Session 04-22 a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at 7:11 p.m. on October 20, 2004 by Chair Chesley at the Homer City Hall Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, FOSTER,
PFEIL, HESS, LEHNER, CONNOR
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS BARTLETT (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
B. Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
The agenda was approved by consensus.
Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2004 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Hess said that on page 13 under Landscape Requirements, campers should be changed to hampers. Commissioner Conner said on page 4 the comma after walkway should be a period, at the bottom of the page address should be addressed, on page 6 the last 2 lines of the first paragraph the word with should be taken out and the next line was should be as.
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.
No Presentations Scheduled
No 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. Continued Hearing On An Appeal Received On The Administrative Decision To Issue Zoning Permit No. 0604-036; Development Activity Plan For 149 Charles Way, KPB Tax ID No. 17714008; HM T6S, R13W, S20, S.M.
Chair Chesley said the Commission would hear any additional testimony that relates specifically to the three points of appeal. He read the three points of appeal, Point 1. Construction of the project occurred with out or before there was a zoning permit, Point 2. The City erred by not requiring the applicant provide sufficient evidence that the applicant met the conditions of the Clean Water Act section 404 and Point 3. The City failed to require the applicant show the retaining wall, rock revetment and unconsolidated fill of the site will not adversely effect adjacent and nearby public and private properties through erosion, slope failure, surface water drainage, siltation and other impacts for the foreseeable future.
Ray Kranich said his comment related to point 3 and it would be a historical perspective to the property. Mr. Kranich said that when the current post office was built the Homer Elks received all of the stumps that were taken off the lot and used as a stabilization effort over their bluff. The Elks had placed the fill with gabions in front with boulders and concrete. He said that it appeared for a short time that that there was an acceleration in erosion toward Bishops Beach, then a short period of time after that another burm started building out in front, which is still there today. From that time on, the bluff from the Elks to Bishops beach grassed and sodded over and there has been virtually nil erosion in that since the revetment was put in front of the Elks. Mr. Kranich said from his historical perspective he doesn’t see where there will be a problem with down stream erosion, the bluff is significantly less at that point and he doesn’t think there will be a problem based on the historical observation from up steam with a taller bluff. Chair Chesley clarified Mr. Kranich’s point as the City did not fail to meet their requirement that the applicant showed the retaining wall will not adversely effect the property. Mr. Kranich said that based on historical observations of the beach and other activities of a similar nature, the City was in line issuing the permit. Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Kranich if he thought that applicants should reference historical information. Mr. Kranich said if they have the historical information it would be appropriate.
Frank Griswold said that he has not been following the case but could give some historical perspective as well. He addressed Mr. Kranich’s comments and said that he his not an expert on erosion either, but all of the gabions, stumps and rocks and all of the stuff they put there are long gone. The barricade and the logs that were there are gone because there was serious erosion. If it was a short-term effect because of what they put in there, the reason it is no longer in effect is because it has all eroded away. He said he thought they could take his testimony and Mr. Kranich’s and throw it away.
City Planner McKibben pointed out to the Commission that there was a letter included in the packet on page 19. Commissioner Hess said that it doesn’t apply to the point of appeal. Chair Chesley said it is a letter of support for development and recognize it as part of the record.
There were no more public comments.
B. Staff Report PL 04-78 Re: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 04-10/English Bay Corporation – Request For Indoor Recreational Facilities Such As Skating Rinks, Equestrian Arenas Or Similar Uses As Permitted By HCC 21.53.030 (m) To Be Located At 3232 Homer Spit Road, Government Lot 1, Section 35, Lying Northeast Of Homer Spit Road.
Chair Chesley declared a conflict of interest in relation to Staff Report PL 04-78 and passed the gavel to Commissioner Hess to continue the Public Hearing. City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-78 into the record and said there is correspondence from the applicant clarifying some points in the staff report, amendment to the language in staff recommendation condition two and an updated site plan.
There were no comments from the applicant or representative of the applicant.
Frank Griswold told an inappropriate tale of man going into a bar and offering to pay for sex. He said that the City is prostituting its zoning code to accommodate the Homer Hockey Association. He said with all the different scenarios the Hockey Association has proposed, the City has said no problem and that is not the way an impartial body operates and this application for conditional use should undergo the same scrutiny as any other application, real scrutiny, not just for show. He said no promises or assurances should have been given to the Hockey Association for the structure on the spit by any City official and the Planning Commission should not be influenced if it were. He said the CUP is the most abused tool in the City’s zoning toolbox and the Commission is kept in the dark about many zoning procedures especially the purpose of the CUP. He asked when the last time was that the Commission had attended a training on the CUP and said contrary to common practice a conditional use application should not be approved because the Commission favors the proposed the project. The purpose of the CUP should only be approved if conditions applied for minimize or eliminate adverse effects so the proposed use is compatible with the uses that are permitted outright in the district. Mr. Griswold said the public may have been duped by this application as the spit may not be the permanent home for this. He said he had been informed that after three years, the building would be converted to an industrial marine warehouse. He said that at the September 1, 2004 of the Planning Commission, Chair Chesley said there were unforeseen consequences to the community design manual and this CUP is a temporary fix with foreseeable long term consequences, it would create conflicts between recreational and industrial uses on the spit for one. Mr. Griswold said the City is going about this backwards. If the expansion of recreational uses is so vital to the community, the City should define the terms, identify the community need, revise the comprehensive plan, amend the purpose of the respective zoning districts, amend conditional uses within the districts, consider a CUP application and if it is approved go forward. Mr. Griswold read HCC 21.53.010 into the record to clarify the purpose of the Marine Industrial District. He said the first requirement of the CUP is that it must be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district and a Hockey Rink is not a marine dependent industry, it does not require direct access for its operation and for the Commission to find otherwise would be dishonest. He said that Ordinance 04-48 was primarily designed to benefit the Homer Hockey Association and the English Bay Corporation, while the community benefit is tangible, it is secondary and the former Mayor would not have declared a conflict of interest if Ordinance 04-48 were primarily for designed to meet community wide needs. The President of the Hockey Association was quoted in the Homer Tribune as saying that the use is well within the guidelines and it is the first request to fall under the new code. Mr. Griswold said that this application falling on the heals of Ordinance 04-48 is not surprising and whether or not this conditional use comports with the stated purpose of the Marine Industrial district and falls with in the guidelines of the zoning code should be determined by the Homer Advisory Planning Commission, not delegated to the Homer Hockey Association or any other special interest group.
Bill Smith said that there is another side of the story and there are always things that are not anticipated. He said that with regard to CUP’s , they are for uses that have more impact on the community than permitted uses, so you try to assess what the impacts might be and compensate for them with conditions and that Mr. Griswold was incorrect when saying the inflatable structure was approved because the Planning Commission did not approve the application for an inflatable structure in the middle of town, so in fact the Homer Hockey Association was not given everything they wanted. Mr. Smith said that list of the conditionally permitted uses in the Marine Industrial District allows uses that are also allowed in the Marine Commercial District. Tourism related uses are allowed in Marine Industrial and looking at the whole intent and recent amendment to the Code it is clear that indoor recreational facilities can be conditionally permitted and while the use may not be the original vision of the spit, but it is well within the communities purview to proceed on this issue. Commissioner Hess confirmed Mr. Smith’s statement that Marine Commercial uses in the Marine Industrial District. Mr. Smith said it is an adjunct that allows the City to allow Marine Commercial uses in the Marine Industrial District and it illustrates the flexibility that was built into the district. City Planner McKibben read HCC 21.53.020 j. 1-3.
There were no further public comments. Commissioner Hess closed the public hearing.
FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-78 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Foster said that section e. of the staff findings says there was not much information on the Trip findings for an ice rink but knowing the rink will be used for the Arctic Winter Games, hockey games and tournaments he thought it would be prudent to consider potential parking and traffic concerns and wonders if a traffic study may be needed with all the traffic leaving at the same time. City Planner McKibben said that it was a possibility. She said the information provided by the Hockey Associations showed that for regular use it probably wouldn’t be an issue, but it may be event driven and that is a condition the Commission may add if they feel it is warranted. There was discussion of possible traffic conflicts for example if people were trying to get to a ship and couldn’t get through the congestion of people leaving the event at the ice rink or traffic in the summer. City Planner McKibben said that the only use for the building is going be an ice rink; it is not going to be a multi-use building. There was also discussion of requirements for traffic control during major events.
FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED THAT CONDITION 7 BE ADDED TO SAY THAT DURING MAJOR EVENTS TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC CONFLICTS ON THE SPIT ROAD.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
PFEIL MOVED THAT HOMER HOCKEY ASSOCIATION BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE RECENTLY ADOPTED LIGHTING ORDINANCE.
City Planner McKibben said the lighting standards are part of the zoning code HCC 21.53 and will apply to any lighting. She said that any lighting standards that go above and beyond in the Community Design Manual do not apply to the zoning districts.
Motion not recognized.
Commissioner Pfeil asked if there was a tsunami warning system or evacuation plan in place. City Planner McKibben said that it was not included but is a good idea and would be feasible to require it as a public safety issue. There was discussion as to what means would be acceptable for a warning system. Ms. McKibben said that it could be required that the applicant coordinate with what ever agency it is that issues the warning to ensure safe evacuation in case of emergency. Commissioner Hess said it would be NOAA but he is not aware of any other building that has been required to meet these requirements and it could be acceptable for them simply to have an evacuation plan in place.
LEHNER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE APPLICANT ARTICULATING CONCERNS THAT THERE BE A WAY FOR PARTICIPANTS AND PUBLIC TO HEAR TSUNAMI WARNINGS AND TO HAVE A PLAN TO EVACUATE SAFELY.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Commissioner Hess asked if Staff Recommendation 2 could be reworded to be consistent with HCC 21.42.040. d.
PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED THAT CONDITION 2 UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATION READ THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE OF APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried
There was no more discussion on PL 04-78
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, LEHNER, HESS
Motion Carried.
Chair Chesley returned to the meeting and resumed position as Chair.
C. Staff Report PL 04-84 Re: Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Amending HCC Chapter 21, HCC 21.48.060(h) Central Business District, Landscaping Requirements, HCC 21.61.105(l)(7) Conditional Use Permit, Landscaping, proposed Code changes address landscaping requirements in the Central Business District and for Large Retail and Wholesale Development.
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-84 into the record.
There were no public comments.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-84.
Commissioner Hess said he wanted to amend HCC 21.48.060. h.1.a.ii. He said the way that it reads, 10 feet minimum width adjacent to right-of-ways, except alleys, and parking lots with 12 spaces or more, could be misunderstood to mean except alleys and except parking lots, which is not the intent of the code. Chair Chesley confirmed that the language would be restated to read 10 feet minimum width adjacent to right-of-ways in parking lots with 12 spaces or more, except alleys.
HESS MOVED TO AMEND LANGUAGE IN HCC 21.48.060.H.l.a.ii TO READ 10 FEET MINIMUM WIDTH ADJACENT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND IN PARKING LOTS WITH 12 SPACES OR MORE, EXCEPT ALLEYS.
City Planner McKibben said HCC 31.61.105.l.7.i.2. has the same language that needs to be restructured to remain consistent.
Motion not recognized.
PFEIL MOVED TO MAKE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT IN HCC 31.61.105.l.7.i.2 TO READ 10 FEET MINIMUM WIDTH ADJACENT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND IN PARKING LOTS OF MORE THAN 30 SPACES, EXCEPT ALLEYS.
The Commission discussed what wording would be most acceptable and Chair Chesley said he thought it would be better to discuss this later and the Commission could consider their wording in the meantime.
Motion not recognized.
FOSTER MOVED THAT STAFF REPORT PL 04-84 BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
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 04-85 Re: Mutch-Gangl 2004 Addition Subdivision Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben Beth read staff PL 04-85 into the record.
Commissioner Lehner said she might have a conflict of interest. She said she owns property within 300 feet of this property and has been in contact with the property owner regarding trail use. The Commission was polled and determined that there was no conflict of interest.
There were no comments of the applicant and no comments from the public.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-85 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Lehner asked if the proposed alignment for the 60-foot road easement should be on the plat. Commissioner Hess pointed out that it is already on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Connor said that on the preliminary plat there are requirements for wastewater disposal for lots B-3-A and B-3-B and wondered why nothing for the third lot. City Planner McKibben said she would defer that question to the surveyor, Roger Imhoff. Mr. Imhoff said that when a lot is more than 200,000 square feet, which is 4.59 acres, it is not required to have a wastewater review by the Borough.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion Carried
B. Staff Report PL 04-86 Re: Alm Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-86 into the record.
There were no comments of the applicant and no comments from the public.
PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-86 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Lehner said that in Mr. Imhoff’s letter he suggested the time to ask for a right-of-way dedication would be on the further subdivision of the Lot 2-A and she said that a continuation of Latham Lane is something that was suggested on the transportation plan and wanted to mention that in case Mr. Imhoff wasn’t aware of that. Mr. Imhoff said that the neighborhood has been allowed to subdivide time after time and no adequate right-of-way and it made sense that Latham Lane should eventually be extended to connect with East End Road over the easterly side of R.W. Edens Subdivision. Commissioner Lehner asked if there was any way to red flag something like this for when it comes up in the future. City Planner McKibben said that the surveyors spend a lot of time with Public Works before submitting a preliminary plat and discuss issues like these. Mr. Imhoff said that the Borough’s Subdivision Code requires that a subdivision plan does provide adequate access to neighboring lots.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried
C. Staff Report PL 04-87 Re: Bluff Park No. 6 Subdivision Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-87 into the record.
There were no comments of the applicant and no comments from the public.
Commissioner Foster said there was a ravine there that had been filled during previous development and asked Mr. Imhoff what is planned for the drainage on the lot. Mr. Imhoff said he doesn’t know, he also said that the parent plats depict a 20-foot drainage easement along the creek. Commissioner Connor asked about the exception to the 3:1 ratio that Mr. Imhoff spoke of in his letter and wondered if it was a recommendation by Mr. Imhoff. Mr. Imhoff said he was making the statement that it does exceed the 3:1 ratio, which is a Borough subdivision requirement and an exception will be required for subdivision approval. He said it is usually granted in cases like this because the area toward the bay is too steep and undevelopable in the conventional sense.
FOSTER/CONNOR MOVED THAT THE DRAINAGE WILL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAT.
City Planner McKibben pointed out that the drainage is already shown on the plat. Commissioner Foster withdrew his motion.
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.
A. Staff Report PL 04-88 Re: Request For Planning Commission Determination Regarding Addition Of Garage Onto Existing Impervious Surface Within The Bridge Creek Water Protection District at 1170 Queets Circle, Lot 18, Kelly Ranch Estates Subdivision.
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-88 into the record.
Weston Carroll emphasized that the impervious coverage was in place on his property before the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District was established and that it doesn’t specify any difference between a garage or parking area as impervious coverage. Commissioner Foster asked if Mr. Carroll had a plan on how he would be handling the collection of water off the eaves and if the eaves will be extending out over the existing parking area. Mr. Carroll said he had discussed a mitigation plan with the Planning Department and could implement a plan if necessary but since he isn’t extending the impervious coverage, he was hoping not to have to. Commissioner Foster explained that wherever the drainage is coming off without a storm drain it tends to increase the velocity of the water and if it is not channeled it could start making a new creek. Commissioner Hess said it wouldn’t be a problem if the roof area were contained within the existing impervious area. Mr. Carroll said it would be preferable to him for the water or snow to run off the back edge and he hasn’t had any plans drawn up yet because he wanted to see what the Commission was going require. He said he believes the side that water would shed off of would be onto an existing impervious coverage. City Planner McKibben said that Mr. Carroll has a copy of a mitigation plan that includes a french drain type system around the building and he said he was hoping not to have to do that if it were taking up and placing it into the existing impervious coverage, but if the snow were to shed off the impervious coverage into another area it wouldn’t be difficult to install something similar to what was on the mitigation plan or a grassy swale where it would filter out. Commissioner Connor asked what kind of foundation Mr. Carroll would be putting under the shop. Mr. Carroll said a concrete foundation similar to what is on the existing house. Commissioner Connor said her concern was that the earth that is excavated doesn’t end up in the watershed too and that is something to keep in mind.
There were no more public comments.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-88 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Hess said that Commissioner Connor had a valid concern about the material that is excavated out. Commissioner Foster said he did not think it would be necessary. Chair Chesley asked about the reason that they need to grant non-conformity. City Planner McKibben said it existed prior to the adoption of HCC 21.59, which created the Bridge Creek Watershed District and the impervious surface coverage limits and it is addressed in HCC 21.59.135 a. b. & c. Chair Chesley recommended that in Staff Recommendations a specific finding should have a Code citation for reference.
Commissioner Foster said he did not want to make a motion or make a requirement but recommended to Mr. Carroll that mitigation measures be taken in dealing with the flow off the garage roof surface. Chair Chesley said this is something they may want to come back and consider this as an amendment to the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District. Commissioner Lehner said there is information available at the Natural Resources Conservation Service for simple practices to reduce erosion that are not complicated and low cost.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
B. Staff Report PL 04-89 Re: Request for a time extension for Zoning Permit 02-07 issued to Anya Kazennova, 3702 Forest Glen Drive, Lot 3, Block 2, Forest Glen Subdivision Unit 2.
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-89 into the record.
Anya Morozova (previously Anya Kazennova) read her letter that is included in the packet, page 81, into the record. Commissioner Foster asked if there is water and sewer to the property. Ms. Morozova said the water and sewer are not hooked up yet because of the cost involved.
Philip Needham presented photos of the property to the Commission. He said he was present to testify against the extension. He said he owns property in the area that the subject property is located. He said he has been to Planning and Zoning several times about the subject property. Recently had a house that he built listed for sale that was just around the corner from Ms. Morozova’s property and several times Realtors took potential buyers into the home but buyers weren’t willing to purchase it because they didn’t want to have to drive by the subject property and other times potential buyers wouldn’t even get out of the car after driving by it. He said he had to take beating on the price to get out from under it. Mr. Needham asked the Commission to look at the photos and consider if the is type of development that they want to promote. Mr. Needham said everyone should have a chance to build their own home, but inside the city limits doesn’t have the homestead mentality anymore. He said he has several other lots in the subdivision and the subject property affects other lots in the subdivision. Mr. Needham asked the Commission what they thought about having this next to them for two years and then find out that it may go on for two more years. Mr. Needham said the several times he was in the Planning office he was told that there are no tools to deal with this situation and he feels it is time to make some tools. He said that everyone is so wrapped up in Fred Meyer and the hockey rink, that situations like this keep slipping through the cracks and no one seems to care but the people he is trying to sell houses to. Mr. Needham said there should be some conditions and if the Commission is going to give an extension, then they should make the owners clean it up. He said he is not trying to insult the property owners, but his lively hood is at stake. He asked what is going to prevent them from having the mess there in two more years. Mr. Needham said he has gone to the police to try to get them to move junk out of the right-of-way. He said there are no teeth in the ordinance and he said lets do something and help clean the city up. Commissioner Hess asked when was the last time he had been to the Planning office to address the situation. He said earlier in the summer and was told their building permit was about to expire and then the Planning Department could do something. Mr. Needham said he feels like a jerk because they should be able to build their own home, but everyone else shouldn’t have to be impacted by it for four years. Mr. Morozova said that they have moved their stuff out of the right-of-way. He said the hearse is licensed and has insurance and Forrest Glenn Subdivision has documents (covenants) that say what you can and cannot have on the property. He said that it has taken them a long time to do this, 2 years ago it was a beetle kill jungle but they have cleared out some of the trees and they are doing everything by hand, the have stripped the logs and cut them for their home. Chair Chesley asked what their plans are to finish. Mr. Morozova said that the timeframe in the letter is what they believe they can do. Commissioner Foster asked if the Morozova’s have a septic system. Mr. Morozova said they do not live there, they rent an apartment because the regulations say they can only live there 90 days and they are following the regulations. Ms. Morozova said it would be good to approve their extension so they could finish their work.
There were no more public comments.
PFEIL/CONNOR MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT 04-89 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Hess asked City Planner McKibben if there are any zoning violations now and what can be done. City Planner McKibben said the applicant has worked over the summer to move things out of the right-of-way, the building is within the setbacks and do not live in the RV because they were notified of the City code, but the Code does not regulate the junky trashy stuff in ones yard. They have made progress in the past year since the one extension was granted and have been responsive to the staffs notices. She said she can’t judge if completion is likely in the next two years, but can say they have made significant progress in the last year. Commissioner Hess said that HCC 21.32.251 addresses junk and HCC 21.32.252 addresses junkyards and the property owner is storing junk as one can see in the photos. He said there are zoning enforcements to deal with junk and would recommend directing staff to commence with more enforcement to clean it up prior to granting another extension. Commissioner Pfeil said that he agrees with Commissioner Hess and while one mans junk is another mans treasure, people can deal with their treasures appropriately.
Chair Chesley called for a short recess at 9:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:05 p.m.
Chair Chesley suggested that housing reflects various states of completion in Alaska, but within the city it is reasonable to expect that an applicant who comes into build a structure has a reasonable chance to complete their structure in a reasonable time frame. He said he didn’t think there are grounds to warrant extending the permit and feels the likelihood of completion is questionable. If the permit is not extended, the Commission could give staff direction that the applicants could apply for a permit again once the conditions on the lot are improved and stipulate that they have their water and sewer paid for at the time they apply for their permit. He said it is win/win in that they are setting a standard of development in the community and want to give property owners the opportunity to complete projects but communities have the right to expect work to be done in a timely, safe and healthy fashion. Commissioner Foster said he felt the reason they keep extending the permit has to do with the cost involved in the permitting fees. Commissioner Hess said he has less of a problem extending the permit then he does with getting the zoning violation taken care of, and denying the permit may give them the incentive to take care of the zoning violation then it wouldn’t be out of line to extend the permit. Chair Chesley said there is a question as to whether or not the junk in the yard is a zoning violation. City Planner McKibben said that the way the term junkyard has been used doesn’t apply in this case and thinks there is a better vehicle to using the term junkyard in the zoning code as a tool to get people to clean up their yards and take care of the nuisances. She spoke of other communities that have ordinances that are not part of the code to address what can be store in the front yard. Commissioner Hess said he believes that this case does apply to junkyard in the zoning code. He said the Code was amended a while back for this type of a situation and the Commission can make a Code interpretation that they classify it a junk and the storage of it would classify it as a junkyard. Chair Chesley read 21.42.040 a. and asked the Commission what good cause they have seen that would lead them to grant the extension. Commissioner Hess said there is none. Commissioner Connor disagreed. She said they are trying to do it all by hand, had a baby in between, are low income and are trying to build a house the best way they can, they may not have picked the best place, but she would like to see them complete it and denying the extension is just going to put if off more. Commissioner Foster said he thought they all would have leaned that way had the issue of the junk not come up. Commissioner Pfeil said having read the information prior to the hearing, he expected to vote for a time extension because the owners are trying and things have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but the junk issue changes it. Commissioner Hess said he thought that if they require them to clean up then extend the permit, then it should be okay at that point. Commissioner Lehner said she favors an approach that eliminates the eyesore and saves them the cost of another permit. City Planner McKibben said issuing and extension for a shorter amount of time and showing progress on clean up and on the structure, then the Commission could grant another extension. Chair Chesley said he thought the most expedited way is to make a determination that this is a zoning violation and the violation has to be corrected before they can grant an extension.
PFEIL/HESS MOVED TO DEFER AN EXTENSION UNTIL THE CLEANUP OF THE VIOLATION.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
Mr. Needham said to the Commission again that the Commission needs to make some tools to deal with this kind of a situation, there is no standard of building in the community and they need some. Chair Chesley said that he would like to ask Mr. Needham as a person in the development community is that when the City does set a standard for something like this that the Planning Commission get support from the development community.
C. Staff Report PL 04-90 Re: Request for acceptance of Nonconforming Structure at 3726 Lake Street, Lot 1 of Yah Sure Subdivision.
City Planner McKibben summarized the Staff Report PL 04-90 for the record.
Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben with regard to her staff analysis if it was an option for there to be 2 feet to the lot line and a properly fire rated wall that could be there. Ms. McKibben agreed.
Bill Smith said there is an issue that he hopes the Commission would ask staff to look into which is that the adjacent lot has a free standing sign with no business on that lot. He said the City issued a permit for a sign on the vacant lot and if the replat occurs then there will be 2 freestanding signs on one lot. Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben about the sign and City Planner McKibben said she will investigate it and discuss it with the property owner.
There were no more public comments.
LEHNER/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT PL 04-90 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben to modify her staff analysis in case someone wants to address this in the future.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
D. Staff Report PL 04-91 Re: Request for an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 04-12/Walker regarding issuance of a Zoning Permit prior to final platting.
City Planner McKibben summarized PL 04-91 for the record.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT 04-91 AS PRESCRIBED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
VOTE: YES: NO OBJECTION
Motion Carried.
E. Staff Report PL 04-83 Re: Steep Slope – Continuing.
City Planner McKibben summarized Staff Report for PL 04-83. She reported that the scope of work that was presented for David Cole to review exceeds the money that is available to spend on the project. Kevin Doniere is familiar with the City’s mapping capabilities and Mr. Cole suggested that the scope of work be revised and develop a basic steep slope ordinance. Chair Chesley said he would like to talk to City Planner McKibben and City Planner Wrede about this further to try to meet the immediate need and determine a way to get it done with the money they have and there may be other sources out there for funding.
F. Staff Report PL 04-84 Re: Transportation Plan - Continuing.
G. Staff Report PL 04-72 Re: Commission Work List – Continuing.
H. Staff Report PL 04-56 Re: Review Of HCC 21.42 Zoning –Continuing.
I. Staff Report PL 04-92 Re: Special Meetings
City Planner McKibben said that she had scheduled a special meeting for October 27, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the conference room. The Commissioners agreed with that date.
A. Borough
Report
Commissioner Foster said the Kenai Peninsula
Hazard Mitigation Plan was presented last Monday. Prior to it being approved by the Borough Planning Commission he
made comments, based on what Christy Miller had discussed at a previous
workshop, about the kinds of things that can be added to a Hazard Mitigation
Plan, linking flood induced erosion hazards into the flood section and that
when reviewing flood maps and doing mapping for FEMA Federal Insurance Mapping,
the coastal and bluff areas can be mapped as well and there may be certain
restrictions, but that is the first criteria to get FEMA involved. He said the draft for the City’s Hazard
Mitigation Plan was passed at the October 25, 2004 City Council meeting. City Planner McKibben said she spoke with
Fire Chief Bob Painter and he told her that it is mandated that the plan be
reviewed and updated regularly, so supposedly there will be opportunities to
continue to work on it and he is looking for volunteers to sit on the Strategic
Planning Task Force to work on it.
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
City Planner McKibben said she had emailed the Commissioners about the Planning Department Policy and Procedures Manual but did not get much feedback. She said they are in the process of updating the manual and that a majority of it is cut and pasted from the code, so when the Code is updated, the manual has to be updated. She wanted direction from the Commission as to how they would feel about condensing the Policy and Procedures to contain what is not in the Code. Commissioner Hess said he thought it would be acceptable if there were just a numerical reference to what is in the Code. Chair Chesley that he felt it was low priority and to do what they felt is appropriate and bring it to a work session to review.
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 Log.
B. The
Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute.
C. Zoning violation letter dated October 7,
2004 to Robert A. & Donna B. Mack
re: 3141 Lake Street – Zoning Permit needed.
D. Letter to Commission dated September 20,
2004 inviting participation in Mini-workshops with Otter Beach Education
Center.
E. Zoning violation letter dated October
11, 2004 to Cindy Koch re: Conditional
Use Permit needed.
F. Zoning violation letter dated October
13, 2004 to Herbert C. Upton, III
re: 1263 Aspen Lane – Zoning
Permit needed.
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
No audience comments
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Connor said it was a pleasure to working with everyone tonight.
Commissioner Foster said they had the first planning meeting for the second Coastal Dynamic Workshop. The workshop will not be focusing on Homer but with the concerns of the Borough and neighboring communities and their flood plane concerns. He said there may be a possibility of getting more funding for the Argus Camera array which is out on Munson Point and a grad student is applying for the graduate fellowship. It is a project that collects the same information that the cameras get, but it is done at night, it uses radar, it is mobile and the information that is provided will allow them to do modeling for the area and do some predictive modeling. The Argus pictures are available on line if you do a web search of Argus Camera Alaska. He asked when the fines start to kick in for the properties on the Sterling Highway that have the junk out there. City Planner McKibben said they are still trying to apply for permits and working on their general permit application for the wet lands permit and while they are still working on it Planning isn’t going to issue fines.
Commissioner Pfeil apologized for leaving during the appeal and it great to be back.
Commissioner Hess said this is the second time the Commission has postponed work items and should consider moving them up on the agenda or address them at the special meeting. He said that in regard to the zoning violations Commissioner Foster mentioned there are many in the community that are related to this grading and fill situation and it can’t be related to an ordinance to deal with it and it needs to be dealt with.
Commissioner Lehner spoke about the demo forest, the core of the Baycrest Ski trails. She said the Soil and Water Conservation District has been initiated to update the plan and reactivate some of the proposed activities, particularly education and demonstrations. The Inter Agency Land Management assignment that created the demo forest expires in 2011 and they want to make sure that they have a mechanism in place for protecting the forest when that comes up and are hoping to have it locally managed and protected.
Chair Chesley said he will be out of town for the November 3rd meeting and thanked the staff for their work at the meetings.
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 11:30 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: