Session 10-11,
a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order
by Chair Minsch at 7:20 p.m. on June 16, 2010 at the City Hall Cowles Council
Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER BOS, HIGHLAND, KRANICH, MINSCH, SINN
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER DRUHOT
STAFF: CITY
PLANNER ABBOUD
DEPUTY
CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
APPROVAL
OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved by consensus
of the Commission.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
The public may speak to the Planning Commission
regarding matters on the agenda that are not scheduled
for public hearing or plat consideration. (3 minute time limit).
There were no public comments.
RECONSIDERATION
No items were scheduled 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.
A. Approval
of the June 2, 2010 regular meeting minutes
B. Time
Extension Requests
C. Approval
of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g
D. KPB
Coastal Management Program Reports
The consent agenda was approved by
consensus of the Commission.
PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations scheduled.
REPORTS
A.
Staff
Report PL 10-58, City Planner’s Report
City Planner Abboud reviewed his report.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
Testimony limited to
3 minutes per speaker. The
Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, presentation by
the applicant, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing
items. The Commission may
question the public. Once the public hearing is closed the
Commission cannot hear additional comments on the topic. The applicant is not held to the 3 minute time
limit.
No Public Hearings were scheduled.
PLAT
CONSIDERATION
A.
Staff
Report PL 10-54 W.R. Benson’s Moore Replat Preliminary Plat
Commissioner Sinn stated that he has a
conflict of interest regarding this matter.
KRANICH/BOS MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER
SINN HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Commissioner Sinn explained that he
has a business relationship with the applicant and the amount exceeds the limit
outlined in code.
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Sinn left the table.
Planning Technician Engebretsen
reviewed the staff report.
Gary Nelson, project surveyor, expressed
his concern with Public Works requests. Each request goes beyond the
subdivision code and is not justified. In his opinion if the applicant is going
to be asked or required to do something beyond the subdivision code it should
be supported. Public Works requests include dedicating a 15 foot utility
easement along the two rights-of-way and dedicating the standard right-of-way
radius at the corner of Beluga and Bunnell. Mr. Nelson commented that the utility
easement request takes a lot of rights to the property that he doesn’t believed
it is justified because the subdivision has been there since 1967; the water,
sewer storm drains, telephone, and power are all in and existing and the road
is paved. Why is Public Works asking for more easements? The City Code does not
require the radius, so why is it being asked for. He noted that others in the
area are not being asked to provide area for it. At the request of the
Commission, Mr. Nelson showed them the specific area’s affected on a larger
drawing.
There was brief discussion confirming
the location of service stub outs for water and sewer and the location of the
other utilities.
Commissioner Kranich noted that
easement requirement is something that has been wishy washy to him all along.
Previously he was under the impression that it is required in Code, but now
hearing that it is policy. He questioned where the teeth are in policy.
Planning Technician Engebretsen responded that Code says when creating a new
subdivision, lots shall have access to a 15 foot utility easement, but it
doesn’t say along all rights-of-way. When these actions come before the
Commission it has been Public Works policy to ask for a 15 foot utility
easement along rights-of-way, some land owner don’t have a problem granting
that, some do.
Mr. Nelson explained that the Borough
doesn’t have a 10 foot utility easement requirement. When a utility easement is
needed the Borough generally do supports it and if there is conflict advise the
land owner and utility company work it out.
Planning Technician Engebretsen did
not have any further information regarding the request for the radius. She
believes it is probably a standard request.
KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF
REPORT PL 10-54 W.R. BENSON’S MOORE REPLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF COMMENTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner
Kranich expressed his intent to move to delete staff recommendations 2 and 3.
All the utilities are in and they can’t sit here and plan for future utilities.
Those companies can negotiate for their own easements. He reiterated his
concern that his prior understanding is that it was a code requirement. If it
is a policy requirement, it isn’t law in his understanding.
There was
opposing discussion regarding supporting Public Works requests as this is
something that been supported previously.
Planning
Technician Engebretsen read the code citation from Title 22, that each lot of a
new subdivision must have access from a 15 foot utility easement. There was
brief discussion attempting to reason why the request is for easements on the
two rights-of-way not just one.
KRANICH/BOS
MOVED TO DELETE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 2 AND 3.
Commissioner
Kranich said it is not a code requirement and he could support one or the other
but not both and reiterated the reasoning discussed prior to the motion.
VOTE (Primary
Amendment): YES: BOS, HIGHLAND, KRANICH
NO:
MINSCH
Motion failed.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE (Main Motion): YES: HIGHLAND,
MINSCH
NO:
KRANICH, BOS
Motion failed.
There was discussion that the
Commission would like to discuss the easement issue at their next worksession.
B.
Staff
Report PL 10-53, AA Mattox 1968 Seldovia Village Tribe No. 2
Planning Technician Engebretsen
reviewed the staff report.
Gary Nelson, project surveyor, said he
was available to answer questions.
There was discussion regarding utility
easements on Kramer Lane, utility lines, and water and sewer connections on the
lots.
Mr. Nelson explained that the
subdivision has come before to be platted approximately 5 different times so they
have had at least 5 opportunities to get all the easements they want. The plat
shows the easements they have wanted in the past. He also noted the location of
the water and sewer lines.
Planning Technician Engebretsen commented
that the applicant has not determined how they are going to provide service in
the next phase of their expansion. Point was raised that this is another situation
whether it is or is not City policy regarding the number of water sewer hook
ups per lot, and when they have to be taken out. Mrs. Engebretsen explained
that if a land owner wants multiple hook ups and will use them, they can have
them.
It was requested that they look at
this issue at the next worksession.
Commissioner Kranich noted the inconsistency
that Public Works did not request utility easements on all rights-of-way as
they did in the previous preliminary plat.
There was discussion of the drainage
easement shown and the East End Road construction which included utility
improvements.
HIGHLAND/KRANICH MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF
REPORT PL 10-53, AA MATTOX 1968 SELDOVIA VILLAGE TRIBE NO. 2 WITH STAFF
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
PENDING
BUSINESS
A. Staff
Report PL 10-55, Draft Spit Comprehensive Plan
City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff
report.
The Commission resumed their discussion
from the worksession and provided feedback to staff.
NEW
BUSINESS
A. Staff
Report PL 10-56, Rezone Ordinance
KRANICH/HIGHLAND MOVED TO POSTPONE
DISCUSSION TO THE NEXT WORKSESSION.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion Carried.
INFORMATIONAL
MATERIALS
A. City Manager’s
Report
B. Decision on
Appeal 844 Ocean Drive Loop/June 15, 2009 Enforcement Order
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 STAFF
City Planner Abboud noted that there is
a lot scheduled for their next worksession. The Commission agreed to have further
discussion of the Spit Comprehensive Plan at their special meeting on Thursday
June 24th
Planning Technician Engebretsen
commented that the Steep Slope Ordinance is back from the City Attorney with a
few changes and will come back to a worksession for review.
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Sinn had no comments.
Commissioner Bos congratulated
Commissioner Kranich on his reappointment and said he is grateful to have him
here.
Commissioner Kranich said they will
have to put up with him for another term.
Commissioner Highland said she
suspects the Spit Comp Plan will take longer that what it is planned for and
that this for the best, for the public and the Commission. She thanked
Commissioner Kranich for re-upping.
Chair Minsch thanked Commissioner
Kranich and said that Commissioner Druhot was reappointed as well. She
commended the Commissioners on their work tonight.
ADJOURN
Meetings will adjourn promptly at 10
p.m. An extension is allowed by a vote
of the Commission. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 5, 2010 at
7:00 p.m. in the Cowles Council Chambers. There will be a work session at
5:30p.m. prior to the meeting.
There being no further business to
come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. The next regular
meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles
Council Chambers. There is a worksession at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting. There
is a Special Meeting scheduled for June 24, 2010.
Melissa Jacobsen, CMC, Deputy City
Clerk
Approved: