Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
A Regular Meeting of the Flushing City Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, May 4, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Kevin J. Keane, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: C. Neil Blackmore
Gregory J. Bois
Daniel D. Borgerding
Dennis Bueche
John C. Gault
Kevin J. Keane
Robert Matsko
John C. Olson
Absent: Karianne M. Martus
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Oath of Office - At this time, City Clerk Nancy Parks administered the oath of office to Gregory J. Bois, Dennis Bueche, John C. Olson and Robert T. Matsko.
Election
of Officers - Chairperson– Motion by Matsko, seconded by Bueche, to nominate
Kevin J. Keane as Planning Commission Chairperson. Nominations closed.
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Election
of Officers - Vice Chairperson – Motion by Matsko, seconded by Blackmore, to
nominate John C. Olson as Vice Chairperson.
Nominations closed.
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Gault, seconded by Blackmore, to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2008 Regular Meeting, as written.
Yea: 7
Abstain: 1
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Two
Public Hearing – Special Use Permit – Fostrian Nursing Facility Addition (540 Sunnyside Drive) (55-25-100-008, 55-25-200-047, 55-25-100-005) – Chairperson Keane announced that, during the public hearing, the applicant is allowed to make a presentation and then members of the audience may make comments. He then invited the attending representatives of HCR ManorCare Properties LLC, Peter H. DeLoof, Attorney in Fact, Brian Harrigan, Manager of Development for HCR, and Brad Brickel, Project Engineer (Nowak & Fraus), to present their proposal to the residents and commission members.
Mr. DeLoof displayed two (2) visual aid boards of the project. He began by explaining that this is an expansion of the existing facility; the expansion is about 6,600 square feet or so; involves a reallocation of existing rooms within the facility; and a net increase in beds of about 118 to 140 beds. There is also a significant physical rehabilitation program that is ongoing and will be expanded. Approximately 20-22 additional full-time employees are anticipated to be employed over three shifts at the facility.
The materials on the exterior will remain the same and, therefore, will be a seamless addition to the facility.
The Chairperson opened the public hearing to the audience.
No public comments were made.
The Chairperson closed this portion of the public hearing.
No public comments were made.
NEW BUSINESS:
Special Use Permit/Site Plan - Fostrian Nursing Facility Addition (540 Sunnyside Drive) (55-25-100-008, 55-25-200-047, 55-25-100-005) – City Manager Bow stated that, with the completion of the Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit, he noted that the members had the site plan, and several communications relating to discussions that have taken place since January.
Per the final engineering review, approval will be required for watermain permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and Genesee County. For the planning review, the site complies with the requirements of our Zoning Ordinance, and is ready for approval.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Three
He asked the members to turn to page two of their
memorandum, and note that there are two (2) motions required in order to
approve the addition. The first is to
approve a Special Use Permit, and that is recommended subject to the facility
complying with three (3) conditions:
1. Fostrian is to enter into an agreement with a company to pump out the sanitary vaults that have been designed to collect these materials (various types of linens that have managed to enter the city’s sanitary sewer system and become lodged in lift station pumps, causing serious damage to the lift stations), as they leave the building. The first condition would require Fostrian to provide evidence of a semi-annual maintenance report to assure that the materials are removed from the vaults at least twice a year.
2. The facility will agree to allow the Department of Public Works (DPW) personnel to inspect screens that are to be installed on laundry sinks throughout the facility. These inspections will be completed at the same time potable water samples are taken at the facility.
3. The facility recognizes the compliance requirements that are now in place, and may be modified by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), as they apply to mercury testing and other metals and prescription drugs that may be discharged from the facility. The facility agrees to any required testing that the city is mandated to perform, by the MDEQ, to maintain compliance with the city’s discharge permit.
Special Use Permit - Fostrian Nursing Facility Addition (540 Sunnyside Drive) (55-25-100-008, 55-25-200-047, 55-25-100-005) – It was moved by Gault, and seconded by Olson, to approve the request for a Special Use Permit, as amended.
Discussion:
Gault commented that, based on the letter presented, this has been discussed with the facility’s management and they have taken steps to comply with all of these conditions. Bow agreed that they are very willing to comply with all of these conditions, as indicated in both the letter and verbal communications.
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Site Plan - Fostrian Nursing Facility Addition (540 Sunnyside Drive) (55-25-100-008, 55-25-200-047, 55-25-100-005) – City Manager Bow stated that the second motion is to approve the site plan itself, subject to all applicable permits and licensing requirements being submitted to the city prior to approval of the general building permit.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Four
Discussion:
Bow – Just one note, there is probably a bit of time length that will be taken between now and the time they begin construction, as they are proceeding with Genesee County to move the Boman Drain around the back of the facility.
Mr. Brickel - stated that because of that and the DEQ, he would say toward the end of the summer is when they hope to have some final information from the state and county, but that’s dependent on how fast they move.
Aye: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Site Plan – AutoZone (1559 E. Pierson Road) (55-25-576-018) – We received a new Application for Site Plan Approval for AutoZone to be located at 1559 E. Pierson Road (the site of the former Republic Bank). This structure is designed to replace the existing bank, which will be scheduled for demolition. The previous site plan is no longer in effect and, in accordance with the March 13, 2009 review from Rowe Professional Services Company, the engineer has recommended that the developer’s engineer research alternate layouts to the grading and storm sewer. Since this memorandum was written, the city engineer and I discussed the issues relative to the storm sewer and the site runoff, and, from what I’ve learned from the city engineer, the drainage plan that is in place should handle the runoff that we would be concerned with.
With regard to the four (4) items listed in the planning review, the applicant has re-submitted plans, and has addressed the issues raised by the city’s planner. Item number three (3) of the planner’s comments, it should be noted that, in the event that the easement on the west side of the site is ever developed as a street, possible conflicts could occur in traffic circulation, as seven (7) parking spaces from this site directly back into that easement aisle.
Administration also recommends that approval of the site plan should require the applicant to re-locate the utility box, which is located south of the proposed pylon sign, to the north of the front building line of the facility.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Five
Administration recommends a motion for approval of
the site plan for AutoZone, to be located at 1559 E. Pierson Road, with the
following conditions attached to that approval:
1. Any modifications made to the adjoining property to the north and west of this site plan, which results in an increased traffic flow through the ingress/egress easement, be conditioned to avoid conflicts with the parking spaces that are designed on the west side of the facility.
2. That the applicant re-locate the utility box, which is located south of the proposed pylon sign, to an area that is north of the front building line of the facility.
Site Plan – AutoZone (1559 E. Pierson Road) (55-25-576-018) – It was moved by Gault, and seconded by Olson, to approve the site plan with the following two (2) conditions:
1. Any modifications made to the adjoining property to the north and west of this site plan, which results in an increased traffic flow through the ingress/egress easement, be conditioned to avoid conflicts with the parking spaces that are designed on the west side of the facility.
2. That the applicant re-locate the utility box, which is located south of the proposed pylon sign, to an area that is north of the front building line of the facility.
Discussion:
Olson – questioned the potential for a problem with the parking and the easement situation, and Bow responded that, at this point, only if there is a substantial change to the facility at the rear and an increase in traffic results. He continued that the easement would remain in place, as is, a thirty (30’) foot wide easement that should handle the small amount of traffic that does go in there. He has also been told that the house west of the site is going to be demolished and a new site plan would then be submitted for that facility.
Keane – addressed the relocation of the Consumers Energy switch, which is at the southeast corner of the property; there is a request in process at the utility to relocate that to an, as yet, undetermined location. This new site plan had not been provided to the utility, and changes will be made at the pleasure of the commission if that requirement is requested tonight.
Bois – has anything been submitted to us regarding the proposed sign? Bow responded that there is a pylon sign located on the east side of the lot, that meets the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, and that the building inspector would assure compliance as well.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Six
Keane – commented that the plan calls for a “dark sky light” for parking lot lights, which puts most of the light down on the ground surface and is leading edge technology in the reduction of light pollution. He commends them for applying that technology without and rules or regulations requiring that.
Bow – offered that the height of the sign is fifteen (15) foot and the sign is thirteen feet eleven (13’ 11”) inches by three feet seven (3’ 7”) inches. Bois inquired as to illumination restrictions and Bow stated that there are restrictions on electronic signs.
Aye: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Outdoor Café Ordinance - During the past year, several restaurateurs in the downtown area have requested consideration of outdoor eating areas adjacent to their businesses. While the recently adopted Downtown Development Study encourages an appropriate mix of uses, including restaurants, there are no provisions in the current Zoning Ordinance, which allow outdoor consumption of food or beverage.
In order to provide a method of allowing outdoor food service establishments, administration has reviewed other cities’ ordinances to determine how these types of uses are handled, and regulated. Some cities allow for this type of use through their Zoning Ordinance, while other cities use a police powers type of ordinance. Police powers ordinances are generally more restrictive in that a license agreement may be entered into, which places more controls on the types of issues that may need to be dealt with in the event of non-compliance with the ordinance provisions. Issues regarding cooking equipment, loud speakers/noise, health department issues, and paper goods, may arise and need to be dealt with as these uses operate. Considering the issues involved in permitting some type of outdoor café operation, sample language was developed for consideration and review. In addition, minutes to the Bay City Commission, with the issues that they looked at while considering a similar ordinance amendment were submitted for review.
If this type of use is recommended to proceed, language revisions to the attachments are requested, and eventually a Public Hearing date would need to be established, in order to incorporate this type of use to be allowed within the city ordinance structure. Following are some of administration’s recommendations for changes to the proposed ordinance:
1. Section 4, I would propose the first sentence read as follows: “An application for an Accessory Use Outdoor Café license may be issued by the City Manager, subject to City Council approval, with a finding that the applicant meets the requirements below:”
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Seven
2. Section 5, I would propose the first sentence read as follows: “An application for a Sidewalk Café license may be issued upon approval of the City Council, with a finding that the applicant meets the requirements below:”
3. Section 6, the same change: “An application for a Sidewalk Café license to allow a café to encroach on public parking spaces or other public property may be issued upon approval of the City Council, with a finding that the applicant meets the requirements below:”
The rest of the ordinance is fairly intact, subject to any comments you may have. A Public Hearing date will then have to be set to consider this ordinance, if it is a Zoning Ordinance amendment. If it is a police powers type of ordinance, public hearing is not required, but is recommended nevertheless.
Outdoor Café Ordinance – It was moved by Gault, and seconded by Borgerding, to approve the proposed ordinance, subject to recommended changes.
Discussion:
Bueche – inquired as to the difference between this
ordinance and a police powers ordinance, to which Bow replied that, under a
police powers ordinance, we would be issuing a license and, under the Zoning
Ordinance you have uses that are permitted as a matter of right or by special
use permit. Under a police powers
ordinance, you can stop the use of the license if significant problems
arise. The city attorney would format
the ordinance, as to zoning or police powers.
Olson – inquired as to the recommendation of other
cities, and Bow stated that, based on his research, his recommendation is for a
police powers ordinance, as it would allow for rapid response to a given
situation.
Keane – noted that no speakers or sound equipment would
be allowed and that would also prohibit background music.
Blackmore – offered that the Midland/Bay City area
does a very fine job with this type of outdoor café.
Borgerding – addressed the five foot (5’) wide clear
zone for pedestrians within the sidewalk, and asked if it would be limited to
the width of the respective downtown business, and Bow referred him to Section
5 E).
Keane – questioned the reference to public service
facility in 5 F) and elsewhere, and asked if that included water, electric,
communications, CATV, etc. and Bow said it denotes some type of box. He continued that they would have to submit
a drawing for review.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Eight
Bois – asked if platforms, or a fenced in area would be mandated for all outdoor cafés, to which Bow responded that, as long as the 5’ area is maintained for pedestrian traffic, that the bigger concern would be if they build something over parking, that a barrier protection be installed, which would require the city to determine if it was a suitable barrier.
Keane – offered that the Liquor Control Commission has very specific guidelines on containing an area where liquor is served.
Bow – feels that the biggest problem facing administration would be the safety issues that could arise from this type of café.
Keane – inquired as to verbiage regarding a revocation process, and Bow pointed out that Section 8 addresses revocation of a license.
Bueche – addressed the zoning districts where this type of venue would be permitted. Bow stated that some language should be added as to the zoning districts, and suggested the commission make a recommendation for the public hearing as to what districts would apply.
Gault – voiced a concern as to the possibility of disrepair related to this type of use, as it would be seasonal at best. Bow responded that, if the structure were on Main Street, it would be a temporary structure with dates of use and a date for discontinuance and removal of the structure.
Bois – questioned the code enforcement related to this type of use, and Bow reminded the members that the ordinance would include a revocation process, other ordinances may come into play depending on the violation, the liquor license, etc. Bois asked if we address the issue of lighting, as well, and Bueche replied that lighting is addressed in 4 D), and Bow continued that a specific lumen would probably be required.
Bow – then reminded the members that the question of zoning districts needs to be determined. General discussion followed and the B-1, CBD and B-2 districts were mentioned for consideration. Bow commented that in the CBD district you can have a business there, and residences are also allowed. Therefore, would you allow it in front of a residence?
Keane – asked members if it would suit them to recommend verbiage to the effect, in any zoning district are a permitted, or allowable, business, to which Bow added, adjacent to a business use. Bow said that he would take this information to the city planner for language at the next meeting.
Bueche – asked if we should limit how much their outdoor facility can be, versus their total square footage, by percentage? Bow commented that this is not currently addressed in the proposed ordinance, but the planner could consider a maximum square footage for this type of use.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Nine
Outdoor Café Ordinance – It was moved by Bueche, and seconded by Blackmore, to amend the original motion by adding that it be sent back to the planner for amendments and that a Public Hearing be set for the next regular Planning Commission meeting on June 1, 2009.
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Under the demographics, the average income is $59,000.00, and one of the impacts on the community is the affect on Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), as well as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). And, although the CDBG allocates monies for Flushing each year, we can’t spend it. There is a small amount that could be used ($15,000.00/year) for the Senior Center. Other than that, we are limited in ways to use those monies. Many projects have been denied in the past, and if you do not become part of the CDBG program, you cannot participate in the NSP. There are a number of reasons why we don’t participate in that, even though that money might be allocated to us. That money would be used to either buy homes for renovation or demolition, but the Land Bank would own those homes, which would come off the tax roll. Secondly, they try to sell those homes for about 95% of the market value. If they sit and don’t sell, the county will rent them. You then turn occupied housing into rental housing. A portion of the money ($750,000.00) is used for administration of the program (10% of the total allocation). This program is not a bad program, but it’s not ideal for Flushing. It’s ideal for communities that have a lot of houses that need renovation or demolition.
The next issue is with Tucker Pool. One of the things we could consider would be to transfer the use of the pool to a Recreation Authority, which would encompass an area outlined by the perimeter of our school district. The Authority would have the ability to fund that pool as an area, rather than just one entity in the area. The Authority could develop revenue to help fund that pool, which is very expensive to maintain.
Communications – perhaps we need to increase the newsletters, as most people use it for information relating to events in the city and just general updates on city issues.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Ten
Old City Hall – strongly supports selling that building and consider leasing it until it is sold.
Sewer Treatment Plant – continue to compare costs of options by monitoring what we’re doing and what we might do with the county, who can process the sewage cheaper than us, but the buying cost of their system brings it on par and level. One other issue for consideration would be that we would have a substantial expense, as we would have to require many neighborhoods in the city to build storm sewers, as their sump pumps are either connected to the sanitary, or they have no sump pumps.
Olson – asked what year the law required the dual systems when subdivisions were developed. Bow stated that an ordinance was adopted in 1988 that required people to abandon discharging into the sanitary. Olson continued that all developments, some time in the 70’s, were required to have storm and sanitary separation, and the developer of his subdivision had to install a line up the back lot lines for sump pumps to discharge to. Audience member Lou Fleury, of Rowe Professional Services Company, stated that he thought it was around 1965.
Bow – continued that they may consider recommending pursuing stimulus dollars and bonds to upgrade the plant.
Priority Recommendations – is the order of priority recommendations, as determined by the citizen survey.
Olson – commented that, from the survey priority recommendations, it’s clear that they would like a new library facility, but not at the old city hall. Matsko added that the Senior Center and library could go to the VFW Hall, and Bow offered that there’s enough area there, but what do you do with the VFW building? Do you use that as a platform to be built onto for a Senior Center, do you use that for a library? Structurally, it is in good shape, but needs a considerable amount of electrical work and, depending on the use, the kitchen and roof-mount gear on the back of the building may be required to be removed. The heating/cooling unit is fairly new.
Olson – then addressed the Tucker Pool issue. He stated that a bond has been tried several times, but there’s no support for a pool to be part of the school. The pool is a community facility and it makes sense to fund it as a community facility. Lapeer Recreation Center was funded using a Recreational Bond. Although there is no revenue stream in place at this time, he feels the concept is very sound for a facility for the total community use.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Eleven
Borgerding – inquired as to why we wouldn’t want to participate in the NSP program, and Bow stated that he would like to bring someone in to speak to the commission regarding the program itself, as well as what other communities have experienced with the program. General discussion followed.
Bois – asked how much we would get and how many homes could we give to the Land Bank at that level? Bow stated that we maintain somewhere between 50-60 foreclosures on an ongoing basis. For the past 18 months or so, that figure has remained under 60. None of them have gone through the Land Bank.
Keane – brought up the specific eligibility regulations that are part of the program, and with the median income in Flushing at $59,000.00, meeting the 50% or 120% of median could also be problematic.
General discussion followed with pros and cons being addressed by members.
Bow – stated that he could bring someone in to address this issue who has had direct experience with it. He added that it’s a good program, but not a good program for Flushing.
Keane – announced that it has been proposed that we use the results of the recent city-wide survey, which has an expected accuracy of approximately 95% or 96%, and incorporate those results into the Capital Improvement Program. He then asked the members if they wanted to address any of the items listed on the Capital Improvements Program.
Bois – inquired as to the stairway and the handicap approach located at the clock site downtown. Bow explained that the stairway will be removed, and that handicapped individuals can access the river walk at two places, and the city was required to place the sign at the ramp advising of the other access area.
Bois – inquired as to wireless internet and whether the city was considering adopting that? Bow explained that it has been discussed, at length, but the expense involved is prohibitive. Keane added that nationwide, the business models for wireless internet access had been found to be wanting in one fashion or another. None of the large programs have been successful, although local hotspots, by independent businesses, have chosen to make that investment. Bow feels it would behoove the downtown businesses to get together and do that, as collectively, it would not be that expensive.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Twelve
Bois – then inquired as to whether this commission would be the ones to consider becoming greener to adhere to our administration’s goal to being 20% of renewable energy by the year 2020 or 2030? Bow stated that the city had a complete study done on the energy use of city facilities, and changes, based on that study, continue to be made, but there is no plan community-wise, but this is a policy decision that the commission could make a recommendation to the City Council to do.
Capital Improvement Program/Survey Results – It was moved by Gault, and seconded by Olson, to incorporate the city survey recommendations into the Capital Improvement Program.
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Discussion:
Matsko – asked if the old city hall is on the historical register, and Bow explained that, if a structure is on the register, and you want to improve it using certain grant programs, then it would qualify for those grants. Olson added that being on the register doesn’t protect it.
General discussion followed.
Capital Improvement Program – It was moved by Gault, and seconded by Olson, to recommend the amended Capital Improvements Program to City Council.
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Discussion:
Bow – stated that there was a recommendation at the April 22, 2009 Joint Meeting to again meet jointly, and that meeting will probably take place later this month.
Olson – wished to again express how impressed he was with the return on the survey, how it came out and how the city manager put it together and presented it, which he felt was very well done.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 4, 2009
Page Thirteen
OLD
BUSINESS:
None to address.
Adjourn: 9:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne P. Black
Recording Secretary