Session
04-19, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called
to order at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS BARTLETT, CHESLEY,
CONNOR, FOSTER, HESS, LEHNER, PFEIL
ABSENT: NONE
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
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
Commissioner Hess requested Training
Session With Attorney Gordon Tans Continued From Worksession
be added under COMMISSION BUSINESS as Item A.
Items A, B, C and D will follow as Items B, C, D and E. Chair Chesley noted
that Amending the Purpose of Zoning Districts was not under COMMISSION BUSINESS
as noted in the last meeting minutes.
City Planner McKibben responded that the subject was not yet ready for
this meeting but could be added to the next agenda. The amended agenda was approved by consensus
of the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes, with any
amendments.
A. Approval of the Regular Meeting of
The Regular Meeting Minutes of
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may speak to the Planning
Commission regarding matters not on the agenda.
The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is
considered by the Commission.
Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the
Planning Commission. A Public Works
representative may address the Planning Commission.
Carey
Meyer, Public Works Director, asked for any questions or concerns of the
Commission. He reminded the
Commissioners the Draft Transportation Plan was given to them and they could
work together with Public Works.
Currently Mr. Meyer is working on the Water Master Plan with an emphasis
on treatment and water source capacities.
A computer model will allow assessment by Public Works and Planning of
proposed development and its effects. A
Sewer Master Plan will follow. Both
plans will be additional tools for the Planning Commission and staff.
When
asked when the models might be available, Public Works Director Meyer said they
are hoping to present the Draft Master Plan to the public, Planning Commission
and City Council in October. The water
model is fairly close to completion and was already used on the
Commissioner
Hess asked Public Works Director Meyer when a developer comes in for a
subdivision agreement, and development activity or storm water plans are
required, how does Public Works handle those requests. Mr. Meyer answered there have been no
subdivision agreements since the new requirements were adopted, adding that the
construction of street right-of-ways (ROW) have always had a requirement to
explain measures to be taken with potential erosion and storm water runoff. The Standard Construction Specs require a
contractor to submit information before the project begins. Public Works Director Meyer said the dilemma
now is requiring information for on-site, as homes are built or streets are
graded and earthwork completed outside of the ROW.
City
Planner McKibben said developments within the Central Business District (CBD)
require the development activity and storm water plans, whereas those in the
urban residential are not subject to the requirements. Commissioner Hess voiced his concern of a subdivision
development with extensive roads and clearing, adding that the road standards,
development activity and storm water plan would all need to be monitored. City Planner McKibben said Homer City Code
Title 21 refers to the Planning Department rather than Public Works. Commissioner Hess said there may be added
requirements in Title 21 with subdivision development in the commercial
districts in town. He believes Planning
and Public Works need to work together to assure the requirements are met.
Commissioner
Hess said Planning and Public Works may need to work together to come up with a
permit process for drainage and grading work.
There are many areas of fill that should be a concern to both
departments, including the types of fills and the periods of time they remain
on a site. Public Works Director Meyer
said the present City code does not cover fill conditions as consistently as it
could and there have been discussions about developing conditions for site
grading plans for more informal projects.
Commissioner Hess pointed out that Title 21 has performance guidelines
in all the districts, although they are not being addressed in Public Works or
Planning. He questioned how the
standards are brought into compliance with no process. Public Works Director Meyer answered that personnel
and staff are needed to follow through with the compliance stages, adding that
he appreciates Planning and Zoning staff helping to follow through.
Bob
Brant is a long term resident of Diamond Ridge.
He said the Planning Commission has completed some hard work in the last
year and he along with others appreciate their efforts. Mr. Brant would like to see the momentum
created with the design standards continue, with a decline of public apathy and
increase of public participation for zoning issues. He questioned why the City doesn’t enforce their
own zoning regulations? Mr. Brant suggested with the new regulations in place
and funding for enforcement now is the time for the Planning Department and
Planning Commission to become active in zoning violations. He believes the public likes the dialogue and
have benefited from feeling involved. It
is healthy for the community on a long-term basis. Mr. Brant said the Planning Department staff
and Planning Commission volunteers work hard for the benefit of the City. There are many people that appreciate their
work and the fact that all the Commissioners are putting their heads in the
blender. He said there is a new
ordinance giving the director immediate enforcement powers with an increase in public
participation. He suggests the
Commission and Department consider using both newspapers to make their efforts
known specific to compliance activity, asking the papers to report new and
ongoing enforcement issues. The public
could then see enforcement action taking place and concerns being addressed.
Chair
Chesley had the chance to speak at the Chamber of
Commerce forum as a candidate in the upcoming election. He raised the point that there were nine
people running for City Council
positions and they all planned to work hard. The pay stunk and there were very few perks
other than the refrigerator. The sense
of a job well done with a strong sense of integrity is what keeps the Commissioners
going, along with the rewards of positive feedback from individuals and the community
as a whole. Although there are some
individuals that consider the Planning Commission as Enemy #1, others
appreciate their hard work.
Ed Cooley
told Commissioner Foster he was still working on the project and was just
waiting for information. He is glad to
see Mr. Foster is taking an interest in the project as well. Mr. Cooley is a long time resident of Homer
and a short time resident of the City.
Commissioner Foster explained that the Bridge Creek Watershed is the
subject Mr. Colley is referring to.
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.
City
Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendations.
Lynda
Reed of Picture
Commissioner
Foster questioned why the sign wouldn’t be placed higher and Ms. Reed answered
that it would impair the view, adding that she would like to keep it passable
through the Commission. Placing it
higher would block the flowers.
Commissioner Lehner questioned is she had
considered adding “galleries” to the sign and Ms. Reed answered that “shopping”
would keep it generic to include all businesses on
Chair
Chesley explained that the Commission typically doesn’t
get into the content of signs. The
restriction of public signs is to be very generic and not call out any one
particular type of business. He
explained the business owners in the district were contacted door-to-door and they
all agreed with the sign.
Ms.
Reed thanked the Commission for listening to her; Chair Chesley
likewise thanked Ms. Reed for her persistence and efforts for all the
FOSTER/PFEIL-MOVED TO ACCEPT
Commissioner Foster said subdistricts may need to be identified before others
request signs to allow the Commission to be proactive. Commissioner Connor thinks the sign is a great
idea and would love to see an artistic sign made of wood with carvings in a
place where it could be seen year round.
She stated it was an odd place for a sign, right on the ground, saying
it was too bad that was the only place for it.
Mrs. Reed added she has driven the street many times and that is the
only place for the sign. Commissioner Pfeil said the sign is to benefit tourists and visitors,
adding that there won’t be snow in the summer.
Commissioner Lehner said the sign with the
outline of the mountains is attractive and eye-catching. Commissioner Bartlett said the sign is attractive
and he is in agreement of it. He
questioned who would maintain it.
Commissioner Chesley said the merchants on
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
PLAT CONSIDERATION
The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and
the public. The Commission may ask
questions of staff, applicants and the public.
City Planner
McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations
Jordon Hess said he did not need that much property
for his nursery and could subdivide, keeping with the Comprehensive Plan to
encourage lots for businesses with industrial uses.
Commissioner Foster questioned if the shed, which is
the nursery headquarters, would be moved to the other side of the lot. Mr. Hess answered that the shed was on skids
and he was not ready to turn lose of the land and may bring it compliant with
the lot line. Commissioner Connor said
the west side of the B2 A2 lot had a two ft. wide ditch and her concern is with
the run-off in the Spring. She added it
would be nice if the ditch was considered in any type of development. Mr. Hess said it was a ditch for Spring
run-off. He said Department of
Transportation (DOT) may redefine the ditch to run along
PFEIL-LEHNER – MOVED TO ADOPT
Commissioner Hess said Ability Survey is requesting
an exception to HCC 21.10.040.
VOTE:
YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Julie Davis and Roger Imhoff
were in the audience to speak about the Bridge Creek Watershed District. Chair Chesley
explained the Planning Commission welcomed their comments. He stated it was the Commission’s intent to
form a sub-committee recruiting interested parties. Chair Chesley
welcomed City Attorney Tans back for his continued training session.
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.
A.
Training Session With Attorney Gordon Tans
Continued From Worksession.
City
Attorney Gordon Tans
continued discussion from the Worksession on Ex Parte Communications and the Open Meetings Act, answering
questions from the Commission. The
Commission had questions pertaining to communicating with staff and limitations
of public inquiries.
Chair Chesley
called for a recess at
LEHNER/HESS – MOVED TO SUSPEND THE
RULES TO AMEND THE AGENDA
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The Commission agreed by consensus to rearrange the
order of Items under COMMISSION BUSINESS to hear items in the following order: D,
C, B and E (as previously amended from APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT
AGENDA.
City
Planner McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations. Lay down information from Julie Davis proposing
an alternative to impervious surface coverage calculations was provided to the
Commission.
PFEIL/FOSTER
– MOVED TO ADOPT
Julie
Davis said she supports the work the Commission is doing to protect the City’s
water supply. As a correction on her letter dated
Chair
Chesley said there have been new Commissioners since
the issues came before the Commission and more information for them would be
helpful. He explained that Kelly Ranch Estates
has subdivision covenants for certain size homes to be built there as part of
the subdivision covenants. Because of
that and the standards the Commission has adopted it has created difficulty for
some of the lot owners there. Mr. Chesley said it was not a fair characterization to say Ms.
Davis could not build a home as the subdivision developer could relieve some of
the covenant requirements. Ms. Davis has
been working towards a solution. Chair Chesley said it would be easy to dump on the ordinance and
say it was creating a problem. It is a
new piece of legislation that needs the wrinkles ironed out, finding ways to
address concerns such as Ms. Davis’.
Julie
Davis said Kelly Ranch Estates covenants state a minimum 900 sq. ft. footprint[1], and
she does not believe she would want a home smaller than that. Ms. Davis told the Commission she supports
forming a committee to address some of the issues. She would like the Commission to consider her
third request within her letter, withdrawing the driveway from the impervious
surface percentage. She added the basis
for her request was that the 4.2% and 6.5% impervious surface coverage requirements
have not been scientifically proven.
City
Planner McKibben read and questioned the different proposals Ms. Davis was
suggesting. Ms. Davis stated she was
willing to share a driveway with her neighbor, adding it would be beneficial to
share the impervious surface percentage requirement. She said her proposed number three of
withdrawing her driveway from the impervious surface percentage requirement
would be the best solution. Ms. Davis
said she would be interesting in participating in the BCWSD committee.
Roger
Imhoff is the adjoining property owner, having bought
Mr. Imhoff said in house siting the
lots are large enough on the downhill side that swales could be created to
absorb some of the storm water run off.
The same concept could be used effectively for lots in Kelly Ranch
Estates; retaining a native buffer strip down the bottom side of the lot would
allow surface water to be reabsorbed and run back into the soil. Another consideration should be the type of
foundation on structures. Structures on
piling would be better for the absorption of runoff rather than a concrete
foundation.
Roger
Imhoff believes the road construction standards for new
roads needs to be examined. The roads are the greatest contributor to precipitation
in the water shed. Mr. Imhoff said roads require cutting, filling and ditching,
that takes ground water and converts it into surface water. The surface water then collects in the
ditches, causing erosion to them, feeds into little tributaries and down to the
reservoir. Quite a bit of the fine silt
remains suspended in the water. For new
roads Mr. Imhoff proposes a new construction standard
to allow for a rolling grade, preventing cuts and fills and keeping the groundwater
in the ground where it belongs. The roads
could be kept narrow. He added he has
been working on a project up by the water tanks and has talked with Public
Works personnel there. They say the siltation is a problem with the water quality in Homer. Mr. Imhoff said it
is important what the Planning Commission is doing. He urged them to keep an eye on the loggers
too.
Commissioner
Lehner asked Mr. Imhoff is
he would be willing to be on a committee.
Mr. Imhoff stated his financial interest in a
lot there may be a conflict of interest.
Chair Chesley said it was a group that would
make recommendations, not decisions.
Chair
Chesley called upon
City
Planner McKibben said perhaps Julie Davis and Roger Imhoff
would like to work together with staff to submit a mitigation plan. The mitigation could be the shared driveway
in addition to the drainage swales.
Chair Chesley said the developers at the Kelly
Ranch Estates subdivision were told the Planning Commission could look at each
lot on a case by case basis, but was not willing to change the percentages and
calculations. As a result with the Palmer
Pines subdivision the idea was to take property in the subdivision and make it
the sacrificial impervious coverage land.
Commissioner
Foster said it is usually called a Land Bank.
It may be an area that is developed in a critical area, maybe up against
a wetland. The land is reclaimed
allowing for more coverage in an area that is less critical. The goal is to look at it as a landscape
scale for the best benefit to the water shed.
City
Planner McKibben said the Code currently allows for properties subdivided prior
to the ordinance to have a mitigation plan approved by the Commission to
increase their impervious coverage percentage to 6.4%. She said Ms. Davis and Mr. Imhoff could work together for a mitigation plan with the
shared driveway of both lots working with the Commission to calculate the
impervious coverage as it exists today.
Commissioner
Lehner agreed that the landscape approach has more
long term benefits than a lot by lot basis.
She said there are a number of practices a landowner can apply to result
in no net run-off.
Chair
Chesley asked
Chair
Chesley encouraged Julie Davis and Roger Imhoff to pursue the mitigation plan for the shared
driveway. Commissioner Foster would like
to see funds for a coverage study relevant to the Homer area before the
impervious coverage was modified. He
prefers working on a lot by lot, case by case basis. Chair Chesley added
the Planning Commission went through an exhaustive process with almost a year
of public meetings looking at a tremendous amount of information. He said there has been extensive research
with a lot of effort to take a broad approach.
Commissioner Foster said during deliberation there were lots of models
looked at, seven different classifications.
There were inadequate types found.
There were significant funds from the Federal Government and two
states. It was expensive for the
homeowners and the platting group. There
was talk about modifying the boundaries of the watershed as they currently may
not be appropriate.
Chair
Chesley said there are willing folks to form a
committee with a tight scope of work to look at mitigation measures. There needs to be clarification on a formula
for ROW calculations.
Commissioner
Hess said the expertise on the current Planning Commission is not a guarantee
of future Commissions. He said other
Commissioners may not be comfortable in making the decisions if mitigation
methods are workable. Commissioner Foster said the Borough Planning Commission
has a great resource with the
It
was decided a subcommittee would not be formed, but rather each request would
be handled on a lot by lot basis.
VOTE: NO:
CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, BARTLETT, HESS, FOSTER
Motion failed.
B.
Staff
FOSTER/LEHNER
– MOVED TO NOMINATE LANE CHESLEY FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Chair
Chesley accepted the nomination for Chair.
VOTE: YES:
CONNOR, LEHNER, BARTLETT, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL
ABSTAIN: CHESLEY
Motion
carried.
LEHNER/PFEIL
– MOVED TO NOMINATE BRUCE HESS AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Vice-Chair
Hess accepted the nomination for Vice-Chair.
VOTE: YES:
LEHNER, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, BARTLETT
ABSTAIN: HESS
Motion
carried.
Commissioner Hess said a mechanism was needed to work through the Code amendments. He suggested bringing items on the Work List forward and prioritizing them to Commission Business on the agendas. He said it was imperative a system be devised to move through and finalize items on the list.
The Commissioners discussed items on the list and agreed to move Zoning Permit (Code amendments) to Commission Business on the next meeting agenda.
City
Planner McKibben passed out laydown information, a
Zoning Violation Log listing current violations and actions. The Commission reviewed the log and
Commissioner Hess said staff may be too lenient on violators. He believes after three letters it was time
to move to the enforcement level. Chair Chesley suggested it may be beneficial to the Planning
Department in the public’s eye if a statistical report was released outlining
the number of issues and those resolved.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster said a subdivision with a small
flag lot was approved although there were letters of opposition due to it being
rural residential. The Borough Planning
Commissioners questioned why we were still doing it, and asked when we would
get to changing the zoning requirements.
The Borough is looking to the City of
Vacating setback requirements was also discussed,
with a 20 ft. setback from the ROW.
There was discussion why we had setbacks and the only reason twelve
people could come up with was it was not in the sight triangle.
Additionally the 911 requirements state that all duplicate
names of streets must be changed.
Although some streets were named many years ago it has become
significant that one street only be allowed within the Borough. With cell phone technology it is confusing
that a prefix will not determine a person’s whereabouts. Commissioner Foster said
B.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City
Planner McKibben said there are funds available to buy memberships to the
American Planning Association. She had a
report on the
Commissioner
Hess questioned the status of the Mike Kennedy violations and City Planner
McKibben said more research was needed before action could be pursued.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items listed under this agenda item can
be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and
information from other government units.
A. Letter
from Walt Wrede, City Manager, To Commissioner Edgar Blatchford, DCED, re: Unit 486/Kenai Area Plan
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Bill Smith said to his knowledge the City Manager cannot offer permission for things that don’t match up to City code. He cautioned the Commission not to forget bifurcation when it comes to planning. Mr. Smith said when dealing with the Police Department everything that they do gets a request for service. The Planning Commission can make a list request for service and vacation might make it on the list. As to the principles of vacation, Mr. Smith would like to see part of the Code addressed in public interest and proved, rather than coming up with assumptions.
Mr. Smith said in dealing with lot sizes it must be a public process, assuring the developer community has a look at the issue. Realtors and surveyors need to be called and the Commission can deal with the fiery issues, as the fire at the City Council level will go into flames. He told the Commission to go the extra mile until committees can get together. Additionally, Mr. Smith said it is useful to have someone from the Planning Commission go to the City Council meetings as it makes a difference in the Councilmembers’ attitudes. He asked the Commission to look just beyond City Hall to Young’s Restaurant with two freestanding signs for one establishment.
Members of the audience may address the
Commission on any subject. The Chair may
prescribe time limits.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Lehner provided the Commissioners with
a handout explaining the trail to
Commissioner Hess said he appreciates staff as he
knows there is a lot going on in the department. With the new staff member on board (referring
to
City Planner McKibben said she was looking at adding
it to the October Worksession.
Chair Chesley said the City Attorney interpreted
Doug Fraiman did not need a CUP because the activity on the lot was in place
prior to annexation. Once it was annexed
in that meant the lot was non-conforming, but any use existing prior to
annexation could continue and expand.
Commissioner Pfeil said he would like to meet new
enforcement officer and questioned why she didn’t come to the meetings. City Planner McKibben explained Ms.
Eggertsen-Goff was at tonight’s Worksession meeting, but her attendance at
regular meetings would require overtime compensation.
Commissioner Foster said he was not aware of local
option zoning, the covenants that oversee that the Borough will review the
requirements. Covenants go from a civil
lawsuit to a Borough oversight. When
folks were annexed they said they had covenants and told them we couldn’t do
anything about that. Mr. Foster
questioned if the City had the option of local option zoning and City Planner
McKibben answered that Homer does not.
She referred Mr. Foster to
Commissioner Connor said she had a lot of reading
trying to catch up. She questioned the
Coastal Zone Management Plan mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. City Planner McKibben explained the Kenai
Peninsula Borough is the coastal management district with authority for
Homer. Ms. Connor said she is plowing
her way through materials and would welcome suggestions from the other
Commissioners. The Planning
Commissioner’s Handbook and Suburban Nation were recommended.
Chair Chesley said he participated in a candidate
forum for City Council with the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Doug Stark slung mud, singling
out the Planning Commission as the bad guys.
He held the Commission as an example of the large retail/wholesale
effort, stating the Commission was running rough shod over the public
process. Mr. Stark said there were
repeat people testifying and a percentage of people who were not city
residents. Chair Chesley said he felt
Mr. Stark’s comments were very disrespectful to the Commission for the hours
and effort expended on the retail/wholesale issue. Chair Chesley said the Commission worked hard
to hear everyone that came in to testify, and the work was representative to
the community’s concerns. He believes it
is a disservice for a member of the City Council to single out the Planning
Commission in a public forum and turn it into campaign issue. Mr. Stark indicated that the Planning
Commission was manipulating the Comprehensive Plan to its own end. Chair Chesley said it was the opinion of one
council member, there may be a communication problem. Chair Chesley has been told by Mr. Stark the
Planning Commission is arrogant. Chair
Chesley encouraged each Commissioner to speak with Councilmember Stark and
share their views to improve communication.
He said the Commission needs the support of the City Council as it is
not of benefit to either the Planning Commission or City Council to bear a prejudice
in their relationship, where anything the Commission does becomes slanted or
tainted. Mr. Chesley would like the
Planning Commission to be respected for what they are; thoughtful and
hardworking members of the community trying to represent the different views in
the community. Each has their own tracks
in their family, friends and activities; each represents a unique perspective
on the community. Chair Chesley said the
nature of Mr. Stark’s comments highlighted there is a problem in the relationship
between the Planning Commission and him.
He again encouraged all Commissioners to pursue it by calling Mr. Stark and
sharing their ideas and dedication to a fair public process. If someone does
not agree it is not grounds for trashing the Commission. Mr. Chesley said he upholds the Commission on
the retail/wholesale work and other issues and appreciates their contributions
to the Commission.
Commissioners may comment on any
subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
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:____________________