Session 05-15, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:12 p.m. on August 17, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

PRESENT:       COMMISSIONERS:  CHESLEY, HESS, PFEIL, FOSTER, LEHNER,                                                                                 CONNOR, KRANICH                      

 

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 Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.

            C.  KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

D.    Commissioner Excused Absences

 

Under COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Connor requested - Road Trip to Soldotna to Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission Meeting be added as Item H.  Items H, I, and J, Staff Reports PL 05-82, PL 05-98 and PL 05-109 were renamed as Items I, J and K respectively.  The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

 

A.                 Approval of July 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes.

 

The Regular Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2005 were corrected and approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

B.                 Approval of August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes.

 

The Regular Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2005 were corrected and approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

 

 

 

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 are approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission.  A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

 

Stan Welles, city resident, said many may remember the pizza restaurant (on Pioneer Avenue).  Patrons parked on the gravel to the west of the building that is now City property.  In 1992 City Planner Eileen Bechtol had a parking plan that would allow for exit through the backyard if the City should need to utilize their own parking lot.  There were no complaints so the alternate parking plan was never used.  Mr. Welles said with Town Center progressing, some day parking will not be available and he will be required to use the dedicated space.  Mr. Welles provided a map of 265 East Pioneer Avenue area depicting the parking lot spaces. 

 

Brian Bennett, city resident, is a member of the newly formed Citizens Alliance for Neighborhoods (CAN).  At this point there is not a spokesperson for the group so the comments tonight are Mr. Bennett’s.  The CAN group has many of the same concerns as the Commission:

 

¯     Rural Residential (RR) zoning is low density housing – the proposed Quiet Creek subdivision is not low density housing.

¯     Transportation Plan – the neighborhood driven design process would allow a neighborhood road to change its characteristics to a collector or arterial.[1] The CAN would like to initiate this process. 

¯     Wetlands – appropriate for the City to request jurisdictional determination from the Corps of Engineers.

¯     Storm Water Plan – needed and should be a part of the preliminary plat process.  An engineered storm water plan should identify impervious surfaces as it could change drainage for property owners south of the development.

¯     Impact on Waste Water Treatment Plant – the Infiltration and Inflow Study completed by USKH in 2003 is a valuable source.  Before the City approves a sewer plan for a subdivision this size it may be prudent for the City to look at the impact on the Waste Water Treatment Plant.

 

Mr. Bennett concluded there are lots of partners in the CAN supportive of the Commission and the number of the group is growing each week.  The City of Homer wants a strong voice in the design of the future.  He said many have probably heard the rumor that with the transition of the library the vacant building will house the Planning Department.  He said the room, resources and staff are needed and the CAN would be supportive of this endeavor.   

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

A.        Staff Report PL 05-80   Re:  Request for Acceptance of Nonconforming Use on 671 Sterling Highway, Lot 2, Bluff Park No. 4.

 

HESS/FOSTER – MOVED TO RECONSIDER STAFF REPORT PL05-80.

 

VOTE:  YES. FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, HESS

 

VOTE:  NO. CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

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.

 

There were no public hearings.

 

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.

 

A.        Staff Report PL 05-90   Re:  Mountain Park Howell Replat Too Subdivision Preliminary Plat

 

City Planner McKibben provided laydown information from Borderline land surveyor which indicated there was no objection to the plat.  Ms. McKibben amended her recommendations to adopt the plat as submitted in the laydown with the corrected configuration.

 

LEHNER/- MOVED FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

Ms. Lehner lives in the subdivision.

 

Motion died for lack of a second.

 

HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO ACCEPT PRELIMINARY PLAT MOUNTAIN PARK HOWELL SUBDIVISION REPLAT TWO.

 

Steve Howell, applicant, was asked by Commissioner Hess about the plat below his parcel that is being dedicated to the Land Trust.  He questioned if a ROW easement was given and Mr. Howell answered that it was not and he was in no rush.  Mr. Howell said the 30 or 40-acre parcel was dedicated to Kachemak Heritage Land Trust and that Sunnyside Lane goes nowhere.  There are three homeowners in the area and they would like the Sunnyside Lane to go away.  Commissioner Foster said he would hope the request for the ROW vacation goes before the Borough. 

 

Commissioner Lehner stated she would like to see the ROW for pedestrians.  There is a homeowner’s meeting September 8, 2005 and a petition could be drawn up for it.    Mr. Howell is in agreement with a pedestrian access.  Commissioner Kranich asked that Public Works comments be included in consideration of the ROW vacation.  Chair Chesley questioned Ms. Lehner’s involvement in the homeowner’s association and she answered that she was a property owner within the subdivision.

 

LEHNER/FOSTER – MOVED TO POSTPONE.

 

VOTE:  NO.  CONNOR

 

VOTE:  YES.  LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

Chair Chesley explained the continuance stops the clock from running, allows for time to work with staff and brings it back to the Commission for action.  Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben to confer with the City Attorney if Commissioner Lehner may have a conflict due to her involvement in the homeowner’s association.

 

B.        Staff Report PL 05-91   Re:  Oscar Munson No. 23 Subdivision Preliminary Plat.

 

City Planner McKibben explained the vacation portion is not being heard tonight as it was not public noticed.  The Commission can act on the preliminary plat only tonight.

 

CONNOR/HESS – MOVED FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

Commissioner Connor explained she lives in the neighborhood and is involved in a LID process.  Her assessment may change if the plat is approved.

 

VOTE:  YES.  LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Connor was excused from discussion on the plat.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL – MOVED TO ACCEPT OSCAR MUNSON NO. 23 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TWO THROUGH FIVE.

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat with the following recommendations:

 

  1. Denial of the vacation of a portion of Victoria Place.
  2. Show access to a utility easement per HCC 22.10.051.
  3. Depict approximate locations of areas subject to inundation, mean high water line flooding or storm water overflow, tidal inundation, and mean high water line in compliance with KPB 20.12.060 (H and I).
  4. Depict the location of the existing water main in compliance with KPB 20.12.060 (K).
  5. Add a plat note that meets the requirements of Kenai Peninsula Borough Subdivision code 20.20.260 Flood Plain Requirements.

 

VOTE:  YES.  KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

C.        Staff Report PL 05-92   Re:  Foothills Subdivision Sunset View Estates Addition No. 1 Preliminary Plat

 

City Planner McKibben provided the Commission with a laydown from 59° North, LLC. 

 

Roger Imhoff, surveyor, said a preliminary plat has been developed and Public Works is in the process of previewing the remainder of the parcel.  There are four owners in the subdivision, presently out fishing.  Mr. Imhoff hopes to submit the preliminary plat for the remaining project area within three weeks.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if a trail segment had been addressed and Mr. Imhoff answered that it had not. 

 

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO ACCEPT PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FOOTHILLS SUBDIVISION SUNSET VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION #1.

 

Commissioner Hess said he would like to get the trail system in by the next platting action, noting that there may be problems following natural drainages.  Commissioner Lehner said when the preliminary plat for the remainder of the parcel comes before the Commission, trail connections will be explored.

 

Surveyor Imhoff referenced the letter from 59° North, LLC stating it is not a commitment for the easement as there may be a different location that is a lot better.

 

Frank Griswold told the Commission if any of the Planning Commissioners have a business association with Tom Laing they should declare a conflict of interest.  Chair Chesley said Tom Laing of 59° North, LLC is not an applicant, is only commenting, and there is no action by Tom Laing or his partners before the Commission.

 

The Commission discussed the one-acre lot in the middle of a large piece of land and expressed the hope the 41 acres will not be dealt with in a piecemeal manner.  Commissioner Foster suggested there be a plat note that talks about a setback from the drainage as the steepness of the plat is not known.

 

FOSTER/KRANICH – MOVED THAT STAFF WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY ANY DRAINAGES AND TO MAKE THE DEDICATED SETBACK FROM DRAINAGES IF SUCH IS FOUND.

 

VOTE:  YES.  CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE:  (main motion)  YES.  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH,       HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

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.        Staff Report PL 05-94   Re:  Request by Walters For Acceptance Of A Nonconforming Structure Within The Five-foot Lot Line Setback Located At 348 West Fairview Avenue.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendation.

 

HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO ACCEPT THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ON 348 WEST FAIRVIEW AVENUE.

 

Commissioner Foster commented that although water service was connected in 1968 the newspaper from 1958 found in the wall is not proof.  He is building a house himself right now and plans on shoving a 1950 newspaper in the wall to show what year his house was built.[2]

 

HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO INCLUDE FINDINGS BASED ON HCC 21.64.035: THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT WAS NOT IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF ZONING LAWS IN 1982.

 

VOTE:  YES.  CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE:  (main motion) YES.  PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER

 

Motion carried.

 

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 8:25 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:30 p.m.

 

Chair Chesley announced during the recess Frank Griswold pointed out a correction that was needed on the last motion.  The motion stated it was nonconforming before 1982, which is the adoption of the zoning code.  The Commission needs to say the use was nonconforming after 1982, as it became nonconforming after the adoption of the code.

 

KRANICH/LEHNER - MOVED TO RECONSIDER STAFF REPORT PL 05-94 PERTAINING TO THE NONCONFORMING  STRUCTURE AT 348 WEST FAIRVIEW AVENUE.

 

VOTE:  YES.  LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/FOSTER – MOVED TO ACCEPT THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AT 348 WEST FAIRVIEW BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE EXISTED BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE ZONING CODE IN 1982.

 

VOTE:  YES.  KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR

 

Motion carried.

 

B.        Staff Report PL 05-95 Re:  Request By Blackwell For Acceptance Of A Nonconforming Use For A Building Located At 1440 East End Road, Lot 5 Of Mutch-Gangle Tract Neptune Addition Subdivision.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff recommendation pointing out the use of the site by Blackwell Well Drilling has not taken place on the site before 1982.  Staff’s revised recommendation is that the Commission not grant the nonconforming use.  Laydown correspondence from Frank Griswold was acknowledged.

 

Frank Griswold, city resident, told the Commission with the assurance that they would read his written comments he will not read them into the record.  As to page two of his correspondence he indicated the quote from the January 22, 1992 Planning Commission minutes should be credited to City Attorney Gordon Tans.  The minutes referenced an impound yard and its nonconforming use.  Mr. Griswold stated there may have been a misunderstanding initially of how similar a new use would have to be to an existing nonconforming use that had been grandfathered.  After talking with Planning Department staff today he learned back in the 1960’s and 1970’s the use on the subject property was considered commercial.  The misunderstanding may be that since it was a commercial use then any other commercial use now would be grandfathered.  A grandfathered use must be very specific.  Although the building was clearly an automobile repair facility there are several different and distinct categories pertaining to automobile repair.  There is public garage, vehicle repair, and vehicle maintenance; each identified differently by City Code.  An auto shop back in 1982 is not the same as a welding or woodworking shop, but rather separate shops.  Mr. Griswold said to meet the nonconforming criteria the primary use must continue to exist.  Little threads of different uses cannot be expanded to justify the primary use.  The applicant has the burden of proof to prove the uses continued every year.  Upon reading the material in the packet Mr. Griswold did not see any evidence suggesting the uses existed at any time.  There was nothing that existed on the lot prior to 1982, or from 1982 to 1989 with the exception of automobile repair.  Mr. Griswold dealt with the prior owner on a professional level, was in the shop and stated it was the automobile shop when he arrived in Homer in 1974.  He concluded it is clear to him none of the uses existing on the lot today are legal nonconforming uses.  He said it is a zoning violation and the warehouse on the site is rather arrogant, as once placed on the site there may be less tendency to remove it. 

 

Commissioner Lehner asked Mr. Griswold if you had retail and changed the retail goods sold how would that fit as a nonconforming use.  Mr. Griswold responded if you sold shoes and then sold glassware they may be similar uses.  He operates a garage and doesn’t consider himself a retail business.  Although he sells stuff the primary use of his shop is not retail.

 

Chair Chesley explained the Commission looks at the difference in the change of use within the retail category.  Different retail uses could generate traffic, lighting, nuisance, hours of operation and different criteria.  Staff makes the determinations if they are consistent with previous use.

 

HESS/FOSTER – MOVED TO ACCEPT THE NONCONFORMING USE OF LOT 1440 EAST END ROAD LOT 5 OF MUTCH-GANGLE TR NEPTUNE ADDITION KENAI PENINSULA PARCEL 179-030-66.

 

Commissioner Hess stated the subject lot is a poster child for what is wrong with the way the zoning code was enforced in the past.  The Commission is in for a lot more nonconforming use applications and it is important to handle them correctly.

 

The Commission discussed the applicant’s construction of a building without the benefit of a zoning permit.  The use stated in the request claims to be auto related repair and maintenance.  The Code specifies if the use changes to another business there is no means to grant approval of a primary use through approval of a secondary use.

 

Commissioner Foster agrees with Frank Griswold’s comments.  He said it has taken the Commission a long time to understand the process of permits even though they work with them regularly.  It clearly states the district is RR yet there is a business in operation with another facility having been built without a permit.  He said that should be a clear requirement to everyone and it may indicate a lack of regard for the city planning and zoning.  Commissioner Foster said there is a misconception that when people buy into a commercial business it will remain as such.

 

Commissioner Kranich referred to Mr. Griswold’s laydown information on sales tax.  It confirms his personal recollection back to 1982 when he frequently traveled the East Road.  After Bob Reinhart terminated his business in the building in August 1989 there was a period of time the building sat vacant.  Nick Gangle owned it and there was talk the building was to be torn down due to its disrepair.  The laydown information indicates Don Blackwell bought the lot in 1992, meaning the previous uses would have terminated during the vacancy.

When asked for his recollection of dates, Frank Griswold said the Borough does not list a location for sales tax registration, but Bob Reinhart was in business until 1989.  The last three years of his business he was across the street.  It is Mr. Griswold’s belief the auto shop terminated in 1986 to 1994, as the place looked like a toxic waste site.

 

Commissioner Kranich concurred the building stood vacant a long time after Bob Reinhart moved out.  He added that Don Blackwell has done an exemplary job in cleaning up the premises and building, but it is a definite change in use.

 

HESS/KRANICH - MOVED TO INCLUDE FINDINGS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO SHOW THAT NONCONFORMING USES OCCURRED CONTINUOUSLY ON THE LOT SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE ZONING LAW IN 1982 PER HCC 21.64.035 AND THE REQUESTED NONCONFORMING USE IS NOT OF THE SAME COMMERCIAL NATURE AS THE ORIGINAL USES PER HCC 21.64.030(B).

 

VOTE:  YES.  CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER.

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE:  NO.  (main motion) FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS

 

Motion failed.

 

Chair Chesley called for a recess due to audio recording difficulties at 9:18 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:25 p.m.

 

C.        Staff Report PL 05-96   Re:  Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL  MOVED TO NOMINATE LANE CHESLEY FOR CHAIR.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Chair Chesley accepted the nomination stating he was willing to continue as Chair if able to work with such wonderful and high caliber people as the Commission along with the great planning staff and clerk support staff.

 

PFEIL/FOSTER – MOVED TO NOMINATE BRUCE HESS AS VICE CHAIR.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Vice Chair Hess thanked the Commissioners for their support.

 

D.        Staff Report PL 05-75   Re:  CIP List Development.  POSTPONED.  Remember to bring your CIP List.

 

The Commission discussed the CIP List and added the following recommendations as their top choices:

 

State Roads - Reconstruction of Main St. Pioneer Ave. to Bunnell Ave.

 

Utilities - Homer Water Improvements

 

Structures - New City Hall and Town Center

 

Equipment - Homosote Floor for Homer Hockey Association.

 

E.         Staff Report PL 05-93   Re:  Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code 21.48 Site Development Requirements and Homer City Code 21.44 Rural Residential, 21.45 Urban Residential, 21.47 Residential Office, Adding Development Activity Plan (DAP) and Storm Water Plan (SWP) Requirements.

 

HESS/FOSTER – MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING, TO THE WORKSESSION AND REGULAR MEETING.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

F.         Staff Report PL 05-100   Re:  Request for Acceptance of Nonconforming Use on 671 Sterling Highway, Lot 2, Bluff Park No. 4.

 

Commissioner Hess stated the Commission needs to make a positive motion, thus the reason for reconsideration.

 

Chair Chesley mentioned that Commissioner Kranich voted against the majority of the body stating there were better findings to base the request on.  Commissioner Kranich clarified he made the statement at the August 3, 2005 meeting in reference to the Marley group’s request for rezone of the Sterling Highway frontage.

 

 

 

HESS/FOSTER – MOVED TO ACCEPT THE NONCONFORMING USE ON LOT 671 STERLING HIGHWAY LOT 2 BLUFF PARK NO. 4.

 

Commissioner Foster asked City Planner McKibben if the applicant had contacted the Planning Department in the last two weeks and she answered there has been no contact.  Commissioner Foster asked Commissioner Kranich why he voted against the majority and he answered that he would rather not say, although it does not have anything to do with his ex-parte communication with the applicant.  He was not in support of the finding of the Commission at that time.

 

VOTE:  NO.  KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR 

 

Motion failed.

 

LEHNER/HESS – MOVED TO ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDING IN STAFF REPORT PL 05-100:  HCC 21.64.030(b) REQUIRES THAT ONCE A USE MADE NONCONFORMING BY THIS TITLE IS ABANDONED, CHANGED, DISCONTINUED, OR CEASES TO BE THE PRIMARY USE OF THE LOT, THE USE OF THAT LOT SHALL THEREAFTER CONFORM TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONE IN WHICH THE LOT IS LOCATED, AND THE NONCONFORMITY SHALL NOT BE RESUMED OR ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.  NO EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY WAS PROVIDED DEMONSTRATING THE CONTINUOUS USE OF THE LOT AS A MATERIALS STAGING SITE, MATERIALS STORAGE SITE/STOCKPILING, AND STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.

 

VOTE:  YES.  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

G.        Staff Report PL 05-97   Re:  Memorandum Expressing Concern With The Kenai Peninsula Borough Preliminary Plat Process And Other Platting Actions.

 

City Planner McKibben noted the laydown information, a draft letter to the Kenai Peninsula Borough from the Planning Commission.  The Commission discussed its content and added the following points to explain their concern with the platting process:

 

¯     Public Works concerns will not be dealt with adequately in a subdivision agreement or prior to the City signing off on the plat.

¯     Recommendations for trail segments cannot be addressed during a subdivision agreement.

¯     KPB subdivision code lists things that can be asked for on the subdivision map.  Without listing contours and wetlands the Planning Commission cannot evaluate the preliminary plat in steep areas or large acreage of wetlands.

¯     Layout and areas of greenspace could alter minimum lot size.

¯     If roads are put in without a subdivision agreement and the roads don’t meet the city standards, the City doesn’t have to accept them for maintenance.

 

City Planner McKibben is to make the revisions to the letter and discuss them with Vice Chair Hess and City Manager Wrede before forwarding to the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

 

      H.        Road Trip to Soldotna to Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission                             Meeting

 

Commissioner Connor stated she is supportive of Chair Chesley’s idea of the Commission’s attendance at the KPB Planning Commission meeting.  In trying to open communications with the Borough it would be nice for them to see the Commissioners’ faces.  Attendance at the meetings of August 22 and September 12 were discussed and the need for it to be advertised in compliance with the Open Meetings Act.[3]

 

I.          Staff Report PL 05-82   Re:   Lot sizes within the Rural Residential Zoning District.  CONTINUED.

 

HESS/KRANICH - MOVED TO POSTPONE TO NEXT MEETING.

 

Chair Chesley stated he was working on an amendment to the RR zoning district.  Commissioner Hess noted the laydown about open space and its definitions to incorporate. 

 

Paul Gavenus, city resident, commented that the lot sizes will keep the intent of RR as low density, which should be the first priority.

 

Katherine George, city resident, stated there are several different ways to address the real meaning of RR, including square footage for lots, drainage, and slopes on actual property. She said there could be smaller lot sizes, fewer lots and more greenspace.  She added that keeping it simple would be the best. 

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

J.         Staff Report PL 05-98  Re:   Amending Homer City Code 21.70  Amendment Procedures.

 

City Planner McKibben stated there was a laydown regarding amendment procedures.  She said the amendment to the Code came before the Commission in February with a proposed amendment from the Clerk who had conferred with the City Attorney.  Information from other communities was included in the packet.

 

Chair Chesley said when the amendment was brought to the Commission by the Clerk the purpose of the amendments was not understood.  The Clerk was asked for clarification and to provide a history.  There was no response so it was dropped.  Mr. Chesley felt the Clerk’s suggestion was not in the best interest of the zoning changes.

 

The Commission discussed the 300 ft. standard range for property owner notification. 

 

Frank Griswold read excerpts from a 1991 letter from City Attorney Tans to City Planner Bechtol regarding spot zoning.  Mr. Griswold stated that size does matter for rezones.  A benefit must be shown to property owners.

 

After a brief discussion it was decided more considerations would be presented at the next meeting.

 

HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO CONTINUE TO NEXT MEETING.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

K.        Staff Report PL 04-109  Re: Commission Work List – On-going.

 

The Commission  briefly discussed the work list.

 

REPORTS

 

A.                 Borough Report

 

Commissioner Foster said it was a good idea for the City’s Planning Commission to come to the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Planning Commission to see it in process.  Around and bordering the city the effect of a road being built in Kachemak City to a subdivision will be felt.  The Borough has no oversight on Kachemak City and the requirements that property owners in Kachemak City put money forth to repair their roads.

 

B.                 Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

None.

 

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

City Planner McKibben explained the Commission does not need words within the findings that are clear and similar to what exists in the Code, as the findings are currently tied to the Code.   

 

Ms. McKibben explained the Planning Department has been lax in accepting items for the packet.  They are now working to follow the Policies and Procedures Manual enforcing the deadlines for accepting items to allow the packets to be distributed timely.  When working on Code amendments the Commission proposed amendments, there was a meeting to finalize and the public had an opportunity to look at it.  The department is trying to slow down the pace to allow the public lots of opportunity to comment.  She stated it is important to do a better service to the public. 

 

City Planner McKibben reported Dotti Harness has been hired as Code Compliance Planning Technician.  Interviewing for the administrative position is completed and she hopes to offer the position to someone by week’s end.

 

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.        USACOE Public Notice of Application for Permit – Halibut Cove.

            B.        Memorandum 05-138(A).

            C.        Zoning Violation Table – Update

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

 

Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject.  The Chair may prescribe time limits.

 

Katherine George said a member of the public has a hard time hearing what is decided for the public good. Earlier in process there was more support for further discussion to amending HCC 21.70.

 

Frank Griswold told the Commission to avoid the appearance of impropriety they should be very careful about assemblage of a quorum. As to Commissioner Lehner’s conflict of interest it should have been disclosed even if her motion for the conflict didn’t get a second.  Mr. Griswold commented he does not believe any action should be approved be default, although he understands the Commission’s reasoning is for fairness to the applicant.  He sees it as arbitrary to say if the issue is not heard within thirty or sixty days the applicant automatically gets it.  The Commission has findings to show their actions are properly based in their authority and there would be no findings with a default approval. 

 

Mr. Griswold said he was surprised to see the procedural change in public comments on minutes.  If there are two places for the public to comment, items on the agenda, and items not on the agenda, he questioned why he has to wait until the end of the meeting to comment.  Chair Chesley said the discussion has gone round and round and he started soliciting public comments at Mr. Griswold’s recommendation.  Chair Chesley stated he was told it was incorrect in his doing so, as the appropriate amendment was not made to amend the agenda.  Deputy City Clerk Johnson stated it would require an amendment to the bylaws, as currently public comments follow the approval of the minutes.  Mr. Griswold stated on August 3rd he provided a three-page laydown outlining omissions, errors, substitutions and lack of quotes to his comments within the minutes.  He said there is potential for manipulating the minutes and changing someone’s comments.  Mr. Griswold said when he points out the errors why doesn’t someone listen to the tapes and say he didn’t say that and he doesn’t like the new words.  The tapes disappear and ten years from now the minutes are all that will be left.  Sanitizing minutes is not proper.  City officials do not need to be protected.  Over generalization of comments neutralize them and it is a subtle and effective form of censorship.  Mr. Griswold asked who had omitted his reference to the hermaphrodite CUP and Deputy City Clerk Johnson stated it was her that transcribed his reference to a CUP of diverse elements, her interpretation of the word.

 

Chair Chesley told Mr. Griswold written comments to the Clerk are appreciated.  Some people show up and add to their written comments and do not want to hand correspondence off to the Clerk.  Other people have told Mr. Chesley that Mr. Griswold has received pretty unfair treatment from the Clerk’s office in the editing of comments.  Chair Chesley stated the minutes are not a verbatim transcription of the entire meeting and there has to be some editorializing of them. 

 

Bill Smith said when it comes to minutes the comments of the audience are by far more fully recorded than those of the Commission.  As to the timing of public hearings and the public’s opportunity to comment, the Code states the minimum rather than the maximum.  In the past to meet the public notice criteria a month was required before a public hearing could be held.  In order to enable some issues to be heard earlier the public notice requirement was amended to a week.  The Clerk’s office was uncomfortable messing with the city schedule so the time was amended with the City Attorney concurring this was appropriate.  If there are issues that the Commission wants to take more time on they can do that.  As to notification of affected property owners within the 300 ft. area of subdivisions, that is the minimum.  When an issues comes up that will have an impact on a range of neighbors, there is nothing to say notification cannot be extended further than the 300 ft. range. 

 

Mr. Smith explained zoning district amendments are a process handled by ordinance.  The ordinance amendments can be initiated by property owners, requiring 50% or more approval, with terms to incorporate property owners within so many feet.  Mr. Smith said in Oregon the initiative is approved by the voters if it is a change in zoning that will affect property owners.  They have the ability to comment and control growth, although they are held hostage to the property owner that feels there may be a negative impact.   He said zoning is for the community as a whole and coming together allows for decisions based on the outlook.  Default approval as found in the KPB plat requirements puts a step in the slow process of government.  As to mobile homes Mr. Smith believes they should only be permitted on the parcel where the mobile home and parcel are owned by the same person.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

 

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

 

Commissioner Lehner said the handout on open space is meant to initiate discussion.  Green spaces set aside are valuable to the community.  Although it is difficult to quantify their value there should be consideration for doing so.

 

Commissioner Hess commented that high density and Rural Residential may be compatible as long as a lot of open space is maintained. 

 

Commissioner Pfeil thanked Planning Technician Julie Engebretsen for the new zoning maps.  He referred to a planning commission journal that stated a thriving downtown should be at the heart of the Comprehensive Plan, not just a component of the plan, but a guiding principle.

 

Commissioner Foster stated Commissioners Lehner and Hess have read more on the subject of green space, but a lot of open space can still allow for higher density in Rural Residential.  He said we can put ourselves in the Lower 48 standards or chose to maintain green space around development.

 

Commissioner Kranich appreciated receiving the packet earlier.  He said getting through the minutes requires more reading time than the other information in the packet.  The ongoing thing with the Development Activity Plan, Storm Water Plan and residential zone is vital for development and the language should include that parcels or lots containing more than one, three or five acres or a combination of lots by the same owner will apply too.  If we make it apply to everyone it would create a tremendous burden for the City’s finance department.  Mr. Kranich said if it was aimed at every John Doe that builds, a second story on the library would be needed to review all the requests.  He hasn’t found anything that says the plans have to be developed by a qualified engineer.  Commissioner Kranich stated he would like to see the minutes to reflect the discussion of property owners in Kachemak Way area as to the Quiet Creek community.

 

Commissioner Connor thanked the citizens of Homer who have put in a lot of time and energy.  She is heartened by the community support and surge of interest in the planning issues.  She thanked the citizens for doing their homework, showing up and speaking their mind.

 

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 11:40 p.m.  The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for September 7, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., in the Cowles Council Chambers.  There will be a Worksession at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

_________________________________

JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: ________________________

 



[1] Mr. Bennett’s interpretation of the Transportation Plan.

[2] Commissioner Foster’s comment was made as a joke.

[3] The Commission decided to attend the September 12, 2005 KPB Platting Committee at 5:30 p.m. and the Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m.  This will allow for proper advertising.