2005-07-20 Special Meeting
o tIt9/t}!?-
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING JULY 20, 2005
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30
p.m. by CHAIR FRIEND on July 20, 2005 in the Borough Assembly Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners
Present
Jerrol Friend - Chair
David King
Reed Oswalt
Gary Carver
Dennis McMurry
Brent Watkins
Excused
Others Present
Casey Janz
Mary Ogle, Director
Community Development Dept.
Duane Dvorak, Planner
Community Development Dept.
Sheila Smith, Secretary
Community Development Dept.
A quorum was established.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The
motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER McMURRY, and CARRIED 6-0.
IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes of May 18t\ June 15th,
and Special meeting of June 15th, and Special meeting on June 29, 2005.
COMMISSIONER OSWALT SECONDED the motion, and CARRIED 6-0.
V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case 05-010. A request for a Conditional Use Permit, per KIBC 17.13.040 (D), to
permit seasonal recreation camp with provisions for up to thirty-five (35) clients
and staff, in accordance with KIBC 17.67, on a five acre parcel located within
Township 26 South, Range 19 West, Section 28, located within Spruce Island; An
un-subdivided portion of land located within Township 26 South, Range 19 West,
Section 28 and zoned for C-Conservation.
Staff reported (10) public hearing notices were distributed for this case on June
22, 2005 with none returned. The subject location is a site previously used as the
Spirit Camp that the Kodiak Area Native Association does cooperatively with the
village youth. They had platforms there and did some extensive soil investigation
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 1 of12
l
by a registered engineer to show the site could handle the particular use, and that
was for 2001-2003, a three year camping program. This is a similar type of use,
although this is a family recovery camp that will be run seasonally twenty-eight
(28) days in June and August over the next four (4) years. They have indicated a
maximum of thirty-five (35) personnel on site. They have submitted a waste
management plan, and intend to use the same site plan layout , the onsite privvy
system that the previous camp utilized. They have brought forward all of the
packet materials from the previous Spirit Camp submittal, which is an attachment
to their narrative. Staff believed this request meets all the conditions necessary for
a Conditional Use Permit subject to four (4) recommended conditions of approval,
Conditions 1, two, and three primarily relate to the submittal of the Kodiak Area
Native Association's staff. Condition # four is more substantial; staff recommends
they get ADEC approval. In June DEC published new guidelines and permit
process for camps of this type, and they fall into the large camp category. We have
included an application form in your packet for review of the kinds of criteria
ADEC would be looking at. Staff recommends approval subject of the four (4)
conditions, and will answer any questions you may have.
COMMISSIONER OSWALT MOTIONED TO GRANT a Conditional Use
Permit in accordance with KIBC 17.13.040.D (Conditional Uses) of the Borough
Code, to permit a seasonal recreation camp with provisions for up to thirty-five
(35) clients, visitors and staff, on a five (5) acre parcel located on Spruce Island,
subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated July 12,
2005 and to adopt the findings contained in that staff report as "Findings of Fact"
for this case. COMMISSIONER McMURRY SECONDED the motion.
Special session closed:
Public hearing open:
Public hearing closed:
Special session open:
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1. This conditional use permit is issued for a maximum of thirty-five (35)
clients, visitors and staff
2. The "Family Recover Camp will be operated seasonally from June 1, to
June 28, and August 1 through August 28,2005 -2008.
3. The petitioner will ensure that sanitary and waste management practices
will be adhered to as indicated in the engineering assessment and narrative
program description submitted for this case.
4. The petitioner will apply for approval by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in accordance with the Large Camp
Practices application form dated June 7, 2005 (attached) and will provide
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 2 of 12
written approval for seasonal camp operations prior to the issuance of
zoning compliance by the Kodiak Island Borough.
FINDINGS OF FACT
17.67.05 A. That the conditional use will preserve the value, spirit, character and
integrity of the surrounding area.
The operation of the camp is seasonal and temporary. Minimal impact is ensured,
not only by the short-term nature of the operation, but also by the nature of
the principal activity to engage in individual and group therapy activities.
In this way the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area
should be preserved.
17.67.05 B. That the conditional use fulfills all other requirements of this chapter
pertaining to the conditional use in question.
This proposed conditional use is consistent with both the intent of KIBC
17.67.010 requiring compatibility of the activity with the surrounding area,
and also KIBC 17.13.0 I 0 addressing the description and intent of the C-
Conservation zoning district, which provides for limited commercial land
uses. It is also consistent with the special district regulations of the C-
Conservation zoning district in Kille 17.13.090 since impact on the
natural environment is minimal and natural features will be preserved
intact.
17.67.05 C. That granting the conditional use permit will not be harmful to the
public health, safety, convenience and comfort.
The granting of this conditional use permit will not be harmful to the public
health, safety, convenience and comfort since there are essentially, no
immediate neighbors or adjacent land uses. Measures have been taken to
protect the health and safety of participants with the requirement that a
potable water source and solid waste disposal system compliant with
ADEC regulations is provided.
17.67.05 D. That sufficient setbacks, lot area, buffers or other safeguards are
being provided to meet the conditions listed in subsections A through C of
this section.
Minimum lot area and setback requirements are satisfied. Natural buffering is
provided by trees and topography. The Family Recovery Camp is seasonal
and temporary, as well as remote, and the potential for conflicts with
surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses is minimal.
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 3 of 12
The question was called, and CARRIED 6-0.
B) Case 05-009. Request for a Variance, in accordance with KIBC 17.66, to permit
the creation oflots by subdivision with less than five (5) acres oflot area that is
not subject to tidal action below the mean high tide, per KIBC 16.40.040.A.2,
KIBC 16.40.050.B.l, and KIBC 17.13.050.A., located at Kalsin Bay Estates, Lot
3, and zoned for C -Conservation.
Staff indicated there were eleven (11) public hearing notices were distributed on
June 22,2005 with no written response returned. We have one (1) agency
response from the Army Corp of Engineers and several correspondences from the
petitioner and the petitioner's representative. In addition, there are a couple of
photographs that were taken at approximately 3:00 pm of the property to give a
visual assessment of the property as it sits. They were taken from the Kalsin Hill
road, looking out from the guardrail. This request is related to a preliminary plat
submittal to create seven lots from a large remainder tract from a previous
subdivision. The Title 16 date of requirements indicates that for the purposes of
zoning area calculations that we cannot consider lands lying below the mean high
water line. For that reason we returned the plats to the petitioner at that time and
advised them of the code requirement. They have since brought forward this
Variance request to have the commission to review and evaluate the proposed
subdivision in the context of the lot area issue. In terms of condition # one (1)
staff did find the properties to be affected of the tide influence, but staff couldn't
find all six (6) standards to be met. There were some concerns about the safety of
developments that could be developed on the property, particularly at the front
near the shoreline at Kalsin Bay. There maybe some concerns about the
availability of getting water and sewer on the properties, although that hasn't been
investigated, that would be part of the subdivision review process. There was
concern that there might require follow on Variances for set back purposes to get
structures on the highest portions of the properties near the front property line.
The opinion of staff is that there are other conforming alternatives other than a
Variance that could be investigated, and for that reason staff recommended denial
of that request. Staff would be happy to answer any questions on the analysis.
COMMISSIONER FRIEND inquired about the options that might be done other
than the Variance.
DUANE DVORAK replied that the wetland or tideland issue affects four (4) out
of the seven (7) lots being proposed. Two (2) out of the seven (7) lots have ten
(10) acres each, and it seems that if the lots were redesigned in such a way that
three (3) or four (4) of the lots weren't carrying seventy-five (75) or eighty (80)
percent of the wetlands, that if the wetlands could be divided up in such a way that
each lot had five (5) acres of upland associated with them a different design may
be conforming without the need for a Variance. I would grant that it may mean
losing a lot or two from the design as proposed, but density is a subjective and
discretionary thing that the sub-divider has control over, and the code guarantees
people a reasonable use of their land. It doesn't always guarantee the highest and
best use of the land or the most return on their land, but in my opinion, it would
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 4 of 12
create a better subdivision to provide a better tideland to upland ratio. Without
getting into specifics, I think that is what staff's position is about.
COMMISSIONER CARVER inquired to what the tide was when the photographs
were taken.
DUANE DVORAK stated we didn't have a watch with us and we were held up by
the traffic construction. We were trying to catch the afternoon tide, which was
suppose to be a 6.2 at approximately 3:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONER CARVER asked if there were any kind of easement access to
the lots 3F, E, D, and C that's associated with this.
DUANE DVORAK stated that the highway use to go along the head of Kalsin
Bay before the 64' earthquake and tsunami. When they subdivided the previous
phase there was some residual right of way which comes out and accesses the
tidelands that still remains. The petitioners are proposing access along the
tidelands along the front of the property, which is public and maybe highway,
although this isn't a subdivision review. When we do get to the subdivision
review we will circulate this to DOT and hopefully they can fill us in on the status
of this access, whether they believe this feasible or not. It's not developed as a
roadway and I don't know if it meets any kind of access standard. This Variance is
not about reviewing that or the feasibility of that, so we didn't get into it.
COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO GRANT a variance; in accordance with
KIBC 17.66, to permit the creation of four (4) lots by subdivision with less than
five (5) acres of lot area that is not subject to tidal action below the mean high
tide, per KIBC 16.40.040.A.2, KIBC 16.40.050.B.1, and KIBC 17.13 .050.A.
COMMISSIONER McMURRY SECONDED the motion.
Special session closed:
Public hearing opened:
Grant Shields, the broker for Alaska One Realty, is representing Kathy Dillard and
Wayne Sargent. I think the most of the concerns or speculation in development is
in regards to the wetlands, an actual usable area in the four (4) five (5) acre
parcels that are ocean front. My purpose is to pass some information on of the
intent of the owners at Alaska One Realty if the Variance is granted. First, the
property was comprehensively surveyed by Stan Austerman with Horizon Survey
into five (5) and ten (10) acre parcels. The parcels we will talk about tonight are
the ocean front five (5) acre parcels. The owners would be marketing some of the
parcels of the subdivision, but not all of them again the four (4) five (5) acre
parcels. Myself, as the agent for the owners, would include in the marketing
packets pertinent information on the wetlands and the correspondence from the
Army Corp of Engineers, which I believe Duane has that correspondence. It is our
feeling that the area ofland that would be utilized for the actual structures,
assuming somebody will want to put up structures up on the property if they
purchased it, would cause little impact, if any, to the wetlands in the surrounding
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 5 of 12
area. As a licensed real estate agent, I would handle the marketing of the proposal
part of the proposed parcels that would be offered to the public responsibly with a
comprehensive packet detailing the wetlands and correspondence from the Corp
of Engineers in regarding to permit requirements in that type of thing if one
should needed. As a real estate professional, it is notes there is a very high
consumer demand for coastal land with little, if any to offer. That again is the
reasoning for the five (5) acre ocean front parcels. I don't feel that subdividing
into five (5) acre parcels would bring in more dollars, just offer more opportunity
for interested purchasers in the affordability scenario. The subject parcels would
be perk tested and investigated to see if they would meet well and septic criteria.
But before spending more dollars on tests and footwork, the owners feel it would
be imperative to have Variance approval as obviously they don't want to spend
more money for a maybe. Bottom line is that the property will be subdivided
responsibly with any potential buyer knowing what is allowable on the property.
In this way, we would expect that the property would appreciate in value and also
bring in additional tax revenues to Kodiak.
Public hearing closed:
Regular session opened:
COMMISSIONER CARVER inquired where the building sites are on lots 3F, 3E,
3D, and 3C?
COMMISSIONER FRIEND asked DUANE DVORAK when they come in with a
subdivision request first.
DUANE DVORAK stated that they did come in with a subdivision request first,
staff rejected it because of the wetland issue. We didn't feel the plat was
conforming to the subdivision standards on its face because of the wetlands and
that was in a pre-review status. We returned it to the petitioners immediately when
we discerned there was a problem. Realistically, we advised them to one of the
alternatives to try to resolve this was to request a Variance. They are following
staffs recommendation. In addition, while this is the preliminary plat, but I think
they may have added some additional information.regarding the potential building
sites if you look at the frontage along Kalsin Bay you'll see some lot areas
indicated there between the dash line and the front property line. Starting with 3C,
I believe it's 44,000 sq. ft., 43,000 sq. ft. on 3D, 50,000 sq. ft on 3E, and 66,000
sq. ft on the front and you'll also notice there's also 60 something thousand sq. ft
in the back. 3F is a little different because it has frontage both on the beach, as
well as this private drive that is proposed that will loop around the back. But when
staff was looking at this, on the first page you'll see that staff estimated the overall
acreages of each lot, and then estimated how much wasn't subject to tidal action.
These figures came off this map, and we utilized this additional information to
come up with these estimates.
COMMISSIONER CARVER asked if these building sites are all on this berm that
faces the ocean?
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 6 of 12
DUANE DVORAK stated that this is the assumption.
COMMISSIONER CARVER asked if DUANE DVORAK knew how much that
burm has retreated since 1964?
DUANE DVORAK stated that staff does not know that.
COMMISSIONER CARVER stated that the highway easement, the landward
margin is shown there and the old highway would be out somewhere on the
beach-face right now. Does that bar ever get washed over with waves during large
storms and storm surges?
DUANE DVORAK stated that staff doesn't have that information, but I think
there is a concern, in the Coastal Management Plan it indicates any property
within 30 ft.of mean high water may be at risk of Tsunami, if not storm search.
The highest contour, which roughly approximates the front property line along the
Kalsin Bay side is 15 ft. as indicated on the plat.
COMMISSIONER CARVER stated that he thinks there is cause to want to
understand two issues: One is the coastal erosion rate at that site because the
useful property is part of those lots that's directly subject to erosion. Second, is
whether those are sites that are above storm wave effects. It makes no sense to
create a lot, which is in a natural hazard zone and eroding so that the only
buildable part of it is the part that is going to be eroded.
COMMISSIONER McMURRY stated we aren't really approving building lots, all
we are doing is approving the creation of the lots. If they are going to build on
them then they have to come back, right.
COMMISSIONER FRIEND asked how these lots compare to the Pasagshak lots
and property?
DUANE DVORAK stated that he doesn't think there is a direct comparison here
in terms of zoning because those lots were zoned RR-l and so the lot sizes are
quite a bit different. That particular subdivision, the plat notes that talk about the
lot lines change as the river and shoreline changes. That was a more recent
subdivision. Subdivisions that were pre earthquake and tidal wave the boundaries
generally were fixed and don't move along with the movement of the beaches and
shoreline. There maybe some differences both in the subdivision aspects and the
zoning aspects. I encourage the commission of not necessarily getting into
subdivision issues The Variance is really about whether or not if they can count
the tidally influences areas in the inside of the subdivision as part of the lot area.
Your really not creating lots here tonight, you are dealing with just this Variance.
Whether or not they can count these tidal areas as part of the five (5) acre lot area.
Otherwise, the way the code currently reads, they will only get credit for the
square footages that are noted on the frontage of these lots, which is
approximately acre, an acre and a half for the three lots. The fourth lot has a little
more area in the back.
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 7 of 12
COMMISSIONER FRIEND inquired if we approve this they will still have to
come back before us for the subdivision, which we can then regulate the buildable
areas and look at that at that time.
DUANE DVORAK stated I think with the subdivision process this will get sent
out again to the review agencies and presumably we would have more feedback
regarding the history of the DOT right of way and that type of thing. We would
have these agencies giving us more thorough review and we would be looking at
all these other aspects, whereas in this case while I think staff indicated that Title
16 and Title 17 have to work hand in hand because Title 16 is what kicked this
back as a Variance, but at the same time the Variance standards and the request
that is before you is very narrowly construed as to what you are deciding here this
evening and doesn't get into some areas that were being discussed. I think there
were some issues that staff brought up that mayor may not bring problems down
the road, but I wouldn't go into that too deeply. It's not a subdivision review.
COMMISSIONER W ATKINS stated he wished the percentages were tilted the
other way as far as the wetlands and uplands go.
COMMISSIONER McMURRY stated that I wouldn't approve it the way it is.
COMMISSIONER CARVER stated that I don't see any reason to get them into
something that's going to be harder later on. They might create those lots, but they
might have a lot of trouble building on them later on.
COMMISSIONER FRIEND stated that we are not creating lots. We still have that
to come back in the subdivision that we can set a buildable area.
MARY OGLE stated that if you approve this Variance you are setting the stage
for them to come up with a subdivision with the understanding that subdivision
approval is less discretionary than a Variance.
COMMISSIONER FRIEND said it allows us to use more at a later day. If we
want to use part of that we aren't limited to the five (5) acre buildable area. If
these guys come in with a large enough area that is buildable we wouldn't be able
to let them do it without this Variance.
COMMISSIONER CARVER stated another five acres doesn't bother me, but the
way they are presently construed.
COMMISSIONER FRIEND stated he doesn't mind them using part of the tidal
land but I don't see this layout working.
MARY OGLE asked DUANE DVORAK because it is a Variance procedure
could the commission grant part of a Variance, set criteria on the Variance saying
it's not a Variance from not counting any of the five (5) acres towards minimum
lot size, could they make the Variance approval contingent upon each lot would
have to have at least two, two and a half acres. A partial Variance.
DUANE DVORAK stated it is a possibility that you can grant them less than what
they have requested. What they have requested is what is shown on this map.
Basically, the square footages along the frontage there for the three lots, then the
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 8 of 12
front and back for lot 3F. That is the request as staff understands it and that is
what we diagramed or spelled out on the front page of the staff report as far as the
net usable area. If you were to set a net usable area more than what they've
indicated here it would mean they would have to go back to the drawing boards to
redesign the subdivision but it would give them partial relief from what they have
requested. In addition, if you put on conditions that would specify building
locations had to be a certain distance away from the shoreline if there's an erosion
concern, you might also include some guidance like that. But that gets into the
subdivision realm and this is going to come back as a subdivision, and I think it
could be addressed more appropriately in the subdivision process.
MARY OGLE stated that she just wanted to give them some of the legal options
for your comfort level, a level of predictability for the next stage if they come
back.
COMMISSIONER FRIEND asked if they would have to re-adopt findings if they
granted this request.
MARY OGLE stated yes they would.
The question was called on the main motion, and CARRIED 6-0.
COMMISSIONER McMURRY MOVED TO DEFER adopting the findings of
fact until the next regular meeting. COMMISSIONER WATKINS SECONDED
the motion.
COMMISSIONER CARVER said he would like to see some information about
the history of retreat of that coastline before we follow through with the decision
about findings of fact. Can staff research that and tell us what that coastline has
done since 1969?
DUANE DVORAK stated they can try.
The question was called and CARRIED 6-0.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A) Case S02-009. Extension Request - A request to extend the preliminary approval
for Case S02-009 until December 23,2005.
Staff indicated that the plat involved here was intended to correct some violations
of zoning. The plat itself is in the final form has been granted final approval, but
there were some building improvements that were also included that preliminary
approval and some compliance deadlines set for those buildings to be brought into
conformity and certificates of occupancy issued. The petitioner has suffered from
an illness according to their submittal, and they have requested an extension of the
compliance deadline that was spelled out in the conditions of the preliminary
approval, so they are really requesting an extension of the compliance deadline.
Staff has recommended the commission grant the extension until November 18,
2005 and has provided a motion and a condition of approval.
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 9 of 12
COMMISSIONER CARVER MOTIONED TO APPROVE an amendment of
preliminary plat approval for Case S02-009, to extend the compliance date set
forth in Conditions of Approval #2 until November 18, 2005. The motion was
SECONDED by COMMISSIONER McMURRY, and CARRIED by unanimous
voice vote.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL (as amended)
2. Within twenty-nine (35) months (by November 18,2005), applicable
inspection reports and/or certificate of occupancy required by the Building
Department must be issued for conversion of the barn on proposed Lot 3
to a single-family residence, or it must be otherwise brought into
compliance with Title 17 Zoning. Absent this, zoning enforcement action
will be initiated.
B) Mobile Home Park Proposed Code Revisions.
DUANE DVORAK stated that they have a memorandum before you, a cover
memo for this case that was referred to the Commission by the Borough Assembly
based upon recent appeals of the mobile home park code and permitting decisions
made by staff based upon the code as it is and the commission looked at this with
the idea of reducing or elimination non conformities in the mobile home park
code and making the code a little more development friendly and yet encouraging
standards for building safety and convenience of the residents to be upheld. This
revised code developed by the Planning & Zoning Commission over a year or
more of work sessions and meetings, capped off more recently by public review
draft circulated in April-May's time frame, then re-advertised due to discrepancies
on how it was sent out. One of the mobile home park owners was omitted from
the mailing list inadvertently. Comments were received, most recently the
commission had a work session and went through all the comments received.
They did a fine tuning of this draft. Staff believes that, based on the efforts put
forth by the commission the input from the public, and the input of staff that this
particular code draft is ready to go before the Borough Assembly for their
consideration and additional public hearing and staff recommends you forward it
with a recommendation of approval at this time.
COMMISSIONER OSWALT MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL of
the code amendment to Chapter 17.26 to the Borough Assembly, in accordance
with KIBC 17.72, as indicated in this report. COMMISSIONER KING
SECONDED the motion, and CARRIED 6-0.
C) Case 05-011. Condition Use Permit - A request of approval of site and parking
plan.
DUANE DVORAK stated this case relates to a Conditional Use Permit Case 05-
011 that the commission recently approved subject to four (4) conditions of
approval. Condition #4 required the site plan to be brought back for review.
Apparently, the original CUP didn't have a detailed site plan associated with it,
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20,2005
Page 10 of12
and asked that this come back. Staff has included some vicinity maps and a couple
of different views of the site plan. One is the site plan and one is the floor plan.
This is a two phase development; you are looking at phase one right now. Phase
two will be developed at another time. They have presented the entire site plan-
floor plan for your review and consideration at this time. Staff has recommended
approval of this site plan.
COMMISIONER KING MOVED TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE this site plan
as submitted by the applicant, in accordance with Stipulation # four (4) of the
decision rendered in CUP Case 05-011. COMMISSIONER McMURRY
SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED 6-0.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
There is no new business.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSIONER McMURRY MOVED TO ACKNOWLEGE RECEIPT of
items A, B, C, D, E, and F of Communications. COMMISSIONER KING
SECONDED the motion, and CARRIED 6-0.
X. REPORTS
Staff reported the following meeting schedule:
. August 10,2005 work session at 7:30 p.m. in the KIB Conference room.
. August 17,2005 regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers.
. August 28,2005 joint Assembly/P&Z work session at 7:30.
COMMISSIONER FRIEND stated that August 28, 2005 should read July 28,2005.
MARY OGLE stated that she just wanted to clarify it is July 281\ and the purpose of the
meeting is to discuss Borough's lands management, as well as she will be giving a brief
introduction to the upcoming comprehensive planning process where the new Borough
Comprehensive Plan will be an initial discussion of issues and brainstorming to set the
overall parameters of the new comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER McMURRY MOVED TO ACCEPT receipt of reports as submitted.
COMMISSIONER KING SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED 6-0.
XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
XII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
COMMISSIONER McMURRY congratulated DUANE DVORAK for lasting 10 years at
the Borough.
MARY OGLE stated that we have incorporated new mapping into the staff reports for
submitting with all reports, now location maps as well as zoning maps to try to clarify the
location and standards of property in your staff reports. Also, try to think of any changes
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 11 of 12
you would like to see and do, the format of staff report or operations of the meetings so
we can discuss them at the next packet review.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR FRIEND ADJOURNED the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
ATTEST
By:
By:
QAle;Qo.c91J~
Sheila Smith, Secretary
Community Development Department
DATE APPROVED: August 17, 2005
P & Z Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2005
Page 12 of 12