Session 07-14, a Regular Meeting of the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER
CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, HOWARD, KRANICH, MINSCH, ZAK
STAFF:
DEPUTY
PUBLIC
WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
AGENDA
APPROVAL
CHESLEY/HESS I WOULD
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the
Commission.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
The Public may speak to the Planning Commission
regarding matters not scheduled for public hearing. (3 minute time limit)
Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning
Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
There were no public comments.
RECONSIDERATION
A. Staff Report PL 07-80, Reconsideration of Staff Report
PL07-70, James Waddell-Burns Addition Preliminary Plat (If reconsideration is approved the Preliminary Plat will be
back before the Commission under Pending Business)
HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO
Commissioner Hess commented that after giving more consideration to the Transportation Plan and potential amendments to the Borough Code regarding legal access he thinks it is worthy of another look from the Commission.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, HOWARD,
KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
NO: MINSCH, ZAK
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich advised the
Commission that this will be taken up as Pending Business Item A.
ADOPTION OF THE 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 the Minutes of
2. Time
Extension Requests
3. Approval
of City of
4. KPB
Coastal Management Program
5. Commissioner
Excused Absences
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD
Chair Kranich stated that Commissioner Foster had
noted an explanation that he was going to give to the City Clerk and Chair
Kranich would provide a copy of the typographical errors he noted.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentations approved by the Planning Director,
the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may
address the Planning Commission.
There were no presentations.
REPORTS
A. Borough
Report
Commissioner Foster commented that he would talk
about the road ordinance when it comes up later on the agenda. He said that at
the last two meetings there have be a fair amount of violations brought before
the Planning Commission in regard to the 50 foot setback on the anadramous streams.
There have been some late meetings because of this but the Planning Commission
has upheld the staff requests of dealing with the violations. He noted that
their next meeting is in Seward.
B.
No KBAPC report.
C. Planning
Director’s Report
1. Staff Report
City Planner McKibben reviewed her staff report.
She advised the Commission that today the decision by the Board of Adjustment (
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing
a staff report, hearing public testimony and the 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 hearings scheduled.
PLAT
CONSIDERATION
The Commission hears a staff report, 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 PL07-75,
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
Roger Imhoff, surveyor and applicant’s
representative, commented that he has an issue with recommendation three
regarding the 30 foot building setback. He noted that a 20 foot building
setback is standard if
MINSCH/ZAK I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT
Staff notes
this is a complete preliminary plat submittal and includes all of the customary
plat notes.
Planning
Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following
comments:
There was discussion regarding the 30 foot setback
and reason for the request being that they can not request right-of-way at this
time. There are many potential alignments and uncertainty in the plan and
timing. In more certain cases the City would recommend a dedication of
right-of-way.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO
It was suggested that they leave a small portion at
the end of the eastern property line at the 30 feet to accommodate the
potential intersection plan study as shown in the color insert of their packet.
Point was made that recommendation 1 will address the alignment issue as the
radius return will go around the corner of the lot.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER,
CHESLEY, MINSCH, HOWARD, KRANICH
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion
as amended.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: MINSCH, ZAK,
KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, HOWARD
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL07-78, Derose Subdivision-Martin Addition Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Roger Imhoff, surveyor and applicant’s
representative, said he had no comments but was available for questions. He was
asked what the grade change would be from the front of the lot to where it
rises up to the back of the lot line. Mr. Imhoff said his guess was 10 to no
more than 15%.
There were no public comments.
Chair Kranich suggested that he may have a conflict
of interest. He has known the applicant, Diann Martin, for many years and was
employed by her and her husband years ago. They still maintain a casual
friendship.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD
When questioned, Commissioner Kranich stated he
believes that the relationship would not hinder his judgment on the application
and he expects no financial gain from the action.
Chair Kranich passed the gavel to Vice Chair
Minsch, who called for the vote.
VOTE: NO: FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HOWARD, HESS,
MINSCH
Motion failed.
Chair Kranich received the gavel from Vice Chair
Minsch.
MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT PL07-78
DEROSE SUBDIVISION-MARTIN ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
City Planner McKibben referenced the aerial photo
and commented that the flag of the lot is about 450 feet from West Hill. Commissioner
Chesley noted that anything within 600 feet of West Hill is in the zone of
influence of the intersection.
Commissioner Chesley questioned the fire department
accessibility with this 20 foot panhandle that is 223 feet long. City Planner
McKibben responded that based on the recommendation of the City Attorney, the
Fire Chief is not making those recommendations at this time.
It was noted that when there is a subdivision
action that is adjacent to an arterial, the Commission has the ability to require
a frontage road to limit the accesses on to the arterial. It was further noted
that shared access is also an option, so there is only one access to the
highway from these lots. Commissioner Chesley cited
There was brief discussion of an earlier action
regarding a vacation of
CHESLEY/MINSCH I
Commissioner Chesley said when the property owner
comes in for a zoning permit, this recommendation will
require that the City of
VOTE (Primary Amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH I
There was no discussion.
VOTE (Primary Amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion of the main motion
as amended.
VOTE (Main Motion as Amended): YES: FOSTER, MINSCH,
HOWARD, CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
The Commission took a short recess at
PENDING
BUSINESS
A. Staff Report PL07-80, Reconsideration of Staff Report
PL07-70, James Waddell-Burns Addition Preliminary Plat
The amended main motion on the floor:
FOSTER/MINSCH
Amended as
follows:
Public Works Director Meyer commented that he understands that the property owner has an interest in subdividing into two lots and there has been previous discussion that carving off one piece from a larger piece may be in the best interest of the property owner but not necessarily in the best interest of the neighborhood. In looking at the Transportation Plan and the neighborhood there needs to be a connection from the south across the property and connected over to the north. There are various ways to do that. He encourages property owners to look to the long term and how property will be developed in the future. Mr. Meyer commented that he doesn’t like to see what has happened to the south and the west of this property where they plat lots and provide legal access by half street rights-of-way, but there are never any roads constructed.
Roger Imhoff, surveyor and applicant’s
representative, commented that the Transportation Plan kind of a is a wish
list. The City wants to decide for private property owners the best and highest
use for their property. The fact is there were no dedications in the property
to the south. The City does not have any proposed alignment to connect
The alignment of proposed road improvements shown on this map
are meant to be approximate in nature and not definitive. Final road alignments
will be determined only through a public design process that will include
community involvement.
VOTE (Main Motion as Amended): YES: MINSCH, ZAK,
KRANICH, CHESLEY, FOSTER, HOWARD
NO:
HESS
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL07-87(S), Supplemental to Staff Report
PL07-87(S), Staubyeska Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Pending motions on the
floor are as follows:
MINSCH/CHESLEY I MAKE A MOTION WE ADOPT STAFF
REPORT PL07-73, Staubyeska Subdivision
Preliminary Plat WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
And one primary
amendment:
FOSTER/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD
A COMMENT THAT WOULD STATE THAT THE BUILDABLE PORTION OF EACH
City Planner McKibben read
the supplemental staff report.
Tom Latimer with Mullikin Surveys and applicant’s
representative commented that they are taking the existing lot and making it
wider. The owner went through the property looking for building sites which is
where the lot designs come from. The owner is fine with the staff
recommendations to require all of lot one to be subject to Homer City Code.
When questioned regarding the 3 to 1 ratio, Mr.
Latimer commented his understanding is at the Borough level the 3 to 1 is
basically a rule of thumb, it is reviewed on a case by case basis, and they are
looking for people blatantly trying to make a bunch of skinny lots and escape
decent lot design. He didn’t see any issue with Commissioner Foster’s
recommendation from next meeting.
FOSTER/CHESLEY MOVED TO ADD THE WORD STANDARDS SO
IT WOULD READ MEET THE BOROUGH’S STANDARD FOR THREE TO
There was no discussion.
VOTE (Secondary
amendment): YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, HOWARD,
CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
NO: ZAK
Motion carried.
There was no further
discussion on the primary amendment.
VOTE (Primary amendment as amended): YES: HESS,
FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH, HOWARD, KRANICH
NO: ZAK
Motion carried.
HESS/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE
THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT PL07-87
5. All development on
There was no discussion.
VOTE (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
Motion carried.
Commissioner Chesley expressed his concern with
enforcement issues on a lot when only a portion of the lot is inside City
Limits. He felt there may be some merit in realigning the lot line so it is all
inside the City Limits.
City Planner McKibben commented that the City does
not have the power to enforce the plat notes. She recognizes that this is an
awkward situation but aside from realigning the lots to align with the City
boundary this was the next best solution.
There was discussion that the majority of the
buildable lot is inside the City. A little over 60 feet is outside the City
Limits.
CHESLEY/HESS I
There was brief discussion regarding driveway
permits for lot 2.
Commissioner Hess suggested the applicant’s
representative be given the opportunity to respond to the proposed amendment.
Mr. Latimer commented that the owner realized that
the design was creating an odd situation but in looking at where the building
sites were and the usable area around a house that seem like the best way to do
it. He said we don’t normally get a certificate to plat at the preliminary plat
stage, so there are often things at that point that they don’t notice. After
comment at the last meeting, Mr. Latimer reviewed the deed and discovered that
the owner of lot nine encumbered the lot 8 with a restriction saying that no
structures are to be built within 150 feet of the property line shared with lot
9. His indication was that he did not want any houses built in the lower part
of lot 8. In addition to reducing the buildable area by moving the lot line
down, it severely restricts the buildable area of the lot.
Commissioner Hess noted that he not aware of any
restrictions in City or Borough Code regarding portions of a lot being inside
and outside the City boundary. Brief discussion ensued.
HESS I CALL FOR THE QUESTION.
VOTE (Question): YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS,
HOWARD
NO:
CHESLEY, FOSTER
Motion carried.
VOTE (Primary Amendment): YES: FOSTER, CHESLEY
NO: HOWARD, MINSCH, HESS,
KRANICH, ZAK
Motion failed.
There was no further discussion on the main motion
as amended.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: KRANICH, ZAK,
HOWARD, HESS, MINSCH
NO:
FOSTER, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL07-61(S), Supplemental to Staff Report
Pending motion from
CHESLEY/FOSTER - MOVED TO ADOPT
Commissioner Hess left the table. The Commission
determined he had a conflict of interest at the
City Planner McKibben
reviewed the supplemental staff report.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that he
supports the conditions recommended in the supplemental staff report.
Chair Kranich called for a
short break at
It was clarified that this does not have to meet
the 6.4% impervious coverage. City Planner McKibben cited
Public Works Director advised the Commission of the
status of the land. Mr. Meyer explained that City Council approved the idea of
trading properties with Nancy Hillstrand and he expects that is what will
occur. The City is in the process of having the land appraised to ensure it is
a fair trade and the final plat is at the Borough level to legally create the
lot lines to make it a real parcel.
Public Works Director Meyer said that he
anticipates the trade will be complete by the end of October.
There was question regarding the relationship of
the parcel for the water treatment facility with other City or Borough land
that may be adjacent. Public Works Director Meyer commented that the 4 acre
parcel that was platted is immediately adjacent to the property to the south
that the 1 million gallon water tank sits on. In the beginning the City wanted
to purchase the entire Hillstrand property and made an offer for over 400 acres
of property immediately adjacent to this in an effort to protect the Bridge
Creek Water Shed.
Discussion ensued regarding the recommendation that
a condition be placed that the water treatment site not exceed 4 acres in the
southwestern most corner of the tract and if an alternative site is needed it
be approved through the Conditional Use Process. It was noted that the
recommendation may not be necessary now that the Preliminary Plat has gone to
the Borough and the land exchanges are progressing. Public Works Director Meyer
commented that the purchase agreement does provide for increasing the size of
the piece of property the City would acquire from Ms. Hillstrand more than the
four acres if the assessed value of the property that the City is trading ends
up being worth more than the four acres is worth right now. It is possible that
the four acres may increase slightly. It won’t change where the building would
be located or fences would be, it would be added to the vegetated buffer and
would only make the impermeable calculation better than it is now.
There was discussion
regarding staff recommendations.
CHESLEY/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO
There was no discussion on the primary amendment.
VOTE (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
Motion carried.
Question was raised regarding time limits for
actions on CUP’s. City Planner McKibben explained that CUP’s can have a time
limit and staff has been suggesting them in more applications. No time limit
was recommended for the water treatment plant.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: KRANICH,
FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HOWARD, MINSCH
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess returned to the table.
D. Staff Report PL07-82(S), Supplemental to PL07-72, Request
for Approval of Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District Mitigation Plan for
City Planner McKibben reviewed the supplemental staff
report. Ms. McKibben said at some point she would like to have a generic
conversation about Bridge Creek. It is not specific to this application, but is
related to the applicant’s comments at a previous meeting. She would like to
develop some specific policies on how to reduce the percentage on driveways in
the Bridge Creek Water Shed District.
FOSTER/HESS I
The HAPC has considered four requests
to have the impervious coverage calculations for driveways reduced from
100%. One request was required to
provide an engineer’s statement specific to that site and proposed
mitigation. One required site specific
engineering, should the applicant not use Grasspave. Another was accompanied by an engineer’s
statement regarding general driveway construction in Kelly Ranch Estates. The
forth was postponed for additional information, and the applicant chose not to
pursue the request any further.
Staff’s literature search indicates
that impervious coverage for driveways range from 70% to 95%. McCuen, a leading authority on the subject
indicates that variability is based on soil, slope, lot size and storm
frequency.
Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the mitigation plan, outlined in SR 07-72, and allow the
reduction of the impervious calculation from 100% to 70% for the driveway, walkway
and parking located on Lot 8, Block 2 Kelly Ranch Estates.
1. The pie shape lot is narrow near the
road.
2. The 12 foot by 130 foot driveway
avoids tree clearing
3. Potential run off from the driveway
will flow into ditches lined with filter fabric and drain rock, allowing the runoff to slowly leach into the
surrounding soil.
4. A 20 foot undisturbed buffer will be
retained on both sides of the lot which provides additional filtering.
5. The lot has a gentle slope of 6-8%
which allows runoff to slowly filter.
6. Filter fabric will encase the
driveway and side ditches. No Typar will
be used.
7. The driveway will be topped with 6”
of course washed gravel.
8. The mitigation plan includes periodic maintenance to function properly.
9. Given reasonable site conditions,
research indicates that gravel driveways can be mitigated to be 70% impervious.
10.
The
lot is approximately 1,800 feet from Bridge Creek based on the applicants
Any further reduction in the
impervious coverage calculation must include a site specific engineered plan
which documents a mitigation plan that meets the intent of the BCWPD code 21.59
and stormwater provisions outlined into 21.48.060(f) Stormwater.
Commissioner Foster expressed his support for the reduction
to 70% on the driveway.
Chair Kranich expressed his concerns regarding lack
of information regarding reference to a study that was cited in the last packet
and the issues in trying to get copies of the information from staff. Chair
Kranich reviewed some of the information he found.
CHESLEY/ZAK I
Commissioner Chesley commented that the applicant’s
proposal seems like a very reasonable approach to get his driveway mitigated to
50%.
Discussion ensued and comments were made regarding
the importance of having references for local research for science specific to
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: CHESLEY, HOWARD,
ZAK, KRANICH
NO:
MINSCH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben noted for clarification that
the Commission amended to the 50% and item #9 on page 82 will also be 50%. She
reviewed the status of the application and the actions taken at the previous
meeting. She noted the recommendations on page 92 are specific to the driveway
mitigation.
It was noted that Mr. Alexander’s plan is the first
one to come along where the homeowner is committing in a recorded document that
he is going to remove the upper layer of material and replace it to continue to
have permeability. Discussion comment included that the plan doesn’t provide
any runoff coefficients specific to this lot and there is concern that if this
is approved others will take this plan and use it.
CHESLEY I CALL FOR THE QUESTION.
VOTE (Question): YES: HOWARD, MINSCH, HESS,
KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK.
There was brief discussion clarifying the
Commission is now voting on the main motion.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: ZAK, KRANICH,
HESS
NO:
FOSTER, MINSCH, HOWARD, CHESLEY
Motion failed.
City Planner McKibben explained that the
Alexander’s have a mitigation plan at 6.4% but their site plan and mitigation
plan as approved won’t let them develop the site.
CHESLEY/HESS I
Commissioner Hess suggested that if they go to 70%
it would pass and the applicant would have what he wants.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY,
FOSTER, HOWARD
Motion carried.
HESS/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE
WHAT IS
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH,
HOWARD, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Commissioner Chesley commented that the applicant
is eligible to apply for reduced coverage if he wants to bring an engineered
plan back to staff and the Commission for review that would support a reduction
in the impervious percentage.
Commission Foster commented that he would support
and help out to get local science to look at what impervious coverage can be
obtained in the Bridge Creek Water Shed for various driveway types.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: KRANICH,
FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HOWARD, HESS, MINSCH
Motion carried.
The Commission took a short
recess at
E. Staff
Report PL07-77, Sign Code Amendments
City Planner McKibben reviewed the Staff Report.
Commissioner Chesley referenced page 142 of the
packet noting the upper paragraph that is all struck. He recommended the
Commission reinstate from the third sentence down, which states:
If part of
the allowed signage is used on a free standing sign in no case shall the sign
exceed 72 square feet in area to be calculated as follows:
Note was made that there had been discussion of
allowing up to 72 square feet on a free standing sign. Commissioner Chesley
referenced the Refuge Chapel sign, which is approximately 32 square feet for
one business. He thinks they need to go back to the regular language and
continue to work on the sign code.
CHESLEY/HESS I
There was no discussion or opposition, the motion
passed by consensus.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I
Once this is done it will give direction on how to
handle the other bold text that is in the middle of the table. Commissioner
Chesley will work with City Planner McKibben on this amendment.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess requested that they look at the
maximum total area of all signs, look at all the instances. He noted on line
177 is the computation of height that he feels would work well with fences.
Commissioner Foster suggested clarifying the
definition of freestanding sign and building sign.
HESS/MINSCH I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM
TO SUCH TIME THAT STAFF
Chair Kranich suggested including on page 142 top
line add the word multiple before buildings.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
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
non conformity).
A. Staff
Report PL07-81, Scenic Gateway Overlay Zone and Community Design Manual
MINSCH/CHESLEY
The Commission was asked to hold on to the copy of
this so it won’t have to be reprinted for the next packet.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL07-84,
City Planner McKibben said there is a training
opportunity on October 3, which is the same night as their regular meeting and
the second meeting in November is the day before Thanksgiving. The Commission
discussed the meeting schedule.
CHESLEY/HESS I
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
MINSCH/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT
WE CANCEL THE SECOND REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING IN NOVEMBER.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MINSCH I
Commission Foster said he has a conflict with that
date.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL07-88,
MINSCH/HESS I MAKE A MOTION
TO POSTPONE
There was discussion regarding the time frame to
report to the Borough. City Planner McKibben suggested the Commission make
recommendations to City Council and have Council’s action forwarded to the
Borough. There was discussion regarding the Council schedule.
Commission Howard advised the Commission that the
Borough Assembly will be meeting in Homer on September 18th, which
is one of the Public Hearing nights.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Appeal Notice from the Kenai Peninsula Borough dated
B. Memorandum 07-137 to Planning Commission from Mayor and City
Council dated
C. Memorandum to Anne Marie Holen, Administrative Assistant
from Beth McKibben City Planner dated
D. Notification of Appeal Record for Oscar Munson Subdivision
Brant Replat Preliminary Plat
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the Audience may
address the Commission on any subject.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comments
on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner’s Zak and Minsch had no comments.
Commissioner Chesley read two memo’s that he prepared. One
was to the City Manager and Council requesting a meeting with the City Manager
and the Mayor to assist the Commission in identifying strategies that would
help them make the most informed recommendations to Council. The second memo
was to the HAPC Chair and Commissioners asking for their support in taking up
The Commission agreed to add the letter to the City
Manager and Council on their agenda for discussion and add
Commissioner Hess asked that the language from the sign ordinance that could be used in reference to fences be added to the worklist as well.
They discussed the schedule of upcoming meetings.
City Planner McKibben said she would email everyone with a meeting schedule.
Commissioner Foster recommended the Commission
review the appeal notice for Country Club estates. He commented that a boardwalks
on the spit is one building as it has one foundation and there are multiple
buildings attached to it.
Commissioner Howard asked to be excused from the
next meeting.
Commissioner Kranich said it was a good meeting; a
lot of information was covered. He asked if the Commission wants to continue
starting their worksessions at
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. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved:
[1] Clerk’s note: Commissioner Hess’s COI was addressed under the Plat Consideration for