Session 05-20 a Special Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 6:14 pm on October 12, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER LEHNER, CHESLEY, KRANICH, CONNOR, PFEIL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER FOSTER, HESS
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular and considered in normal sequence.
A. Time Extension Requests
B. Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C. KPB Coast Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
Commissioner Kranich noted that the Adair remand was on the agenda under Public Hearings and requested it be moved to Commission Business.
The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Special Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2005
The amended minutes were approved by consensus of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Commission may question the public.
PLAT CONSIDERATIONS
The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for consideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask question s of staff, applicants, and the public.
A. Conditional Use Permit 05-09 1302 Ocean Drive, Planned Unit Development
Adair, Remanded to the Homer Advisory Planning Commission by the City of
Homer Board of Adjustment.
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that Donna Maltz had requested that the Commission accept her written copy of the statement she made at the September 22 Public Hearing be accepted at this meeting. Ms. McKibben stated that a copy was not provided to the clerk and that she reviewed the document and confirmed it is what Mrs. Maltz read into the record. Ms. McKibben advised the Commission they need to decide by motion if they are going to accept this information.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT REFLECTS THE VERBAL TESTIMONY THAT DONNA MALTZ MADE AT THE LAST MEETING.
It was confirmed that Mrs. Maltz wants the written testimony entered in addition to the verbal testimony from the last meeting.
Ms. McKibben state that Mr. Adair did receive a copy via fax last Friday and he did not have an objection to it.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that David Scheer requested that the Commission accept additional testimony. It is six pages of information regarding parking spaces, including his analysis of the Code, diagrams of parking, a reason to request alternate of reasonable regulations, because the current code is out of date. It also included an analysis of lot use and testimony of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and the limit of flexibility in zoning regulations. Mr. Adair received a copy via email on Friday, he has not provided any additional written testimony. Ms. McKibben advised that if the Commission does decide by motion to accept Mr. Scheer’s testimony, the other parties have to be given an equal opportunity to provide written testimony. She explained that Mr. Adair had misunderstood the information and thought the Commission would act on that and he would be notified of that and then given an opportunity to respond. She stated that the reason this has to be done through formal motion is because the Commission held a public hearing and then closed it.
Chair Chesley clarified that if they decided to accept Mr. Scheer’s additional testimony, they are re-opening the public hearing for those comments. In order to provide equal opportunity to Mr. Adair, he needs to be given the opportunity to give comment to the Commission. The Commission will not be able to conclude the matter tonight, as they will have to wait for additional testimony to come from Mr. Adair.
PFEIL/LEHNER MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding taking verbal testimony. The following views were addressed:
ü The Commission needs to decide at some point when they are going to draw the line and not accept new testimony. If information is accepted now and Mr. Adair has an opportunity to provide additional information, it is possible that the other parties will want to provide additional information in response to that. There is the potential for this to become an unending cycle.
ü Some Commissioners agree that there is a benefit to receiving more information, and that they are not at a point of having enough information.
City Planner McKibben asked for clarification whether they are re-opening the public hearing and allowing audience testimony or only accepting this request for additional information. Ms. McKibben explained her understanding from the City Attorney that the Commission has a request from a member of the public to accept additional information; it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are re-opening the public hearing. She expressed her concern that as open as the motion was, potentially there could be some problem if they don’t allow the audience to provide additional testimony in the hearing format.
PFEIL/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO SAY THAT WE JUST ACCEPT THIS INFORMATION FROM DAVID SCHEER.
It was discussed that the Commission needs to determine a timeframe for Mr. Adair to respond after taking this action. It is a given that he be allowed an equal opportunity.
VOTE: PFEIL, CONNOR, KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion as amended): YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH.
Motion carried.
There was discussion whether it is allowable for Mr. Scheer to make verbal comment or whether the motion was to accept the written statement only. Commissioner Pfeil pointed out that his motion was to accept additional information; it could be written and verbal. He stated he wouldn’t mind hearing Mr. Scheer explain what he has presented. There was brief discussion that Mr. Adair could participate telephonically at the next meeting should Mr. Scheer be allowed to speak.
Chair Chesley asked for a motion for Mr. Scheer to be allowed to make verbal testimony.
CONNOR/PFEIL MOVED TO ALLOW MR. SCHEER TO MAKE VERBAL TESTIMONY BASED ON HIS WRITTEN REPORT.
City Planner McKibben expressed her discomfort with this idea because the public hearing was closed and she would not want the Commission to take an action that if it was challenged and found to be inappropriate, could negate the decision the Commission reached at the end of this process.
Chair Chesley stated that the Commission has the right to open public testimony any time that it is in the best interest of the Commission to do so and it doesn’t have to be limited to anyone. He understood from the City Attorney that it is the Commission’s decision whether they can re-open public testimony and basically start it again. He asked Ms. McKibben if she agreed or disagreed. City Planner McKibben responded that the Commission could decide to take additional testimony but they had to provide an equal opportunity to the applicant, however the Commission wants to interpret that. She is uncomfortable with oral testimony because in effect it is re-opening the public hearing.
Chair Chesley called for a break at 6:40 pm for the City Planner and the Clerk to confer. The meeting resumed at approximately 6:55 pm.
Chair Chesley stated that before the Commission further discuss this, the question arose during the break whether the meeting had been noticed properly. The Commission questioned this because on the agenda in their packet this item was scheduled under public hearings. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen explained that after the packet was prepared it was discovered that the agenda was incorrect. The error was discovered prior to the distribution of agendas and the corrected copy was sent to the public information kiosks and posted on the Clerk’s web page. Ms. Jacobsen checked the advertisement in the newspaper and verified that it was not advertised as a public hearing there either. The Commission agreed that the meeting was properly noticed.
Chair Chesley read the excerpt of an email from City Attorney Tans to City Planner McKibben, which makes the following points:
ü After all parties have had the opportunity to provide evidence and testimony and the Commission closes the hearing the rule is that no more evidence should be admitted.
ü The exception would be when the Commission formally re-opens the record to take more information. They may do this on their own if they discover a need to get more information to make a decision, or in response to the request of a party, in which case all parties need to be notified of the request.
ü The other parties one, may object to the request and two, are entitled to equal opportunities to submit more evidence.
ü If the Commission does decide to re-open the record, it takes a Commission decision to do this.
ü Unless the Commission decides to re-open the record and allow all parties to add more information, then one person’s testimony doesn’t get accepted.
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen stated that she confirmed with City Clerk Calhoun that it is inappropriate to hold a public hearing without advertising it.
There was further discussion regarding Mr. Adair being provided the opportunity to respond to information provided at tonight’s meeting. There was question whether Mr. Adair objected to the receipt of more testimony or the process that the Commission might open the public hearing. Ms. McKibben said she would have to review the email because she was unsure if she stated Mr. Adair has an opportunity to object.
Chair Chesley called for a break at 7:05 pm. The meeting resumed at approximately 7:10 pm.
Chair Chesley read the email between City Planner McKibben, Mr. Scheer and Mr. Adair, regarding the acceptance of new testimony from Mr. Scheer and the written testimony from Donna Maltz from the September 22 meeting. Ms. McKibben stated that Mr. Adair was under the impression that once he was notified that the Commission did in fact accept the additional testimony, Mr. Adair would then have the opportunity to respond.
The Commission discussed that it appeared clear that Mr. Adair had the opportunity to respond and that timeframe has expired. It was pointed out that Ms. McKibben’s statement that should the Planning Commission approve the new testimony introduces another timeline. It was not clear whether he understood he had the right to object to the new testimony.
VOTE: NO: CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, PFEIL
Motion failed.
City Planner McKibben stated that the only new information she has since the close of the meeting on the 22nd is that she and Planning Technician Harness went to the site with a long tape, and while they are not surveyors, she said their measurements were very close to what is shown on the site plan. Ms. McKibben reviewed her measurements for the Commission. Commissioner Connor asked if they had measured the width of the driveway that exits out onto Lakeshore, minus the bollards protecting the fire hydrant. Ms. McKibben said they had not.
Chair Chesley began by addressing the parking requirements. Mr. Chesley read through HCC 21.61.090 and addressed each point.
a. Purpose.
The intent of this section is to insure that each park provides safe and
sanitary accommodations for the campers, travel trailers and other vehicles
which are located within the park, that the support services (such as utilities
and facilities) are adequate for the period of their stay in the park, and that
the park does not permit the use of any of its accommodations for permanent
occupancy.
Chair Chesley
stated that this was a concern listed during the public hearing that the
developer be aware that just because it is happening in other parts of the
community, doesn’t mean it will be allowed in his development. Mr. Adair had made comments that he is
meeting what is customary. Ms. McKibben
commented that in discussion with Mr. Adair, he indicated his plan is for the
operation to be from mid-May to mid-September.
b. Space Size.
The space provided for each recreational vehicle shall be a minimum of six
hundred square feet, exclusive of any space used for common areas, driving
lanes, walkways, general use structures, and landscaped areas.
Mr. Chesley noted
that it does not say how it has to be dimensioned; it just has to be 600 square
feet.
c. Minimum Lot
Size. The minimum lot size for a recreational vehicle park shall be forty
thousand square feet.
Ms. McKibben
pointed out that the development as a whole is 40,000 square feet and the only
thing not permitted through the RV Park is the restaurant and the fish
processing facility.
d.
Identification. Each recreational vehicle space shall be plainly marked and
numbered for identification.
There were no comments.
e. Occupancy.
Only one recreational vehicle shall occupy a space. Recreational vehicle parks
may be open on a year round basis. No recreational vehicle shall be parked for
occupancy in a recreational vehicle park for more than 30 continuous days, nor
shall a recreational vehicle be parked for occupancy in a recreational vehicle
park for more than 120 days in any 12-month period.
There were no
comments.
f. Surfaces.
Surfaces shall be designed to provide for runoff of surface water and be
approved by the Public Works Department.
Mr. Chesley commented that Ms. McKibben had mention that staff is working administratively on some of the drainage issues that have happened with the recent rains.
g.
Utilities.
1. Sources of
potable water and wastewater disposal facilities shall be in accordance with applicable
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulations.
Mr. Chesley
pointed out that on they are noted on the site plan and available in the RV
spaces.
2. The park
shall provide toilets and lavatories in accordance with applicable Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation regulations.
Mr. Chesley
pointed out that showers are shown on the site plan and the code does not
specify what is required for amenities, that would be determined by ADEC.
3. Noise
levels shall not exceed levels that unreasonable disturb or interfere with the
peace, comfort and repose of persons with ordinary sensibilities.
There were no
comments.
h. Solid Waste
Disposal. The recreational park must provide for adequate trash removal.
Mr. Chesley pointed out that the site plan does not show where the trash dumpster area will be. Not only will there be normal waste from the park, but also be fish processing waste.
i.
Parking.
1. One parking
space shall be provided within each recreational vehicle space.
Mr. Chesley
recommended that the Commission make a determination on this. In HCC 7.12, Off Street Parking, there is a
very clear definition of what a parking space is. Mr. Chesley prepared a memorandum establishing a finding to
clarify that when they talk about parking in the situation of an RV Park or a
temporary RV Park, the definition of parking from HCC 7.12 is the standard used
for calculating parking for HCC 21.61.090 and HCC 21.61.095.
There was brief
discussion regarding the logic of using HCC 7.12 when addressing parking in the
above-mentioned code sections.
LEHNER/CONNOR
MOVED THAT THE HOMER ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE OFF STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN HCC 7.12 OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
SHALL APPLY TO HCC21.62.090 AND 21.61.095
There was no
discussion.
VOTE: YES:
LEHNER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley
continued that in the current site plan, Mr. Adair’s parking spaces within the RV
space meet the dimensional requirement as defined in HCC 7.12. Mr. Chesley clarified that parking space is
for the sole purpose of the RV space and is not to be counted in any of the
parking for the other uses of the fish processing, retail, etc.
City Planner
McKibben reviewed the table that was in her staff report.
2. Additional
parking shall be provided for exclusive use of the park manager and employees.
Chair Chesley
pointed out that there is no designated employee parking on the site-plan. Ms. McKibben commented that the Code isn’t
specific as to how many spaces are required.
She suggested two spaces would be reasonable.
3. Guest
parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space per twenty-five
recreational vehicle spaces.
Chair Chesley
clarified that the minimum would be one and suggested it be identified on the
site plan.
4. Handicapped
recreational vehicle spaces shall comply with federal regulations.
Mr. Chesley
stated it is not clear whether or not they have one. He commented that in discussion with the manager of the Heritage
RV Park, the space they use for ADA requirements is 30x40 then Mr. Adair’s
30x48 space should be sufficient if it were labeled as such. It was agreed that the City Code does not
require it be done, but if he chose to, that size would be sufficient.
j. Roadways.
1. All
designate driving lanes shall be not less than fifteen feet in width for
one-lane traffic or thirty feet in width for two-lane traffic and shall adhere
to AASHTO Design Criteria.
Mr. Chesley
pointed out that Mr. Adair has identified that he has three points of
ingress/egress on the site. He shows
them at 30 feet each but Mr. Chesley believes that DOT will not give him a curb
cut of wider than 24 feet. Ms. McKibben
stated her uncertainty with that comment, but will check into it. She believes that Mr. Adair already has
driveway permits from the City.
Mr. Chesley
commented that Mr. Adair is showing a one-way traffic flow for the RV’s off
Douglas with an exit over to Lakeshore Drive, but it is not labeled. He meets the minimum standard of the 30 feet
if it is two-way and 15 feet if it is one-way.
Mr. Chesley questioned the fire hydrant. Ms. McKibben did not have information from Public Works Inspector
Gardner regarding the hydrant verifying the minimum distance from the hydrant,
but will get the information. Mr.
Chesley pointed out that if the current measurement is 32 feet and 15 feet is
required for each lane, if you deduct the area for the fire hydrant and the
bollards, the minimum requirement may not have been met.
Mr. Chesley
commented that they need to make sure of the turn radius coming into the
park. Another point that Mr. Chesley
brought up is at the check in office, can the area handle more than one RV at a
time and where is the staging area for the traffic coming in. Even though there are only eight RV spaces,
it could become an issue.
2. All driving
lanes shall be crushed gravel, asphalt, or concrete and designed to permit easy
access to all recreational vehicle spaces.
There was no
comment.
3. Driving
lane maintenance shall be the responsibility of park owner or operator.
k. Common
areas. At least seven percent of the entire recreational vehicle park shall be
developed as open space.
The Commission used
the figure of 2800 square feet for their discussion purposes, basing that on 7%
of 40,000 square feet. Mr. Chesley
stated it would be good to have the required amount of open space marked on the
site plan. Ms. McKibben pointed out
that the Code does not specify if the landscaped areas can be considered open
space. They discussed whether the 8
foot do not disturb zone should be included in the open space.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED THAT WE COUNT THE VEGETATED DO NOT DISTURB ZONES TOWARDS THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RV PARK.
There was discussion regarding which areas to include.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND TO ADD “AND LANDSCAPED AREAS ON SITE PLAN DATED 9/10/05 AND THREE FOOT BUFFER ON WEST SIDE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO DOUGLAS STREET.”
The Commission discussed landscaping requirements.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH
NO: CONNOR
Chair Chesley raised a point of order and asked if amendments require a majority vote or if it requires a majority plus one since this is for a CUP.
Chair Chesley called for a break at 8:05 pm for City Planner McKibben to review the Policy and Procedures Manual. City Planner McKibben and Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen concurred that amendments would require a majority vote.
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE LAST MOTION.
Commissioner Kranich stated he would like to go back and amend the motion to delete the three-foot buffer on Douglas out of the computation to open space.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO REMOVE “THREE FOOT LANDSCAPED BUFFER ON WEST SIDE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO DOUGLAS STREET.”
There was discussion that staff would still need to work with Mr. Adair in establishing the 7% of open space.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, CONNOR, KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion as Amended): YES: KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, CONNOR
Motion carried.
l. Accessory
Uses. Accessory uses within the recreational vehicle park may include an
office, a place for a manager to live, a bathhouse and outhouse buildings, a
small convenience store, storage buildings, and other necessary facilities.
Chair Chesley
commented that during public testimony that someone thought there was a
conflict between the statement of purpose of the RV Park not allowing
accommodation for permanent occupancy.
There was discussion that the place for the manager to live could be
permanent occupancy on the site, as long as it is not in an RV. It doesn’t mean that another structure couldn’t
be provided as an accessory building that would be year round occupancy. Should
the use as an RV Parks goes away, then the residence goes away as well.
There was
question whether standards in the PUD section of the Code would apply. Discussion ensued to the effect that because
RV Parks are allowed in this zoning district and an accessory use to an RV Park
is a caretaker facility and wouldn’t require a PUD. City Planner McKibben commented that they reason Mr. Adair
applied for a PUD is because he wanted to do fish processing, which is not a
permitted use in the district.
m. All
recreational vehicles parks must comply with local, state and federal
requirements prior to receiving a City zoning permit.
Chair Chesley
commented that everyone needs to be clear that if Mr. Adair is going to do fish
processing, he has to do his DEC permit for fish processing in hand to bring
into the City before he can be issued a zoning permit for the development. There was discussion regarding the need for
securing the correct permits.
Chair Chesley reviewed the parking on the site plan while referencing the design standards for off street parking. Mr. Chesley made the following points:
ü Upon review of measurements for 45° parking from the design standards, parking spaces three and four do not meet the 15 feet requirement behind the parking.
ü In measuring across the top of the spaces, it affects space eleven.
ü It was suggested that space four could be used for the dumpster.
ü Staff needs to review spaces with Mr. Adair.
ü Space 13, a parallel parking space, is required to be a minimum of 24 feet in length.
ü There is no loading and unloading zone identified for the fish plant.
It was discussed that Mr. Adair has not specified that the fish processing is exclusive to the RV park users. If it is open to the general public, the two parking spaces for the fish processing facility are not sufficient. It was pointed out that another way provided by Code to calculate for the manufacturing is by number of employees. Three part time employees are intended but that still works out to be two. A suggestion was offered to review what the requirements were for the Silver Fox processing facility.
ü Clarification is needed regarding the scope of the fish processing.
ü It was suggested that four to six spaces to be dedicated for the fish processing be considered if it is planned to be retail similar to Coal Point.
ü In talking with the manager of the Heritage RV Park, the busiest time of day is after people have traveled and are looking for a place for the night, which is about the same time the fishing boats come in.
ü An additional dumpster will be needed for the offal from the fish processing, which will have to be taken to the fish grinder on the spit.
City Planner McKibben explained that there is 356 square feet of retail space, 256 of that square footage is upstairs over the shower facility and 100 square feet of it is included in the restaurant area over the main building. Ms. McKibben continued that Mr. Adair indicated he is willing to reduce the number of the retail space to accommodate parking, but the Code requires no less than four spaces for retail. Restaurant parking can be calculated by the seating capacity or the maximum capacity determined by the Fire Marshall. In this case 14 spaces are required.
Chair Chesley expressed his belief that based on parking; there is too much going on at this site and that it is under spaced by ten. In referencing in the map he pointed out recommended adjustments, justifying the need for more parking spaces.
Chair Chesley briefly discussed the parking for the RV. He estimated the ratio requirement and determined that a total length behind of 65.6 feet to get a vehicle into a 90 foot space and back it out. Mr. Chesley pointed out that this is not a hard proven number, but in looking at the ratio it is under spaced for the distance behind the RV to accommodate it. Information presented from the public on the public standard for the turning radius is 75 feet and Mr. Chesley came up with 65.6 feet on Mr. Adair’s plan. Although it meets the minimum standards, it doesn’t mean that it is functional.
The Commission discussed some possibilities to resolve the issues:
ü Restricting the size of RV’s allowed in the park.
ü Giving up an RV space to facilitate the fish processing.
ü Providing fish processing to the RV clients only.
ü Reducing square footage of fish processing was mentioned but the point was made that Coal Point is not a large facility and it generates a huge amount of traffic.
ü Reducing seating requirements for the restaurant.
ü A pick up service for collecting fish from the spit to bring to the plant.
The point was made that they don’t want staff to be in the position of monitoring what Mr. Adair is doing, it would be better just to deal with the parking issue.
Chair Chesley commented that the purpose of a PUD is to bring together a concept of businesses and it was stated in public testimony that this doesn’t have a focus. He disagrees and this development does have a focus, but there is a part of if that is not part of the focus. There are RV accommodations, cabin accommodations, showers that support the RV park, a restaurant, gift shop and retail area. The one part that doesn’t seem to tie in is the fish processing and if that went away, it would solve most of his problems. Ms. McKibben pointed out that in the beginning the fish processing was intended for clients only.
It was discussed that a place to begin is for staff to address the deficiencies in the plan-
ü Load/Unload Zone.
ü Accommodation of waste management
ü Staff works the numbers to make a determination on the parking.
ü Have the site plan reflect the requirements in the Code that a site plan has to show.
It was reiterated that staff review the plan for Silver Fox to see what their requirements were. There was discussion about different scenarios of need for the fish processing.
Commissioner Connor brought up the subject of the lofts in the rental cabins. There was discussion whether the Commission was to deal with the guest cabins and it was determined that in this remand, they are not. Ms. Connor also spoke of architectural treatment.
There was discussion about what the Commission is supposed to be looking at with the remand. Chair Chesley explained that the issues for they are working on are:
ü Expansion of the uses of the three different uses, the restaurant, the fish processing building, and the change in the cabins going from two separate buildings, going into one building.
ü Clarifying parking.
Chair Chesley explained that architectural treatment wasn’t already an issue, so the Commission can’t go back to it as part of this remand; if Mr. Adair comes back for another amendment to his PUD, that may open the door and address some of the other issues.
Ms. Connor questioned that since the buildings have increased in size and there is more impervious coverage on this lot, could the Commission could discuss the storm water plan. City Planner McKibben explained that is something that staff is addressing. Planning Technician Eggertsen-Goff had started on that before she left and Planning Technician Harness has picked it up. They are working with Public Works to evaluate it and decide if it is going to be required.
City Planner McKibben recapped the information to discuss with Mr. Adair regarding parking issues.
ü Dimensional requirements for parking.
ü State Driveway Permit / 30 foot curb cut.
ü Verify with Public Works move fire hydrant.
ü Width of bollards around fire hydrant.
ü Turn radius Douglas to Lake.
ü Where is check-in area.
ü 7% open space.
ü DEC Processing Permit before zoning.
ü Parking guest parallel parking spot number 13, that may be 60°.
ü Check Silver Fox Parking.
ü Processing, four to six spaces, load and unload zone.
ü Processing open to public or only to guests.
ü Fisherman’s Resort Pick-up service.
ü Round up parking.
ü Waste disposal.
Chair Chesley suggested that Ms. McKibben talk with Public Works Director Meyer about a recommendation on the distance calculations. He commented that the standards that are not necessarily functional. There was discussion that until something different is implemented in the Code, how can someone be held to a stricter standard. Chair Chesley clarified that the standards are minimum and the Commission has latitude as to what they can stipulate. He gave an example that it could determine that Mr. Adair needs to post a sign that says no RV’s over a certain size. They can use the City’s professional staff to look at the design and talk to traffic people and make the decision to set size limits.
There was discussion about selecting a date to continue their work. The Commission agreed to hold a special meeting at 6:00 pm on November 9, 2005 with this item as Commission business.
The Commission thanked Chair Chesley for his work on the parking.
There was minimal discussion regarding the RV parking and Chair Chesley commented that he thinks his design requirements meet the RV space requirements.
Chair Chesley commented before adjourning the meeting that he has been working on Quiet Creek related stuff and spoke about a publication he has been reading called Higher Density Development, Myth and Fact. It is on the Urban Land Institute web site. He advised City Planner McKibben that there are 2 power point presentations that can be downloaded, and suggested she review it and see if either are good presentations for the Commission to hear.
LEHNER MOVED TO POSTPONE WHAT WE ARE DOING UNTIL NOVEMBER 9.
There was brief clarification of the time.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners my comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused absence.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special meeting will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.
There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:09 pm. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for October 19, 2005 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There will be a Worksession at 6:00 pm prior to the meeting.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: