Session 05-07 a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at 7:10 p.m. on April 6, 2005 by Chair Chesley at the Homer City Hall Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS
KRANICH, FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, HESS, LEHNER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER CONNOR (excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
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
a. Watson Ridge Subdivision (formerly Pepper
Ridge)
B. Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC
1.76.030 g.
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
a. Valerie Connor
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission
that item C under informational items was supposed to be under Commission
Business and that item C. under plat considerations be postponed to April 20 at
the applicant’s request.
FOSTER/KRANICH MOVED THAT ITEM C UNDER
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS BE MOVED TO ITEM H. UNDER COMMISSION BUSINESS AND THAT ITEM
C. UNDER PLAT CONSIDERATIONS BE POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 20, 2005.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
HESS/KRANICH MOVED TO CHANGE ITEM D TO ITEM A
UNDER COMMISSION BUSINESS.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The amended agenda was approved by consensus
of the Commission.
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A. Approval of March 16, 2005 regular
meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved as amended by consensus
of the Commission.
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 are approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
A.
Presentation By
Larry Lewis Of Alaska Fish And Game Regarding Nuisance Bears, Waste Management
And Long-Term Planning.
Tom Dunn, a resident at Kelly Ranch Estates,
commented that he has built two homes in Kelly Ranch Estates and has submitted
a mitigation plan to start work on a third.
His concern is that the driveways are the biggest restriction and hopes
the Commission will consider a 50% or even 100% exclusion for gravel,
specifically where it is flat and drainage is minimal. He is afraid that requiring engineer
requirements will bring in too much cost to the builder than is probably
reasonable.
Larry Lewis of Alaska Department of Fish and
Game in Soldotna and Thomas McDonnough, the Assistant Area Wildlife Biologist
stationed in Homer, gave a presentation discussing nuisance bears, waste
management and on going programs the Department of Fish and Game is offering to
help deal with these issues. Mr.
Lewis’s presentation pointed out that open dumpsters, trashcans and trash
around peoples homes and recreation areas has created a situation where bears
have become comfortable around humans.
This in turn has resulted in increased nuisance bear complaints and
human caused bear mortalities referred to as Defense of Life and Property (DLP)
shootings. Mr. Lewis spoke of several
instances in the Kenai/Soldotna area where bears have been relocated or
euthanized because they have become comfortable eating from trashcans,
dumpsters and even freezers on peoples porches, therefore becoming a threat to
residents in the area.
Mr. Lewis stated that bear proofing is a good
start in dealing with these problems.
He showed before and after photos of a neighborhood that was identified
for a grant from the Audubon Society.
The residents were able to purchase bear resistant garbage cans and were
provided two years of free garbage pickup for using the cans. This particular neighborhood had numerous
bear complaints and a sow and two cubs had recently been relocated after
reports of them pushing on doors and trying to break into houses. After the program was put into place, there
have been no nuisance calls from this neighborhood. The side benefit of this program is that the neighborhood looks
nice. There is no longer trash lying
around in the neighborhood, it looks nice, there is more community pride and
fosters better stewardship of wildlife resources in this neighborhood.
Mr. Lewis spoke of other communities’
involvement in the programs and pointed out that it shows they care about
wildlife. He recommended the Commission
consider these recommendations and partner with the Department of Fish and Game
to look at long term mitigation.
Wildlife and Alaska are synonymous.
People come here to see it and we have to conserve the resources. The Department is willing to give the time
to look at programs to make it work for the City. The Borough and other cities have resolved to do something long
term and Mr. Lewis encouraged the Commission
to look at these programs and consider participation.
Chair Chesley called for a short recess at
7:40 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:45
p.m.
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.
A. Staff Report PL 05-32 Re: Request for a CUP 05-06 Re: Kenai Peninsula Borough and South Peninsula Hospital Request For A Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing Hospital as permitted by HCC 21.47.030 (d) and 21.61, Located 4300 Bartlett Street, Tract A South Peninsula Hospital Subdivision, Fairview Subdivision Lots 1 and 4 Block 8, and Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Block 7.
Wayne Aderhold, a City resident and representative of the Borough as the project manager for construction, commented on the staff report. He questioned whether a traffic analysis may be in order. He doesn’t have a detailed analysis, but is relying on the Bartlett/Hohe project that the State of Alaska has spent a lot of time planning. They have daily average trip numbers from 2002 and projected numbers for 2015 and while he is not sure how they arrive at these number but feels it is reliable because this is something the State does quite often and is sure that the Hospital traffic was part of their analysis. Mr. Aderhold suggested conferring with the State regarding their traffic analysis.
He commented that the lighting is a main concern in the residential office district. He offered catalogue cuts from the architect for the lighting. He stated that it is all down lighting and can follow up with more information as it becomes available.
Mr. Aderhold further commented with regard to parking that there are 135 parking spaces planned and 122 are required. He pointed out that there were 128 vehicles in the lot on one day when he stopped to count and recommended staying with the 135 spaces.
Lastly he stated that the drainage is adequately designed for the hospital and voiced his concern about the upslope development affecting the hospital negatively as the runoff has increase already from the current development and any further development could cause serious problems.
Larry Dallas, Director of Support Services for the Hospital, stated that the hospital has applied for and received a FEMA mitigation grant plan. In 2002 the main lobby and elevator shaft flooded and the funds from grant are to be used to improve drainage. When he heard proposed development behind the hospital, concern was high. Mr. Dallas feels they can deal with the current problem but is not sure about further development.
Mr. Dallas commented that there is a temporary dog kennel over a property line and it will be moved. He said there is a deck that is used for long term care patients that is in the setback area. Mr. Dallas said that the neighboring lot is a park and asked for consideration to leave the deck there rather than having to move it. He commented the hospital would be willing to get whatever permit is necessary to leave it as it is.
Mr. Dallas pointed out on the copy of the plans how the parking would change and it would keep the traffic flow on the street rather than through hospital parking.
Kenton Bloom, a city resident, commented that he had not been recognized to speak during public comments and presentations and stated that he would like to be recognized after this item.
Debra Spencer, a resident outside city limits, commented that everything should be geared around public safety. She spoke to her beliefs that the public water is poisoned and there should be no more development until the water problem is fixed.
Bill Smith, city resident, commented that the existing lighting doesn’t come close to the standard that the City now has. He recommended a requirement be added that the existing lighting be re-done to match the new lighting.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED THAT STAFF REPORT PL 05-32 RE: REQUEST FOR A CUP 05-06 RE: KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH AND SOUTH PENINSULA HOSPITAL REQUESTOR A CONDITION USE PERMIT TO EXPAND THE EXISTING HOSPITAL AS PERMITTED BY HCC 21.47.030(D) AND 21.61, LOCATED 4300 BARTLETT STREET, TRACT A SOUTH PENINSULA HOSPITAL SUBDIVISION, FAIRVIEW SUBDIVISION LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 8 AND LOTS 2,3,4,5 AND 6, BLOCK 7, WITH THE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Commissioner Kranich questioned the requirement for the traffic analysis. City Planner McKibben explained that the Trip Generation Manual that staff uses holds a series of examples for hospitals. She said the existing facility exceeded 500 trips per day, which is a trigger for an impact analysis, and the new information does show that there will be enough traffic generated for an impact analysis.
There was discussion about the deck and Mr. Dallas said it is about 6 feet into the setback. The Commission briefly discussed alternatives. City Planner McKibben stated that it does not meet the four points required for a variance.
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO ALLOW THE DECK OUTSIDE LONG TERM CARE TO STAY IN CURRENT CONFIGURATION.
Commissioner Hess commented that he appreciates the fact that this deck is beneficial to the long term care patients, but that it brings up a situation where they are giving special circumstance to one property and not treating it the same as others where they would be expected to adhere to the setback rules.
Chair Chesley agreed with Mr. Hess.
VOTE: YES: LEHNER, KRANICH, FOSTER, PFEIL
NO: HESS, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
PFEIL/KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOUR TO INCLUDE THAT EXISTING EXTERIOR LIGHTING CONFORM TO THE COMMUNITY DESIGN MANUAL WITHIN ONE YEAR.
Commissioner Pfeil commented that he has lived near the hospital for 30 years and the lights are awfully bright. Mr. Pfeil mentioned the noise coming from, what he believed to be air conditioning units, on the roof. Mr. Dallas confirmed that they are air-handling units.
VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS
Motion carried.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO ADD CONDITION SIX UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE ZONING PERMIT.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED THAT IF MITIGATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, STAFF WORK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO IDENTIFY THE MITIGATION MEASURES.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
There was no discussion.
Motion carried.
PFEIL/KRANICH MOVED TO ADD CONDITION SEVEN UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ANY NEW OR EXISTING OUTDOOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MUFFLED SO AS NOT TO EXCEED 50 DECIBELS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 PM AND 6:00 AM AND 80 DECIBELS AT ALL OTHER TIMES AT THE PROPERTY. [1]
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion): YES: PFEIL, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
At the conclusion of this public hearing Chair Chesley, with agreement from the Commission, allowed public comment from Kenton Bloom and Mitch Hrachiar.
Kenton Bloom, city resident, asked the Commission to take exception to Informational Item K, regarding the sign code violation in Residential Office District on his property. Mr. Bloom informed the Commission that he has not had a sign up for over a year and the sign that was up previously, did conform to the requirements. He did not respond to the letter but feels that before a letter is issued; the property should at least be viewed to confirm the violation. He feels this is the wrong way to approach a zoning violation. There should be a violation before a letter is sent.
Chair Chesley apologized on behalf of the staff and Commission. He commented that there have been discussions on the handling of notice of sign violations in the Residential Office District and are looking at better ways to address it.
Mr. Bloom stated that he does not object to the sign code and supports the direction it is going. He objects to being included on a list when he doesn’t even have a sign.
Mitch Hrachiar, borough resident, commented with regard to Staff Report PL 05-33 regarding the installation of a communication tower. He commented that he would like clarification about how the tower can be defined as a public utility and voiced his concern that there would be flashing lights required on the tower. He commented that he had spoken to Planning Technician Eggertsen-Goff who informed him that a tower that is less than 100 feet does not require flashing lights. He explained that his residence is across the bowl from the proposed location of the tower and he is concerned about having flashing lights outside his window. He encouraged staff to get clarification from the FAA and FCC on lighting requirements for the tower.
B. Staff
Report PL 05-33 Re: CUP 05-07 Geophysical
Institute, University of Alaska, Request For Approval Of An 80 foot
Communication Tower as Permitted by HCC 21.44.030 (i) Located At 3751 Sterling
Highway, Legal Description: SW1/4 SE1/4
NW1/4 & SE1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4 South of Sterling Highway
KRANICH/FOSTER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT
PL 05-33 Re: CUP 05-07 Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Request
For Approval Of An 80 foot Communication Tower as Permitted by HCC 21.44.030
(i) Located At 3751 Sterling Highway, Legal Description: SW1/4 SE1/4 NW1/4 & SE1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4
South of Sterling Highway WITH FINDINGS AND THE FOLLOWING STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Commissioner
Kranich, Chair Chesley and City Planner McKibben discussed the lighting and
condition number four that the
project will meet all other applicable local, state and federal laws. Planning Technician Eggertsen-Goff had
explained to Mr. Hrachiar that towers under 100 feet do not require flashing
lights and the tower cannot be over 80 feet because that is what the
conditional use permit is for. There
was comment that the Commission add a condition that there be no flashing
lights added.
Commissioner Foster
questioned the inference of the tower as a public utility. City Planner McKibben replied that the
application used is that the University of Alaska is a public university. She read HCC 21.32.410 Public utility facility or structure. For the purpose of requiring a conditional
use permit, "public utility facility or structure" means any facility
or structure which is owned and operated by a public or private utility but
specifically excludes the water distribution mains, pressure stations and
hydrants, sewage collection, manholes and lift stations, underground and
overhead electrical, television and telephone lines and poles and street
lights.
Chair Chesley suggested that since the University’s
research has been ongoing since 1969 and they are replacing an existing tower,
they would have a non-conforming use there and the current code allows the
expansion of a non-conforming use. To
avoid the public utility debate and accepting it as a non-conforming structure,
the same end can be achieved.
City Planner
McKibben suggested a separate staff report and action for the non-conforming
use.
VOTE: NO:
LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion failed.
Chair Chesley
clarified that the Commission’s finding is that the use is not permitted either
outright or conditionally by HCC 21.44.030(i) because a university
communication tower does not meet the criteria of a public utility.
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 05-34 Re: John B. Fenger Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary
Plat.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO ACCEPT Staff Report PL 05-34 Re: John B. Fenger Subdivision No. 2
Preliminary Plat WITH THE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Carlos Freeman, surveyor, commented that the
purpose here is to combine three lots into one. There are granted easements on the original plat that are not
needed if it is one lot so they will proceed to vacate those as noted in
recommendation 3. Mr. Freeman concurs
with staff recommendation 1 & 2.
Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Freeman if it
is his understanding that the right-of-way on either side is 50 feet. Mr. Freeman replied that it was originally
30 feet but has been updated and a lot of the properties have gone to the
50-foot dedication.
City Planner McKibben noted that this is one
section of Kachemak Drive is not platted, so this would create right-of-way for
that road and staff has been consistently requiring the 50 feet for the 100
foot right-of-way.
Commissioner Hess questioned whether the
removal of the road easement would require a separate application through the
Borough. Mr. Freeman replied that it
would go through a Borough vacation process.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL 05-35 Re: Eagle View Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary
Plat.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER LEHNER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Commissioner Lehner commented that she owns several properties in the vicinity of this property and has strong feelings with regard to what happens.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
KRANICH/FOSTER
MOVED TO APPROVE Staff Report PL 05-35 Re: Eagle View Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary Plat
WITH THE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Dedicate a ten-foot drainage easement along
the east property line of Lot 32A.
Roger Imhoff, surveyor, had no comments but
was available for questions.
Commissioner Hess questioned the comments in the staff report regarding 3:1 length width ratio and the possible wetlands.
City Planner McKibben directed the Commission to a laydown that was provided by the Soil and Water Conservation district who asked that a note be placed on the plat restricting fill, draining or other development in the area and that the wetland boundary be delineated on the plat. Ms. McKibben also stated that the lots are outside the Homer general permit wetland area so any development activities would have to go through the Corp of Engineers(COE).
Mr. Imhoff followed up with a comment that a lift station would be required for a sewer service whether these lots are subdivided or not.
Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Imhoff if building is prohibited where the plat shows wet ground. Mr. Imhoff replied that the Borough Subdivision Code requires that the plat show where there is wet or swampy ground, so that is what he tried to do for the plat. He is not going to state that a person cannot build in the wet ground area, but will state that if a person is intending to build they will be required to get a COE permit.
Chair Chesley stated that at a previous meeting the Commission determined that a Commissioner who declared a conflict of interest would be allowed to speak as a member of the public.
Devony Lehner, property owner in Eagle View Subdivision, read a letter listing her concerns and suggested solution. A copy was provided for the record. Her main points of concern were:
ü The replat may lead to degradation of the Diamond Creek Wetlands. She attests that the lower portion of all three lots is definitely a wetland.
ü This replat may permanently impair recreation and other public benefits on adjacent lands. The replat will increase the likelihood of negative impacts to both the Homer Demonstration Forest and recreational trails in this area.
ü This replat ay permanently reduce surrounding property values. As lots become smaller and narrower, it is difficult to achieve adequate separation between the well on a middle lot and the leach fields on adjacent lots.
Her recommendations are summarized as follows:
ü Obtain a current wetlands map of the relevant parcels and surrounding areas
ü Once wetlands are identified a conservation easement shall be granted that will permanently protect these “unusable” areas.
Mr. Imhoff commented that he didn’t disagree with Ms. Lehner’s comments and that they should be happy that the developer is not proposing development of the wetlands. A conservation easements is not something Mr. Imhoff can agree to, only plat notes and make suggestions to the owner. The owner wants to create the subdivision and it seems to meet Borough Code. A licensed engineer will be testing soils for plat approval, and if there are not adequate soils or adequate separation distances between water supplies and septic systems, then it won’t fly.
Chair Chesley questioned the separation distance with the proposed smaller lots. Mr. Imhoff said the requirement is that each lot has to have 20,000 sf of leach field area, which is 10,000 sf plus another 10,000 sf for replacement area. The water supply has to be 100 feet from the leach field and a community system has to be 200 feet. It appears that there is a shallow mound system for the existing house and Mr. Imhoff imagines that t bio-cycle or another type of environmentally friendly system would be recommended for these soil situations.
Commissioner Hess questioned Mr. Imhoff on his opinion of the Planning Commission using City Ordinance 20.04.010, which states “to protect and improve the health, safety and general welfare of people” for a reason of denying a plat.[2]
Mr. Imhoff replied that would be a question for their legal advisor.
Commissioner Kranich asked if the property owner resides in the house that is currently there. Mr. Imhoff replied that he does live in the Eagle View subdivision, but not on this particular property. The previous owner had started the house and Mr. Clay, the current owner is finishing it up.
Making
reference to the 3 to 1 ratio Commissioner Foster cited Borough Code 20.24.010
A. The commission may authorize exceptions to any of the
requirements set forth in these regulations. Application for any such exception
shall present the commission with substantial evidence, justifying the
requested waiver or exception stating fully the grounds for the application and
the facts relied upon. The commission shall find the following facts before
granting any exceptions:
1. That special circumstances or conditions affecting the property have been shown by application;
2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and is the most practical manner of complying with the intent of this title;
3. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which said property is situated.
He commented that he isn’t sure the three reasons for granting exception are being met. Unless they can come up with good findings, Dr. Foster doesn’t see how they can recommend an exception to the 3 to 1.
Commissioner Foster offered his recommendation would be to postpone action and have the applicant come in and look at some of the suggestions that were made during public testimony or other alternative so they can make this work for everyone.
Commissioner Kranich concurred saying that the Borough criteria for the ratio are pretty stringent and with the information provided it doesn’t appear there is sufficient data to satisfy the Borough’s criteria.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE TIME WHEN THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND STAFF TO BRING THIS BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
C. Memorandum Re: Staff Report PL 04-104 Re: Tsunami View Subdivision Preliminary Plat – Postponed
12-1-04 & 12-15-04 & 3-16-05.
Item C. was postponed at the applicant’s request.
D. Staff Report PL 05-36 Re: Virginia
Lynn Subdivision No. 6 Preliminary Plat
KRANICH/PFEIL MOVED FOR THE ADOPTION OF Staff Report PL 05-36 Re: Virginia Lynn Subdivision No. 6 Preliminary Plat AND THE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Planning
Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat.
Kenton Bloom, surveyor, had no comments but
was available to answer questions.
City Planner McKibben directed the Commission
to laydowns regarding the proposed subdivision. She summarized they are comments received on the proposed
subdivision the proposed subdivision is contrary to covenants in the
subdivision and concerns about drainage.
Commissioner Foster stated that he realizes
that the Planning Commission does not enforce covenants but asked if the
applicant is aware of the covenants.
Mr. Bloom said he had asked the applicant and the applicant’s reply was
that the covenants had expired.
Mary Jane Shows, city resident, owns the property
directly above the applicants, Mr. Rouse, property. She commented that she has a copy of the covenants, which state
that the property can’t be subdivided.
She prepared a petition opposing the subdivision, received 26 signatures
from property owners in the area, and stated that others who are out of town
would be willing to sign if needed. She
also had a letter from Gail Parsons and Michael Swan, who weren’t able to
attend the meeting.
Ms. Shows stated it is her understanding that
the intended development is to build a duplex and a shop on what would be the
lot next to her and a residence on the lower lot. She questioned if there would be room for all of that on such a
small lot. Ms. Shows also voiced her
concern that in history before building in the subdivision the creek ran across
the road, down her lot and into Mr. Rouse’s lot, so there is a gully
there. The proposed property will have
come in and put fill on the gully which runs along two sides of her lot. She is concerned that the water that comes
off her roof and along side her house won’t have anyplace to go. The bottom of her lot is a low spot.
Ms. Shows further commented that Mr. Rouse
put in a very small driveway on the corner of Aurora and Mattox. She was told it is a temporary driveway
because of its location on the corner, but if the lot were subdivided then this
would be the only access to the lot where the duplex is to be located.
Commissioner Kranich read a section of the
covenants under duration. In summary,
it states that the covenants are in effect for 25 years and shall be
automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years unless an instrument
revoking or modifying is signed by a majority of the lot owners. It appears that they were recorded in
1984. The 25 years has not expired as
of this day.
Commissioner Foster made comment that the
covenants are strict and although the Commission does not enforce covenants,
specific lots are identified for duplexes and tri-plexes, and this is not one
of these lots. It was determined that
there is not an active homeowners association.
City Planner McKibben pointed out for the
Commission that covenants are a civil matter and the City and Borough do not
get involved in enforcing them.
Ms. Shows gave copies of the letter and
petition to City Planner McKibben.
Lou Marion, property owner at the corner of
Cook and Mattox, expressed his concern that the bottom of Mattox is swampy and
the more structures that built up higher will cause the lower areas to get
wetter and have a negative effect on the drainage to the lower areas where his
lot is located.
Glen Satterfield, property owner at 4013
Mattox, stated his lot is just below the Mr. Rouse’s lot. He expressed his concern with the drainage
issue. He said before Mr. Rouse cleared
his property he had problems with drainage around his house and now that the
lot is cleared, it is worse. He
purchased his property because it is in a residential area and doesn’t want to
live around duplexes and apartment buildings.
Mr. Satterfield commented that there is talk of the lot above his being
raised and if that happens his property will be washed away. In closing he commented that these are
residential lots and if he subdivides there is not room to build on them.
Tim Buller stated he is a 16 year resident of
the subdivision. He commented that he
sees a question as a matter of density and protection of property values of
current homeowners. The proposed lots
in the subdivision are 700 square feet each and most of the other lots in the subdivision
are in the range of 12,000 to 14,000 square feet. He reiterated that the subdivision covenants specify lots for
building duplexes and that the lot does not qualify for subdivision by the
covenants. He reiterated Ms. Shows
concern about the driveway on the corner.
Kenton Bloom replied to the comments of the
property owners that recognizing the validity of the covenants is not an issue
of his or the Commissions. Mr. Bloom
said the topographic survey that was done was very detailed and the drainage
required on the lot can be accommodated.
Mr. Bloom commented that it is not reasonable to assume what Mr. Rouse’s
building plans are for the lots and to Mr. Bloom’s knowledge Mr. Rouse hasn’t
applied for any permits at this point.
He doesn’t believe that the Commission should bring those points into
their deliberations.
Chair Chesley replied that this is for a land
use division, not a zoning permit. He
asked Mr. Bloom for his input on how they intend to deal with the drainage.
Mr. Bloom said it will go west to east in a
cross culvert.
Commissioner Hess agreed that there are valid
concerns from the neighbors, but there has to be something in the subdivision
code to be able to deny this. If the
application is in order, they should approve it and the neighbors will have to
deal with it in a way that they can.
Commissioner Foster said that he agrees with
Mr. Hess on that point, but if that is the case then there could be a computer
to do the work that the Commission is doing.
The reason citizens sit on the board is to listen to other citizens and
if there is concern, as in this case of negatively affecting the neighborhood,
property value, drainage, etc, the Commission can take that into account. He stated that they are not just going to go
by the letter of the law, because other wise, what is the point of a Planning
Commission. He commented that he would
like to hear the viewpoint of others on the Commission.
Commissioner Lehner said she feels they are
following the letter of the law by exercising latitude in doing what they are
charged to do, which is protecting and improving the health, safety and general
welfare of the people. She continued
that in the few things she has read about how courts have supported
interpretation of those kinds of mandates is that courts have said Planning
Commissions can define pretty generally what constitutes health, safety and
general welfare. She said this is a
case where the general welfare is pretty clear to her to reside in one
direction and an individuals right to do something prohibited by the covenants
goes in another direction. Her welfare
concern is property values. She pointed
out in the Alaska Planning Commission Manual is protecting the stability of
neighborhoods. She believes that means
in terms of the land uses that existed when the neighborhoods were
established. She doesn’t think they
need to be afraid of honestly looking at protecting the health, safety and
general welfare of the people.
Chair Chesley asked for a citation from the
Alaska Planning Commission Manual.
Commissioner Kranich asked for clarification
of the drainage of the lot. If he is
interpreting the contour lines properly, is the drainage going to continue to
run catty-corner between the two lots.
He expressed his concern about the effect of the drainage to other
properties.
Commissioner Lehner was unable to find a
specific citation from the Alaska Planning Commission Manual but read from it
regarding the purpose of subdivision regulation. How does a Planning Commission shape its community character
through subdivision regulations. These
are essential tools that can be used to influence the layout of lots and
streets and coordinate the construction of public infrastructure. She read further that the location and size
of platted lots establishes a template for community development when land is
platted, the pattern of physical development is set and is for all practical
purposes irreversible. She commented
that the point is people have expectations based on the way the land is
originally platted and the covenants that accompany the plats. The Commission has to look at those
expectations, that they will be honored in the subdivision regulations.
Commissioner Hess replied that he believes it
is talking about enforcing the regulations that are already in place.
There was further discussion among
Commissioners as to what rules apply in this case.
Commissioner Pfeil concurs with the negative
impact to the neighborhood and the small parcel size.
Chair Chesley commented that he doesn’t
recall in the three years that he has serve on the Planning Commission having
turned down a plat yet for public welfare.
He suggested that before taking final action it may be beneficial to get
more information from the Mary Toll, Borough Platting Officer and/or City
Attorney Tans.
KRANICH/HESS MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION TO THE
APRIL 20, 2005 MEETING.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at 9:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:00 p.m.
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 05-29 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code
21.59 Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District (BCWPD).
PFEIL/LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE Staff Report PL 05-29 Re:
Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code 21.59 Bridge Creek Watershed
Protection District (BCWPD).
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND THE DRAFT
ORDINANCE LANGUAGE ON LINE 26 AND 37 MAKING THE LOT SIZE CHANGE FROM 2 ACRES TO
2.5 ACRES.
Commissioner Hess commented that not knowing
how many lots this will apply to, he is hesitant to make this amendment. The more lots it affects the greater the
impact on the watershed.
VOTE: YES:
FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH
NO:
HESS
Motion carried.
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED THAT LINES 50 TO 57 IN
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO READ: “FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, DRIVEWAYS AND WALKWAYS MAY BE PARTIALLY OR FULLY EXCLUDED
FROM THE CALCULATION IF CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A
MITIGATION PLAN APPROVED BY THE HOMER ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION.”
Commissioner Kranich commented that once the
Mitigation Manual is in place they will put the old verbiage back. This way they are covered until the manual
is done.
VOTE:
YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, LEHNER,
KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion): YES: KRANICH, FOSTER,
CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS
Motion carried.
The amended draft ordinance was scheduled for
public hearing on April 20, 2005.
B. Staff
Report PL 05-25 Re: Request for Commission Acceptance of
Nonconforming Commercial Use For 3900 Sterling Highway, Lloyd Moore, W1/2,
NW1/4, SW1/4N, W1/4, lying North of the Sterling Highway S15 T6S R14W S.M.
PFEIL/HESS
MOVED TO ADOPT Staff
Report PL 05-25 Re: Request for
Commission Acceptance of Nonconforming Commercial Use For 3900 Sterling
Highway, Lloyd Moore, W1/2, NW1/4, SW1/4N, W1/4, lying North of the Sterling
Highway S15 T6S R14W S.M.
Chair Chesley commented that his
understanding that previously when they were working on zoning the annexed area
that once annexation happened that any use that was happening in those areas
was already grandfathered in, just like it was a non-conforming use and would
continue. For example in this case,
with the commercial business Mr. Moore has which is now in the Urban
Residential District, that can continue throughout his occupancy there as long
as he does not discontinue for one year and if he sells the property the use
would continue to the new property owner as long as the use stays the same.
City Planner McKibben replied that
information is not in the Homer City Code and she will have to check to see if
is in the ordinances that adopted the zone for the annexed area. In the essence of time if the Commission did
not have a problem accepting this as a non-conformity that would save Mr. Moore
another visit.
Chair Chesley expressed his confidence that
the information was in the ordinances that allowed current uses to be
grandfathered in and that the Prior Chair of the Commission Bill Smith could
tell them where to find it.
Commissioner Hess stated that he had talked
to Mr. Smith who indicated that the Commission does need to approve a
non-conforming use.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
C. Staff
Report PL 05-37 Re: Resolution 05-26 A Resolution of the City Council Directing the Planning
Commission and Planning Department to Thoroughly Assess HCC 21.61.105 F.
Community and Economic Impact, and HCC 21.61.105 L. Standards, in their Large
Retail and Wholesale Development Approval and Permitting Process.
Councilmember Novak discussed the intent of
this Resolution which is to highlight what is already in the City’s standards,
which is to get a Community Economic Impact along with a Transportation Impact
on developments over 15,000 square feet.
He wanted to emphasize the impact of larger business in conjunction with
the smaller businesses that Homer already has.
It is not to stop or prevent development, but addresses how it can all
come together in a more positive way for the Community.
Councilmember Novak discussed the
Andersonville Study of Retail Economics that was done by Civic Economics from
Chicago, Ill. He commented that,
ü A study would be done prior to a large store
being built to see what the market is doing, who is here and how much business
they are doing to get a baseline of data.
ü After a large business comes into the
community, additional data would be gathered to measure the impact.
ü It may be determined in looking at the
economic impact that there may be mitigation factors that need to be put in
place.
Mr. Novak commented that his point is that we need to look at ways to
build a stronger community both with a large store and also smaller
stores. Civic Economics can talk to
business owners about dealing with big stores, modifying inventory and changes
they may want to make to stay competitive.
Homer could be a leader in small communities for economic growth.
Chair Chesley cited HCC 21.61.105(f) that
there is a requirement for a Community Impact Analysis and proposed
mitigation. There is enabling
legislation that will allow the Commission to evaluate the community and
economic impact of a proposed development and propose mitigation measures if
there appears to be a negative impact.
This is a new thing for staff, the Commission and the City Council to
consider. Chair Chesley continued that
Mr. Novak suggested that before a application comes along from a developer like
Fred Meyer there needs to be dialogue between the Planning Commission, City
Council and Staff to understand how to interpret the standard and how they are
going to use the information when it comes in from the consultant. It shouldn’t turn out that the Council
disagrees with the Planning Commission because the Commission was trying use
the tool as it is laid out in Code, to mitigate any negative impact on the
Community. They don’t want the Council
to be divided and the Community to go through another uproar over the large
store issue. Mr. Novak’s request is a
pro-active move to say in advance of a development coming, lets get some heads
together to talk about the standards that have been be developed, what we want
to get out of it and lay some ground work so when Community Impact Analysis
comes, staff has clear direction of what the Council and Commission want to get
out of it.
The issue of the cost of having this study
done and bringing it to Fred Meyer for them to participate in the cost was
discussed. It is to their benefit too
because they get the bad rap sometimes that they are going to have a negative
effect on a community. It could show
that more people coming here to shop will have a positive impact and there are
people who would like to see a study like this.
Commissioner Hess added that mitigating is
important, but the information from the study will be what is most valuable for
the community and for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kranich commented that the
baseline information and a follow up study will offer good information.
Chair Chesley recognized that it is the
leaning of the Commission to support the Council engaging in such a baseline
study.
There was discussion regarding creating a
committee or task force made up of two Planning Commissioners, two City Council
Members, City Manager, City Planner and two people from the Community. Chair Chesley suggested Bill Smith be
included as a member because he has been so involved and it will make it seven
members. The primary goal of the group
is for the decision makers and staff have a dialogue because they have never
done anything with this standard before.
Commissioners Hess and Kranich agreed to represent the Commission.
Chair Chesley requested that City Planner
McKibben draft a short memo that it was the leaning of the Commission to work
with City Council on the standard HCC 21.61.105 (f) and that Commissioners Hess
and Kranich to work with representatives of the Council and the City Manager
and City Planner.
Upon completion of this discussion Chair Chesley asked to change the agenda, he has one quick thing on the base of the spit right-of-way while Commissioner Novak was present. Mr. Novak agreed that if the Commission took action tonight that he would sponsor a resolution for the City Manager to begin leasing that right-of-way.
Commissioner Kranich asked if it could be taken up since it was not advertised on the agenda.
Chair Chesley asked for clarification. The Commission spoke unanimously in favor of leasing the DOT right-of-way and he had asked the Commission for permission to talk to the Beach Policy Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission had voted in favor of supporting leasing that property for additional spit trail parking. Since the Commission supported that previously, then it wouldn’t need to come back with a motion. Chair Chesley gave information to Councilmember Novak to prepare the resolution.
D. Staff
Report PL 05-38 Re: Proposed Amendment To Homer City Code Re: More than One Permitted Principle Use on a
Lot.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO APPROVE Staff Report PL 05-38 Re: Proposed
Amendment To Homer City Code Re: More
than One Permitted Principle Use on a Lot.
City Planner McKibben commented about
discussion with Commissioner Hess and Chair Chesley regarding this topic. She said the conditional uses that are
processed for more than one permitted usage on a lot are going through with no
additional conditions, it seems reasonable that if the use is permitted
outright, it meets the setback requirements, density requirements, parking
requirements and so forth, then she is not sure they warrant the additional
review that a conditional use permit (CUP) requires. The work that goes into CUP is substantial. The applicant has to apply for the CUP and a
zoning permit. Staff has to notify
property owners within 300 feet, time to prepare the notice and the map and
postage to mail it, coordinate reviews with the fire department and public
works and draft staff report. She
believes that it would benefit the public and also the Planning Commission and
Staff by lightening their work load.
Bill Smith commented that he is in support of
this. He thinks one of the things we
want in our Commercial District is to see denser development and of course
everything over 8000 square feet requires a CUP. His concern is for the residential districts and previous
conversations had been that there be a specified square footage per residence
rather than just a blanket dispensation.
Setting a limitation of size of each house per square foot of lot size
and anything over would require a CUP would be one way of dealing with that.
The Commission talked about the different
residential districts requirements for dwelling units and minimum lot
sizes. The CBD doesn’t address dwelling
units, only minimum lot size but the residential districts, with exception of
Residential Office, are tied to dwellings.
Chair Chesley clarified that this change was
proposed as an enabling tool to make the Planning Department and Planning
Commission more efficient and make the process easier and less costly for the
applicant. The other things that they
have been discussing relate to the work list for revising the subdivision code,
because those are significant changes that will take time.
City Planner McKibben suggested that a way to
handle Residential Office would be the same way Commercial Districts are
handled with 30% coverage requiring a CUP with another amendment. She pointed some housekeeping changes on the
draft ordinance that she made in the Marine Industrial District.
FOSTER/KRANICH MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION TO
THE APRIL 20, 2005 MEETING.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
E. Staff
Report PL 05-02 Amended Re: Draft – 2001 Homer Area Transportation
Plan, Updated 2004.
The Commission discussed addressing this at
the next worksession in hopes of finalizing it at the regular meeting.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO POSTPONE THE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO THE APRIL 20, 2005 WORKSESSION AND REGULAR MEETING.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
F. Staff Report PL 04-109 Re: Commission
Work List – Ongoing.
Commissioner Hess added to review uses for
marine industrial for theater use examine use in other commercial districts.
The Commission reviewed what they had listed
on the flip chart.
Chair Chesley queried Mr. Smith regarding
grandfathering in uses after annexation.
Mr. Smith replied that if code changes and the use exists then it is
accepted as non-conforming but if the use is changed or discontinued at all,
they are no longer eligible for that status.
G. Staff
Report PL 05-39 Re: Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan
Update.
There is to be a joint meeting with the
Planning Commission at the City Council Committee of the Whole meeting to work
on the update. City Planner McKibben
commented that there will be a presentation to the Council, if the Commission
wants to make comment they can and the Council will take action at their next
meeting.
H. Memorandum
05-56 To Mayor Hornaday and Homer City Council from Val McLay, Councilmember
re: Zoning Buffer.
Chair Chesley drew a diagram on the
chalkboard to clarify that the concern here is when a property owner owns
contiguous lots. As the code reads now,
the lot with the structure on it has to have a landscaped buffer between it and
the next lot.
Commissioner Hess commented that this is a
situation where there is a code amendment and something appears that wasn’t
taken into account. He offered the
following code language to address the concern:
h.
Landscaping Requirements. All
development of lands in this zoning distract shall conform to the following:
1. Landscaping shall include the retention
of native vegetation to the maximum extend possible and shall consist of the
following:
a. Buffers:
i: 3 feet
minimum width along all lot lines where setbacks permit
Exception: The three-foot buffer is not required where
a single use is contiguous across common lot lines such as but not limited to,
shared driveways and parking areas.
Whenever such contiguous sues cease, the required buffers shall be installed.
Commissioner Pfeil confirmed that this
applies to common lot lines.
There was discussion about the requirements
that were made for Safeway and how those requirements fell under the
landscaping requirements for large retail in the conditional use area.
Commissioner Foster voiced his agreement with
the proposed language.
KRANICH/FOSTER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED
AMENDED LANGUAGE IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster commented that they had
their next to last meeting with the consultant who has been working on the
Comprehensive Plan. He commented that
nothing from the City is up for the next Borough Planning Commission Meeting.
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning
Commission Report
There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning
Commission Report.
PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT
City Planner McKibben commented that she and
Planning Technicians Engebretsen and Egertsen-Goff attended the Flood Plane
Workshop. She felt that a lot of useful
information came from breaking into discussion groups; and that a lot of things
came out of the workshop that are real tangible things for people to do,
including an amendment to the Borough Comp Plan that could mean a lot to the infrastructure
of the Borough and she was able to talk with Kristy Miller, Floodplain Manager
for the State. She was appreciative of
the opportunity to attend.
The Town Center Development Committee (TCDC)
is trying to finish up in June, so there are a lot of meetings coming up.
Chair Chesley asked if the Council had issued
their opinion on the Vann appeal. Ms.
McKibben said that they have stated their intention to issue their decision in
an open meeting and assumes it will be at the April 11, 2005 Council meeting
but wasn’t sure.
Chair Chesley questioned the status on the
landscaping amendments. Ms. McKibben
said that was adopted several months ago and should be out with the next Code
Amendment.
Mr. Chesley questioned the status of the
issue of delegation of authority that came up in the Griswold appeal of the
Deakins permit. City Planner McKibben
said there hasn’t been anything done yet on that.
Commissioner Foster asked City Planner
McKibben if she had looked at the hazard mitigation information in regard to
the Tsunami View Subdivision. Ms.
McKibben said she has been discussing it with Kristy Miller.
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.
A. Gordon
Tans answer to Bruce Hess’s questions regarding the Open Meetings Act.
B. Information
from Frank Griswold dated March 17, 2005 re: Chairman’s right to make motions
(small board meeting).
D. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Julia Ann Currier re: 309 West Fairview Avenue.
E. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Gary & Gaylee Mastolier re: 3953
Bartlett Street.
F. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Homer Church of Christ re: 863 East
End Road.
G. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Nathan Wise re: 960 East End Road.
H. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Geoff & Susan Coble re: 960 East
End Road.
I. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Tom Keesecker, Seldovia Village Tribe IRA
re: 890 East End
Road.
J. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Patrick Huffman re: 1020 East End Road.
K. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Kenton Bloom re: 1044 East End Road.
L. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Martin Zeller re: 1060 East End
Road.
M. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Kenai Peninsula Borough re: 4122 Ben
Walters Lane.
N. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
to Christopher & Angela Newby re: 4141 Pennock Street.
O. Informational
letter dated March 10, 2005 regarding sign code violation in Residential office
Paradox Building Management re: 4136 Bartlett Street.
P. Informational
letter to Shayne & Nikki Baringer dated March 14, 2005 regarding permitted
activities in the Urban Residential zone at 671 Sterling Highway.
Q. Informational
letter to Valentin Caspaar dated March 22, 2005 re: Save-U-More, 3611 Greatland Street – Change of Use Permit
required for pizza parlor.
R. Informational
letter to Mike Yourkowski dated March 23, 2005 re: Allowed uses in the Residential Office Zoning District.
S. Info
from Carole Hamik Re: Gateway Planning
Chair Chesley commented that he has started to work on an amendment to the Residential Office District zoning sign issue to try and get it taken care of. He will get Ms. McKibben a copy of the draft to review.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on
any subject. The Chair may prescribe time
limits.
Chair Chesley stated that because of the late hour a five-minute time limit would be set for each speaker during audience comments.
Debra Spencer spoke of her concerns about the tower that is proposed scares her. She mentioned that she has no access to a computer because her phone has been cut off and she can’t take the public use information home that the City has. She spoke again to her concerns that the water is contaminated. She further commented that we are being exposed to radiation every time someone digs a hole. She wants the community to be aware of it. She advised the Commission she has a power plant module in her front yard that is open for anyone to go into, it is emitting sulfuric battery and she wants to know the levels. She wants the children to have a future. She has tried to contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA but they hang up on her. She spoke of concerns about oil leaking up from the ground and coal bed methane bubbles in the water. She wished she could have spoken to the gentleman who was there earlier when she bought the house, but commented that maybe he never existed, she isn’t sure anymore. She made further comment reiterating her concerns until her time expired.
Bill Smith commented about an issue in GC1 has been festering for a long time. It could be considered to add certain residential uses as allowed in GC1. If some of the language from the CBD was adopted that there be a mixture of residential and commercial uses with conflicts being resolved in favor of business. It is already allowed to have residential uses when they are built onto the commercial use. He suggested adding in permitted uses single-family residences and duplexes. Any multi-family would have to be related to other commercial uses. That would satisfy the develop pattern that we see in Homer. It would be nice if they could slide it in with their other amendments.
Mr. Smith commented that the TCDC is looking at plans that the consultant has been putting together. There will be a public process occurs. The Committee has to deliver their report to the Planning Commission by June 30, 2005. They are encouraging public input for feedback and amendments prior to the June 30 deadline.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including
requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Kranich commented that the
Andersonville study comments pertaining to public revenue and economic
development. It refers to factories or
corporate headquarters that produce goods and services for export and how they
draw income into communities. He spoke
of the need to be marketing Homer for the home office for the Pebble Mine
project.
Mr. Kranich commented that he was interested
to see the communication between Commissioner Hess and City Attorney Tans
pertaining to the Open Meetings Act. It
brought up another issue in his mind of ex-parte communication, which the
Commission had training on prior to his being appointed to the Commission. He brought up an issue that there was a
recent topic before the Commission, the Crittenden vacation. He stated that he has known Mr. Herndon
lifelong and Mr. Bartholomew for five years.
Mr. Kranich said he purposefully did not even acknowledge those people
prior to or during discussion of their proposed vacation. Mr. Kranich stated that he has personal
knowledge that there were other Commissioners who rode with Mr. Herndon to look
at the property and the project, but no Commissioner declared that they had
ex-parte communication. He warned that
it only takes that information to get back to the wrong person and there could
be a legal challenge come up on an action that the Commission takes and said
that we all need to be mindful of ex-parte communication.
Along the same line Mr. Kranich said he was
disappointed when he read the minutes of the Parks and Recreation meeting that
took place the night after the Commissions meeting on Crittenden. In review of the minutes from the Planning
meeting they were fairly favorable in that they had encouraged that staff work
with the applicants to see if the was some way to accomplish their goal. When he read the Parks and Recreation
meeting minutes, Mr. Kranich felt that the representative from the Planning
Commission who was there painted a different tone.
Chair Chesley raised to speak to that. He stated that he was at the Parks and
Recreation meeting and he worked very hard to speak in a very balanced
manner. He stated that Mr. Smith spoke
his opinion against the vacation, but Chair Chesley stated that he never spoke
against it. He stated he is working now
on an amendment on Crittenden Way to work with the developer, even though they
have withdrawn their application.
Commissioner Kranich stressed that in reading
the minutes from the Parks and Recreation Commission, which are public record,
he was very shocked and balanced is not how that public record is
perceived.
Commissioner Pfeil interjected a comment that
this is the second time that Commissioner Kranich has made an observation that
was totally unfounded...
Chair Chesley stepped in and finished the
statement that when Mr. Kranich criticized Commissioner Hess for being out of
line, Mr. Hess never even said what was written in the minutes. That was a wrong criticism of Mr. Hess
because Mr. Kranich based it on the letter from the Planning Department that
Mr. Hess directed and when he went back and read the minutes, it was never in
the minutes that Mr. Hess directed staff to write the letter.
Mr. Kranich asked why the Planning Department
wrote the letter.
Chair Chesley replied that they wrote the
letter for some reason, but Mr. Smith did a lot of research on those minutes
and wrote a 4 or 5 page memo on that very thing. Chair Chesley told Mr. Kranich that he was wrong and owed
Commissioner Hess an apology. Mr.
Kranich did not agree that he owed an apology.
Chair Chesley warned that Mr. Kranich should be careful if he starts
calling Commissioners for behaving improperly in the future. Commissioner Kranich was attempting to make
comment, but Chair Chesley hit the gavel and told Mr. Kranich he was cutting
him off and they were going to move on.
He said that he was very upset with Mr. Kranich and Mr. Kranich said he
was very upset with that last action.
Commissioner Foster thanked the Planning
Department for participating in the workshop.
He said they had a great time and accomplished a lot.
Commissioner Pfeil thanked the Commissioners
for all their work.
Commissioner Hess had no comment.
Commissioner Lehner commented that her
husband had spoken to a friend of theirs who owns a lot adjacent to the Eagle
View Subdivision. She hadn’t received a
packet of information on the proposed subdivision because it was sent to the previous
owner. The neighbor spoke to the Planning
Department and was told that it is a routine matter that had to do with
realigning the lot boundaries to address where the water source was located and
that there was no point in making comment.
Ms. Lehner commented that her information was second hand but what ever
she was told by the Planning Department was so erroneous that she was
startled. Ms. Lehner wants people to
know that they are free to give their opinion about what is going on in the
community, particularly when it is not a routine matter.
Chair thanked everyone for their work on the
meeting tonight.
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 adjourned at 12:5 a.m.
The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers. There will
be a worksession at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY
CLERK
Approved: