Session 09-07, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Minsch at 7:02 p.m. on April 15, 2009 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

PRESENT:      COMMISSIONER BOS, HAINA, KRANICH, MINSCH, MOORE, SINN

ABSENT:        COMMISSIONER STORM

STAFF:                   CITY PLANNER ABBOUD

                   PLANNING TECHNICIAN ENGEBRETSEN

                   DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

                   HARBORMASTER HAWKINS

 

AGENDA APPROVAL

 

The 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

 

There were no items for reconsideration.

 

ADOPTION OF THE 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 April 1, 2009

2.       Time Extension Requests

3.       Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.

4.       KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

5.       Approval of Draft Decision and Findings regarding a Request for a Conditional Use Permit at 1002 Ocean Drive Loop for more than one building containing a permitted principle use on a lot per HCC 21.12.030(n)

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

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

 

There was no Borough Report.

 

B.       Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

There was no KBAPC report.

 

C.       Planning Director’s Report

          1.       Staff Report PL 41, City Planner’s Report

 

City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and the 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.

 

A.       Staff Report PL 09-39, Draft Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 5 through End and Ordinance 09-XX, Adopting the 2008 Homer Comprehensive Plan and Recommending Adoption by the Kenai Peninsula Borough

 

City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report.

 

Chair Minsch opened the public hearing.

 

Maya Rohr and Jason Baird, members of Homer Alaska Youth for Environmental Action (HAYEA), said that they were here to encourage that the Commission consider and include a new chapter for the Comprehensive Plan. They suggested adding a chapter 9 regarding energy and provided a draft for review. It was adapted from Juneau’s Comprehensive Plan energy chapter. They believe it will help Homer get started with new energy. The vision statement reads:

Homer will take vigorous action to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions to save taxpayer dollars. The City will also work to diversify the energy portfolio through clean alternative energy resources which will: 1. Strengthen the local economy by creating jobs; 2. Improve air quality and public health; and 3. Improve community livability. Developing sustainable energy sources that reduce greenhouse gas emissions will mean overall long term security.

 

They gave a quick overview of what the chapter includes and how it can benefit the community.

 

Kyra Wagner, said she works with the HAYEA group and is member of the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, who she is not representing. She said some of the insight she has gotten from the Committee shows that something like this kind of statement in the Comprehensive Plan would really be nice to add to the aspect of that image for Homer. The City is already looking at alternative energy aspects with tidal energy and the sustainability handbook. It is the vision of Homer and you can take some of the aspects that are our strengths and play off those. It makes sense financially anyway and it also makes sense as a movement forward for the City to have a good solid vision. She hopes the Commission will consider the draft of the new chapter.

 

Nina Faust commended the youth who brought this before them. She expressed her agreement that an energy chapter would be good. It makes a lot of sense to include something about energy, especially since production of energy use not only fits into the Climate Action Plan, but it will also save the City a lot of money if we can come up with more efficient buildings, better ways to heat and utilize alternative that we might have available here in Kachemak Bay.  She encouraged them to look closely at it and forward it on to Council for their consideration.

 

Oceana Wills, member of HAYEA and the statewide organization AYEA, said one of their big campaigns this year is on renewable energy. They have been trying to push for the $50 million for renewable energy into the budget. She thinks Homer has this opportunity to become one of the forefront cities to adopt renewable energy and really go with it. She thinks it is an important issue and thanked the Commission.

 

Bill Smith agreed with the idea of the City taking the lead on looking at energy use in a Community wide basis. The City has already started in this direction by applying for the grant for the tidal energy study. Someone has to pull together the vision for the Community. He thinks the City is the one to do that.

 

Rika Mouw, city resident, thanked the HAYEA group for coming before the Commission to share their vision. Mrs. Mouw commented on page 6-10 regarding infrastructure. One priority listed is to develop a storm water design criteria for large parcel development. The statement in the plan encourages the utilization of green infrastructure mapping as a means to identify and retain natural drainage channels and important wetlands which serve as drainage functions. She wants to re-emphasize the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is a vision, and a guide.  

 

Robert Archibald commented in support of trails. He said we just cannot go wrong having a trails system for the folks in town. He said there is a big benefit for Karen Hornaday Park and Woodard Creek on Saturday night at Alice’s. The money raised is to go toward grant money to help develop a master plan and go forward with some meaningful improvements up there.

 

There were no further public comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.

 

There was discussion regarding the energy chapter. City Planner Abboud noted that it is a good idea to have something like this in the Comprehensive Plan. If we were a larger city we could have been due some funds that filter down for energy projects. One of the requirements would have been to have an energy plan like this. If it isn’t incorporated right now it can be put up as an amendment to the plan on a future agenda. Point was raised that a lot of the information they provided is already in the plan. There was agreement that the Commission would like to look at a chapter 9 regarding energy.

 

KRANICH/STORM MOVED TO APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTERS 5 THROUGH THE END AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL.

 

There was brief discussion regarding moving forward with the current chapters and taking up chapter 9 separately and provide it as an amendment to the plan.

 

Commissioner Kranich noted that he would get with staff regarding some typographical errors he encountered while reviewing the document.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

B.       Staff Report PL 09-04, CUP 09-01, A Request for a Conditional Use Permit at 1028 Skyline Drive for Public Utility Facilities and Structures per HCC 21.12.030(g) and 21.40.060(b)

 

City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report.

 

David Stringer, applicant, commented that the staff report addresses their intentions. He explained that some of the new features Alaska Digitel will be bringing to Alaska include mobile broadband. The advantage of a mono pole is that it can accommodate future cellular companies which could co-locate on the tower. The towers are designed for three carriers. Digitel’s focus of the last few years is to be sensitive to community issues about towers. Some of the current uses now are an antenna for the school bus radio system for Homer, and they are in negotiations with Spit Spots, a local wireless internet service provider, to increase their coverage area.  

 

Chair Minsch opened the public hearing.

 

Aaron Larson, owner of Spit Spots, commented there are very few locations that overlook Homer where you can put a tower. It makes sense as this is a site that already has a tower, and the new tower will be more aesthetically pleasing and be more valuable for covering the area.

 

There were no further public comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT 09-04, CUP 09-01 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1028 SKYLINE DRIVE FOR PUBLIC UTLITITES, FACILITIES, AND STRUCUTRES.

 

The was brief discussion.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO AMEND TO ADD WITH CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

There was discussion regarding the building being set on the lot contrary to setback requirements on two sides, which would create non conformity and the status of the paperwork. City Planner Abboud commented that the building was built before the area was annexed, the plat is from the 50’s and the Borough regulated setbacks with plat notes. There were no plat notes on this lot, so it was not in violation before it was annexed and it was accepted as non conforming.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO ADD CONDITION NUMBER 2 THAT PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THE NON CONFORMITY PERTAINING TO BUILDING SETBACKS BE COMPLETED BY STAFF.

 

There was brief discussion that this is a paperwork issue that can be taken care of in the morning, it won’t hold anything up.

 

VOTE: (Primary Amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

In regard questions about Mr. Glynn’s letter City Planner Abboud explained that the CUP deals with a portion that was separated from the lot and the activities that are proposed there. Activities on the other side of the road will be dealt with accordingly.

 

VOTE: (Main Motion as Amended): YES: MOORE, MINSCH, SINN, KRANICH, BOS, HAINA

 

Motion carried.

 

 

PLAT CONSIDERATION

The Commission hears a staff report, 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.

 

PENDING BUSINESS

 

A.       Staff Report PL 09-36, KPB-Cabana Replat Preliminary Plat

 

Planning Technician Engebretsen advised the Commission that the applicant requested this be pulled from the agenda. The Commission recognized the request.

 

NEW BUSINESS

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 non conformity).

 

A.           Staff Report PL 09-40, Definition of Caretaker’s Residence in the Marine Industrial Zoning District

 

Harbormaster Hawkins commented that the Port and Harbor took over administrative duties of the uplands leases for the spit last year. They have been going through the leases individually and addressing the issues as they come up. One issue is code violations for people living on the leases, as you can only have people living on the lease if there is a CUP as an amendment to the lease. Harbormaster Hawkins said in review of City Code regarding a CUP, it doesn’t give any definition of what a caretaker’s residence is. It only says it is allowed with a CUP.

 

City Planner Abboud commented when he looked at it he considered a few things:

·         Number: It is meant for a caretaker’s residence per lot.

·         Size: Does a caretaker mean you build a three story house and live in it? It should support their duties, not necessarily a residence.

·         Health & Safety Issues: Appropriate facilities need to be provided by the person on the lot.

 

City Planner Abboud noted that the marine industrial district is supposed to provide for water dependant industrial uses, and there are things going on with residents and their animals, storage of personal items, gardening and other activities that don’t support the industrial uses of the district. Regarding consistency in zoning codes, should it be allowable to permit a caretakers residence that consists of a camper or RV, when it isn’t allowed anywhere else in town. The caretaker’s residence is reasonable and should be on the lot in the setbacks. He reviewed the ordinance. Their goal is to be fair and consistent and have some explicit expectations.

 

Harbormaster Hawkins commented that he tried to consider what a caretaker would do. He thinks it would include things like watchman, specialized duties, general maintenance, but it isn’t a primary residence or a benefit for an employee to be able to move a trailer in for free. It isn’t a benefit, it is a job.

 

Discussion ensued and Commission comments included:

 

·         It needs to be a definition that can be used throughout code.

·         A caretaker could also be considered as someone who needs to be there 24/7 for 365 days of the year and because of that, it could be considered a residence.

·         The caretaker’s residence could be considered in relation to size the lot size.

·         In looking at lot sizes on the spit it would be hard to justify how there could be an additional structure on a footprint.

 

KRANICH/SINN MOVED TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND FORWARD TO THE PORT AND HARBOR COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.

 

Discussion continued:

 

·         Just don’t allow it. No one definition will apply to every business on the spit and there is no way to define it clearly and apply it broadly on the spit or in the CBD.

·         Consideration could be given to what size of a lot would accommodate a caretaker’s residence.

·         The caretaker’s quarters could be inside a portion of the main structure and not allow for an additional building. But then you have to get into lot size again.

·         In looking at lot size you would have to look at the remaining lot size after the primary structure is on it. The remaining lot space could already be designated for something like loading or required parking.

·         When it gets to the point that you micromanage every lot, you just don’t allow caretaking in marine industrial. Instead you have someone who has a job and drives out to the spit like the rest of us do when we work on the spit.

·         A caretaker is an employee who is camping. You could make them prove that they are on call 24 hours, but then you are getting into business operations, and that isn’t the Commission’s job.

·         Ask the Port and Harbor if they feel caretaker’s residences and things of the like are even necessary out there.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

 

A.       Letter Dated April 9, 2009 to Darren Williams, Refuge Chapel, from Rick Abboud, City Planner regarding CUP 07-03, Remand

 

The Commission acknowledged that they could not discuss this information as it is the subject of an appeal. City Planner Abboud suggested that the Commissioners who are unfamiliar with the subject could review the file. Chair Minsch noted that the information will be available with the packet.

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

Members of the Audience may address the Commission on any subject.

 

There were no audience comments.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

Commissioners may comments on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.

 

Commissioner Moore apologized for being absent from the last meeting. He said the Commission did good at being beat up on, and being threatened as he heard from some of the speaking public, which he felt was wrong. They heard a lot from the people regarding land use, but if you don’t use a road to divide zoning, what do you use? It seems like it is the best thing to use as it is a good barrier. Something brought up tonight was the LID’s, people trying to get conservation people to take the property so they don’t have to pay for LID’s on Kachemak Drive, he would be against that. If it were ever to happen, the whole public needs to vote on that as it is the tax payer’s money that is going on there. Some of the property that the public spoke about would be worth more as commercial. Out on the spit, he would like to see all public property fenced that is being used for free. He thinks it would be good for the City to do it because then they will lease it. There are a lot of people taking a free ride on some vacant lots out there and it isn’t right to the tax payers or the people who are using the property right. He thanked the Commission.

 

Commissioner Kranich had no comment.

 

Commissioner Haina commented that the audience discussion was good. They talked about how swampy, and drainage, and other problems with developing some of that property as residential. He wanted to point out that in Waikiki the real expensive property was nothing but a swamp a long time ago, so it is possible. He thanked Harbormaster Hawkins for bringing his information to the Commission’s attention and hopes he is successful, even though it isn’t his job to clean up the spit. He appreciates that the Harbormaster is taking an interest as it is long overdue.

 

Commissioner Sinn felt it was a good discussion and public comments were good. He was encouraged to see the young members of the audience get involved. He welcomed Commissioner Moore back to the fun.

 

Chair Minsch commented it will be interesting to see chapter 9 as a lot of it is already there. She noted that the Commission handled themselves well at the last meeting where there was all the contentious testimony. The Kachemak Drive thing is much bigger than the Comp Plan. We are going to be getting away from the Comp Plan and getting into other business. At future meetings they will be stricter in following code and meeting rules.

 

ADJOURN

Meetings adjourn promptly at 10 p.m. An extension is allowed by a vote of the Commission. 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 8:56 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 6, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There is a worksession at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.

 

 

                                                         

MELISSA JACOBSEN, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: