Session
06-04, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to
order by Chair Chesley at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: FOSTER, HESS,
KRANICH, LEHNER, PFEIL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHESLEY, CONNOR (both excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
PLANNING CLERK ROSENCRANS
A quorum is
required to conduct a meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION
OF CONSENT AGENDA
All items on the
consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning
Commission and are approved in one motion.
There w
A. Time Extension Requests
B. Approval of City of
C. KPB
Coastal Management Program Reports
D.
Commissioner
Excused Absences
The agenda was approved by consensus of the
Commission.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
Commission
approves minutes with any amendments.
A.
Approval of
1. Memo dated
B. Approval of
C. Approval 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 w
Frank
Griswold was present and had several comments and corrections on the unapproved minutes.
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.
A.
Staff
Report PL 06-03 (Supplemental to Staff Report 05-135) Remand to the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission on Conditional Use Permit 5-11 Foster/Harness, at
459 Klondike, Glacier View Subdivision No. 2 Blocks 8, 9 &10, Lot 1 Block
10, for approval of a reduction in the setback from a dedicated Right of Way as
permitted by HCC 21.48.040 (b)(4) and a request for a reduction in the number
of required parking spaces in HCC
7.12.020
City Planner McKibben read Staff
Dr. Foster apologized to the commission for the
amount of time this issue has consumed. He
explained that at the beginning of the project he thought it would be fairly
simple. The building was originally intended to be used
for commercial purposes; however, the real estate market was not conducive to
commercial buildings so they added two rooms downstairs and turned it into a handicapped
accessible tri-plex. He continued to
explain that the setback reduction was applied for in order to permit the
construction of a covered walkway within the 20’ setback from the right of way. It was impossible to separate the walkways
from utilizing the building as a multi-family, handicapped accessible structure. The original zoning permit was amended to
include the covered walkway when they decided to change the use of the
building; a site plan showing walkways and specifically the handicapped access was
originally not required when they were planning on the commercial site. He stressed that he would hope the commission
would choose to approve a separate course of action and that there are a number
of options to work on with staff.
Chair Chesley asked if there were any questions
from the commission; there were none. He
thanked Dr. Foster for his comments.
Frank Griswold, city resident,
commented that you can’t choose a second option as that would authorize an
illegal use and the permit would then be invalid. If the problem hasn’t been
worked out over the last few weeks then the choices are limited. He said he provided written testimony on
Mr. Griswold continued to address the staff
report. He requested that the commission
address each one of his points in his
Ø
The fact that
the code was amended to allow a setback reduction in portions of the Central Business
District by a Conditional Use Permit is irrelevant.
Ø
The fact
that the CUP 05-11 originally included a request for a reduction in the number
of parking spaces indicates widespread misunderstanding of the CUP process
among the Commission and staff.
Ø
While HCC
21.61.020(f)(1) (Conditional Use Permits) specifically states that special
yards and spaces may be required, this is a restrictive condition imposed in
addition to regulations applying outright within the district.
Ø
The PUD
code has no applicability to this matter whatsoever.
Ø
Bringing a
triplex closer to the street does not create a pedestrian friendly environment.
Ø
The
Commission did not decide setbacks should only be reduced by an approved
conditional use permit; they could still be approved by variance.
Ø
Staff
Ø
Reference
was made to proposed Ordinance 05- and
asked that it be provided for the record:
An Ordinance of the City of Homer, Alaska Amending Homer City Code Section
21.44.040, Urban Residential And 21.45.040, Rural Residential Concerning
Dimensional Requirements.
Mr. Griswold read the entirety of his letter
and submitted it for public record.
There were no questions or comments from the commission.
HESS/KRANICH - MOVED TO PUT CUP 05-11 APPROVAL OF REDUCTION OF SETBACK FROM A DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY AS PERMITTED BY HCC 21.48.040(B)(4) AT 459 KLONDIKE AVENUE, LOT 1 BLOCK 10, GLACIER VIEW SUBDIVISION NO. 2, BLOCK 8, 9 AND 10 BACK ON THE FLOOR.
HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO ADOPT SUPPLEMENTAL
VOTE:
YES: NONE
NO:
CHESLEY, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS.
Motion failed.
City Planner McKibben suggested that the commission
adopt the recommended findings in
LEHNER/HESS - MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS
OUTLINED IN STAFF REPORT 05-135 WITH NO CONDITIONS OTHER THAN THOSE APPROVED IN
CUP 05-11.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, HESS, LEHNER, CHESLEY.
NO: KRANICH.
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley questioned Commissioner Kranich
regarding his reservations to the motion.
Commissioner Kranich replied that he felt it would become a piecemeal
situation.
LEHNER/KRANICH - MOVED TO ADD FINDINGS TO STAFF
REPORT 05-135: FACILITATING HANDICAPPED
ACCESS AS A USE THAT IMPROVES HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE; AND THE
WALKWAY IN THE 20’ SETBACK IS CRITICAL TO THE USE OF THE STRUCTURE AS A
HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE BUILDING.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben advised the commission
that they have adopted findings that amended the findings, so there should be
another motion to adopt or affirm approval of CUP 05-11 as well as why approval
is conditional.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at
HESS/KRANICH - MOVED TO AFFIRM APPROVAL OF CUP
05-11 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AS AMENDED
Discussion ensued regarding the open space and
setback requirements.
City Planner McKibben clarified the
issue would not have come before the commission if there had not been a
Conditional Use Permit request to reduce the 20’ setback for the covered
walkways. She further stated that the floor
area/open space issue can be resolved administratively with the applicants;
therefore, it could be voted on tonight without burdening the commission to
carry the issue forward.
VOTE: YES: LEHNER, HESS, CHESLEY, CONNOR, KRANICH.
Motion carried.
PLAT
CONSIDERATION
The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from
applicants and the public. The
Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public.
City Planner McKibben read
Commissioner Hess voiced appreciation to City Planner McKibben for recommendations
both for and against the plat being approved.
Mike Yourkowski, city resident and property owner in De Garmo
Subdivision, was present and explained Ann Griffin and he had been neighbors
since 1990. They feel that staff’s
denial of their proposal is unwarranted and addressed staff’s findings and
concerns. They want full use and value of their land as their neighbors
have. Property taxes have increased and
they are trying to mitigate the impact.
Kenton Bloom, Seabright Surveying, explained that when studying the
area he noticed that the adjacent lots to the west were not all 3:1 ratio but
that the borough sometimes makes exceptions if the lots remain usable. He noticed that the lots do have a higher
amount of impervious fill and building usage.
He continued to address other issues in the staff report, stating that
he was happy to see that staff removed the drainage issue from the
recommendations. The pond is the only drainage
issue and it doesn’t exist anymore. He
explained that DOT installed French drains and cross drains under
City Planner McKibben asked Mr. Yourkowski if he had any comments on
the 30’ building setback that staff suggested.
(Mr. Yourkowski deferred this question to Mr. Bloom.) Mr. Bloom replied that he was proposing a 40’
setback. Mr. Bloom explained that he would have
preferred more of a dialogue with staff; he feels defensive he wasn’t contacted
about his proposal if staff had questions before recommending denial.
Discussion followed regarding the existing shared driveway on Lot
B-4. The commission asked the applicant
to clarify the location of the shared driveway.
They asked if it would be possible for Fire Chief Painter to supply a
code citation in addition to a fire department recommendation.
Commissioner Kranich reminded the commission of previous discussions
and problems with residents in the same area concerning the ground water going
out of the bluff and accelerating erosion.
This subdivision will double the potential ground water load in this
area and wondered if the work the state has done on Kachemak Drive has been in
place long enough to see results.
Commissioner Foster asked the applicants if the commission were to
approve the preliminary plat tonight with the exception of #6 on the staff report,
what type of arguments could be given the borough for the exception considering
that the usable area above the bluff does not meet the 3:1 ratio nor does the
entire length of the lot.
Mr. Bloom replied that according to borough code it would be
appropriate; it reflects the conditions in the neighborhood. There is nothing in the plat that would
detrimental to the public welfare.
Discussion followed regarding the amount of ground water that would be
introduced to the area and the ramifications and solutions available.
John Mouw, neighboring property owner, stated he lives in the vicinity
of the proposed subdivision and is very concerned about drainage issues and
wanted to maintain some control over the development. Mr. Mouw read his letter into the
record. He stated it is very difficult
to support this subdivision as it may contribute to bluff erosion and ground
saturation as well as increased rate of sloughing at the bluff. Geoff Coble did a study on the area and
determined that the more water the greater the saturation. The study was so conclusive and persuasive
that DOT responded by putting in cross culverts and French drains to alleviate
the situation. In conclusion, he stated that
no development in wetlands on the north side of
Rika Mouw voiced her appreciation that the city has found that this
subdivision should not be approved. She
elaborated that Mr. Yourkowski’s house is very close to top of bluff and that
bluff seems to be very actively eroding.
The water table is approximately 3 inches from the surface. Increased development in the area would add
water to the ground. She urged the
commission not to pass the subdivision.
She explained that even if there is a pedestrian easement, there would
not be a suitable parking area for the public.
Further, she did not think the developers would follow through with the
pedestrian amenity.
Commissioner Hess asked Ms. Mouw if she could see any functional use of
the section line. She replied she could
see no good use.
Mr. Yourkowski said he lived in his house for 16 years and there has
only been 6 inches of erosion. He expanded
his house a few years ago and feels quite safe.
If a major disaster happened he would have to move his house back. The area of bluff they are proposing to
subdivide is not eroding as badly as it is on the west side of the spit. Geoff Coble’s study determined the water
table is 6’ from the surface; however, if it rains it does come up in areas closer
to the road.
HESS/FOSTER - MOVED TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE SECTION LINE
EASEMENT BASED ON KPB CODE 20.28.190.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding designating a 20’ pedestrian
easement versus a 60’ section line easement in regards to KPB Code 20.28.190.
Chair Chesley reminded the commission that earlier this evening there
were allegations from the public regarding false testimony about the pedestrian
trail and that is important to protect the public’s interest in beach access
points along the bluff. Mr. Chesley
asked the applicants if they would be willing to enter into a subdivision
agreement with the city to ensure the public’s interest in this regard.
HESS/FOSTER - MOVED TO AMEND MOTION TO INCLUDE
THAT THE VACATION OF THE SECTION LINE EASEMENT IS CONTINGENT UPON A 20’
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT TO THE BLUFF BEING DEDICATED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH KPB CODE 20.28.190.
VOTE: YES:
FOSTER, CONNOR, CHESLEY, LEHNER,
KRANICH, HESS.
NO: NONE.
Motion carried.
LEHNER/CONNOR – MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE 20’ PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT TO A 40’ PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT TO THE BLUFF
BEING DEDICATED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH KPB CODE 20.28.190.
Discussion ensued regarding the negative impact
this could have on the development of the property.
VOTE:(Amended amendment) YES: LEHNER.
NO: CONNOR, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY.
Motion failed.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended) YES: CHESLEY,
CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER.
NO: NONE.
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at
Commissioner Connor stated she had reservations to approving the plat as
it could negatively affect neighboring property owners with regards to
drainage.
Discussion followed regarding consistency of approving lots on the
basis of a 3:1 ratio, bluff erosion and the impervious surface.
Chair Chesley suggested there may be a benefit to continuing this item
so the applicants and staff can together address some of the concerns that have
been expressed.
LEHNER/CONNOR - MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ACTION UNTIL THE APPLICANTS AND
STAFF CAN ADDRESS DRAINAGE CONCERNS.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY.
NO: NONE
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion.
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.
HESS/ FOSTER - MOVED TO POSTPONE COMMISSION BUSINESS ITEMS A AND B UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
C. Staff Report PL 06-06 Re: Commission Work List, On-going.
City Planner
McKibben advised the commission that Item C will be a laydown for the
Worksession on
REPORTS
A.
Borough
Report
Commissioner
Foster notified the commission that the Road Science Policy Workshop is coming
up on April 5 and 6, 2006. It will be a very
informative look at the ecological impacts of roads as well as designing roads
so they don’t wash out and cause problems to downstream neighbors. It will include nationally renowned Forest
Service scientists and engineers. The
workshop will be at the
B.
PLANNING
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City
Planner McKibben reminded the commission that on
Ms.
McKibben expressed that because of the recent interest in wetlands, staff felt
that it would be helpful if the Corps of Engineers talked to the Homer City Council
about wetlands permits. It is on the
agenda as a presentation for the
Commissioner
Foster asked Ms. McKibben if the Refuge Chapel had a zoning permit for the
construction work completed before they applied for their CUP. City Planner McKibben replied that she was
under the impression that they purchased the building with the addition already
partially complete. She added that there
was some discrepancy about how much work they had done.
Commissioner
Hess noted that the Quiet Creek Subdivision had been approved at the borough
level and asked what the procedure would be for appeal at this time, and
whether it would be more appropriate to address concerns at the subdivision
agreement level. City Planner McKibben
answered that it was the developer’s intention to incorporate concerns and
recommendations into a subdivision agreement but there is nothing formal yet.
INFORMATIONAL
MATERIALS
Items listed
under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation
letters, reports and
C. Staff Report PL 06-06 Re: Commission Work List, On-going.
The Commission briefly discussed the
informational items.
COMMENTS
OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the
audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Mike
Yourkowski addressed Commissioner Kranich’s earlier comment regarding the DOT
work on
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners
may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for
excused absence.
Commissioner
Hess informed the commission House Bill 415 has been introduced, and should
reduce liability to land owners as well as enhance trail efforts.
Commissioner
Kranich stated the
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the
next regular or special meeting or work session w
There
being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned
at
__________________________________________
SHELLY
ROSENCRANS, PLANNING CLERK
Approved:
_________________________