Session 07-13, a Regular Meeting of the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER
CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, ZAK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER
HOWARD (Excused)
STAFF:
DEPUTY
PUBLIC
WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
AGENDA
APPROVAL
Chair
Kranich requested that item D. under Plat Consideration be moved to item A.
The amended 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 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
2. Time Extension Requests
3. Approval of City of
4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
5. Commissioner Excused Absences
a. Barbara Howard
The consent agenda was approved by consensus of
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 scheduled.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster commented that they had a long
meeting on Monday. There were a number of appeals to the fifty foot habitat
protection ordinance on the
B.
There was no KBAPC Report.
C. Planning Director’s Report
City
Planner McKibben reviewed her staff report that was included in the packet.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
The
Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public
testimony and then 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.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and
read the staff recommendations.
Chair Kranich noted a laydown item from Karin Marks
in support of the action.
Roger Imhoff, applicants representative, advised
the Commission that it came to his attention today that the action of vacating
a lot line is not considered to be a subdivision and it is questionable whether
the City has the authority to require the granting of utility easements. However, the owners are w
Chair Kranich opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT
PL07-58 BUNNELL SUBDIVISION NO. 21 VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH STAFF
COMMENTS
Planning Commission recommend
approval of the vacation of the alleyways as shown.
It was clarified that the first 57 feet of the
right-of-way off
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
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. The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation
on agenda items that involve an applicant.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and
read the staff recommendations.
Don Mullikin, applicant’s representative, commented
that he and the property owner are available for questions. He said they agree
with the staff recommendations and noted that he neglected to show the drainage
easements on the survey. He pointed out
the drainages on the aerial photo.
Question was raised as to whether the lots meet the
3 to 1 length to width ratio. Mr. Mullikin responded that essentially they
do. The frontage on lots three and four
has to have exception from the Borough, but lot two meets the three to one.
They are making the existing lot one wider than it was before. Mr. Mullikin
said the reasoning for the exception is because of the terrain and location of
the top of the bluff leaves no choice other than the long lot configuration.
Commissioner Foster noted that the Borough would generally look to see if the
buildable section of the lot would meet the 3 to 1. Mr. Mullikin added that the
extensions of the longer portions are a buffer zone where steep land can be
left as is.
Shirley Fedora, owner of lots 6 and 7
City Planner McKibben noted for the record that
notices were sent to 26 landowners of 27 parcels. These are property owners
within 500 feet. One notice was returned. The information for the mailing is
taken from the Borough website. They were mailed on August 4th.
Ms. Fedora commented that everyone on
There were no further comments.
MINSCH/CHESLEY I MAKE A MOTION WE ADOPT STAFF
REPORT PL07-73, Staubyeska Subdivision
Preliminary Plat WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Planning
Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following
comments:
It was noted that the flag on the lot 2 is 341.77
feet in length. Question was raised whether the Commission should make a recommendation
more specific to the fire code language so it is the standard for the
recommendation. City Planner McKibben commented that after her discussion with
the Fire Chief, his comments are consistent to where they left off as far as
the City can exercise the requirement at this point.
FOSTER/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD
A COMMENT THAT WOULD STATE THAT THE BUILDABLE PORTION OF EACH
This comment will ensure that the City is
consistent with the Borough’s length to width ratio and the way the Borough is
calculating it. It would support the
applicants request for an exception.
Discussion ensued regarding the Borough’s policy on
calculation of the ratio. Commissioner Zak expressed his disagreement that it
shouldn’t be restricted to the buildable area.
Commissioner Foster rebutted that the area they are planning to build on
does meet the Borough requirement and therefore it should get the exception.
CHESLEY/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO
Commissioner Hess commented that when the plat
comes back he would like information regarding this situation where the lot
line gets moved and the City line is in the portion of a lot and how the City
treats that in a zoning situation.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and
read staff recommendations.
There were no applicant or public comments. Chair Kranich noted a letter from Paul
Sandhofer in opposition to approval of this plat.
CHESLEY/MINSCH I
STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission
recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
It was noted that the letter provided as a laydown
references a vacation which has already taken place and the right-of-way has
been reduced to at 20 foot pedestrian easement.
Other discussion points included
·
Items
3, 5, 6 and 9 under the analysis commented that there are deficiencies. Those
deficiencies are addressed in the staff recommendations.
·
Add
a plat note in reference to the erosion study.
FOSTER/HESS I
It was noted that it would be recommendation number
5.
City Planner McKibben said staff can research the
specific erosion rate for this particular site and provide the information to
the Borough.
VOTE: (Primary amendment) NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion
as amended.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess requested the Commission excuse
him based on the Ethics Ordinance,
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD
There was brief discussion regarding the ethics
ordinance.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess left the table.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and
read the staff recommendations.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that he has
nothing to add, but is available for questions.
It was noted that amendment to recommendation 8 regarding
a 15 foot utility easement along the right-of-way would be consistent. It was
further noted that the substandard lot being created here can be replatted and
added to the larger lot.
There was brief discussion regarding the
substandard lot that would be created.
Rick Alexander, property owner in the Bridge Creek
Watershed District, questioned the City’s exemption from meeting the mitigation
standards. There was discussion that City Utilities are subject to the minimum
lot size requirement; however the City plans to meet the standards to set a
good precedence in the area and demonstrate what can be done for mitigation.
MINSCH/ZAK MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL07-52
HILLSTRAND’S HOMESTEAD PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Planning Commission
recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
1. A plat note indicating that this subdivision may contain
wetlands. Property owners should contact
the Army Corp. of Engineers prior to any on-site development or construction
activity to obtain the most current wetlands designation (if any).
2. A plat note indicating the land is subject to the provisions of
the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District regulations and landowners
should contact the City of
3. A plat note stating that the impervious coverage on the
‘unsubdivided remainder’ is limited to 3.95%.
4. Depict
5. Add a plat note stating that Bridge Creek is a Class A public
water system and provide DEC separation distance information for sewage
disposal systems.
6. Include plat notes from the parent plat, Tulin Terrace Upper
Terrace, describing the existing utility easements and tree buffers.
7. Add the City of
8. Increase the utility easement per Public Works Recommendation.
9. Number the ‘unsubdivided remainder’ as a lot.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I
There was no discussion.
VOTE:(Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion
as amended.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The Chair called for a short break at
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and
read staff recommendations.
Roger Imhoff, applicant’s representative, spoke to
the Commission regarding the property owner’s willingness to grant the utility
easement with the exception of the area around the existing sign. Mr. Imhoff
expressed concern regarding staff recommendation 6 and the statement that
drainage easements are “normally” 30 feet in width. As far as he knows there are no drainage
easement requirements in City Code and the easement really depends on the size
of the drainage.
Mr. Imhoff clarified plat note 7 regarding the
existing underground power line. He believes it is located from the northeast
corner of the lot that has the Christian Science building, over to the Pioneer
Inn building. Mr. Imhoff said note 7 is common as
MINSCH/ZAK I
Planning Commission
recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
1. Dedicate a 15 foot utility easement along
The issue of the easement and the sign was
discussed briefly. The subdivision code does not apply when removing lot lines,
but the City can request a property owner grant an easement.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant can work out the easement/sign issue
with public works before it goes to final plat.
VOTE (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH I
There was no discussion.
VOTE (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
Motion carried.
There was discussion of making recommendations
based on the Comprehensive Plan.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and
read staff recommendations.
Roger Imhoff, applicant’s representative, noted the
access that has been used and the history of the subdivision on the aerial
photo.
It was clarified that the right-of-way dedication
that is being included in the action is the small portion going to the north
from
Public Works Director Meyer addressed the
Commission regarding some issues regarding this plat.
·
The
transportation plan suggests that Latham be extended easterly from where it
terminates now to the adjacent piece of property 2A.
·
Issues
in subdividing off a piece of property from a larger property, include what it
will look like in the future and if it will be difficult for the adjacent
properties and neighborhood as a whole to get to where the community would like
to be in the future.
·
It
is a mess up there now, why are we thinking of providing additional lots that
access through the same substandard non legal access.
·
Concerns
arise that if the transportation plan calls for a connection from the top of
·
Some
of these issues have been addressed with the surveyor.
Public Works Director Meyer pointed out on the
aerial photo a scenario that included dedicating a 60 foot right-of-way from
the top of the 30 foot flag lot piece. He noted what the transportation plan
recommends and described how it would work.
Mr. Imhoff explained that when the Burn’s bought
the lot they created at 30 foot easement to benefit the 10 acres. The easement
was re-drafted and granted to the City as a public right-of-way. Lots of this
size have been allowed some leeway in the past because they are likely to be
re-subdivided. When the re-subdivision occurs, the transportation plan can be
brought forward.
FOSTER/MINSCH
STAFF
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission not
recommend approval of the preliminary plat because it does not conform to the
recommendations of the 2005 Transportation Plan because it does not provide the
connections from Latham Lane and to Thomas Court. HOWEVER, should the Commission decide to
recommend approval of the preliminary plat, staff recommends the following
comments be included.
Commissioner Foster expressed concern that this has
some similarities with the Country Club Estates plat waiver issues in that
splitting the lot into two lots does not require all the amenities that a
subdivision would require. He is
interested in hearing more discussion.
Further comment included:
·
This
is not a good situation and the access situation needs to be squared away.
·
There
is access there and has been there since the 60’s although it is steep. If it
subdivides more in the future, more requirements could be set.
·
The
Commission could turn this down based on the staff recommendations.
It was questioned if the right-of-way being
dedicated as shown on the bottom of the plat meets Borough Code. City Planner McKibben pointed out that it is
all that can be dedicated as it is the only land they own in the section.
Commissioner Chesley raised the point that not long
ago the Commission dealt with the Uminski Subdivision where there was a small
vestige right-of-way and they were faced with the issue that it was the legal
access even though there was no practical access. In this situation there is a
practical access they are trying to use.
This is an imperfect situation but argued that what has been proposed is
reasonable based on the land use patterns we have in the area.
There was discussion whether it would be better not
to require the right-of-way but have a dedication to encourage development
toward Latham. It was suggested that allowing the developer to create the
right-of-way at the end of what is
already dedicated and make it a standard bulb at least one part of the right-of-way
provided meets the Borough standard. It would create a situation where it can
be developed in the future. City Planner McKibben outlined the procedure for
vacating a cul-de-sac as explained to her by Borough Platting Officer Toll,
which includes getting signatures of 75% of the owners along the cul-de-sac. It
also includes a review by the Planning Commission and is not guaranteed if
there is opposition.
Chair Kranich called for break at
Mr. Imhoff commented that the crux of the whole
thing is the Borough Code. The
Transportation Plan is a moving target.
This property is right in the middle with nothing on either side. He suggested countenance of legal access to
adjoining properties. He pointed out on the aerial photo where he recommended
extending the 30 foot public road and dedicate another 30 foot right-of-way.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO
REPLACE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THREE WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD
CREATE A 30
There was no discussion.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was discussion that the staff recommendation
is not to recommend approval.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I
There was brief discussion to clarify.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): YES: KRANICH, FOSTER,
CHESLEY, ZAK
NO:
MINSCH, HESS
Motion carried.
FOSTER/CHESLEY MOVED TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT
STATES THE FUTURE SUBDIVISION WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE HOMER 2005
TRANSPORTATION
It was clarified that this would create staff
recommendation 4 and the purpose is to encourage the linkage of
VOTE: (Primary amendment): YES: MINSCH, ZAK,
KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion
as amended.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: FOSTER,
CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
NO:
MINSCH
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The Commission agreed to take up New Business items
before Pending Business to accommodate the members of the audience who were
waiting.
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 will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve
an applicant (such as acceptance of a nonconformity).
A. Staff Report PL 07-60, Request for approval of Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District
Mitigation Plan at 1295 Don's Drive
City Planner McKibben reviewed staff report and
read staff recommendations.
Tom Stroozas, applicant, respectfully requested the
Commission approve his mitigation plan as submitted. There was discussion that entailed review of
the current drainage situation, the plan for the garage, and clarifying
dimensions and measurements.
FOSTER/HESS I
STAFF
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Staff
recommends the Commission approve the mitigation plan and the increase to 6.4%
impervious coverage with the following conditions:
A discrepancy was noted between the agenda and
staff report. City Planner McKibben suggested a clarification amending the
title of the staff report to Lot 3 Tulin East Highlands at 1294 Don’s Drive,
which is the street address.
CHESLEY/MINSCH I’LL
There was brief discussion for clarification.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
In discussion regarding setback, it was noted that
an asbuilt survey is not required upon completion of the project.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I
There was discussion regarding the design and it
was clarified that the level surface of the pad, including the overhang of the
eaves, is 25x25, taking into consideration the 1 foot overhang of the eaves.
The 32x32 includes the base of the slope which could be pervious.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): NO: CHESLEY, MINSCH,
ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion failed.
It was clarified that the applicant would not have
to come back for the future storage shed and green house. Approval of this
action would allow up to 6.4%.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: KRANICH,
FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HESS, MINSCH
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich suggested that he has a conflict of
interest regarding this agenda item.
CHESLEY/HESS I
Chair Kranich explained that he and Mr. Alexander’s
father had been in business together for over 20 years and has known Mr.
Alexander for all his life. He feels that if he participated there may be a
perception of conflict and therefore feels he should sit out.
Question was raised if Chair Kranich thought he
would be unfairly biased. Chair Kranich
responded that he would try and make his decision based solely on the
information provided, but he doesn’t want to leave anything open for a
perception of a conflict.
It was clarified that there is no long term
financial gain at stake here.
VOTE: YES: HESS
NO:
MINSCH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK
Motion failed.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and
read staff recommendations.
Rick Alexander, applicant, commented that the
intent of the 50% reduction is to be able to build in the future, a
shop/greenhouse not to exceed 780 square feet. The main purpose of the long
driveway is an effort to keep the green trees. Because of the long driveway he
decided to go with the wider area of drain rock on the side of the driveway. He
has lived in the area for five years and there is only a short period of time
that there is any surface water and that is when the snow is trying to recede
and the ground is st
CHESLEY/FOSTER I
·
ON
·
ON
·
·
UNDER
SENTENCE THAT BEGINS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVES MITIGATION
·
RECOMMENDATION
5
A.
[1]
Request for reduction in driveway
imperviousness calculation and Mitigation
STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission reduce the impervious rating
from 100% to 70% for the driveway, walkway and parking area based on the
following findings:
B. The mitigation plan for 6.2% impervious
coverage
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff
recommends the Commission approve the mitigation plan and the increase to 6.2%
impervious coverage with the following conditions:
Staff will review the 6.2% in the table shown on
page 138 to confirm whether it needs to be corrected to 6.4%.
There was brief discussion regarding the research
regarding the 70% imperviousness in staff recommendation 9 under section A.
FOSTER/CHESLEY MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION 9[2]
THAT WE ADD AFTER DRIVEWAYS CAN BE
MITIGATED TO 70% IMPERVIOUSNESS.
They discussed the research that says the driveway
can be mitigated to 70% impervious. City Planner McKibben commented that when
reviewing this particular case nothing proposed seems unreasonable, but
following the research seemed to be a reasonable way to address the site.
Mr. Alexander cited
Commissioner Foster commented that at the time this
was put together they didn’t have all the literature, so they didn’t want to
get to specific because they wanted to see what the engineers and literature
show what they can mitigate for.
Otherwise, they were giving it 100% impervious but if someone can design
something with higher permeability it would allow more wiggle room.
CHESLEY/ZAK I WOULD
Commissioner Foster expressed that he would vote
against this and if it passes he w
Further points of discussion included:
·
Code
says it can be reduced to 50%.
·
It
has to be designed to meet the requirement, and packed gravel does not meet the
requirement.
·
50%
imperviousness allows an accessory building of up to 780 square foot. 70%
imperviousness would allow up to 250 square feet.
Chair Chesley commented in support of the motion
that the applicant has proposed a maintenance plan, which has never been
proposed and based on that he feels they can move from 70% to 50%.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): YES: KRANICH, CHESLEY,
ZAK, HESS, MINSCH
NO:
FOSTER
Motion carried.
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen questioned if the 50% proposed
in Commissioner Chesley’s amendment was a secondary amendment to Commissioner
Foster’s amendment as Mr. Foster’s amendment hadn’t been voted on yet. There
was discussion to clarify. Commissioner Chesley and Chair Kranich stated they were
under the impression that Commissioner Foster’s motion was adopted by unanimous
consent. Ms. Jacobsen said that if the
Commission was in agreement that they have already voted unanimously on it then
it would stand approved. There was no opposition to that understanding by the
Commission and therefore Commissioner Foster’s primary amendment stands
approved.
It was confirmed that the intention of Commissioner
Chesley’s motion was for the driveway to be at 50% impervious.
Commissioner Foster said both of these are good
projects and he would have liked to support them but w
There were further arguments in favor of supporting
the application. Mr. Alexander commented that if there was new research, it
should have been passed along before this came to the table, so he could have
designed the driveway accordingly.
FOSTER I CALL FOR THE QUESTION.
VOTE: (Call for the question): YES: FOSTER, MINSCH,
ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
NO:
CHESLEY
Motion carried.
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen reviewed the motion as
amended.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: ZAK, KRANICH,
HESS
NO:
MINSCH, CHESLEY, FOSTER
Motion failed for lack of majority.
Commissioner Chesley explained that the applicant
can come back and work with staff to bring this back before the Commission.
FOSTER/CHESLEY I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT STAFF
REPORT PL07-72 B THE MITIGATION
There was discussion if Commissioner Foster’s
motion was in order. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen suggested that the motion may
be out of order and suggested reconsidering the main motion as amended for
further amendment.
Chair Kranich called for recess at
Chair Kranich ruled that Commissioner Foster’s
motion was out of order.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF STAFF REPORT PL07-72.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
NO:
MINSCH
Motion carried.
The main motion as amended was back on the floor.
There was discussion on what to do next.
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen suggested they amend the main motion to
approve item B, mitigation plan to the 6.4 impervious coverage as amended and
postpone action on item A until staff brings it back with whatever information
the Commission needs.
FOSTER/CHESLEY SO MOVED
(amend the main motion to approve item B, mitigation plan to the 6.4 impervious
coverage as amended and postpone action on item A until staff brings it back
with whatever information the Commission needs).
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: HESS, KRANICH,
FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK
NO:
MINSCH
Motion carried.
Mr. Alexander recommended to the Commission that
when he, Joe Consumer, is given a set of guidelines, if the guidelines are to
be changed from the time he submits his application and the time it comes to
the meeting, it should go back to the guidelines and rules he was given. If
this further education on the 70% shows that it should be 70%, he should have
been afforded that information to be able to come up with a mitigation plan to
correct it. He feels they have guideline dates and deadline dates to hear it on
a certain day. If there are changes for the staff it has to be disclosed before
the deadline. Now he has to go back, and w
PENDING BUSINESS
A. Staff
Report 07-61 (S), Supplemental to
CHESLEY/HESS I
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben
stated that based on their discussion at the worksession it is her
understanding that the following projects be forwarded to City Council;
Number one priority for the
CIP would be the Water Supply to include the Water Treatment Plant; Water
Source and Water Shed Land Acquisition
Local roads:
1.
2. Land acquisition with
Trails:
1. Senior Trail
State Roads:
1.
Utilities
1. Water Supply
Equipment
1. Rescue Equipment
2. Communication System
Structures
1. Deep Water Dock
2. City Hall
3. Port and
4.
ZAK/MINSCH SO MOVED TO
SUBMIT THOSE PRIORITIES TO
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items
listed under this agenda item can be
A. Letter
dated
B. Letter dated
Comments Of The Audience
Members of the audience
may address the Commission on any subject.
(3 minute time limit)
There were no audience comments.
Comments Of The Commission
Commissioners
may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for
excused absence.
Commissioners Zak and Minsch had no comments.
Commissioner Hess suggested they look closer at the
Ethics ordinance. He is aware that there are some past actions that were take
by the Commission that may be effected by some new knowledge that he has of
both the Ethics and Conflict of Interest ordinances.
Commissioner Foster commented that he believes the
last applicant was reading quite a bit into that statement. He knows when that
was put together and when modifications were made they wanted to leave an
option for mitigating the driveway and to say just by following those two
things you can get it down, at the time they discussed if they could take
someone else’s design and use it. The
original plan was to work with the Soil Conservation Service and the NRCS and
engineers and work on the mitigation. They didn’t give a stock answer. Commissioner Foster showed the Commission a
journal that came out about preserving scenic roadways and trying to limit
strip development. There was an article
on late nights with the Commission and they are right on with mental
consideration, what effects late night meetings have on mental activity and
decision making under duress is severely compromised.
Commissioner Chesley commented regarding the sign
code. The Refuge Chapel free standing
sign is approximately 32 square feet. The direction they are heading now is
allowing up to 72 square feet of free standing signage. He asked that they look at the huge visual
impact 72 square feet of visual signage would have for a single business.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: