Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-26 Planning & Zoning Minutest CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS .Ianuary 26, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. Consent Agenda *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. *January 12, 2005 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZOS-04 -- An application for a Conditional Use Permit for an in-home massage therapy business for the property known as Lot 44, Block 1, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision (109 South GiII Street), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Jean-etienne Wetter, 109 South Gill Street, Kenai, Alaska. b. PZOS-OS - An application for an Encroachment Permit for a front yard setback for the property known as Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Addition No. 3, Bluff View Condominiums (406 South Forest Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by F. DeWayne & Diane E. Craig, P.O. Box 1613, Kenai, Alaska. 6. OLD BUSINESS: 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. *PZOS-07 - An application far a Home Occupation Permit for a daycare for the property known as Lot 4, Block 5 Thompson Park Subdivision No. 2 (235 Eisenhower Lane), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Stephanie Owens, 235 Eisenhower Lane, Kenai, Alaska. b. Amendment to Kenai Municipal Code -Title 14 -Definitions (Condominium) - Discussion c. Lease Application, Portion of Tract A, General Aviation Apron No. 2 -Charles E. & Helen L. Tulin -Discussion and Recommendation S. PENDING ITEMS: 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT: a. 2004 Year End Report 10. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough PIanning c. Administration 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. Planning & Zoning Roster b. Board of Adjustment Minutes PZ04-49 c. Finding & Decision -Spring 2005 Land Disposal Auction 435 d. Board of Adjustment Decision In the Matter of the Appeal of Blue Sky Pilots Trust 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 14. ADJOURNMENT: ~~ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING 8a ZONING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 26, 200 7:00 P.M. CHAIR JOHN HAMMELMAN, PRESIDING MEETING MINUTES ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER Chair Hammelman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. 1-a. Roll Call Roll was confirmed as follows: Commissioners Present: C. Glick, J. Hammelman, P. Bryson, J. Twait, B. Eldridge, N. Amen and J. Barrett Others Present: Council Member Ross, City Clerk Freas, Building Official Springer, and Planning & Zoning Department Assistant Carver. A quorum was present. 1-b. Agenda Appro~cral MOTION: Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve the agenda, however, moving Item No. 7-c forward between Items 4 and 5 and Commissioner Barrett SECONDED the motion and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 1-c. Consent Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Glick MOVED to approve the consent agenda as presented and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Commissioner Barrett SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -~ January 12, 2005 Approved by consent agenda. ITEM 3: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -- None. ITEM 4; CONSIDERATION OF PLATS -- None. ITEM 7: NEW BUSINESS J 7-c. Discussion/Recommendation -- Lease Application, Portion of Tract A, General Aviation Apron No, 2 -Charles E. & Helen L. Tulin. Planning & Zoning Department Assistant Carver reviewed the memorandum included in the packet, noting the property was in the process of being subdivided; the parcel is zoned Light Industrial (IL); and, the Commission needed to determine if the intended use complies with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Carver also reported, the proposed use complies with the zoning ordinance and the Plan and the Airport Commission recommended Council approval of the lease application during their special meeting immediately prior to the Commission meeting. Council Member Linda Swarner -- 298 Rogers Road, Kenai and Council Liaison to the Airport Commission. Swarner reported the Airport Commission in a special meeting immediately prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting in order to consider this Tease application. She noted, the Commission found the Lease application to be in the best interest of the airport, was in accordance with the Airport Master Plan, and recommended approval of the lease application. MOTION: Commissioner Glick MOVED to recommend approval of the lease application for a portion of Tract A, General Aviation Apron No. 2 to Charles e. & Helen L. Tulin. Commissioner Amen SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Bryson reported his work was involved with the project and he would abstain from voting on the issue, however he was available for questions. Charles Tulin, 529 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, 99501 -- Mr. Tulin noted the following: • They are interested in developing the property to its highest and best use. • They have been in discussions with Federal Express and will be meeting with them again in February. • They want to build a large hangar with aviation-related shops and offices with the possibility of building a second hangar on the Granite Point/Willow corner of the property. • They plan to develop the property with a 60 foot setback to allow for landscaping and parking. • The construction would be high quality. • If the lease application is approved, they would want to begin preparing the property for construction this year. Tulin added, as a result of their moving forward with the lease application, they have been contacted by United Parcel Service, who are also interested in a more central location, as well as FAA who stated they are requiring additional office space and inside storage. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 2 1 Rebecca Cronkhite, Kenai Airport Manager -- Cronkhite reported, this property had been before the Commission previously with a different application that was not pursued. She explained, Tract A-1, fronting on Willow Street, is ready for development and would be where the hangars would be built. Previously, it had been indicated Tract A-3 and Tract A-2 were designated for future apron expansion and transient aircraft parking. Before proceeding with the applicant, she met with FAA. She noted, the lease would include restrictions that Tract A-2 would be developed as an aircraft parking apron, with the possibility of T-hangars being constructed there. Cronkhite stated, she met with FAA to insure that even though it is in the Master Plan for future apron expansion, the FAA does not require the airport build that apron to park transient aircraft, but is a place they feel in planning, that should be done. She noted, it seemed the benefits of Tulin building the aircraft parking area were obvious. Cronkhite explained, same of the things Tulin was proposing would accommodate a full FBO service to the corporate jets coming through the airport. She also noted drainage issues with this lot are being addressed by the City. The lessee will receive drainage specifications to which the ramp/apron property will be required to be developed in order to avoid any conflicts with the airport properties. Commissioner Amen questioned the Building Restriction Line (BRL). Cronkhite explained, the BRL currently exists approximately where the utility easement is and will allow Tulin to build his hangars well behind the BRL as required. She added, in her meetings with FAA, if Tulin pursue building T-hangars on the parking apron, because of the relationship with the taxiway, etc. the City can apply to the FAA to move the BRL to accommodate a T-hangar if necessary, Amen questioned the 5S-year length of lease and asked if the lease stipulated the city's ability to invalidate it if the planned development does not take place in a certain amount of time. Cronkhite explained, the lessee is required to build within two years and the size of the investment determines the term of lease. She added, the City is protected in several ways. VOTE: Glick Yes Hammelman Yes B son Abstain Twait Yes Eldrid e Yes Amen Yes Barrett Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5-a. PZ05-04 - An application for a Conditional Use Permit for an in-home massage therapy business for the property known as Lot 44, Block 1, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision (109 South Gill Street), Kenai, Alaska. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 3 -~` Application submitted by Jean-etienne Wetter, 109 South Gill Street, 1 Kenai, Alaska. Carver reviewed the staff report included in the packet, noting the application for Conditional Use Permit is for an in-home massage therapy business and the applicant plans to convert a 1.3'x15' portion of their existing garage for the business. She also reported the use is consistent with the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan and staff recommended approval of the permit. The public hearing was opened. Annett Lynn Wetter, 109 Gill Street, Kenai -- Wetter noted the following: There would be no abnormal amount of noise with the business. • It would involve a limited amount of traffic during the day. • Signage would include a sign (limited to five square feet) placed above the garage doorway and would not be any on the street. • Currently there are no Iegal requirements for these types of businesses outside Anchorage or Fairbanks, though she has acquired a certain amount of education and plans to receive a national certification. • There is adequate parking space available using her driveway. • Currently, the business would be limited to herself alone, though she would like to move to a commercial area in the future as her business grows. Carver also reported the permit is transferable to another person at the same site but not without going through the Conditional Use Permit process, though the permit cannot be transferred to another site. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Eldridge MOVED to approve PZO5-04 and Commissioner Glick SECONDED the motion. Building Official Springer confirmed the signage described by the applicant conforms with the home-use limitations. VOTE: Glick Yes Hammelman Yes B son Yes Twait Yes Eldrid e Yes Amen No Barrett Yes MOTION PASSED. The applicant and audience was informed of the appeal process. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 4 5-b. PZ05~05 - An application for an Encroachment Permit far a front yard setback for the property known as Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Addition No. 3, Bluff View Condominiums (406 South Forest Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by F. DeWayne 8~ Diane E. Craig, P.O. Box 1613, Kenai, Alaska. Carver reviewed the information included in the packet, noting the following: • The encroachment permit requested is for the front yard setback on the Toyon Drive (Way) side of the building. • In 2002, the Commission denied a setback variance to build in this setback. • Building Permit B3938 was issued that met the building and zoning codes. • The encroachment was discovered in October, 2004 with a submitted as- built. • Both the applicants and Building Official Springer were present to answer questions. • Planning staff recommended denial of the encroachment permit. Commissioner Amen, referring to the letter included in the packet from the applicants and requesting Amen recuse himself from voting on the issue, noted the following: • From his recollection and the public record, he estimated he supported Craig's position on several occasions. • The Commission needs to remain objective on either side of an issue. • Requested he be recused during the discussion and voting process on PZ05-05. He explained, he did not want to set a precedent, but wanted to be a good neighbor and by vacating his seat, he felt it would add validity to the Commission's decision on the issue. Chair Hammelman stated he would allow Amen to recuse himself, unless there was objection from the Commission. Commissioner Bryson stated he felt Amen should be allowed and required to vote on the issue. He noted, people become aware of issues coming before the Commission by public posting of the agenda on bulletin boards, newspaper publication of the agenda, and signing on the property. Bryson added, the subject property had been before the Commission multiple times and anyone who had not formed a perspective on different components related to the property, he would question the qualifications for being an the commission. Bryson stated, planning commissioners are selected from around the city to provide input in specific areas of the city. Instead of restricting members from participation on an issue, he believed the members should be encouraged because they have a greater local knowledge on the issues affecting their neighborhood. Bryson stated, as a commission member, he had been notified three times because he lived within 300 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 5 feet of issues taking place before the Commission. All affected him, though he did not support all of the issues. Bryson stated, he believed Commissioner Amen should be allowed to vote on the issue. Commissioner Glick stated he believed there were many issues coming before the Commission and some or all of the members are familiar with the property involved because Kenai is a small town and because they know or drive by the properties on a frequent basis. Because they may be neighbors, they should not be recused from voting or participating in the discussions. Glick stated, as long as the issue does not affect the member monetarily, i.e. there is nothing for the member to gain or lose from the issue, the Commissioner should participate in the process. Commissioner Barrett stated, though the arguments of Glick and Bryson were good, he would acquiesce to Amen's best judgment. Commissioner Eldridge stated, though he understood Amen did not have to recuse himself if there is no monetary involvement, he believed there was some feeling that since he testified when Craig appealed to the city council on a previous issue for the same property, as a resident of the area involved, he would be left with some question of whether he should participate on the issue or not. However, he believed it was Amen's decision as to how it would affect his decision-making ability on the Commission. Commissioner Twait stated, the precedence it would or would not set was something needing to be considered as to what may or may not happen in the future. He added, even though Amen stated he did not want his request to recuse himself to set a precedence, the potential was there to do that and to keep the integrity and effectiveness of the Commission in tact, he believed Amen should participate in the process and consideration of the issue. Hammelman stated, he believed it was Amen's decision, but did not want to think any of the members would not be impartial in making decisions. Amen stated, his request stood to recuse himself. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson MOVED to not allow Commissioner Amen to be recused from the voting and Commissioner Glick SECONDED the motion. There was no discussion on the motion, VOTE: Glick Yes Hamrnelman No B son Yes 'I~vait Yes Eldrid e No Amen Yes Barrett No PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 6 MOTYON PASSED. Hammelman explained, with the vote an the motion, Commissioner Amen would participate in the process on the issue {including voting). Hamrnelman opened the public hearing on the issue: Verbatim begins: DeWayne Craig, 406 South Forest Drive, Kenai -- Sorry that I have to be here again. I was pretty upset, I was pretty upset when I found out that i had another encroachment and I'd like to keep it brief. There's not too much I can say, I think, that you don't already know. I just want to go over a few things on the staff report. On the second page, page 2, second paragraph, it says, the bottom floor of the structure meets the codes, so the garage is okay. It can be 15 feet into the setback, but it says that the living space can't be on the second and third floor. The encroachment, when I talked to Cliff Baker, he said it was one and one-half square feet and this is approximately one and one-half square feet (Craig held up a paper diagram), so that's the size of encroachment that we're talking about and the living space, if you talk about, if you break it down to the actual living space, this corner right here that's not, does not have any marks on it, is the actual living space approximately. It could be a half inch one way or the other, but it gives you an idea of what we talked about. This outside is T-111. The sheetrock and the two-by-sixes make up the outside walls. When I got ready to do this, I called Cliff Baker cause we just did, we just did an as- built and I asked him how far over I should move it from the existing building, the two-story building, so that it would, so I wouldn't be an encroachment. He told me so many inches, I don't remember what it was now, and I think I moved it over a couple more inches than what he said, and, so I made that effort when I laid out the footings and Bob said that he wanted to make sure that the footings were, weren't in an encroachment, anal so together we worked on measuring it and I had the footings, I had the footings in the ground and he did a footing inspection and on the inspection report he put verified setbacks apparently, or appear to be okay -- measured off the centerline of Toyon Way appears to be 25 feet nine inches, the property line to the corner of the garage closest to the corner of Toyon and Forest Drive, so I thought, great, you know. I thought I was okay cause I did it the way Cliff, where Cliff says it was and we came out with 25 feet nine inches when, when the city building inspector and I measured it together. Over on the second page, or excuse me, page 3, under recommendations, it says it meets the requirements, Kenai Municipal Code 1~F.20.185, so the planning people said that. Then you go down to the third paragraph under recommendations, it says there are encroachments on four, on all four sides. I think you're as well awaxe as I am that, how I cleared up the other three encroachments, the 1980 encroachment and the encroachment over the living area. Ail three of those have been taken care of and you PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 7 guys have a good history on that. I'm not going to go into that anymore. And then, then it says, every effort to insure that these requirements were met. The planning says that I didn't, make every, every effort to make sure these requirements were met and they're probably right. I, I, ...looking back on it, I should have had the surveyor come over and put a stake where I, where it needed to be but I thought, you know, there was a measuring error made, I checked with Cliff Baker before I did it. We measured footings when they were in the ground and then, when I had the latest as-built done, it was, well I had the date here somewhere, anyway it's just a month or so ago, a couple months ago. Maybe October. Cliff Baker, I was talking to him while he was doing the field survey and he said that it looks okay, probably won't know until we do a drawing. So even Cliff Baker said, after he was doing the deal, it looked okay and so, with him doing it, I guess there was a measuring error somewhere and he was talking about it's hard to do the measuring error, the measuring correctly I guess, because the way the road is not at a 90-degree angle, so it goes off 1 IO degrees or something Like that, so I guess what must have happened, it was hard to get a straight line to where the middle of the road was to verify the setbacks. So, what I'm asking for tonight is afoot-and-one-half, and if you, if you take out the, if you take out and just look at what the planning says is living space, this little section here would be the actual living space on the foot and one-half encroachment. One and one-half foot encroachment. That's what we're talking about and that's what we're asking you to do. Hammelman: Thank you Mr. Craig. Hoid far question please. Jay? Barrett: I hope when you had the measurement of the footing done and that it came 25 feet nine inches, at that time and pardon me if it's in here and I didn't read it, at that time did you plan on putting living, two stories of living space above that structure and did... Craig; It was all part of the building permit at that time. Yes. Barrett: And, correct me if I'm wrong here, but there are two different ways that this could not be a problem. One is if you didn't have living space on top there and the other is if the Forest Drive side was considered the front and the other drive... Craig: ...would be considered the side... Barrett: ...the side setback. Is that right? Craig: Yeah. Barrett: Okay. Craig: But I, but I think it's pretty clear in here that when you're out... (tape change) ...that you take both sides as fronts. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 8 Hammelman: Yes, Jay. Barrett: I'd like to ask the Building Official this. The purpose of the side setbacks is safety far, perhaps say for a fire if there's another home next door you want more space on sides, enough space on sides? Building Official Springer: The building code has separate setbacks and that is in relation for the spread of fire. They, it, it requires a minimum setback to solve that, to try to alleviate the spread of fire. Barrett; Are front setbacks mostly for esthetics or to provide for parking or... Springer: It's, yeah, it's all esthetics. The building code has no requirement for when you front on a public way, there is no, no setback for that in the building code. Barrett: Thank you. Hammelrnan: Are there other questions for Mr. Craig? Okay, we appreciate your comments. Craig: Thank you very much. Hammelman: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to comment this evening? Barrett: He may not have heard you... Glick: He did, he said no... Hammelman: I was actually waiting for a response from Mrs. Graig. Hearing and seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and ask for the wishes of the Planning Commission or Planning 8~ Zoning Commission. Public Hearing was closed. Eldridge noted he received several calls relating to the issue. One was from a neighbor living on Toyon Way who felt it would not be appropriate to deny the permit and felt there was not a problem. Eldridge asked Springer's recollection of the measuring when the footings were placed. Springer stated, when he did the footing inspection, they pulled the tape measure off a string Line and that was where the 29 foot 9 inches was noted. Springer added, it was possible Toyon Way was not centered in the right of way. He noted, there was anine- inch cushion and it appeared that would be sufficient. Eldridge noted, because it was just one corner of the building and the area was minimal that was impacted, he believed Craig made efforts to comply with the setback requirements and had it inspected by the Building Official and an engineer. He suggested, even though the past issues, even though it was listed in the report, was PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 9 not what was to be voted on currently. Hammelman noted, he believed the Commission was aware of that and requested a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Eldridge MOVED for approval of PZ05-05 for an application for an encroachment permit for the front yard setback at the property identified as 406 South Forest Drive and Commissioner Glick SECONDED the motion. Bryson stated he was quite familiar with the history of the property and found it disturbing with the continual encroachment situation on the property representing all four sides, several building permits where there were deviations from the requirements, but also realized the 11/a square foot was an insignificant amount and would support the motion. Amen asked if he could abstain from the vote and Hammelman stated no, because his opportunity to abstain had passed and the justification monetarily wise as a reason to abstain was not supported by the Commission. Barrett stated, he believed the option of denying the permit would mean tearing down two stories of a building. He added, he hoped any future additions to the building would be more closely measured. Hammelman referred to the recommendation included in the staff report, i.e. if the Commission grants the request, before the permit being granted the applicant should be required... "To complete Building Permit B3938 according to the application and building permit issued prior to the encroachment permit being issued." Hammelman asked Springer if that would still be effect. Springer stated yes and added, currently the applicant was not in full compliance with Building Permit B3938 and in order for him to become in full compliance, he would be required to obtain another building permit to add another part to the structure. Springer added, it would not increase the footprint of the building, but would complete the B3938 permit. Hammelman asked the maker of the motion (Eldridge} if his intention was to include that recommendation. Eldridge noted it was and the second (Glick) concurred. VOTE: Glick Yes Hammelman Yes B son Yes 'hwait Yes Eldrid e Yes Amen Yes Barrett Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 6: OLD BUSYNESS -- None. ITEM 7: NEW BUSINESS PLANNING 8v ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 10 7-a. PZ05-07 - An application for a Home Occupation Permit far a daycare for the property known as Lot 4, Black 5 Thompson Park Subdivision Na. 2 (235 Eisenhower Lane), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Stephanie Owens, 235 Eisenhower Lane, Kenai., Alaska. Approved by consent agenda, 7-b. Discussion -- Amendment to Kenai Municipal Code -Title 14 - Definitions (Condominium) Carver requested comments from the Commission as to the draft definitions included in the packet. There were none offered. Carver reported the issue would be brought forward for public hearing an the next Commission agenda. 7-c. Discussion/Recommendation -- Lease Application, Portion of Tract A, General Aviation Apron No. 2 -Charles E. 8v Helen L. Tulin. Heard after Item 4. ITEM 8: PENDING ITEMS -- None. ITEM 9: CODE ENFORCEMENT 9-a. 2004 Year End Report -- Carver noted, funding for a Code Enforcement Officer has been included in the budget work sheets to be submitted to Administration for review. ITEM 10• REPORTS 10-a. City Council -- Cauncil Member Ross noted the following: + The action agenda from the January 19, 2005 council meeting was included in the packet. • Ordinance No. 2078-2005, which would make extensive changes to the utility ordinance and regulations, was removed from the consent agenda and from the agenda. A work session to review the changes will be scheduled before the ordinance will be returned to council for consideration. • The Kmart liquor license anal he explained, though the store was na longer situated in the city, the package license was being kept current. • The 'town clock' issue was referred to the Parks & Recreation Commission to review and make recarnmendation as to type and location for placement. He noted, X5,000 was included in the current budget for the purchase, however information received indicated the project would be more costly. Amen suggested citizens may be interested in donating to the project. 10-b. Borough Planning -- Commissioner Bryson noted the agenda for their January 24, 2005 meeting. He noted there were two vacations considered and both PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 11 J were approved. 10-c. Administration -- Carver reported the ordinance to include a Limited Commercial Zone to the zoning code had been completed and would come to the Commission for public hearing at their February 9 meeting. A draft of the daycare-by- relatives ordinance would also be forwarded to the Commission far review. Eldridge stated he believed the Millennium Square property should be rezoned to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Carver stated she would research the issue and a report would be offered at the next Commission meeting. ITEM 11: PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED ~- None, ITEM 12: INFORMATION ITEMS 12-a. Planning 8~ Zoning Roster 12-b. Board of Adjustment Minutes PZ04-49 12-c. Finding & Decision -- Spring 2005 Land Disposal Auction 435 12-d. Board of Adjustment Decision In the Matter of the Appeal of Blue Sky Pilots Trust ITEM 13: COMMISSION COMMENTS & UESTIONS Eldridge -- Suggested the Commission should not consider any additional encroachments for additional condominiums on the Craig property since it there are encroachments on all sides of the building, Amen -- Stated he believed the Commission did a great job during the meeting in maintaining professionalism and integrity relating to the Craig matter; he wanted to be sure the Commission were proper in their dealings; and, some of his questions and clarifications were to insure public knowledge as the discussions progressed. Amen referred to DeWayne Craig's letter included in the packet and noted the following (as an individual): • His first statement claiming he spoke as a private citizen and sought to influence the Board by presenting himself as a Planning & Zoning Commissioner -- he acknowledged himself as a private citizen in that he and his wife have a home in the area and indicated he was on the Planning 8v Zoning Commission in order to make full public disclosure. + During the Board of Adjustment, he was asked what the Commission felt about a particular item and he clarified he was not representing the Commission at that time. He took exception to this statement of Craig. • He took the letter as a challenge to his integrity as to whether he is fulfilling his oath as a Commissioner and wanted to strongly refute it. He added, his integrity was not decided by his vote, but his integrity was decided by the manner in which issues are analyzed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 12 + Appreciated the support of the Commission on keeping the integrity and professionalism of the Commission intact. Barrett -- No comments. Twait -- Asked Springer, when certified plot plans were required before issuing a building permit, were there less applications for encroachments since that requirement changed. Springer stated he felt they were probably the same amount. Bryson -- Noted the fallowing: • Plat plans are paper plats, presumably to scale, but are not a survey. • Noted, issues are brought to the Commission for a decision; if council believes Commission members should recuse themselves from decisions, they should provide guidelines in that respect. • Clarified his motion to compel Commissioner Amen to participate in the Craig matter was not a reflection on Amen. He added, he believed the Commission needed to address the Craig request for Amen to recuse himself which he felt the Commission did. A brief discussion followed. Hammelman noted, he was not sure how the issue should have been handled and was happy with the outcome. ITEM 14: ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Barrett MOVED to adjourn and Commissioner Eldridge SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:19 p.m. Minutes transcribed and prepared by: ~~y Carol L. Freas, ity Clerk PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 2005 PAGE 13