Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
A Regular Meeting of the Flushing City Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, April 5, 2010 at 7:32 p.m. by Planning Commission Member Robert Matsko, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: C. Neil Blackmore
Gregory J. Bois
Daniel D. Borgerding
Dennis Bueche
John C. Gault
Robert Matsko
Absent: Kevin J. Keane
Deborah Kiertzner
John C. Olson
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Doug Piggott, Rowe Professional Services, Inc.
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Borgerding, seconded by Bois, to approve the minutes of the March 1, 2010 Regular Meeting, as written.
Yea: 4
Abstain: 2
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Scott Melancon, Flushing A Restaurant, 200 S. Cherry Street, stated that he is trying to change the pans on his existing sign, as the name has changed. Nothing different is being done to the sign, other than a new logo.
NEW BUSINESS:
No
new business to discuss.
OLD BUSINESS:
Zoning
Ordinance Amendment – City Manager Bow gave an
overview of the issue previously discussed relating to lot coverage in
backyards by decks and swimming pools.
The proposed language would exclude decks under the height of thirty
(30”) inches from the ground, and swimming pools, from the computation of area
limitations in the backyard.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page Two
Doug Piggott, Rowe Professional Services, Inc.,
reported that there are communities where the kind of limitation being
discussed only applies to buildings. If
this alternative were to be used, no decks would be included in the
computation, and some residents could get deck crazy. If decks are relatively tall, it creates the
sense of massing; it can also become a privacy issue with those on the taller
decks being able to see over neighbor’s privacy fences. Thus, more communities are now moving toward
regulation of decks, as well as buildings.
This proposed ordinance states that, if the deck is
below a certain height, and the height is essentially the height at which they
would be required to get a rail, it now becomes more a patio than a building.
Gault described the scenario of an area where the
topography drops off and you could start out at thirty (30”) inches and then at
the back it could be six-eight (6’-8’) feet.
Piggott stated that, in a situation such as that, you could require they
be tiered down. If the property is truly
unique, it could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.
Bois inquired as to whether pool decks would still be subject to the side and rear clearance rules, to which Piggott replied that right now the exception is only the area requirements, which would not change the language relating to the setback requirements. Bois then asked if we should place a restriction on the size of the deck footprint, to which Piggott said that it is something that could be done.
Bow offered that a line, simply stating that this has no impact on the setback limitations, could be inserted. Also, if the 50% requirement were added, this type of ordinance may then require we go through a public hearing, which could take place at the May 3, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
Zoning
Ordinance Amendment - Motion by Bois, seconded by Blackmore, to set a
public hearing for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, with the language amendment,
at the May 3, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
Discussion:
General discussion followed, as to heights and depths in relation to aboveground pools. Bow stated that, typically, they are four (4’) feet above and then they dig down a foot or so below.
Bueche asked if, by the way it’s worded, would it
suffice for the Zoning Board of Appeals?
Bow stated that he would look at it and bring it to the public hearing
meeting, as the commission will still have time to revise it.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page Three
Yea: 6
Nay: 0
Motion carried.
Non-Conforming Signs – Bow reported that some language has been put together that would allow for changes to existing sign faces, without changing the frame, as long as they are simply repainting or replacing a removable panel. Because this is not a Zoning Ordinance amendment, it does not require a public hearing and any recommendation could go directly to the City Council meeting on April 12, 2010, for a first reading of an ordinance modification.
Doug Piggott added that sign regulations are a matter of policy. Some communities are very stringent in requiring compliance, while others may only require compliance when a structural change is made to the sign. This proposed language takes the requirements closer to the less restrictive side by not requiring conformance if it’s a simple change to the sign face only.
Non-Conforming Signs - Motion by Borgerding, seconded by Blackmore, to approve the language proposed for Section 156.15.1, Non-Conforming Existing Signs, Permits and Terms.
Discussion:
Gault asked where the sign was non-conforming, and Bow responded that it is currently non-conforming in location, area, and height.
Bois inquired as to replacing an existing panel with a digital sign and Piggott replied that you would then be changing the nature of the sign. Bois then inquired as to the commission’s responsibility if an individual makes a change in illumination or a change of more than 50% without applying for approval through the city. Piggott explained that there’s the structure itself which, if ever changed, would require the sign be brought into compliance. The only exception that’s granted is the sign face itself, so the sign can never get bigger, it can never be any different from the type of sign it is; only what it says can change. The problem with a 50% rule is that it depends on the sign; a pole could be of greater value than the sign face, and vice versa. Theoretically, you could have a sign that goes on in perpetuity, as all they’re doing is changing the face, which could be considered a downside to this approach.
Bueche then asked if we should specify replacement with a similar material, to which Piggott responded that, if you go from a not so transparent panel to a transparent panel, the brightness could be increased but, in the Zoning Ordinance, there is a limitation to brightness, as it impacts adjacent property. With regard to a digital replacement, it could be addressed by using the phrase “of a similar type,” or “equivalent type.”
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page Four
Non-Conforming Signs - Motion by Borgerding, seconded by Blackmore, to amend his motion to approve the language proposed for Section 156.15.1, Non-Conforming Existing Signs, Permits and Terms, with the addition of the phrase “of a similar type.”
Yea: 6
Nay: 0
Motion carried.
Café
Ordinance Amendment/Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Bow stated that
changes were made to the Café Ordinance, as it relates to second level decks
and encroachment into the right-of-way, but the recommendation for the required
modifications to the Zoning Ordinance needs to be made.
Piggott began by stating that when he
and the city manager first discussed the Café Ordinance, the decision was made
to recommend to the city that, rather than making it part of the Zoning
Ordinance, it be made a Licensing Ordinance, because that’s what’s been
successfully done in other communities, and because these would not be
permanent structures. However, once you
start talking about a structure overhanging the right-of-way, and possibly
permanent, there becomes a rationale for making it part of the Zoning
Ordinance, as it is a use of the property.
The proposed language would tie the whole deck concept into the Zoning
Ordinance as well. It would require, in
addition to a license, issuance of a Special Use Permit by the Planning
Commission, thereby insuring that any deck would have a public hearing, where
adjacent property owners and residents would be notified, and any concerns
could then be raised. In essence, it
would amend the Table of Uses to add “Decks over ROW or other city property,”
as a use permitted by Special Use Permit, and then it simply indicates that
it’s a use permitted, as accessory, to a permitted use in the Central Business
District (CBD). It would require the
applicant complies with the city’s Café Ordinance by specifically indicating
that failure to comply with that ordinance would also serve as a basis for
revocation of a Special Use Permit. The
third item is simply trying to provide a standard that’s an addition to the general
standards for Special Use Permit for what the city is looking at, such as not
hazardous to clientele or pedestrians, and it won’t pose a burden to the city
in maintaining the right-of-way.
Piggott continued that
he is proposing limiting the Special Use Permit to the Central Business
District (CBD) because, for the other commercial zoning districts, the setbacks
are such that you’d have to have a pretty large deck to start encroaching on
the right-of-way (possibly 20, 30, 40 foot setback requirements). Therefore, there’s no need in those districts
to have a deck that’s going to hang over, nor is there the benefit to the
community that there would be in the downtown area.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page Five
Bois asked audience member Dale Harris
(Skip’s Come Back Inn) if the deck he proposes is freestanding or part of the
building, and Mr. McDade (Mr. Harris’ architect) replied that it will be
freestanding, as removable or attached are not feasible. He continued that there will be four (4)
posts (3” x 3” square), two (2) will be situated just off of the exterior wall
and two (2) are within the sidewalk and pulled back a little bit (a little over
a foot) from the street, with the upper deck actually overhanging from the
posts a little bit.
Bois questioned how the proposed deck would be protected from potential vehicle impact, to which Mr. McDade replied that, for a vehicle to hit the post hard enough to make the deck collapse, the vehicle would have to be moving at a fairly high rate of speed. McDade added that, during the summer, while the parking area is used for outdoor dining on the street level, they would provide protection to the pedestrians there that will protect the posts for the deck as well.
Borgerding questioned if, under the Special Use provision, will the Planning Commission be approving the actual structure, as it’s going to be built, and Bow replied that a Special Use Permit requires a site plan and a site plan has to be approved at that time, as two (2) separate motions.
Piggott offered that, at this time, the Planning Commission is simply initiating an amendment that would require, besides the Café Ordinance license, in the case of a deck, that they also get a Special Use Permit, and that the deck would be submitted for the site plan review process.
Borgerding then stated that, for confirmation purposes, not only is it limited to the CBD, but it will also be limited to an establishment that can comply with the Café Ordinance, to which the response was yes.
Bueche inquired as to whether a Special Use Permit can be revoked, and the response was yes. Piggott offered that he wanted to specifically include that language, because he wanted it to be clear that a condition of approval for any Special Use Permit for a deck was in compliance with the Café Ordinance, so that violation of the Café Ordinance also constitutes a violation of the Special Use Permit. Bow added that there is a revocation procedure in the ordinance, and the Planning Commission may revoke it in the same manner they approve it.
Borgerding asked if the proposed deck would be part of the structure from a signage standpoint and Piggott replied that he believes there is a provision in the Sign Ordinance that prohibits signs from projecting into the right-of-way.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page Six
Café Ordinance Amendment/Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Motion by Bois, seconded by Gault, to move this matter to a public hearing.
Yea: 6
Nay: 0
Motion carried.
Bois asked if anyone had seen the Rotary Club’s proposed Riverview Park Master Plan, as he would like to extend an invitation for a presentation before the Planning Commission. Bow advised that this is something for a future meeting, as he expects a site plan will be before the Planning Commission at the May meeting, which will require quite a bit of time. He explained that the Mass Transportation Authority (MTA) is proposing a pickup site on the east five (5) acres of the former Patsy Lou dealership site.
Bow continued that there’s a two (2’) foot strip of land between Beacon Point Parkway and the proposed site, which the condominium association owns. In order to discuss this matter, a meeting has been scheduled between the Beacon Point property owners and the representatives of MTA in an attempt to work out an access point onto Beacon Point Parkway so that they will have an entrance on Pierson Road, circling through their bus garage, and then coming back on Beacon Point Parkway then onto Pierson Road. If they work through that issue, then they will come back to us for final concept review of their plan.
Bois questioned the value of the facility in the community and Bow stated that they are willing to do a lot to make the site fit in with that strip of commercial area. He continued that the proposed facility looks more like an industrial site; it has a nice office front on it, but it has a big warehouse on the back, which is not unlike the old dealership adjacent to the site. If the site is not screened properly, the surrounding residents may have a problem with it.
Bois asked if the function is as a warehouse for repair of buses, and Bow stated that it’s not a repair facility at all, it’s a housing facility of eight bays, two buses deep, so they’ll park them there. There’s to be no maintenance there.
Adjourn: 8:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne P. Black
Recording Secretary