Minutes
A Regular Meeting of the Flushing City Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, June 1, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Kevin J. Keane, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: C. Neil Blackmore
Gregory J. Bois
Daniel D. Borgerding
Dennis Bueche
John C. Gault
Kevin J. Keane
Karianne M. Martus
John C. Olson
Absent: Robert Matsko
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Bueche, seconded by Borgerding, to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2009 Regular Meeting, as written.
Yea: 7
Abstain: 1
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Public Hearing – Outdoor Café Ordinance - Chairperson Keane opened the public hearing to anyone in the audience wishing to comment.
Susan Little,
Steve Dabish, By The River Restaurant – expressed his support of the Café Ordinance, in an effort to increase business.
John Costa,
The Chairperson closed this portion of the public hearing.
Minutes
June 1, 2009
Page Two
No public comments were made.
OLD BUSINESS:
Outdoor Café Ordinance – It was moved by Martus, and seconded by Blackmore, to recommend approval of the Café Ordinance to the City Council for enactment.
Discussion:
Keane stated that the additions from the previous meeting were added into the ordinance.
City Manager Bow gave an overview of the ordinance, and stated that the only issue that may come up is that the café area cannot be in front of an adjacent business, but can it be in front of property adjacent to the business if there is no business next to it. The Board members were directed to 4 K) and 5 E) of the ordinance.
Olson stated that in 4 K), “adjacent to” is not real restrictive, and his question was if it would cover it.
Bow replied that, in one case, it’s all private property. He is assuming some type of agreement could be worked out with adjacent business owners.
Borgerding questioned as to why a parcel is described as “two or more lots under common ownership,” and not “one or more lots under common ownership.” Bow stated that Borgerding made a good point. Borgerding then asked where the lots end in the downtown district, and Bow stated he’s fairly certain the city property right-of-way is up to the front of the buildings.
Keane added that, in his experience, most CBD’s have zero lot lines.
Borgerding inquired as to whether a business owner looking to operate an outdoor café adjacent to their business could approach a neighboring property owner as to the possibility of leasing the needed property to accommodate it, to which Bow replied that the language would allow that, subject to the area requirements.
Minutes
June 1, 2009
Page Three
Bow continued that the only issue would be if they were taking up required parking area, then that would kick in the requirement for a site plan review.
Olson offered that we probably can’t think of every possible circumstance and we should take what we think will work and revisit it if we have problems.
Martus questioned if, for instance,
Kathy’s Restaurant were to approach the business next door to her (Lucy Ham
Group), and be given permission by Lucy Ham to utilize the front of their
business during the times they were closed.
Bow replied that, if you look at the language, it does not strictly
restrict her (Kathy’s) to just in front of her business. The language isn’t clear as to space such as
Bueche inquired if that would be a
decision by the City Council, or administration, to permit encroachment of
Keane then asked if the Cornwell Trust is considered another business, because in 5 E), it states “may not extend in front of any other business or residence.” Olson again commented that we should take what we have, recommend that Council change that “two” to “one,” and try it.
Borgerding brought out that in 2 D) it states, “to use for dining,” and the question arises as to whether that allows for a beer as well? Keane asked if the Commission would prefer it read “for dining and/or beverage service?” He added that any consumption of alcoholic beverages would be regulated by the Liquor Control Commission. Olson stated that if we take out “to use for dining,” that would conform.
Bois then inquired as to dancing. Bow responded that this ordinance doesn’t address dancing. Bois continued that he interprets that, to be served, you have to be seated and, if dancing were to be allowed, the space would have to permit it. However, the ordinance prohibits outdoor speakers.
Minutes
June 1, 2009
Page Four
Keane asked if the commission is in agreement that in removing the words “to use for dining” from 2 D), end of the sentence, that would then deal with the issue of beverage service. Bueche added that “to use for dining” should be removed from all four of the definitions under 2.
Borgerding voiced his concern that 2 B) states, “on a private sidewalk,” which could mean decks would be over the sidewalks. Bow stated that this is a definition, not part of the regulations, and the regulations address different types of decks, and that is one type of deck.
Bois inquired as to whether the protection of the platforms from cars is addressed, and Bow said that the burden is on the applicant, as they are required to submit that information in their drawing of their proposed site.
Bois’ concern is that applicants will take their platform decking spaces to the legal edges, adding the barriers, etc., and taking up parking. Borgerding stated that the barrier would be inside the permitted area, and Bow concurred.
Keane brought up the discussion from the last meeting in relation to 4 B), the prohibited use of outdoor speakers, and asked if the commission still agrees with that determination. Bueche asked if televisions would be included in that.
In responding to a question from the public as to the Zoning Ordinance controlling the noise, Bow stated that we have a Noise Ordinance, which is enforced by our police, but is a tough thing to try and enforce, as it is based on decibel levels.
Bueche again inquired as to televisions, and Keane responded that he didn’t think television was prohibited, but added that it really isn’t realistic to place televisions in an outdoor setting. Bueche asked if we should be more specific in allowing or prohibiting televisions. Bow stated that traffic flow might be a consideration when you start putting a lot of electronics on the street.
Asking if there were any other comments, additions, amendments, Chairperson Keane then asked if someone would call the question, with Gault responding.
Minutes
June 1, 2009
Page Five
Outdoor Café Ordinance – All those in favor of recommending that the ordinance, as amended, be sent to City Council for final approval signify by saying aye.
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Chairperson Keane, upon asking if there was any other old business, and seeing none, adjourned the meeting.
Adjourn: 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne P. Black
Recording Secretary