Session 07-04, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 7:11 pm on March 7, 2007 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer Alaska.

 

PRESENT:       COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, KRANICH, MINSCH, SCHEER, ZAK,

FOSTER (arrived at 8:47 pm)

 

ABSENT:        COMMISSIONER HESS

 

STAFF:            CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

                        PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER[1]

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

 

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 February 21, 2007                                                                  

2.   Time Extension Requests

3.   Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.

4.   KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

5.   Commissioner Excused Absences

      a.  Rick Foster

b.  Bruce Hess

 

Commissioner Zak requested discussion of the minutes.  Minute’s approval was placed as item A under new business.

 

PRESENTATIONS

Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission

 

REPORTS

 

A.        Borough Report

B.         Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

C.        Planning Director’s Report       

 

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that there is a laydown item regarding bias for dual City and Borough Planning Commissioners.  She advised the Commission that the next Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for March 22 from 6 to 8 pm.  The consultants will be participating telephonically.  The Community Workshop is scheduled for April 25th and will be held in the high school commons.  The time will be announced.  She will be asking all the Boardmembers and Commissioners to attend and encourage others to attend as well.  She has arranged for some extensive media coverage and advertisements.  City Planner McKibben said she will be arranging a worksession with the Planning Commission and Agnew Beck when they are here in April.  It may be a joint worksession with the Transportation Advisory Committee.

 

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.

 

There were no public hearing scheduled.

                                   

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. 

 

A.        Staff Report PL 07-02 Country Club Estates Plat Waiver of Tract 2-1

      (Continued)     

 

Commissioner Zak was determined to have a conflict of interest regarding this agenda item at the February 21 meeting.  Commissioner Zak left the table.  

 

Commissioner Chesley stated that he had reviewed the minutes from the February 21 meeting and is prepared to participate. 

 

The motion on the floor, postponed from the February 21 meeting is:

 

HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 07-02 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES PLAT WAIVER OF TRACT 2-1 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Planning Commission forward to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission following comments:

 

  1. Due to the dedication of utility easements as part of the plat, a subdivision development agreement will be required to ensure the construction of utilities.
  2. Development within this subdivision is regulated by the City of Homer Zoning Code.
  3. These lots should be monumented. KPB Code 20.04.040.(C.)(3) has not been met.
  4. There are health, safety and welfare issues with the physical access to these lots. Starting in 1976 with the original Tract 2 of Country Club Estates Subdivision, where there was one large tract with no physical access, there are now proposed to be a total of 8 lots with substandard access. This does not meet the purpose of KPB code 20.04.010 Purpose of provisions: “The purpose of this title is to promote an adequate and efficient street and road system, to provide utility easements, to provide minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats, and to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the people.” Neither an adequate or efficient road system is present nor proposed, nor the general welfare of the people being served within the City of Homer. These lots are within the City of Homer City limits and are not ‘remote.’ Their physical access is unlike Bear Cove in that the access is overland, not via boat. The physical access is hazardous, inaccessible for emergency vehicles.

AND

 

Planning Commission recommend denial of the plat waiver because it does not meet the intent of KPB Code 20.040.010.

 

 

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that the staff report has not changed since the meeting on the 21st.  The staff recommendation is still to recommend to the Borough that the plat waiver not be granted as it does not meet the intent of KPB Code 20.04.110.  She directed the Commission to the Borough Platting Officer’s staff report for the March 12th meeting.  Ms. McKibben noted that the applicant has requested that the Borough postpone this to March 26th.  This is on the Borough Plat Committee agenda for March 12th.  The Borough has recommended denial but has also requested that action be postponed to 26th per the applicant’s request. 

 

Public Works Director Meyer and the Commission discussed driveway issues.  Chair Kranich noted that the access being utilized at this point and time emanates from a driveway off of Renee Court. He asked about the City’s policy regarding the purpose and scope of a driveway.  Public Works Director Meyer responded that driveway permits are issued primarily to regulate the location of the driveway, to ensure there are appropriate separation distances from intersections, to ensure the driveways are built to code, to address drainage issues and to limit the number of driveways on a property as a measure to control where traffic enters the roadway.  99% of the driveway permits issued are for property immediately adjacent to the right-of-way and don’t serve any other property.  There are instances where people share driveways, but not very often.

 

Commissioner Chesley cited HCC 11.04.030 (g) cul-de-sac as a street that is closed at one end which is therefore required to provide a circular turnaround; and HCC11.04.030 (l) defines driveway as an entrance or exit roadway which provides lateral access to a private property from a public right-of-way which is located on private property, except for its junction with the public road within such right-of-way.  

 

It was questioned whether a driveway permit addresses shared driveways.  Mr. Meyer commented that there is nothing in the driveway permit application that would stipulate whether it would be a shared driveway, however there would likely be a common shared driveway agreement attached.  There may also be a plat where one property owner grants an easement to serve the other.

 

Another definition of driveway was cited from HCC chapter 11.08.030 (a) driveway or approach means that section of the roadway or alley right-of-way between the pavement edge or edge of shoulder and the property line which is designated and used for the movement of traffic between the roadway and adjacent property.  It was noted that this is the first place “adjacent” is used.

 

Question was raised whether there is a policy for opening a cul-de-sac to extend public access through it.  Mr. Meyer responded that he is not aware of any regulation in code or in the design criteria manual.  Discussion in the past has raised the idea that perhaps the Borough has some requirement.  Commissioner Chesley added that he had talked to Max Best, KPB Planning Director, who said there is no specific provision or formula that he was aware of to vacate a cul-de-sac.

 

Commissioner Chesley further cited 11.08.040(b) It is understood by the applicant that control of the location, construction and maintenance of driveways is under the supervision of the City at all times and that in granting such permit the City waives none of its powers or rights to direct the removal, relocation, and/or proper maintenance in the future of any driveway within the right-of-way of the City roads, streets, or trails. Any permit granted will be construed as regulatory and not contractual. Such permits are revocable by the City whenever the use and presence of a driveway or approach unduly interferes with the required use of that portion of the right-of-way occupied by the driveway or constitutes a hazard to traffic.  He noted that just because a driveway permit is issued, it doesn’t give a property owner any rights, the City still has jurisdiction.

 

Public Works Director commented that this subdivision was platted with an access easement that connected many properties and then ran out to the cul-de-sac that is the legal access to the property.  He would find it difficult to tell an applicant that the City can’t issue a driveway permit because he doesn’t agree with the development, when there is legal, platted access that has been recorded.  Mr. Meyer said consideration would be give to the definitions, location, safety issues and the like.  He said that when a plat is approved and there is an access easement platted, he has some obligation to provide the driveway permit as long at it is safe and a reasonable thing to do. 

 

Commissioner Chesley noted Mr. Meyer’s comment that the driveway easement is the legal access, but the legal access created by the previous plat waiver action was the beach.  It has been expressed that the driveway is the practical access.  Mr. Meyer responded that the driveway is a platted easement dedicated for access.  From that perspective a person has a legal right to use the access.

 

Chair Kranich commented that his understanding of the easement document is that it’s specific as to the parcels and properties that can utilize the easement for access. 

 

Commissioner Chesley recommended the Commission discuss driveway permits as an agenda item in the near future.

 

It was questioned whether Orca Way would be considered a street if it is unbuildable and disconnected from the rest of the right-of-way.  Mr. Meyer responded that it is outside his expertise, but based on discussion he has heard and other situations all it has to be is a dedicated right-of-way, the fact that it is not practical to build a road there doesn’t seem to be an issue. 

 

Chair Kranich referred to the Borough Planning Commission minutes of December 10, 2001 and noted the following points:

·        Ocean Surf Drive, the name on the easement, is an easement that was recorded with the 1998 plat waiver so it is a dedicated right-of-way.

·        The minutes reflect that Mr. Bullock commented regarding the width of the easement that it was 60 feet wide from the centerline for a total of 120 feet.  The easement document says 100 feet from the center line.

·        The minutes reflect that Mr. Bullock understood that there were some problems with the road but it was never intended to provide access to numerous property owners, only a handful of people who have access to the road.

·        The minutes reflect that Mr. Bullock commented that Renee Court was platted in the 50’s and they obtained a driveway permit from the City that established that Renee Court was meant to be extended.  He did not believe that Renee Court was ever intended to be permanently closed.

 

Chair Kranich said Mr. Bullock’s comments seem very contradictory to platting process and definitions and understanding of cul-de-sacs being closed. 

 

Public Works Director Meyer commented that he can’t speak to the intent at the time, but his general impression is that there isn’t much chance that the road will be extended any further.  It is steep, and in his opinion from an economic perspective a road couldn’t be built to meet City standards along the alignment. 

 

Comment was made in reference to the Borough Planning Department’s staff recommendations that they have prepared in advance of this action coming before them.  One of the five criteria that has to be met in order to meet the plat waiver requirements is that the subdivision does not require a variance (exception from the subdivision regulations).  In this case, the applicant has to ask for an exception to the three to one depth to width ratio.  Based on that information, this platting action does not meet the requirement. 

 

In addition another condition is that a dedication or vacation of public right-of-way is not involved or required and Borough staff found that Borough Code 20.20.030 requires a reasonable means of ingress be provided to surrounding acreage parcels.  The owner of two lots north of the plat has provided comments that his only reasonable access is through this subdivision and the dedications in the 1976 plat are not reasonable means of access.  A dedication over the existing travel way shown, which is an ATV trail, would be required.  A plat waiver cannot dedicate a right-of-way, therefore that condition is not met either.

 

It was noted that the most important issues for the City include the access issues.  The Fire Chief has brought up issues with access.

 

SCHEER/CHESLEY MOVED TO MODIFY THE STAFF REPORT UNDER PLATTING WAIVER CONDITIONS THAT CONDITION NUMBER TWO IS NOT SATISFIED ON PAGE 34.

 

Platting Waiver Conditions.

State law identifies five conditions for a plat waiver to be granted.

  1. Subdivide a single lot into not more than 4 lots;
    1. This condition is satisfied. Four lots are being created from one large tract.
  2. Provide legal and physical access to a public highway or street for each lot created by the subdivision;

a. This condition is not satisfied.

 

Commissioner Scheer referenced AS 29.40.040 and KPB Code 20.04.020.  His interpretation is that access has to be something that is constructible.  He can’t see a logical reason why they would require frontage to a public street or right-of-way if it is something that could not be used.  It is obvious that the dedicate rights-of-way are not buildable and they don’t join up with the street system.

 

Commissioner Minsch cited the staff report comment that Kenai Peninsula Borough Code does not require that the legal access actually be usable or buildable to any standard.  City Planner McKibben responded that it her understanding and Public Works Director Meyer also made comments to that affect as well.

 

VOTE:  YES:  CHESLEY, SCHEER, KRANICH

            NO:  MINSCH

 

Motion fails for lack of majority.

 

CHESLEY/MINSCH I CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MAIN MOTION

 

VOTE: YES: MINSCH, CHESLEY

            NO: SCHEER, KRANICH

 

Motion failed for lack of majority.

 

There was discussion regarding amending the staff report to include findings prior to the final vote.

 

CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED THAT WE ADOPT A FINDING NUMBER 1 THAT KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH CODE 20.20.180 REQUIRES THE DEPTH OF EACH LOT NOT BE MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE WIDTH, 3 TO 1 RATIO.  PARCELS TWO, THREE AND FOUR EXCEED THE THREE TO ONE DEPTH TO WIDTH RATIO.  EXCEPTIONS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE PLAT WAIVER PROCESS.  THIS CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN MET. 

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES:  MINSCH, KRANICH, CHESLEY, SCHEER

 

Motion carried.

 

CHESLEY/SCHEER MOVED TO MAKE A SECOND FINDING THAT THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 20.20.030 REQUIRES REASONABLE MEANS OF INGRESS BE PROVIDED TO SURROUNDING ACREAGE PARCELS.  THE OWNER OF TWO LOTS NORTH OF THIS PLAT HAS PROVIDED COMMENTS THAT HIS ONLY REASONABLE ACCESS IS THROUGH THIS SUBDIVISION.  THE DEDICATIONS PROVIDED BY THE 1976 PLAT ARE NOT REASONABLE MEANS OF ACCESS. THE DEDICATION OVER THE EXISTING TRAVEL WAY SHOWN AS AN ATV TRAIL WOULD BE REQUIRED.  THE PLAT WAIVER CANNOT DEDICATE A RIGHT-OF-WAY.  THIS CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN MET. 

 

KRANICH/CHESLEY MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO ADD THAT ACCESS GRANTED BY THE EASEMENT DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 284 PAGE 672 PERTAINING TO COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES,  THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT ONLY ALLOWS ACCESS OVER AND ACROSS THE PARCELS OF THE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES AND WOULD NOT ALLOW ACCESS TO PROPERTIES BEYOND COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES.

 

There was discussion that Chair Kranich’s motion clarifies further, the main body of the finding that the Borough has made in that the owner of two lots north is looking for access through the subdivision and this amendment clearly states that the easement being used for access is limited and couldn’t be considered for the two additional lots.  It is an additional point affirming that this plat waiver cannot dedicate a new right-of-way and this condition has not been met. 

 

VOTE (Secondary amendment):  YES:  KRANICH, CHESLEY, SCHEER, MINSCH

 

Motion carried.

 

There was no further discussion on the primary amendment.

 

VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: CHESLEY, MINSCH, SCHEER, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

There was brief discussion clarifying that voting yes support the staff recommendation to recommend denial of this plat waiver.

 

VOTE (Main motion as amended):  YES:  MINSCH, SCHEER, CHESLEY, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Zak returned to the table.                                                                                                       

B.         Staff Report PL 07-14, Bunnell’s Subdivision 2007 Addition Preliminary Plat,

      Revised           

 

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report. 

 

There were no comments from the Applicant or the Public.

 

MINSCH/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 07-14 BUNNELL SUBDIVISION 2007 ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT REVISED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

STAFF COMMENTS/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).

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES:  MINSCH, SCHEER, CHESLEY, KRANICH, ZAK

 

Motion carried.

                                                                                                  

C.     Staff Report PL 07-15, Eker Estates Two Preliminary Plat 

 

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report. 

 

Beth reviewed staff report.

 

Leah Handley, applicant, commented that she and Mr. Handley were available to answer questions. She advised the Commission that she had photographs if they would like to review them.  The initial plan would be to construct a driveway for the existing house but the situation may arise that Mr. Handley may have some down time because of his arm.  In that case they would give access to the second lot via the drive way that is there now. 

 

City Planner McKibben commented that their preliminary estimate shows the site that would become lot 22A has enough area to accommodate the added driveway without exceeding the amount of area that can be developed due to slope constraints.  Lot 22A may need non conforming status because it is already over the 30% allowable area of the slope.  She noted that the area that has been cleared and would probably become the building pad takes up the majority of the allowable area.

 

Mrs. Handley pointed out the locations of the proposed lots and other property features on the aerial photo. 

 

The following points were noted during discussion of this preliminary plat:

·        Because the property was annexed, the property owner could apply for non conforming status for their existing property.  When they are subdividing it is questionable as to whether the new lot will have to conform to the new standard.

·        Establishing non conforming status prior to subdivision may be more appropriate.

·        The measurements on the lots are estimates and the request should be made for more accurate measurements from the surveyor.

 

CHESLEY/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THIS ITEM AND HAVE STAFF WORK ON TWO QUESTIONS IN THE MEAN TIME, ONE WITH THE APPLICANT TO CLARIFY THE DEVELOPED AREAS SO THEY CAN DETERMINE HOW MUCH IS DEVELOPED AREA ON EACH OF THE LOTS AND ALSO THAT THEY DETERMINE PERCENTAGE OF GRADE SO WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT CATEGORY THEY FIT INTO THERE, SO THEY DON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS.  THE SECOND ITEM FOR STAFF TO LOOK INTO IS THE QUESTION OF NON CONFORMING STATUS AND IF THE NON CONFORMING STATUS SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR FOR THE LOT PRIOR TO SUBDIVIDING THE LOT.

 

There was discussion regarding the timeframe to act on preliminary plats.  The Commission has 49 days from the date of receipt to act on the preliminary plat, so this would need to come back at the March 21st meeting.  City Planner McKibben said the applicant can agree to an extension and she will talk to them about it if needed.

 

Mrs. Handley expressed her concern regarding the amount of the slope and its effect on the buildable area.  She noted that at a 30% slope the buildable area is 10% but as the slope from the top of the property decreases, the amount of buildable area should increase.

 

Commissioner Chesley commented that for slopes from 15 to 30 percent the area used for development should not exceed 25%.

 

Mrs. Handley said she was not aware that the slope behind the property going up to Skyline Drive would have bearing on the platting action.  Commissioner Scheer commented that steeper lots are less stable and the measurement of the slope and developable percentage is based on the lot as a whole.  The purpose of limiting development on slopes is to leave enough of the lot in tact with vegetation to keep it stable and protect the property as well as properties above and below. 

 

Mrs. Handley commented regarding the Commission making decisions without seeing the property.  Commissioner Chesley stated that a licensed, registered surveyor is the most qualified professional to make the determinations that the Commission is looking for to make their decisions.  The surveyors are well versed in working with staff in terms of the City’s regulations. 

 

It was noted that the plat presented does not show grades over 20%.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Foster arrived at 8:47 pm.  He did not participate in the vote on this matter.

 

Chair Kranich called for a recess at 8:52 pm.  The meeting resumed at 9:00 pm.

                                

D.        Staff Report PL 07-16, Main Street Village Subdivision Preliminary Plat                    

                                                                                                                         

Commissioner Scheer stated that he has a conflict of interest. 

 

CHESLEY/FOSTER I’LL MOVE THAT COMMISSION SCHEER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR STAFF REPORT PL 07-16.

 

Commissioner Scheer stated that his firm DNA Design has been hired to do design work for the CUP for this project, provided this action passes.  He said it is a financial conflict and he would benefit by more than $300 if the action is approved.

 

VOTE:  YES:  MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Scheer left the table.

 

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report. 

 

MINSCH/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 07-16 MAIN STREET VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT REVISED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

 Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:

1. Dedicate a 15’ foot utility easement along Main Street.

 

Commissioner Minsch questioned if an enforcement action taking place between the City and the property in question has any bearing on the platting action.  City Planner McKibben said not for a platting action, perhaps for a CUP or zoning issue. 

 

There was discussion regarding whether the vacation can take place at the same time as the replat.  Points of discussion were:

·        Vacations of rights-of-way are separate actions that take place through a petition process. This is the vacation of an access easement.

·        In the case of a utility easement, the easement vacation can be accomplished on the same plat.

·        There is a note on the plat that says 20 foot utility access easement. 

·        The utility companies comment at the Borough level.

·        Three things are happening in this request, Removal of a lot line, which is not a subdivision, vacating the 30 foot access easement which overlays the 20 foot utility access easement and the City is asking for 15 foot utility easement, which they are entitled to ask for in a subdivision action, but not in an action like this.  The applicant is not compelled to have to grant the 15 feet to the City.

·        The 30 foot access easement is only on this lot. The access on the adjacent lots may have been previously vacated.

·        KBP 20.28.040. Vacation--Definition. A vacation shall be defined for the purpose of this section as the process in which the right of public use or right of use of a dedicated street, right-of-way, easement or other public area is terminated.

·        KPB 20.28.050. Application--Petition required. No platted right-of-way or public area may be vacated, except upon petition by resolution from a municipality in which the property is located or the owners of the majority of the front feet of land abutting the right-of-way or public area to be vacated. The petition shall be filed with the planning commission.

·        The petitions are filed with the Borough, who in turn notifies the City.

 

The concerns posed by the Planning Commission:

·        What is the access easement and why would it be vacated.

·        Can the vacation be done at the same time as the platting action on the lot line.

·        Does the house meet the setback criteria and would it need to be established as non-conforming.

 

CHESLEY/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THIS ITEM AND SEND IT BACK FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POSED BY THE COMMISSION.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES: FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH

            NO:  ZAK

 

Motion carried.

 

PENDING BUSINESS

 

A.                 Staff Report PL 07-05, Development Constraints on small Central Business District lots

 

MINSCH/CHESLEY MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND MOVE TO NEW BUSINESS ITEM A.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff.  Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed.   The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public. Any items brought before the commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following introduction of the item.  The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant (such as acceptance of a nonconformity). 

 

A.                 Minutes

 

Commissioner Zak requested that the Clerk review the recording regarding the Refuge Shelter action, specifically the discussion opposing the Teen Center.  He commented that the minutes portray that they oppose the Teen Center in the same building.  He said the intent of the action was that a Teen Center not be allowed on any of the lots with the conditional use of the Refuge Shelter being allowed.

 

With regard to his comments about the Country Club Estates Plat Waiver, Commissioner Zak clarified that he was not referring to lots above the property requesting the plat waiver. He stated he is referring to people who are doing development on property below being protected from potential problems from up above.

 

Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen said she would review the recording. 

 

MINSCH/ZAK SO MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES TO THE NEXT MEETING.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

MINSCH/FOSTER IN THE INTEREST OF THE LONG TERM HEALTH OF OUR STAFF I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND GO HOME.

 

There were no members of the public in the audience and they agreed to have comments from the Commission.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

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 dated February 19, 2007 to Roy and Audrey Morris, Homer Pawn Shoppe,

                  from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician                                                           

B.               Letter dated February 23, 2007 to Lisa and Valdis Kirsis from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician                                                                                                   

C.              Letter dated February 23, 2007 to John and Margaret Chapple from Dotti Harness,                  Planning Technician                                                                                     

D.              Letter dated February 26, 2007 to Matt Shadle from Dotti Harness,

                  Planning Technician                                                                                          

E.               Alaska Planning Journal, Winter 2007 Issue                                                                                                  

AUDIENCE COMMENTS

Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject.  (3 minute time limit)  

 

COMMISSION COMMENTS

Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence. 

 

Commissioner Foster commented that he assumes the minutes will be available for the March 26 Borough Planning Commission meeting.  City Planner McKibben responded that she will prepare a memo regarding the HAPC decisions and staff has already discussed having the excerpt of the minutes prepared to send to Platting Officer Toll on Monday.  Mr. Foster apologized for missing part of the meeting tonight.

 

Commissioner Chesley commented on KPB 20.12.080 approval of preliminary plats and the 56 day time frame.  City Planner McKibben responded with KPB 20.12.050 preliminary plat the City Planning Commission will have 49 days to review the preliminary plat, as is echoed in the HAPC Policies and Procedures Manual.  Commissioner Chesley said he would like to have an understanding by their next meeting as there is question regarding preliminary plat approval versus plat approval.

Mr. Chesley said it is great to be back, two of his trips have been cancelled and he is looking forward to working with the Commission.  He stated that he would be absent for the March 21st meeting.

 

Chair Kranich thanked everyone for studying the issues for tonight.  He reported he and Commissioners Zak, Minsch, Scheer and Foster attended the Planning Commissioner training in Anchorage last Friday which included Planning Commissioner Legal Primer, Roles and Responsibilities, Ethics, Running a meeting, Robert’s Rules of Order and an informative panel discussion at the end.  It was really good training and it will be useful for everyone.

 

ADJOURN

Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.

 

There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm.  The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 21, 2007 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers.  There will be a Worksession at 5:00 pm prior to the meeting. 

 

 

 

                                                                                   

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

 

Approved:                                                                   

 

 

 

 


[1] Public Works Director Meyer left at 8:31 pm.