Session 07-09 a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich
at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, SCHEER, ZAK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER FOSTER (Excused)
STAFF:
DEPUTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was amended to include
the minutes of the
The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The public may speak to the Planning Commission
regarding matters not scheduled for public hearing. (3 minute time limit) Presentations approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative
may address the Planning Commission.
There were no public comments.
RECONSIDERATION
HESS/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO
Commissioner Hess commented that the more he thought about
the approval of the preliminary plat he had concerns about access on to East
End Road, especially after looking at some traffic counts. He noted that there was a similar action in
another part of town that was treated much differently. Mr.
Hess said he has safety concerns for that access on to
Commissioner Hess said he didn’t feel the Commission considered a shared
access to those two lots when they previously considered the action and he
would like the opportunity to discuss that further.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, SCHEER, CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich stated that this item will come before the Commission under Pending Business item a.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
All items on the consent agenda are considered
routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in
one motion. There w
1. Approval of Minutes of
2. Time Extension Requests
3. Approval of City of
4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
5. Commissioner Excused Absences
A. Dr. Rick Foster
During agenda approval request was made by Chair Kranich that the minutes of May 2 be discussed under New Business. There were no other items on the Consent Agenda for approval.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentations 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.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
There was no Borough Report.
B.
There was no KBAPC report.
C. Planning Director’s Report
City Planner McKibben noted that her staff report would be discussed under New Business.
There was discussion regarding dates for a worksession for the Gateway Overlay District and for an appeal hearing on the change of use permit that was issued to the Refuge Chapel. A worksession was scheduled for June 19th and City Planner McKibben said she would get back to the Commission with dates for the appeal.
Chair Kranich asked Public Works
Director Meyer if he had any information for the Commission. Public Works Director Meyer advised the
Commission about Capital Projects that are in progress, specifically Kachemak
Drive Phase I and II water and sewer,
PUBLIC HEARING
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a
staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing
items. (3 minute time limit) The Commission may question the public. Once the public hearing is closed the
Commission cannot hear additional comments on the topic.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Chair Kranich opened the Public Hearing.
Sharon Bouman, applicant, commented that their project is not a timeshare. She said not much has changed since the original CUP. The main difference is the financing. They are building the units to sell so that should a person desire vacation home rental he has one and when he is not using it he may rent it out by the night. Alaskan Suites will facilitate the rentals. They are not residential units; they are commercial vacation home rentals to be rented out nightly by a property management company such as Alaskan Suites. They are not asking for anything particularly odd or new, it was simply not considered when the original conditional uses were created. She included some information from others doing the same thing in different areas. She said they are still building mountain style cabins that fit nicely in the Homer Community Design Manual. They will be built in the same area, they will be four feet wider, and be rented out on a nightly basis.
There were no further comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO ADOPT
STAFF
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conditions
from CUP 06-02 remain in effect:
1. The applicants to provide
sight-obscuring screening along the east lot line, which abuts the Rural
Residential District per
2. This project to comply with all city,
state and federal standards per
3. This project to comply with
4. Applicant to apply for a sign permit
that complies with
Planning Commission to amend CUP 06-02 to include:
5. Alaskan Suites may be operated and
managed as Hotel Condominiums for transient vacation use only.
There was brief discussion to clarify that conditions 1 through 4 are in the original CUP 06-02 and number 5 would be a new condition specific to the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Chesley commented
that currently there is an inverse situation at
City Planner McKibben said she is
not aware of any discussion with
Discussion ensued and the following points were noted:
· Hotel/Motel use is allowed outright and townhouses are allowed as conditional use in GC1.
·
· The operation and use of the development will be virtually the same as before in that the same people will be handling the rentals and short term rentals is what they have been doing with the existing structures.
· The additional condition 5 was added to require that it continue to be used as transient housing rather than permanent housing.
· If someone buys a condo unit and wants to live in 50 weeks and rent it two week, is there a mechanism in the zoning code to address that?
· There has been discussion in the past by prior Commissions that GC1 should allow residential use.
· An amendment to the CUP is not necessary for this use.
CHESLEY/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO OUR
There was brief discussion regarding the parallels of the uses.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY
NO: SCHEER, MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, ZAK
Motion failed.
There was brief discussion regarding a finding.
Commissioner Chesley thanked staff for the extensive analysis and his suggestion in no way was to take away from the work that staff has done.
VOTE: NO (Main motion): CHESLEY, SHEER, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion failed.
CHESLEY/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, SCHEER
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. The
Commission w
City Planner McKibben noted the laydown from Cindy and Fred Currier that was provided in opposition of this preliminary plat. Ms. McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Phil Clay, applicant, and Roger Imhoff, surveyor, were available for questions.
There were no public comments.
MINSCH/SCHEER I MAKE A MOTION TO
ADOPT
Mr. Clay commented that this is the first time he has seen the letter that was presented. He said the drainage issue has been addressed to a certain degree. Within the last two weeks he ran a ditch and enclosed a pipe that would drain the pond that is beginning to develop there. He said they picked up the gutter downspout that is shown in one of the photos included in the laydown. There is a gulley to the east of the home and the roof drainage and pond drain into that gulley now. Mr. Clay explained that one of the difficulties is that he ran the pipe along the edge of the easement as close to the pond as he could to the property. He had asked the Curriers if he could ditch on to their property, at Mr. Clay’s expense, to eliminate the pond entirely, but they were unwilling to do that. He did what he could within the parameters he had to work with.
Commissioner Scheer questioned whether the effects to the neighboring property constitutes a zoning violation and if so, would it be appropriate to approve the platting action. City Planner McKibben commented that it is her understanding that the potential violation is on the adjacent parcel, not the parcel that is being proposed for subdivision. There was discussion to confirm that the drainage issue is not on the parcel of the proposed subdivision and that the letter presented does not address the lot being proposed tonight. Mr. Clay noted on the aerial photo what he has done regarding the drainage and clarified the lot under discussion in tonight’s action.
VOTE: YES: ZAK, HESS, CHESLEY, MINSCH, SCHEER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich called for a short
recess at
PENDING BUSINESS
MINSCH/SCHEER MOVED TO ADOPT
Planning Commission recommend approval
of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
Public Works Director Meyer
commented that he supports the idea that if a piece of property has frontage on
two different roads it should be encouraged or sometimes required that the
access be off the road with least traffic.
The idea of creating access off another piece of property isn’t
generally what we are striving for as a piece of property has to have legal
frontage on a right-of-way for a reason.
In this case it would be balancing the negative impacts of another
driveway on
Points raised in discussion included:
·
In the CDM the Commission has a basis to require
a plat note that the access would be off
·
The curb cut on lot 16-A1 has no other frontage
but
· Even if there is a curb cut, the applicant still has to get a driveway permit from the City.
· There is question how they can add a plat note that 16-A1 can only access off Pennock when it doesn’t touch Pennock.
· When someone is creating a new lot and there is a side access street the developer has the ability to create an access through the other lot to the side street.
· It seems reasonable to add a plat note that 16-A2 will access Pennock as that lot does have frontage on Pennock.
Roger Imhoff commented that it is
his opinion that the curb cut is legal, it already has permission from the
state to enter onto the state right-of-way from this lot and the re-subdivision
of the lot is immaterial. He agrees that
it would be more appropriate if there could be a simple way to access 16-A1
onto
Public Works Director Meyer commented that he would argue that the state constructed the curb cut as part of their project based on a perceived need from the property owner, perhaps even a request from a property owner and that it is a permitted driveway access. Mr. Meyer added that when a property owner subdivides and they come before the Planning Commission, they open the door for conditions that may be placed on the plat that are reasonable and in the best interest of the community. He doesn’t necessarily agree that the Commission should say the property owner can not use that driveway, but agrees it is reasonable to discuss it as access is an important part of the platting process. Mr. Meyer advised the Commission that the property owner came and asked early on if utilities could be provided to lot 16-A1 across 16-A2 and after years of discussion it boils down to utilities can’t be brought to a property unless the main fronts the property and there is an importance to everyone having their own utility service. Mr. Meyer noted that a flag lot would have to be 20 feet wide, but the property owner could access utilities off Pennock through the flag and they may be willing to consider that.
Mr. Imhoff said he would contact the owners to discuss this if the Commission wants to move on to the next agenda item and come back to this one.
Discussion continued. Public Works Director Meyer stated that the curb cut is plenty far away from the intersection to meet the City or the State’s separation distance requirements.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED TO SUSPEND THE
RULES
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben suggested they continue to suspend the rules and take up Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District, as there is an audience member present to discuss it.
CHESLEY/HESS I
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The Commission hears a report from staff. 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. Any items brought before the
commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following introduction
of the item. The Commission w
A.
Staff
Commissioner Scheer disclosed that he has had some outside communication with the applicant.
CHESLEY/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO
Commissioner Scheer commented that he was contacted by Mr. Clay’s builder to offer some recommendations on the mitigation. His company never did any fee work and there are no plans to do any work in the future. It took place before he knew it would be coming before the Commission. He said their discussion didn’t include anything that was not included in the staff report.
VOTE: YES: HESS
NO: CHESLEY, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH
Motion failed.
There was discussion clarifying that a conflict of interest doesn’t necessarily have to be financial.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Phil Clay, applicant, commented
that the development they are looking at is on the edge of
HESS/MINSCH I MAKE A MOTION TO
ACCEPT
A. Staff recommends the Commission
approve the mitigation plan and the increase to 6.4% impervious coverage with
the following:
Findings:
Conditions:
Commissioner Hess commented that the area proposed to be reseeded not be connected to Felix, but stop before it gets to Felix. It would keep the runoff from the driveway from being channeled to the ditches on Felix. Mr. Clay said there hasn’t been any water standing in the ditch after the snow melted and the recent rains. There is a sand base that allows filtration through there, but there is no culvert under the driveway. He said any water that comes off the driveway heads toward one of the gullies.
Commissioner Scheer commented regarding the mitigation plan.
Chair Kranich called for a short
recess at
SCHEER/ZAK MOVED ADD A CONDITION
NUMBER 6 TO READ THAT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAY
There was discussion clarifying that the Commission is discussing the mitigation plan at this point not the driveway. Mr. Scheer stated that his motion applies to the mitigation plan allowing up to 6.4% impervious coverage.
It was clarified that the code
citation in the motion should be
Commissioner Scheer clarified that his motion addresses what happens to the water after it comes off the driveway, parking area and the house. It is regarding the mitigation of the site as a whole.
VOTE: (Primary amendment) YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, SCHEER
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion as amended.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: SCHEER, MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, ZAK
Motion carried.
HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MITIGATION
STAFF
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
B. Staff
recommends that Planning Commission approve the driveway mitigation and that
the impervious coverage calculations shall be based on the driveway, walkway
and parking area as having 50% impervious coverage with the following:
Findings:
Conditions:
1.
Total impervious surfaces
shall not exceed 3,000 sq ft as calculated with the driveway mitigation of 50%.
2.
Any future request for
increase impervious surface beyond 3,000 square feet must be approved by the
Homer Advisory Planning Commission.
Mr. Clay raised the question of increasing the 3000 square feet to the 3456 square feet maximum allowed.
There was discussion about driveway calculations.
HESS/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION TO CHANGE THE WORDING IN CONDITIONS 1
There was no discussion.
VOTE: (Primary Amendment) YES: KRANICH, CHESLEY, ZAK, SCHEER, HESS, MINSCH
There was no further discussion of the main motion.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: ZAK, HESS, CHESLEY, MINSCH, SCHEER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
CHESLEY MOVED TO CONTINUE TO
SUSPEND THE RULES
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
The Commission resumed discussion
on
Mr. Imhoff stated that he spoke
to Mr. Newby who asked Mr. Imhoff to relay to the Commission that the Newby’s took
several months working with DOT staff and project engineers to have this curb
cut constructed during the East End Road project and it is Mr. Newby’s feeling
that it is a 100% legal access onto East End Road, which is a state maintained
right-of-way, and this subdivision does not affect that access ability at all. Mr.
Imhoff stated it is their wish that this is the preferred subdivision plan as
submitted. They do not wish to turn
16-A1 into a panhandle lot and they do not wish to provide a driveway easement
across 16-A2 to
CHESLEY/MINSCH I
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: YES (Primary amendment): CHESLEY, SCHEER, MINSCH, ZAK, HESS, KRANICH
Motion carried.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: MINSCH, SCHEER, CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess requested staff
reference
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED TO CONTINUE TO
SUSPEND THE RULES
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
B. Minutes of
Chair Kranich asked that it be noted under the public hearing items that the public hearing was opened under each hearing item. He also noted a typographical error.
The amended minutes were approved by consensus of the Commission.
Postpone remain to next regular meeting and pick up at comments of commission.
HESS/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/ZAK I
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
C. Planning Directors Report
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Memorandum dated
B. Notice of Appeal to the Homer Advisory Planning Commission
of Refuge Chapel’s
Change of Use Permit dated
C. Notice of Appeal to the Board of Adjustment of Homer Advisory Planning Commission’s Approval of Refuge Chapel’s Conditional Use Permit, 07-03.
D. Code Enforcement Log dated
COMMENTS
OF THE AUDIENCE
There
were no Audience Comments.
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioner
Chesley thanked everyone.
Commissioner
Hess asked that staff get clarification regarding curb cuts and bring it back
to the Commission. If it comes back that
a curb cut does not have some applied right, then the Commission should have
the ability to create the accesses away from the arterial.
Commissioner
Scheer commented that his term is coming to an end and as of now he is not planning
to request reappointment because there have been many instances where he has
had to sit out due to conflicts of interest.
He would like to be available to help the Commission if needed. He feels he will be able to do more good from
the outside.
Commissioner
Chesley noted that Mr. Scheer has been an asset to the Commission; his
expertise has been very beneficial. He hopes Mr. Scheer will consider
requesting reappointment.
Commissioner
Zak commented that he has heard comments from citizens concerned about a lot of
stop work orders. He appreciates the
information that the Planning Department provides that shows what is really
going on and it doesn’t appear to be out of control and plenty of them appear
to get resolved right away.
Commissioner
Minsch had no comment.
Chair
Kranich commented regarding the platting action tonight. There was brief discussion to clarify the
requirement for City utilities based on lot size in the district. Chair Kranich said he thought it was a good
meeting and the Commission has a good cross section with a lot of good
discussion.
ADJOURN
There
being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA
JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: