Flushing City Council
Minutes
A Special Meeting of the Flushing City Council was called to order on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. by Mayor Janice L. Gensel, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: Richard L. Bade
John C. Gault
Janice L. Gensel
Jay E. Johnson
Teresa K. Salem
Michael T. Szukhent
Absent: Chris A. Girard
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer
Doug Piggott, Rowe, Inc.
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
Susan Little, Chamber of Commerce, addressed City Council relative to the proposed Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning Workshop – Doug Piggott, Rowe, Inc., discussed the following issues at the May 21, 2002 meeting:
Site Plan/Development Standards
There were several comments concerning the standards used for sites and the information required on site plans. Comments heard included the suggestion that the information requirements for expansion or redevelopment of existing sites could be reduced from those for new sites, that the development requirements for work on historical buildings be reduced and that consideration be given to relaxing standards for non-conforming structures or sites.
1. Site Plan Requirements for Pre-existing Sites – Section 153.604(z) allows the Planning Commission to waive any information relevant to an application. There does not appear to be any prohibition against the Planning Commission establishing a general rule addressing a common situation where site plan information requirements could be waived.
Flushing City Council
Minutes
Page Two
2. Historical Structures or Sites – It was suggested that development or site plan informational requirements should be relaxed to allow for development consistent with the historic character of the property. The question becomes, “What constitutes a historic structure or site?” Must it be on the state or federal historic register? Should it only be required to meet some pre-established set of criteria to be considered historic? Should it be reviewed for classification as historic by some review committee? What standards could be waived and when?
3. Non-conforming structures – There was concern about standards in the ordinance creating non-conforming structures and what that means for these structures. The ordinance should not be written in a way that created unnecessary or unintentional non-conformation. When an unnecessary or unintentional nonconformity is identified, a way should be found to address it. This way, in those cases where a nonconformity was intended to be created, can the ordinance be enforced to encourage its elimination?
There were several comments regarding signs.
1. There was a suggestion that permanent and temporary signs should be differentiated.
2. Several comments were made about eliminating window signs, or perhaps just temporary window signs. As was discussed at the meeting, the impact of eliminating the regulation of window signs to allow a business with a window to have more sign space than an equivalent building with no windows. One way of addressing that could be to make walls and windows equivalent and allow coverage of a certain percentage of either for signs. The weakness of this approach for temporary signs is that it ignores the fact that temporary window signs tend to hold up better than banners or other temporary wall signs.
3. Garage Sale Signs – A question was raised regarding the regulation of garage sale signs. Section 153.1404(A)(6)(f) allows garage sale signs with a permit. This section will be omitted because an ordinance currently exists which addresses garage sales and allowable signage.
Flushing City Council
Minutes
Page Three
It was decided by Council that the issue of signs would be removed from the Zoning Ordinance and addressed in a separate Sign Ordinance.
There were questions about the ordinance adoption process. Once the Planning Commission has held its public hearing and passed the draft zoning ordinance to the City Council, the Council may make whatever changes it deems fit before adoption of the ordinance. The Council does not need to send it back to the Planning Commission or have any public hearing other than those required by city charter. It is not prohibited from sending it back to the Planning Commission either. Any discussion regarding the ordinance should occur at an open meeting.
It was suggested that the definition of dwelling unit be modified to delete the reference to a kitchen. The city manager outlined the potential problem with such a change in his memo of June 13th. If the primary concern continues to be addressing congregate facilities, it may be appropriate to regulate them separately. That is, place a specific limitation on the number of bedrooms or residential living units per acre, etc. that is independent of the general standard of maximum dwelling units per acre.
The specific requirement for “shoe box” style lighting was deleted from the ordinance; Council reinstated this provision.
In addition to Council comments, there were several comments by citizens. Though not a complete list, following are some of the citizen comments for Council’s benefit and consideration:
· The city needs to address existing derelict signs.
· I don’t see the need for “Sandwich signs” by most existing businesses and they violate the sidewalk ordinance.
· The city should use the ZBA’s definition of a dwelling unit.
· Concerns about exterior lighting.
Flushing City Council
Minutes
Page Four
· Different forms of the same term, i.e. “unit”, “dwelling unit” and “dwelling” should be addressed.
· Concerns regarding fencing.
· What is the difference between a townhouse and a condominium?
· In “Design Standards” there were several inadequate standards:
- The requirement for “adequate provisions” for safe storage use and disposal of hazardous material is too vague.
- The provision allowing family day care homes to operate up to 16 hours per day is too lenient.
- Kennels should be required to be soundproof.
- Cooking facilities should be allowed in motels.
· The Master Plan is the city’s long term vision for land use in the city.
· The Linderman property rezoning should be considered separately rather than as part of adopting this new plan.
· Concern about definition of “Usable Floor Area.”
· Ordinance should emphasize quality vs. quantity of signs.
· Because most of the city is built-out, standards should emphasize redevelopment.
· Sandwich board signs are needed.
· Why limit window signs to 25% of window.
· Zoning enforcer should identify unclear parts of ordinance and ask Planning Commission to address them once a year.
· The police would be a good way of enforcing the sign ordinance.
Adjourn – Motion by Johnson, seconded by Bade, to adjourn.
Yea: Bade, Gault, Johnson, Salem, Szukhent, Gensel
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjourn: 4:08 P.M.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Janice L. Gensel, Mayor Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer