Session 09-06, a Regular
Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair
Minsch at 7:02 p.m. on April 1, 2009 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers
located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS BOS, KRANICH, MINSCH, SINN, STORM
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HAINA, MOORE
STAFF: CITY
PLANNER ABBOUD
PLANNING TECHNICIAN ENGEBRETSEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
AGENDA APPROVAL
Commissioner
Kranich requested item 5 under the Consent Agenda be moved to New Business for
discussion. The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Public may speak to the Planning
Commission regarding matters not scheduled for public hearing. (3 minute time
limit) Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the
Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning
Commission.
There
were no public comments.
RECONSIDERATION
There
were no items for reconsideration.
ADOPTION OF THE
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.
1.
Approval of Minutes of March 4, 2009
2. Time Extension Requests
a. Time Extension Request for Cooper
Subdivision Clay Addition No. 4 dated March 10, 2009
3. Approval of City of Homer Projects under
4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
5. Approval of Draft Decision and Findings
Re: Appeal of fines for violation of stop work order Sunland Development 3670
Lake Street
The
amended consent agenda was adopted by consensus of the Commission.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentations approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative
may address the Planning Commission.
There
were no presentations.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
There
was no Borough Report.
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission
Report
There
was no KBAPC report.
C. Planning Director’s Report
1. Staff
Report PL 37, City Planner’s Report
City
Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report. There was discussion regarding a lack
of interested participants for the Spit Comprehensive Plan. They addressed that
there needs to be representation from the Port and Harbor Advisory Commission.
There was also discussion regarding the Council’s amendment of the off site
parking in Ordinance 09-12(A). It was requested that staff review it to ensure
that the change doesn’t negate the Commission’s work as it is a huge change
from the direction they were going. City Planner Abboud noted that has been adopted
and that it was clarified that this parking ordinance is a working document.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public
Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and the acting on
the Public Hearing items. (3 minute time limit) The commission may question the
public. Once the public hearing is closed the Commission cannot hear additional
comments on the topic.
A. Staff Report PL 09-33, Comprehensive
Plan: Forward through Chapter Four
Planning
Technician Engebretsen reviewed the staff report and gave a brief history of
the Comprehensive Plan development process.
Chair
Minsch opened the public hearing.
Dr.
Charles Burgess, city resident who resides on Kachemak Drive, expressed his
concern about a potential breach of our democracy. He commented that during the
process of the Citizens Commission and the number of hearings that took place,
a number of citizens from Kachemak Drive provided input and the result of their
discussions was provided in the map presented by Agnew:Beck. A number of
hardworking people from Kachemak Drive put in for what they thought was a
reasonable compromise on a number of issues. He encouraged the Commissioners to
look at the Agnew:Beck map and compare it to what is provided in the current
draft. He, as well as a number of residents on Kachemak Drive, would like to
know why the recommendations that were made by the full time residents on
Kachemak Drive aren’t reflected in the current draft. The residents are not
there to profit off Kachemak Drive. They have children and families there. They
are not there to be developers. He wants to put $200,000 into his house over
the next few years but with these changes he might walk away. It has gotten to
be outrageous to him how the city operates in a number of ways. He knows a
number of citizens are concerned as to what happened from the first zoning
recommendations, to the current recommendations. He encouraged the
Commissioners to consider what it would be like for them if they lived there
and the idea of having an industrial development right across the street from
their home, where children play. It will also take away from the moose habitat.
The compromise that was arrived at by Agnew:Beck and the citizens of Kachemak
Drive appears to have been completely ignored on the final product. He, as well
as his fellow citizens on Kachemak Drive, intends to spend money in pursuing
this and finding out how the transition occurred and why their voice was not
heard, since they are the ones who live there.
Roberta
Highland, city resident, said she had commented back in June 2007 and wasn’t
sure if her comments had been included. She is the President of the Kachemak
Bay Conservation Society and one of her main focuses is that anything we do is
done with environmentally sound ideas. In looking at page 4-8 #7, management of
storm water, slope standards, and on site septic systems are three things that
are very important. She doesn’t understand how a group of citizens, without a
huge planning staff, can accomplish all that is said in the plan. She knows
there are no steep slope standards set yet. There was a big workshop about ten
years ago that a private citizen paid for, and it never got done. In her
opinion steep slope development is really important. One of her main concerns
is the storm water and how it is connected with Kachemak Bay and all the
oceans. Our town and all the other towns along Cook Inlet have storm water and
it is a pretty big deal. Regarding the on site septic system, they are involved
in having some building in her subdivision and she just discovered that
outhouses are okay in city limits. Her time ran out so she quickly noted
sections 4-10 #1, 4-11 #5 were other items of importance to her.
Rika
Mouw, city resident, commented that in reading the Comprehensive Plan she feels
good about Homer’s direction and that it is a thoughtful guide to shaping the
future built environment of Homer. She expressed that she is troubled by the
proposed land use plan that was put out by the Commission. It fails to reflect
the studies and mapping done to guide the City in land use and planning and it
shows that the extensive input by the professionals and volunteers was either
not understood or is not being heard by the Commission. Mrs. Mouw pointed out
that the GC2 designation is for a heavy commercial area where access to
infrastructure is primary. The development standards are minimal, requiring
only son site parking, minimal setbacks and voluntary landscape screening. The
only GC2 designation is in the middle of the Beluga Wetland Complex, neighbored
by critical moose habitat and rural residential neighborhoods on either side.
Lampert Lake and expansive water marshes are designated GC2. This area has been
mapped and found to be high value wetlands and important green infrastructure,
has no current road access to much of the land, and no utility infrastructure.
The development suitability map included in the plan shows development in the
wetlands is prohibitively expensive. Professionals recommend the Beluga Wetland
Complex be preserved since it has equal green infrastructure value as the
Bridge Creek Watershed, both of which we rely on at minimal cost and offer
obvious assets. She said the renewed GC2 designation smacks of special
interests and does not reflect what has been recommended or is best for the
community. Homer is not an industrial community and maybe more GC2 is not
appropriate for Homer. Mrs. Mouw also commented that the rural residential
designation along the bluff on Kachemak Drive is the maximum capacity the
fragile area can accommodate. She said encouraging a higher density along the
bluff is foolhardy and it wrongly presumes that the majority of the property
owners are willing to have utilities installed before they are assured that the
natural green infrastructure of the wetlands is preserved and the storm drain
is taken care of first. She sees no storm drainage plan for Homer and lest of
all for the functioning wetlands which the Commission has been proposed to be
allowed to be filled in. Mrs. Mouw’s
time ran out before she could finish reading her letter and a copy was provided
for the record.
Val
McLay, city resident and Chair of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, said it is
disheartening to him that the Committee and the Contractor was hired spent over
a year on this plan and dealt with the public repeatedly, presented the plan to
the Planning Commission over a year ago, is just now getting it to come before
the public. It is disheartening that we continue to drag our feet on a plan
that he feels there was a lot of public input on to present the plan as they
did. He said the longer it takes to implement the plan, the more changes are
going to take place in the plan because things are changing on us all the time
and people are changing. Every time you get new people, you get new ideas. They
don’t like the changes we came up with last year so now we have to make another
change. If this is the case, then the plan will never be implemented. We need
to implement a plan and proceed with it, and not keep making changes. Most of
the people on the Commission were not Commissioners when the plan was first
presented. There are only two Councilmembers remaining at the table when the CAC
put this plan together. As a result if we continue to drag our feet on this we
will have more and more new people sitting at the table to make a decision on
what kind of a bad decision we made. He thinks we need to move forward with
this plan.
Bill
Smith agreed that we need to move forward but suggested they consider extending
another date to allow people to make comments on more parts of the plan. As
they have heard, three minutes isn’t enough for some people to testify about
the first four chapters. He commented that when looking at the map he sees that
it says the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations, the one that was
submitted from the Committee said proposed on it. He thinks that is an
important designation because this one says this is the Comprehensive Plan
designation, which is where we will go. He doesn’t think it is appropriate and
that it should say this is a suggestion and we will work on it neighborhood by
neighborhood. In looking at the purpose of the plan it says it is to promote a
type of development both built and natural that a community desires. In other
words, it isn’t up to the few people sitting here. When he was on the Planning
Commission he felt it was the community’s desires that had to be imbedded as
code, not what he felt. He thinks they need to have that perspective.
Jan
Needham, city resident on Kachemak Drive, said she has talked to various
committees over the years about the creeping commercialism that has been
pushing its way along as people tried to develop areas out there. She is in the
middle of Kachemak Drive and now across the street from her is East End Mixed
Use, when there are homes in there. This is one of the criminal things to do in
any planning and zoning to take one side of the street with residential and the
other side of the street has something that forces people to have to put up
with commercial enterprises. You can see the effect of it as you drive from the
airport terminal along Kachemak Drive where various places have developed. She
thinks something has gone amiss to schedule East End Mixed Use right in the
middle of people’s homes. She agrees with Mr. Smith and hopes they will have
more meetings for this.
John
Mouw, city resident, said he agrees with all that has been said. He commented
regarding commercial zoning in the Beluga wetland system, and the change in
zoning along Kachemak Drive from Rural Residential to Transitional Residential.
He thinks it is essential the Beluga wetlands be seen as a vital part of
Homer’s infrastructure that is performing critical storm drainage functions
that would cost the City millions of dollars to replicate. Mr. Mouw explained
that the increase in impervious surfaces due to development results in flooding
with a greater volume of water arriving down slope in a shorter period of time.
When the water flowing from above reaches the wetlands, it is slowed down,
absorbed, and filtered as the natural systems are able to accommodate much of
the run off. Even partial development of the wetlands will reduce their ability
to perform their important function, as seen with the increased flooding at the
east end of Kachemak Drive where there has been significant infilling and
development. He noted that ADOT has been unable to keep up with the increasing
flow of storm water in that area and even their 8 foot culvert placed under
Kachemak Drive is not always up to task. The tax revenues generated by the few
commercial enterprises created would not be enough to pay for the millions of
dollars in infrastructure needed to replace the functioning wetlands. He
questioned why we would want to damage such a perfect arrangement of a vital
functioning natural system in the exact place it is needed, especially when it
only benefits a few property owners in Homer. The information in the Comprehensive
Plan indicates that commercial zoning in the wetlands in inappropriate.
Conservation zoning of the entire wetland complex makes economic and ecological
sense for Homer. Mr. Mouw further commented that the rural residential zoning
along Kachemak Drive is appropriate and should not be changed as there are
drainage issues there and concerns about increased development in the area.
These are reasons why a majority of the property owners there voted against the
water and sewer LID’s, not because the services aren’t wanted. Most favor it if
the development concerns were addressed first.
While the Phase II LID passed, it was only because the vote was based on
property values and a few properties with higher than average values voted for
it, skewing the vote. Phase III has never been approved with the development
concerns being a major factor. Mr. Mouw said this leads him to believe that the
majority of property owners affected by this zoning change would be opposed to
it, for very good reasons. Mr. Mouw provided a copy of his statement for the
record.
Lynn
Whitmore, not a City Resident, is the President of the Board of Directors of a
non profit corporation that acquires wildlife habit, particularly moose habitat
as a result of mitigation funds that came from the Bradley Lake hydro project.
Their mandate is to off set the loss of wildlife in the Bradley area in the
Homer area. Fish and Game asked them to target the Beluga wetlands area. One of
the two other Boardmembers he serves with is a property manager for the State
of Alaska for Fish and Game and the other is an engineer with the Alaska Energy
Authority. They have been spending a lot of time and money trying to acquire
properties around Beluga because Fish and Game tells them that once we lose
that complex for wildlife habitat, we will lose the Homer bench moose herd. That
is one of the reasons we live here, so rather than tell the Commission all the
things they are doing wrong, he asked that they keep in mind that is the
corporation’s target and that is something to consider when making decisions on
what goes on around that lake. Of all the places in the area, the corporation
targets that as the number one spot.
Robert
Archibald, city resident, agreed with what the others have said about Kachemak
Drive. He said that if we went to the soils and waters and got maps of the
wetlands they are very much in that area. We may be jumping to conclusions
about turning that into a commercial area and back filling some of it. It’s not
a good idea. In looking at the Implementation Actions on Objective B on 4-11
which says develop standards in every one of these. He knows we need to develop
standards for things like steep slope, wetlands, and hillside. The last one is
to create an option for specialized review process for hillside and other
sensitive areas, allowing development in steep slopes with extensive site
analysis and engineering reports. To him that is something where if someone has
the money they can come along and develop on the slope, there may be a
mechanism to do that. It seems totally counter productive to him and counter to
what they are trying to do here. He thinks if they develop a plan and solidify
that plan, it should make it difficult for someone to try to go around and
develop something counter productive or counter to what the citizenry wants. He
thinks we need to implement this plan, we have been working on it since 2007,
we have got three different copies and if you keep going on and on and
rewriting it, something like this steep slope and wetlands is going to be a non
issue if you don’t put it into law.
There
were no further public comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.
There
were no further staff comments.
STORM/BOS
MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION ON STAFF REPORT PL 09-33 FEELING THAT WE NEED TO
REVISIT THE LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP.
There
was discussion that the first meeting in May would be open for further
discussion.
Commissioner
Storm commented that as a Commission they need to further discuss the land use
designation.
Commissioner
Kranich agreed that it needs to come back on their agenda to discuss, based on
public input, and then have another public hearing.
VOTE:
NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion
carried.
STORM/KRANICH
MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ADDRESS THE AUDIENCE.
There
was no discussion.
VOTE:
YES: STORM, KRANICH, SINN, BOS
NO: MINSCH
Motion
carried.
Commissioner
Storm said she wanted to let the people who were at the meeting to testify
about Kachemak Drive know that the Commission deliberation of the land use
designation map was a very contentious issue. She wanted to address
specifically that there was no special interest in their deliberation on how to
re-designate that map. She wanted to assure that they heard their testimony
tonight and that is why she recommended it come back to the Commission for
further review.
The
Commission took a short recess at 7:47 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:49 p.m.
B. Staff Report PL 09-34, CUP 09-02, 1002
Ocean Drive Loop, for more than one building containing a permitted principal
use on a lot per HCC 21.12.030(n).
City
Planner Abboud and Planning Technician Engebretsen reviewed the staff report
and the amended staff report.
Susan DiFrancia, applicant,
commented that she has been a property owner there since 1992. She fully
renovated her house at 3119 Lake Street and sold it in 2004 and she finished a
small custom studio on the next door property. She wanted to further develop
the property and is now ready to fulfill a passion driven vision to create
sanctuary and accommodate visitors to Homer. Her plan is to build a maximum of
3 small, high quality cabins connected to City water and sewer in undeveloped
portion of the lot. She explained that flower gardens are a major design
component of the overall plan. As with everything she has done in the last 18
years as a Homer resident, the development will be respectful to environment
and have no impact on nearby properties. Her development will enhance the
neighborhood. The area along bluff has a natural beauty conducive to a retreat
like atmosphere. She intends to draw upon a specific clientele looking for a
peaceful sanctuary with respect to the residential neighborhood. Ms. DiFrancia
noted that several Bed and Breakfast establishments already operate in the area
without issue. Three high quality rental cabins with beautiful gardens pose no
adverse impact. Ms. DiFrancia reviewed a drawing that outlined her overall
vision for the development. She thanked the Commission and hopes they will
support her vision.
Robert Dewees, city resident,
explained that he purchased the home that Ms. DiFrancia sold in 2004 and said
several of his concerns are laid out in the letter included in the packet,
including increased traffic, higher population density, and changing the
community from residential to commercial. He said that it will be right next to
them and in the summer there will be a lot of additional traffic, people out at
all hours of the night, and he feels it will impact them a lot. He said they
are only 15 feet from her property line so they will be close to the
development. In addition Mr. Dewees noted that Ms. DiFrancia’s built a
greenhouse that is right on their property line, which looks like it might be a
violation of the current zoning. They have suffered some light pollution from
that when she runs the greenhouse at night and as a result have abandoned the
bedroom that they were using. Another issue is there are some areas of wetlands
on the property and some of that area has been developed. They have wetlands on
their property as well and the additional development has caused more water to show
up on the back of their property. Mr. Dewees said he understands that people
want to develop things, but thinks that there is enough of that type of
development in the area and more development outside of the zoning will
adversely impact the property values.
Bob Brant stated that he is the
property owner on the other side of Ms. DiFrancia. He and his wife provided as
a laydown item tonight that deals with a couple of technical concerns about the
application. He added that their primary concerns are the number of units being
considered and the enforcement procedures that may become a part of the conditions
the Commission deem appropriate. The Brant’s ask the Commission for
consideration on their concerns and remember that their incremental decisions
in a neighborhood affect the direction of the neighborhood for many years to
come. This neighborhood is primarily single family residents and they have
concern that the incremental growth of B&B’s and vacation cabins are going
to find their neighborhood more commercial 10 years from now than what they
enjoy at this time. He hopes they are
thoughtful with their considerations about the number of units that might be
allowed.
There were no further public
comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.
Ms. DiFrancia rebutted that
there are several other cabins and B&B’s on the street. She understands
negative development but it is her intent to beautify the neighborhood. This is
a popular part of Homer, the City owns the two lots across the street and many
times people will picnic or take pictures. She thinks it is wonderful that
Homer offers that to visitors and that is why she wants to develop her property
and give people a chance to stay in Homer. She wants to offer a weekend oasis
for visitors to come relax and appreciate the beauty of Homer. She is not going
to promote one night stays or people partying and making a lot of noise. She
lives on the property and she wouldn’t want to affect the quality of her life,
so she will be careful who her guests are. She thinks it will be a positive
thing.
Mike Anderson, Ms. DiFrancia’s
husband, commented regarding the concern from the neighbor about the cabins
being close to his property. He said that as you can see on the plan, her
studio is on the other side and she does have a permit from the Corps of
Engineers to move the cabin on the wetland if she wants to so it could be moved
further from their property. He commented that the neighbor’s property is not
adversely affected what so ever. They only have small windows facing her
property. Mr. Anderson said he has never
heard of such a thing as greenhouse light hurting a person’s eyes. He thinks
that the project does fit in with their parameters regardless of the pros and
cons from the audience.
Staff had no further comment.
STORM/BOS MOVED TO POSTPONE
DELIBRATION ON STAFF REPORT PL 09-34 UNTIL AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ITEM C OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 09-35, Request for a
Rezone from Urban Residential (UR) to Residential Office (RO) for Lot 19, AA
Mattox Subdivision 1958 Excluding the DOT ROW, Lots 3 through 21, Block 2
Lakeside Village Subdivision Amended, Lot 3, Block 5, Lakeside Village
Subdivision Amended, Lot 11, Block 3 Lakeside Village Subdivision Amended, Lots
2-B, 2-C, 2-D, Block 5 Lakeside Village Subdivision Unit #3, Lot 12B, Block 3
Lakeside Village Subdivision No. 7, Lot 25A Lakeside Village Hillfair Addition,
and Tract A Forest View Subdivision along Ben Walters Lane and Nielson Circle.
City Planner
Abboud reviewed the staff report.
Tarri
Thurman, Vice President of the Board of Directors for Kachemak Bay Family
Planning Clinic, commented the reason they applied is the adjoining property
behind the clinic became available and rather than expand the existing clinic
and accommodate parking spaces it seemed like a no brainer to relocate offices
adjoining the clinic. She hopes the Commission will see the benefit to the
Community.
Chair Minsch
opened the public hearing.
Carla
Meitler, finance officer for South Peninsula Behavioral Health Services, said
their property is across the street on Ben Walters. She spoke in favor of the
rezone expressing interest in being included because their facilities are of an
office nature and they want to keep the use as offices in order to provide
important services to the community. They have another vacant property to the
east of their main building that will be used in the future as an additional
site for their facility. If the area is zoned to residential office, it will
ease the transition. She pointed out the location of the properties on the
aerial map.
There
were no further public comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.
Staff
had no further comment.
STORM/BOS
MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 09-35 RECOMMENDING THE REZONE OF THIRTY PARCELS
FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND FORWARDING IT TO CITY COUNCIL
FOR APPROVAL.
There
was no discussion.
VOTE:
NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
STORM/BOS MOVED TO
RECESS TO DELIBERATE ON STAFF REPORT PL 09-34.
There was no
discussion.
VOTE: NON
OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The Commission
recessed at 8:23 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:03 p.m.
STORM/BOS
MOVED TO DENY THE CUP BASED ON FINDING 6, 9, 18, AND 19 IN THE AMENDED STAFF
REPORT PL 09-34 AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS BASED ON INADEQUATE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS IN THAT THE CABINS DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A ROOMING HOUSE.
Commissioner
Kranich commented that the parking spaces provided don’t meet the dimensional
requirements in code.
VOTE:
YES: KRANICH, BOS, STORM, SINN, MINSCH
Motion
carried.
City
Planner Abboud explained to the applicant that once the decisions and findings
are approved the decision can be appealed. He said to contact the planning
office for further discussion.
PLAT
CONSIDERATION
The Commission hears a staff report,
testimony from applicants and the public, The Commission may ask questions of
staff, applicants and the public, The Commission w
A. Staff Report PL 09-36, KPB-Cabana Replat
Preliminary Plat
Planning
Technician Engebretsen commented that the surveyor on this project requested
that the plat be postponed based on communication with their client. Generally,
once something has been noticed it is appropriate to allow the public the
opportunity to comment.
There
were no public comments regarding the plat.
STORM/BOS
MOVED TO POSTPONE DECISION ON STAFF REPORT PL 09-36 UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
There
was no discussion.
VOTE:
NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion
carried.
NEW BUSINESS
The Commission hears a report from
staff. 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. Any items brought before the
Commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following
introduction of the item. The Commission w
A.
Approval
of Draft Decision and Findings Re: Appeal of fines for violation of stop work
order Sunland Development 3670 Lake Street
KRANICH/BOS
MOVED TO ADOPT THE DECISIONS AND FINDING REGARDING APPEAL OF FINES FOR
VIOLATION FO STOP WORK ORDER SUNLAND DEVELOPMENT.
Commissioner
Kranich suggested an amendment to the second page as he thought it would be
appropriate to include additional text. It reads that the appellant was aware
of the requirement for a storm water plan, and suggested they include, “when a
lot contained 60% impervious coverage” and construction activity prior to a
valid zoning permit was unlawful.
There
was discussion that the additional language may not be necessary, but would not
be harmful.
KRANICH/BOS
MOVED TO AMEND THE SECOND FINDING ON PAGE 12 AFTER THE TERM SWP, ADD LANGUAGE
THAT STATES “WHEN A LOT CONTAINS MORE THAN 60% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE”.
There
was no discussion.
VOTE:
NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion
carried.
Commissioner
Kranich suggested amending to the final finding, the installation of the storm water
plan is irrelevant to the requirement of obtaining a zoning permit prior to
commencement of construction activity. He suggested adding after irrelevant to
the requirement, insert “of having an improved storm water plan and”. The
applicant’s point of appeal was that he should be allowed 2 years to complete
the installation.
KRANICH/BOS
MOVED TO AMEND THE LAST FINDING ON PAGE 12 OF OUR PACKET TO INSERT AFTER
IRRELEVANT TO THE REQUIREMENT INSERT “OF HAVING AN APPROVED STORM WATER PLAN
AND”.
There
was no further discussion.
VOTE:
NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion
carried.
VOTE
(Main Motion as Amended): YES: STORM, MINSCH, KRANICH, SINN, BOS
Motion
carried.
INFORMATIONAL
MATERIALS
A. The Open Meetings Act at a Glance information from Holly Souza,
City Attorney
COMMENTS
OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the Audience may
address the Commission on any subject.
There were no audience
comments.
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comments on
any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Bos thought it was
a little frustrating tonight. He was glad about audience attendance and he hopes
there is an emotional group like this for the rest of the Comp Plan. It seemed
as though things were very one dimensional, it would be nice to add at least
three minutes to the amount of time they have to speak. He said he enjoyed it.
Commissioner Sinn commented
that it was good to see the people who came and hear what they had to say. We
have more work ahead of us.
Commissioner Storm commented
that her worst fear was realized and that was that we undid the work of the CAC
and went against the desires of the citizens who had their input encapsulated
by Agnew:Beck. She hopes they can keep that in mind as they re-visit the land
use designation.
Commissioner Kranich commented
that he was glad for the audience. He agreed that it was very one dimensional,
a one facetted view point, and a very narrow viewpoint that was expressed by
most of the people. It was very self-centered. He doesn’t think that any thing
the Commission has done to help develop this plan has been that way.
Chair Minsch commented that she
is willing to look at anything the Commission wants to look at. She thinks they
have done good work and all of their decisions have been based on the needs of
what is best for the entire community of Homer and that good work has been
done. We will have to decide what we
want to do with it.
ADJOURN
Meetings adjourn promptly at 10
p.m. An extension is allowed by a vote of the Commission. 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 adjourned at 9:22 p.m. The next
Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 15, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall
Cowles Council Chambers. There is a work session at 5:30 p.m. prior to the
meeting.
MELISSA JACOBSEN,
Approved: