Session 07-11 a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich
at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, HOWARD, KRANICH, MINSCH, ZAK
STAFF:
DEPUTY
Chair Kranich stated for the record that he, Commissioner Chesley, and new appointee Commissioner Howard have read, understood and signed their oath of office. [1]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
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.
Roger Imhoff congratulated the new appointee.
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
5. Commissioner Excused Absences
It was noted that the minutes reflected that there wasn’t a motion to discuss the sign ordinance at the June 20th meeting. There was brief discussion to clarify that there was no motion pending from a previous meeting and that it should have been brought to the floor with a motion to discuss.
The consent agenda was approved 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 stated that he missed the last Borough meeting but understands that the Country Club Estates Project is being appealed. He said that he was re-appointed to the Borough Planning Commission.
B.
There was no KBAPC Report.
C. Planning Director’s Report
City Planner McKibben reviewed her staff report with the Commission. There was some discussion regarding the Country Club Estates that was appealed at the Borough level by Michael Bullock. Ms. McKibben was unsure if the City will be involved, but if the City can be a party and if it can be done efficiently, the City Manager has said we would want to support the Borough’s decision.
Commissioner Chesley complemented staff on the sign brochure.
It was questioned whether there had been any progress on letters to Council regarding fire access roads. City Planner McKibben commented that she is not aware of any.
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. She advised the Commission that she received a phone call from adjacent property owner with trail questions, but there was no discussion of the sign.
Chair Kranich opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
MINSCH/CHESLEY I
There was comment that the application notes that the height of the sign would not exceed 6 feet and it was suggested that recommendation be made for the sign to be 10 feet. This would ensure visibility when it snows. It was noted that the sign is already in place. Since there weren’t any Commission meetings in July the application couldn’t come before the Commission before their dedication ceremony. The public sign code will allow them to go to 10 feet.
VOTE: 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. The
Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve
an applicant.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Roger Imhoff, Surveyor and applicant’s representative, commented that he takes issue with staff recommendation two regarding the 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. He questioned where the top of the bluff is. In looking at the aerial photo there is a sharp bluff that is right on the beach and the rest is steeply sloping. Mr. Imhoff believes that his plat note #4 adequately informs the public. He read the plat note 4 which says, “Refer to Homer City Code for all current setback and site development restrictions. Owner should check with the City of Homer Planning Department prior to development activities.”
Mr. Imhoff pointed out a note on the plat that refers to velocity flooding in a box below the drawing. He could make it a plat note if the Commission would prefer. He has had this note on previous plats and believes that offsetting it in the box is a better way to bring it to the attention of the reader.
There was some discussion to clarify that Mr. Imhoff isn’t objecting the 30 foot setback his concern is in establishing where the edge of the bluff is and establishing the 30 feet should be addressed at the time of development on the lot.
City Planner McKibben pointed out that there is nothing in the zoning code that says the City has a setback from an eroding bluff. It is a recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan and the only place to address it is in plat notes.
There were no public comments.
MINSCH/ZAK I MAKE A MOTION TO
ADOPT
Planning
Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following
comments:
CHESLEY/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION THAT WE DELETE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1
Commissioner Chesley commented that Mr. Imhoff has satisfied the interest staff was seeking in having staff recommendation 1 and 2. Based on the discussion with Mr. Imhoff, Commissioner Chesley believes that he has shown the intent to meet the same information requirement on the plat.
Discussion ensued and the following points were made:
· The applicant has done a fair amount of research to get a handle on the amount of erosion taking place there.
· By the time development occurs there may be a sensitive areas ordinance in place that could be more restrictive.
·
There should be some reference to the setback requirements
on the plat. There is no way to know what is going to happen with the property
and what parameters the City w
· Other communities require a setback or a moveable building when developing on a highly erosive bluff.
· The concern of the applicant isn’t the setback but where the top of the bluff is, as it is something that can be interpreted in many different ways.
· It was questioned if there is a provision in the code to require setbacks in the preliminary plat phase.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: HESS, KRANICH, CHESLEY, ZAK
NO: HOWARD, MINSCH, FOSTER
Motion carried.
There was discussion of wording for a motion that would address the code as well as the concerns of the applicant’s representative. Mr. Imhoff suggested adding a note that would state there is a 30 foot building setback from the top of any portion of actively eroding bluff at the time of building construction.
HESS/MINSCH I
There was no further discussion.
VOTE (Primary amendment):YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, HOWARD
NO: ZAK
Motion carried.
Question was raised regarding how it would be handled if someone wants to build on the beach. It was clarified that the motion stated the setback is from the top portion of the bluff and it could apply to either side. City Planner McKibben said she did not see it as a problem.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: CHESLEY, HOWARD, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
PENDING BUSINESS
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that she heard back from the City Attorney regarding the ordinance amending code to add the open air business definition. The definition is as follows:
Business,
open air. “Open air business” means the retail sale or display of merchandise
or services, including but not limited to farmers markets and flea markets,
conducted outdoors or under a canopy for protection from the elements and held
on a regular or periodic basis. Open air
business does not include (1) outdoor display or sales of goods or services by
a retail or wholesale business that is principally located in a building, (2)
or sales, services or rentals of any kind of boat or motorized vehicle.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO
The Commission discussed the definition in relation to the retail businesses that take place at the base of the spit and businesses that have a principle location and participate in an open air business.
CHESLEY/HOWARD I WOULD LIKE TO
PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT THAT THE USE OF BUSINESS, OPEN
Commissioner Chesley clarified that it is to be added as a conditional use to the districts so it can be subject to review. It was further clarified that it would move from an allowed use to a conditional use in the General Commercial 1 district. He introduced this amendment now so it can go forward to council as one package, rather than handling it in separate ordinance amendments and actions. He noted that Marine Industrial already has a provision in code that uses allowed in Marine Commercial can occur in Marine Industrial if they go through a different level of review from the Port and Harbor Commission.
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HOWARD, HESS
NO: MINSCH
Motion carried.
Discussion resumed and the businesses
at the base of the spit were again questioned.
Commissioner Minsch pointed out that the Bear Man, for example, has a
building and moves his items outside.
Based on the definition, he can’t be an open air business if he is
principally located inside a building.
Commissioner Foster noted that this is similar to the concept of business
complex in the sign code where the definition includes the group of businesses
in the complex. The Bear Man is not a
separate business, but one of the group. They talked about other businesses that have
outdoor displays such as Ulmer’s, Spenard Builders, and the Honda Dealer.
HESS/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION THAT THE DEFINITION THAT WAS PROVIDED AS A LAYDOWN THAT WAS DEVELOPED
BY THE
It was clarified that the code numbers would be corrected when it is updated.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO
There was brief discussion that the Commission would leave it up to staff to schedule the public hearing.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, HOWARD, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich called for a short recess at
City Planner McKibben reviewed the sign code amendments.
CHESLEY/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE
There was consensus of the Commission to bring the sign code amendments forward for action.
Commissioner Chesley noted some editorial corrections and provided some revisions for table two.
Chair Kranich called for a short recess at 9:
Commissioner Chesley explained his revision would be inserted on packet page 51, Table 2, adding the following language after “0 to 349 50 s.f.” and replace the last paragraph:
) For a multiple occupancy
building or a multiple building complex, the total allowed sign area may be
increased beyond the maximum allowed signage, as shown in table 2 by twenty
(20) percent.
) This additional
sign area can be used only to promote or identify the building name or complex
name.
) Sign area used to
promote or identify the building name or complex name may be placed on a
freestanding sign in accordance with X.
) Only one (1)
freestanding sign is allowed per lot, except a freestanding public sign
additionally may be allowed. A free
standing sign may not exceed 72 square feet in area and may not exceed ten (10)
feet in height.
Commissioner Chesley prepared a list
of percentages to
The Commission discussed free
standing signs. Using the example of a business owner with a building complex, it
was explained that the owner can allocate signage for the complex however they
see fit and they can also advertise the complex, but cannot exceed the 72
square feet total signage on the free standing sign. In the example of the maximum allowed signage
of 150 square feet, the freestanding sign is not a separate allocation but
included in the total signage. The multiple occupancy building signage could
increase it by the additional 20% as noted in Commissioner Chesley’s proposed
bullet one, but the increase does not affect the free standing sign. The free
standing sign st
Discussion followed regarding the
Bradshaw appeal and point was made that the language in table two needs to be
very clear that multiple occupancy buildings and multiple building complexes st
CHESLEY/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION TO
Some Commissioners had other comments regarding the sign code, but they said they would give their information to staff to be included for the next discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that they are tentatively scheduled to meet with City Council for a worksession on September 10. She noted the boundaries on the aerial photo and reviewed the information from the last meeting that was incorporated into the ordinance.
Commissioner Zak commented that there had been some recommended changes with the mounding of low fences. He also noted addressing the architectural grade and the natural grade in its relation to the Community Design Manual and the Gateway Overlay District. He is going to provide his comments to City Planner McKibben for the Commission to review at the next discussion.
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 nonconformity).
A. Election of Officers
Chair Kranich opened nominations for Chair.
CHESLEY/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO
NOMINATE
Chair Kranich accepted the nomination and there were no other nominations for Chair. The Commission agreed by consensus to elect Mr. Kranich as Chair.
HESS/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION THAT SHARON MINSCH CONTINUE FOR THE
There were no other nominations for Vice Chair.
The Commission agreed by consensus to elect Mrs. Minsch as Vice Chair.
HESS/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO
There was discussion that the
Commission w
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD AMEND THE
MOTION THAT IN ADDITION TO OUR
The Commission agreed by consensus to include the CIP on the regular agenda.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Letter to Ed
Adair, and Tom and Charlie Knoll dated
B. Letter to Ed Adair, and Tom and
Charlie Knoll dated
C. Letter to Dale and Patricia Kaercher
dated
D. Email
correspondence from Marianne Schlegelmilch dated
E. Letter to Boyd Walker dated
F. Letter to
Lisa and Valdis Kirsis dated
G. Letter to Dotty Breeding,
H. Letter from Mayor Hornaday dated
I. Letter from Mayor Hornaday dated
J. Memorandum dated
K. Letter from Mayor Hornaday dated
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Adrienne Sweeny commented regarding the sale of the property that the old library sits on. She is Hugh Watson’s great granddaughter and advised the Commission that Mr. Watson donated the land that the old library sits on. When he donated the property there was a stipulation that the property would be used for the Homer Public Library. We have a new library now and she understands there is some talk about selling the old library and the property it sits on, as well as subdividing it. She said she is representing Hugh Watson’s family and advised the Commission that when the sale of the property goes through, the family would like to see the money go to the new library, not into the general fund. The family would like to see it in writing.
Chair Kranich recognized
Councilmember Roberts in the back of the room and explained that Council w
B
Mr. Smith noted the new definition of lot on line 105 contains singulars and plurals and it could potentially be confusing.
He suggested on table two that
instead of using “multiple building complexes”, use a simple description such
as “a lot with multiple buildings.” He
believes that would get the Commission where they want to go with out the
possible complications. Mr. Smith spoke
in opposition to jumping to 72 square feet on free standing signs. He feels that getting away from phasing the number of signs to the number of buildings would
be counter productive. Moving the
community further along the line of having constrained advertising w
Mr. Smith commented regarding Commissioner Chesley’s recommendation three “Sign area used to promote or identify the building name or complex name may be placed on a freestanding sign.” Mr. Smith doesn’t believe it is necessary. If they are going to give additional square footage but strictly limit the area of the free standing sign, then it isn’t needed. He encouraged them to think some more about just allowing a lot of square footage on free standing signs as it has take a long time to get away from it.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Zak commented
regarding the Gateway District, that if they restrict building the 18 feet
rather than the 35 feet it w
Commissioner Minsch had no comment.
Commissioner Howard thanked Chair Kranich and Commissioner Minsch for accepting the leadership role for the Commission.
Commissioner Foster said it is great to be back and welcomed Commissioner Howard. He said he spent a fair amount of time focusing on town centers while he was on vacation and has photos to share at another time. He advised them that the Kenai Peninsula Orchestra gala concert is next week and encouraged everyone to attend.
Commissioner Hess noted that they did not talk about the informational items. He noted the copy of the ethics ordinance that was included and the memo recommending that he not participate in the CUP for the water treatment plant. He suggested the Commission review the ethics oridinance at a worksession. He welcomed Commissioner Howard.
Commissioner Chesley requested
the Commission save their CIP list so staff won’t have to copy them again. He reported that the City Hall Town Plaza
review committee has wrapped up their work, the City Manager is drafting the
final recommendations to Council, and there will be a presentation by the City
Manager and Commissioner Chesley at the Council meeting on August 13th. He said they are working quickly to move the
Chair Kranich welcomed Commissioner Howard and thanked the Commission for their support by selecting him and Commissioner Minsch as Chair and Vice Chair. He is looking forward to a good year.
ADJOURN
There being no further business
to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: