Session 04-02 Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by Chair Smith at 7:05 p.m. on January 21, 2004, at Homer City Hall, Council Chambers, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.

 

A Work Session was held from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. regarding the Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Adding Chapter 21. Large Retail And Wholesale Structure Development, Impact Statement And Standards. 

 

PRESENT:   COMMISSION:           FOSTER, SMITH, BARTLETT, HESS, CHESLEY, PFEIL

                   ABSENT:                CELENTANO (excused)      

 

STAFF:            DEPUTY CITY CLERK BENSON

                                                CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                                                PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER

                                                                                                                                               

A quorum is required to conduct a meeting.

 

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 agenda and considered in normal sequence.   

 

A.     Time Extension Requests

B.     Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.

C.     KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

D.    Commissioner Excused Absences

 

The agenda was approved by consensus.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.

 

            A.        Approval of January 7, 2004 meeting minutes. 

 

The minutes were approved by consensus.

 

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.

 

Larry Slone, commented that he was going through the archives for the Planning Commission and the October 1st meeting had testimony regarding the Universal Living Wage.  It was a suggested that the Planning Commission get involved in promoting a city ordinance for a minimum wage above the State wage and that they should use that as a future development tool with regard to large retail development such as Fred Meyer.  He advised that the idea was that everyone, including the young folks just coming in, would make a comfortable livable wage, which would be about $12.  He advised that it sounds wonderful to have this situation occur and it sounds beneficial, however, Mr. Slone said he felt it would be detrimental to the community.  He asked that if $12 an hour were good, why not double or triple it to $36 an hour.  He stated this that would not work because the people coming in are the entry level jobs who are not qualified for higher pay.  They don’t have the skill, knowledge or the training.  It’s not cost effective for the business to bring these people in at a higher wage than what they actually have to pay.  He stated that if the wage is increased, the costs will be pushed up hill and the consumers will end up paying for it.  Instead of $1 for a hamburger, it will be $1.50. He continued say that as the prices rise, the demand will go down, in which case employees will have to be laid off.  Those laid off will be the ones who came in at the lower level - the very ones that the ordinance is supposed to be helping.  Mr. Slone suggested that the Planning Commission not get involved in promoting this type of minimum wage.  He thanked the commission for listening.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items.   The Chair may prescribe time limits.  The Commission may question the public.

 

There were none.

 

PLAT CONSIDERATION

 

The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public.  The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public.

 

A.        Staff Report PL 04-03   Re:        Harrington Heights – Holen Addition Subdivision Preliminary Plat

 

City Planner McKibben reviewed staff report and staff recommendations: Staff Recommendations: Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission grant an exemption to the subdivision improvement requirements as permitted by Homer City Code 22.10.040a., in that the subdivision does not exceed three lots and there is no new dedication of right-of-way.  2. Provide and show access to a fifteen-foot easement, HCC 22.10.051 on the plat.

 

Roger Imhoff made a clarification that the 20’ utility easement on the south side of this lot would be sufficient to meet the City Code.

 

PFEIL/HESS - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-03 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

 

There were two comments by the commission.  One, that there was no problem with this plat and that Mr. Imhoff’s observations were correct regarding the utility easement.

 

VOTE: YES:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.  NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.                                                      

 

B.        Staff Report PL 04-02   Re:        Glacier View Subdivision 2003 Preliminary Plat  -  POSTPONED FROM 1-7-04 HAPC meeting.

 

Staff recommendations: Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide and show access to a fifteen-foot utility easement, HCC 22.10.051 on the plat.

 

(motion on the floor)HESS/CHESLEY - MOVE TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL04-02 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

 

City Planner McKibben advised she didn’t have anything new and thought the Public Works Director was going to be available to speak to this.  She observed that the applicant was available.

 

Steve Tutt, applicant on the preliminary plat testified that since the time of postponement he had reviewed the minutes and prepared some handouts in response to issues that were brought up.  He handed them out for the commissioners to review.  Chair Smith asked what Mr. Tutt was referring to when he mentioned an exception in Item L.  Mr. Tutt explained that it was his understanding through talking with staff that it was possible to apply for an exception and that would have to be done through Roger Imhoff in a future action. 

 

Chair Smith asked for comments from staff regarding public works input.  City Planner McKibben advised that the Borough Code allows for a wide variety of exceptions and the City Code only allows for exceptions when there is three lots or less.  She added that under the current zoning code as they exist today the lots could be developed to a much higher density with many more trips on the alleyways as they exist today than with the proposed subdivision with the mentioned plat notes in a residential use.  She didn’t know that Homer Code allows for that exemption in the platting regulations to the right-of-way.

  

Commissioner Chelsey noted that the issue at the last meeting was that the Homer Code does not allow an alleyway to be use as a primary access.  He asked how the lots could be developed more densely and yet still have the same issue with the alleyway versus a less dense development with the same issue with the alleyway.

 

Mr. Tutt asked if the neighbors who are using the alleyway as primary access at this time are doing so illegally.  Chair Smith advised that the commission does not have any control over areas that were platted years ago.  What the commission has is to reflect on the state of the regulations now.  He explained saying that if a lot was smaller than what is allowed now, it happened before the code disallowed it so it’s still permitted and it can still be used.

 

Mr. Tutt confirmed with the commission that in order to create and use the back lot there would have to be a primary access.  Mr. Tutt commented that given that case, there would then have to be an exception made with the understanding that this is an unusual circumstance.  He asked if there were some way to legally make an exception in this case recognizing the unique nature of it. Mr. Tutt advised that the Public Works Director had some ideas, however he is not present.

 

Chair Smith stated that he hoped that everyone would work together and come up with something that would work, however, he observed that the commission still has the same issues before them.  There are no comments from Public Works; there are no written anything from anybody.  The only difference is the presence of the developer.  Mr. Tutt explained that what he submitted was the results of his consultations with City staff and what it came down to was the need for an exception.  He added that if there was no mechanism for an exception in the Homer City Code, he wasn’t sure what to do other than go back to Plan B - which was to do a much more dense development on that property.

 

Commissioner Chesley requested a 5 minute break to ask the clerk to call the Public Works Director to see if he would be available to speak to this issue tonight. 

 

Chair Smith called for a recess at 7:27 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 7:32 p.m.

 

Chair Smith announced that Public Works Director Meyer would arrive at the meeting in approximately 20 minutes. 

 

Chair Smith commented that it was awkward for the commission to make a decision without staff input.  He acknowledged that it appears necessary to apply for an exception.  The problem in the code is that it says the commission can grant that if it is three lots or less.  Commissioner Hess offered that Mr. Tutt would be allowed more than one structure on a lot.  Mr. Tutt advised that if he had to decrease the number of lots he would have to go to a more dense style development to recoup the difference.  His idea was to do smaller single-family residence per lot to minimum density and minimize the impact on the neighborhood.  He added that he wanted to keep the structures to one story if possible because it would be the least intrusive.  Mr. Tutt advised that the first he’d heard of a need for a right-of-way was at the commission’s last meeting.  He advised that he has done other subdivisions and he would not have submitted this one in this form had he known about that.  He commented that he is finding himself in the situation the commission feels they are in; that he is not as informed as he would like to be.

 

Chair Smith noted that there were neighbors in the audience to speak to this issue.  He suggested that rather than waiting until the next meeting, that the commission postpone this issue until the arrival of the Public Works Director.  Mr. Tutt agreed to do that.

 

HESS/CHESLEY - MOVE TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF THIS PLAT UNTIL CAREY GETS HERE.

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

COMMISSION BUSINESS

 

The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public.  Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed.   The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public.

 

A.        Staff Report PL 03-78   Re:        Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Adding Chapter 21.    Large Retail And Wholesale Structure Development, Impact Statement And Standards. 

 

Commission returned to their work on this item of the agenda at HCC21.48.070 line 370.

Items discussed were:

-         Storm Water Plan for both districts.

-         went over detailed grammar and listing of items

-         addition of impervious coverage percentages

 

Public Works Director arrived at 7:50 p.m. and the Commission returned to Plat Consideration, Item B. PL 04-02

 

PLAT CONSIDERATION

 

B.        Staff Report PL 04-02   Re:        Glacier View Subdivision 2003 Preliminary Plat  -  POSTPONED FROM 1-7-04 HAPC meeting.

 

Chair Smith explained to Public Works Director Meyer that the commission is looking at the subdivision code and the definition of alleys and the code says that alleys are not a primary access to a parcel.  This is a subdivision that has four lots therefore it doesn’t allow the commission to grant exceptions because that’s for three lots or less.  Chair Smith asked if Mr. Meyer had worked with the developer to try to come up with some right-of-way system that would work under the code. 

 

Public Works Director Meyer said he felt bad that the staff comments didn’t cover the concerns.  He further explained that in taking into consideration the issue with the alley access, he had looked at it in the light of a new subdivision being platted - that the City would never allow a plat to create an alley that would serve the new sections.  Mr. Meyer said he was not comfortable saying that under no circumstances could anyone develop anything on their property and use the alleys as primary access.  He added that he has never looked at that condition in the code as something that applied here.  Mr. Meyer commented that in his evaluation of the property he applied the worst case traffic generator that could happen with this property without going through the Planning Commission.  He looked at the current allowable development and the traffic that could create, knowing that the developer could easily place a 4-plex on each lot.  In this case, the developer was looking at single-family units; albeit not to say that they couldn’t be changed to duplexes or larger down the road.  Mr. Meyer offered that the question is; how can one provide the required street right-of-way in a reasonable way and concluded that neither he nor the developer could figure out how to do that.  He advised that they looked at everything between a cul de sac bulb off of the Kachemak Way to swapping the 20’ from one alley to the other alley.  Nothing seemed to work out real well from the perspective of the property owner.  He said he found it difficult to saddle two properties with solving a problem that affects the entire neighborhood.  As far as he knew these are two of only four pieces of property in the City that have primary access off of two alleys.  It’s a fairly unique situation.  Mr. Meyer concluded that under the scenario that the developer is proposing, this replat would actually lower the density and would decrease the amount of traffic generated from this property than what it could be developed without any platting action whatsoever. 

 

Chair Smith acknowledged that the properties currently have a legal access without complaint from the City.  The issue is when more parcels are created, and how that conforms to the code.  He asked Mr. Meyer if he looked at two one-way alleys.

 

Public Works Director Meyer advised that he had looked at whether or not he could require two lots to access one alley and two to access the other alley to minimize peak flows that might occur off of the property.  The problem is there is no real access to the alley to the south.  Physically it’s not possible to access there.  A one-way alley scenario would cut down on the number of conflicts.  A 20’ alley is not set up for passing in both directions.

 

Chair Smith asked if the utilities were in the alleyway to the south.  Mr. Meyer seemed to think that the power and telephone were in the south alley and the north alley contained a sewer line and the beginnings of a water line extension.

 

Mr. Meyer advised that if the commission had the power to approve a plat with special conditions to mitigate the negative consequences, one-way alleys would be a positive step in creating secondary access that provides a more efficient primary access.  Mr. Meyer added that another positive step would be to require the alley be improved if it’s going to be an access.  He commented that the topography along there is not convenient access to the properties to the north.  He said the alley to the north is not improved.

 

Chair Smith announced that he thought the alley went through because he had driven through to the alley from the Frontier Building parking lot.  Mr. Tutt advised that the alley to the south is a dead end, same as the alley to the north.  He added that the reason a vehicle can drive through is because the owner of the Frontier Building parking lot connected it.  He advised that there is no dedicated access.  Mr. Tutt added that there is a 10’ bank behind the Frontier Building. 

 

Mr. Tutt referred to HCC 24.10.04 where there are four requirements for exemptions as a possible option.  City Planner McKibben advised that he would have to meet all four of them.  Mr. Tutt commented that he could not find a usable way of access on the property because of the topography. He added that the intersection is probably as bad as the topography because it’s so close to the stop sign at Kachemak Way/Pioneer Ave.  Unless the alders were cut on property he doesn’t own, it would create a real visibility problem. 

 

Jim Reardon lives north of the area under consideration.  He testified that he has used the northern alley for 44 years as access to one side of his property.  The other side is Lee Drive.  He wanted to point out an article in the January 15th Anchorage paper.  He advised that the Regency Park Development has a 25’ street width, is a private development and the people who live there are complaining about not having enough room to put the snow and no room to pass in vehicles.  They have asked the City to assume liability for the narrow streets and the City refused.  The City of Anchorage is apparently working on the problem.  He quoted the article - “substandard streets are a constant worry for the fire department”... “in a neighborhood like this one have one way in and out  fire officials would be stymied if something blocked that entrance.  Some site condo developments in Anchorage have piles of snow pushed to the dead ends of driveways, or between cars providing scant room for vehicles-- never mind a fire truck--to turn around. We’ve had several incidents where we had to stop and juggle fire and emergency medical apparatus to get us in and out, Bushue said.  It cuts down response times.  Glenda Radvansky, city traffic engineer, said the minimum width for private streets has been undefined.  City traffic experts, Fire Department officials and other officials are working on new standards for all streets and utilities.  The proposed standards will be announced this month.”  Mr. Reardon commented that regardless of what happens, there is a problem with access in and out.  He added that he has enjoyed a good relationship with his neighbors who also use the alley to access the back side of their property.    He said that if they get multiple housing it would become a problem and is the primary problem as he sees it.  He thanked the commission for listening and handed the newspaper article to the clerk for the record.

 

Ed Lyda, a resident of Homer lives in the area, stated that his concerns are the same as Mr. Reardon’s.  He added that he didn’t want to consider economics over safety.  He described the streets in that area as getting “slick as glass” and expressed concern for the safety of anyone sitting on the one lane road waiting for another vehicle “to come screaming down Kachemak Way” as “absolutely scary”.  He stated that he wasn’t concerned about what people want to do with their property, but the answer to this problem is to widen the road.  He reiterated the risk of being at the intersection when traffic comes down the hill, saying the City would be waiting for a lawsuit in that situation.  Mr. Lyda produced a newspaper article regarding the same issues Mr. Reardon outlined in his testimony - no access to the streets, too narrow, cars/trucks can’t turn around, fire trucks can’t get in, no place to put snow, etc.  He called repeating the list “beating a dead horse”, and added “but it’s all true”.  He advised that he had been assured the drainage problem would be dealt with. He addressed the water drainage saying there is a lot of water.  He advised that he had called the City and was told it was going to be put there anyway and was lucky they were going to put in what they were going to put in cause they could have put in a lot more.  He added that he didn’t care what they put in there as long as they don’t endanger his family at the bottom of the hill - and the answer to that is to widen and develop that road.  Mr. Lyda used the chalk board and drew a diagram of the corner of his property and the location of the blacktop; he added to the drawing a 10’ right-of-way for water and sewer.  He voiced support for making an exception and drew onto the diagram different locations for the road he would agree to.  He again mentioned the limited visibility on the road and drew on the diagram where the limited visibility exists due to the stands of alders on private property.  He re-emphasized the risks, likening it to “checking gas tanks with a match”.  He again adamantly called for making the road wider due to the safety risks.  He thanked the commission for their time.

 

Maryann Lyda expressed her concern of who would be maintaining the road after it is widened.  Chair Smith confirmed with Public Works Director Meyer that alleys are not maintained by the City.

Ms. Lyda asked who would maintain it if it were made into a road.  Chair Smith deferred to comments from the Public Works Director.  Mr. Meyer stated that if the City were to maintain the road, it would have to meet City standards, i.e. two way traffic, room for snow storage, 60’ wide right-of-way -- that will go down to 50’ in some cases.  Ms. Lyda voiced her concern that she would have to give up some of her land for them to make a road.  Chair Smith explained that during a platting process when someone subdivides, it is necessary to have the right-of-ways dedicated.  Whoever is doing the subdividing dedicates portions from their property.  The adjacent property owners don’t have to do anything.  He referred to the widening of East End Road and explained that the additional right-of-way required was purchased by agreement from the property owners. 

 

Mr. Lyda added that a culvert would not handle all of the water that comes down through this area.  He confirmed with Mr. Reardon that his culvert is 18”.

 

Roger Imhoff commented that he agreed with the Public Works Director regarding taking the definition of alleyway and trying to apply it to a situation that was created in history and that there is nothing to be done about that history.  He added that it is unfortunate that this property was platted this way, however “we have to live with it”.  Regarding exceptions, he commented that the three lot rule applies to improvements and not to all the code in particular, therefore, he said he thought the commission had some latitude to grant some exceptions if they wanted to.  He added that the commission could approve the plat subject to conditions and the owner could either comply or come back with a different plan.

 

Chair Smith called for staff research on some of the technical parts of the exception issue and consult with the city attorney.  This would mean a further postponement, however, it would answer the question to what the commission can do regarding exceptions in this particular case.  It would also give the staff further opportunity to explore HCC 11.04 and the Design Criteria Manual and create an opinion on how that part of the code fits with this action. 

 

Commissioner Chesley asked to further emphasize that a written record be supplied to the commission of any side-bar discussions between the staff and the developer.  He added that if the commission was supposed to render a decision based on these things he would appreciate a written record.  Decisions on exemptions or exceptions have to be based on findings of fact and it’s up to the staff to do the code analysis and bring the recommendations to the commission so they can make the decision and not have to try to research the code as a body during a public hearing.

 

Commissioner Hess commented that if the attorney finds that the commission cannot grant exceptions, he wanted the audience to know that the commission has no control over what is allowed for development. He clarified that if the developer wants to do a denser development, the commission has no control over that whatsoever.  He stated that he wanted it understood that it is a real possibility that this could happen.

 

CHESLEY/PFEIL - MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING OR SUCH A TIME AS WHEN STAFF AND DEVELOPER ARE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER AND BRING FURTHER INFORMATION FOR US TO CONSIDER. 

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

Chair Smith called for a break at 8:27 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m.  The commission returned to Item A under Commission Business:

 

COMMISSION BUSINESS

 

A.        Staff Report PL 03-78   Re:        Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Adding Chapter 21.    Large Retail And Wholesale Structure Development, Impact Statement And Standards. 

 

The commission continued their review and discussion of the most recent draft of the ordinance, to include the following items:

 

-         Add definition for total suspended solids

-         discussed fuel storage and what DEC regulations apply

-         limit storage gallons of fuel, gas, or diesel

-         discussed possible requirement for secondary containment or oil/water separator

-         Maintenance plans required and open to inspection by the City

-         Talked briefly about bonds/warranties and financial responsibilities

-         Discussed wording in drainage and made changes

-         Hess will work on landscaping further and present it again on Saturday

-         The commission discussed lighting and – spelling of luminaires

-         Discussed changes to the traffic portion of the draft

-         Move storm water under site development plan

-         Discussed the section on CUPs 1-14-04 draft

-         Brought up the need for architectural standards for different areas – CBD and maybe GC1

-         Discussed the application of a Design Criteria Manual

 

The committee called a break from their discussion due to fatigue after five hours straight.  There was further discussion on their plans for their work session on Saturday.  The discussion included talk of incorporating the changes in the CBD and incorporating changes into the other sections of the code - GC1, GC2, MI and MC.  The commission discussed their deadlines and looked at what was yet to be accomplished.

 

REPORTS

 

A.        Borough Report

B.        Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

Commissioner Foster advised that there were two items that came to the Borough that had already been passed through the Homer Planning Commission, neither of which had the minutes of the meeting included.  He suggested that if something were going to the Borough for review that the minutes get included.  City Planner McKibben said she’d look into it.

 

PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT

 

City Planner McKibben reported that on February 6th, Christy Miller, a State representative who specializes in the Flood Hazard Program, would be here conducting an all day presentation.  In the morning she would be doing staff training and in the afternoon she’d be doing a presentation for the realtors, insurance and titles folks.  She invited the commissioners.  It will take place at City Hall.  Chair Smith asked if there would be an executive overview.  City Planner McKibben advised she would pass on the information when she receives the agenda.

 

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

 

Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units. 

 

There were none.

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

 

Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject.  The Chair may prescribe time limits. 

 

There were none.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

 

Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence. 

 

Commissioner Chesley thanked everyone noting they were on “the home stretch”.

 

Commissioner Bartlett stated he wanted to ask outright - on Saturday is everyone going to be prepared to start talking about total square footage for areas or is this going to be held for the very last minute?  He acknowledged that they would be talking about the conditional use, however, if there were only two meetings left it seemed to him like the biggest issue was waiting until the last moment.

 

City Planner McKibben suggested that it would be helpful to make a note of anything that comes to mind that can be incorporated into the findings of fact.  Chair Smith advised that they had already looked at that and that he has three pages of notes.  Commissioner Chelsey added that there would be information from the traffic engineer to assist with that.  Chair Smith expressed an interest in going over the traffic books and get some numbers for retail development because there are different intensities that occur with different kinds of businesses. 

 

Commissioner Foster announced that although he has mentioned it prior he wanted to make a formal invitation for everyone to attend the work shop on March 17th and 18th.  They are doing formal invitations to the City of Homer, City of Kenai and the Borough.  He added that although there is no funding to provide hotel space, the commission and staff were invited to attend both days of the work shop.  Day One is called Coastal Dynamics, Living on the Edge 101, which will have ocean and land processes and ecological processes that are affected by erosion as well as looking at the types of mitigation - both the things that have been tried and failed; and things that have been successful.  Christy Miller will be one of the people presenting on that.  The first day is a real great group of scientists and the second day will be a group of decisions makers, like the commission, who will try to see where they can go with this information and help develop a plan or strategy to create guidelines for upper managers and planners.  He lauded this great work shop and hoped that at least some commissioners could attend.  To answer a commissioner’s question, Dr. Foster advised that the groups who will be there are the EPA, his group, scientists from USGS,  and UAA. WA will be presenting the guidelines they have developed on similar research on coastal processes.  There will be a professor from Oregon State who focuses on ocean resource management as well as the folks that wrote Living on the Coast of Alaska.  Attending will be the Councils of Homer, Kenai and the Borough; planning staff; “mayors and vice-mayors”; and city managers - a total of 35-40 folks.  He confirmed that the work shop is in Homer.

 

Commissioner Pfeil expressed his thanks to everyone.

 

Commissioner Hess advised that he would try to email the landscape information to everyone tomorrow.

 

Chair Smith brought to the attention of staff the ever increasing size of the sign at the storage buildings belonging to Doug Fraiman out by the Gear Shed.  He advised that another sign has appeared at the top of the sign structure that adds approximately a 16’ by 10’ sign.  It starts about 15 feet off the ground and is an addition to the sign that’s been growing in increments since annexation. 

 

Chair Smith shared a comment made by a council member to him regarding the Ocean Dynamics work shop.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.

 

There being no further business to come before the commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for February 4, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. There will be a work session at 5:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.  There will be a work session Saturday January 24, 2004 at 9:00 a.m., ending at 12:30 p.m.  There will be a work session January 28, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

 

 

__________________________________________

DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

 

Approved: _________________________________