Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
A Regular Meeting of the Flushing City Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, January 4, 2010 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
Kevin J. Keane
Robert Matsko
John C. Olson
Absent: John C. Gault
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Matsko, seconded by Olson, to approve the minutes of the June 1, 2009 Regular Meeting, as written.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
No public comments were made.
NEW BUSINESS:
Café Ordinance Amendment – City Manager Bow gave an overview of the proposed amendment to the Café Ordinance. The original ordinance addressed outside sidewalk areas, while the proposed amendment addresses second floor decks that would extend over sidewalks and/or public spaces. Mr. Doug Piggott was requested to submit the proposed revisions, and Mr. Ed Henneke was requested to address potential liability concerns. This proposed amendment would apply to any business that may want to construct a deck out over a public right-of-way.
The city manager asked if Mr. Henneke could address the Commission as to his concerns.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
January 4, 2010
Page Two
At this point, Chairperson Keane turned the floor over to City Attorney Ed Henneke.
City Attorney Edward Henneke stated that he has gone over the proposed amendment many times. Three areas of concern are pedestrian safety, patron safety, and the city rights-of-way and how the city might be affected. Debris from an upper level could be dropped or thrown, with accidental harm to someone below; the potential for collapse of decks and the resulting injuries; being able to control patron behavior; the support system of a deck, as you’re required to have two (2) accesses going down the stairs, and those accesses meeting code; controlling the number of people occupying the deck, as there would be weight restrictions in place; an annual inspection would be required; possibly some liquor control restrictions; sufficient parking spaces; and restrooms to accommodate patrons on a second floor.
Section 7 E), “The proposed arrangement of supports for the deck will not unreasonably restrict use of the sidewalk by pedestrians.” The question is how do you define “unreasonable.” In discussions with the Director of Public Works, he (Director) felt that any posts from the deck to the sidewalk, would pose a problem for the DPW, and there’s concern as to whether the buildings downtown could structurally support a cantilevered deck.
Matsko inquired as to the current type use of the upper levels of the businesses downtown, and Bow replied that there is a mix use of business, apartments, vacant upper levels, dance studio, etc.
Henneke continued by stating that he sees a lot of potential liability, as a concern for the city and the public in general. The winter months could pose an additional concern associated with the removal of snow from the structures. Also, a potential lighting issue and noise issue could be associated with this type of use. If this amendment is adopted, then you need to impose some limits on how far out from the building you can go, how wide, and where it goes. Any furniture located on an outdoor upper level would have to be secured to assure that it won’t fly off the structure. Specific engineering certifications should also be required, as to weight, condition, and an annual re-certification that the structure remains sound. Standards for revocation of the permit should also be in place, such as loss of license, lack of maintenance, lack of adequate structural support, violation of restrictions that may have been placed on them in the first place, if the building becomes vacant or the business leaves, they don’t carry the insurance or continual bond, are things that should be included in any type of ordinance to assure that people are protected.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
January 4, 2010
Page Three
The next consideration would be what happens to the permit if you get a new owner? Does it continue; does it transfer? Finally, because Flushing is basically historical in structure, what would this do to the historic preservation?
Matsko offered that, if there are apartments in the back, he could see putting a platform there, as it’s a pretty big space. General discussion took place.
Bow brought up that the ordinance attached to the packet, which is being referenced by Doug Piggott, is not the same ordinance verbiage, which was adopted by the city council. Therefore, the new provisions were written and the underlying sections should be considered for this discussion. Also, the zoning, for which this applies, is for the CBD, the B-1 and the B-2 Districts.
Henneke stated that he has offered his thoughts for consideration. He went on that, whether this is a feasible thing or not, putting this anywhere along Main Street, you would have to make sure there is proper access, with building code restrictions that should be adhered to through the building inspector.
Chairperson Keane asked if the commission desired to make a motion at this time, or continue discussion and it was determined that discussion would continue.
Henneke offered that a motion at this time would be in order to either reject offhand or approve it with conditions, simply to get things started.
Chairperson Keane announced that the chair would entertain a motion to approve the proposed amendments to Section 7, Second Floor Café License.
Borgerding brought out that Section 2, Definitions, Second Floor Deck Café, should be included in the motion, to which Chairperson Keane amended the motion to include the amendment to Section 2 as well.
Café Ordinance Amendment - Motion by Borgerding, seconded by Bois, to approve the proposed amendments to Section 7, Second Floor Deck Café License, and Section 2, Definitions, as written.
Discussion:
Chairperson Keane thanked Mr. Henneke for his observations.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
January 4, 2010
Page Four
Borgerding inquired what is a similar establishment to a bar or restaurant? (coffee shop, etc.) Can the dance studio have a deck, or is it only businesses related to the food industry?
Chairperson Keane offered that it’s probably a larger issue than just the type of business that’s involved, as it would be changing the storefronts along Main Street. One immediate concern he sees is the underground utilities…water, electric and natural gas; what are their specific locations, and would egress be hampered? Over the alleyways, height restrictions would be a serious consideration.
Olson stated that the intent of this was to do things to increase business. When you start getting into construction, how economically feasible would it even be for someone to get into this, given all the other problems discussed this evening? We’re all for increasing downtown business, but our sidewalks are narrow, and our alleyways, particularly on the north side, would, more than likely, have to have support to the ground on public property.
Borgerding reminded the members that the ordinance allows for the lower level to go into the parking lot, with conditions. Are we then talking the same distance when we address the upper level?
Bow responded that it would depend on how it’s done, as to how far it can extend out. Once you start sinking posts, you get into a number of issues; snow clearing, streetlights, underground utilities, parking, etc. It’s almost limited to a cantilevered situation, especially in the Main Street area.
Bois asked if we’d considered closing off Main Street and if those thoughts are still being tossed around.
Bow replied that some discussion has taken place regarding the 100 block, but we’d lose Main Street as a major street for funding. We could test temporary closings in the summer and see how that goes, but we’d still have traffic routing problems to deal with. I don’t think that would have any affect on the second floor decking issue.
Bois continued that, would it become more popular if we shut it off, and would more businesses put in decking.
Keane brought out issues relating to the ADA.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
January 4, 2010
Page Five
Bow replied that this doesn’t violate ADA requirements, principally because the service offered on the first floor is also offered on the second floor. Therefore, you don’t need to comply with the elevator, etc. However, this would have to be researched if the board wants to proceed with this concept.
Olson has seen these in Scottsdale. However, the sidewalks are wider than we’re dealing with in Flushing.
Henneke voiced a concern relating to handicapped employees, as you cannot discriminate against someone with a handicap. If they need to work upstairs, and can’t, there could be a discrimination problem there.
Borgerding still thinks it’s based on the percentage of remodeling you do, as he was required to ramp to his front door when he put an addition on his office.
Keane, at this time, reminded the members there is a motion on the floor, made and seconded, and feels there is a tremendous amount of background information that is still required before we can put forth a recommendation to City Council for an amendment to this ordinance. Not the least of which is the list supplied by Mr. Henneke and the issues brought up by the members. He feels unable to enact this recommendation without the supporting information, and asked the pleasure of the commission.
Bois inquired as to whether we can table this discussion to the next meeting to give interested parties an opportunity to address some of the issues brought forth by the city attorney.
Bueche asked if a public hearing is required, to which Bow replied that, in this ordinance it is not. It can be postponed to a date certain or it can be tabled until we get some language together.
Henneke added that tabling is within a single meeting; postponing is for a future meeting. It may be postponed with the idea that aspects of the ordinance can be worked on in sequence rather than having it all approved at the next meeting. If that’s the case, postponement would be appropriate, without a date, and, in the meantime, segments could be worked on until satisfied with the issues.
Bois asked about a second level deck being on the side of Kathy’s above Cornwell Park? Is that something we’d be willing to revisit; allowing access over Cornwell Park? If we did, could a second level be permitted, or could it be on the street level in Cornwell Park?
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
January 4, 2010
Page Six
General discussion as to whether the park could be utilized in this manner, but consensus is that there are probably deed restrictions on the park.
Henneke added that it would take away from the uses of a public park to use for a private purpose, which would probably be restricted.
Henneke also reminded the members that they don’t have to pass anything, because it’s building over a public right-of-way, and they have no authority to do that unless it is first decided that people can encroach on the right-of-way.
Bow commented that, when they worked on the Master Plan for Riverview Park, they actually extended from the back of the buildings in the 100 block, so that the entire area might be laid out a little differently. There was discussion about moving those alleys further from the buildings, redoing the parking lots, as well as Riverview Park. A meeting with the merchants is being planned to discuss the north parking lot, which will be repaved and potentially laid out differently. An attempt to make the backs of the downtown businesses more retail friendly will also be considered.
General discussion followed as to the plans formulated in the 70’s/80’s.
Bow added that, relative to the Cornwell Park issue, it is not so much a deed restriction, as it is an issue relative to the trustee. Possibly the trustee could be worked with to accommodate some use over the park.
Keane added that easement would be required for any construction on, under, or above private property or road right-of-way.
Borgerding asked for audience input and was told by Kathy Birchmeier that they want to go out in the park.
Audience member Dale Harris stated that all of the city attorney’s concerns have been addressed through his architect and his legal counsel, and they don’t exist. They’ve addressed the ADA, they have multiple egress from the deck, as well as the upstairs addition that they want to put in as well. He owns the stairwell between himself and MGM Dance Studio, which is one of the emergency egresses from upstairs. The architect is to come up with an escape from the deck if that is an issue.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
January 4, 2010
Page Seven
Safety has always been a major concern and he’ll make sure they follow any regulations necessary to assure nothing flies off the deck or going over the edge. No glassware would be allowed, only plastic. Design, as to safety and capacity, would be adhered to. They don’t want to hang over the street, but they would like to also utilize the front lower level. Historical design of the downtown would be adhered to. Attempting to be proactive through meetings with the city, the chamber, etc. His architect and the building inspector have talked at length.
Bois stated that safety is the number one issue. He added that all the commissioners are in favor of helping downtown Flushing bring in more business.
Bow inquired as to what information is still desired, i.e. other examples, language modifications, things related to the alley, the fronts, what is still needed?
Bois would like to see information related to the issues brought out by the city attorney. He would also like to see research on the possibility of more use of Cornwell Park.
Henneke suggested that the commission first address the ordinance and then proceed to resultant issues relating to architects, building inspectors, ADA, recommendations for protecting the public, etc.
Bow will send out an inquiry as to other communities that may be doing this successfully and any problems they may have experienced. An architect could come in to address the ADA and structural issues.
Keane added that the Zoning Board of Appeals recently denied an appellant who had an existing structure and accessory built in the right-of-way, and it’s in the legal process now. We would be establishing precedent for construction in the right-of-way, unless we limited it to the CBD.
Borgerding inquired as to how much control the commission would have over the actual design if this were to pass, and Bow replied that you could refer to a set of design standards through the document.
Café Ordinance Amendment – Motion by Olson, seconded by Matsko, to postpone this issue indefinitely.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
January 4, 2010
Page Eight
Capital Improvement Program – Bow reported that he wanted to bring to the commission’s attention the revenue side of what’s happening to communities all over Michigan. He then gave a visual presentation of the projections through 2014, which will require some very significant cuts in our budgets, as well as looking at taxes. These cuts will have a huge effect on the number of people employed with the city.
Keane asked if this information has been published to the website yet, to which Bow replied it has not. He added that he intends to put out a publication, but some numbers are highly dependant on State Revenues.
General discussion followed.
Bois asked how we can make the dollars up, to which Bow responded that, if we just look at the staff, if all these figures hold true, we would have to lose not only half of our police force, but a good number of the DPW, close the library, close Tucker Pool, cut down on about a third of our streetlights, and we’d still have a negative fund balance.
Bois asked if there wasn’t a millage passed several years ago, to which Bow responded that it was just 1 mil, which generates about $225,000.00. Bois then asked what the police budget is, and Bow replied approximately 1.4 million.
General discussion of the mils levied, and what the city can levy, followed.
Keane stated that other communities are reducing their street lighting, and Bow asked how they’re going about that, to which Keane responded that he only sees the end product.
Olson stated that there’s not a public agency going right now that doesn’t have the same problem. The schools are in the same dilemma.
Bow added that the taxes for the sidewalks and the streets, a special millage, can be rolled into the operating. The operating millage is 7 mils, plus the voted millage of 1 more mil. The capital improvements is 3 mils, which can be converted into operating, and it probably will be, in addition to one additional mil, in order to keep us afloat up to 2014.
General discussion followed regarding the city’s real estate currently up for sale.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
January 4, 2010
Page Nine
Bois suggested the property be deeded to a community fund to hold the property until the city could afford to buy it back. Bow reminded the members that the city just got possession of the property two months ago, and are looking at options.
As to a question regarding retirement, Bow stated that city hall administration has lost one and one-half people; over the next 3-4 years, there will be three people going from the police department; the DPW has no one close to retirement at this point.
Chairperson Keane, upon asking if there was any other business to come before the commission, and seeing none, adjourned the meeting.
Adjourn: 8:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy G. Parks/jpb
Recording Secretary