Session 07-06, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chair
Minsch at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, MINSCH, SCHEER, ZAK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER KRANICH
STAFF:
DEPUTY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented 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.
B
The Commission had a brief
discussion regarding enforcement for something like this and it was noted that
there are nuisance standards. City
Planner McKibben said there have been some instances of noise in the
Mr. Kaehr also commented that he
is hoping the Best Western could change their heating source to propane. Previously there was a sp
Roger Imhoff, area resident and
local surveyor, commented regarding Planning issues. He commented on the Gateway Business District
and urged the Commission to consider a shorter building height than 35
feet. Some coastal communities in
Mr. Imhoff commented regarding
platted access to lots, noting that his comments are not specifically about
Country Club Estates. He said there is a
growing issue of no reasonable platted access to proposed lots. He sees it a lot in the City and Borough
where there are platted rights-of-way proposed that are totally ridiculous and
w
Mr. Imhoff commented about
cul-de-sacs and access to neighboring lots.
He said cul-de-sacs are popular road rights-of-way to put in
subdivisions. If it weren’t for the
Borough Code saying that you have to provide access to your neighbors, every
subdivision in Homer and the Borough would end in a cul-de-sac and there would
just be a main road running through town.
Mr. Imhoff commented that cul-de-sacs are great but oftentimes,
especially in areas where there are going to be larger lots that can be
re-subdivided, there is not enough frontage in a cul-de-sac to allow for even a
good panhandle. He suggested staff and
the Commission consider this when working with developers or surveyors and try
to have the road extend to the property line when plats come before them with
larger lots that have the potential for future subdivision. He said this w
Lastly, Mr. Imhoff commented
regarding Borough Code 20.20.060[1]
which stipulates that when parcels are being subdivided that consideration
should be given to providing access to neighboring lots that aren’t
subdivided. He believes that is an
extremely important part of the code. He
thinks adjoining properties that have not been developed need to be treated
equally. He has a particular plat in
mind which should be coming before the Commission at the next meeting and he
hopes they w
Mr. Imhoff was asked for his
opinion on flag lots. He responded that
they are great as long as the lot it is accessing is not going to be divided
further and that the panhandle is located in such a place where it can actually
be built.
He was asked to further comment
regarding the Borough Code. He
elaborated on his comments saying that a lot of the land that is undeveloped in
Homer is getting into the steeper areas. A lot of the steeper areas have big gullies
running through them and there isn’t the physical room to wind a way up the h
RECONSIDERATION
There were no items for Reconsideration.
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.
1. Approval of Minutes of
2. Time Extension Requests
3. Approval
of City of
4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
The Consent Agenda was adopted by consensus of the Commission.
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.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster reported that the Country Club Estates
Plat Waiver would be before the Borough Planning Commission on Monday and the
meeting w
B.
There was no KBAPC Report.
C. Planning Director’s Report
City Planner McKibben commented that the sign code amendment regarding the Gateway Business District was approved by the Council as presented. The sensitive areas ordinance was not and was remanded to the Planning Commission, which was discussed during the Worksession. Her recommendation is to put the sensitive areas ordinance back on the worklist and resubmit the concept when the steep slope ordinance is ready to present to council. She is not sure when the time would be best to present moving the flood hazard ordinance from chapter 12 to chapter 21. Her concern is that she doesn’t feel prepared or that the Commission has the time right now to dive into the flood hazard ordinance and make amendments. The current ordinance is very boiler plate and if they want to make amendments she would recommend they get guidance from the state flood program manager.
They agreed to discuss this further during discussion of the worklist.
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that the flyers are going out for the community meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan. She encouraged the Commissioners to hand out fliers as she can make more if they are needed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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.
There were no public hearings scheduled.
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 will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve
an applicant.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the supplemental Staff Report.
Leah Handley, applicant, advised the Commission she was in attendance to answer questions. She said she submitted photos to staff that show there is a fair amount of re-vegetation on the parcel and that there are spots that they could add vegetation to as well. She thanked City Planner McKibben and Planning Technician Harness for making a site visit. The Commission reviewed the photos in the file.
FOSTER/CHESLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Recommendation
The Commission recommend preliminary
approval, with the following recommendations:
1.
A plat note:
Development on steep slopes is regulated per
Commissioner Chesley advised the Commission that he prepared a document with some findings, discussion and argument for not approving this plat. At the previous meeting he had asked for some legal clarification on the mechanics of a lot that might have a non-conforming use and what happens if the lot no longer exists. He asked that staff have the City Attorney look over his document. Mr. Chesley recognized that the action before them is a platting action and non-conformity would have to be determined as a separate action. He stated his concern that if the lot is given non-conforming status and then subdivided, which would change the lot that was granted non conforming status, it raises the question if the non conformity benefits go away at that point.
CHESLEY/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO PUT
A MOTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE MEETING
SUBSEQUENT TO THE
There was discussion regarding the time frame to take action on the plat.
Commissioner Chesley expressed his concern for the applicant going to the expense of creating these lots and finding out that because of the extent of development on the existing lots that a home site could not be developed because there wouldn’t be room for amenities to accommodate the home site.
Discussion ensued regarding the necessity of the postponement. Points noted in discussion:
· Question regarding whether the plat note referenced in the staff recommendation would suffice.
· The plat note would not suffice because there is still question about what happens regarding subdivision and non conforming status.
· A goal is not to have so much intense development in the steep slope areas.
Vice Chair Minsch called for a
recess at
Mrs. Handley advised the
Commission that she is w
There was discussion about the current situation on the lot and depending on the information that comes back from the Attorney, there may be a need to go back and reconfigure the lot design to make a workable situation. Mrs. Handley noted that there has been so much engineering done on the site that there was minimal sloughing during the heavy rains a few years back.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, SCHEER, MINSCH, ZAK, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
There were no comments from the applicant or public.
CHESLEY/HESS I
Question was raised if the applicant’s representative had any comment regarding the Public Works comment to add a 20 foot utility easement between the two lots. Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, did not have comments. City Planner McKibben commented that the Public Works recommendation should be included as a staff recommendation.
HESS/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION THAT WE ADD RECOMMENDATION NUMBER
There was discussion about the possibility of vacating the 10 foot utility easement on the west property line. It was noted that it would have to be addressed in a separate action.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: MINSCH, ZAK, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, SCHEER
Motion carried.
It was noted that this is just down the road from the subdivision that was discussed previously and clarification was requested regarding the contours of the slope. Ms. McKibben noted that the calculations have been done and there are no non-conformities on the lot. Mr. Imhoff stated that the slope on the lower lot is 14%.
SCHEER/FOSTER I
There was question regarding the location of the utility boxes. Mr. Imhoff stated the existing utilities are along the rights-of-way at the top and bottom of the lots.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, SCHEER
NO: MINSCH
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion as amended.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: SCHEER, MINSCH, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK
Motion carried.
PENDING BUSINESS
CHESLEY/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO
There was discussion that it should be PL 07-26 as it is the staff report that is scheduled for discussion on the agenda. Then they could discuss sensitive areas as it is part of the work listed.
There was consensus of the Commission.
CHESLEY/ZAK I
City Planner McKibben questioned if the intent is to include the amendments that were presented to Council last week or simply lifting section 12.12 and moving it to title 21 without any amendments to the language.
CHESLEY/HESS I
Discussion points included:
·
One of the changes recommended by staff was a
purpose statement that seems important to have there.
·
If it is important for the Commission to have
the sensitive areas ordinance adopted with the flood hazard ordinance now, it
might have a better chance to succeed if it went with out any amendments and
they could come back later with the purpose statement.
·
If they follow through on the City Planner’s
action to get this into title 21, then the amendment can be picked up when the
entire chapter 21 comes before them.
·
The Commission put a lot of effort into some
minor, yet important changes in the sensitive areas ordinance. It is not so important to move this over and
give up the work that has been done.
·
Comments from Councilmember Heimbuch during the
worksession suggested they should include the amendments and he would explain
that these amendments refer to the mapped flood plane areas, not every piece of
private property in the area.
City Planner McKibben commented that Councilmembers Novak and Roberts had a clear understanding of the purpose of the amendments and explained them very well at the Council meeting, so she is not sure that the Council will support it with the amendments a second time around.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: MINSCH, HESS
NO: CHESLEY, SCHEER, ZAK, FOSTER
Motion failed.
It was clarified that the main motion would be sending the ordinance and the proposed changes to Council.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: FOSTER, SCHEER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HESS
NO: MINSCH
City Planner McKibben asked the
Commission for justification resubmitting this back to Council. It was noted that Councilmember Heimbuch’s
commented that Council was confused about the purpose of the action and thought
the amendments would apply more broadly.
The Commission wants to emphasize that they want Council to reconsider
this action again with the understanding that these proposed amendment only
effect mapped flood plane areas. If the
Council st
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
will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an
applicant (such as acceptance of a nonconformity).
CHESLEY/ZAK I
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster asked to be recused due to possible conflict in participating at the Borough level. The Commission concurred and Mr. Foster left the table.
Commissioner Zak noted that he had a conflict during the previous action on Country Club estates. City Planner McKibben commented that this is not a quasi judicial action before them; it is a general discussion of driveways throughout the City and didn’t feel it would be a conflict for Mr. Zak to participate. The Commission concurred with Ms. McKibben and Commissioner Zak stayed at the table.
Commissioner Chesley suggested an
ordinance amendment that driveway permits are good for the lots they are issued
to. If a driveway easement is going to
be used to extend a driveway permit, that once it goes across the original lot
that the permit was granted to, there w
Discussion included:
·
The Commission just approved some shared
driveways on the top of the hill that go forever.
·
The Commission has a duty to protect other
property owners and there may be issue having this standard on a driveway, but
if it is serving two or more lots it should be built to higher standards.
·
If the property owner subdivides and the
driveway accesses both properties the City w
·
There would have to be an easement agreement
between property owners.
·
When the City issues a driveway permit they are
only looking at the approach where the driveway touches the right-of-way,
culvert sizing and so forth. If the
driveway doesn’t touch the right-of-way, it may not need a permit.
·
As land becomes subdivided this suggested
trigger would be the only new chance the City has to apply the standard to
those situations through a subdivision agreement.
·
It would be more appropriate to require the
developer to build a right-of-way rather than extending an easement.
·
The problem with requiring a right-of-way is
that it has to be sixty feet wide.
·
This won’t help with the existing driveway
issues, but will help as properties are subdivided in the future.
·
It will help prevent property owners from
finding themselves in the situation of not having access to their lots and
protects the owner who has the easement from continued traffic across it with
out requested access.
·
If the City is going to have additional home
sites or structures built that the City shares an obligation to protect with
certain provisions, then the City needs to develop an infrastructure so the
public services can serve the people of Homer.
·
If property owners who already have access to
the driveway easement don’t want to participate with a property owner who wants
to subdivide, then they won’t be able to subdivide. They w
·
This amendment to Code would recognize that we
live on a hillside community, we have dedicated rights-of-way that aren’t
buildable and we have this network of very substandard roads, which people are
using for their access. In many
instances, emergency vehicles can in no way provide service to those lots. Over time as things develop, this will allow
the City a mechanism to deal with the needed upgrades.
·
These private shared easements do not conform to
any standards and they do not grant permission for emergency vehicles or anyone
else to cross their private property. In
other places it has been imperative to go to a standard of shared driveway
easements that the City is included in from the point of access for services
rather than it being between property owners.
The Commission agreed that it would be a good idea to schedule a worksession in the future with the Fire Chief and Public Works Director to discuss this further.
Vice Chair Minsch asked City
Planner McKibben if she had any other comments regarding the worklist. There was discussion of moving the
Development Activity Plan up to item 2 on the worklist. Things are happening in the City now and the
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items listed under this agenda item can be
A. Letter dated
B. Letter dated
C. Ordinance 07-14, An Ordinance of the
City Council of Homer,
D. City of
Commissioner Chesley commented that he is happy with the result of the Bradshaw appeal as it is an example of how useful the process can be and how some issues were clarified. He has some proposed amendments for the sign code that will help clarify some of the issues for discussion at a future meeting. There was brief discussion regarding the result of the appeal.
City Planner McKibben commented
regarding a letter she sent to Don Blackwell giving him a deadline of
mid-April. He called and advised her
that he w
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Members of the audience may address the Commission
on any subject. (3 minute time limit)
There were no audience comments.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including
requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Hess commented regarding visiting landscaping in the re-write of title 21. He thinks that it would be appropriate to come up with a way for a property owner who wants to dedicate a large portion of landscaping on their property to have some relief from requiring the three foot buffer around a property.
Commissioner Foster thanked Commissioners Scheer and Chesley for their work outside the meeting. He appreciated the City Planners point that the driveway permit is for the connection where it meets the right-of-way, as stated in the definition. He appreciates Mr. Imhoff’s input this evening. He commended Vice Chair Minsch for her work tonight.
Commissioner Scheer commented that he is working on a write up for the Economic Development Commission for the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. He said the CEDS is like a comp plan for economic development for the City. He said he would like to hear informal individual comments from the Planning Commissioners regarding the planning portion of the CEDS.
Commissioner Chesley thanked everyone.
Commissioner Zak commented that they made significant progress tonight in areas they have been struggling with for a long time, mainly the grading and filling and driveway. He referenced the platting action that was postponed this evening and noted something the Commission might want to consider in the future is what is buildable and how it is accessed. In the Handley’s case they are hampered by the hillside.
Vice Chair Minsch had no comments.
ADJOURN
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
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved:
[1] It was noted later in discussion that the section of Borough Code being referred to here is KPB 20.20.030.