JANUARY 9, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD HENDRICKSON, PAUL WESTERMAN, BOB SKINNER, RUSS SILBIGER,
STAFF: DAWN LAMB, BILL MOLNAR, SENIOR PLANNER
MEMBERS ABSENT: ALAN DEBOER
Visitors: Joanne Krippaehne, Kyle Hopkins, Sky Research
1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 5, 2006, minutes approved as written.
3. Public Forum:
4. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Burl Brim Development
Krippaehne adapted her proposal. After DeBoer and Brim met on-site to discuss options in the development, a new idea was thought out to be more productive for what Brim would need. DeBoer confirmed the distances of the hangar spacing to accommodate the four hangars in the row. The newest proposal is to build one 80 X 80 hangar and keep the maintenance hangar as is. Brim also suggested leasing the next building envelope for a parking area. This would meet the planning requirement for parking at a commercial building. The new hangar would have the offices and other amenities like restrooms. There are some issues that Krippaehne needs clarification on from the planning department like the refuse container and the parking area surface before she can move forward with the application. The building line on the office hangar has been fixed to have one roof pitch. This was a modification from the first design that showed the roof with two pitch lines to accommodate the required height restriction.
The proposal distributed is the draft that will go to the planning department for review. Krippaehne has asked for clarification on whether the variances listed will be administrative variances that will require further submittals. The clarification on the parking lot standards will also help with defining the application. The waste receptacle area that is required could cause issues with traffic in areas on the airport that we should not be encouraging transient vehicles. This is not a desirable condition that is in the planning ordinance that contradicts the focus on airport security. The solar variance condition presents a challenge in that it is linked to an entire tax lot and not to a building envelope. The calculations should be done for the entire airport not only the tax lot. The conditions are not set for an area next to an EFU (Exclusive Farm Use) zone. The airport buildings will most like not cause any shading problems onto other land. There are no property lines within distance of the buildings.
The landscaping condition if applied to the entire taxlot is easily met with the inclusion of the wetlands and riparian areas. The condition calls for a 15% land coverage and there is more than 15% of natural land if the entire lot is used, but there is confusion when it applies to a building envelope. The acceptable types of landscaping at an airport are not called out anywhere for reference. The issue of trackout that could lead to FOD damage is a serious consideration for all airports. The use of trees on an airfield will cause safety issues flying debris, height restrictions and maintenance issues. A consideration needs to be made for landscape maintenance that will be required post-construction. The building envelopes determine the lease area and the landscaping is on what would be City property and the cost to maintain the landscaping would be a hardship for the airport budget. If lessees are asked to put in and maintain landscaping, this needs to be carefully deliberated. If the planning department accepts the airport in entirety and not only the building envelope, the condition becomes moot. The same kind of theory has been asked for the parking requirement. Out of the 94 acres at the airport only have 15% that is developable and to have illogical restrictions on the building envelopes.
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner, addressed the commission on some of the topics and how to help the commission make the Planning applications more in tune with the actual state of the airport. The immediate issue is to see how land use is looked at the airport. Then how does the commission want to apply for land use ordinances as they relate to the current situation. What is currently used does not reflect the actual code. Some of these items could be looked. The developers are currently asked to meet the code for the E-1 district as it is written now. The commission should identify areas and work with Krippaenhne to establish an ordinance similar to the overlay for the hospital zone. Nothing currently exists that goes into the depth of the airport use.
The commission asked Molnar for guidance on the process for forming and implementing a new overlay zone for the airport. Areas of concern should be identified and then best solutions should be included. The ordinance could be adopted as part of the Transportation plan and part of the Airport Master Plan. The ordinance would need to go to Council for adoption. The commission would need to have valuable reasons for the changes to be adopted. Most of the issues affect the safety and operation of the airport and would be a logical condition. If the ordinance is adopted it would be applicable to all developments so the process needs to be well thought out. Reasons and justifications need to be clearly stated.
The parking issue will be a phased development at the airport. As the development of the airfield continues to grow, the parking areas proposed for construction in the Master Plan will need to come to fruition. The realignment of the access road is called out in a future AIP project but the need for that is not a priority at this time. The development of the parking lot will be a shared cost for future interested developers. There is a need to address the parking in the meantime. The conditions and the safe function of the airport need to be a consideration. There are now areas of commercial activities where it was not anticipated. The public parking lot next to the FBO office and the parking area between Skinner and Sky will need to utilized to their fullest before we encourage more parking that is accessed from the taxiways. Molnar suggested considering a phased parking plan to accommodate the slower pace growth. The commission looked over the spaces proposed by Brim and asked if the spaces were all needed. There was a concern with what would happen if the building envelopes contingent to the proposed parking lot was developed. There were 23 spaces on the application and Krippaehne was questioned on a scaled down version. The eight spaces adjacent to the hangar office building may be the only needed ones. She would verify with Brim. The number of spaces is based on the function of the building in the application. Krippaehne utilized the calculation for warehouse requirements since a hangar requirement did not exist. This was how she came up with the number of spaces. Molnar felt an interim condition on the parking lot would be acceptable. Zeve suggested having a bonding in place for developers to contribute toward future parking areas.
Lobaugh asked for more clarification the landscaping variance. Lamb explained that if the variance was made part of the new overlay it could be worded so that airport would be developed with airport friendly and safe landscaping. The current requirement for shade trees adds a safety issue for clearance and debris. If the requirement named specific forms of landscaping like the area around Sky Research which has low shrubs and a rock landscaping this would still add to the aesthetic value without causing unnecessary maintenance costs or safety issues. It also leaves the issue of who is responsible for maintaining the area. Each condition will need to be well thought out and considered from different angles. There is no need to completely alleviate any of the conditions, only fashion them to be more airport compatible. Bradley agrees that this is not a way to alleviate all landscaping, but to keep the application more in line with the airport. His concern is FOD hazards but in most situations he supports the green spaces that the planning requirement is encouraging. The concern is more with safety. The airport does not need to be a bunch of steel boxes surrounded by concrete. He wants to look at long range landscaping. Hendrickson agreed that the tree request seems dangerous no matter where you try and put them on the field. Lobaugh saw the point and just wanted to be sure a precedent wasn’t being set. The parking seems like it will be a larger more pressing issue.
Bradley supported the parking area being interim until further review and constraints could be dealt with. The parking will need to be addressed so it does not become an deterrent to future businesses. The idea is to have a set of requirements that are well laid out that will make the process less forbidding and more attractive and encouraging to developers. The work that is done now will save everyone time and energy in the future. Parking can be characterized in the application. The interim reference to the parking will take away the landscaping obligation. Skinner would like to see what Brim’s needs are and only build what is needed to discourage more vehicles accessing the taxiways. Just because the parking area is twenty-three spaced, there is no time when we would want to see twenty-three cars up there. Hendrickson suggested only having half the parking lot and having eleven cars. There is still room for the 60 X 80 hangar at the end if the parking lot is created.
Regarding the pre-application draft, the following recommendations and modifications were agreed upon by the commission and Krippaehne. The City will not be named as Co-Applicant but supports the application with the modifications to the parking area being termed as interim removing the need for landscaping, curbs, gutters and sidewalks to accommodate removal when a viable building application is received for development of a hangar. Parking area will be modified for less vehicles. The space between the existing hangar and the future hangar be reduced from eight feet to five feet. The recycling refuse area will be centralized on the airfield to one area so that vehicular travels by transient vehicles such as Ashland Sanitary be reduced as much as possible to decrease the security risk associated with unregulated areas.
Bradley motioned to support and endorse the variances for that Krippaehne has brought forth. Recommend and establish a subcommittee to investigate and prepare a master plan modification for the airport overlay zone for the airport.
Bradley amended the motion to support and endorse the variances for that Krippaehne has brought forth. Recommend and establish a subcommittee to investigate and prepare a master plan modification for the airport overlay zone for the airport. Request parking lot to be reconfigured with the thirteen northerly spaces deleted and the surfacing of the parking lot be researched to find a suitable surface that will not create debris that could be tracked onto the taxiway. Amend the request for the variances pertaining to the landscaping and parking requirements to reflect that the parking area will be interim until such time that there is an alternative parking area available. At the time when a serious application for development of the lot is received leaseholder of the parking area will be given 90 days notice to remove the parking area to accommodate a new hangar. Motion was seconded by Hendrickson. The vote was called and passed with four in favor and one abstention, Lobaugh.
B. Ben Lindner Development – No report.
C. Strategic Planning Action Items – No report.
4. NEW BUSINESS:
5. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION:
A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports
Activity has slowed with bad weather. Skinner did call and talk with the SuperAWOS distributor about the engineering aspect of the installation. There should be little to no engineering necessary and the unit should be able to be mounted and connected to the windsock pole. Hendrickson asked how the system works if there is a high traffic volume on the frequency. Skinner will have to research.
B. Maintenance Updates – No report.
A. Finance Report – Delayed for DeBoer.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2007, 9:30 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11:30 AM