Session 04-21 a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at 7:10 p.m. on October 6, 2004 by Chair Chesley at the Homer City Hall Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CONNOR, BARTLETT, FOSTER, CHESLEY, HESS, LEHNER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER PFEIL (excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
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
1.
Carl Sholin Subdivision No. 5 Extension Request
B. Approval of City of Homer Projects
under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D.
Commissioner Excused Absences
Commissioner
Hess asked to add Item E to Commission Business for changes to landscaping
section HCC 21.61.105 & HCC 21.48.060
The
amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission
Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Regular Meeting of
September 15, 2004 meeting minutes
Commissioner Foster said on packet page 14 the word pervious should be previous and on packet page 13 under Borough Report the work fixing corrected to read changing. Chair Chesley said on packet page 9 under item D. subdivision code should be subdivision covenants, on packet page 10 the word swales was spelled with two s’s and on packet page 11 Mr. Smith’s comment should read no net runoff.
The amended minutes were approved by consensus.
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 must be approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
There were no presentations scheduled.
Bill Abbott, a resident on
Mountain View Drive, said he and his neighbors recently found out that there
has been a proposal to construct an east/west corridor from East Hill Road
along Shellfish down Anderson connecting to Mountain View Drive and Elderberry
eventually culminating at Fairview where the east/west corridor would resume to
the west. Mr. Abbott said this proposed
corridor would open the residential streets Mountain View Drive, Elderberry,
Fairview and those in between to heavy traffic and he and the neighbors think
that is a mistake. In some of the Road
Standards Committee meeting minutes the referral to the plan not to have heavy
traffic in residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Abbott said it is a safety concern to develop an east/west corridor
through that part of town, the streets always have been and should remain
residential. He added that the
topography of that area would cause construction across that area to be
prohibitively expensive as there are gullies, swampy land and high land and
construction would have to be a City project and be City funded, State money
would not be available for that. Mr.
Abbott said a better solution is Federal Highway dollars that are passed
through the state could be used to better plan and reconstruct Pioneer Avenue
and the Sterling Highway to be better east/west corridors that can better
handle the growth and traffic volume and flow it through in the proper way,
keeping the traffic where it belongs in corridors that were planned for
commercial, industrial and heavy traffic use.
Mr. Abbott said he was concerned to find out that other routes were
discussed at the Road Standards Committee meeting but this was the only one
recommended. He also said any new
east/west corridor would take commercial type business away from Pioneer Avenue
and Sterling Highway businesses because it would be re routing traffic. He doesn’t want his tax money and is sure
others don’t want their tax money spent for this when there is a much better
use of City tax revenues for other worthwhile projects.
Francie Roberts also a resident
in the Mountain View Drive said she echoed what Mr. Abbott said and agrees very
much with what he said. She had
concerns she wanted to address also.
She said she read the road and trails plan that came out this summer and
was happy to see there are a lot of trails and roads in the area of the
east/west corridor that is being proposed.
She wondered if the road and trails people are talking to the people
that are making east/west corridors.
She said when she thinks of a corridor she thinks of heavy traffic and
unsafe conditions and she saw walking trails, bike lanes, horse back riding
paths and she has major concerns about how these two plans are going to work
together. She said she lives in an
urban residential zoning area and urban residential areas should not have a lot
of traffic, there should be safe places for children to play and such. Within a block of where she lives she said
it is zoned rural residential and she is astonished that an east/west corridor
would be put in an urban residential area when there are acres of rural
residential that would be better suited for an east/west corridor.
There were no other public
comments.
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 04-75 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-11/Johnson
– Request for a Group Care Home As Permitted By HCC 21.45.030 (l) And HCC
21.45.030 (n) More Than One Building Containing A Permitted Principal Use On A
Lot, To Be Located At 4201 Kachemak Way, Lot 3-A of Anderson Subdivision 1980
Replat
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-75 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-11/Johnson.
Geri Johnson, owner of the subject property, said she started the group home eight years ago when they barely had to be licensed by the State for assisted living and she is willing to do what is required to comply. She described the parking area of her home and said that she had completed the parking upgrades that were required by the City. Chair Chesley questioned the bedroom count, he said her application with the State is for a four bedroom facility and there are six bedrooms on the floor plan. Ms. Johnson said four of the rooms are for residents, one room is hers and one is for the staff member on duty. She said there is a second apartment on the lot that was a shed but was upgraded for her family members, her daughter and grandson live there now. There were no other questions or comments. Chair Chesley thanked Ms. Johnson for coming, closed the public hearing and opened discussion from the Commission.
Chair Chesley asked the Commissioner for a motion to accept Staff Report PL04-75
HESS/BARTLETT MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-75.
Chair Chesley asked that it be stated in the Conditional Use Permit that it is limited to 4 residents rooms. City Planner McKibben said it is stated in the findings that the request is for a group care senior assisted living home for four individuals. Chair Chesley agreed that it is sufficiently stated in the staff report. Commissioner Connor asked that if the parking has already been taken care of if it needed to stay on as a recommendation. City Planner McKibben said yes that it should stay on to make sure that it is maintained.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
B. Staff Report PL 04-76 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-12/Walker – Request For Approval Of A Structure In Excess Of 8,000 Square Feet Of Building Area as Permitted by HCC 21.48.040 (d) Located At 3726 Lake Street, Lot 1 of Yah Sure Subdivision.
City Planner McKibben said she had some additional information from the applicant regarding the drainage system and an updated site plan. She read Staff Report PL 04-76 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-12/Walker into the record.
Boyd Walker, owner of the property in question, did not have anything to add but said he was happy to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Connor asked if he could point out the lot lines. Mr. Walker said his plan is to vacate the line and make it one lot but would like to reserve the right to re-subdivide. Commissioner Hess asked Mr. Walker about lighting for the warehouse and parking lot. Mr. Walker said currently there is downward facing halogen lighting mounted about 8 feet up along the back of the building and the plans for the addition will include one additional light to illuminate the parking area and loading dock area. Commissioner Connor asked for more information regarding the public ROW and the walkway, it is stated in the Staff Report that there is not a workable plan. City Planner McKibben showed Ms. Connor on the map where the ROW and the public uses easement are on the property. She said that there are walkways established around the building, and the code is suggesting that there be walkways from the building to the ROW, but there was not a feasible way to work with the parking that is already established. Chair Chesley asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Walker. There were no more questions or comments. Chair Chesley closed the public hearing and opened discussion from the Commission.
Chair Chesley asked the Commissioner for a motion to accept Staff Report PL04-76 with staff recommendations.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-76 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Bartlett said that he wanted to make a requirement that a building inspection report would be added to staff recommendation 4. Chair Chesley read HCC 21.42.040 2.d. and said that it is already a condition and the applicant can submit the building inspection as part of the backup documentation to show evidence of compliance.
BARTLETT/HESS MOVED THAT ITEM 4 STATING THAT A BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT THAT MEETS THE ICBO REQUIREMENTS BE SUBMITTED WITH THE REPORT.
Chair Chesley said that it is already address in the Code under HCC 21.42.040 2.d. and the staff is able to ask the developer for a wide range of things that are available, so he thinks it is unnecessary. Commissioner Hess said there is also a requirement for an as-built survey of the structure. He asked what City Planner McKibben was going to require for the as-built and the evidence of compliance. Ms. McKibben that the as-built is required and Planning Technician Engebretsen has taken on the task of ensuring that they are done then Ms. McKibben will follow up on the compliance with the Code. Commissioner Hess said that he is also satisfied that Ms. McKibben is going to require appropriate documents with the as- built schematics on the permit terms and there will be some sort of inspection report coming to the Planning Department. Commissioner Bartlett said he was still not convinced that there is a third party review from a professional’s standpoint. Mr. Bartlett said acceptance of a set of engineers stamped plans and for conformation that it was built to the standard of the State Code then an inspection should be associated with that. Commissioner Hess said that staff is going to require that along with the as built. Commissioner Bartlett said that he was satisfied with that; his concern is that he wanted to make it more specific. Chair Chesley said at a future work session they could discuss what report would be acceptable for the staff to accept.
VOTE: NO: CONNOR, HESS, BARTLETT, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion failed.
Commissioner Hess said that in the Staff Report there was mention of retrofitting existing structures and asked for the staffs interpretation of existing parking and landscaping. City Planner McKibben said they applied the new standards and Code to the parking and will be adding landscaping to the existing parking. Commissioner Hess said he was looking at the east lot line and border of landscaping along the lot line, there is a requirement for a buffer of landscaping there. City Planner said that they had missed that one but will work with Mr. Walker to take care of it. Commissioner Hess said even though there is only one light fixture to be added to the new addition it should be a cut off type or something along that line and be noted as to what type of light it is on the as built. Ms. McKibben said it is recommended in the staff report that the lighting will be consistent with the Code. Chair Chesley said it isn’t under the staff recommendation and suggested it could be proposed as item 4.
HESS/CONNOR MOVED THAT AN AMENDMENT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A REQUIREMENT NUMBER FOUR ALL NEW LIGHTING REQUIRED BY THE WAREHOUSE ADDITION WILL COMPLY WITH LIGHTING STANDARDS OF THE HOMER CITY CODE AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN MANUAL AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH COMMUNITY DESIGN STANDARDS IN HOMER CITY CODE WHENEVER EXISTING LIGHTING IS REPLACED IN THE FUTURE.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
Chair Chesley said he wanted to discuss the drainage plan. Commissioner Foster asked where the creek that runs by the Coastal Studies building goes. Mr. Walker said the creek runs along Lake Street and gets diverted into a manhole under the street and he doesn’t know where it goes from there. Mr. Walker said that their current drainage is designed to have a french drain that runs along the north side of the building and terminates in a dry well and when Lake Street was redesigned the drain was reconnected to the storm sewer. Chair Chesley said he should have addressed the drainage plan earlier and asked the Commission if it was okay to have Mr. Walker answer come back to answer questions regarding the drainage plan, they agreed. Chair Chesley asked Mr. Walker to explain what is happening with the drainage on site now. Mr. Walker said the lot is a flat lot and any drainage runs to the side, evaporates and goes away. He said off the back the property slopes to the back onto the second lot and drains into low areas.
Commissioner Hess said that this is one of the first projects that has been kicked into new standards in the Community Design Manual (CDM) and asked if Mr. Walker could give the Commission some feedback about complying with the regulations and if he had any particular problems with any of the things he had to do. Mr. Walker said he appreciates the work the staff did in looking at everything; he didn’t realize the Community Design Manual was in effect but Ms. McKibben gave him a copy and helped him understand what was in it. He said he appreciated the fact that there is some flexibility in that the CDM was primarily designed for new construction and there is some leeway for people who want to improve or expand an existing structure. Mr. Walker said that the requirement for trees and shrubs in parking areas is a difficult one. He said when he purchased the mall twelve or so years ago there were no trees out front and spent a great deal of time planting and nurturing them but it has been a major problem because trees and snowplows don’t mix. Mr. Walker said he was surprised to see how detailed it would be to add a 1200 foot addition. Commissioner Hess said he appreciated with his feed back. City Planner McKibben thanked Mr. Walker for his patience was they worked through this, it was a learning experience to apply to this to an existing structure.
Commissioner Foster said he had some concern with the staff recommendation on page 39 of the packet. He said in the CDM the wall is going to be 90 feet and anything over 60 feet shall be broken down into smaller planes. He said they don’t want to deter upgrading and development but here is an opportunity to take into account what the design manual says. Mr. Walker said he wanted to correct Commissioner Foster in that the wall will be 70 feet in length not 90 feet. The Commission discussed the issue and the concerns of setting precedence for future requirements.
Chair Chesley brought up the issue of non-conformity of the structure. Ms. McKibben read HCC 21.32.345, the definition of a non-conforming structure, which apply in this case. Chair Chesley said that if a structure is classified as non-conforming then it could expand on the lot. Ms. McKibben said they are asking that they classify this as a non-conforming structure. Commissioner Hess asked if the building being non-conforming has any effect on the requirements for the CDM. Ms. McKibben said it doesn’t mean that the addition to the building doesn’t have to comply with current standards. Commissioner Hess said he did not have any problem making the building non-conforming for the reason stated in the Staff Report but he is concerned about how to deal with existing buildings when they have additions and keep them into the requirements of the design manual. Chair Chesley said it is appropriate to give staff some leeway to work with the CDM. He said he thought staff had done a good job working with the applicant in trying to bring some things in compliance with the CDM and place further restrictions so as future things happen, like the lighting, they will come into compliance. Mr. Chesley said he thought they all knew the integrity of the building owner and if he says that is what he will do, then he will and to let staff come to the Commission with recommendations in cases when they are struggling and want some help. Mr. Chesley said the owner is looking for an economical way to add some warehouse space to the back of the building but if Mr. Walker were proposing a 3000 sf addition of retail space to the front, then Chair Chesley said he would have a different stance.
It was decided after discussion that the Commission does have the ability to make good judgment and use discretion with existing structures and because the addition is not adding additional retail space to the front of the building, and the side that the warehouse is going to be added has a natural buffer of trees to help break up the facade. The Commission agreed not to require any changes with regard to the length of the wall. Commissioner Hess said that they should add a finding that this particular the addition didn’t constitute substantial modification of the building to warrant additional design standard apply, because there was nothing to the main facade of the building. Commissioner Hess wanted to add that part of the intention of the CDM and the new standards is to improve the look of the community and that includes existing buildings. He said that while he agrees that this is a minor addition to this building he wants to be careful so when other additions come before them, they expect the CDM to apply to things like building facade and such should apply to substantial structure changes and even minor additions to a private building.
Chair Chesley said that with regard to the drainage plan, if as a result of construction, there would be any changes in the draining pattern that a zoning permit could be required. Commissioner Foster said that in the future there should be information on what the drainage situation is currently and what changes are expected when the development occurs.
Commissioner Connor commented about the parking. She said that if there will be additional parking in the back, could 5 spaces be taken from the front northwest corner and add the additional landscaping and walkway to fill the requirement. City Planner McKibben said that the concern there is that there is no public access from the back of the building and removing the spaces would change the parking requirements. Chair Chesley said that the plan that the staff brought forward meets the Code requirements.
FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED THAT THE FINDING FOR ITEM H BE AMENDED TO SAY STAFF FINDS WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO THE POINT OF VIEW MALL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY DESIGN MANUAL THE ADDITION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO WARRANT APPLICATION OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN MANUAL FOR FACADES AND WALLS.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
Chair Chesley asked if there were any objections to the main motion to accept Staff Report PL 04-76 as amended. There were no objections.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
City Planner McKibben said the issue of the non-conforming structure should be addressed. Chair Chesley said they would move that to Commission business to get through the agenda since there were people waiting for Staff Report PL 04-79.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED THAT THE RULES BE SUSPENDED TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO MOVE STAFF REPORT PL 04-79 TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Chair Chesley called for a Break 9:15 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:25 p.m.
C. Staff Report PL 04-77 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-13/City of
Homer – Request For Approval Of More Than One Building Containing A Permitted
Principal Use On A Lot Located at 4667 Homer Spit Road.
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-77 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-13/City of Homer
There were no public comments.
Chair Chesley asked for a motion to accept Staff Report PL 04-77
LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-77 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Hess asked if there is an issue of non-conformity in this case. City Planner McKibben said the City is not planning to add on to the existing structure, the building that currently houses the Ferry Office, they are building a new structure.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, CONNOR, LEHNER, BARTLETT, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
D. Staff Report PL 04-79 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-14/Boone -
Request for Approval of More Than One Building Containing A Permitted Principal
Use On A Lot Located at 4520 Natalie Circle, Lot 5 of Natalie Woods
Subdivision.
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-79 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-14/Boone into the record.
Marcia Boone asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Chair Chesley asked if she had any comments with regard to the Staff Report. Ms. Boone said that they have talked to Fire Chief Painter and Public Works Inspector Gardner about the road. The Commissioners had no questions for Ms. Boone. Chair Chesley invited anyone else from the audience that may have comments to speak.
Ted Schmidt, who is southwest to the property in question, said he doesn’t know of any other mutli-family dwellings in the area, he said they are primarily single family and B&B’s. Mr. Schmidt said that with a community septic system, each unit will have its own bathroom and kitchenette and he is concerned with water quality in the area. He said he also questions the traffic only being two to three cars with four rental units. Mr. Schmidt said that he knows the Boones have good intentions and he doesn’t have a problem with B&B’s and cottage business in the home and doesn’t see why the Boones couldn’t build a 4 bedroom 2 ˝ bath home to accommodate the same thing and be compatible with what is in the community, he is concerned what kind of precedence this will set. Mr. Schmidt said this would be better suited for a location within walking distance to town and it is not compatible with the location it is in. Mr. Schmidt voiced concern with the ROW coming in, the driveways, the excavation for the units and the size of the septic system for a four unit complex, how much of the trees and terrain are going to be disturbed. Mr. Schmidt said that he realizes it is not the intention of the Boones to offer these as rentals in the winter but if the economic potential is, there they may change their mind and the additional traffic coming in and out through the winter will not be good for their road. He asked the Commission to consider the potential of how this will change the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Schmidt said he would argue that this is not compatible with the majority of what is in their neighborhood, he would like to see the permit either denied or if not denied see restrictions put on the times of operation and take a close look at the amount of property to be used for the septic system, the access for emergency services and whether or not there is ingress to it in the Natalie Circle ROW.
Commissioner Hess asked Mr. Schmidt if there were any covenants in the subdivision. Mr. Schmidt said there are covenants in his subdivision, but he is not sure about the subdivision of the subject property. Commissioner Hess said that rooming houses are allowable in Rural Residential zoned areas, which is how they justify a B&B, but it gets into a conditional-use requirement because it is more than one building on a piece of property. He asked if Mr. Schmidt’s concern is because of the impact of additional dwellings or the use of a B&B. Mr. Schmidt said he doesn’t have a problem with the B&B concept because there is one unit and typically one septic. He said he wouldn’t have a problem with a B&B or in house cottage type business but is concerned with the potential for four separate units and the effect on water quality, density, traffic and the quality of life.
Terry Thompson is a neighbor whose lot borders the lot where the proposed development will take place. Mr. Thompson said he echo’s Mr. Schmidt’s comments, the Boones are great neighbors and understands that they want to take advantage of their lot, but his house is exposed to the development. He said he is also concerned about density, noise and water quality, would like to ask the Commission to seriously consider these issues, and would like to see some moderation in their plan.
There were no other public comments. Chair Chesley told Ms. Boone that she could come back and rebut any of the comments. Ms. Boone thanked Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Thompson for their comments and said that they want the people in the neighborhood to be happy. She said the way it will be laid out they will be able to see the cottages from their front yard, so they want them to blend in. She said they have done a lot of research and what they are proposing will be much less noticeable than someone buying the lot and building a large house there, at this point their plan is to build two units now to see how it goes. She said they have reviewed their covenants, researched the septic system, this one would be totally separate from their home, the road will be upgraded as required, and the cabins will be only one story. She said she believes that the impact will be minimal to what a single family home would be and she does not anticipate renting the units through the winter. They are looking at this as a retirement thing where they could run it through the summer and travel in the winter. Ms. Boone said their plan is to be low key, they don’t want the parking to be set where there will be cars in front Mr. Thompson’s house, and they hope to keep as many of the trees as possible.
Commissioner Hess asked if they are planning to do a septic system for all four units even though they are starting out with two. Mr. Boone said that they are looking at costs and what the City is recommending, but it would be best to put it in the right way first since there is the potential to have the four cabins. Commissioner Lehner asked how many rooms they are anticipating. Ms. Boone said there will be the potential for four total, one in each unit, two units may have a small room in the back or with a large open room, the kitchen would be small, no dishwasher, a sink, small stove and microwave. Commissioner Connor asked if Ms. Boone could show her on the map where the cabins and the parking would be laid out. Ms. Boone showed her on the aerial photo of the lot where they are planning to develop. Commissioner Foster asked if the slope of the property was toward Mr. Thompson’s house. Mr. Boone said that it is pretty flat just before Mr. Thompson’s house for about 50 to 60 feet and where the trees are slopes to the south and west and it is steeper at the north end of the lot.
Chair Chesley asked if there was anyone else who wished to testify and seeing none, closed the public hearing portion and opened it up for the Commission to discuss.
Chair Chesley asked for a motion to accept Staff Report PL 04-79 Re: Conditional Use Permit 04-14/Boone.
HESS/FOSTER MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-79 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Hess said he understands the concerns of the neighboring property owners but has to go back to the fact that the Code reads that this is an allowable use and the proposed usage is less that what could potentially be allowed. Commissioner Bartlett said the proposed use is allowed with conditional use but questioned the water and sewer source. City Planner McKibben said they are proposing a DEC approved community septic system. Mr. Bartlett said the Code reads that the minimum lot should be 40000 sf per each dwelling unit so given the lot size there would only be room for two units. City Planner McKibben said that on page 68 of the packet the second condition says public or community sewer approved by DEC serves the lot. She read, the applicant has proposed to have a DEC approved engineered septic system to deal with wastewater from all units. The Staff contacted DEC for requirements for the proposed developments are and DEC requires a community septic system if two or more units connect to the same system. Commissioner Bartlett said there is a difference between a septic system and a community sewer system and said the Commission should be careful to what they approve in relationship to the septic system. Chair Chesley recommended that they amend the staff recommendation item three to say that a community septic system instead of just a septic system.
BARTLETT/CONNOR MOVED THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM THREE BE AMENDED TO READ THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE PROOF OF A DEC APPROVED AND INSTALLED COMMUNITY SEPTIC SYSTEM PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster said he can appreciate the concerns of the neighbors and said it is good that the owners will be there to oversee it. He said it has been his experience to see where two or three couples come together and sit around the fire pit, then it turns it into a party and people wandering over the lot lines to other peoples property. Chair Chesley said it is a good neighbor policy and the developer has to be mindful of their neighbors and if there is a problem, that the neighbors can talk to the property owners. Commissioner Lehner said that she has a neighbor with a one room B&B and with that you don’t see the problems that Mr. Foster mentioned, but if there are no covenants restricting the use in the Boone’s subdivision then she doesn’t see where the Commission has the basis, despite the problems that might arise, to deny the permit. Chair Chesley asked if there was any further discussion on PL 04-79 as amended. Commissioner Foster asked if it was appropriate to add a condition that the value of adjoining property will not be negatively impacted and that if there is a determination that it has then the conditional use permit will be rescinded. City Planner McKibben asked how that determination would be made. Commissioner Foster said a bunch of complaints. Commissioner Chesley said that just proves there are a bunch of complaints, not that there is an impact to property value. Commissioner Foster said if they can’t sell their property because of it then it would be. Chair Chesley said it is not the intent of the Code to say that this development will here and forever more will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. He said the intent in looking at this type of requirement is to say if someone is going to open a junk yard or a convenience store with neon lights where a commercial district is abutting a residential district, that would have potential negative impact to the neighboring properties of the commercial development and that is more the intent of the Code. Chair Chesley said if there were no further comments he would call for a vote.
VOTE: YES: BARTLETT, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, HESS, CONNOR
Motion carried.
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 04-08
Re: Puffin Acres Subdivision No.
4 Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben read Staff
Report PL 04-08 Re:
Puffin Acres Subdivision No. 4 Preliminary Plat
There were no public comments.
Chair Chesley asked if Mr. Imhoff
had received a copy of the Staff Report.
City Planner McKibben said a copy was sent out to him. Chair Chesley asked if there was any
opposition from the Commission.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF
REPORT PL 04-08.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
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.
Chair Chesley said he would like
be done with the meeting by 11:00 p.m.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO SUSPEND THE
RULES TO DISCUSS ITEM E FIRST UNDER COMMISSION BUSINESS.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
City Planner McKibben suggested
that they consider tabling action on the Transportation Plan. Commissioner Foster said they needed to
address the non-conforming uses that were discussed earlier because he thought
that the non-conforming use needed to be done prior to approving the
conditional use permit so it should at least be done the same day. City Planner McKibben said the Code doesn’t
addresses it relation to the conditional use permit but does express it in
relation to the zoning permit, but it would most helpful if it could be
addressed rather than postponing it to the next agenda. Chair Chesley said they will go ahead and
discuss item E, then discuss continuing the other items.
A. Staff Report PL 04-83
B. Staff Report PL 04-84
C. Staff Report PL 04-72
Re: Commission Work List-
Continuing
D. Staff Report PL 04-56 Re:
Review of HCC 21.42 Zoning Permit. Continuing
E. Landscape Requirements
Commissioner Hess said the lay down information that was passed around is offered to fix what has become an issue with the newly adopted landscape requirements in both CBD and large retail with the dividers and islands that are required in parking areas. Mr. Hess said that the requirement for installing dividers and islands after 12 parking spaces was not a good thing to require because of campers and snow plowing and it hampers developer’s options in parking. Mr. Hess said he is proposing that they strike that requirement (HCC 21.48.060.h.1.b.ii), but keep the 10 percent landscaping requirement in the parking area, this will give the developer more leeway to meet the requirement. He said in regard to the CBD requirements for double loaded parking, strike the second requirement under dividers and islands (HCC 21.61.105.1.7.a.ii.2.)., and double the minimum of the buffer to make up for the lack of landscaping with in the parking area. The Commission discussed current requirements and sizes and drew diagrams to help visualize what Mr. Hess was proposing. City Planner McKibben clarified that Commissioner Hess was saying that in parking lots of 24 spaces or more 10 percent of the parking lot shall consist of landscaped dividers and/or islands, and if a double loaded parking area includes a buffer that is a minimum of 15 feet, dividers and islands do not have to be provided. City Planner McKibben said she wanted to point out that many of the lots in CBD wouldn’t be able to accommodate that requirement because the lots are too small. Commissioner Hess said it would be a pretty large building to accommodate 30 parking spaces. There was discussion whether to make the buffer a minimum of 15 feet or 20 feet. It was decided the buffer would be a minimum of 15 feet (HCC 21.61.105.1.7.a.ii.2.)
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT THE CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 20, 2004.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
LEHNER/BARTLETT MOVED TO CONTINUE COMMISSION BUSINESS ITEMS A, B, AND C TO THE NEXT MEETING ON OCTOBER 20, 2004.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
City Planner McKibben asked if Chair Chesley wanted the non-conforming structures to be on the next agenda. Chair Chesley said it would be best if there were a Staff Report written. Ms. McKibben agreed.
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster said he has been relieved of his duty on the Plat Committee. He said he has finished reviewing the Kenai Peninsula Borough All Hazard Mitigation Plan and is being reviewed by the Borough Planning Commission. He said Homer does have a draft plan but he hasn’t seen it yet. He said that Christy Miller, Flood Plain Manager for the State, indicated that when the Hazard Mitigation Plans are being written that not only should you update flood hazard maps but also add erosion maps or sediment transport data so that the steep slopes can be linked. He said there is a section in the Borough Plan about erosion but no mitigation plan or discussion of risk. He said it would be good for the City to address erosion mitigation in the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. City Planner McKibben asked how Mr. Foster would propose addressing that. Mr. Foster said there is a section on floods, a section on earthquakes and a section on tsunamis but there isn’t a section on erosion. City Planner McKibben said she wanted to know process-wise, she said she understands content. Mr. Foster said he has no idea what the process of the plan is; all he has is a draft that hasn’t come to the Planning Commission at all. Ms. McKibben said she doesn’t know what the process is either and doesn’t know what instigated the plan. Mr. Foster said it is a requirement of FEMA. He said he thought it was interesting that none of the cities are following the same format for their plans and the City’s plan addresses erosion but doesn’t have anything in the mitigation section for it and he just wanted to bring that up.
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
There was no report given.
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that there is another appeal that needs to be scheduled and suggested October 28 since the Council Chambers is available. Chair Chesley asked what the appeal was regarding. Ms. McKibben said a neighbor has appealed a zoning permit that was issued to build an accessory structure. Chair Chesley said he would like to finish the appeal they are working on now before getting into another one. The Commission decided on Tuesday, November 9, 2004 to hold the appeal hearing. Chair Chesley said they would be having another executive session on October 13th for the Shavelson appeal.
Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units.
A. Zoning Violation Table
B. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 13, 2004 to Charles Stewart re: Zoning Permit needed.
C. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 13, 2004 to Mary & Gary Marshall re: Sign Permit and Conditional Use Permit.
D. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 13, 2004 to Jose & Maria Ramos, re: Required Conditional Use Permit.
E. Response letter dated September
16, 2004 to James Dolma, re: 852 East
End Road.
F. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 20, 2004 to Elisabeth Brennand & Scott Sheffler re: Zoning
Permit needed.
G. Zoning information letter
dated September 23, 2004 to John & Viola Hansen, re: 3635 Soundview Avenue – Zoning Permit
needed.
H. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 24, 2004 to Porter Construction, re: 809 Sterling Highway – Zoning Permit, Driveway Permit,
Water/Sewer Permits needed.
I. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 27, 2004 to Porter Construction, re: 809 Sterling Highway – Stop work order.
Commissioner Hess asked for some more
information about informational item I.
City Planner McKibben said a stop order was issued to all of the
property owners, two of the property owners were previously unaware that
filling was taking place and some of those issues are being worked out. Ms. McKibben said she talked to the State
and their answer is that they are not responsible for this. She said the Planning Department is working
away steadily at it.
J. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 27, 2004 to Steve & Rebecca Foster, re: 779 Sterling
Highway – Stop work order.
K. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 27, 2004 to Arrowhead Industries, Inc., re: 725 Sterling Highway – Stop work order.
L. Zoning Violation letter
dated September 27, 2004 to Twin Peaks Construction, re: 671 Sterling Highway – Stop work order.
M. Memorandum to Homer Advisory
Planning Commission from Councilman Doug Stark, dated October 6, 2004 meeting,
re: Lane Chesley’s Remarks of 15
September 2004.
N. October Calendar
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Connor asked about Julie Davis’s letter and is concerned about where it is going, if any action has been taken or if she is waiting to hear something. City Planner McKibben said that Planning Technician Engebretsen and Planning Technician Eggersten-Goff are following up on it and have done a site visit. Ms. McKibben said it was hard for her to comment, not having seen it yet.
Commissioner Bartlett said he had nothing to add.
Commissioner Foster said that when the Borough presents their staff reports, they give a synopsis of the report and thinks that it would be good if City Planner McKibben could offer a synopsis instead of reading the entire report as a time saving effort. Ms. McKibben said she was instructed in the beginning to read the Staff Report but is totally open to the idea of a shorter synopsis of the main points and findings of the report. She said there are some procedural things that can be looked at, the Commission can adopt the staff findings and then they can be amended. Commissioner Foster said to Chair Chesley that he appreciates what he is doing but Mr. Foster said he thinks the Chair is leading the Commission because he is basically making the motions and the Commission just nods their heads. Chair Chesley asked if he made the motions or asked for the motions. Mr. Foster said Mr. Chesley made every one of the motions. Chair Chesley said he could remember many meetings when the previous Chair would look to the Commission for a motion and the Commission would say they make a motion on what the Chair said. Mr. Chesley said he will be happy to sit back and let the Commission come up with the language for the motions, one of his main concerns too is to ensure that the wording is clear for the clerk taking notes. Commissioner Foster also commented on two articles that came across his desk, one from Time magazine on erosion and one in USA Today about hurricanes, which was written by Orrin Pilkey, who Mr. Shavelson had mentioned at the Special Meeting.
Commissioner Hess commented that he was very glad that Chair Chesley was still with the Planning Commission. Mr. Hess also said he knows there are misconceptions in the community of what the Planning Commission stands for and that is something they need to work on and look for ways to improve their image in the community.
Commissioner Lehner said she had no comments.
Chair Chesley said he would like to see about scheduling one of their December meetings with no public hearings. He said there are some things that need to be finished up before the end of the year. City Planner McKibben said she would have to check into that and it may end up that a Special Meeting may need to be scheduled for that, but she would let him know.
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 11:40 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for October 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, with a Worksession to commence at 6:00 p.m.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: