Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
A Regular Meeting of the Flushing City Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, June 7, 2010 at 7:31 p.m. by Vice Chairperson John Olson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: C. Neil Blackmore
Gregory J. Bois
Daniel D. Borgerding
Dennis Bueche
John C. Gault
Robert Matsko
John C. Olson
Absent: None
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Election of Chairperson – Vice Chairperson Olson opened the floor to nominations for Chairperson, a position now vacant due to the resignation of Kevin Keane, who now sits on the city council.
Motion by Blackmore, seconded by Bueche, to nominate John Olson as Chairperson.
Motion by Borgerding, seconded by Bueche, to nominate John Gault as Chairperson.
Motion by Bois, seconded by Borgerding, to close the floor to nominations.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
General
Discussion:
Vice Chairperson Olson stated that he would prefer Gault accept the position of chairperson, due to his School Board commitments.
Election of Chairperson – All those in favor of John Gault serving as chairperson were asked to raise their hands. Motion carried with five (5) raised hands.
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Olson, seconded by Matsko, to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2010 Regular Meeting, as written.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
June 7, 2010
Page Two
Dale Harris, Skip’s Come Back Inn – expressed his disappointment and frustration with the process he’s gone through in his attempt to get the expansion to his business downtown, which would benefit the community, put more people to work, increase the value of his business and increase the taxes he pays. He continued by enumerating what he felt were specific roadblocks to his project. He added that a number of businesses are being lost downtown, and he requested the board get this thing back on track if that is within their power.
Jerry Hudson, 1432 Cedarwood Drive – voiced his concern for the entrances to the city; abandoned buildings at the east and west entrances to the city; empty buildings at the east entrance; and a former gas station at Seymour and Main. It is his opinion, as well as his neighbors and the businesses adjacent to these properties, that they detract, deter potential business, and are a potential safety issue. He’s appealing to the board to institute a process or processes to have these structures removed or enhanced, and that such activity become a permanent agenda item of the board until such actions are completed.
Elva Cook, 1459 Flushing Road – commented that if the board passes the item on the agenda relating to the condominiums across from her house, the board will land lock a piece of land, and it would be wrong to put another house in there.
NEW BUSINESS:
Condominium
Amendment – City Manager Bow reported that we
have an application from Mr. Donald Zandstra, who has already purchased the
back part of the property in question, and would like to use that property,
make that division legal, and attach it to his property. Therefore, he is looking to attach the
property as part of his unit.
The
Zoning Ordinance requires condominium amendments to be approved by the Planning
Commission. What this amendment would do
is expand the unit size (Unit 6); it would not create an additional building
parcel, but merely enlarge the size of his (Mr. Zandstra’s) unit (6). The city attorney advises that, in order to
make this modification, the Master Deed would need to be amended and is
recommending that this request be approved, subject to review by the city
attorney of the final recordation and the assurance that the other residents in
that condominium development agree with the plan for the expansion of unit 6.
Discussion:
Olson
stated that, as the property description would read, that is a landlocked piece
of property, to which the city manager agreed.
Olson continued that this does the reverse, because it attaches it to
something so it’s no longer a landlocked piece of property.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
June 7, 2010
Page Three
Condominium
Amendment – Motion by Bois, seconded by
Bueche, to approve the application submitted by Mr. Donald Zandstra.
Discussion:
Borgerding
questioned the sketch, as the proposed unit 6 sketch adds the whole piece to
unit 6, and unit 6 doesn’t touch that piece of property. Therefore, are we expanding the building
envelope, because that’s what unit 6 is, or are we expanding the condominium’s
limited area? Mr. Zandstra does not,
alone, own the property contiguous to that vacant piece of property. What is that property going to become once
it’s added to the Master Deed; either expanding the building envelope or it’s
going to become limited common area that’s limited to the condominium
association’s obligation to maintain it and his right to use it, or his
obligation to maintain it, but it will be owned by the condominium association.
Bow
stated that we will need some evidence that the association is giving up its
rights, so that becomes part of unit 6.
The condominium association is the only entity that can legally modify
the Master Deed, and they have the authority to change that unit 6, and then
the city attorney would review the minutes to their meeting that allows them to
do that.
Borgerding
again stated that the unit is the building envelope, to which Bow replied that
it can be expanded. Borgerding again
asked if we’re creating a building envelope that will run the full length of
the proposed property addition for unit 6, and Bow responded, subject to the
evidence that the association approves that area to be included as part of the
Master Deed, and all of that area be included as part of unit 6. Borgerding continued by stating that all of
that area would not be included as part of unit 6, and Bow replied that it
would be. Borgerding stated that unit 6
is the building envelope, and Bow stated that, prior to the modification, that
is correct. Borgerding asked if all the
area will be included as unit 6 and Bow stated that it is all one modification
to the Master Deed, which would have a new envelope for unit 6, incorporating
all of the parcel.
Olson
stated that this is all in the hands of the condominium association, and we can
say that it is okay, if the association approves the change to the Master
Deed. Bow stated that it is his
understanding that the association has already done this, and Mr. Zandstra
(present in the audience) stated that they have received the association’s
approval to add this on as an extension of the building unit. Mr. Zandstra continued by stating that Gould
Engineering suggested it be added to the unit, without the limited common area,
and all the residents agreed to it.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
June 7, 2010
Page Four
Fostrian
Site Plan Change – Bow stated that this is
another modification to an existing site plan and, under the Zoning Ordinance,
minor changes to the site plan may be approved by the Zoning Administrator and
require written notice to the Planning Commission, which is what we’re doing
here, and a notation of the decision added to the record. According to the ordinance, no additional
approvals are required at this time; we’re simply required to notify the
commission of this minor site plan change.
There
are roughly twenty (20) new parking spaces; ten (10) on the west side of the
site; and ten (10) in the back, which is an extension of the existing parking
lot.
OLD
BUSINESS:
Site
Plan Review – MTA – Motion by Bois, seconded
by Matsko, to remove this item from the table.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Bow
stated that there have been several discussions by the people involved in this
since the last meeting, but the city hasn’t been involved. He does know that the two (2’) foot strip in
question is owned by the original developers of the condominium development,
and they have had quite a bit of discussion between them and the MTA, but it
still has yet to be resolved. In calling
the MTA office, he was informed that one of two things would happen…either an
easement would be provided for ingress and egress, or a deed would be obtained
from the developers that would be granted to the MTA. This item can continue to be postponed or the
commission, if satisfied with the site plan, can approve it subject to
resolution of that issue.
Bois
asked why we would pre-approve, what is the reason, would that expedite the
process for everybody and Bow stated that’s the only reason, to expedite. Bois then asked if there’s something they
would do that we would want to be aware of before we would approve or
disapprove? Bow continued that, unless
there’s something else on the site that the commission is concerned with, he
believes everybody has gotten everything worked out on this entire site plan
except for the easement, or the deed, to the two-foot strip.
Jim
Sporer, CHMP Architects, was recognized by Chairperson Gault and asked to
address this issue. Mr. Sporer informed
the commission that one of the things discussed was providing some decorative
picket fencing along that east property line to tie in with the condominium
environment, which they have done. He
believes the paperwork is making the rounds with the owners and is not aware
whether it is a Quit Claim Deed or an easement, and felt Mr. Borgerding might
shed some light on that. He added that
the commission’s approval would help move things along, as they want to get
started as soon as they can.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
June 7, 2010
Page Five
Bois
asked if it looked like there will be an agreement and Borgerding responded
that it does. He added that it was
determined that the developers (Borgerding, Tom Staley, Mark Sepansky and Dave
Rowe) own the two feet. He added that
they moved the chain link fence, and Mr. Sporer stated that the picket fence
goes on the east and the north, so the chain link fence was moved up. Borgerding continued that they moved the
chain link fence up, away from the lot line, and then added the white picket
fence along Beacon Point Parkway and along the back.
Discussion
then followed as to the maintenance of the landscaping.
Bow asked how high the picket fence
would be and Mr. Sporer responded that it would be four (4’) foot high. Bow asked if it was their intent to extend it
to the right-of-way, to which Mr. Sporer replied that it starts right about
even with the parking lot, in order to respect the clear vision area.
Borgerding
then stated that those were the only two changes made to the site plan from
their meeting; two of the developers were comfortable with that; they’ll take
it to the other two and then their intention is to go to the association board. He’s
ninety-nine percent sure this can be resolved in ten days. Therefore, he would say that approving it
with that as a stipulation is probably going to help this process.
Bueche
inquired as to the sewer calculations and Bow said the Drain Commissioner has a
required letter, to which Mr. Sporer stated they require what’s called an
“authorization to construct” that comes from the city for them to make a
connection and to make sure the capacity of the sewer system will handle this
facility.
Site
Plan Review – MTA – Motion by Bois, seconded
by Blackmore, to approve, subject to resolution of either an easement, which
would provide for ingress and egress, or a deed transferring the property owner
over to the MTA, and the revisions as described by Mr. Sporer.
Yea: 6
Abstain: 1
Nay: 0
Motion
Carried.
Planning
Commission By-Laws and Guidelines –
Chairperson Gault brought the members attention to the fact that this document
should be read and kept in the members’ possession. He added that it should be re-read and, if
there are any questions, please direct them to the city manager or bring them
to the next meeting.
Bois
asked the city manager how he wished the members to proceed with this document,
and Bow stated that, periodically, this document should be reviewed. He continued that, in particular, the last
three (3) pages should be reviewed.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
June 7, 2010
Page Six
General discussion followed.
Bois asked if the commission can ask questions of individuals addressing them during Meeting Open to the Public, and Gault stated that that is not the time for debate. He added that, if a question is asked, the commission should take a look at it to determine if there is anything that can be done to address the particular issue.
Olson added that, if something comes up, it should be made an agenda item, but not something that is acted on or discussed at that point in time.
Borgerding stated that it would probably flow better if the presentation were given before the public is asked to comment. He then asked when the Master Plan was last reviewed, and Bow replied that administration reviews it regularly. Borgerding feels it would be a good idea for the commission to review the Master Plan, as the city has changed since that Master Plan was developed.
Matsko inquired as to the former Hamady building, to which Bow replied that there’s been activity down there, and the owner (Mike Dandy) has attempted to lease it out but nothing has come of those attempts. He continued that there was quite a water problem (broken main) in the building that’s been cleaned up, the fascia needs to be fixed and we’re working with him on this, and he recently met with the city assessor and attorney, as he is appealing his tax assessment.
As to the gas station on Seymour Road, Bow stated it is owned by the railroad. Bow continued that, when the railroad sells a property, it is sold as is. The building inspector can look at that building and potentially do something about the outside condition of the building.
Bois voiced concern relating to the condition of the gas station at the intersection of Flushing and Pierson Roads and the tree that was damaged in a storm and remains an eyesore. Bow advised that they are going through a site assessment, working with the DNRE in an attempt to get a final modification to a plan so they can install a purge of the groundwater and discharge it. There is a procedure they can use to have it direct discharge to the river, but the cleanup standards under this EPA rule are very difficult, and they’re trying to work that out. They cannot discharge to our sanitary system unless we can document absolutely that there are no chemicals in the discharge.
Bois then inquired as to trailers, specifically one that’s been on a business property on Main Street. Bow replied that there is no ordinance prohibiting that.
General discussion of similar conditions in areas throughout the city then followed.
Bow stated that the Master Plan is outdated and we are in need of a re-write, and suggested that, following the receipt of census information, the Planning Commission spend some time addressing specific neighborhoods.
Minutes
June 7, 2010
Page Seven
Matsko
voiced concern as to the size of the property at Pierson and Flushing Roads
relative to supporting a business. Bow
replied that once they finish with the environmental assessment and get a
permit to discharge, they should be able to sell it.
Borgerding
inquired as to the comments made by Dale Harris during Meeting Open to the
Public, and Bow explained that the council approved the amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, but did not approve the amendment to the Café Ordinance, which means
that he could build the second story deck, but he wouldn’t be permitted to
serve alcohol. Bois added that he (Dale
Harris) could make some changes that might accommodate city council.
Adjournment – Motion by Olson, seconded by Bueche, to adjourn.
Yea: 7
Nay: 0
Motion
Carried.
Adjourn: 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne P. Black
Recording Secretary