minutes form

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

OCTOBER 3, 2005

A Regular Meeting of the Flushing Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Robert Matsko on October 3, 2005 at 7:30 P.M. at City Hall.

Present: Dennis Bueche

Ron Johnson

Robert Matsko

Dan Borgerding

Jack Owens

John Olson

Absent: John Gault

C Neil Blackmore

Kevin Keane

Also Present: Dennis Bow, City Manager

Marlene C. Stone, Deputy Clerk

Pledge of Allegiance:

Approval of Minutes: SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 (REGULAR MEETING)

MOTION by Bueche, supported by Olson, to approve the minutes of September 6, 2005 as written.

Yea: 5

Nay: 0

Abstain: 1

Motion carried.

Meeting open for public comments:

Mrs. Elva Cook

1459 Flushing Road

Meeting closed for public comments:

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

OCTOBER 3, 2005

PAGE 2

Old Business: PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS TO

THE ZONING MAP AND DISTRICT

REGULATIONS (LYNN/SEYMOUR

AREA)

(TABLED FROM THE SEPTEMBER

MEETING)

Meeting open for public comment.

Mr. Frank Fraser

121 Mary Street

Meeting closed for public comments.

MOTION by Bueche, supported by Johnson, to put the Zoning Ordinance Revision to the

Zoning Map and district regulations back on the table.

Yea: 6

Nay: 0

Motion carried.

MOTION by Johnson, supported by Bueche, to:

1. Place a “P” (permitted by right use) in the Commercial uses – Restaurant box under the B-3 column.

2. 2.?????? cannot hear.

Yea: 6

Nay: 0

Motion carried.

MOTION by Johnson, supported by Bueche, to add into the Drive In Establishment box

a “S#R” in the B-3 column.

Yea: 6

Nay: 0

Motion carried.

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

OCTOBER 3, 2005

PAGE 3

MOTION by Johnson, supported by Owens, to add under Commercial uses/Office

Buildings for any of the following etc. a “P” (permitted by right use) in the B-3

Column.

Yea: 6

Nay: 0

Motion carried.

MOTION by Johnson, supported by Olson, to recommend forwarding the proceeding

Motions/changes and the motions from the September 6, 2005 meeting to City

Council for review and approval.

Yea: 6

Nay: 0

Motion carried.

Discussion:

Mr. Frank Fraser asked the Commission to consider rezoning his property at 409 Emily Street (lot # 3 and ½ of lot #2) from Industrial to B-3 (Heavy business district) which will be the same zoning as the property across Emily Street. He stated he believes this will make more sense that Residential because of how close the property is to the railroad.

Old Business: PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT –

NONCONFORMING LOTS

Meeting open for public comments.

Mr. Rod Jones

535 S McKinley Road

(Spoke against the proposed Zoning Ordinance revision.)

Mrs. Betty Rosencrantz

512 S McKinley Road

(Spoke against the proposed Zoning Ordinance revision.)

Mrs. Elva Cool

1459 Flushing Road

(Spoke against the proposed Zoning Ordinance revision.)

Meeting closed for public comments.

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

OCTOBER 3, 2005

PAGE 4

Discussion:

Mr. Bow stated that Administration has modified some sample language as the Commission requested at the August 1, 2005 meeting.
Mr. Olson voiced his concern regarding changing the Ordinance to accommodate a single person who purchased an outlot either knowing or not researching that they are not buildable lots.
Mr. Bow advised the Commission that City Council requested the Planning Commission to look at the outlot issue and give them a recommendation on how to proceed.
Mr. Rod Jones stated he believes that the existing homes would loose value if a small home was built on the narrow outlot.
Mr. Olson stated these lots were originally platted as outlots to be used as access roads to future developments. They were not meant to be buildable lots. Anyone purchasing these lots should know what they are. He does not feel we should make this Zoning Ordinance change to accommodate these two outlots. They could be sold to adjacent homeowners if at some time they wanted to purchase them. He does not think there is any need for a recommendation to City Council or any changes to the Ordinance.
Mr. Owens stated that in the Plat Act “outlot” has a definition and certain uses and he believes that we should know this information before making any decisions. Also there are some Attorney General opinions on outlots that we should review. (Legal opinion from the City Attorney.) And does the current Plat Act or a previous Plan Act apply to these outlots?
Mr. Bow advised the Commission of the legal status of discussions with one of the outlot owners as to the ”TAKING” of property.
Mr. Borgerding asked if these two lots will be the only lots effected by this proposed zoning ordinance change. Mr. Bow said he believes “yes” because he believes that developers cannot any longer designate outlots as privately owned.
Mr. Johnson raised the possibility that perhaps the City would consider purchasing the two lots in question. What is the Value of the two lots and what did the present owners pay for the lots? It could be more financially advantageous to purchase the lots than to go into a litigation regarding their use.

MOTION by Owens, supported by Bueche, to table this item for a legal opinion.

Yea: 6

Nay: 0

Motion carried.

FLUSHING PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

OCTOBER 3, 2005

PAGE 5

New Business: CONFLICTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS

Discussion:

Mr. Bow advised the Commission that the changes being recommended are to help with enforcement of the motor vehicle/motor home sections of the ordinance.
Mr. Bow state the difficulty in enforcement of automobile parking/storage is because of the “legal nonconforming use” status of some vehicles that can prove they used the area for storage before this ordinance was adopted. The City must be able to prove it was not stored prior to the present ordinance if the case goes to court.
Mr. Johnson provided an alternative recommendation to address the conflict. He proposes to revise the Ordinance as follows:

Under definitions page 2-12 eliminate “and any vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated on rails.” And add ”including motor homes.”
Incorporate the restriction on front yard parking pg. 5-2 into performance standards using the word motor vehicle. Section 153.501 deals with parking space requirements for new building construction. To have this standard here is incongruous.

front yard parking – all of 153.501 (M) as written (motor vehicle is OK as definition is changed.

General Discussion: None

Adjournment:

MOTION by Borgerding, supported by Bueche, to adjourn.

Yea: 6

Nay: 0

Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

mcs