| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
rapunzel11
F L I N T O I D
|
Planning Commission Notes for 8-25-09
We amended the agenda to move the public forum to a little bit later to allow time for community members to arrive who wished to speak but did not get off work until after 6 pm. We also moved the public hearing about the Metro PCS monopole to put it before the site plan review, since it makes more sense to get public input before we consider the request.
Public Hearing- Metro PCS
Metro PCS wants to build a monopole cell tower in an industrial area off of Richfield Rd. and Dort Hwy. They also requested that the requirement for screening be waived since the location is already surrounded by an 8-foot fence. No one from the community spoke on this matter one way or another. The special regulated use with the waiver was approved, and the site plan was also subsequently approved also.
Case Review
There was a case review- a nursing home planned to move a dumpster to face a new direction and provided a sketch to that effect. Who knew that was the sort of thing to come before a planning commission? No action was required- it was a FYI.
Public Forum
The first person to address the body was Mayor Walling. To the recollection of other commissioners, no elected mayor had ever before done this. He made several points, and here are the highlights.
· He wants to begin a process of identifying residents? needs and priorities by neighborhood to aid his administration?s service to those areas. He sees it as potentially also helping lay the groundwork for master planning.
· The department of Planning and Development will be reorganized to include Community and Economic Development. In addition, he sees the need to have someone on staff with a planning degree.
· His envisioned neighborhood meetings will be structured into three meetings per ward, in 27 neighborhoods total across the city. The purpose of the meetings would be to develop each neighborhood?s strategic priorities, immediate needs, and vision.
· He wants to align various planning processes as much as possible, so hopefully the neighborhood meetings would include the Land Bank, the city council person, and the Planning Commissioner for each ward.
· The timeline for meetings would be such that the neighborhood input would drive the city budget for 2010-11. This would mean organizing meetings from September to December and returning to neighborhoods starting in January to make sure they correctly captured what residents told them.
· The mayor was also interested in knowing which commissioners? terms had officially expired, and who might be interested in reappointment.
After that, seven residents spoke, mostly on the topic of growing food in Flint. One gentleman was concerned that while he lives on the north side where the most vacant properties are, he perceives the push for urban agriculture coming from outsiders. He does not want people from outside the community coming into neighborhoods to set up commercial growing operations, although he is fine with community gardens. He also expressed mistrust of the so-called ?shrinking cities? concept and noted that ?when they talk about moving, they?re talking about moving people, especially poor folk and old folk.? I realize that since Flint?s population is not as large as it once was, the question of what kind of place we want to be in that new reality will likely be a central one in the master planning process. However, I share the speaker?s wariness of the concept of ?shrinking cities? as it has been publicized. Flint will need to grapple with its changing reality, but it needs to be Flint people building our own vision, not a vision plunked down on top of us from folks who might not even live here.
Another speaker who is a city resident talked about his experience with MSU Extension farming, keeping animals, and hoop houses. He believed that hoop houses should not be a conditional use, but rather a principal use. (The difference between the two is that a conditional use requires a public hearing with neighbors within a 300-foot radius being notified by mail. It entails a heightened level of review and expense on the part of the applicant.) He also advocated pre-approving certain boilerplate hoop house designs.
A third speaker expressed comfort with hoop houses, but not with animals and was concerned about smells and potential disease.
A fourth speaker advocated for a vision of Flint as an organic food-growing community. She liked the idea of allowing both animals and hoop houses but did not want to permit chemical pesticides. Based on information shared with the Planning Commission last time about the Michigan Right to Farm Act, local governments do not have the ability to regulate any farming practices considered to be within the realm of accepted farm practices once it allows an agricultural use. In other words, as much as some of us might like to say ?only organic farming in Flint? legally the state bars us from doing so.
The next speaker supported organic food growing in the city also, and noted very soberly that it is getting hard to ?work the garden while dodging bullets.? She referred to the very disturbing death of a thirteen year-old this week. This kind of violence is so jarring.
A man spoke opposed to the idea of community gardens because he believed that people would then steal food from them. He wants empty lots cleared and maintained. I help to maintain a community garden on a lot in my neighborhood and my challenge is getting people to help themselves! It also strikes me that gardening can be a productive way to make use of empty lots- certainly more productive than letting the weeds grow.
The last speaker talked about the efforts going on in the community to maintain vacant lots and the gaps that remain despite the dedication of many volunteers. She shared the experience of one woman who wanted to plant an orchard on a series of vacant lots in her neighborhood. She was deterred from doing so by the fact that under existing ordinances, she would be prohibited from selling any of the extra fruit. (This is the quandary a market garden or farm operations: crops ordinance could fix. More on that later.)
Reports- Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) - Commissioner Jewell
Commissioner Jewell shared that the steering committee met on August 14 and was in the process of engaging Economics Research Associates as the new consultants. He reported that at the steering committee, he had shared the concerns about the cancellation of the community meeting at Broome Center without notice. Both a resident and I had talked about that concern at the last meeting, and I appreciated Commissioner Jewell carrying forward those comments. Their next steering committee meeting is set for September 17.
Urban Agriculture
This is where we spent the bulk of our time. Christina Kelly of the Land Bank distributed maps showing vacant land throughout the city, which had been requested by a commissioner at the last meeting. The process of making changes to the zoning ordinance was outlined- first there would need to be a review by the city?s law department, then a public hearing by the Planning Commission. If the Commission voted to approve the change, it would then go to the City Council for another public hearing and then a vote, at which time it would either be passed into law or referred back to the Planning Commission.
The proposed ordinance would add a new definition for community gardens, which would be for personal or collective use but not for sale, and farm operations: crops, which uses the Michigan Right to Farm Act?s definition to mean growing for commercial use. There was some discussion about the difference between the two and which zone you should be able to grow crops for sale in. This is an important issue since if commercial growing is not permitted in residential areas- just commercial or industrial- it would still preclude someone like the would-be orchard grower from making productive use of land in her neighborhood. There might be a way to allow growing for sale in residential areas if it is done through the auspices of a non-profit or if it is restricted to a smaller scale. This was not resolved, but flagged for further discussion.
There was talk about where these various operations- community gardens, hoop houses, commercial growing, and animals should be allowed. Under the proposed change, community gardens would be allowed as principal permitted uses in residential, commercial, and office areas (if the office area is adjacent to residential). There would not be any site plan review unless a structure was being built. I had been confused by some of the wording about community gardens being allowed if a soil test showed the soil was safe. I would not want to require private individuals to document their soil tests to officials for their own personal gardens (although it is a good idea to test your soil for lead before you eat from it!!!) Upon clarification, that would only apply if the community garden had a request that was coming to the Commission, such as a site plan for a structure. It would not apply to neighborhood gardens or personal gardens otherwise. The Department of Agriculture already monitors soil quality in commercial operations. Bees, chickens and goats would be permitted in the same areas (with additional regulations to be discussed below.)
Hoop houses were proposed as principal conditional uses- meaning they would require a public hearing. I expressed my concern again about requiring this laborious process, which also entails a $600 fee for the applicant. Based on a straw poll, I was the sole commissioner to favor making hoop houses principal permitted uses to avoid the public hearing and fee, although others did entertain making a recommendation to council that the fees be revisited and lowered if possible. However, the staff person explained that the notice in the paper is $200, plus postage and staff costs, so the likelihood of significantly reducing the fee is not great.
In terms of the additional requirements for hoop houses, the proposed change would call for a minimum side setback of 14 feet, and maximum lot coverage of 35%. This would ensure that hoop houses would cover about the same portion of a residential lot as a house, and was intended to ensure the hoop houses do not dwarf homes and look too out of place.
Farm operations: crops would be permitted in commercial areas except downtown, as well as industrial zones. This is important because it would allow large industrial brownfields to be used for growing food. (Environmental concerns on a place like Chevy in the Hole or Buick City could be mitigated because it?s possible to grow food in raised beds so plants wouldn?t be in the old soil.) Phytoremediation, which is the use of plants to suck up pollution from the soil, would also be explicitly allowed. Plants like sunflowers and switchgrass have this ability. It takes a period of years to remediate the soil this way, but it?s a lot cheaper than doing it the other way and a whole lot better than letting the whole site fester for decades. Can you imagine going down Hamilton or Bluff and seeing a field of sunflowers instead of an ocean of concrete? I wish we had started as soon as these plants had shut down so the land would be just about healed by now, but better late than never, right?
Parking requirements for hoop houses or farm operations would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis- many sites wouldn?t generate enough traffic to warrant it. Screening and lighting would only be required in areas with concrete parking spots (presumably in larger parking areas) whereas it would not be needed in parking areas with pervious surfaces like gravel or porous pavement (presumably in smaller parking areas). Using pervious surfaces is important because it allows water to flow naturally through the ground rather than picking up a bunch of motor oil on the way to the storm sewer, which then gets into our river, which gets into Lake Huron, which gets into our bodies and everything else.
Animals are probably the most contentious part of this whole pursuit, but we got some information that I think will be helpful in striking a responsible balance between allowing animals and preventing hazards or nuisances. (A beekeeper and farmer who keeps goats and chickens shared their experiences and were able to answer various questions about animal behavior and how to realistically control for odors, noise, etc.) In the case of bees, chickens and goats, someone would have to meet several requirements. They include getting a permit (renewable every 2 years), getting training on proper care of the animal, and getting consent of all their adjacent neighbors through a petition. We may explore some sort of waiver option in the event that a neighbor did not respond to efforts to contact them. In general, training seemed important because many nuisances could be prevented if people were properly trained to prevent them. Nuisances seemed to be the most common concern expressed by people at the community forums about animals in the city. Permits could be revoked if there was an infraction. Beyond that, there are some specific proposed regulations for each animal.
Bees- would be limited to 1 hive per 2,400 sq. ft. with a maximum of 4 on a residential lot. There would be a maximum of 1 hive per 1,000 sq. ft. in non-residential areas. There would also be a requirement for fencing or shrubbery around the hive and other measures such as being located away from neighboring property to reduce the chance of bees bothering neighbors. Based on the advice of the beekeeper, we may suggest increasing the minimum distance to a neighbor?s property line from 10 to 15 feet. He shared that honeybees have an entirely different disposition than wasps, hornets, or yellowjackets. They are not aggressive and unless you mess with their hive, they will leave you alone. (Unlike those other insects, bees die when they sting- so they only sting as a last resort.) He also shared that many bees already live in the city quite peacefully with us. Bees are important because they pollinate our food crops. Worldwide, many bees are dying en masse- perhaps due to pesticide use.
Chickens- would be limited to 4 per lot with no roosters or predatory birds. They need an appropriate covered coop or cage, with an outdoor fenced area that would keep out other animals. The feed would have to be stored in a way to prevent mice from getting in it, and the waste would have to be handled properly to prevent bad odor. The farmer who raised chickens shared that one would have to clean the coop, on average, once a week to prevent odor. We got a lesson on maintaining chickens- you can use grass clippings, straw, or other material to control the odor, and waste can be composted. In the summer, chickens lay an egg a day, and in the winter it slows to one per week.
Goats- would need a minimum of 24,000 sq. ft (about 5 city lots). According to the farmer, the biggest issue with goats in not smell, but rather escape! The pens would need to be constructed in a way to not let crafty goats get out.
The last item in the proposed changes is a provision to collect garbage. Right now the city only picks up trash from properties that pay taxes for it- not abandoned properties. So, in cases where a hoop house or something was on a vacant lot, the waste would be classified as commercial and they might have to pay a fee to have it picked up or contract with a private company.
The proposed changes will be forwarded to the legal department and other departments for their review.
Master Planning- Nothing further- just the update we heard from Mayor Walling.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
4-27-09
these notes were forwarded from E.Jordan.
Peace,
RAP |
_________________
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy, speech at Vanderbilt University, May 18, 1963 |
|
Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:47 am |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
| Sounds like you guys did a very good job. |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:13 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:15 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
