Session 04-17, a
Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order
at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS BARTLETT, CHESLEY,
FOSTER, HESS, LEHNER
ABSENT: PFEIL (excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
JOHNSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
MEYER
A quorum
is required to conduct a meeting.
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
D.
Commissioner
Excused Absences
Under COMMISSION
BUSINESS the order of lettered items was corrected to reflect A through F and
the following items were added:
G. Review of
Homer Hockey Association CUP Traffic Impact Analysis
H. Conditional
Use and Planning and Zoning of Drive-Thru Windows
I. Procedures
for Violation Interpretation Reports Between Staff and
the Planning Commission
The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
Commission
approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Regular
Meeting Minutes of
The Regular Meeting Minutes of
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 approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address
the Planning Commission.
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.
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.
A.
Staff
Report PL 04-58 Re: Seacrest No. 4
Subdivision Preliminary Plat – Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District
City Planner McKibben
read the staff report and staff recommendations.
Roger
Imhoff, representative for the owners, said it was an
unfortunate situation as 100% of the house was built on the neighbor’s lot. He said both owners, Creasey
and Harry, have graciously agreed to an equal trade to the encroachment. The lot sizes will be left as they were and
both parcels have existing water supplies and sewage disposal systems with
adequate replacement and separation areas.
FOSTER/HESS
– MOVED TO ACCEPT
Commissioner
Hess asked for clarification on Bridge Creek Protection District (BCPD) as the
proposed Tract 4C-1 will have 5,443 sq. ft. (impervious surface area) and the
district allows 4,650.6 sq. ft. While it
is an existing non-conforming, expansion is allowed with approval of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Hess said to
add that impervious coverage on Tract 4C-1 could not be expanded would be
proper.
Commissioner
Hess questioned if it would be proper to ask an audience member of the allowed
expansion of non-conforming uses in the BCPD.
Chair Chesley asked Bill Smith, former Chair
of the Planning Commission, and primary writer of the BCPD standards, of his
recollection on expanding a non-conforming use.
Mr. Smith answered that he would have to research the standards for the
proper response.
Commissioner Lehner
enlightened the Commission on Homer City Code (HCC) 21.59.135(b) which reads: No aspect of any nonconforming lot, use, structure, improvement, or any
other kind of nonconformity shall expand or increase in degree of
nonconformance beyond the nonconformity existing on the effective date of the
enactment that rendered it unlawful.
VOTE: YES: NON
OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
COMMISSION
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.
Request
Chair
Chesley told the Commission he spoke with Special
Projects Coordinator Holen in regard to the deadline for comments and learned
the public hearing is scheduled for
FOSTER/LEHNER
- MOVED TO CONTINUE
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
B. Staff Report PL 04-50 Re:
Proposed Ordinance 04-33 Of The City Council Of Homer, Alaska Amending
Homer City Code Chapters 21.32, 21.48, 21.49 And 21.50 To Increase The
Allowable Footprint Area Of Buildings Used For Retail And Wholesale Business To
66,000 Square Feet In The CBD, GC1 And GC 2 Zoning Districts. POSTPONED AT
Frank Griswold, city
resident, said he had flooded the Commission’s packet with letters and it was
almost out of his system. He referred to
Attorney Gordon Tans’ memo to former Planning Director
Sue Post thanked the
Commission for their time and energy, strongly encouraging them to uphold the
findings of Ordinance 04-11. She said
they did plenty of work, heard plenty of testimony and thoroughly researched their
findings. She urged the Commission to
stick with the original findings.
Bill Smith, city
resident, said Ordinance 04-33 would amend details within a zoning district,
but it is not a rezone. The whereas clause referring to the culmination of the
zoning ordinance process to circulate the initiative passed by the voters to
amend the size limits does not square with the facts. Culminate means to reach its highest point or
degree or to come to completion, and to say that completion of the zoning
process and the initiative was circulated is not true. Mr. Smith said what was passed by the voters
was put into the code and did not amend the size limits. The next whereas statement within the
ordinance that the intent of the voters is clear was misdirected, as the
initiative was started before the size limit was changed and adopted. Mr. Smith asked the Commission to not support
either of those whereas clauses. The
proposed ordinance inserts language that is already in the code as the code
already reads that any building which is retail or wholesale, or a combination
shall not exceed 66,000 sq. ft. footprint area.
The amendment would insert that section of the code twice and delete
other sections. It is Mr. Smith’s contention
that Ordinance 04-33 is not well constructed and was put together with the same
care as the initiative.
Additionally Mr. Smith
said in referencing the Planning Commission packet on the internet he only
found the agenda, with no other references to items within the packet. He said posting the PL’s and staff reports
would provide much better access to those that do not receive packets.
Bill Smith said the
sponsors could accomplish their intentions in a cleaner manner with Ordinance
04-34. He said the initiative passed by
the voters was already part of Ordinance 04-18.
City Planner McKibben agreed that Ordinance 04-33 adopted as presented
would include the language pertaining to the building use for retail/wholesale
business not to exceed 66,000 sq. ft. of footprint area twice. She said if adopted as presented it would
have to be corrected.
In response to Chair Chesley’s request for clarification of the language, Mr.
Smith explained that Ordinance 04-11 was adopted and then Ordinance 04-18 was
added to the HCC to add the building sections of retail and wholesale. The numbering was adjusted and the other
language exists. Mr. Smith said when
Ordinance 04-33 attempts to amend the code one section is struck and replaced
with language already in place. The
section that talks about floor area is deleted.
Mr. Smith added that Frank Griswold’s observation of the 66,000 sq. ft.
design was to accommodate Fred Meyer, not a community plan by the Commission or
Borough. Mr. Chesley
said adopting a square footage proposed by a developer may constitute spot
zoning. Mr. Smith responded that it
would not, as it was a change throughout the zoning district, rather than a
rezone.
Commissioner Hess
stated the Commission’s discussions on Ordinance 04-33 do not mean they endorse
the ordinance. If the ordinance were
adopted by City Council, the Planning Commission would request corrections to
its present language.
Commissioner Foster
said Mr. Kranich as a writer of the initiative and
new ordinance said with the new design standards there would be no reason this
size development couldn’t blend in with the community. Mr. Foster stated the Commission does not
agree, as the Task Force and Planning Commission reviewed worldwide communities,
looking at ordinances, impact of development standards and evidence. Planning research from universities was used
to develop the standards. The standards
were found to be effective to 40,000 sq. ft. for size, distance and
parking. Exceeding the 40,000 sq. ft.
size reduces the effectiveness for standards.
The evidence from other communities in attracting tourists suggested
using caution for size. Mr. Foster does
not believe the 66,000 sq. ft. size would blend with the community.
Additionally Mr. Foster
disagrees with the comments that survival depends on the fittest. He compared growth for growth sake as a
cancer cell. Survival of the fittest has
never been the rule of civilized societies.
Natural selection produces blood and gore and predatory takedowns
produce screams, death and decay. There
would be empty buildings, closed businesses and those people desiring the charm
of the community would leave. They would
be replaced with those individuals wanting the charm of mega industry including
box stores and strip malls. The adopted building
standards will not protect the charm of the community with the mega
stores. Many people testified they would
want one store, but it would be a war of the predators with no turning back. Mr. Foster disagrees that the voters knew
what they were voting on. Two of the
three people that testified favored 66,000 sq. ft. of building rather than
footprint.
Commissioner Foster
read Mr. Griswold’s statement from a laydown letter provided
to the Planning Commission dated
Commissioner Bartlett
said he mirrored Commissioner Foster’s comments. Changing the language in the ordinance sounds
like a mask trying to get 66,000. In the
year and a half of the Commission’s development of standards, 80,000 sq. ft. to
100,000 sq. ft. were not considered. Although
66,000 times three stories is the total possible multiple of the building, that
figure was way beyond the scope of the Commission’s considerations. Mr. Bartlett is not in favor of the ordinance
and strongly wants to stay with the original determination, stating he favors
the sunset clause for added measure. He
doesn’t believe a compromise of 66,000 sq. ft. as the voter’s decision is
practical and now sees a legal situation allowing a 66,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Bartlett would like to see the current standards
remain for the CBD (Central Business District).
Commissioner Hess said
he appreciates the initiator’s argument that the voters actually voted for 66,000
sq. ft., which should be taken into consideration. Mr. Hess believes the voters didn’t
understand the implications of the Homer Comprehensive Plan (HCP) and how it
influences the Commission’s decisions. He
said the average voter did not have an understanding of the HCP and that is why
voter initiatives are not the way to establish zoning regulations.
Commissioner Lehner agreed with Commissioner Hess and added that trying
to interpret what the voters meant is a fool’s process. If the ordinance must be accommodated she
believes it must be done at face value with 35,000 sq. ft. of retail and 66,000
sq. ft. footprint. Ms. Lehner said when interpreting what the voters should have
been thinking of, the decision should be left to the deliberative process of
the Commission.
Commissioner Hess added
when the Commission came up with Ordinance 04-11 it was such a drastic code
change that adjustments may be needed.
The code is not permanent and to consider amendments is not beyond
reason.
Chair Chesley stated when Ordinance 04-18 was adopted a two-year
provision prevented any changes. If
Ordinance 04-33 is adopted he would like to see the full package sunset to the
two-year anniversary date and require review at two years.
Chair Chesley said he did not hear one testimony in support of a 132,000
sq. ft. structure. He often heard
testimony of the 66.000 sq. ft., much like the language of the 35,000 sq.
ft. The question arose of the basis for
the 66,000 sq. ft. figure. Bruce Turkington wrote a letter to the editor, published in both
local newspapers, explaining that the 66,000 sq. ft. size limit came from a
report by the City. Attached to Mr.
Griswold’s letter of
Chair Chesley outlined the Commission’s revisions on Ordinance
04-33 during the earlier Worksession:
Section 1., Item e, Item 1. Unstrike the first
sentence and replace 35,000 sq. ft. with 66,000
sq. ft. Strike the second sentence.
Section 2., Item e, Item 1. Unstrike the first sentence and replace 35,000 sq. ft. with
66,000 sq. ft. Strike the second sentence.
Item 2. Unstrike sentence and replace 45,000 sq. ft. with 66,000
sq. ft.
Item 3. Unstrike sentence and
strike the second shall not.
Item 2. Strike 2. and Unstrike 4. As to line two, Unstrike words “these” and letter “s” and words “2 and 3”. In last line Unstrike
letter “s” and words “2 and 3”.
Section 3. Item e, Item 1. Unstrike first
sentence and substitute 66,000 for 45,000.
Strike the second sentence.
LEHNER/HESS - MOVED TO
ADOPT THE CHANGES AS READ INTO THE RECORD.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
FOSTER/HESS – MOVED TO
STRIKE LAST TWO WHEREAS SECTIONS IN ORDINANCE 04-33.
Chair Chesley explained that the statement “in culmination of
this zoning ordinance process an initiative was circulated and was passed by
the voters to amend the size limits” was incorrect as it infers that the initiative
is a logical or procedural step in the normal planning and zoning process. It is not an accurate statement and the
Commission requests it be removed from the record.
Commissioner Foster said
testimony from the voters indicates the voter’s intent is not clear as some
supporters of the initiative were confused by the square footage vs.
footprint. With a business size limit already
in place, the initiative’s new limit on building size was unclear.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO
AMEND THE FOURTH WHEREAS CLAUSE TO “THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED 4-2 TO ADOPT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISION ON THE SIZE LIMITS”.
Commissioner Hess said the vote was not a split.
VOTE: YES: NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The Commission discussed the need to place a two-year sunset clause in
the Ordinance, stating that it mandated review at the end of the term.
HESS/BARTLETT - MOVED
TO AMEND SECTION 5 TO SECTION 6.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
LEHNER/BARTLETT
- THE SIZE LIMITS ESTABLISHED IN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL SUNSET TWO YEARS AFTER
THE DATE OF ADOPTION AT WHICH TIME THE SIZE LIMTS WILL REVERT BACK TO THOSE
ESTABLISHED IN ORDINANCE 04-11(A).
Commissioner
Foster said there have been discussions that the intent of the voters is clear
and in the City Council minutes the ordinance codifies the decision in the code
and cannot be changed or amended for two years per State code.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley said in the event Ordinance 04-33 is adopted, the
Planning Commission should be given time to review the standards prior to its
implementation to see if there is anything to be addressed for the large size
structure.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at
HESS/LEHNER – (Section
7.)MOVED THAT ORDINANCE 04-33 DOES NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION HAS THREE (3) WORKSESSIONS AND THREE (3) REGULAR MEETINGS TO REVIEW
AND ACCESS THE ABILITIES OF THE STANDARDS CREATED IN ORDINANCE 04-11(A) TO
EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF THESE LARGER BUILDING SIZE LIMITS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO AMEND THE STANDARDS, IF NEEDED, TO EFFECTIVELY GUIDE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THESE LARGER BUILDING SIZE LIMITS.
VOTE: YES: NON
OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Upon Chair Chesley’s request for input to present the Commission’s
findings to the City Council, it was the consensus that Chair Chesley should attend the meeting to make the
presentation. Additionally a memorandum
will be prepared by staff.
C. Staff Report PL 04-51 Re:
Proposed Ordinance 04-34 Of The City Council Of Homer, Alaska Amending
Homer City Code Section 21.48.040 (E)(1) To Read
45,000 Square Feet In The CBD, And Section 21.49.040(E)(2) To Read 55,000
Square Feet In GC1 East End Road, And Section 21.49.040(E)(3) To Read 25,000
Square Feet In GC1 Scenic Gateway. POSTPONED AT
Frank Griswold, city
resident, said when the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on
Ordinances 04-33 and 04-34, whatever their recommendation may be, people hear
what they want to hear. Mr. Griswold believes Ordinance 04-33 is not as devious
as 04-34. The numbers chosen for 04-34,
45,000 sq. ft. does not correlate with any of the figures chosen by the
As for amending
Ordinance 04-11(A), Mr. Griswold believes there needs to be a sense of
permanency in zoning enactments, as changing them often is not reassuring to
homeowners and businesses. Mr. Griswold
said there needs to be a compelling reason to change or amend zoning laws or
regulations, usually resulting from a change in conditions.
Bill Smith, city
resident, said Ordinance 04-34 maintains the nuance approach the Commission
came up with in looking at different parts of the city. There is no rational for changing the floor
area limits recommended for GC1. He said
maintaining the Scenic Gateway and
Sue Post urged the Commission
to refrain from supporting Ordinance 04-34.
In the event the Commission does support the ordinance, she urged them
to lower the sq. ft. of the Scenic Gateway.
Ms. Post said in choosing between Ordinance 04-33 and 04-34, she would
prefer 04-34, but encouraged the Commission to stick with the square footage in
Ordinance 04-11(A).
Commissioner Foster
suggested the third whereas clause may not be true, as the voters were voting
for a cap for the building size instead of an increase of current retail and
wholesale size limits. Commissioner Hess
said the City Council interpreted the results of the election.
HESS/FOSTER - MOVED TO
MODIFY LANGUAGE IN THE THIRD WHEREAS STATEMENT TO READ: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL’S
INTERPRETATION OF HOMER’S
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
HESS/FOSTER – MOVED TO
AMEND SECTION 2 ITEM E ITEM 3 TO STRIKE 25,000 SQ. FT.
AND UNSTRIKE 20,000 SQ. FT.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
FOSTER/ - MOVED TO
AMEND SECTION 1 ITEM E ITEM 1 TO THE TOTAL SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA OF FRED
MEYER’S RETAIL AND WHOLESALE BUSINESS USES WITHIN A SINGLE BUILDING SHALL NOT
EXCEED 45,000 SQ. FT.
Motion died for lack of
a second.
Chair Chesley said as to GC1 on
The consensus of the
Commission is not in favor of adopting Ordinance 04-34, but instead to reaffirm
the standards established in Ordinance 04-11(A).
The City Planner and
Commission discussed the recommendations as separate or as a package and it was
the Commission’s desire that the importance of recognizing the uniqueness of
each commercial district be mentioned.
Additionally the sunset clause and Commission’s need to review larger
size limits will be incorporated.
FOSTER/BARTLETT - MOVED
THAT THE NEW SECTION 5 WILL INCLUDE THE SUNSET CLAUSE WITH THE SAME
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster said
the Commission’s support of Ordinance 04-11(A) needs findings of fact. He added there are a number of whereas
clauses that Frank Griswold offered in his letter of
City Planner McKibben
reminded the Commission that they had not yet made a recommendation to the City
Council.
BARTLETT/LEHNER
- MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE STANDARDS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE
04-11(A) REMAIN.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster
outlined the following areas for whereas clauses that should be
considered:
§
The
City has been considering building standards and limits on floor area of retail
and wholesale business uses within a building for over 18 months, including extensive
consideration by a task force in the Spring of 2003, extensive consideration by
the Homer Advisory Planning Commission from March 2003 to March 2004, and
extensive consideration by the City Council during this entire 18-month period.
§
The
Task Force, the Commission, and the Council held multiple public hearings over
these 18 months on the standards and size limits and the issue received
extensive participation by the public and extensive media coverage.
§
The
City Council received the Planning Commission’s recommendations concerning the
size limits of wholesale and retail business uses in the affected districts and
on April 12, 2004 voted 4-2 in support of those recommendations (with minor
amendments) via Ordinance 04-11(A) which became effective on April 13, 2004.
§
The
intent of the voters is reflected in the actual language contained within.
§
The
amendments enacted by Ordinance 04-18 are not in conflict with provisions
enacted via Ordinance 04-11(A) or any other provisions of the Homer Zoning Code.
§
The
voters weren’t provided information of the Homer Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Chesley said the Commission wants from Line 126, of Ordinance
04-11(A) through Line 148 for whereas clauses.
City Planner McKibben
said the voters were not required to take the opportunity to review everything
the Planning Commission did in arriving at the size standards. The Commission believes existing sizes in
Ordinance 04-11(A) support and promote the HCP. Based on research from the Task Force the
design standards may not be effective upon buildings in excess of 35,000 sq.
ft.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at
Chair Chesley said the City Council discussed amending the CDM
and asked the Commission to look at temporary structures, special uses and
related issues. Mr. Chesley
proposed an ordinance of the pending issues stating it must go before the City
Council and then return for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on
As to temporary
structures, Chair Chesley explained they were
different from phased construction. The
current code does not define temporary structures. City Planner McKibben provided a definition
of temporary structures – a structure
without a foundation or footings that is removed when the designated time
period activity or use for which the temporary structure was erected haS ceased. Chair
Chesley added “permanent foundation” to structure
explaining that even an air supported structure needs an anchoring system to
hold it down. In the districts there
will be a conditional use for the temporary structures to be in place for more
than 30 days, but will require review before the Planning Commission. A structure in place for less than 30 days will
not require review.
City Planner said the
zoning code addresses uses and if a temporary structure was being used for a
permitted use not to exceed 24 months, there may be no need for a CUP
process. City Planner McKibben
questioned if the Commission needed to be bogged down with reviewing permitted
uses that would dissolve in a period of time.
Chair Chesley said certain conditions of the
conditional use process could apply to the temporary structure between 30 days
and 24 months. Commissioner Hess said
temporary structures would not have to meet the total criteria of the zoning
district, but conditions could be applied.
It was decided more time was needed to define temporary structures.
Chair Chesley said indoor recreational facilities were allowed in
the CBD and Commercial District. There
is a need to expand those uses to other districts, as recreation is an
important part of tourism and the community.
As to Mr. Chesley’s proposed ordinance, the temporary structure
section in each district would be stricken.
City Planner McKibben will identify solutions to the problems with
temporary structures. City Planner
McKibben suggested the Commission look at the purpose of the districts and
consider additions to those that would incorporate the changes. In evaluating conditional uses allowed for
other uses the Commission needs to determine if it is consistent with the HCP
and zoning district. Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben to provide the
Commission with suggested changes for the purpose statements for the different
districts.
It was suggested the
matter be continued to the next meeting and City Planner McKibben recommended the
Commission start anew with an amendment to Title 21.
LEHNER/BARTLETT – MOVED
TO POSTPONE ITEM E TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
POSTPONED AT THE JULY 21ST
HAPC MEETING.
Bill
Smith, city resident, questioned City Planner McKibben on the change of land
use for the proposed amendment to HCC 21.42.010, stating “parcel” fell out of
the definition. City Planner McKibben answered
that parcel did fall out of the proposed amendment. Chair Chesley
said Public Works had sent comments to the Commission through the Planning
Department that the code was unclear and wouldn’t stand up in a court of
law. Mr. Chesley
said improvements up to $5,000 or an accessory building of 120 sq. ft. of roof
area can be completed without a zoning permit.
He believes staff didn’t take action because they determined the part of
the code was unclear. City Planner
McKibben answered that staff added improvement or change to the parcel. Altering the parcel by planting a flowerbed
or taking down a tree would require a zoning permit. The exceptions are repair, maintenance and
improvement work of the structure rather than the parcel. She said removing parcel was an attempt to
clarify the permit requirements.
Commissioner
Hess added the ambiguity of the process is at what lower level a zoning permit
is required. He said the intent of the
permit requirement was for major development on a parcel, but any parcel work
could be interpreted as requiring a permit.
Commissioner Lehner said it made it difficult
to characterize projects in dollar amounts as many dollars could be used for a
landscape project while do-it-yourself projects could cost much less. Chair Chesley questioned
if the Commission felt the intent of the code was sufficiently clear. Commissioners Bartlett, Foster and Hess
agreed it was clear that a permit was required for substantial work on a
parcel. Commissioner Lehner
believes without the parcel included with building and structure it may not be
completely clear.
City
Planner McKibben said change of use is using a parcel for an RV lot versus a
parking lot. It would cover uses that
have an impact beyond a vacant lot without a structure. A use that triggered the need for a
development activity plan requires a zoning permit. Commissioner Lehner
said the impacts were needed. City
Planner McKibben said the Planning Department relies on people to come before
them to obtain a permit.
City
Planner McKibben suggested if the Commission were to take action on HCC
21.42.010 Item 7 should be added to change the use of a parcel to require a
permit. When added change of use was
discussed with Ordinance 04-11(A), Captain’s Coffee with a drive-thru window
that didn’t require a CUP was discussed.
The primary need for the permit is as a screening tool, and to keep
things from sliding through the cracks.
Chair
Chesley said the Commission could exhaust themselves
in refining the details. The goal of
zoning is to set overriding tools in place which provide a mechanism for reason
to be applied by the planning staff. Mr.
Chesley said the Commission had sufficient tools and
knew the intent when adopting the changes to the section. He said if staff is unclear in a case the
first response should not be to change the code. Staff should confer with the Commission to
see what the intent was. City Planner
McKibben said the amendment was suggested by a Commission member. She said more and more people are coming in
to ask about permits for tree removal and landscaping. It would be more helpful to have structure
and guidelines in place. It is the
Commission’s intent to make the code more clear.
HESS/LEHNER
– MOVED TO CONTINUE
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
G. Review of Homer
Hockey Association CUP Traffic Impact Analysis.
City
Planner McKibben said the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) studies access on
It
was the consensus of the Commission to continue Item G to the second meeting in
September.
H. CUP and
Planning and Zoning of Drive-Thru Windows.
Commissioner Foster
said there was a major change of use for a zoning permit as a local espresso
stand has added a drive-thru window. It
has changed traffic patterns and is using parking places for the adjoining
business. Commissioner Foster questioned
if drive-thru had the same meaning as a drive-in. City Planner McKibben said there are two
other coffee drive-thru windows in the CBD that were not required to obtain a CUP,
and going back after several years may be difficult, as the uses were changed
prior to adoption of the change of code.
Chair Chesley asked Ms. McKibben to present
information to the Commission for the next meeting, stating that public safety
issues may exist with the drive-thru businesses.
I. Procedures for Violation Interpretation
Reports Between Staff and the Planning Commission
FOSTER/BARTLETT
– MOVED TO POSTPONE ITEM I TO SECOND MEETING IN
SEPTEMBER.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
REPORTS
A. Borough
Report
Commissioner Foster reported there has not been
a Borough meeting since the last Planning Commission meeting. He has been appointed to the Plat Committee
for a few more months. Mr. Foster said
it was rewarding and he appreciates representing the Commission there.
B.
None.
PLANNING
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Chair Chesley questioned City Planner McKibben’s
progress on providing an update on the steep slope contract. City Planner McKibben said an amendment to
extend the deadline on the grant has been requested and she is still waiting to
hear. There is more work to do with the
consultant David Cole in reducing costs from the rough estimate. Money in the grant on another project may be
moved for the steep slope contract project.
Chair Chesley questioned the prospect of
getting someone to write the ordinance and City Planner McKibben stated it was
still under discussion with the City Manager.
Mr. Chesley said the City Council wants the
Planning Commission to make headway on the steep slope contract.
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.
Correspondence
from Attorney Tans on Bruce Hess’s July 16th memo.
B.
Letter
to William Waldorf and Carol Comfort-Waldorf re: Landscaping.
C.
Letter
to the Episcopal Diocese of
D.
Zoning
Violation letter to Steve (Tiny) Nolan re: Sign.
E.
USACOE
Public Notice of Application for Permit – Beluga
F.
Memo
from Gordon Tans dated
G.
Letter
to Paul Cooper dated
H.
Letter
to Carol Kumle dated
I.
J.
Ex
Parte Contacts.
K.
Certificates
of Reappointment to the HAPC for Fred Pfeil, Tom
Bartlett
and Lane Chesley.
Items A and F will be
reviewed at next month’s meeting.
As to Item
C, City Planner McKibben reported her office received a letter or phone call
from the Episcopal Diocese stating that none of the items on the lot were
theirs. The owner was contacted and
given ten days to comply, and if no response the matter will be turned over to
the police.
As to Item E, Commissioner Foster said the
Chair Chesley said Attorney
Tans’ memo on Framan is needed for the next
agenda. City Planner McKibben said Eagle
Eye Photo has aerial photos with higher resolution that may help.
Chair Chesley congratulated
Commissioner’s Pfeil and Bartlett for their
reappointments to the Commission, stating they were talented and great
guys. He also congratulated City Planner
McKibben on her first anniversary with the City and for putting up with the
Commission, keeping her humor with the demanding job.
Commissioner Bartlett said he was glad Chair Chesley is reappointed at the helm to guide the
Commission.
COMMENTS
OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of
the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners
may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for
excused absence.
Commissioner Foster
thanked everyone for working so hard on everything.
Commissioner Hess
said as to Item D on INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS, Kenton Bloom was to be here this
evening. The Commission had good cause
to postpone the preliminary plat approval, but no good cause to turn it
down. He said the Commission needed to
be careful when looking at preliminary plats and it is not good practice to turn
something down. He would rather see the
Commission postpone if not clear. He
said the Commission needed to stay within the guidelines in place and when the
plats are before us personal opinions of whether the subdivision are good or
bad cannot interfere; it has to be based on City and Borough subdivision
code.
Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben to continue to work at
getting Mary Toll back to Homer to talk to the Commission about plat
issues. She asked Chair Chesley to outline items for Ms. Toll to speak about. Commissioner Foster said he would outline
topics to be discussed.
Commissioner Lehner said she is both privileged and honored to be on the
Board as she is impressed with the Commission.
She said the work put in on the CDM and size standards is
impressive. The more she hears, she is glad the Commission is putting time into it and
hopes she can help. As to subdivision
plats she believes public health, safety and welfare are foremost concerns and
a guiding mantra. If there are issues
that are not conducive to the local area, justifying our concern is something
she needs to learn more about. Ms. Lehner said the Commission’s work is both interesting and
important.
Chair Chesley said the Commission is happy to have Commission Lehner aboard and she is doing a great job. This being his second year on the Commission,
and City Planner McKibben’s first full year he feels
the momentum coming back into the group.
He said the Commission will keep hacking away at the huge stack of
items.
ADJOURNMENT
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
_________________________________
JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved:_______________________