Session 05-26, a Regular meeting of the Homer Advisory
Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER FOSTER (Excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
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 and considered in normal sequence.
A. Time Extension Requests
B. Approval of City of
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ADD
MEMORANDUM FROM Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen
dated
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: NON-OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The Consent Agenda was adopted by consensus of the Commission.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO MOVE COMMISSION BUSINESS ITEM G TO ITEM A.
VOTE: YES: NON-OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A.
Approval of
B. Approval of
C. Approval of
The minutes of November 9,
November 16 and
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 approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
Kenton Bloom passed on informed
the Commission there will be a Planning Conference in
City Planner McKibben commented that she will be attending the conference and has funds available to pay for another registration, if someone wants to pay their own travel expenses.
The Commission conducts Public hearings by hearing a
staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing
items. The Commission may question the
public.
City Planner McKibben
summarized the staff report. She
explained that Councilmember Heimbuch proposed Ordinance 05-63 to amend the
zoning code. She explained that
currently proof of other applicable State and Federal regulations prior to
issuing a zoning permit is required and this amendment would modify how code
relates to wetland permitting. Ms. McKibben stated that she is not in support
of this ordinance because it does not promote responsible development.
Ginny Espenschade, City
resident, agrees with City Planner McKibben for the reasons stated in the staff
report. She added that it not only
hinders responsible planning, it also hinders responsible development.
Paul Gavenus, City
resident, commented to his belief that it is important that staff and the
Commission have as much information as possible before making decisions. He made reference to the Realtor’s meeting
from November 16, where the notion was presented that it is better to talk to
the Corp of Engineers (COE) early and often.
Mr. Gavenus stated his observation that this may be a knee jerk reaction
to the new wetlands map. He continued
that it doesn’t matter if you have a piece of property on the map or not, if a
person develops on the property and it turns out to be wetlands, they are
subject to fines. He added that
according to the EPA, the City has lost 20% of our wetlands.
City Planner McKibben
clarified that the 20% Mr. Gavenus spoke of is based on the removal of
historical wetlands information from the map.
Chair Chesley commented
that there is a wonderful letter from City Planner McKibben to the surveying
community, which talks about complete and extensive information to the
Commission.
Katherine George, City
resident, commented that she believes Commissioner Foster said it well at the
November 16 meeting in that it would save time and money to meet with the COE
prior to the preliminary plat process.
She expressed that it is the Commission’s time, the developer’s time and
money as well as the City’s time and money.
She concurs with the others that developers should have much information
as possible before coming to the Commission for approval of their plat.
Chair Chesley closed the
public hearing and asked for a motion to bring this before the Commission.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO
DISCUSS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL.
VOTE: YES:
NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Connor
expressed that she does not think this ordinance is a good idea. In reading through the “Whereas” clauses, she
wonders if they are legally defensible and is interested to know what the City
Attorney has to say about the ordinance.
Commissioner Kranich
commented that he does not support it and would like it if the Commission does
not support it.
Commissioner Pfeil
expressed his disagreement with the last “Whereas” clause and commented that
the City does have a compelling interest to protect its resources. He added that the amendment makes him nervous
as they have the responsibility to honor the resource plan. It’s goal states,
“To strive to maintain the natural resources of the City of
Commissioner Hess stated
his surprise that Councilmember Heimbuch has not pulled this after all of the
new information that has come from the COE as well as the information from the
meetings between the development community and Real Estate community. There were a lot of misconceptions of the new
mapping and presently there is not a determination of high and low value on the
new mapping. Mr. Hess agreed with Mr.
Gavenus that this action is a knee jerk reaction to the new mapping. Commissioner Hess asked that the comments
from staff be included with the Commission’s recommendation, it will go a long
way toward making Council understand that this is important.
City Planner McKibben
stated that along with the Commission’s comments, she plans to include
Planning’s staff report, which speaks to her concerns, and they will receive a
copy of the minutes.
Commissioner Lehner
concurred with Commissioner Hess’s comments.
She added that staff has made it clear that the Homer general permit
revision should be complete in advance of the 2006 building season which will
offer the same kind of expedited permit process with the data from the new
maps. Ms. Lehner further commented that
there is extensive data on the poor suitability of wetland soils for many kinds
of development purposes. She said it
doesn’t serve the building public by making it easy for developers to build on
soils that are not suited for development.
Chair Chesley expressed
his thanks to Councilmember Heimbuch for his effort to respond to the need he
heard expressed in the community. He
added that it is difficult to take on the task of writing an ordinance
amendment. Chair Chesley agrees,
however, that this is unnecessary. He
thinks as the process evolves and staff continues to work with the COE, most of
the issues will be worked out.
There was brief discussion
of the wording for a motion.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED THAT THE
COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGES AND SUPPORTS THE CITY PLANNER’S OPPOSITION TO ADOPTION
OF THIS ORDINANCE.
There was no further
discussion
VOTE: YES:
NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
Chair acknowledged that
this is recommendation 1.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED THAT IN
LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE HEARD NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTION THE
COMMISSION AGREES AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE ORDINANCE NOT BE ADOPTED.
City Planner McKibben
suggested the Commission list their reasons for not supporting the
ordinance.
There was agreement that
Ms. McKibben take the information from the minutes and
include the reasons in the recommendation she will be preparing for
Council.
The Chair acknowledged the
motion to be recommendation 2.
VOTE: YES:
NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
KRANICH/HESS MOVED THAT
RECOMMENDATION THREE, IN REFERENCE TO WHEREAS THREE AND WHEREAS FIVE IN THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE STATE THE CITY, AT THIS TIME, HAS JURISDICTION TO ISSUE
PERMITS ON LOW VALUE WETLANDS UNDER ITS GENERAL PERMIT PROCEDURE. THE COMMISSION THEREFORE FINDS THESE WHEREAS
CLAUSES NOT TO BE VALID.
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: YES: 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.
A.
Staff
Commissioner Hess
reiterated that he has had a conflict of interested with the other items that
have come before the Commission for the Kenai Peninsula Housing Initiative
(KPHI)
HESS/PFEIL MOVED THAT HE
HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THIS ITEM.
There was discussion that
this is a different type of action then the others.
Commissioner Kranich
doesn’t think there is a conflict in this case.
City Planner McKibben
commented that the previous conflict was based on his business relationship,
through the contractor, with the applicant and suggested that since he has been
excused from the other actions for this applicant for this parcel, the
Commission be consistent and excuse Mr. Hess.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH
NO: CONNOR, PFEIL
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben read
the staff report into the record.
Commissioner Kranich
commented that staff should be diligent in referencing a section line easement
throughout the staff report, explaining that in some cases it refers to a
section line, which is very different than a section line easement. City Planner McKibben concurred.
Commissioner Kranich also
commented that under the staff stipulation it should be added to grant an
approximately five-foot right-of-way enlargement. It doesn’t say what they are granting. Chair Chesley suggested this be brought up as
an amendment during the Commission’s discussion.
Steven Rouse, Executive
Director for KPHI, commented that KPHI entered into an arrangement with Ms. Tornes
to sell her a portion of the property on lot 20 that has historically been used
by her as a driveway, because her existing residence is very close to her
property line. He explained that to make
things simple and satisfy the requirements of granting agencies and funders, it
is best to sell this portion of the property to her. This is assuming that the other action had
been completed by now so as not to precluded her from
having sole and private use of the area.
Ginger Tornes, owner of
lot 6A, stated the purpose of this is to legally recognize the driveway she has
been using for 25 years and is in support.
She stated, however, she has never heard anything, until tonight, about
the City asking her to vacate five feet of her property.
City Planner McKibben
stated that she is not listed as an applicant and therefore was not sent a copy
of the staff report.
Ms. Tornes stated that she
is opposed to that idea as her house is too close to both lot lines and she
plans to add on toward the street because her house is very small. She explained that she has already dedicated
5-feet of her lower lot, lot 6-B, to the City so she feels it is too much for
the City to ask her to dedicate another five feet.
Seeing no other public
comments, Chair Chesley closed the public comment.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO
APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS DESCRIBED
Planning
Commission grant approval of this preliminary plat, with following
stipulations:
1. The owner
of
City Planner McKibben made
comment in reference to staff recommendation 1.
She said the Mattox right-of-way is 60 feet and pointed out on the map
where lot 6A, extends out and explained that the right-of-way is 55 feet
there. Public Works recommendation was
to dedicate five-feet along this lot line to the right-of-way to give the full
60 foot width.
KRANICH/PFEIL MOVED TO
AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 TO SAY THE OWNER OF 6A1 TO GRANT APPROXIMATELY A
FIVE FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY ENLARGEMENT ALONG THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE
Commissioner Lehner asked
for clarification from staff as to how critical the enlargement is.
City Planner McKibben
explained that when doing platting actions, it is the standard practice of the
City to acquire rights-of-way or bring them to the standards that the City
requires. In looking at the plat that was
submitted, Ms. McKibben said it appears that the house is set back more than 20
feet from the right-of-way, so she doesn’t believe it will create
nonconformity.
VOTE: YES:
PFEIL, CONNOR, KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
Commissioner Kranich
commented in looking at the dimension of the lot and taking into consideration
the setbacks and easements that are already in place and the building that is
in place, taking another five feet doesn’t leave much room for Ms. Tornes to
work with. He questioned the location of
the drainage along the east line and if there is adequate street drainage. City Planner McKibben didn’t know the status
of the drainage.
Mr. Rouse stated there is
adequate drainage by culverts and a ditch that parallel
Commissioner Kranich
clarified that the drainage is to the west of Ms. Tornes’ property. Mr. Rouse concurred and briefly explained the
work KPHI has done to mitigate any future problems or adverse impacts to Ms.
Tornes’ property.
Commissioner Pfeil asked
for clarification on the location of the water and sewer line.
Mr. Rouse explained that
they are within a portion of this property.
The replat identifies a utility easement which is part of the sales
agreement between the owners of lot 6A and KPHI. He stated that the main sewer line is on the
east side and the water line is on the west side. It is his understanding from discussion with
public works that the waterline does not encroach on the five feet that is
currently there.
Ms. Tornes concurred with
the comments regarding the utility lines.
Ms. Tornes commented that there are plenty of other roadways, like
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO
REMOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ONE.
Commissioner Lehner
commented that if the utilities are already in place, she doesn’t see the need
for an additional five feet. She added
that is unfortunate that Ms. Tornes was not aware of it tonight.
Chair Chesley commented
that Public Works has the responsibility of looking at the City’s future, and
in the future, Mattox will be performing the role of a collector. He added that other actions down Mattox would
have similar requests.
Commissioner Kranich
questioned if the east side of the Mattox right-of-way line is the same width
all the way up, explaining that there is the potential in the future that
sidewalks may be added and that jog in the road could interfere with a sidewalk
on that side of the street.
Kenton Bloom, project
surveyor, commented that to his recollection it is pretty consistent at 60 feet
going all the way down and to the best of his knowledge this is the only part
of the road, on Mattox, that is narrower.
He added that it’s not uncommon when preparing for a sidewalk to grant a
five-foot easement, which wouldn’t affect the setback.
There was discussion that
the City can construct a sidewalk within the easement and if it is an easement,
then there isn’t the same setback requirement as for a right-of-way. If action is taken to approve the addition of
the five-foot right-of-way, when the line moves over, the 20-foot setback moves
over with it. It was questioned if an easement that would allow for pedestrian
access for a sidewalk would be a pedestrian easement or something different to
allow for a physical construction of a sidewalk. Mr. Kranich asked if it would be appropriate
to take a break to check on that. Chair
Chesley said they would after finishing with the motion on the floor.
Commissioner Pfeil asked
for clarification of the motion. Chair
Chesley stated the motion on the floor is to remove staff recommendation 1,
which is to grant a five-foot right-of-way.
VOTE: YES:
CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, PFEIL
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley called for a
break at
KRANICH/CONNOR MOVED TO
CONTINUE ACTION ON PL05-132 TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
Commissioner Kranich
stated he would like to allow more time for staff to discuss with the property
owner, ramifications of different manners of which to do this, so all interests
can be satisfied.
VOTE: YES:
LEHNER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess returned
to the table.
B.
Staff
City Planner McKibben read
the staff report into the record.
Kenton Bloom, project
surveyor, gave the Commission some background information regarding the
plat. With regard to the building, the
owner lives out of state and occasionally has guests stay there. It is a residence and B&B to some extent. Of the five one-acre lots, three are intended
for family members and two for long-term employees. The property owner recognizes that he can’t
clearly shape at this time; his intention is to develop the property in an open
space cluster manner with limited footprints.
Mr. Bloom explained that the applicant wants to submit a revised
preliminary plat. He also explained how
the Crestview subdivision right-of-way came into this property. He said the house was there before the road
was dedicated; it created an awkward situation with the proximity of it to the
dwelling. Mr. Bloom hoped the Commission
would discuss the preliminary plat to help the ongoing dialogue with the client
so he will have a better idea of expectations the Commission may have.
Commissioner Kranich
commented, referencing the map on display, that
Mr. Bloom explained his
understanding that it is a connector going on to the property and it keeps the
extension of Cozy Cove from being longer than 600 feet.
City Planner McKibben
asked for clarification if the applicant is considering a revised plat or
submitting a master plan for the entire parcel.
Mr. Bloom responded that
considering the Public Works request for a master plan, a revision would take
that to heart.
Chair Chesley explained
that one of the reasons Public Works is asking for a master plan is because of
the many months of work that was completed on Quiet Creek. Something that happened in that plan that is
similar to this proposal is that there were different areas that were sectioned
off and presented some connectivity complications. It was explained by Mr. Chesley that,
hindsight being 20/20, it would have been much better on the Quiet Creek Plat
had their been a master plan. It would help force debate on how access
would be developed and so forth.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO
APPROVE THE JACK HAMILTON REPLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
There was discussion
regarding the need to continue action on the plat or deny the plat to allow the
developer to come in with a master plan.
Commissioner Hess
commended staff for the layout of the staff report. The analysis layout is different than what
they are use to and he thinks it is easy to understand when reading
through.
Commissioner Kranich asked
if there is a reason for requiring a subdivision agreement before a preliminary
plat.
Chair Chesley pointed out
that it is a condition of the preliminary plat, but not required before the
preliminary plat. It has been suggested
that the subdivision agreements are discussed prior to the preliminary plat in
hope that there will be fewer surprises to the developer when they bring their
preliminary plats forward. Chair Chesley
said this is a process that will be discussed after the first of the year.
Commissioner Connor echoed
Commissioner Hess’s comments on the improved format of the report. She commented that in the staff report,
number six under the analysis makes reference to drainage easements but she
does not see any drainage easements on the plat. Ms. McKibben responded that none were
proposed. Ms. Connor also questioned the
contour map mentioned in number twelve and identification of grades in excess
of 20% and noted in number thirteen.
There was discussion that a contour map may have been provided to the
Planning Department, but not included in the packet.
Commissioner Lehner
expressed her appreciation of having the wetlands overlay on the map that was
provided for display.
Chair Chesley commented
that he is surprised that the Fire Chief had no comment with space for fire
truck turn-around at the end of either of the road segments. It was such an issue for a previous
development that was before the Commission, where it seemed to be a minor
point, but there is no provision here.
He feels there are areas where this plat does not meet specific
requirements.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO
CONTINUE THIS ACTION.
Chair Chesley commented
that it appears the applicant is looking for an opportunity to further their
work with the City to meet the requirements of staff recommendations.
VOTE: YES:
CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, 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 consideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask question s of staff, applicants, and the public.
A. Proposed
Ordinance 05-17
Commissioner Hess provided
written comment regarding additional recommendations from the Commission to the
City Council.
Commissioner Hess explained
that it references additional problems with Ordinance 05-17 and expresses the
need to restate recommendations that were not dealt with at the November 28
Council meeting. He hopes staff can
draft another memorandum to Council that addresses these two issues.
The Commission agreed for
City Planner McKibben to prepare a memorandum for the City Council.
Commissioner Hess excused
himself based on previous determination of his conflict of interest.
City Planner McKibben
stated that KPHI has provided new information from First American Title Company
confirming the existence of the 33 feet of the remaining section line easement
running from the southwest corner of lot 20 Mattox Subdivision to East End
Road, which would be along the western edge of lots 19 and 18. She pointed out that there is an illegible
copy of documentation provided by First American Title as well as a signed
letter from Mary Ann Rowe. Mrs. Rowe has
identified the serial number and the patent number.
Ms. McKibben summarized a
letter from KPHI, which makes reference to the information provided by First
American Title Company and the following information that KPHI:
ü
Concurs with the
Commission in recognizing the impracticality of establishing any pedestrian
easement on the southern lot line of lot 20.
ü
Will improve the
drainage to meet the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit.
ü
Support the
current motion to vacate the entire section line easement running east and west
and encourages the Commission to vacate the north south portion as well.
Lastly, Mr. Rouse’s letter
states that although KPHI and residents have provided clear evidence that equal
or better access exists for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic exists, he
has offered a proposal that with the recommendation and subsequent approval of
the vacation of all section s lines on lot 20, KPHI will establish a pedestrian
easement on the southern edge of lot 19 that connects with the existing section
line on lot 19 and 18 and thus intersects East End Road.
Commissioner Kranich
questioned if it would be appropriate to establish the pedestrian easement on
the lot 19 boundary on this plat. City
Planner McKibben stated that it isn’t.
She explained that a paper easement can be done; it doesn’t require a
platting action. A paper easement can be
recorded with the same effects as if it were shown on a plat.
Mr. Rouse expressed his
understanding that the Commission is wrestling with the public good of trying
to establish a pedestrian easement that could connect east west and that they
agreed it is impractical for the southern section of lot 20 because of the
drainage issue. He firmly believes that
he and others in the community have demonstrated that there is equal and better
access for east and west corridor in other areas. There are many trails in existence that
people use and there is no need for another one. If the Commission is absolutely insistent
that there needs to be this pedestrian easement, KPHI would commit to recording
an easement on lot 19. He understands
the problem that he is asking the Commission to vacate the easements on lot 20
based on his word that KPHI is going to record the easement. Mr. Rouse stated that he would not lie to the
Commission, as he would lose his job, his standing in the community, and his
ability to negotiate and present anything to the Commission in the future. He stated that KPHI is a responsible
community developer, they have exceeded everything that
has been required of them and provide pedestrian access across lot 19 now,
which was the request of the City when they donated the lot and accommodation
was provided for in their site plan.
They are willing to record the easement, however, to move the total
vacation of lot 20 forward so they can start to allocate the grant money they
have received. Mr. Rouse pointed out
that if they do not get the section line vacation, it will kill the project. He stated that once the section lines are
moved they would, if requested, record a ten foot easement on lot 19 the day
the section lines were vacated. He
reiterated that there is equal or better access existing in the neighborhood
and asked the Commission to consider that before requiring the pedestrian
easement on lot 19.
Chair Chesley asked for
the motions on the floor to be read.
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen
read the following
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO APPROVE
LEHNER/CONNOR
MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO VACATE THE SECTION LINE EASEMENT ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LOT LINE TO THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE EXISTING 33 FEET NORTH/SOUTH
SECTION LINE EASEMENT.
Commissioner Lehner
expressed she has no problem with the motions on the floor and would like to
see it handled in two phases with the north south and east west. She sees no compelling reason not to vacate
the east west section line easement.
Commissioner Connor
explained that she did a site visit and noticed that at the southern lot line,
the lot is built up to the line and drops off into the drainage. Her concern is that the drainage will be
compromised if it is filled and developed upon.
She is concerned about the impact if the drainage is filled and
developed on.
Chair Chesley pointed out,
as the applicant stated previously, that the applicant and staff are working
together on a drainage plan intended to preserve the integrity of the drainages
there. He explained that once the easement
protection is taken away, there is no protection to it other than the integrity
the developer brings to it. The City
will work with the developer to identify the critical drainages and to protect
them. Chair Chesley commented that it
appears that staff and the developer have a plan underway.
City Planner McKibben
reminded the Commission that when they approved the CUP for the development on
this lot, one of the requirements was a drainage plan.
Commissioner Connor
commented that the drainage area is a wildlife corridor. It serves as a buffer and an open space and
those are services to the public. She
feels it is a greater public interest to keep this as a natural drainage.
Commissioner Lehner
expressed her understanding that maintaining a section line easement doesn’t
necessarily protect drainage, it protects access. There are better ways to protect the drainage
than maintaining the section line easement.
There was further
discussion about the effects of vacating the section line easement and
protecting the drainage. The possibility
of a drainage easement was suggested.
The point was reiterated that the drainage plan that is required for the
CUP is in place specifically to protect the drainage.
Chair Chesley recommended
voting on the amendment on the floor.
LEHNER/CONNOR
MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO VACATE THE SECTION LINE EASEMENT ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LOT LINE TO THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE EXISTING 33 FEET NORTH/SOUTH
SECTION LINE EASEMENT.
VOTE: YES:
PFEIL, CONNOR, KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO
RECOMMEND VACATION OF THE NORTH SOUTH 33 FOOT SECTION LINE EASEMENT THAT IS
ADJACENT TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, PFEIL.
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley asked if any
Commission wanted to make a motion to add a condition that vacation of the
north south section line easement is contingent upon granting of a pedestrian
easement on 1ot 19.
LEHNER/KRANICH SO MOVED.
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: YES:
LEHNER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley asked
Commissioner Connor if she wanted to make a motion that where the north south
and east west section line easements are vacated the drainages are protected by
drainage easements.
CONNOR/KRANICH MOVED THAT
THE NORTH SOUTH AND EAST WEST DRAINAGES ARE PROTECTED IN THE AREA OF THE
VACATED SECTION LINE EASEMENT.
Chair Chesley expressed
his understanding that staff would work with the applicant to protect the
drainages with roughly 15-foot easements.
City Planner McKibben
concurred with Chair Chesley and asked for clarification that the intention is
to do that through the drainage plan that has been required for the CUP, not
something that has to be identified on the plat. Ms. McKibben explained that in some cases the
Commission has recommended the identification or creation of a drainage
easement 15 feet on either side of the identified drainage. In this case there is an approved conditional
use permit that already requires a drainage plan. Identification of these can be done through
the drainage plan, or it can be required to be shown on the plat.
Commissioner Lehner
commented that her sense is that there is more flexibility in design if it is a
negotiated process through a drainage plan, than if it is a designated easement
through a plat note. Ms. Lehner said she
would like to have flexibility for staff and the developer to come up with a
plan that is as attractive and functional as possible.
There was discussion whether
the concern is adverse effects to adjoining properties and if so, it should be
addressed in writing that the developer is responsible for any adverse impacts
to neighboring properties. It was
explained that while adverse effect is part of the issue, Commissioner Connor
feels the land there now performs a function.
Mr. Rouse has confirmed this citing his reason for vacating the entire
east west section line is because it functions as drainage and is therefore unsuitable
for pedestrian use. The drainage
easement is a tool that the City can use, if that is the best avenue, or there
are other methods to protect the drainage that may be better.
Commissioner Kranich
agrees that staff and the developer should work through this in the drainage
plan because of the potential impacts to property owners that may result from a
platted drainage easement. He suggested
voting this amendment down and dealing with the drainage issue through the CUP.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO
AMEND TO ADD “BY DRAINAGE EASEMENT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE TOOLS AS DETERMINED BY
STAFF AND IDENTIFIED IN THE DRAINAGE PLAN.”
Commissioner Lehner stated
that she is trying to provide as much flexibility as possible for staff to come
up with the best design for site-specific situation.
City Planner McKibben
stated that the way she understands the motion, it says to show the drainage
easement on the plat. She thinks the
Borough might understand it the same way.
Further discussion ensued
regarding drainage protection. City
Planner McKibben stated the Planning Commissions intent of what is expected for
the drainage was very clear in the discussion of the CUP.
Commissioner Kranich
commented on his concern that these amendments convolute the main motion. He reiterated his previous comment that the amemdment be voted down and let staff deal with it through
the drainage plan.
VOTE: YES:
CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley asked for
the motion as amended to be read.
THAT THE NORTH SOUTH AND
EAST WEST DRAINAGES ARE PROTECTED IN THE AREA OF THE VACATED SECTION LINE
EASEMENT BY DRAINAGE EASEMENT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE TOOLS AS DETERMINED BY STAFF
AND IDENTIFIED IN THE DRAINAGE PLAN.
VOTE: YES:
CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, CONNOR
NO: KRANICH
Motion carried.
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: (Main motion as
amended): YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben read
the staff report.
There was no public
comment.
PFEIL/KRANICH MOVED TO
APPROVE STAFF REPORT 05-134 ACCEPTANCE OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES WITH STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the
Commission accept the structures located at T06S R14W S15 TRACT B-2
TICE-HENRIKSON-BOUMAN, Seward
Commissioner Pfeil
commented that all of the lighting needs to comply with standards set in HCC
21.48.080.
There was discussion that
approval of a nonconforming use allows the expansion of a use, it was
questioned whether the approval of a nonconforming use would exempt the
property owner from having to come back for a conditional use permit to add
more buildings to the lot. It was
pointed out that Code states a nonconforming use can expand, but it doesn’t
mean it can expand without the benefit of a permit.
City Planner McKibben
explained that the Commission is being asked to make that determination. She pointed out that they have made that
determination previously for another property.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ADD A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT ANY ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS OVER THE 200
SQUARE FOOT STANDARD WILL REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Commissioner Kranich
questioned how this falls in line with HCC 21.64.030(a)
Chair Chesley answered
that in many zoning codes if a use is determined to be nonconforming, it cannot
expand. Homer City Code says that a
nonconforming use can expand, but not without the benefit of a permit. That gives property owner the opportunity to
work with the City to make plans. He
pointed out that there are several triggers for the Conditional Use
Permit.
Commissioner Pfeil asked
what the process would be to have all the outside lighting upgraded to current
standards. It was explained that it
would be outside of the scope of this action, but can be addressed when the
property owners come back for a CUP to expand the use.
Lengthy discussion ensued
regarding the interpretation of code for an accessory building and
hotel/motel. An example was used that
the Public Works shed was built under the notion that it is an accessory
building to the principal building.
Under that interpretation of the code, these property owners could build
any number of additional hotel units, if it was
determined they were accessory uses to the principal building.
The Commission also
discussed the differences of zoning permit requirements versus conditional use
permit requirements in relation to this property. HCC 21.49.030 (k) was cited, which states a
CUP is required for more that one building containing a permitted principal use
on a lot.
Chair Chesley stated that
they need clarification on whether the sentence in the staff report that the
expansion of the guest cabins and motel will not only require a zoning permit,
but also a conditional use permit.
The Commission requested a
determination from the City Attorney.
PFEIL/KRANICH MOVED TO
CONTINUE THIS ACTION UNTIL THE COMMISSION CAN GET A DETERMINATION FROM THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Commissioner Hess reiterated
that what the Commission is requesting is clarification on HCC 21.49.030(k) in
regard to permitted use for hotel/motel and HCC 21.32.245 the definition of
hotel/motel.
VOTE: YES:
LEHNER, HESS, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben
directed to the laydown, which is comments from Frank Griswold on the staff
report. She read the staff report.
HESS/KRANICH MOVED TO PUT
CUP 05-11 APPROVAL OF REDUCTION OF SETBACK FROM A DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY AS
PERMITTED BY HCC 21.48.040(B)(4) AT 459 KLONDIKE AVENUE, LOT 1 BLOCK 10,
GLACIER VIEW SUBDIVISION NO. 2, BLOCK 8,9 AND 10 BACK
ON THE FLOOR.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES:
NON-OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
There was discussion that
there is no public hearing required, but there was additional information
received, which the Commission read during the worksession. It was explained that in order to take testimony,
a public hearing would have to be scheduled.
It was further explained that because this is a remand from the Board of
Adjustment, the Commission would not take additional testimony tonight, and
they may reopen the record to receive written comments.
Frank Griswold expressed
his disagreement and commented that public testimony should be allowed tonight.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO
REOPEN THIS ITEM TO PUBLIC HEARING AND TO POSTPONE IT TO MEET ADVERTISING
REQUIREMENTS.
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, PFEIL,
CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO
REOPEN THE RECORD AND INCLUDE CORRESPONDENCE FROM FRANK GRISWOLD DATED
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: YES:
CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
City Planner McKibben will
schedule the public hearing for one of the January meetings.
HESS/KRANICH MOVED TO
POSTPONE THE REMAINING COMMISSION BUSINESS ITEMS TO THEIR NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: NON-OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
G. Staff
Report PL 05-120 Proposed Ordinance 05-17 of the City Council of the City of
Homer, Alaska Amending Homer City Code Chapter 21.68, Concerning Appeals under
the Homer Zoning Code and Enacting Section 21.30.030 to Authorize Setting
Zoning Fees by Resolution.
REPORTS
A. Borough
Report
B.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S
REPORT
City Planner McKibben
spoke about the conference Mr. Bloom had mentioned earlier. It is a Smart Growth Conference in
Ms. McKibben reported that
a date hasn’t been scheduled for Don Blackwell’s nonconforming use yet; it will
likely be scheduled in February.
Ms. McKibben commented
that she has been looking at other communities in the state and the range of
residential zoning districts that they offer.
Homer has Urban Residential, Rural Residential and Residential
Office. She said we know there is a lack
of affordable housing in the community and more and more people are moving
outside the City and commuting longer distances to their jobs. She thought it would be worthwhile to collect
a variety of examples for the Commission to review.
Commissioner Hess
elaborated on previous discussion of the accessory buildings. It seems clear from the way Code is written
that if it is any other addition building, it requires a CUP. There is gray area on the hotels and motels,
but in other areas it is clear. It was
questioned as to why the storage building at Public Works didn’t come before
the Commission for a CUP, and they still haven’t heard an answer.
Chair Chesley pointed out
that Title 1 of Homer City Code states that before any of those types of things
get done it is required that the concept come before the Planning Commission
for approval.
Commissioner Hess added
that the staff and administration are in favor of doing things the right way
and it would be a good gesture if this got taken care of. It would be an acknowledgment from staff and
administration that they want to go by their own rules. Chair Chesley included a replat because their
buildings are straddling lot lines.
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. Letter
dated
Chair Chesley commended
Ms. McKibben for her letter to the surveying community. Ms. McKibben said she has not received any
response from it.
B. Letter
dated
C. Memorandum
dated
D. Decision
on Appeal for PL 05-95, Don Blackwell Nonconforming Use Application.
E. Violation
Complaint Log prepared by Dotti Harness, Planning Technician.
Commissioner Hess thanked
staff for the violation log. Ms.
McKibben explained that it won’t be in every packet but will try to include it
at least once a month.
F. Homer
City Clerk’s calendar for December, 2005
COMMENTS OF THE
AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Frank Griswold, City
resident, stated he can’t believe that there could be a remand without taking
public testimony. He was happy to hear
Commissioner Connor’s comments that buffers and open space are in the public interest,
he agrees with that and added required yards and setbacks. Mr. Griswold asked if he could comment on CUP
05-11.
Chair Chesley and
Commissioner Hess pointed out the agenda states the audience may address the
Commission on any subject.
Mr. Griswold commented on
an issue that was not in his letter. He
stated there has been a mistake made in the classification of the covered
walkway. He explained that there was
information in the appeal packet, page 73 and 74, which was deleted and deemed
inappropriate because it wasn’t submitted timely. He explained that it shows the parking plan
and the calculations on square footage and floor area. In looking it over he sees that the zoning
permit did not include any of the porch or walkway as floor area, it was
included as open space. He stated the
definition of floor area in code that says it includes things like balconies
and porches, and this is a porch, it is part of the tri-plex and should be
included. When it is included as floor
area, the development exceeds the density requirements. He pointed out that it is all built now. The ratio as it sits now is 1.1, which is
absolute minimum, so there is no way to put anything more on the lot. There is another requirement 21.450.040 (a)(2)(i)(i) which says the total floor area shall not be four
tenths of the lot area. His
computations, including the walkway that is outside of the set back, is 2900
square feet which is almost max and walkway in the set back it would bring it
3275 square feet. He asked that staff
take a closer look at the computations and makes a ruling on what the covered
walkway is. He reiterated that the
walkway is part of the triplex. He cited
HCC 21.32.200 which says “Floor
area" means the total area of all floors of a building as measured to the
outside surfaces of exterior walls and interior walls [1], stairways, elevator shafts, attached garages,
porches and balconies. In his opinion
this walkway, deck or what every they choose to call
it, it could make the rest of this issue moot.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners my comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Lehner
thanked staff for the letter to the surveying community; she thought it was
well done. She distributed a copy of
Natural Current newsletter from the Homer Soil and Water Conservation
District. She pointed out in the
newsletter that landscape hydrology diagrams will become available, and she
encouraged the Commission to track and keep an eye out for them. She feels it will give them a better visual
sense of how water flows in different areas.
Commissioner Connor
expressed her appreciation for the other Commissioners and staff for putting in
the long hours this last month. On a
dour note she said she is disappointed that Council chose not to listen to
their recommendations on proposed ordinance 05-17. It would be nice to have a more open dialogue
with the Council concerning the ordinance and she is not sure how to proceed
with that. She explained that the
Commission listened to public testimony and made recommendations based on a lot
of the testimony and she doesn’t feel like it got the attention it deserved.
Commissioner Hess advise Ms. Connor that there was discussion at the end of
the Council meeting and she may want to look at their minutes. Mr. Hess thanked staff for the letter to the
surveyors, the violation spreadsheet and the new format for the preliminary
plats. Mr. Hess thanked Deputy City
Clerk Jacobsen. He commented he can
imagine how difficult it is to try to get down what they are saying and thanked
her for her work.
Commissioner Kranich
commented that he appreciates the time everyone has put in recently and
appreciates the fact that there is good appearance that everyone is doing their
homework, studying their packets and knowing the information before they come
to the meeting. He explained that in
another venue in which he helped the City it was very apparent when people did
not read their packets. It is nice to
see this group dedicating the time to know the information.
Chair Chesley commented
that this is the last meeting of 2005, thanked Planning Staff, and the Clerk’s
Office for all they did this past year.
He thanked the Commissioners for the hours they put in to serve the community.
Chair Chesley recognized
each Commissioner individually. He
recognized Mr. Kranich as the newest Commissioner, said he is a welcomed
addition to the Commission and appreciates the elbow grease, and thought he
brings to the process. He is looking
forward to 2006 and what they will get done with the contributions Mr. Kranich
makes.
Mr. Chesley recognized Ms.
Connor for continuing to be their environmental consciousness. He said he can
see times when it is critical to keep that in front of the Commission. He explained that the farther north you go,
the more fragile the ecosystems are and with more infill development there will
be more down slope impact so it is important to have a voice for drainages,
wildlife corridors and those things in the environment, which are important.
He recognized Mr. Pfeil
for his commitment to the Commission as the most senior member. He brings new insight to every meeting. Mr. Chesley commended Mr. Pfeil because
although he could not be at the last meeting, Mr. Pfeil provided his written
comments for consideration.
Mr. Chesley recognized Ms.
Lehner as another of the newest members and commented that he has learned so
much from her knowledge of soil and water issues and how she has helped the
Commission with these increasingly important issues in the community, he would
offer similar comments to Mr. Foster, who is absent from this meeting. She and Mr. Foster have an expertise that
helps complement the expertise in the Planning Department.
Lastly, he recognized Mr.
Hess for his work as Vice Chair and his effort in studying to master his
knowledge of the code as well as supplemental documents, like Lee Sharps
opinions. He thanked Mr. Hess for trying
to put his arms around a vast body of knowledge and make it available through
his participation with the Commission and his commitment to technology in
getting them online at the table.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special meeting will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.
There being no further
business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved:
[1] Clerk’s note: This code citation was misquoted by Mr. Griswold. He read “interior walls” however in code it reads “including halls”.