Planning Commission

STERLING HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL OCTOBER 08, 2015 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held October 08, 2015 Mr. Rowe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Benjamin Ancona, Paul Jaboro, Al Kollmorgen, Edward Kopp, Stefano Militello, Donald Miller, Jeffrey Norgrove, Leonard Reinowski, and Gerald Rowe Members absent at roll call: None Also in attendance: Clark Andrews, City Attorney Chris McLeod, City Planner APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Militello, supported by Miller, to approve. Ayes: Militello, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe, Ancona, Jaboro, Kollmorgen, Kopp Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. PPCM-1145 – MASTER LAND USE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Rowe asked Adam Young of Wade-Trim for an update on the Master Land Use Plan. Mr. Adam Young stated that he was from Wade-Trim and he will review the Master Land Use Plan Update and additionally they will also be working through the process to update the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan and adding a non-motorized element to that Recreation Plan as well. They are doing both processes simultaneously. Mr. Young provided a slideshow presentation with the evening agenda. The agenda showing: 1. Team Introductions 2. Scope of Services Review 3. Background Studies and Needs Assessment Highlights 4. Next Steps – Public Engagement Activities TEAM INTRODUCTION Mr. Adam Young stated that Wade-Trim is the lead consultant on the update team and he has with him tonight the following members of the team: 1. Mark Nickita, Archive DS. His firm is focused on design, architecture and will be reviewing the city in terms of design and will also be focused on placemaking opportunities. 2. Leah Groya, Living Lab. Her expertise is with recreation planning and non-motorized planning. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 2 3. Randall Book, Colliers International. His firm works with market analysis to inform future land use decisions during the update process. 4. Peter McGrath, also a representative with Colliers International. Mr. Young stated that while going through the process, they recognized what has been done by the city to date. It was set in motion with the 2030 Vision as the foundation process which includes the following guiding principles, and will be reflected in the policies and recommendations of the plan: 1. Safe, well maintained and desirable neighborhoods enhanced by great schools; 2. Plentiful leisure and recreation opportunities featuring fully utilized parks; 3. Abundant pathways for biking and walking; 4. Focal points that are both public and private to serve as destinations for residents and visitors; 5. Well maintained and aesthetically pleasing roads and green spaces; 6. Successful, vibrant and attractive commercial centers with unique offerings; 7. Destination for high-tech and emerging industries and entrepreneurs. SCOPE AND SERVICES REVIEW / BACKGROUND STUDIES Mr. Young stated that regarding the Master Land Use Plan Scope of Services, they conducted a number of background studies and those are completed which include demographic analysis, physical analysis, land use and facility needs forecast, evaluation of local market conditions, and placemaking assessment. In regards to the Parks and Recreation and Non-Motorized Land Master Plan, Mr. Young stated that there are background studies for this as well, particularly inventories of the city’s current parks, facilities, and non-motorized resources. They have already looked at nationwide recreation trends and facility needs. The Recreation Plan will have goals and objectives and will ultimately have an action program outlining the next five years of capital improvement projects. Public Engagement is an item that both the Master Land Use Plan and the Parks, Recreation and Non-Motorized Master Plan will be relying through the use of workshops and fairs and the online engagement to inform both planning processes. Mr. Young stated that the background studies have been completed and have been provided to the Board in detailed reports for their review and consideration and will be highlighting the background studies this evening. PROJECT SCHEDULE 1. Background Studies complete 2. Public Engagement – Fall 2015 a. Community Comment Mapping b. Community Vision Fair 3. Goals, Objectives and Strategies – Fall 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 3 4. Preparation of Preliminary Draft Plans – Winter 2016 5. Adoption Process – Spring / Summer 2016 Mr. Young stated they do need to diverge a little bit for the two separate plans. The Recreation Plan, for example, needs to be adopted by March 1, 2016. This enables the city to be eligible to seek grant funding through the Department of Natural Resources. The Master Land Use Plan process, as required by state law, takes longer, so the adoption for the plan will occur in the Spring / Summer of 2016. Mr. Young went over the first section of the highlights for tonight and encourages questions during the presentation. He covered the following: Population Profile: 1. Historic and future population growth a. Sterling Heights will soon become Michigan’s third largest city (per SEMCOG) 2. Aging population a. By 2040, 25% of the population will be 65 years of age or older versus 15% in 2010. 3. Growth of non-family households a. 30% non-family households; 16% single-parent households 4. Household size is declining a. 2.61 persons per household in 2013, will dip to 2.50 by 2040 Community Tapestry Profile: ESRI Inc., maintains a proprietary data base of consumer spending habits and lifestyle preferences, so they looked at these profile types for the City of Sterling Heights. Mr. Young stated that there were 20 different lifestyle segments for the City of Sterling Heights profile types but there are four in particular that comprise a large percentage of the city’s population. 1. City residents currently can be categorized into four major “lifestyle segments”: a. Comfortable Empty Nesters b. Rustbelt Traditions c. Salt of the Earth d. Green Acres 2. These segments represent older, community-minded, less mobile citizens 3. Need to attract young professionals and similar drivers of the New Economy Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 4 Housing Profile: 1. Single-family homes are the most prevalent dwelling unit type; only 30% are townhouses, attached condominiums or multi-unit apartments 2. Most homes are owner-occupied (72%) 3. A housing structural quality survey found only a small fraction of homes to be in deteriorating or substandard condition 4. Between 2010 and 2040, approximately 4,774 total housing units will need to be added to the housing supply 5. The housing market must be sensitive to changing trends and emerging lifestyle preferences 6. The City should encourage and allow for non-traditional housing types Land Use Profile: 1. Most of the City is developed 2. Future land use change will be largely driven by redevelopment Mr. Young stated that all of these, along with the materials presented later, are significant factors that will influence the types of policies that they want to establish and the types of land use proposals that are appropriate for the community. Mr. Young asked for any questions. Mr. Reinowski asked how it was determined that 72% of most homes are owner-occupied. Mr. Young stated that would be from the 2010 Census Bureau or more likely the 2013 American Community Survey data statistics, also provided by the Census Bureau. Mr. Reinowski asked under the Community Tapestry Profile, what do the four lifestyle segments actually mean. Mr. Young stated each of the four segments are detailed in the reports given to the Board which covers population groups and what they are attracted to. This report will give the Board more of an idea of what each segment is. There is also a link in the report that they can refer to online as well. Mr. Rowe stated these start on page 42 of the technical report. Mr. Reinowski also asked that in the report it states they need to add more housing units, how would this occur with also saying the city is already pretty well developed. Mr. Young stated that there are some vacant lands or larger sites may open up for redevelopment that could very well be housing units or residential developments in the future. Mr. Rowe stated that their population is aging but also growing. What segment of the population is actually growing? Mr. Young stated the city is growing as a whole and would need to look back at the figures but thinks it would be the age groups they consider the mature families, empty nesters and the elderly citizens as well. The percentage of the older segment is growing at a faster rate than the other segments. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Chris McLeod stated that page 36 details the age groups that are either moving up or moving down in terms of population. The age group of 20 -34 is a pretty significant gain and the empty nesters and retirement age, anyone over the age of 55, is another substantial gain. This is typical of the mature community. Mr. Rowe asked for any other questions for Mr. Young. Being none, called for Ms. Leah Groya. Ms. Leah Groya, from Living Lab, stated that she and others from the City’s staff have been working on the Parks and Recreation and Non-Motorized Master Plan. This plan is being driven by some DNR standards and will review highlights from this plan. She stated that the DNR standards are somewhat outdated and the DNR is aware of this; therefore, the DNR standards are taken with a grain of salt. The slideshow provided and her highlights included: Parks and Recreation Inventory: 1. 29 City parks and other recreation lands comprise 1,045 total acres of land a. Two large urban parks (Dodge / Nelson) b. Two sports complexes (Baumgartner / Delia) c. Two special use facilities (Senior Center / Nature Center) d. Four community parks e. Twenty-one neighborhood parks f. One nature preserve (Plumbrook) 2. Current City park acreage is within the recommended DNR standard for acres per population 3. Current City park facilities are generally deficient based on DNR standard for facilities per population: a. Tennis courts: -51 b. Volleyball courts: -21 c. Baseball/Softball fields: -15 d. Basketball courts: -10 e. Soccer fields: -6 f. Swimming pools: -6 4. Existing Non-Motorized Facilities: a. Shared Use Paths i. 17 miles existing b. Off-road – pedestrian and bikes i. 8-10’ wide (typical) Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 6 ii. 8+ mile Clinton River Trail a) Good condition – flooding in areas b) Three bridges: Riverland Drive, Nature Center, Dodge Park c. Side Paths/Safety Paths/Sidewalks i. 135 miles along major roads ii. 51 miles proposed iii. 5-10” wide iv. Concrete / asphalt v. May not always be safe for cycling – land use pattern and curb cuts. d. Nature / Mountain Bike Trails i. 24 miles ii. Clinton River Area Mountain Bike Association leads maintenance and promotion e. Clinton River Water Trail i. 81.5 miles from Clarkston to Lake St. Clair ii. 8.3 miles in Sterling Heights iii. Marked canoe landing near Nature Center f. Iron Belle Trail – formerly the Governors Showcase Trail i. 774 mile route from Detroit to Ironwood ii. 7 miles within City – Schoenherr, Utica, Clinton River Park Trail iii. DNR has small planning grant funds and is marketing route holistically Ms. Groya asked for any questions. Mr. Kollmorgen asked that under the Current Park and facilities, is Warren Consolidated and Utica Schools included in these studies. Ms. Groya stated that it does not. The DNR looks at facilities that the city has control of, for example, in scheduling and in maintenance of the facilities. The DNR does understand that school facilities do play a role in this but really look at what the city has control over under their purview. Mr. Rowe asked for any other questions for Ms. Groya. Being none, called for Mr. Mark Nickita. Mr. Mark Nickita stated he will highlight the opportunities and growth developments that have the potential to be intensified, and placemaking opportunities. Slideshow presented highlights Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 7 the identification within the city that have potential to strengthen and become stronger places for people and how they link. Their analysis, observations and recommendations are highlighted below: Node Determination and Analysis Criteria 1. Overall walkability of the area “Pedestrian-Shed” 2. Build Form, Land Use and Open Space Patterns 3. Public Realm 4. Green Space, Natural Features 5. Vehicular Infrastructure 6. Pedestrian Infrastructure 7. Ability to Integrate Non-Motorized facilities 8. Access to Amenities and Other Uses 9. Linkages / connections 10. Historic, Cultural and Recreational Resources 11. Parking opportunities and constraints of the Node 12. Economic Drivers, Opportunities and Development Potential 13. Commercial and Neighborhood Integration Placemaking Development Challenges 1. Existing structures do not work together as a collective, cohesive development. There is a lack of collaboration and connections regarding the use of materials, size, aesthetics, signage, vehicular and pedestrian accommodations. 2. Most Non-residential development areas consist of singular use, one-story structures, with minimal density and scale. 3. Buildings are set back far from the sidewalk and street and inconsistently aligned. 4. Sidewalks exist in most areas but are rarely connected to the entry areas of commercial and institutional buildings. 5. Parking lots are typically excessive in size and non-pedestrian oriented in their design and layout. 6. Most development areas have some level of vegetation, trees, grass, landscaping, etc. In some cases, there are large areas of green space. However, there is a lack of the collective vegetation working together as a unit. 7. Many business areas are adjacent to residential areas and/or natural assets. However, their connections and linkages are limited or non-existent. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 8 Discouraged Development Types: 1. Development solely oriented to vehicular use with little regard for the pedestrian is discouraged Encouraged Development Types: 1. A healthy and vibrant district typically strikes a balance between pedestrian access and vehicular accesses. Commercial / Mixed Use Precedent Recommendations: 1. Live/work at street level 2. Live/work uses on first floor with residential above 3. Retail and residential building with public square 4. First floor retail and three upper floors of residential 5. Residential units with private gardens 6. Residential units with patio space Commercial / Retail Precedent: 1. The sidewalk needs to be fully addressed 2. The sighting of new structures in relation to other adjacent structures is one of the key components required to create continuity along the street frontage Mr. Nickita stated that looking at the existing city condition and with a series of analytical studies, they started analyzing different locations and intersections that they think can lead to a stronger placemaking opportunity nodes or condition. He noted a few potential priorities for nodes and the strategies for Placemaking Development. Priorities for Nodes: 1. Lakeside Development Area 2. Dodge Park Road and Utica Road / City Hall 3. Van Dyke Road and 19 Mile Road / Linear Development 4. Dodge Park Road and 15 Mile Road 5. Dequindre Road and 15 Mile Road / Cultural Center Strategies for Placemaking Development at Nodes: 1. Building setbacks – address the sidewalk/street and establish consistent alignment 2. Walkability/Sidewalks – connect to the entry areas of buildings Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 9 3. Vehicular Infrastructure – enhance to support pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development 4. Non-Motorized Infrastructure – enhance, integrate and further establish current system 5. Parking – right size and incorporate pedestrian-orientation in design and layout Mr. Nickita asked if there were any questions. Mr. Militello asked with live work spaces/opportunities and it not working with other communities, why do they think they need this in Sterling Heights. Mr. Nickita stated that mixed-use developments are successful in many cities. He feels the market is changing rapidly and the demands and demographics are also changing rapidly. And lesser than dense areas are not the same as a higher density area, as we have here in Sterling Heights. Mr. Ancona stated that he does feel that there is a lack of connection / linkage in a couple of the areas in the city. Mr. Kollmorgen stated he is impressed with the suggestions and asked if there are any of these instances, locally, that have been implemented that the Board can look at. Mr. Nickita stated that most of the development areas are built in traditional cities that have more density. The Auburn Hills development area and they are currently working at the 13 Mile and Woodward area. Mr. Norgrove stated that since they are looking into the future with self-driving cars and the functionality of electrical charging stations, what the impact would be in regards to the Vehicular Infrastructure and if these would be recommended in the Master Plan or leave that up to the developers. And if recommended, how aggressive the recommendations would be along with the city having the area to do these recommendations opposed to the money involved for developers. Mr. Nickita stated that most of the developments that they are looking into will not hinder that potential. The intention is to accommodate the future needs, as they come into play and to accommodate any future technology. Mr. Nickita stated their intentions on implementation for mixed-use and for more walkability is recommending the zoning and the codes to change and accommodate these conditions that they currently do not have or allow. We don’t see one particular developer coming in and doing an identified potential node, we would see this as having the ordinance and zoning accommodate those structures as a series of developments over time in a series of projects, not just one project but collectively over time, in a manner that we are recommending. Mr. Miller stated that he does not see any of this happening unless they start implementing design standards or development standards. Mr. Nickita stated that what they do and what they see working is basically codes and ordinances that direct this kind of development. It clearly is to what degree you want development to go and how flexible you want to be and creating laws that basically the ordinance directs and yes, Mr. Miller would be correct, this would not happen if these are not in place. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 10 Mr. Andrews asked if owners of properties can do what they want to according to and complying with codes and so forth, how do you get people to do more imaginative things and how do you attract developers that the city is looking for. Mr. Nickita stated that is will be more demographics and them wanting to come here. It would be more economic and market driven to pull in certain users or for a particular user, the zoning in place could and would direct this. Mr. Andrews asked if this would be more likely to happen in a community that has a concentrated downtown area to start with. Mr. Nickita stated it’s really a factor of the ordinance and if the developer wants to come to your community, they will work with you. Mr. Andrews asked that given how dependent on the automobile this area is, walkability certainly is the reverse side of the automobile, how you encourage developers to develop things that are walkable in an area that does not have a good mass transit. Mr. Nickita stated that there are several answers to that but one is that you design more creatively to share opportunities. The city can promote alternative ideas for these creative solutions that then become better land developments. The opportunity within the new Master Plan is to think more aggressively as far as guidance on things we may want more than what is happening and we really have the opportunity to do this with this plan to actually put laws behind it to guide it. Mr. Ancona stated there is great opportunity with this, as seen in other city areas. Mr. Jaboro stated that with walkability, when the Board approves buildings or a business, we have to have parking and its either going to be put in the front or put in the back. Mr. Nickita stated that it can be that working together and there are ways of addressing the sidewalk even with a parking lot. Mr. Rowe stated that the Board and the community need to rethink all this and trying to do this is going to be a real challenge, not saying we shouldn’t do it. He also stated that there is a group of community leaders, called MACRO (Macomb Area Communities for Regional Opportunity) working with MDOT on an improvement project on M59, he is wondering if they work or monitor what does go on with MDOT and / or that particular group. Mr. Nickita stated yes they do. They are aware of it and they are incorporating what MDOT is doing and working on. Mr. Rowe asked for any more questions for Mr. Nickita. Being none, called for Mr. Randall Book. Mr. Randall Book stated he has been in the real estate business 27 years and works with Collier International. The company has over 500 locations all over the world and employs over 15,000 employees. Mr. Book turned over to his colleague Mr. Peter McGrath. Mr. Peter McGrath, with Colliers International, stated that the focus is to discuss changes and trends in the commercial real estate industry, discuss the market in Sterling Heights, and provide a framework for informed decision making. Mr. McGrath highlighted the following in his presentation: National Trends: 1. Retail: Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 11 a. Smaller retail outlets, better retail outlets b. Shift to services, restaurants, experiences 2. Office: a. Shifts in technology are changing the game b. Smaller footprints, more amenities 3. Industrial: a. Bigger, better, more efficient buildings b. A hot sector for tenants and investors Retail in Sterling Heights: 1. Generally considered a local market, not a destination market 2. Increased competition from Troy, Clinton Township and Shelby Township 3. Vacancy is declining 4. Property is starting to show its age 5. Keep an eye on Lakeside Mall 6. Lack of rent growth shows a lack of “gotta have it” space Office in Sterling Heights: 1. Sterling Heights is not a major office market – too much vacant space in Metro Detroit’s traditional office markets 2. Best bet for new development is build-to-suit buildings for defense contractors 3. Sterling Heights should focus on other sectors Industrial in Sterling Heights: 1. Sterling Heights is one of the top industrial markets in Metro Detroit 2. Sterling Heights offers industrial users proximity to major players (Ford, Chrysler, General Dynamics) 3. The sector reports a tiny vacancy rate 4. Recommend Sterling Heights focus on developing this sector Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 12 Mr. McGrath stated that there are some suggestions, referred to as “The Big Picture” that is recommended relating to planning for real estate success. The recommended suggestions are as follows: 1. Be Aggressive a. Battling blight is expensive. Having it costs more 2. Build off of Strengths a. It’s a lot easier to embrace what you have 3. Set the table for Redevelopment a. Reputation matters 4. Hitting Singles is OK a. The big flashy projects do not always work Mr. McGrath asked if there were any questions for him or Mr. Book. Mr. Rowe stated that in regards to blight, that they should really be on top of this subject and be aggressive and in updating the Master Plan, are they going to be identify those “at risk” areas. Mr. McGrath stated they did not evaluate any specific areas, this was more of a general recommendation. Mr. Rowe stated in regard to “set the table for redevelopment”, aside from placemaking and retro fitting, there is also redevelopment for a basically built up community. Mr. Kollmorgen, to the comment on blight, are they referring to commercial opposed to residential. Mr. McGrath stated on both and blight anywhere has a way of spreading. Mr. Kollmorgen asked what the findings are so far. Mr. McGrath stated that right now, he feels Sterling Heights is in good shape and want to keep it that way. Mr. Miller asked if there are any areas or are they going to show in the updated Master Plan, an area mapping that Sterling Heights should be concerned about. Mr. McGrath stated that would be a question for Mr. Young. Mr. Young stated absolutely and once they get into the public engagement process, one of the engagement opportunities is a community comment map that allows people to suggest comments that are geographically based. This may be something that comes to the top as a weakness or a threat, it will be addressed. Mr. Andrews stated that Sterling Heights actually has two Ordinance Board of Appeals that handle code violations and the number of code enforcement actions they take, as far as blight and how fast it happens now, is unbelievable. He feels the city has been very aggressive with dealing with blight in response to how many cases they have to the quick action that is taken. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 13 Mr. Rowe asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Book or for Mr. McGrath. Being none, called for Mr. Young for final updates. Mr. Young stated he can finish up and show the immediate next steps. As mentioned, public engagement tools will be set up to include: Community Comment Mapping: 1. Online engagement tool which provides a meaningful opportunity for citizens to participate in the planning process 2. Allows citizens to submit comments related to specific locations within the City, while also viewing and interacting with the comments of other 3. Ready to go “live” upon City approval Community Vision Fair: 1. Will provide an opportunity for citizens to interact with the project team about perceived City strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats while visiting “information stations” displaying project information 2. Proposed to be held in November 2015 3. Venue – to be determined Mr. Young stated they will be looking for guidance from the Board and staff on terms of where and how and any suggestions and questions as well. Mr. Rowe stated that they did receive an email from the Planning Office that we should be looking as a commission into November to identify a time we are available. Mr. Young stated that the format that they are thinking is a late afternoon with a break and then early evening for a couple hours. That way we would encourage citizens to come in at a time that is best for them. Mr. Militello asked if a couple evening sessions would be better. Mr. Norgrove suggested possibly before a City Council meeting. Mr. Young stated they will work with the City Administration and staff to implement something that works for everyone and thanks for the suggestions. Mr. Norgrove suggested that Sterling Christmas would be a good opportunity to talk to the young kids too. Mr. Rowe asked how they envision this. Mr. Young stated the Vision Fair would certainly encourage the city officials and staff to be a part of this. Mr. Rowe asked for any other questions on the Master Land Use Plan Update and asked when they will be coming back. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 14 Mr. Young stated more than likely, team members will be attending upcoming Planning Commission meetings as well as often attending the City’s leadership team meetings. If we do not appear in front you, email updates and written updates will be provided. Mr. Norgrove asked if after going over the presentation and Technical Report, if the Board will have the availability to talk to them about any of their comments or questions. Mr. Young stated yes and this is a draft so it is a living document until adopted. Mr. Rowe asked when they would like to finalize the Technical Report. Mr. Young stated that their approach is that they have these technical reports as a supplementary document to what they would like to have as a concise short summary Master Land Use and Recreation Planning document. It will refer to the technical reports but be an executive summary with highlights. The technical reports will be adopted at the same time, March 2016. Mr. Rowe thanked Mr. Young and team members for a great presentation. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Militello, supported by Jaboro, to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2015 meeting. Ayes: Militello, Jaboro, Kollmorgen, Kopp, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe, Ancona Nays: None Absent: None Motion Carried. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Ancona stated just the Michigan Planner OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None Mr. Rowe stated that he would like to thank Chris McLeod, City Planner, on his first meeting and look forward to future meetings with him. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Militello, supported by Jaboro, to adjourn. Ayes: Militello, Jaboro, Kollmorgen, Kopp, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe, Ancona Nays: None Absent: None Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:09 P.M. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of October 08, 2015 Page 15 Respectfully submitted, Benjamin Ancona, Secretary Planning Commission