Session 07-18, a Regular Meeting of the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER
FOSTER, HESS, HOWARD, KRANICH, MCNARY, MINSCH
EXCUSED: COMMISSIONER
ZAK
STAFF:
DEPUTY
Prior to roll call Chair Kranich recognized new
Commissioner Pat McNary and noted for the record that he had read, understood,
and signed his oath of office as witnessed by the Deputy Clerk.
AGENDA
APPROVAL
City Planner McKibben noted that the minutes from
the
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.
Frank Griswold, City Resident, was curious if
Commissioner McNary had the chance to read the minutes from November 9th
and if he is able to participate in the reconsideration. Mr. Griswold
questioned Chair Kranich’s residency, stating that Borough records indicate
that Chairman Kranich and his wife claim the personal property tax exemption
from 2000 to 2007 on a property over at Tutka. In the October 2007 City
Directory, Chair Kranich is listed as a resident Commissioner. He asked if
Chair Kranich can explain if he is a resident at Tutka or a city resident. Mr. Griswold commented regarding rezone 07-01.
He said there is a lot of new information that has been presented, some is new
evidence and he thinks it would only be fair to open the public hearing again
and let people rebut the new material. He challenged City Planner McKibben’s statement
in memorandum 06-206 regarding the Beluga Lake Lodge a year ago where she said
an extension of an existing district cannot be considered a spot zone. In the
City Attorney opinion Attorney Tans stated to the City Planner “You advised
that some have asserted that rezoning a single lot is always an unlawful spot
zone according to
RECONSIDERATION
Commissioner Minsch left the table due to her
conflict of interest that was determined at the
HESS/HOWARD I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE REZONE OF THE
Commissioner Hess said he thinks there has been a
lot of information provided in the packet and it is worthy of reconsideration
since there is so much information to discuss on the issue.
Commissioner McNary noted that there were
additional letters provided as laydowns and he would like an opportunity to
review them.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, HOWARD, MCNARY, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich stated that this w
Commissioner Minsch returned to the table.
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 the Minutes of
2. Time
Extension Requests
3. Approval
of City of
4. KPB
Coastal Management Program
5. Commissioner
Excused Absences
The minutes of
Commissioner McNary requested an excused absence
for the March 19 regular meeting. He w
PRESENTATIONS
Presentations approved by the Planning Director,
the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may
address the Planning Commission.
A. Update
on Town Center/City Hall Project - Design Team
MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER
HESS
Commissioner Hess stated that he was notified that
his company is a successful contractor for the general contractor of the GCCM
team, so he has a financial relationship to the project when it goes forward.
Commissioner Foster noted that the Commission needs
to ensure full attendance as this w
VOTE: YES: MCNARY, HOWARD, MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess left the table.
MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER
MCNARY
Commissioner McNary advised the Commission that he
is the project manager with Jay-Brant for this project and has a substantial financial
interest as Jay-Brant pays his wages.
VOTE: YES: HOWARD, MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER
Motion carried.
Commissioner McNary left the table.
Chris Beck commented that Agnew::Beck has been
hired to design and build a town square and an adjoining City Hall. The City
Hall is motivated in part by the fact that the existing City Hall is getting
old, but also by the desire to help make this town center area come to life as the
civic anchor for the area. Mr. Beck spoke about the master plan. He briefly outlined the steps to get to the
end result. The first concept is a notion to develop a corridor of pedestrian
movement, green space and drainage that runs north/south to connect Pioneer
through the plaza to City Hall and eventually going down to Bishops Beach.
Concept two is that in places where it works best there are a lot of small
scale roads. They are suggesting bringing in some north/south and east/west
roads, a diversity of smaller roads where traffic goes slow, on street parking,
and lots of ways to get in and out. The third notion is the ideal
characteristic of the eventual town square is that it’s the center point of
many different paths of places people want to go, including the museum,
theater, old town,
Brian Meissner, architect with ECI Hyer, discussed
the planning process. This project w
Tanya Iden with Agnew::Beck,
added that this project is linked to the University and their purchase of the
current City Hall building. She recognized the University’s efforts to create a
neat University District for the College and how this project w
Chair Kranich called for a break at
Commissioners Hess and McNary returned to the
table.
REPORTS
A. Borough
Report
Commissioner Foster commented that KPB Ordinance
2007-1930 was brought to the Borough Planning Commission. The ordinance appropriates
$50,000 from the general fund to be used in developing a new comprehensive plan
for the City of
B.
There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning
Commission Report.
C. Planning
Director’s Report
City Planner McKibben reviewed her staff report.
There was brief discussion regarding the need for the initiation of a rezone of
lots near the water treatment facility.
It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to provide information
at a future meeting to initiate the rezone process.
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 PL07-103, CUP 07-14,
Commissioner Minsch advised the Commission of an
appearance of bias. She explained that her neighbors in
Commissioner Hess declared that this project was
out to bid a while back and his company bid on a portion of the project. The
bidding process is over and his company was not awarded a bid and there is no
financial gain expected with regard to the process of this CUP. He does not
feel like he would have a bias regarding the decision of this CUP.
FOSTER MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER HESS
Chair Kranich asked if there was a second and there
was no second. Motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner McNary declared that the company he
works for bid the project, he was the estimator on the bid. His company was not
awarded the bid. As far as he knows the job has not been awarded, there is a
possibility that it may be re-scoped and re-bid, but said that Jay Brant will
not be bidding on any re-bid of this project should it hit the street
again. He is familiar with the project
and does not have any bias regarding this CUP.
Chair Kranich opened the floor for a motion
regarding Commissioner McNary’s disclosure.
No action was taken.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
She noted that there is no space available on the lot for parking. Staff
followed the process outlined in code and went to the Port and Harbor
Commission to allow for the five parking spaces to be located on a multi use
parking spot. There is additional parking available within the State
right-of-way. The State w
Chair Kranich opened the Public Hearing.
Scott
Frank Griswold, city resident, asked how this PUD
is different from a regular CUP and how it is different from an encroachment
permit. He would like to know what concessions the applicant is making for the
encroachment. Without the encroachment he wonders if there would be room for
the five parking spaces and the City wouldn’t have to provide any off the lot.
He asked if it is allowable for the parking to be off the premises.
There were no further comments and Chair Kranich
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Worthington responded that if the stairs were
not there, there would be room for the five parking stalls, however there would
be nowhere else to put the stairs.
Marie Bader, applicant with the Kachemak Shellfish
Mariculture Association (KSMA), explained that the platform was built in 1985. The
stairs built at that time did encroach into setback but were not built to
today’s
MINSCH/HESS I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT
The Planning Commission concurs with the Port and Harbor Commission and
forward their recommendation to the City Council that would allow KSMA to:
“Lease(use) of five nondesignated parking spaces for a
yearly fee in proximity to the project to fulf
Based
on a Commercial/Industrial PUD STAFF RECOMMENDS HAPC grant approval of:
Staff recommends
that the HAPC approve CUP 07-014 conditions as follows:
Commissioner McNary questioned the operation
schedule and building completion date. Mr. Worthington said that the building
will be open year round. He noted that the start date has changed so the ending
date will need to shift back. City Planner McKibben noted the staff
recommendation which, if adopted, states that construction will begin within
one year of decisions and findings.
Commissioner Foster said he likes the traditional
look of the building and questioned the status of parking for the boardwalk
where Glacier Burger is located. City Planner McKibben responded it’s her
understanding that on the west side of the spit a vast majority of the parking
is taking place in the right-of-way. Most of them have parking spaces on their
site and the right-of-way in some areas is narrower, resulting in more land
than what is available in the applicant’s case. Mr. Foster further questioned
whether this is considered non-conforming. City Planner McKibben said they
hadn’t considered this for nonconforming.
There was discussion regarding the five required
parking spaces that are proposed to be located off site. Commissioner Hess expressed his understanding
of code that at a minimum the site where the development is must provide five
spaces for employees on site and if there are other employees, those have to be
accommodated whether they are off site or on site. An interpretation that
parking would not be calculated for the other uses as far as required parking
would be unreasonable because of the problems it would cause on the spit. He
doesn’t see where the CUP meets the intent of the Code regarding parking by any
stretch of the imagination.
Commissioner McNary commented his understanding
that City owned multiple use parking facilities gives the option that required
parking for a development may be located off site in City owned multiple use.
It is to allow an option for people on the spit, specifically, that don’t have
the room for five spaces on their lot.
Commissioner Foster concurred with Commissioner
McNary noting that discussion of this parking option came up before regarding
Commissioner Hess continued to argue that
Commissioners continued discussion, reiterating
their differing interpretations of the parking code.
City Planner McKibben stated several times
throughout the discussion that the Commission could postpone action and she
would provide them more information that she has recently researched but was
unable to compile in an orderly fashion prior to this meeting.
There was discussion of the timeline for approving
a CUP and upcoming absences.
Other questions raised included:
·
Whether
parking in the State right-of-way could count toward their required parking.
·
The
situation of parking on both sides of this property.
·
Time
constraints for the CUP PUD process.
Mr. Worthington commented that the 80 seats for the
restaurant is based on the fire code allowance regarding the size of the
building. He ran the calculations and came up with 40 parking spaces for a
requirement. He said the restaurant is believed to accommodate probably 40 max, which calculating the required parking would be
about 30 spaces. What they ran into with the State is that all required
parking has to be somewhere else, then they can use the right-of-way. Mr.
Worthington said if they can determine they need 30 stalls, by using the
formulas in the code and use the parking on lot 10 across the street and
convince the State that the requirement is met they can utilize the
right-of-way for parking and have all the required spaces.
It was clarified that eaves can encroach 2 feet
into the side yard setback.
Ms. Bader commented to the Commission regarding the
adjacent properties. There is a City owned property to the north and camping to
the south. The City owned property and KSMA property can’t be used for parking
specifically because it is tidal and subject to daily intrusion of the water.
The right-of-way starts where one could safely park a car.
Chair Kranich commented that the square footage of
the foot print is stated as 29.6% on the staff finding, so staff used the 30%
to use flexibility. He feels that 30% was put in code for a dividing point and
this wouldn’t qualify as it is 29.6%. City Planner McKibben noted that there
are other reasons for requiring the CUP process, being that close staff felt it
seemed reasonable to consider it at 30%. Chair Kranich disagreed.
There was discussion with building height and construction
in a flood velocity zone. The Fire Chief didn’t have any comment regarding
access.
Commissioner Hess noted a discrepancy between the
on line and printed version of
HESS/HOWARD I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO
POSTPONE ACTION ON THIS PUD REQUEST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS STAFF CAN BRING BACK
ANSWERS TO SOME OF OUR CONCERNS
There was discussion regarding a scheduling a
special meeting. The Commission agreed to meet on Friday December 14th.
HESS/MINSCH
There was no discussion on the motion to amend.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
VOTE: (Subsidiary motion as
amended): YES: HESS, FOSTER, MCNARY, MINSCH, HOWARD, KRANICH
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL07-113, Open Air Business Definition
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Chair Kranich opened the public hearing.
Marsha Rouggly, vendor and Boardmember with the
Homer Farmers Market, expressed her concern with the requirement for a CUP for
open air markets. She commented regarding the definition which states open air
markets are conducted outdoors or under a canopy for protection from the elements.
She said that some of the vendors have a trailer or building that is used
temporarily and asked if it changes them from an open air market since there
are a few trailers and small buildings.
City Planner McKibben noted that the CUP issue is
an agenda item that w
Margarida Kondak commented that they would like
more clarification whether the Farmer’s Market w
Chair Kranich noted that the definition has the
word “including” and it means that anywhere open air business is allowed,
Farmer’s Market is allowed. Other types of open air businesses are also
allowed.
There were no further comments.
Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
FOSTER/HOWARD I
Commissioner Foster commented that this cleans up a
concern that the Farme’s Market is currently allowed
in the
Commissioner McNary suggested rephrasing to say
“conducted outdoors, under a canopy or temporary/mobile structure for
protection from the elements.”
MCNARY/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE
ORDINANCE TO READ THAT WAY.
There was discussion that the canopy’s and small
buildings stay on the location for extended periods of time. It was noted that
regulations can’t be included in the definition. It was further noted that
adding open air business to other districts is coming up later on the agenda
and regulations can be discussed then.
VOTE: (Primary amendment) YES: MCNARY, HOWARD,
KRANICH, HESS
NO:
MINSCH, FOSTER
Motion carried.
It was noted for the public that this w
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: FOSTER,
HOWARD, MCNARY, KRANICH, HESS
NO:
MINSCH
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich called for a break at
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.
There were no plats scheduled.
PENDING
BUSINESS
A. Staff Report PL07-114, Reconsideration of Staff Report
PL07-106, Rezone 07-01, East End Road UR to RO (If Reconsideration is Approved)
Commissioner Minsch left the table due to her
conflict of interest that was determined at the
City Planner McKibben reviewed the supplemental
staff report.
Commissioner Hess questioned the applicant
regarding the intent of having a green house on the adjoining lot. He commented
that the Code allows split zoned lots and the desired uses are allowed for both
zoning districts, he asked Mrs. Minsch if she had a problem with the split zone
lot if it can be used as she intended.
Mrs. Minsch responded that at the advice of the
City Planner she followed these steps, spent $500 and did what she thought was
following the rules of the City. It makes more sense to her not to have a split
lot, but to have it as the same zoning.
City Planner McKibben clarified that a greenhouse
is an allowed accessory use. In order to have an accessory use, there has to be
a primary use. If the lot line is vacated they can build an accessory
structure. She commented in opposition of split zone lots.
There was discussion between Commissioner Hess and
City Planner McKibben regarding other instances where this has occurred. Ms.
McKibben commented that there have been instances where split zoned lots have
been used to make a bad situation better. She referenced the 1983 staff report
regarding the
Other discussion points included:
·
Having
a land locked lot creates issues with getting utilities and access into it.
Changing its zoning wouldn’t resolve it.
·
There
doesn’t appear to be any public benefit/need or justification for the rezone.
·
The
Code allows split zone lots and the intended use for the property is allowed
when they combine the lot.
·
The
process of the petition needs to be reviewed especially regarding “area
concerned”.
·
Split
zoned lots don’t seem to be an issue with the Borough.
·
The
Commissions recommendation goes to City Council and City Council makes the
final decision.
·
From
a practical stand point, looking at the situation and zoning of this lot and
the lots around it, it doesn’t look like it should have been zoned this way to
begin with.
HESS/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT
STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WILL BECOME THE COMMISSIONS
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE
ATTACHED REZONE TO THE
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: (Primary amendment) YES: HOWARD, HESS,
KRANICH, FOSTER, MCNARY
Motion carried.
HESS/HOWARD I MAKE A MOTION TO ADD A FINDING THAT
THERE IS NO PUBLIC NEED OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: (Primary amendment) YES: KRANICH, HESS,
MCNARY, FOSTER, HOWARD
Motion carried.
HESS/HOWARD I MAKE A MOTION FOR ANOTHER FINDING
THAT THERE IS NOT A RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
There was no discussion.
VOTE: (Primary amendment) YES: HESS, FOSTER,
HOWARD, KRANICH
NO:
MCNARY
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion
as amended.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: KRANICH,
FOSTER, MCNARY, HOWARD, HESS
Motion carried.
Commissioner Minsch returned to the table.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
MINSCH/HESS I
There was discussion of clarification of text in
table two. They agreed that staff determine the best date for the hearing.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, HOWARD, MCNARY, KRANICH,
HESS
Motion carried.
The Commission hears a report from staff.
Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests
for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask
questions of staff, applicants, and the public. Any items brought before the
Commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following
introduction of the item. The Commission will accept testimony or a
presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant (such as acceptance of a
non conformity).
A. Staff Report PL07-118, CUP 07-16, Ordinance to Add Open Air
Business as a conditional use to the
MINSCH/MCNARY I MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE STAFF REPORT
PL07-118 ORDINANCE TO ADD OPEN
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Homer Comprehensive Plan Public Workshop #2
B. Letter dated
C. Letter dated
D. Memorandum dated
E.
There were no comments
regarding the informational materials.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the Audience may
address the Commission on any subject.
Commissioner Hess asked Mr. Griswold how the Commission
graded out. Mr. Griswold said he is not easily impressed, but he is impressed.
He said there are no hard feelings or anything bad between him and Commissioner
Minsch. When he went to the health fair, she offered to draw his blood. His
concerns are strictly code and precedence; there are no personal feelings in
this. Despite the City’s supposed policy to not create split zone lots it does
seem to be a common practice. The
Marsha Rouggly pointed out that one thing they are
worried about regarding the Farmer’s Market is that they don’t have a lease on
the spot where they have been located. They could be told in May that they
don’t have a spot and could be scrambling to find another place. If they have
to find a new place and get a CUP, there would not be time. They don’t know
from one month to the next if they have a place and she asked that this be
something the Commission considers.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comments
on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Howard wished
everyone Happy Holidays.
Commissioner Hess welcomed
Commissioner McNary.
Commissioner Foster commented that he needs another
calendar. He wouldn’t have agreed on the special meeting if he would have
realized it was on a Friday. He advised the Commission that he had been asked
to meet Chris Beck tomorrow sometime. He had provided a letter expressing his
concerns to the Comp Plan group. He included a link to the very well done
report done by Mike Mason on the water rates and bulk water transport outside
the City.
Commissioners Minsch and McNary had no comments.
Chair Kranich welcomed Commissioner McNary. He
commented regarding Mr. Griswold’s questions about Chair Kranich’s residency.
He stated that he lives at
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 11:
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: