Session 06-26, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich
at pm on
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, PFEIL, ZAK[1]
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
All
items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the
Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public,
in which case the item will be moved to the regular agenda and considered in
normal sequence.
A. Time Extension Requests
B. Approval of City of
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
1. Stark Ravine Fill/Bank Stabilization,
State ID No. AK 0609-04AA
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO MOVE ITEM C 1 OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA TO
NEW BUSINESS ITEM B.
KRANICH/MINSCH REQUESTED THEY
BRIEFLY DISCUSS
Chair Kranich asked if there was any opposition to the two changes. Hearing none the amended agenda was adopted by consensus.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A. Approval of
MINSCH/CHESLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 20 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC
COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The
public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the
agenda. The Chair may prescribe time
limits. Public comment on agenda items
will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations are approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the
Planning Commission.
Debbie Poore, City resident, commented that she would like to bring
attention to the connectivity of trails in our town, especially the bike
path. There is a great bike path that
runs across Beluga Slough, but then it kind of evaporates and becomes the
shoulder of the main highway and is painted with stencils. It is about 4 to 6 feet wide and is usually
strewn with gravel. It is located on a
curve and a very busy highway making it very difficult to ride, especially with
children. She explained the detour she
takes through the neighborhood to get off the main highway but it still comes
out at a bad corner of the spit and then there is the issue of trying to cross
the highway. She said that as our town
is growing and more adults and children are using bicycles and the spit bike
path. Ms. Poore stated it is becoming a
serious problem waiting to get worse and we all need to put our heads together
and find a creative solution for it. She suggested a route coming across Beluga
Slough and through the neighborhood, along
Chair Kranich commented that he had heard from a member of the Port and
Harbor Commission and that is high on their list too, especially the connectivity
from one side of the highway at the intersection of
RECONSIDERATION
There were no items for reconsideration.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
The
Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public
testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Chair may prescribe time limits. The Commission may question the public.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report. In the review she noted that it is staff’s opinion that a PUD is not necessary. The development does provide a review for common interest ownership, but nothing in Homer City Code requires common interest ownership developments be processed as a PUD.
Kurt Marquardt, applicant, commented that he made a presentation a month ago and nothing on his application has changed since his first submission. He said he was here to answer any questions.
Commissioner Zak commented that he didn’t see an area for snow storage on the site. Mr. Marquardt responded that there is ample green space for snow storage. He advised the Commission that he has owned a lot adjacent to this site for quite some time and has a good understanding of snowfall in the area and what will be required. He does not anticipate problems with it.
Commissioner Chesley noted that the parking spaces are to be constructed per HCC 7.12 spaces shown are nominal 9x20 and shall be provided with a 2.5 feet of overhang space. Mr. Chesley explained that in the code, the provision for the 2.5 feet overhang is to allow for shortening the parking space from 20 feet to 17.5 feet. If that area is needed for green space, buffer or snow storage, the 2.5 feet running in front of the parking that could be used for that. Mr. Marquardt thanked him for the information.
There were no public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
MINSCH/PFEIL MOVED TO ADOPT
That the Planning Commission approves
Conditional Use Permit 06-11, as a CUP and not a PUD, with the following
conditions:
Commissioner Chesley expressed his agreement with staff that this be a CUP and not a PUD.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
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.
Commissioner Hess declared a potential exparte communication with the developers and explained that they had done a presentation for the CoHOSTS group and provided information about the subdivision and how it relates to connectivity to the trails in the community. The Commission discussed the issue and determined that there was no information provided to CoHOSTS that was not provided in the developers presentations to the City.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report.
John Fowler, applicant, said they
are excited about moving forward with the project, noting that it is part of a
larger vision they are working toward in the connectivity of trails and open
space. He said they have worked hard on
the design and listened to peoples concerns.
They spent a lot of time looking at the land and the lots are designed based
on actual sites. They know where the
driveways are going to be, what the grade w
Kenton Bloom, applicant,
addressed some of the technical pieces of the proposal. The site based model shows what creates the
value for the developer and enables the developer to hold up contributions of
open space and trails to the community.
He stated that the plat represents a six month study and design
process. Regarding the cul-de-sac, in
looking at topography and the site, the cul-de-sac is 50 feet less than Borough
maximum and they decided to go with it.
He said the other alternative would have been another intersection along
the right-of-way that would increase the footprint and not add any benefit to
the development or community. The shared
driveway on the west end of the project is an attempt to show how those four
lots w
There was discussion about the
how the public w
Concern was expressed regarding
the amount of interaction with
It was noted that the power lines will be underground along the road alignment.
There was discussion concerning pedestrian accommodations along the roadway as that is something the Commission has looked at in previous subdivisions. It was noted that in previous subdivision discussions the need for pedestrian access had to do with the close proximity of the subdivisions to schools in the area.
Commissioner Chesley asked for
clarification of whether there has been an approved waiver for the cul-de-sac
to be longer than 600 feet. City Planner
McKibben responded that it had been mentioned in an earlier meeting and Public
Works didn’t feel it was a problem. She
noted in the staff report that City Code says one thing and Borough Code says
something else. She knows there have been
cul-de-sacs granted that are longer than 600 feet, but does not know the
circumstances. Mr. Bloom commented that
the
Chair Kranich noted for the record that three letters were provided pertaining to the action on Canyon Trails Subdivision.
Phil Morris, Mayor of Kachemak
City, said there are a lot of aspects of the Canyon Trails subdivision that are
fine and they have done an excellent job on some of the items. Mr. Morris said development of this area came
before them in 2003 and the problems at that time were with drainage, sewer
connections and road access. Mr. Morris
said he believes this new plat has fairly well addressed the drainage issues,
noting that the 30 foot drainage easements are an excellent idea and the City
of
David Raskin commented that he is
speaking on behalf of the Stellar Eider Road Gang, Inc. and also as a property
owner adjoining the development. The
Road Gang maintains the road from Golden Plover to Stellar’s Jay.
Rick Wise, resident on Golden
Plover, said the maintenance of the road is his main concern. The property owners try to pool their
recourses and take care of the road and if thirty lots come in with no
negotiations on how it is maintained, the road is going to fall apart. He questioned why traffic could not be
divided up so there is an access from
Scott Harding, property owner on
Stellar’s
Jeannie Manson pointed out her
home site on the aerial photo. She also
pointed out the 30 foot pedestrian road and said Mr. Fowler had told her he is
not going to be putting in the pedestrian trail there as it is wetlands and
there is a year round creek there. Half
of her property is in the gulley, her home is right next to it and she expressed
concern that development there w
· How a 30 foot drainage easement would protect the watershed?
· Wouldn’t it make sense to have necessary permits from the Army Corps of Engineers or Coastal Management Zone before subdividing?
Ms. Manson did not have time to finish reading her letter and provided a copy for the record.
Jeannie Walker owns
Public Works Director Meyer
arrived at
John Martin, owner of two lots on
Rich Fetterhoff, property owner
on Golden Plover, echoes the other property owners concerns. The developers seem to have done a lot of
planning for the subdivision but the elephant in the room seems to be the
access which hasn’t been addressed at all.
With the addition of the homes and the heavy equipment on a road that is
voluntarily maintained, he w
Shirley Mariman, property owner on Golden Plover, commented that not only are they going to be impacted by the widening of the road, there will be another lot right beside them. Over the years they put gravel and typar on the road before anyone else was there and they are going to need help.
Pam Horzdovsky said she and her
husband own a lot on the west side of
Mr. Fowler responded to the
comments by stating he understands that most folks who testified are backing on
to their property and it isn’t any fun to have houses where there was nothing
and he empathizes with them. He said
they are trying to do their best and there w
Mr. Bloom commented that they
felt their open house was an effective tool to interact with property owners
and listen to and discuss their concerns.
It is not required and should speak to their attempts to
communicate. He feels that anyone who
has looked at what they are doing since they started back in April w
Chair Kranich called for a break
at
Commissioner Minsch asked Mr.
Fowler and Mr. Bloom what ideas they have to work with
There were no more public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing. Chair Kranich noted for the record that Commissioner Zak had to leave during the break.
There was discussion with the
Public Works Director regarding the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Meyer commented to the varying length for
cul-de-sac in different areas noting Homer City Code states 600 feet and
Borough Code states 1000 feet. From his
perspective they do want to limit the length of cul-de-sacs but there have been
experiences in the past where they have approved cul-de-sacs a little bit
longer than 600 feet and he likes to think there is some discretion as to how
long a cul-de-sac can be. Commissioner
Chesley noted that the design criteria manual states that the length must not
be longer than 600 feet and is addressed in Title 11. He questioned if the waiver for the length
would come through the Public Works Department and the Subdivision
agreement. Mr. Meyer said that in
negotiation of a subdivision agreement they can stipulate how long or wide a
road is. There may be the flexibility
for the Public Works Director to deal with the waiver if the
There was discussion that HCC 22.10.050 states that required utilities and other public improvement to be constructed according to the standards and procedures required under title 11. Comment was made that it may be time for a code change to allow for flexibilty. Mr. Meyer commented that a suggested code change would be that the zoning of the property and number of homes being served by the length would have bearing on the length. He noted a purpose for limiting length is to keep the amount of traffic being generated on a particular road to a reasonable limit. 600 feet may be more reasonable in an urban residential area where there is a narrower lot, higher density area rather than a rural area where lots are larger and there could be more homes served by the road.
There was discussion regarding
road maintenance and that this would be a new situation for the City of
MINSCH/CHESLEY MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL06-104 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO OUR DECEMBER 6 MEETING.
Commissioner Chesley stated the following reasons for his motion:
· In general most of the people aren’t opposed to the development they are opposed to the impact of the development.
·
As
·
According to Homer’s design standards a
development of this size w
· There are public safety issues.
·
Councilmember Novak said he would be w
Mr. Chesley added that the by
December 6 he is hoping there can be a resolution put in at the next
There was discussion on how to handle the process in regard to timeframe, options noted were asking staff to work with the developer to agree to a time extension request, vote the plat down until Council has a chance to meet and the applicant can apply again if they don’t want to agree to an extension.
Commissioner Foster suggested
another alternative would be to amend staff recommendation two that a
subdivision agreement shall be required with formal input from the City of
Commissioner Hess commented that potentially they could move forward with the plat if there are staff recommendations to deal with an agreement with the cities. It is something that has to be worked out.
Discussion continued regarding in support and opposition of the postponement. Commissioner Chesley called for the question.
VOTE (calling the question): YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, PFEIL, CHESLEY, KRANICH
NO: HESS
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the motion to postpone.
VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, PFEIL
NO: HESS, MINSCH
Motion carried.
B.
Staff
Chair Kranich called for a break
at
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
Jay Inama, applicant, thanked the Commission for their work and advocacy for the City. Mr. Inama asked for clarification regarding the 100 foot water easement. City Planner McKibben responded that the 100 foot drainage easement on the creek is shown on the parent plat so it needs to be shown on the new plat. It identifies an easement around the drainage. Mr. Inama commented regarding a DOT recommendation to rotate the termination of the road of the eastern border to the south. He said with the geography of the land it makes it detrimental to the project because it has to cross a gulley and the property border is the center of the gulley. As the plat is currently submitted it goes straight over another thirty feet and takes a turn to the south and clears the gulley.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that there is a gulley and the alignment that was presented the last time this property was before the Planning Commission, Public Works developed a conceptual alignment that showed the road beginning to turn a little quicker than the original plat. There is nothing carved in stone about that exact alignment and there could be some minor adjustments to stay away from the deep gulley. It was questioned if it would be taken care of in the subdivision agreement. Mr. Meyer responded that this is a preliminary plat and there could be some adjustments between this and the final plat when engineering and surveying efforts are done on the project. During the subdivision agreement process and review and approval of plans, adjustments can be made and try to minimize construction costs, but the road needs to connect to the other side, meeting the design criteria for a collector type street.
There was discussion that there would need to be coordination with state and federal agencies or a coastal project questionnaire filled out when dealing with construction of the road.
Mr. Inama commented that in his
letter of intent he notes the road starting at the mid portion of the southern
border, where the shared access ends and he agrees that the road from the
western border needs to be done with a high standard, recognizing the intent of
connecting east and
Dennis Novak, city resident and property owner in the area, commented that the previous owner proposed three lots. Mr. Novak expressed his concern regarding the wetlands and the watershed in the area and he noted the water does move through the area over a wide range. He noted previously when Cushing Engineering had done work for the Gangl’s on this area the recommended lot size for the area was five acres. He pointed out the drainage and collection area on the aerial photo. Mr. Novak stated there will be legal issues and what is needed is certain minimum on lots size, consideration for drainage requirements and consider health and safety. He asked that they look at some way to evaluate the wetlands before considering how small the lots are going to be.
Kenton Bloom commented that consideration should be given to trail access in the area, noting there are ski trails in the area as well. He pointed out areas on the aerial photos. It was noted that the area Mr. Bloom was referring to was outside the area under consideration.
Mr. Inama had no further comments.
MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT
Planning Commission recommend approval
of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
Commissioner Foster commented that he has not been provided with any direction regarding the concern of being able to vote both on the City and Borough. The Borough Planning Commissioners have been advised that if they vote on a platting issue at the City level then they can not vote on the same plat on the Borough level. Mr. Foster asked for permission to abstain from voting on this issue.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED TO ALLOW COMMISSIONER FOSTER TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS MATTER.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
HESS/CHESLEY MOVED TO AMEND
RECOMMENDATION 6 TO READ “THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF
Commissioner Hess commented that in discussion with Public Works Director Meyer there is some room for adjustment that could be dealt with at the subdivision agreement level.
VOTE (Amendment): YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, PFEIL
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Staff Report PL 06-86 Marine Industrial District Ordinance
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO CONTINUE
ITEM A,
There was discussion regarding a date. The Commission concurred that it would be best to bring it back after the Marine Commercial Ordinance goes to Council for action.
VOTE: YES: HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
B.
Staff
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
MINSCH/PFEIL MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT 06-111 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
There was discussion regarding item K being limited to shellfish. It was noted that being so specific could be construed as spot zoning and the language should be kept general in nature. Other points noted were:
· There are charter operations in this zoning district that have people who fillet and skin the halibut who charge a fee separate from the charter.
· Including the definition in item K keeps those activities legal and the purpose of this amendment is to reflect what the uses out there are.
It was also noted that the
definition in Marine Industrial is manufacturing processing and packing of sea
products, Marine Commercial already has retail outlets for seafood products,
sporting goods, curios, and arts and crafts and under conditional uses are
restaurants and drinking establishments.
Commissioner Chesley suggested that several parts of item K that are
redundant to what is already allowed in marine commercial. City Planner McKibben noted that item K would
allow processing facilities to have an accessory eating or drinking
establishment with out going through the CUP process.
There was discussion of including fish processing as a CUP which makes other tools available to help mitigate the size and scope of a development.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED TO STRIKE ITEM K, LINES 14, 15 AND 16 FROM THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
Commissioner Chesley commented regarding a follow up motion.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, PFEIL, CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED TO CREATE A NEW ITEM “O” ON LINE 38 TO ADD A CONDITIONAL USE OF “MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING AND PACKING OF SEAFOOD PRODUCTS”.
Commissioner Chesley noted that it is the listed use in Marine Industrial so there is consistent language between the two sections of the code in their effort to create harmony between the two codes and by putting into the conditional use section it will give staff and the Commission additional tools to try to mitigate large scale processing enterprises that could come in and may not be consistent with surrounding uses.
It was noted that the line numbers would be adjusted and there was discussion if there needed to be an amendment for wholesale. City Planner McKibben pointed out that Marine Commercial already allows retail outlets for seafood products. It was determined that wholesale isn’t necessary. Comment was made that there may be a need to define processing.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED PROVIDE
SUBSTITUTE WORDING FOR ITEM 4 TO READ “ON SPIT LANDS OWNED BY THE CITY [IN THE MARINE COMMERCIAL AND MARINE
INDUSTRIAL ZONES] THAT THE CITY
OF HOMER PORT AND HARBOR COMMISSION MAKES A WRITTEN FINDING TO THE HOMER
ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 3 OF THIS SUBSECTION
HAVE BEEN MET.”
There was brief discussion to clarify the motion.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
The Commission discussed lot size and width for the area. City Planner McKibben noted that maintaining a minimum lot with will prohibit flag lots, which is important in an area that is heavily congested. Going from 20,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet solves a lot of the problems with lots that were platted incorrectly and maintains a fairly large lot size.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED ON LINE 51 WE
WOULD LIKE THE LANGUAGE TO SAY “THE MINIMUM
There was discussion that not adding the 3:1 ratio could create an opportunity for the request of an exception.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED AMEND THE SECOND SENTENCE TO SAY THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 150 FEET EXCEPT FOR THOSE LOTS PLATTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
HESS/MINSCH MOVED TO MOVE IN PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES ITINERANT MERCHANTS TO CONDITIONAL USE.
There was discussion regarding the issue of itinerant merchants setting up their temporary business in front of the same type of existing business.
City Planner McKibben voiced strong opposition to the amendment noting that it is not an effective use of time for staff and the Commission to permit something that will only last sixty to ninety days. A CUP is not the appropriate vehicle for dealing with itinerant merchants.
There was discussion of disallowing itinerant merchants in those two zones. City Planner McKibben reminded the Commission that the City Manager had previously suggested a specific location for itinerant merchants on the spit.
VOTE: NO: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, PFEIL, HESS, MINSCH
Motion failed.
HESS/CHESLEY MOVED THAT WE STRIKE
IN PERMITTED USES
There was brief comment that they will discuss locations when there is a need.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, PFEIL, CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/FOSTER MOVED THAT WE MOVE THIS TO PUBLIC HEARING.
It was noted that it would be held on October 26th.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
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 reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public.
A.
Staff
Commissioners spoke with regard to the three minute time limit. City Planner McKibben noted other changes to the bylaws that were made by staff which included,
· Acting on a motion by consensus is acceptable unless it is a quasi-judicial action.
· There should be a formal action to close a public hearing. It was noted that the clock starts on a CUP at the close of the public hearing.
· It is appropriate to bring an agenda item to the floor and then hear the staff report.
· Change Old Business to Pending Business.
· Minutes approved under the consent agenda.
Commissioner Chesley noted the time and that there was an audience member waiting to comment.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AT THIS POINT TO TAKE COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Kenton Bloom commented on the
action taken by the Commission on the Canyon Trails preliminary plat. He commented that hopefully the Commission
knows him well enough that his policy in doing his work is to try to find an
agreeable way to get there and he is opposed to dialogue that is oppositional,
undercutting or non-supportive. This
work tries to represent that and their intention in the design tries to
represent that. By and large they were
successful until the Commission passed the motion to postpone, based on an
agreement between
Commissioner Hess questioned if
it is the timeframe that is the issue of if there is another problem. Mr. Bloom responded that fundamentally the
action is saying that a policy decision between a political entity that is not
related to the City of
Commissioner Foster commented on
being at the
Mr. Bloom stated that the action
tonight ties the approval of this development to a policy decision between
political entities and there is no legal basis for doing that. He noted that reconsidering would show
cooperative process, the calendar reality is six months from preliminary
approval from the Borough to being able to implement. Looking at this time frame, it w
Commissioner Chesley thanked Mr.
Bloom for his comments. He explained
that there are some extraordinary circumstances that don’t make approval of
this project a slam dunk. Mr. Chesley
said he has to seriously consider the comments of Mr. Morris that they want to
negotiate, but doesn’t feel the developers are doing that. Tonight it was not presented that there has
been dialogue and that something is going to happen, but he does not feel that
it was presented tonight. Mr. Bloom
reiterated that if they create havoc on the road during construction, they w
B. Stark Ravine F
City Planner McKibben commented that this is a notice that the project is going through a coastal consistency review, which is an inter-agency and includes review by DNR, Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Coastal District. The KPB Coastal District Coordinator submitted a letter to the Project Review Coordinator with DNR regarding this project which has stopped the review clock. Ms. McKibben advised the Commission they should comment to their Coastal District Coordinator. She briefly reviewed the process for the Commission. The Coastal District Coordinator explained to her that if the City of Homer provided comments to him regarding language from the Comprehensive Plan and Code, then he would compare them with the Boroughs enforceable policies and state standards that apply to the Coastal Management Review and provide an official Borough comment, so the clock has been stopped until he gets a satisfactory response.
Commissioner Foster commented
that Mr. Stark told him that the ACOE got this wrong and he is not actually on
Bear Creek/Palmer Creek and does not go into
Comments were made regarding,
· Comments from the Cook Inlet Keeper that there are more modern techniques and methodologies to achieve the same goal of bank stabilization in the area proposed.
· A project similar to this happened on a property neighboring Commissioner Fosters and the creek came over and he lost a significant amount of land and had a significant impact to the property.
City Planner McKibben noted that it would be appropriate to share code language with the Coastal District Coordinator but the project isn’t one that requires a zoning permit.
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED THAT THE GUIDANCE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STAFF TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED ACTION.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster made comment regarding the need to address regarding the restriction of the Borough Attorney having advised that Planning Commissioners can not vote on plats at the Borough Level if they voted on the plat at the City level.
He noted that the Borough is going to address the Bidarki Creek. There was discussion prior to this regarding how Planning Technician Engebretsen was interpreting use of the drainage easement. Mr. Foster reviewed the Borough and staff comments and noted that they increased the easement and there is Borough Code supporting it.
B.
There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report.
PLANNING
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Planner McKibben provided information for the Commission regarding
the Open Meetings Act regarding what constitutes a meeting of the Planning
Commission. She referenced the staff
report presented as a lay down item. She
referenced the City Attorney’s comments and summarized that if it looks like a
committee and acts like a committee it probably is a committee and the better
thing to do would be to treat it as such and have the meetings take place in a
public forum. If Commissioners are
together at a gathering and there is no discussion of Planning Commission
Business it isn’t a meeting, but there is concern with the appearance.
There was brief discussion
regarding the status of the Fred Meyer Appeal clarifying that it is going to be
heard by Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment, not by the Planning Commission.
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
B. Letter dated
C. Email from Mary Calhoun,
City Clerk dated
COMMENTS
OF THE AUDIENCE
Members
of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Because of the late hour, audience comment was heard during New Business. There was no further audience comment.
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including
requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Pfeil said it is nice to be back and thanked everyone for the hard work. He thanked Commissioner Minsch and Commissioner Zak for coming on board.
Commissioner Foster commented that on the 26th there is a workshop called “The life and times of the North Gulf Coast Rockfish.” In April/May there will be a workshop on Coastal Community Planning. He hopes the Commissioners and Council might attend. Mr. Foster commented that he was unsure how to respond to Mr. Blooms comments because he feels it is important for the two communities to come together with a formal decision.
Commissioner Chesley commented that is good to be back. He said tonight was a night when they got taken to the woodshed by a member of the public who brings business before the Commission. It is not fun, but it is their job to protect the interest of the City as well as property owner’s rights to develop. This plat was shot down at the Borough before because of this very same reason, so it isn’t something new for this development or developer. Mr. Chesley said he is willing to meet with Ms. McKibben and the City Manager to talk about a way to help this move forward for a quick resolution.
Chair Kranich said he would
participate as well. Commissioner Foster
commented that the City of
Commissioner Hess said he appreciates the applicant’s viewpoint that their plat should not be held up in the process while these details will have to be worked out. He believes the development will force the agreement to happen.
Commissioner Minsch commented that it was hard to listen to that. She asked Mr. Chesley how much longer he would be on the Commission and brief discussion took place asking that he consider staying on the Commission for the remainder of his term.
Chair Kranich said he feels the same as most everyone else that this subdivision is bringing to the forefront a problem that needs to be addressed, whether it holds the subdivision up or not. If they send a preliminary plat to the Borough with out taking care of the access there is a good chance they will turn it down and send it back. It needs to be taken care of correctly.
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
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: