearview Drive, requested that the Planning Commission deny the special use permit, as he has no interest in businesses being run out of residential homesites.
The Chairperson opened the public hearing to the audience.
Edward Newman, 1148 Springview Drive, lives behind the proposed in-home facility. His concern is due to lack of information relating to the operation of the facility, as well as any potential damage to his property from the activities generated at the proposed facility.
Kristy M. Schilling, 1201 Pleasantview Drive, applicant for the special use permit, stated that they moved to the home in July of 2006 and have operated a day care since that time. There are six children in the day care, and she has three children. One of their parents is pregnant and they would like to increase the number of children from 6 to 12, which the State of Michigan then considers “group care facility,” in order to accommodate their clients.
Their hours of operation are five days a week from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The State performs two site visits each year, which assures the legal operation of the facility. They will work with the neighbors on the concerns they have, and assured them that there will be zero difference in how the business will run if this is approved.
As to concerns voiced of adult care at the home, Ms. Schilling assured those present that it will be children only.
Elva Cook, 1459 Flushing Road, commented that she doesn’t see a problem with it, as people are going to have kids wherever you are.
Flushing City Planning
Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
Page Four
C. Madalen McGuire, 1136 Pleasantview Drive, stated that she sees the bus picking up children at the home and another one in the neighborhood.
Ms. McGuire then commented as to the fact that residents within 300’ of the property were the only ones notified of this request.
City Manager Bow responded that State law requires notification to residents within 300’ of the property, and the notices have to have specific information on them.
Michelle Gushen, 1225 Clearview Drive, wanted to clarify that it would be children and not adults.
Brian Schilling, 1201 Pleasantview Drive, agreed that the verbiage is not the best, and that it is children and not adults.
William J. Neall, 1141 Pleasantview Drive, voiced his complaint of the foster care home across the street, stating that the language is terrible and the music is loud, and he has concerns about his potential for liability.
The Chairperson closed this portion of the public hearing.
Discussion:
Gault – inquired as to the age of the oldest child, to which Mr. and Mrs. Schilling replied that the oldest is six, there are no teenagers, just younger children.
Olson – asked the Schillings if there was a number between the two (6 & 12) that they could live with. Mr. and Mrs. Schilling replied that they would have to get a helper if they get 12, and that they are basically requesting this to accommodate their families, as well as financially. Mr. Schilling described “spot” (frames of time) and stated that they never have more than six children at any period of time.
C. Madalen McGuire, 1136 Pleasantview Drive, asked if these children are special needs children, to which Mr. and Mrs. Schilling replied that the bus picking the children up was for the kindergarten and pre-school children.
Flushing City Planning
Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
Page Five
Martus – voiced her concern at not wanting to see the Schillings penalized because of the situation with the foster care home in the neighborhood.
Olson – again inquired if there was a number less than 12 that would be acceptable to the Schillings, to which Mrs. Schilling replied that they would have to abide with that if that’s the decision of the Planning Commission.
Olson – stated that he understands the needs out there right now and empathizes with the applicants as to the need. Mrs. Schilling then stated that it doesn’t mean they will have 12 children.
Gault – commented that it shouldn’t impact the parking at the residence.
Yea: 6
Abstain: 1
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
AutoZone Store Development – 1559 E. Pierson Road (55-25-576-18) – City Manager Bow gave an overview of the matter, which was originally received in July and has been back and forth with the planners, etc.
DPW Director Bryan Sutton had some items of concern, and after meeting with Mr. Murphy, of AutoZone, it was determined that the concerns will be addressed by the applicant. There are five (5) issues that need to be discussed during the review, as the first four of these items have not been brought to Mr. Murphy’s attention.
1. It appears that the outdoor irrigation system is connected directly to our water main prior to the meter connection.
2. A one (1”) inch yard hydrant is identified on the plan to the rear of the building. That yard hydrant should also be connected to the building water system, as it is currently an unmetered water source.
3. There are two (2) locations where the applicant will need to lower the city’s water main, which exists in an easement on the west side of the parcel and connects the water main at Pierson Road to the Speakeasy Plaza in the rear. Any approval should be conditioned on the applicant making arrangements with the building owner of the Speakeasy Plaza, as that connection will take a significant amount of time to be repaired.
Flushing City Planning
Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
Page Six
4. It is unclear how the site runoff will be discharged to the surrounding properties, and information should be requested from the applicant indicating that the runoff will not exceed the rate at which stormwater runoff currently exits from the site.
5. The applicant intends to continue the use of an existing transformer along East Pierson Road. I have let him know that I intend to request that the transformer be removed to the rear of the store, as we did with Walgreen’s.
The applicant currently has a Soil Erosion Permit from the County.
Matsko – inquired if the site consists only of the bank property, and the City Manager stated that the bank would be torn down with a new drive back to the plaza.
Kevin Murphy (AutoZone) – 123 S. Front Street, Memphis Tennessee, introduced himself, and stated that he was present to answer any questions.
Borgerding – inquired as to the drive, and City Manager Bow stated the new drive would be for the Speakeasy Plaza (to the west side of the bank) and the AutoZone store.
Olson – asked if the store would have the same look as their other AutoZone stores, to which Mr. Murphy replied that it would.
Keane – asked if there would be adequate parking and the City Manager replied that there would be adequate parking.
Matsko – inquired as to the entrance to the east and the City Manager stated that would be cut off.
Borgerding – the curb cut, not to Pierson Road? City Manager Bow stated that the east side would be closed.
Kevin Murphy (AutoZone) – 123 S. Front Street, Memphis Tennessee, responded to Olson and Matsko as to their question on the opening to the east. He stated that if Rite Aid wants to tie in, they could do that.
Borgerding – as a service drive? To which Mr. Murphy replied yes, a lot of municipalities are doing this.
Gault – wanted to emphasize that we appreciate good landscaping and maintenance, to which Mr. Murphy replied that, on the plan, you can see very heavy landscaping per the ordinance. He continued by stating that they keep their stores looking good.
Flushing City Planning
Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
Page Seven
Martus – inquired as to where the nearest AutoZone store was located in our area, and Mr. Murphy did not know. Several members stated that there is an AutoZone store on Corunna Road.
AutoZone Store Development – 1559 E. Pierson Road (55-25-576-18) – Motion by Gault, seconded by Blackmore, to approve the Site Plan for 1559 E. Pierson Road.
Discussion:
Keane – strongly recommended that the applicant make contact with the utility companies, and Mr. Murphy stated that he is hoping to hear from Consumers within a week with a proposal.
Bow – stated that we will have to work with the applicant on the water.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
OLD
BUSINESS:
Office/Residential Zoning Language – City Manager Bow stated that the commission had discussed developing some language to allow for mixed residential/office use in the OS-1 District, and this is one way we might go about doing that. The language submitted by Mr. Doug Piggott of Rowe Incorporated would:
1. Provide for residential uses, as accessory, to a principle office use in an existing structure. Currently the ordinance allows for this type of use if a residence, or combination residence/office, was established as of the date of adoption of our ordinance.
2. The language also limits new residential uses in combination with office buildings to fifty (50%) percent of the building area, and prohibits the residence to occupy the front of the building space.
3. In order to avoid parking issues that may be created, as the result of this amendment, the language requires residential parking to be on-site.
4. A single-family residence, which is an accessory use to the principle use of an office, would be required to comply with the minimum square footage, as is currently used for apartments. Although this may seem restrictive, it may help to minimize issues where an entire family is using the residential space.
Flushing City Planning
Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
Page Eight
5. A Special Use Permit would be required for the use of residential in the office district. Given the very limited number of office zoned properties within the city, and the character of those existing office buildings, the use of the Special Use Permit may provide some informational benefit through the process of a public comment period.
Borgerding – they would not be able to take a 50% homestead exemption if they split it?
Bow – one couldn’t be just a residence and the other a business, because that would be non-conforming.
Borgerding – they can’t claim that as a homestead?
Bow – you could probably claim that portion that is a principle residence.
Keane – paragraph one states a zoning concern rather than a tax concern.
Bow – if the language is acceptable, we need to set a public hearing. You could make it a matter of right, but you want to make sure it gets reviewed. What if someone wanted to use the old city hall, where would you put a residence? That is a unique building.
Olson – the next step is to go to public hearing. What is the harm if we go to public hearing? I think we should see if we get a reaction.
Office/Residential Zoning Language – Motion by Borgerding, seconded by Matsko, to set a public hearing on language to allow for mixed residential/office use in the OS-1 District.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Excused Absence – Motion by Gault, seconded by Matsko, to excuse the absence of Planning Commission member Dennis Bueche.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Flushing City Planning
Commission
Minutes
November 3, 2008
Page Nine
Adjournment - Motion by Olson, seconded by Gault, to adjourn.
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Adjourn: 8:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne P. Black
Recording Secretary