PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF REHOBOTH BEACH March 9, 2009

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF REHOBOTH BEACH March 9, 2009"

Lydia Jordan
5 years ago
Views:

1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF REHOBOTH BEACH The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rehoboth Beach was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Preston Littleton on Monday, in the Commissioners Room in City Hall, 229 Rehoboth Avenue, Rehoboth Beach, DE. ROLL CALL Mr. Timothy Spies called the roll: Present: Absent: Also Present: Also Absent: A quorum was present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Patrick Gossett Mr. Harvey Shulman Mr. David Mellen Chairman Preston Littleton Mr. Timothy Spies Mrs. Nancy Meadows Mrs. Jan Konesey Ms. Terri Sullivan, Chief Building Inspector Mr. Glenn Mandalas, City Solicitor Minutes of the January 9, 2009 Regular Meeting were deferred for approval to the April Meeting. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence will be read when the Short Dead-End Streets portion of the meeting is held. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Littleton called for the discussion and possible vote on recommendations to the Board of Commissioners to amend the City Code regarding short dead-end streets. Chairman Littleton gave an update on this issue. He noted that at the last meeting, there was 100% agreement within the Planning Commission that the current Code requirement for short dead-end streets is excessive, and there is no need to have dimensions when there is the ability to save natural resources, trees, etc. There are two opposite directions to this: 1. Simple modifications to the Code giving the Planning Commission discretion to adjust the Code requirements as long as there is justification. 2. There should not be unspecified discretion. The Planning Commission needs to set some minimum dimensions within the Code. Mr. Bryan Hall, Office of State Planning Coordination was in attendance at the last meeting, and he had noted that public safety issues need to be addressed in regard to streets. Mr. Hall has forwarded material such as definitions, etc. to the Planning Commission. Chairman Littleton requested that the Planning Commission members look at narrow streets within neighborhoods in the City and measure the streets. Mr. Timothy Spies had volunteered to research this, and he has forwarded his notes to the Planning Commission. Chairman Littleton noted that prior research which had been done included 11municipal codes from other jurisdictions. The most relevant item is the handbook from American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) which refers to short dead-end streets. Information has been obtained from the International Fire Code along with a drawing which was produced by Building Inspector Terri Sullivan. Much public testimony has been provided, primarily from Mr. Paul Lovett and his family. Correspondence received: 1. received March 2009 from Mr. Paul Lovett, 510 Rehoboth Avenue, regarding short dead-end streets. Mr. Spies provided dimensions of streets which vary in width with parking on one side to parking on both sides of the street. (Copy attached.) He provided information regarding Columbia Avenue between Surf

2 Page 2 Avenue and Second Street, and between Second Street and Grove Street; Park Avenue between Third Street and Fourth Street; Virginia Avenue, the short block west of First Street; Third Street between Columbia Avenue and Henlopen Avenue; and First Street between Lake Avenue and Henlopen Avenue. Mr. Harvey Shulman noted that on the list, the narrowest paved travel lane is 15 feet on First Street. Virginia Avenue is almost 24 feet with parking on one side of the street. All other measurements on the list are for the paved travel lane. Mr. Shulman presented possible changes to the proposed Ordinance regarding filling in the minimum numbers, vagueness and usage of the same terminology throughout. He provided an excerpt regarding street width and paved area width from the Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, a handbook published in 2000 by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development. This article did not specifically deal with dead-end streets. The narrowest paved area which includes the parking lanes is 20 feet. The total right-of-way is 42 feet to 48 feet which includes a sidewalk and planting strip on each side of the street. What was significant on the 20 foot paved street is that there is no parking on either side of the street. A copy of the City of Dover Utility Committee meeting minutes was provided by Mr. Shulman which involved a short dead-end street which was going to be part of a planned community. This street was not going to have parking on either side. In the minutes, it was noted that the accepted standard for a fire lane is 24 feet wide, and DELDOT s street width standard is 22 feet. The right-of-way is 60 feet, but the paved area that this Committee suggested approving was to reduce the paved street width from 38 feet to 24 feet. Mr. Shulman thought that the Planning Commission should start with a minimum of 36 feet for a right-of-way and a paved area of 24 feet with no parking on both sides of the street. Where a sidewalk does not exist, a certain number of feet could be added to the paved area of the street. Mr. David Mellen noted that this is a dead-end situation where the Planning Commission is not considering thru traffic. Mr. Bryan Hall had mentioned that with any street, the major consideration has to be for public safety; and parking is not to be considered an inherited right. For whatever reason, when the size of the street must be produced, a builder, developer or owner should be responsible for providing the adequate parking which is deemed necessary in the area whether it is additional parking on his own property or a separate area of parking on the general property that is convenient to the people in that area. Parking on the street is not a necessity. Mr. Hall had provided a definition of a stud street which is a dead-end access that goes into a subdivision and does not provide a thru street. Mr. Mellen agreed with Mr. Hall. If particular developments are accommodated, the developer or owner needs to compromise for purposes of preserving green space. Mr. Hall has suggested that the off-street parking should be changed from two spaces to a minimum of three and a maximum of five. In a short dead-end street situation, if parking can be moved off the street the cueing can be dealt with. One person has to pull into a cueing area to let the other person pass. Mr. Mellen did not think that this is a particular hardship with a 250 foot lane, assuming that this kind of cueing does not interfere with public safety vehicles. From the standpoint of sidewalks and setbacks, the City of Dover is generous compared to five feet in Rehoboth with a total of 10 feet. He was not sure, for a dead-end street where there is no rational reason for people to be walking through, that it would be necessary to have sidewalks on either side or sidewalks on both sides. If the Planning Commission needs to accommodate a rational reason for narrowing down, a right-of-way can be created through easements. Owners or developers of the property may grant easements and then the Planning Commission will need to consider whether the setback rules for building should start at the actual pavement end or at the end of the easement. The City has a right to have an easement area. Mr. Mellen agreed with the 22 feet of paved area for the street, but seven feet is not adequate for parking. The City Code is written as a set of rules, and there is no rationale shown in the Code. He urged that if the Planning Commission is going to have some degree of discretion, then it is incumbent upon the Planning Commission to include some of the rationale why discretion should be granted. Chairman Littleton compared the nature of streets such as a free flow street, a slow passable internal street and a yield flow street in Residential Street Design from the American Society of Civil Engineers to streets of Rehoboth. A slow passable internal street is where two vehicles can pass. A yield flow street does not allow for two vehicles passing each other. A yield flow occurs when two-way traffic is impossible to pass a parking vehicle, thus some motorists must stop and yield right-of-way to oncoming vehicles. Sidewalks were not addressed in the section Chairman Littleton had referred to. All streets recommended in Residential Street Design provide adequate pavement and width for emergency vehicle use. The most confining street situation for emergency vehicles is a local street where cars are parked on both sides. The parked cars occupy 13 feet to 14 feet on the roadway leaving 10 feet to 13 feet for passage of emergency vehicles. Even on a minimal 24 feet to 26 feet wide street, the maximum width of a standard pumper is eight feet; thus, even with parked vehicles on both sides of the street, a standard pumper can negotiate the street. Twenty-four feet with parking on both sides of the street is acceptable from a fire safety issue. Also discussed in Residential Street Design are dead-end

3 Page 3 streets and turn-arounds, and what is needed for dead-end streets. If a turn-around is required on a dead-end street, offset circles are better than circles. A 22 feet to 24 feet street width with parking on both sides is recommended. A 30 foot radius on a circle would not accommodate a large fire truck. The requirements in the International Fire Code for fire apparatus access on a dead-end street are: On a street from 0 feet to 150 feet in length, the minimum width should be 20 feet with no required turn-around; a street from 151 feet to 500 feet, the minimum width should be 20 feet with a turn-around. This would be a yield flow type of situation. Chairman Littleton said that any street should accommodate parking not only for the people living on the street but also for visitors and other people in the City. Additional parking of three or four spaces on private property could coincide with parking on one side of the street. He did not agree with eliminating all parking on the street. Chairman Littleton said that if the Planning Commission wants discretion, it should determine what minimum size of a travel lane it wants, and move forward. Mr. Spies noted that three sources have suggested a minimum width of 20 feet Residential Street Design, Mr. Bryan Hall, and Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development. He was comfortable with using the 20 feet width minimum with no parking for a 250 foot street in length with a maximum of ten houses on it. Mr. Shulman had a problem with some of these ideas in that this is not going to be a street where it is a subdivision, and the developer builds the houses and puts the driveways in. The Planning Commission has no idea where the driveways will be located on the street. The Planning Commission could suggest the placement of driveways at the time it approves the subdivision. Mr. Shulman was comfortable with a 20 foot paved street and no parking. Then everything else would move up from that minimum depending if there is on-street parking, a place for people to walk, etc. He did not like the idea of not having some pavement to walk on. Chairman Littleton presented the idea of pathways serving as sidewalks and/or passages through a development. Chairman Littleton was comfortable with a 24 foot paved street with parking on both sides. Mr. Patrick Gossett cautioned that Rehoboth is a transient city in the summertime, and a sense of yield traffic control, etc. is needed. A 24 foot paved street would work, but there needs to be parking whether it be staggered parking, use of pavers in the street to designate parking areas, etc. Mr. Mellen said that a lot depends on the developer. If the developer has the ground available, then 24 feet or 25 feet is the minimum area with parking on both sides. If the developer find himself in a situation where he needs the land for lots sizes, then the minimum could be 20 feet with parking on one side of the street. Building Inspector Terri Sullivan noted that ADA requires a five foot width for sidewalks with a two foot wide planting strip. Ms. Linda Kauffman, Laurel Street, said that passage on roads is eight feet. Typically, the rule of thumb is two (2) eight foot wide passages plus one (1) eight foot wide area for parking which totals 24 feet. She has seen dead-end streets from 20 feet to 24 feet, depending on parking or no parking, and cueing of traffic. Typically, with a dead-end street, there is some kind of a turn-around. Ms. Kauffman urged the City to adopt some rules that require parking to be provided whether it is on the street or privately. Chairman Littleton noted that the Planning Commission is on board that there must be some revision for a turn-around. Mr. Paul Lovett, 510 Rehoboth Avenue, requested that the Planning Commission discuss a situation where it has an application for a subdivision that has a proposed short dead-end street for just four houses and is less than 250 feet in length. Chairman Littleton said that the Planning Commission has before it the information regarding dead-end streets of 250 feet and ten houses. He felt that the scenario Mr. Lovett presented may be considered a private driveway situation which the Code does not reference. Mr. Spies said that in regard to the International Fire Code and fire equipment access, the requirement of the street for 0 feet to 150 feet is a 20 foot width with no turn-around. Mr. Shulman tried to build into the proposed Ordinance, the idea of what the width is which includes sidewalks. If there are no sidewalks, then there needs to be a place for people to walk. Mr. Shulman made a motion, seconded by Mr. Spies, that the dead-end street has an 18 foot paved width minimum with a 32 foot right-of-way and no parking. Mr. Gossett said that parking is at a premium; and an 18 foot paved width is too narrow. Parking should be supplied on the street. Chairman Littleton agreed. There is no reason why unobstructed two-way traffic is needed. He preferred the 24 foot paved width with seven feet wide parking areas on each side of the street for a right-of-way total of 38 feet wide. Discussion ensued.

4 Page 4 (Gossett no, Shulman aye, Mellen no, Littleton no, Spies aye.) Motion failed. Mr. Mellen made a motion for a short dead-end stub street which the Planning Commission can define, that an 18 foot paved area with parking on one side at a time whether it be staggered or not staggered would be sufficient with the appropriate right-of-way of 32 feet added on as required by the City. Motion failed to gain a second. Mr. Richard Kerchhoff, 34 Sixth Street, asked what other projects might this be applied to this since it is considered to be citywide. He suggested that the Planning Commission should give itself the option of requiring certain conditions such as trees, etc. Chairman Littleton said that site plan review is currently before the City Commissioners. Ms. Cindy Lovett, 510 Rehoboth Avenue, suggested placing sidewalks on one side and parking on one side with either 1 or 1.5 lanes as passageway. Ms. Sullivan referred to the Summary of Three Potential Scenarios and suggested that the 28 foot wide street with parking on both sides would be sufficient. The two (2) seven foot wide parking areas would not need to be paved. The travel lane would be a 14 foot wide paved area with 7 foot wide parking of a solid but pervious surface on both sides. The right-of-way would be beyond that for sidewalks. The shoulders would be a pervious surface below the grass. Mr. Mellen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gossett, for a short dead-end street that would have a 14 foot paved width with a seven foot paved or pervious surface for a minimum of parking on one side and a total width of 35 feet for the right-of-way. Mr. Spies made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gossett, to amend the motion for a short dead-end street that would increase the paved width from 14 feet to 16 feet with a seven foot paved or pervious surface for a minimum of parking on one side and a total width of 37 feet for the right-of-way. Mr. Mellen and Mr. Gossett accepted the amendment. (Gossett aye, Shulman abstained, Mellen aye, Littleton aye, Spies aye.) Motion carried. Mr. Shulman thought that in regard to a turn-around, the 40 foot radius or an alternative would be better suited in the proposed Ordinance. The Planning Commission may accept an alternative means of a turn-around. Mr. Mellen said that an alternative to be used should be one that has been documented and defined by the civil engineer. Chairman Littleton noted the Planning Commission has agreed that the reference to a 40 foot radius in the Code is excessive. He read what is being proposed in the Ordinance and was comfortable with specifying a 30 foot radius or an alternative. Mr. Gossett said that the Planning Commission is offering that if a 40 foot radius does not work, an alternative means of a turn-around can be offered. Chairman Littleton thought the Planning Commission had reached a consensus that a lesser radius could be used; and he was comfortable with the Planning Commission accepting a turn-around of a lesser radius than required in the Code or an alternative consistent with good engineering principles rather than a 30 foot radius. Mr. Mellen thought the issue is if an option is given for either a lesser radius or an alternative design, that the design must meet public safety requirements set by the Planning Commission. Mr. Shulman noted that the general purpose clause covers public health and safety. Chairman Littleton said that the concept is to provide a means of turn-around which can be of a radius less than 40 feet or an alternative design. Mr. Mellen noted that it should be stated that such a design meets the requirements set forth by the Commission for public safety. Discussion ensued. Chairman Littleton summarized that consensus was reached with the concept for a turn-around with a radius less than 40 feet or an alternative means which is consistent with good engineering principles. The language in the proposed Ordinance will be edited and forwarded to City Solicitor Glenn Mandalas for review. NEW BUSINESS There was none. OTHER BUSINESS

5 Page 5 Chairman Littleton called for the Building Inspector s Report. There was nothing to report. Chairman Littleton called for the City Solicitor s Report. There was nothing to report. Chairman Littleton called for an update on the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) process. Chairman Littleton announced that a Joint Meeting with the City Commissioners has been scheduled for April 13, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Bryan Hall had been provided with a copy of the draft CDP and Executive Summary; and he has provided the preliminary land-use review. In Mr. Hall s review, he noted that the document itself is good. Supporting maps for the documents would be helpful to consider proposed future areas of concern and understanding of future proposed zoning changes. The draft CDP provides great detail on water and wastewater, but Mr. Hall was unable to understand a clear position on other services such as libraries, police, fire, schools, etc. A discussion on City services was recommended. Mr. Gossett reported on plans and the schedule for Public Information Session, information meetings with Rehoboth organizations and Public Hearings regarding the draft CDP. A projected calendar of meetings along with a month-to-month layout, were distributed to the members of the Planning Commission. The various community organizations which had been contacted, received the press release and the Executive Summary, etc. A date has not been confirmed with VIA. A number of the meetings to be held in May 2009 will be with the Rehoboth Beach Historical Society, Camp Rehoboth, Rehoboth Beach Main Street, Art League, Chamber of Commerce and Country Club Homeowners Association. Options were presented for the Public Information Sessions and the Public Hearings. Mr. Gossett requested that the members of the Planning Commission review the proposed dates with their own schedules so meeting dates can be finalized. He also requested feedback on having a facilitator present at the public hearings. Chairman Littleton mentioned that the calendar of meetings should be placed on the City website so the public will know when the meetings are being held. Chairman Littleton announced that the draft Site Plan Review Ordinance will be discussed at the Mayor and Commissioners Special Meeting to be held on April 3, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Littleton called for the report, discussion and action concerning those activities or assignments taken at Regular or Workshop Meetings of the Mayor and Commissioners that directly relate to the Planning Commission. Chairman Littleton announced that the Board of Commissioners will be holding the Rezoning Public Hearing on Saturday, March 28, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. The consensus of the Planning Commission was for Chairman Littleton to present additional testimony as to the importance of why this zoning should take place and to clarify what is currently allowable under C-1 and R-2. Chairman Littleton announced that the Board of Commissioners has changed the Regular and Workshop Meetings to Fridays, starting in April The Regular Meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m. on the third Friday of each month, and the Workshop Meetings will be held at 9:00 a.m. on the first Friday. He asked the members to consider if there should be a possible re-alignment of Planning Commission meetings days. Mr. Mellen noted that Friday meetings would accommodate more non-residents and would also be better personally. The time of the meeting did not matter to him. Mr. Spies noted that Friday meetings would allow for more non-residents to attend. The time of the meeting did not matter to him. Mr. Gossett supported that it would give a better opportunity for non-residents to participate at the meetings on Friday evenings. He supported a 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. meeting time. Mr. Shulman said that for a finite period, the Planning Commission needs to be somewhat consistent with the schedule because people plan around it. In the long term, he would not support a Friday meeting unless it is scheduled for 5:00 p.m. Mr. Shulman also thought that the meetings should be held to three hours. Chairman Littleton said that it made more sense to have Friday meetings, but he was not in favor of the 5:00 p.m. start time. The staff members noted that it did not matter if the meetings were changed to a Friday night. The April meeting is set for the second Monday of the month. The majority of the Planning Commission members were in agreement to hold meetings on Friday nights starting at 5:00 p.m. The effective date will be determined at a future date. One new subdivision application was filed on January 5, 2009 in Building & Licensing for a partitioning at 105 Park Avenue and will be placed on the agenda for the April meeting.

6 Page 6 The next Regular Meeting will be held on April 13, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Spies made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gossett, to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. RECORDED BY MINUTES APPROVED ON MAY 11, 2009 (Ann M. Womack, Recording Secretary) (Nancy Meadows, Acting Chair)

Roadway Classification Design Standards and Policies. Pueblo, Colorado November, 2004

Roadway Classification Design Standards and Policies Pueblo, Colorado November, 2004 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1. General Provisions 1.1 Jurisdiction 3 1.2 Purpose and Intent 3 1.3 Modification 3