Session 06-28, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER ZAK (excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
PLANNING TECHNICIAN ENGEBRETSEN
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 and considered in normal sequence.
A. Time Extension Requests
1. Foothills Subdivision Sunset View Estates Addition No. 2
KPB File 2006-004
B. Approval of City of
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
1. Bryan Zak
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED THAT WE STRIKE ITEM A UNDER ITEM 9 NEW BUSINESS STAFF REPORT PL06-130.
Chair Kranich noted that the City Planner already dealt with the 2007 meeting schedule.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO ADD A NEW ITEM A UNDER NEW BUSINESS ITEM 9 THAT WOULD BE APPOINTMENT OF A PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The amended agenda and items on the consent agenda were approved by consensus of the Commission.
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A. Approval of
MINSCH/CHESLEY MOVED TO APPROVE
Chair Kranich noted a section in the minutes that needed to be clarified. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen said she would listen to the recording and make any necessary changes. Chair Kranich said he had some typographical corrections he would give to the clerk.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
B. Approval of
MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO APPROVE
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
Gary Nelson, surveyor, read a letter from David Baer who retired this year from HEA as Right-Of-Way Agent.
RE: Easements
All,
Although I’m well aware that it is exactly how it
sounds it most definitely is not my intent to be contentious, confrontational or contrary when the issue of
easements comes up and I get going on it. For the last 15 of my 22 years at HEA
I dealt with “Municipal madness” on a near-daily basis and the unpleasant truth
learned from that experience is that in virtually every circumstance, with the
possible exception of the State DOT, resolution of conflicts was accomplished
at a personal level and seldom ever, even remotely, based on codified
regulation. In other words, municipal employees are making interpretive
decisions based on personal understanding of an issue as opposed to simply
enforcing compliance with their own codified regulations. This is antithetic to
the very purpose of creating a law or regulation in the first place; as
codified, it is meant NOT to be interpreted for the very reason that
individuals should not be allowed discretionary authority in such matters. Such
decisions are meant to be made by governing bodies or a court. What you see me
reacting to regarding this and other similar issues is my intense frustration
and anger that property owners and those involved in working with property
owners to develop their property are at the mercy of individuals who have no
legitimate authority to exercise control over such matters.
Sewer and water installation is very invasive when
compared with electrical, telephone, gas and roads. This is why such utilities
are typically located within the public right-of-way. Homer’s Public Works
Director was telling property
owners the City needs 40 feet of easement for sewer and water installation on
Phase one of the project. Now that property within the recently annexed area
falls under City regulation there is an immediate and significant conflict; for
parcels that meet the KPB criteria for on-site sewer and water, why on earth
would anyone voluntarily just give-up 20 or more feet of their property without
being compensated for it?
I certainly do not propose a rebellion or even
aggressive resistance against regulation. What I do suggest however is
aggressive action to educate property owners and subsequently, Municipal
regulatory bodies, that, certainly, codified regulations will be adhered to but
individual, discretionary interpretation of existing regulations does not serve
to benefit anyone and compelling the public to bow to rule based on conceptual
and/or philosophical development projections is simply not acceptable.
Regardless whatever development philosophy of a community or Municipality is in
vogue, private property rights are inalienable and Constitutionally protected
and local regulatory bodies need to be made to understand those rights cannot
be compromised by individuals who have assumed discretionary authority to
enforce non-existent regulations or interpret existing regulations to suit
their personal agenda.
This is my rant and as you know I am passionate about
it. What you see in the meetings is my frustration that the issues remain
unaltered and cannot be resolved in the short time they are addressed in the
meetings. Having been force-fed the “corporate philosophy” mantra for so many
years has made municipal regulatory issues a really hot-button with me.
My highest regards and respect, dbear.
RECONSIDERATION
There were no items for reconsideration.
The Commission conducts Public hearings by hearing a
staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing
items. The Commission may question the
public.
City Planner McKibben summarized
the staff report.
Roger Imhoff, project
surveyor and applicant’s representative, pointed out on the aerial photo the
location of the access and the alternative access for the adjoining properties
in the event the vacation is permitted.
Mr. Imhoff said that the petition signers were all the property owners
who front
I continue to believe that if this
access was desirable and/or practical it would have been developed years
ago. My belief is that it was an old original
idea to get access to a parcel that is now part of a greater parcel that
currently has excellent access to the
Mr. Imhoff expressed his
agreement with Mr. Synhorst. Mr. Imhoff
said the Salvation Army property is about 5 acres so it could be further
developed but it doesn’t make economic sense for someone to depend on a 750
foot access route that is totally undeveloped when they have
There were no comments
from the public. Chair Kranich closed
the Public Hearing and noted for the record that one item was received in the
mail from Lillian Miller in support of this action.
MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED TO
ADOPT
The Planning Commission recommend approval of this
right-of-way vacation as legal and physical access is available to all
surrounding parcels.
Discussion points
included:
·
Concern that
there won’t be superior access in the event of erosion of the
·
East/west
connectivity that is trying to be established in Homer in effort to relieve
traffic congestion off the
·
In thinking into
the future 50 to 100 years and the Erosion Study, that is a very vulnerable
stretch of highway and it may not be in the public’s best interest to give up
any right-of-way in that section.
·
An adjoining
property owner to the right-of-way has expressed their desire that it not be
vacated.
·
Equal and
superior access is available today, but not in the future if there is no
·
Acquisition can
be made in the future on the north side to widen it for full right-of-way.
·
The expense may
be significant now, but no one knows what the expense or value of things will
be in 50 years. Access is very dear and
if you don’t have it you may be willing to pay for it.
There was brief discussion
to clarify that the letter from the Salvation Army was received after the staff
report was prepared.
VOTE: NO:
MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY
Motion failed.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO ADOPT A
COMMISSION FINDING THAT Equal or
there was brief discussion.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER
Motion carried.
FOSTER/HESS MOVED TO AMEND THE FINDING TO ADD THE SECOND
SENTENCE IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
THAT Once a right of way has been
adopted and established, it may at times be the only egress and agrees in the
support of fire protection to other properties adjoining the parcel.
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: YES: HESS, FOSTER
NO: CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH
Motion failed for lack of a
majority.
FOSTER/CHESLEY MOVED TO AMEND THE FINDING TO ADD FIRE
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The Fire Department
does not support the vacation of any type of right-of -way. Once a right
of way has been adopted and established, it may at times be the only egress and
agrees in the support of fire protection to other properties adjoining the
parcel.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES:
KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, HESS, MINSCH
Motion carried.
MINSCH/ HESS MOVED TO ADD
A FINDING STATING THAT ONE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS DOES NOT SUPPORT
THE VACATION.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO ESTABLISH
A THIRD FINDING THAT WOULD BE THE COMMISSION FINDS Equal or
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
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.
City Planner McKibben
summarized the Staff Report.
Kenton Bloom, project
surveyor, commented that the 20 foot easement is noted on the plat in the
legend. It is connecting with the terminus of
Pastor Wise commented that
when coming in with a site plan all the drainages have to be included, but that
is tough to do at this point. That is
why they would like to leave that open and address it with their final
presentation. Mr. Bloom added he doesn’t
think the final site plan has to be completed prior to platting.
Comment was made in
reference to the drainage being taken off site and it would be beneficial to
have it dealt with on site. Mr. Bloom
responded that the church has every intention of using the best methods,
including a bio-swale type of process before it gets to the road. Pastor Wise noted there is a 10 foot ditch
easement for the adjoining property owners on the west side of the property.
Commissioner Hess asked
about the building on the concrete block foundation protruding into the
pedestrian easement. Mr. Bloom responded
that it will have to be removed prior to final recording and a letter will have
to come from the City Public Works Department confirming it to the Borough
before they will release the final plat.
There can’t be any obstructions in the easement prior to final
recording.
There were no public
comments.
MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT
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. Delete the proposed drainage easement along
the north side of the existing church building, and along the most easterly
portion of the church building,
3.
The remaining drainage easements to be 30 feet wide.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO
STRIKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TWO.
Mr. Chesley commented that
there is not a thirty foot drainage easement there, so this is a correction.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO
STRIKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THREE.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
MINSCH/CHESLEY MOVED FOR
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TWO TO ADD PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS THAT THE 20 FOOT
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT BE IDENTIFIED ON THE MAIN DRAWING PORTION OF THE PLAT.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was discussion with
Public Works Director Meyer as to whether the Public Works recommendations from
the staff report regarding the water service needed to be added to the staff
recommendations. Public Works Director
commented that if the Public Works recommendations are to be enforceable they
should be part of the conditions of the plat approval.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO
ADD STAFF RECOMMENDATION THREE THAT THE APPLICANT ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
There was brief discussion
regarding the service line with regard to a previous vacation. To clarify why the property owner would be
responsible for the six inch service line, Public Works Director Meyer
commented that the way things had been progressing prior to the vacation of
Kallman was as East End Road was completed the City stubbed a main line over to
Kallman so it could be extended up Kallman and would become a public main. Once Kallman went away there was no need for
a main and the church property is the one getting value from the line. The City tends to ask the individual property
owners to maintain larger diameter lines that could potentially provide fire
service to a larger building as suggested here.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED TO ADD
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOUR THAT THE GATE VALVE AND LINE BE DEPICTED ON THE PLAT
AS WELL AS A NOTE ADDRESSING THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE LINE IS NOW A SERVICE
LINE.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was no further
discussion on the main motion.
VOTE (Main motion as
amended): YES: MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben
summarized the staff report.
Steve Parizek, applicant,
comment they are going to disregard the drainage easement, it won’t be in
there. He said he would be willing to
work with the City on the sewer easement but it seems ludicrous to put it between
the lot lines when it should go down the road.
Gary Nelson, project
surveyor, commented regarding staff comment in the analysis that states “The surveyor stated that the applicants want
to have a drainage easement so that if the wetlands are ditched and drained in
the future that they would have an easement to do so and to maintain the
ditch.” Mr. Nelson said they are going to do away with the
easement. He clarified that the idea was
not to drain wetlands, it was looking at future issues like ice dams and
glaciations in the winter time. In
reviewing the plat, Mr. Nelson said they feel houses will be built far enough
away it probably won’t be an issue. He
commented in regard to the statement that future regulations may not support
filling these wetlands. He takes issue
in talking about what future regulations may or may not do.
Mr. Nelson made the
following comments with regard to staff recommendations:
·
Staff recommendation three: A plat note stating that all development is subject to City of
·
Staff recommendation six: Work with Public Works to create a sewer easement that will meet the
requirements of the Water and Sewer Master Plan. If there is to be a sewer easement, they want
it separate from the plat. It is
premature for the taking of this easement because the nearest City
infrastructure is over a mile away. If the
plan were changed it would have to have a replat, but on a separate document it
could be easily modified.
Chair Chesley commented
regarding future regulations and said that later in the agenda there will be
discussion on upcoming regulations regarding wetlands.
City Planner McKibben
clarified Mr. Nelson’s concern regarding staff recommendation three and the
area of his concern is whether it should say it is subject to the setback
regulations shown on the parent plat.
There were no public
comments.
MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED TO
ADOPT
Planning Commission recommend approval
of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
1.
Staff notes that future wetland designations may change
over the life of this plat, resulting in an increase or a decrease in wet is
wetlands under ACOE regulations. Under note 1, stating the year of the
delineation will be helpful to future land owners. A second plat note may be
warranted.
2.
A separate 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).
3.
A plat note stating that all development is subject to
City of
4.
Correct the plat note number on the wetlands
depiction.
5.
Dedicate a 15 ft utility easement along the Right of
Way.
6.
Work with Public Works to create a sewer easement that
will meet the requirements of the Water and Sewer Master Plan.
Public Works Director
Meyer made the following commented regarding the sewer easement and the Water
Sewer Master Plan:
·
The plan
designates where water and sewer mains have to be to serve everyone within the
City limits.
·
This is not the
first time the City required an easement shown on a plat that is along an
alignment that the master plan calls for.
·
The design is not
conceptual. The City spent $300,000 on
the master plan to make determinations so the City’s needs for the future are
addressed during the planning process.
·
The reason for an
easement is to keep permanent structures from being built along the
corridors.
·
The plan did not
take into account the subdivision of these properties.
·
This area is flat
and does not drain to west it goes to the wetland on the south and sometimes a
sewer line has to follow the natural drainage to maintain gravity service to
everyone, which is what is happening here.
·
Public Works will
be willing to work with the applicant regarding the lot line to follow.
There was discussion
regarding the need for plat notes stating requirements for onsite facilities to
be built to ADEC standards. It was noted
that the rural residential zoning standards require that the ADEC requirements
are met for lot size, but the City doesn’t have a mechanism for enforcing those
requirements. Concern was raised that
because this area contains wetlands and sewer services won’t be in the area in
the immediate future, a plat note may be in order. They reviewed the Borough requirements.
Chair Kranich called for a
break at
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO
REPLACE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THREE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ALL LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION ARE SUBJECT
TO CITY OF
Commissioner Chesley
commented this is just to more thoroughly state what was initially intended
under statement three and confusion regarding the parent plat.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO
CREATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION SEVEN WHICH WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: ALL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS SHALL COMPLY
WITH EXISTING APPLICABLE LAWS AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO
CREATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION EIGHT TO ADD A PLAT NOTE THAT WOULD READ: ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PLAT DOES NOT IMPLY
ACCEPTANCE OR WAIVER OF ANY BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BY THE CITY OF
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
There was no further
discussion on the main motion.
VOTE (Main motion as
amended): YES: MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben
summarized the staff report.
Clay Ellington, applicant,
requested that the sewer tap to go up the northern line and be installed on the
corner rather than having a utility easement through the middle of this small
piece of property. Mr. Ellington pointed
out what he was describing on the aerial photo.
There were no comments
from the public.
MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED TO
ADOPT
Public Works Director
Meyer commented regarding Mr. Ellington’s request. There was a sewer service on
Comment was made that Mr.
Gardner’s comments don’t specify if the easement should be on the north or
south side or if it should straddle the lot lines. Mr. Meyer commented that if the sewer line is
12 feet below the property line and a 20 foot easement would straddle on the
sewer service and provide a corridor to extended through the corner lot to the
back lot and not require relocation or having to deal the stuff on
There was discussion that
the City would not voluntarily move the stub out, the cost of any relocation
would be the responsibility of the property owner and it would be thousands of
dollars to cut into the pavement on
Mr. Ellington came back to
the table and Mr. Meyer reviewed Public Works recommendation with him
referencing the lay out he had drawn on one of the reference maps. Mr. Ellington stated he was comfortable with
what has been recommended.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED TO
STRIKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TWO AND SUBSTITUTE THAT PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT
THE OWNER WILL PRESENT A UTILITY EASEMENT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL TO
PROVIDE SERVICE TO LOT 21-A1.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
There was no further
discussion on the main motion as amended.
VOTE (Main motion as
amended): YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, CHESLEY,
KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben summarized staff report.
Commissioner Foster asked to be recused so he could participate at the Borough level.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED TO RECUSE COMMISSIONER FOSTER FROM DELIBERATION ON THIS MATTER SO HE MAY PARTICIPATE AT THE BOROUGH LEVEL ACCORDING TO BOROUGH POLICIES.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster left the table.
Mr. Bloom summarized that the
purpose of plat is to correct the lack of legal public access to the 26.4 acre
parcel that is bound by
With regard to the letter from
Mr. Walker regarding the 30 foot easement that was originally in the Canyon
Trails Plat which would have served to provide access from
Jeanie Manson, neighboring
property owner, read her prepared statement into the record. She said she has come before the Commission
before to address her concerns and said she is opposed to the 30’ wide
pedestrian easement that connects to
Kevin Walker,
There was no further public comment.
MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT
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. 50' drainage
easement be dedicated along west boundary of lot 1-A-3 to be in keeping with
the 50' drainage easement on the adjacent lot. Drainage is
3. Show the
utility easements being vacated on the north sides of lots 6-A and 7-A.
4. If lot 7A
has a drainage on the eastern property line, show the drainage.
5. The legend
symbol for
6. There is a
10 ft utility easement being vacated along the former lot lines of lots 4-A,
5-A and 6-A. Both lines of the easement should have the same symbol. Change the
western line to match the eastern line on both the full scale and ‘Detail A”
drawings.
7. Correct the
legend to show the actual symbols used in the drawings: pedestrian easements,
and sewer easements.
8. Clarify why
there are two symbols for “7500 sq ft building sites.” In Detail A, it appears
the shared driveway markings are represented by the shaded area, and the legend
shows this as the symbol for a building site.
9. Add a plat
note that development on lands within the City of
10. Verify
acreage of new lots and total land within the subdivision.
11. Before
recordation, provide documentation from the Homer Fire Chief that the driveway
for Tract A meets fire code requirements. This may be done through the
subdivision development agreement.
There was discussion regarding staff recommendation two and the 50 foot drainage easement.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO AMEND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TWO THAT WE REPHRASE THE SENTENCE TO READ “A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT OF A MINIMUM OF FIFTY FEET WIDE BE DEDICATED ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY
OF 1A3 TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE 50 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE ADJACENT LOT.
THE DRAINAGE IS
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion as amended.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
Mr. Foster returned to the table.
City Planner McKibben
asked if the Commission might be willing to rearrange the order of business and
address item B. She explained the
Forrest McDaniel from the Army Corps of Engineers and Planning Technician
Engebretsen were present in the audience and it is getting late.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO
SUSPEND THE RULES TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF BUSINESS.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
City Planner McKibben
noted a laydown from Commissioner Foster regarding changes to the draft
resolution and she read the staff report.
Planning Technician
Engebretsen commented to her concerns about Mr. Foster’s recommended changes.
She recommended not using the phrase “Provides services of higher significance
to the City of
City Planner McKibben
confirmed for the Commission that their purpose is not to create the City’s
working wetlands management tool, it is simply a step in beginning of the
public process to develop management strategies. She noted an advantage of the map is it shows
the City as a whole and gives an overview of where the wetlands are and which
ones are highly functioning at this beginning stage. There will be more detailed information provided
as the work progresses toward the end product.
Forrest McDaniel,
representative from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), noted that the rankings
of high, medium and low could be modified and said in Anchorage they are called
A, B and C.
The Commission’s
discussion points included:
·
The vernacular of
value has been used historically and has been used interchangeably with
function and therefore “low” may give a different connotation regarding the
service of hydrological components.
·
The 2006 Homer Wetlands
Functional Assessment Table 1 breaks down the three separate functions. People can see the functions and refer to the
numbering system and see how it all fits together.
·
The description
in Table 2 is difficult to follow. Table
1 with the scores is easier to follow.
·
The grant
agreement for this project is to develop new and improved wetlands maps and
identify functions and values within the map units. Assigning value was done in an effort to make
it as simple as possible to look at the map and determine if there may be
wetlands in an area.
·
This map is
simply for planning purposes.
·
It is best to
keep the map straight forward, as with Table 1, and explain why there is
wetlands protection and how the wetlands are being scored.
There was discussion regarding
the map that was presented and the suggestion of having three separate
maps. Planning Technician Engebretsen
noted that the basis of this grant is to do science based wetlands analysis. She expressed her concern with having three
different maps, one with high, medium and low hydrology, one with habitat and
one with species occurrence, noting the difficulty in having to reference three
maps for one property and have to keep the information straight. It is not a good way to present visual
information. The group reviewed the
process of looking up information on a specific parcel. Mrs. Engebretsen explained that some
questions regarding wetlands are site specific and some are broader range which
is worked out through the questionnaire.
It was noted that the areas on the map presented tonight match the areas
on the Borough website, but the colors are different and the Borough doesn’t
have high, medium and low values noted.
Discussion ensued
regarding the nationwide permit review.
Mr. McDaniel explained that there are certain wetland types that require
additional review under the regional conditions. He said under regional considerations it is
easy to explain that if an area is a certain wetlands designation it would
require additional regional conditions.
City Planner McKibben
explained that if the Council adopts the resolution there are two things that
will result,
·
They will be
providing information to the ACOE for their nationwide permitting.
·
They are setting
a schedule for planning to begin the public process to develop the management
guidelines.
The goal with this is to
give the ACOE something to work with and to start the discussion here in the
City. If this is adopted by resolution
in January, it doesn’t mean this is the map the City ends up. Commissioners Foster and Chesley expressed
concern that in the past there have been plans that were “conceptual” and in
the end it is the plan that gets adopted.
Planning Technician
Engebretsen stated the ACOE has stressed several times that they need something
that is adopted by the City. She needs
Council to agree with this before someone else is going to use it as viable
information. If this map is approved,
the ACOE can roll it into the regional conditions and the City will have some
additional oversight on the moderate and high value wetlands. If they only use Table 1 it wouldn’t be
included in the regional conditions of the nationwide permit. Mr. McDaniel commented that idea was there
would be some type of functional assessment.
Discussion continued on
one map versus three maps and identifying the different levels of wetlands on
the map.
To address the concerns
regarding the map being adopted, City Planner McKibben suggested adding
something in the resolution that would state the map sunsets
It was clarified that if
the map is adopted tonight the ACOE will use it for the next five years. With regard to the City process, the City can
develop ordinances, development strategies, management strategies or tools for
wetlands management inside the City of
There was discussion
regarding Mr. Foster’s amendments. Chair
Kranich called for a break at
FOSTER/CHESLEY MOVED THAT
WE MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 06- WITH THE FOLLOWING
CHANGES:
1.
SECOND LINE IN
TITLE FUNTIONAL WILL BE CHANGED TO FUNCTIONAL.
2.
6TH
WHEREAS WILL READ “THIS GROUP ASSESSED THREE WETLAND FUNCTION
COMPONENTS(HYDROLOGIC, HABITAT, AND SPECIES OCCURRENCE) AND SCORED HOMER
WETLANDS USING A DOCUMENTED METHODOLOGY FOR THE 1996
3.
THE NEXT WHEREAS
“THIS ASSESSMENT RESULTED IN SCORES AND RANKINGS FOR EACH OF THREE WETLAND
FUNCTION COMPONENTS THAT DEMONSTRATED SOME WETLANDS PROVIDE FUNCTIONS OF HIGHER
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND TO THE CITY OF HOMER AND THEREFORE
SHOULD BE MANAGED MORE CAREFULLY; AND
4.
THIRD WHEREAS
FROM THE BOTTOM, “NOW THAT THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE WETLANDS IS
COMPLETE, THE PUBLIC HAS MAP(S) THAT THEY CAN USE TO VIEW AND DISCUSS THE
FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF HOMER WETLANDS.
There was brief comment.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
There was brief discussion
regarding the bylaw amendments regarding some typographical errors and the
three minute time limit.
CHESLEY/HESS SO MOVED TO APPROVE
THE BYLAWS AS AMENDED.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
CHESLEY MOVED THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD THE AMENDMENTS TO THE HOMER ADVISORY PLANNING
COMMISSION BYLAWS AND POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL TO THE COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY.
Motion carried.
C.
Staff
MINSCH/CHESLEY MOVED TO
POSTPONE DISCUSSION TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for consideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask question s of staff, applicants, and the public.
A. Planning Commission Representative for the Transportation
Advisory Commission
Chair Kranich advised the
Commission that Mr. Pfeil’s resignation created a vacancy for the Commission’s
representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee. The Commission was in consensus to recommend
Commissioner Zak for appointment to the Transportation Advisory Committee.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster
reported that Canyon Trails Subdivision passed the preliminary plat stage. He said the Borough did support all the
recommendations from the City and the Planning Commission. The Borough Planning Commission said since
the installation agreement will be incorporated with the inter-governmental
agreement Borough staff recommends that documentation also be submitted from
the City of
B.
There was no report.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S
REPORT
City Planner McKibben
commented that Borough Platting Officer Mary Toll would be attending the January
17 meeting. Ms. McKibben asked the
Commission to email her any specific questions and she will forward them to
Mary Toll.
There was discussion that
Commissioner’s Minsch and Chesley would be absent from the meeting and City
Planner McKibben said she would see if rescheduling would be feasible.
Commissioner Chesley
commented regarding the informational materials and said he was glad to see a
letter went out to Dr. Walker regarding his second free standing sign. He commented that the second sign is still
there; technically it doesn’t have to come down until the replat is complete,
yet the Commission went ahead and issued a zoning permit for him to do his
construction without having the final plat in hand. It puts them at a disadvantaged position in
trying to enforce that condition of the CUP.
He noted that in their desire to be nice to people, sometimes it can
come back to bite them.
There was brief discussion
about the possibility of recording CUP’s so future property owners will be
aware of those conditions on a property.
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. Letter to David Scheer, DNA Design,
dated
B. Letter to Boyd Walker dated
C. Letter to Bart Chow, Star Car Wash,
dated
D. Letter to Darren Williams, Refuge
Chapel, dated
E. Letter to Robert Nakada dated
F. Letter to Homer Travel dated
G. Letter to David Scheer, DNA Design, dated
H. Letter to Young’s Downtown Oriental Restaurant dated
I. Professional letter dated
J. Letter to Lisa and Valdis Kirsis dated
K. Letter to Fred Pfeil dated
COMMENTS OF THE
AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
There were no audience
comments.
COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION
Commissioners my comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Hess
commented favorably regarding the Mayor’s recognition for Mr. Pfeil’s years of
service on the Commission.
Commissioner Foster
expressed his appreciation to the Commission and staff for their time on the
wetlands concerns.
Chair Kranich commented
that he appreciates all the time the Commission is spending on the
information. They covered a lot of
ground tonight. He advised the
Commission he will be gone December 21 through 29. He reminded the Commission of their
worksession on the 7th at
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special meeting will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.
There being no further
business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: