Session 05-06, a Regular
Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHESLEY, CONNOR, FOSTER, LEHNER, PFEIL,
KRANICH
ABSENT: HESS (excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
MEYER
LIBRARY DIRECTOR HILL
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 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
LEHNER/CONNOR – MOVED TO AMEND THE AGENDA UNDER
ITEM 3 (APPROVAL OF MINUTES) TO ADD ITEM B – APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES OF
VOTE:
YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A.
Approval
of
Robert Pickering of
Corrections to the minutes requested by the
Commission were grammatical in nature, with the exception of City Planner McKibben’s comments on a person’s plan that does not follow
one of the engineered plans. The
reference to 100% impervious was corrected to read “pervious” coverage.
The amended Regular Meeting Minutes of
B.
Approval
of
FOSTER/KRANICH – MOVED FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
Commissioner Lehner
requested that the Commission’s discussion about the development of the Comprehensive
Plan and those active Commissioners involved in the revised Comprehensive Plan
process be included after Commissioner Connor’s remarks. Commissioner Kranich
clarified fee amendments: if a person begins work prior to applying for a
zoning or conditional use permit (CUP) they would pay the higher rate of 1.5
times the rate of a permit. If the applicant
applies for and receives a permit before work commences they would not have to
pay the higher rate. City Planner
McKibben said the fee increase went to the
FOSTER/PFEIL – MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDED MINUTES
OF
VOTE:
YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
VOTE: (main
motion as amended) YES. NON
OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may
speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard
at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations are approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the
Planning Commission.
Frank Griswold, city resident, encouraged the
Commission to revisit Memorandum 05-42(S) pertaining to permitting fees that
was passed on
City Planner McKibben pointed out that it changed
the fee schedule, but not the Code. It
does not take away the City’s right to issue fines if someone were not
cooperative. The intent was to encourage
people to obtain permits prior to digging.
It will be made clearer and sent forward again.
Mr. Griswold commented that the fees for commencing
activities without a permit are 1.5% for residential and 2.0% for
commercial. He said it appears
arbitrary, as there is more concern about the commercial violators than
residential violators. Mr. Griswold
believes it would be better to leave the fees the same for both commercial and
residential violators.
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 05-27
Re: Request For A Conditional Use
Permit, Cup 05-04 Alyeska Sales & Service,
Request For Approval Of A Lot To Contain More Than 8,000 Square Feet Of
Building Area As Permitted By HCC 21.49.040 (d) Located At 1301 Ocean Drive,
Lot 119-A-1 Of Bayview Subdivision (Preliminary Plat
Submitted).
Robert Graff
appeared on behalf of the owner Franklin Wortham. He
stated Mr. Wortham was out of state due to a family
death. Mr. Graff availed himself for any
questions from the Commission.
CONNOR/LEHNER – MOVED TO ADOPT
PFEIL/FOSTER – MOVED TO RECOMMEND AN ADDITION TO
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS; #5 THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A DRAINAGE PLAN FOR
APPROVAL WITH THE ZONING PERMIT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE ZONING PERMIT.
Commissioner Pfeil stated
the issue was brought up by staff and he believes it should be part of the
staff recommendations. City Planner McKibben clarified that a drainage
plan was required with a zoning application. The applicant shall submit a drainage
plan before approval of the zoning permit.
Chair Chesley explained it followed the
Planning Department’s internal process that a zoning permit would not be issued
to the developer until a drainage plan was received and reviewed by the
Planning Department.
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
PFEIL/LEHNER – MOVED TO ADD
STAFF RECOMMENTATION #6 THAT THE APPLICANT MUST SIGN A STATEMNT THAT THEY HAVE
READ AND UNDERSTAND HCC 21.49.060 SITE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
Commissioner Pfeil commented it is a good
idea to know the applicant is aware of site development requirements and
performance standards. He thinks the
statement should be standard on all zoning permits.
Commissioner Foster
remarked that he is pleased with what the applicant has brought to the
community. There was one small concern
about the flags and the flags were removed when brought to the applicant’s
attention. Commissioner Foster
appreciates the good neighborly attitude of the applicant.
Lani Kai Eggertsen-Goff,
Planning Technician Code Compliance, stated she goes over performance standards
with applicants two to three times during the application process. To have a document in writing that verifies
the applicant has read and understands the performance standards would be helpful. City Planner McKibben agreed that would be an
excellent idea and it should just be part of the standard procedure.
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Connor questioned the detailed landscape plan that
would be submitted prior to final landscaping within two years, rather than
being included in the zoning permit.
City Planner McKibben said for most developments the zoning permit
includes a general landscaping plan.
Larger developments require a more detailed plan.
Commissioner Connor stated she would like to recommend that the
CUP is contingent on the replat being approved. She added if the replat
was not approved there could be a problem with the CUP.
CONNOR/PFEIL – MOVED TO ADD STAFF RECOMMENDATION #7
THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONTINGENT UPON THE REPLAT BEING APPROVED.
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/FOSTER – MOVED TO
ADD STAFF RECOMMENDATION #8 THAT WILL REQUIRE AN AREA FOR WASTE TIRE STORAGE TO
BE SCREENED BY A FENCE FROM
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff
would determine the height of the screen, it being adequate to hide the waste
tires.
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner
McKibben clarified that the Commission is not amending and adding staff
recommendations, but rather adding conditions to the CUP.
VOTE: (main motion as amended) YES. CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH,
FOSTER
The
Commission finds the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit contingent
on the following conditions:
1. The applicant will
meet the landscaping requirements in HCC 21.49.060(h) for 3 feet minimum width
along all lot lines where setbacks permit.
2. The applicant will meet the lighting
requirements in HCC 21.49.080(a-e) for any lighting that is part of the
construction of the addition and when any existing lighting is replaced.
3. A detailed Landscape Plan identifying plant
species and location will be submitted prior to final landscaping, within two
years. All areas disturbed by
construction will be replaced with topsoil and seeded until such time as the
final landscaping is completed.
4. The project will meet all applicable local,
state and federal requirements.
5. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan
for approval with the zoning permit prior to issuance of the zoning permit.
6. The applicant must sign a statement that they have read and
understand HCC 21.49.060
site development requirements.
7. The conditional use permit is contingent upon the replat being approved.
8. An area for waste tire
storage to be screened by a fence from
Motion
carried.
B. Staff Report Pl
05-28 Re: Request For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup
05-05 Yourkowski, For Approval Of More Than One Building Containing A Permitted
Principal Use On A Lot As Permitted By HCC 21.53.030(j) Located At 4460 Homer
Spit Road, Lot 88-2, Homer Spit Subdivision No. 2 Amended. WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. THERE WILL NOT BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS
ITEM.
Robert
Pickering presented the Commissioners with a written copy of his verbal
presentation for tonight’s meeting. He
said it was only this afternoon that he realized some of the implications
contained in his presentation were not accurate. He corrected them and the corrections appear
on the Commissioner’s copies. Mr.
Pickering thought all the lots within the Kelly Ranch Subdivision would be
entitled to the 6.4% mitigation plan. He
explained that lots two acres and larger within the subdivision have been
categorized the same as 4 ½ acre lots. A
lot owner with two acres or more in Kelly Ranch Estates would not be allowed to
apply for the additional 2.2% impervious coverage, even though the subdivision
was approved in 1994, prior to the ordinance[1]. The restriction takes away, penalizes and
restricts people in an old subdivision (before
Mr. Pickering
told the Commission the largest lot left in the subdivision is 2.16 acres and
the largest lot under two acres is 1.755 acres.
The 1.755 lot has 943 more available square footage of impervious
coverage as the person with the lot over two acres. He does not think this is fair for the person
with the two acre plus lot as he paid more money for the larger lot, pays more
taxes, has more buffer for water mitigation, yet is penalized more than the
person with the 1.755 acre lot.
Mr. Pickering
continued that Mr. Vern Alberts purchased a lot in
2002 and the ordinance was approved on
Diann Martin appeared and was
given a copy of Email correspondence between City Attorney Gordon Tans and City
Planner McKibben pertaining to the Bridge Creek Watershed District to review.[2]
City Planner McKibben read a letter dated
Diann Martin questioned how the
ordinance can be enforced without the manual that is referenced in place. She said it appears to have been addressed in
the letter from Mr. Alberts.
Chair Chesley said in
light of Ms. Martin’s question, the City Attorney’s correspondence and Mr.
Pickering’s testimony, he would like to see the item continued to the April 6th
Worksession.
FOSTER/PFEIL – MOVED TO CONTINUE
Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Pickering and Ms.
Martin if 2.5 acres would be sufficient and they both answered the 2.5 would be
an adequate change. Commissioner Foster
said he did not want to deter property owners from putting lots together in the
subdivision. Ms. Martin asked for the
Planning Commission’s consideration on a decision, noting that the construction
season is upon us and time is of the essence.
She said a time frame is needed to
VOTE:
YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Lehner
requested that the Commission be provided a detailed map of the Bridge Creek
Watershed District. Commissioner Kranich requested Vern Alberts’
letter be included in the next Worksession packet.
D. Staff
Report PL 05-26 Re: Ordinance 05-12, An Ordinance Of The City
Chair Chesley explained the ordinance
amendment was returned to the Planning Commission from the City
Frank Griswold, city resident, addressed the Commission telling
them a zoning amendment can constitute an illegal spot zone or otherwise be
considered arbitrary both by the inclusion or exclusion of an area. Ordinance 05-02 included the GC1 and GC2,
along with the CBD. Ordinance 05-12 now
excludes the CBD. Mr. Griswold told the
Commission they should avoid becoming an accessory to an enactment designed to
camouflage a spot zone. He urged the
Commission to stick to the recommendation made in Ordinance 04-11(A). He said Ordinance 05-12 could be amended to
address the CBD, recommending a floor space size cap of 35,000 sq. ft. as was
done in Ordinance 04-11(A). He told the
Commission he admires their diligence in considering the amendment after the
Commission’s recommendations were disregarded in Ordinances 04-11(A), 04-34,
and 05-02.
There were no changes from the recommendation made at the
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.
Memorandum Re: Staff Report PL 04-104 Re: Tsunami View Subdivision Preliminary
Plat – Postponed
City Planner McKibben
reported that she met with both the surveyor and Public Works Director
Chair Chesley
said
Gary Nelson, project
surveyor, appeared before the Commission stating the owner lived out of state
and was not able to attend tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Nelson questioned if the letter from the owner Barbara Riley and Nancy
Levinson were part of the record. The
Commission answered affirmatively. Mr.
Nelson said the letter from Nancy Levinson clarified that he was only acting as
a representative in the capacity of the surveyor and is not involved in the
project in any other way.
Mr. Nelson explained Ms.
Riley’s concern was that a road would be built up the side of the hill. He said it was a false understanding, as no
road is to be built up the hill. Ms.
Riley purchased the two upper lots for access to the upper area. While it is somewhat steep terrain, there is
over two acres of very developable lot area.
The upper two lots were approved.
The lower area has a larger developable area than the two upper lots.
Mr. Nelson believes there
is a logical solution by using the upper lot for a homesite. He said the lower areas may be undevelopable
with the steep hillside. There may also be
safety concerns with the hospital for the lower area. The portion of land adjacent to the hospital
parking lot may be developed into something.
The hospital or someone else may consider purchasing the adjoining
hillside. Mr. Nelson said the flag lot
was done for legal reasons to meet state law, as it does not have a practical
access.
Project Surveyor Nelson
explained there is no requirement of buildable access
to a lot to make it legal. The buildable access on the subject lot would come through a
private easement which could be made a public access. In meeting with Public Works Director Meyer
and City Planner McKibben mitigation measures were discussed. Mr. Nelson said it is hard to mitigate
development that is not proposed. At
this time there is no development proposed.
He said a mechanism is needed to ensure development is done in a proper
manner. He thinks the Steep Slope
Ordinance is adequate. The Subdivision
Development Agreement is not used regularly in Homer, although it is a method
to ensure certain requirements are met through contract. Mr. Nelson would like to see the Commission
support the staff recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Foster asked
Mr. Nelson if the applicant would consider a lot line adjustment to add the large
lot to their upper lot prior to the subdivision and then the lower subdivision
could be included with a conservation easement.
Mr. Nelson said the property owner paid a lot of money for the parcel
and would like to protect their investment.
Their intent is to sell the Tulin lots and
provide an access easement to the upper portion. The usable area of the upper lot is as big as
the two lots combined. Mr. Nelson said a
cul-de-sac cannot be opened without two thirds approval by all owners of the
subdivision.
Brenda Parnell, Assistant
When asked by the
Commission if the hospital would consider purchasing and developing the parcel
of land next to SPH, Ms. Parnell said the lot may not be developable. She said to push into the mountainside 20 ft.
would require a 15 ft. high gabion and it would not be usable. Gary Nelson, surveyor, said SPH could terrace
the lot and come off the top level with fill and have a substantial area for building
or parking area.
Chair Chesley
said staff is to conduct a review of the Hazard Mitigation Plan to become
familiar with it. He suggested the plat
consideration be continued until staff has reviewed the plan. Commissioner Kranich
said the Commission’s scope is on the plat.
He cannot see anything on the plat that would prevent a driveway being built
up on the flag lot. He suggested the
Commission focus on the plat rather on things that may not happen. Commissioner Foster said he would like to see
a connection to the upper lot prior to approval and finds it disheartening
there is no interest.
LEHNER/KRANICH – MOVED TO
CONTINUE PL 04-104.
Commissioner Lehner said the Commission is troubled by the plat before them
and is mindful of the need to access the property. She said an alternative the Commission could
look at from above would be better.
VOTE: YES.
FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
B.
Staff
Chair Chesley
called for a recess at
There was no public
testimony.
PFEIL/FOSTER – MOVED TO ADOPT
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben said the City will be creating two large
lots and the Lucky Shot ROW will not be vacated. All of the buildings for the library will be
contained on the eastern lots.
There was no public
comment.
City Planner McKibben added that in the land allocation
discussions with the City
In response to Commissioner Pfeil’s
question if it would be advantageous to maintain the Lucky Shot ROW, Public
Works Director Meyer answered there would be no objection to vacating the ROW
if easements were provided for drainage, water lines and pedestrian
accessibility. He further added, there
is no transportation plan that says there will be a road there. Mr. Meyer said Lucky Shot was a potential
access point to the library and there is some hesitation about fully vacating
the ROW.
City Planner McKibben said the library site plan utilizes the
ROW as the driveway and the Lucky Shot trail and the water lines. By maintaining the ROW it will allow for a
road in the future and the site plan will accommodate that.
Public Works Director Meyer told the Commission the library construction
project will be advertised beginning
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.
KRANICH/CONNOR – MOVED TO CONTINUE
VOTE: YES. NON
OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
Commissioner Foster said he would like to hear
other Commissioner’s comments. If building
is to occur in sensitive areas, such as steep slopes, coastal bluffs, estuaries
and creeks there will be oversight as development is occurring and subsequently
to developments in the activity development plans. The Planning Department will also be required
to bring projects in the sensitive areas to the Planning Commission for their
comments. Mr. Foster said the idea was
to put the issue on the floor to discuss and he has heard concerns about erosion
areas, impacts of buildings on beaches and building too close to the bluff
line.
City Planner McKibben said the Commission had
discussed inviting the City Attorney to talk about nonconformity so that they
all had the same understanding. The
Commission discussed a schedule for steep slope development.
FOSTER/KRANICH – MOVED TO
VOTE:
YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
No action was taken on this item.
REPORTS
A.
Borough Report
Commissioner Foster reported the Borough Planning
Commission heard a vacation of ROW that went to the bluff onto
B.
No report.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Planner
McKibben said Planning Technician Engebretsen, Code Compliance Officer Eggertsen-Goff and herself are planning on attending the Floodplain
Management workshop. Laura Ballock, the consultant for
Chair Chesley asked City Planner many questions including the
status on the Vann appeal, the Committee of the Whole zoning foliage, the
Clerk’s motion to amend the procedure for zoning districts, and the fee
schedule amendment. City Planner
McKibben answered that the Vann appeal had not been decided, the zoning foliage
matter is on the
Commissioner Foster
questioned if City Planner McKibben had time to review the Coastal Management
Program the erosion associates[3]
are doing. Mr. Foster said to have enforceable
regulations the natural hazards would have to be identified, like steep slopes
and critical areas on bluffs. Currently
Port Graham and Nanwalek are identifying streams as
erosion areas from English Bay Creek to the mouth. He questioned if there was any interest in
the City in identifying anything in the Coastal Management Program. City Planner McKibben said she had not been
contacted by them. Commissioner Foster
said the City has to initiate the contact by June 30, and if not by then it
will be six years for the next opportunity.
Commissioner Foster offered to work with City Planner McKibben. He said the data from the shoreline project could
be used to identify critical areas, and could be added later.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items listed
under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation
letters, reports and
A. Zoning
violation letter dated February 28, 2005 to Shayne & Nikki Baringer Re: Lot 2, Bluff Park Subdivision #4, 671
Sterling Highway, KPB 17510034. –
Illegal commercial storage.
B. Letter
from John Chapple dated March 4, 2005 to
C. Letter
from John Chapple dated March 4, 2005 to City Manager
Commissioner Kranich said
there were two letters from John Chapple and he
questioned if the CUP was off the agenda.
City Planner McKibben said the matter was not withdrawn, but rather
continued and would be on the agenda later.
Members of the
audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Frank Griswold, city resident, said he misspoke
earlier as to the public hearing on 05-12 when he said the Commission’s
recommendations on 04-11(A) were ignored.
He clarified the Commission’s recommendations were for the most part
followed.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners
may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for
excused absence.
Commissioner Lehner had no comments.
Commissioner Connor thanked Commissioner Foster for
arranging Scott Pegau’s presentation. She said it was great material, a clear
format and the Commission can use the
Commissioner Kranich said he would carry his comments over until the
next meeting.
Commissioner Pfeil had no comments.
Commissioner Foster reiterated his encouragement to
staff to work with the Steep Slope
Chair Chesley welcomed
Commissioner Connor back and thanked everyone for being there. He thanked City Planner McKibben and for
having Planning Technician Engebretsen and Code Compliance Officer Eggertsen-Goff in attendance. Additionally he thanked Deputy City Clerk
Johnson.
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:
________________________