FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

 

MINUTES

 

OCTOBER 7, 2002

 

A Regular Meeting of the Flushing Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson   Robert Matsko on October 7, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. at City Hall.

 

Present:        Dennis Bueche

                   George Kozan

                   John Gault

                   Ron Johnson

                   Robert Matsko

                   Walker Fesmire

                   C Neil Blackmore

                   Jack Owens

                   John Olson

 

Absent:         None

                  

Also Present: Edward G. Henneke, City Attorney

                   Marlene C. Stone, Deputy Clerk

                  

Pledge of Allegiance:

 

Approval of Minutes:      SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 (REGULAR MEETING)

 

          MOTION by Blackmore, supported by Olson, to approve the minutes of September 3, 2002 as written.

         

          Yea: 7

          Nay: 0

          Abstain 2

          Motion carried.

 

Meeting open for public comments:

 

          Several individuals expressed their concerns regarding the proposed Elms Road

          Development at 449 N Elms Road.

 

 Elva Cook              Ronald Graves         Al Flickinger            Tina Compton

          1459 Flushing Rd      467 N Elms Rd        4356 N Elms Rd       441 N Elms Rd

 

          Cathy Miller            Alan Miller              Mark & Dawn Silva

          459 N Elms Rd        459 N Elms Rd        475 N Elms Rd

 

 

Meeting closed for public comments:

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

OCTOBER 7, 2002

PAGE 2

 

 

Old Business:           REZONING PRD / SITE PLAN – SITE CONDOMINIUM

                                                                                      CONCEPT

                                                                               449 N ELMS RD

                                                                                 55-25-200-042

 

          MOTION by Olson, supported by Blackmore, to remove this item from the table.

 

          Yea:  9

          Nay:  0

          Motion carried.

 

 

Discussion:

• Mr. Ed Henneke, City Attorney, spoke to the Commission:
1. He provided a draft review from our Engineer regarding the new plan dated 9/26/02.
2. He stated this plan is a concept plan and a final site plan will need to be presented to the Planning Commission.  This request is in two parts; first is the rezoning to PRD and then the concept site plan.
3. The Commissions choices are to recommend to City Council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the PRD rezoning and concept site plan.
4. The DEQ and Road Commission and other agencies will need to approve this plan before final site plan approval.
5. Rezoning can be contingent upon this plan being approved.  If the final plan does not get approval then the zoning is not changed.
• Mr. Olson stated that he was concerned about all the things in the plan that do not meet the Ordinance requirements. He feels that we should not grant concept approval with so many things not in compliance.  He does not feel comfortable moving this item forward until information from our engineer shows that the property has adequate acreage.
• The commission discussed questions on wetlands, private access roads and calculations on acreage.
• Mr. Olson wants our engineers to confirm that the acreage is correct at twelve acres with regard to wetlands located on the property.  If this development cannot comply with the ordinance requirements for acreage, number of units, and room for streets then it would be better to let the developer know now and save everyone further expense.
• Mr. Gault would like to see a DEQ review of the wetlands report. (Mr. Bow’s memorandum states the DEQ is currently reviewing the plan.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

OCTOBER 7, 2002

PAGE 3

 

 

• Mr. Withey, plan developer, stated:

1.      He submitted a new alternate plan, dated 9/26/02, showing eleven attached duplex buildings and two single buildings for a total of twenty-four units. He will go ahead with whichever plan the Planning Commission and City Council thinks is the best development for this area.

2.      The density calculations, for the new plan, may not be updated in the document showing calculation.

3.      The street complies with the ordinance except for the two access drives.

4.      Lot sizes comply with ordinance except for lots 13 & 14.

5.      Ground water levels may improve if the drain to the pond on Scott Brown’s property is fixed.

• Mr. Johnson would like to see an informational meeting rather than recommend denial at this point.  The meeting would help answer questions such as; can variances be granted on a PRD site plan or does the plan need to comply strictly with the ordinance. 
• Mr. Kozan said we could be trying to address some issues that should be looked at on a later submission for final site plan approval. 
• Mr. Henneke advised the commission that if they wish to “postpone” or table this item then they should list the issues that need to be addressed at the next meeting.  Some issues discussed were:

1.      Questions on acreage calculations for total parcel and density.

2.      Are variances allowed for PRD site plans or does the plan need to comply with all ordinance requirements?

3.      DEQ review of wetlands report.

4.      Drainage Concerns. (Will be addressed on final site plan and with DEQ approval and Drain Commission approval.)

5.      New plan showing duplexes – previous plan was for all single-family homes.

 

• Mr. Henneke advised the commission that the correct term to table an item is “postpone”.

 

 

 

MOTION by Johnson, supported by Bueche, to table “postpone” this item to continue

          information gathering with our experts and the developer’s experts on,

          unresolved issues.

          .

 

Yea: 8

Nay: 1

Motion carried.

 

 

 

 

 

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

OCTOBER 7, 2002

PAGE 4

 

 

 

 

Adjournment:

 

          MOTION by Fesmire, supported by Bueche, to adjourn.

 

          Yea: 9

          Nay: 0

          Motion carried.  Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

 

mcs