Minutes
A Regular Meeting of the Flushing City Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 7:31 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
Robert Matsko
John C. Olson
Absent: Deborah Kiertzner
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Gault, seconded by Blackmore, to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2010 Regular Meeting, as written.
Yea: 6
Abstain: 2
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Special Use Permit Provisions – Chairperson Keane opened the public hearing, giving the floor to city manager Bow to report to the commission and audience on this matter.
Bow gave an overview of this matter,
explaining that the first proposed amendment allows for the exemption of decks
and swimming pools from the conditions imposed by Section 153.901(AY),
The following
provision is proposed to be added to Section 153.901(AY),
(8) Decks with a height of less than thirty
(30”) inches from the surface of the ground, and swimming pools, shall be
exempt from the area limitations, as imposed through this section and through
the Schedule of Regulations.
Minutes
May 3, 2010
Page Two
The second provision relates to the construction of
decks over city rights-of-ways. The
proposed provision (attached hereto and made a part hereof) would permit these
uses, as permitted in the Central Business District (CBD), subject to Special
Use Permit provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The use is to be considered as accessory to a permitted use, it must comply with the city’s Café Ordinance, and
shall not constitute a hazard to the public.
Chairperson Keane opened the public hearing to the audience for comment.
Elva Cook,
Dale Harris, Skip’s Come Back Inn – stated that safety issues brought up at the last meeting have been considered, and he has some new renderings addressing those concerns.
Chairperson Keane advised that the renderings should be addressed at a site plan review meeting.
The Chairperson closed this portion of the public hearing.
Bob Enders, 174 Beacon Point Parkway, questioned how the members are appointed and how recommendations are made to the council. Chairperson Keane acknowledged his questions and responded accordingly.
Mr. Enders continued that he had given the members copies of questions he would like to have addressed in relation to the MTA proposal, and would like answers/comments from the representatives of the MTA.
Chairperson Keane reminded Mr. Enders that this is not the time for interrogatories, and advised that this matter will be addressed at the time that specific issue is reviewed by the commissioners.
Mr. Enders continued that he has thirteen (13) items and would like to have the names of the representatives of the MTA who might be able to sit down and talk with the residents of Beacon Point.
Mr. Foy, MTA, offered that they would be glad to discuss this at the time it is reviewed by the commissioners this evening.
Minutes
May 3, 2010
Page Three
NEW BUSINESS:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Special Use Permit Provisions - Motion by Gault, seconded by Olson, to approve
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Special Use Permit Provision impacting
Section 153.901(AY).
Discussion:
Olson
feels the language, as presented, is a good compromise at this point and it’s
time for the council to consider it.
Borgerding
asked if we determined that we didn’t need a height limit on the swimming pool,
and Bow replied that there are provisions within the building code.
Bueche
inquired as to the phrase “pose a problem,” located in (BB)(3),
stating that it seems really vague to him.
Bow suggested that you might insert a couple of words, and suggested “as
determined by the Director of Public Works.”
Zoning
Ordinance Amendment – Special Use Permit Provisions - Motion by Gault, seconded by Olson, to amend their original motion
to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Special Use Permit Provision
impacting Section 153.901(AY), with the addition of the language “as determined
by the Director of Public Works,” following the phrase “shall not pose a
problem” in (BB)(3).
Yea: 8
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Site
Plan Review – MTA – Chairperson Keane gave the
floor to Mr. Jim Sporer, CHMP Architects, who has worked with MTA in developing
a number of these sites in other communities.
Mr.
Sporer reported that this site (corner of Beacon Point Parkway and Pierson
Road) is 3.9 acres; the proposed structure is for storage of vehicles; not a
maintenance facility; more of a service facility for the surrounding
community. He noted that Mr. Bob Foy, of
the MTA, Mr. Barry Wolf, and Mr. Alonza Gonzalez (Service Manager of the
Mr.
Sporer stated that the proposed building would be located in the middle of the
site, with support parking in the front (
Minutes
May 3, 2010
Page Four
The fueling area will be approximately 120’ from the
north property line. That property line will
be built up with a 6’ earth berm with heavy landscaping on the top and
sides. Landscaping along
The front office area will house the staff, and the
garage area will support the Your Ride vans and one (1) bus, which will be
stored overnight. Because of the limited
area on the site, the detention will be underground near the east side of the
parking lot; signing will be located off of Pierson Road; and the entire site,
from the edge of the office north, will be secured with fencing and security
gates.
Keane asked Bow if the city’s concerns from the
March and April memorandums had been addressed, to which Bow responded that, at
the time of application for the permit, the utilities easements, as well as the
calculations for the water and sewer service would need to be reviewed. The major unresolved issue, at this point,
involves a two (2’) foot wide strip of land lying between
Olson asked Mr. Foy if the 2’ property easement has
been resolved, to which Mr. Foy stated that it is not resolved, as there is no
indication as to ownership.
At this point, Borgerding advised those present that
he is one of the developers, he owns property in Beacon Point, and he sits on
the Planning Commission, and is asking that Bow monitor his remarks so that he
does not get out of line. He continued
that he has talked with some of his partners, some of the people from the
association and Mr. Foy for a short time earlier in the evening, and his
personal opinion is that this project is probably one of the nicer plans, as
far as protecting the people that live in Beacon Point. He added that, if the association is in
agreement with the proposed plan, he doesn’t think the developers are going to
have a problem working the 2’ property issue out.
Mr. Barry Wolf,
503
Minutes
May 3, 2010
Page Five
Bow explained that, when the project (Beacon Point)
was originally approved, it included that road right-of-way, which was deeded
to the city after the Master Deed was developed and approved. It’s been the city’s contention that, after
they deeded the 60’ right-of-way, and there was a 62’ wide piece of land there,
that 2’ strip stayed with the first approved Master Deed of Beacon Point. It never got carved out as a separate piece,
and remained a leftover piece from when the road was deeded over to the city
and accepted by the city, that actually touched and abutted the original
development of the Master Deed. The city
received calls from the County’s Equalization Department, inquiring as to why
that was not taxed, but it was our assumption that it’s been taxed under the
Master Deed as a common area, even though it was not carved out with a new
legal description when the road was deeded over.
Mr. Wolf stated that the goal is to not have bad
relations with neighbors, and to make sure that any concerns they have are
addressed, and that they make this an extremely functional piece of property
for the MTA. He continued that it will
have to be determined who owns it, and make certain they’re able to convey
it.
Mr. Foy inquired as to who they need to approach
with this issue, to which Bow replied that he is recommending that the city not
approve this until it is resolved, and the only way to resolve it is between
the two private parties; whoever owns that strip of land and the MTA.
Bow added that one way to determine ownership would
be to do a title search. The city has
checked all the legal descriptions furnished to us, and has had the city
surveyors compare them to the developer’s original legal descriptions. We’ve been able to, 1) identify that there is
a 2’ strip there, and in the conveyance of the Master Deed, someone had to have
the original description of that property in the original Master Deed, unless
it was purposely left out of the Master Deed, which would then leave it in the
developers’ possession; if it was in the Master Deed, then the association owns
it.
Mr. Foy stated that he’s petitioning for approval,
with the condition that this issue be resolved, and
Bow offered that, if it doesn’t get resolved, the site plan will have to be
changed, subject to all the other issues to be discussed.
Borgerding suggested that Mr. Foy sit down with the
association and the developers to resolve this issue.
Mr. Sporer added that it seemed logical that the 2’
strip would go to the public right-of-way, making it a 62’ right-of-way, to
which Bow stated that, if the owner wanted to deed it to the city, the city
council would consider accepting it, but, so far only 60’ has been
accepted.
Chairperson Keane drew Mr. Foy’s attention to the
series of questions from the Beacon Point Condominium Association residents,
suggesting that he address them this evening.
Minutes
May 3, 2010
Page
Six
At
this point, Mr. Foy gave responses to the questions (attached hereto and made a
part hereof) submitted by some of the Beacon Point Condominium Association
homeowners:
1. No. As an
organization, the MTA is a public body exempt from taxes, but there are
indirect tax dollars that come to the City of
2. The facilities are extremely well maintained and
they improve the quality of life in the areas they are in. They feel the quality of the structure will
be an asset to the neighborhood and increase the value of properties in the
area involved.
3. No immediate reasons for expansion at the present
time. There will be approximately 20-25
employees, and will depend upon growth and need in the community. Currently, they are carrying between 40,000
and 50,000 passengers a year, and should be able to do that very well with
10-20 vehicles in the area.
4. Between 20-25 employees from
5. We will have small vehicles operating; it is not
their intention to have 40’ vehicles operating there; primarily providing
curb-to-curb type transportation for the community.
6. Blueprints will be provided as needed.
7. Mr. Sporer reviewed the floor plan of the facility;
the yellowish color represents the office area; outdoor employee patio; rose
color represents the vehicle storage; waiting room and vestibule for customers;
men’s and women’s bathroom facilities; larger office for the dispatcher; office
for the manager; driver’s lounge; kitchen facilities; and mechanical and
storage facilities adjacent to the storage area.
8. Ready to go right now, as soon as they get site plan
approval; anticipates completion by late fall of 2011.
9. Other than site plan review, when the meeting with
the Beacon Point residents took place, it was pointed out that there is a local
service center manager here, Mr. Gonzalez, and he welcomes calls regarding any
issues. Otherwise, Mr. Gonzalez will be
on site.
10. Mr. Gonzalez, who will be on site,
or Mr. Foy, at the MTA in
13. A written response will be given to these issues
through his office.
To an inquiry from an audience member as to traffic
through the Beacon Point subdivision, Mr. Foy responded that the primary
entrance is off of
Bow added that, should a problem occur at Pierson
and Beacon Point Parkway, where traffic cannot get in or out, would the
residents be permitted to cut through the MTA development to access Pierson
Road, and Mr. Foy stated that they would be glad to open it up in an emergency,
but that would be a traffic control issue for the accident respondent’s
consideration as well.
Borgerding asked if, during construction, would
construction traffic be limited to
Minutes
May 3, 2010
Page Seven
Bois inquired as to why this site was chosen as the site for this project, to which Mr. Foy replied that it is their intent and normal practice to attempt to build their facilities in the small cities; they serve the small cities; they are part of the small cities; they are part of the public transportation system to serve that small city; and it is important that the community consider them to be part of the basic essence of the community they’re involved with, providing the service and meeting the community’s expectations.
Bois then inquired as to the demand
in this area, and Mr. Foy stated that, coming from City of
Bois asked what exact vehicles would
be in and out of that lot, as well as the frequency, and Mr. Gonzalez answered
that, in an average day, he has shifts staggered throughout the morning and
early afternoon, with lunches scheduled 2-3 hours after shifts start. He continued that he has 9 runs out of
Bois offered that, personally, he would like to see Beacon Point more in line with what the MTA is proposing, to which Mr. Foy replied that they want to be a good neighbor and an important part of the community. He continued that, the purpose of the earlier meeting was to address any concerns of the residents, and would welcome any meeting that the residents would request. However, they would like to move ahead from this point and work with the residents in the process.
Mr. Foy continued that they have four groups that come together on a monthly basis, where these types of issues are discussed. They have a local advisory committee on the elderly, one dealing with persons with disabilities, one dealing with work trips, and one dealing with the transportation of children, all of which assists the MTA in assisting the community.
Olson stated that, if there is another meeting called, he thinks the leadership of the association should be responsible for calling that meeting, rather than one called by Mr. Foy. This way, people would know it’s coming, and Mr. Foy and the city can then communicate with the leadership of the association on what’s going on.
Flushing City Planning Commission
Minutes
May 3, 2010
Page Eight
Site
Plan Review – MTA - Motion by Olson, seconded
by Bois, to move this item to the agenda of the next meeting.
Yea: 7
Abstain: 1
Nay: 0
Motion Carried.
Discussion:
Gault
offered that, if the association and the parties get this issue resolved, we
might want to have a meeting prior to the next regular meeting.
Adjourn: 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne P. Black
Recording Secretary