HOMER
ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES
Session 07-11 a
Special Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order
by Chair Kranich at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER,
MCNARY, MINSCH, HOWARD
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER
ZAK (EXCUSED)
STAFF:
DEPUTY
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.
Chair Kranich explained to those present the procedures for
the Special Meeting and remind the Commissioners there was a motion on the
floor to approve Staff Report PL 07-103, CUP 07-14, 3851 Homer Spit Road for
the Kachemak Shellfish Mariculture Association.
City Planner McKibben requested from the Clerk if there was
a motion made at the
City Planner McKibben referenced an email from Ms. Dottie
Harness regarding a conversation held with Ms. Tammy Hagerty, Parks Maintenance
Coordinator concerning alternative parking solutions. She offered recommendations based on which process the Commission chose
to use to determine the parking requirements.
There was
discussion among the Commissioners and City Planner McKibben regarding relocation
of the ramp in relation to
The City
Planner reviewed the opinion from the City Attorney. She tempered this with an
explanation that the City Attorney commented only on the
Chair
Kranich requested testimony from the applicants. There were four who testified.
Steve Rykaczewski, a City Resident; gave a
brief summary regarding the process and what they have overcome to establish
the business of processing shellfish, he noted that it is not allowed on the
mainland, shellfish processing must be conducted on the Spit. Mr. Rykaczewski
commented that due to a lack of parking they may not be able do what they
planned on the property.
Parking issues on the Spit have been ongoing
for a number of years, he stated that 90% of the fishing charter companies,
water taxi businesses and other enterprises on the Spit do not provide parking
spaces to conduct their business, they either park on City or state property.
He commented that he just wanted the
same treatment and opportunity; the biggest contention he finds is the
restaurant, there will be a maximum of 40 seats; he assumed that the majority
of the people will be also taking charters or visiting other businesses, there
will not be additional traffic coming to the Spit to eat at the restaurant.
Police Chief Robl weighed opposing the project due to the fact that patrons
would have to park 350 feet down and cross the street. It was noted that
visitors already walked approximately 1000 feet from the fishing hole and
crossed the street to the Glacier Burger and this has been put up with; his
estimate is that there will be approximately 4000 to 5000 square feet of
additional space will be available to lease. The building is not as big as
stated. He thanked the Commissioners for their time,
he requested that if the decision was against the KSMA then what can be done on
this property to rectify this issue for them or even a future owner of the
property.
Gary Simms, President of the Kachemak
Shellfish Mariculture Association and City Resident thanked the Commissioners
for serving the community, he expressed his great disappointment over the
entire process, he explained how long they have been trying to establish this
business, and the funding that was obtained. He hopes that the parking issue
can be resolved so they can proceed. Mr. Simms made the same comment of the
restaurant being the problem; he stated that the idea was to lease out space to
support the building so that they could process shellfish. The goal to have an
oyster bar was an idea to provide a service that was not already offered on the
Spit. He emphasized that their main goal was to process the shellfish.
Cheryl Rykaczewski, City Resident wanted to
comment that the grant they have received was to support economical development
in Homer. There have been many delays, numerous hurdles that had to be overcome.
She expressed the desire to work out the parking issues with the City.
Tom Renfrew, City Resident and Project
Manager came on board gratis for the KSMA. He stated he was not a farmer, he has been assisting the KSMA with the engineering
and building requirements. He noted for the Commission that every year the
existing structure is exposed to the elements and is not used for a good
purpose it just rots away. He noted also that this was not another “t-shirt
shop.” He expressed the heartfelt desire to come to terms to over come this issue as these folks have already extend a large some
of money to comply with all the requirements.
Chair Kranich requested testimony from the
public.
Mr. Frank Griswold, City Resident spoke about
the following issues:
1.
He did
not feel there was justification to hold a special meeting. He knew of no
emergency.
2.
The
Planning Commission ignored all his missives about conflict of interest and
residency requirements.
3.
He felt
that Dotti Harness should not have written the staff report or abdicated for
the KSMA before the Port & Harbor Commission.
4.
He felt
that by association with Ms. Harness, Commissioner Foster has a conflict of
interest or bias.
5.
He feels
a disclosure was and is still appropriate.
6.
Commissioner
Minsch should have disclosed more about her relationship with her neighbors in
7.
He
believes that when that disclosure was made more was required by the
Commission, such as a vote.
8.
Mr.
Kranich eligibility to serve as the Chair due to questionable resident status.
9.
Who all
the members are of the KSMA and Mr. Kranich relationship with those members.
10.
The grant
funding is irrelevant to the zoning issues.
11.
Supporting
economic development is irrelevant to the issues of protecting public safety,
health and welfare.
12.
Commissioner
Hess requested an opinion from the City Attorney not Dan Westerburg, that
opinion is a poor & misleading substitute and should be excluded.
13.
The
presence of the City Attorney should have been requested and the Commission
should have sought input from the Fire Department and Public Works.
14.
Emphasis
has been placed on the five employee parking spaces during the meeting, but
almost no attention on the parking for the restaurant patrons.
15.
Code
enforcement is not an issue here, it is a red herring. The Planning Commission
has the authority to interpret the code as it applies to this application.
16.
If you
cannot figure out how or why a variance was granted in the past was probably an
inside job many of those involved were members of the downtown poker club.
17.
Large
permanent structures should not be built on the Spit in a surf zone according
to the Comprehensive Plan; the cannery can be built on the Spit but the
restaurant can be built in the Central Business District; they can sell the
land to the City, the City is required to obtain land on the Spit for open
space recreational use.
18.
KSMA
proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the zoning code, the purpose of
the marine commercial district, or the intent of the parking code neither the
requirements of the CUP or a PUD have been met and this application should be
denied.
Chair
Kranich requested additional testimony from the Public. There was none.
Chair
Kranich addressed the accusation by Mr. Griswold regarding his legal residency.
He proceeded to give a brief but fairly detailed account of his 60+ years in
Homer. He also addressed the allegation of friendship with KSMA. He admonished
that a little checking before making false and erroneous allegations will
prevent going through another exercise like tonight.
Chair
Kranich asked if there were any additions pertinent to conflict of interest
before deliberations begin. There were none.
Chair Kranich restated the motion
on the floor,
Commissioner Foster complemented
staff on the excellent work providing the information requested at the last
meeting; inquired if there was information available regarding the Alaska
Department of Transportation (AKDOT) right of way permits, how many are there,
if they are all current, and if they require a parking plan.
City Planner McKibben was not
aware of the number of permits, some may be expired, due to some of the
requirements by the AKDOT it can be assumed that a parking plan is required;
she commented that she is aware the AKDOT is trying to be proactive that
permits are up to date.
Commissioner Hess commended
staff’s efforts in providing the backup. It was apparent to him that there has
been no consistent standard on Spit parking requirements. Reviewing the code it
is not clear what that standard is, he has difficulty understanding the code
and determining the intent of the code. Visual inspection of the project site
indicates that parking will be in the right of way. He referred to the Alaska
Planners Handbook which recommended asking for clarification and direction from
the governing body. He recommends sending the code to the City Council for
clarification and interpretation of intent of the parking code. He would abide
by their decision. He is not comfortable making a decision.
Commissioner McNary read the
intent of Chapter 7 in the code. He believes that some of the interpretation as
written is very cloudy. He reviewed the code regarding employee parking, there
is no reference to any other parking. Reference is made to parking requirements
in town. The parking code circles around itself. He believes that the KSMA has
done everything to abide by the rules and they are not requesting anything more
than what others have out on the spit. He reviewed the variance requirements
for the Commission. He stated if they receive a permit from the AKDOT, pay the
fees and keep it current they would be abiding by State regulations regarding
parking. KSMA has fulfilled the maximum five spaces required on the property.
He stated that the code needs to be rewritten.
Commissioner Minsch agreed with
Commissioner McNary and does not want to hold the applicant hostage due to the
error in the City Code. It does not make sense to say that a business such as a
large restaurant is not required to provide parking. It may be that the
intention was to use these large City owned parking lots. It is a separate
issue and should be dealt with, but the Commission must work with the existing
code and it states that the applicant must fulfill the minimum requirements.
The Commission cannot continually hold applicants hostage because the
Commission does not agree with what the code requires. She would like to find a
solution to make it work.
Commissioner Foster agreed with
Commissioners McNary and Minsch and made the following points:
a.
City must gain control over public parking on City
owned lots.
b.
The calculation examples provided by staff are very
helpful and informative.
c.
Identification on how many spots the applicant is
requesting.
d.
As written, Commissioner McNary has interpreted the
code correctly.
e.
Permitting the required number of parking spaces on
the City property.
f.
Summarized the parking requirements and plans of
KSMA.
Commissioner Howard commented
that in practicality she is struggling with the issue. She voiced concern
regarding the existing conditions and hazards that are prevalent in the summer
with pedestrians crossing the roadway. Commissioner Howard stated the City is
in a terrible position in relying on a very poorly written document guiding the
Commission.
Chair Kranich commented that he
agreed with Commissioner McNary. He reviewed the code and worked through the
Spit parking he found no mention of patron or calculation based on use. It only
stated the required employee parking. The existing code does not have a
requirement.
Commissioner Hess argued that
there was no place in the code that allowed parking in the right of way that is
why he believes this should be submitted to Council for determination. They
have the authority. He does not feel that he has enough information to make a
decision on the matter. Council has the authority let them make the decision.
Commissioner McNary reviewed the
code and agreed that it did not specifically allow parking in the State right
of way. However, the State statutes do allow parking and even issue permits. He
then proceeded to review the code and demonstrated how it keeps referring in
circles. These referenced codes are not applicable on the Spit. This is then
open to interpretation. Here we are and here we sit and this Commission can
pass the buck or straighten this out. When a literal enforcement of regulations
and standards pertaining to the parking requirement would deprive a property
owner of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the City they can be
granted a variance. This is one solution. The second solution is to add the
requirement on the 6 parking spaces, application to the AKDOT for a permit to
park in the right of way.
Further discussion developed
regarding use of the City property for the required employee parking, parking
in the state right of way option, the argument that there is no allowance
within the code for parking in the right of way.
Commissioner Howard requested
clarification on the email referenced regarding parking next to the KSMA
property; and if the next step would be to enter into a lease.
City Planner McKibben stated it
was the opportunity to use five spaces in the adjoining property. The City
Council would have to authorize the Administration to enter into a use
agreement which is what the Port & Harbor Commission recommended. One
result from this meeting the Planning Commission supported the Port &
Harbor Commission recommendations with any changes, such as spaces to be on property
adjacent to applicants.
Chair Kranich called for a five
minute break at
Chair Kranich commented that the
idea that the applicant obtain a use agreement for space on the City property
adjacent; his concern was that parking spaces were a conditional use for open
space recreational areas. Would that require a separate CUP? Can the current
CUP be amended?
City Planner McKibben stated that
there was existing parking that was available for use as employee parking
according to Ms. Hagerty. The current CUP can not be amended.
Commissioner Hess questioned if
there was an existing CUP on the lot in question. Staff did not know. He stated
he could not support the CUP until City Council looked at this action.
HESS/HOWARD – MOVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION POSTPONE
Staff reminded the Commissioners
that they have forty-five (45) days from the close of the public hearing held
on
Commissioner Hess asked if the
Applicant would be amenable to the extension to allow this action is submitted
to Council for their direction and recommendation.
Commissioner Minsch stated that
the decision rests with the Commission and move it forward. You cannot please
everyone. The timeline needs to move forward.
Commissioner Hess wanted to avoid
the appeal process.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE. NO.FOSTER, MINSCH, HOWARD,
MCNARY, KRANICH
YES.
HESS.
Motion failed.
Chair Kranich commented that this
action was going to be dealt with tonight. There is a motion on the floor to
approve Staff Report 07-103. There may be recommendations from Staff Report
07-119 that should be included.
City Planner McKibben recommended
that the Commission use Staff Report 07-103 and the findings and
recommendations as the basis, she pointed out page 6 of the December 5th packet
that addresses parking, consider this section of the staff report and adopt the
sections of the Staff Report 07-119 as desired, then continue working through
Staff Report 07-103. Chair Kranich asked about the recommendation at the very
bottom. City Planner McKibben has requested an action from the Commission to
evaluate the number of spaces required and whether the spaces can be located
offsite or need to be onsite. Chair Kranich inquired if the Commission amends
if the parking plan on page 15 of the packet would have to be included.
HESS/HOWARD - I MAKE A MOTION TO
ADD A CONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PUD THAT THE PARKING
Further discussion evolved on the
responsibilities of the Commission, joint use of City property, removing
restrictions, parking plan.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE (secondary
motion). NO. MCNARY, HOWARD, MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER.
YES. HESS.
Motion failed.
There were further questions
regarding different actions from the Commission regarding amendments to the
recommendations. Chair Kranich summarized that if this was adopted it would
allow staff and applicant to work out the requirement. Staff reviewed sample employee
parking for different vendors on the Spit; the CUP issued for the Hockey Rink;
it was desired at the last meeting to hold them to mainland requirements;
reviewing the code included in Staff Report 07-119 there is opportunity for the
Commission to allow the five spaces to be offsite.
Commissioner Hess inquired how
the number of spaces was determined. Staff referred to page 6 in the packet and
gave a brief explanation and overview.
MCNARY/FOSTER-MOVED TO AMEND
STAFF REPORT 07-103 DELETE REQUIREMENT
TO lease
Commissioner Foster reminded the
Commission that Staff asked for a determination on the number of spaces
required. Commissioner McNary explained that this did not apply to the motion.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE. YES. HOWARD, MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, MCNARY.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Minsch inquired
about procedure to effect the changes in the Staff Report. City Planner
McKibben recommended that the Commission amend the Staff Recommendations.
MCNARY/FOSTER - MOTION TO AMEND THE
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON
There was no further discussion.
VOTE. YES. NON-OBJECTION.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
MCNARY/MINSCH -
There was no discussion.
VOTE. YES. NON-OBJECTION.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
General discussion ensued
regarding extending the twenty-five mile per hour speed limit through the
entire corridor; where that speed limit currently exists.
Commissioner Hess argued that the
Commission needs to deal with the required parking spaces even though the
parking plan states six he feels the commission needs to look at the overall
parking requirements. He would like to hear discussion whether they need to
recommend or require customer parking and this is why he recommended the City
lot which addresses the customers needs. Commissioner Minsch asked where the
Commission is required or has the authority to make that determination within
this action. Commissioner Foster argued that the public safety and health component
of code and their roles on the Planning Commission. Commissioner McNary agreed
with the concerns of Commissioners Foster and Hess but felt this was not the
venue to correct the problem. Chair Kranich suggested putting it on the agenda.
Commissioner Hess felt this was the perfect time to address the problem and
felt it would only be pushed back each time and not addressed. Commissioner
Foster suggested Commissioner Minsch make a motion regarding the parking
spaces. Commissioner Hess stated the Commission would only be showing more
inconsistency.
Chair Kranich stated that
requiring KSMA to use the submitted parking plan which designates six spaces
the Commission has determined the number of required spaces.
Chair Kranich asked for further
discussion.
Commissioner Minsch asked if any
landscape requirements were going to be amended or stay as suggested.
City Planner McKibben inquired if
the Commission wanted to limit the number of seats in the restaurant. There was
a brief discussion regarding the seating limits on the restaurant and place
additional conditions on the CUP.
FOSTER/ MCNARY - MOVED TO LIMIT
FIXED SEATING TO
There was further discussion
regarding the benefits of limiting the seating.
VOTE. YES. NON-OBJECTION.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich called for further
amendments to the main motion or discussion. There was no further discussion to
amend the motion.
VOTE. (Primary) YES. MINSCH,
KRANICH, MCNARY, FOSTER
NO. HESS, HOWARD.
Motion failed.
3. COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
(Members of the audience may address
the Commission on any subject. The Chair
may prescribe time limits.)
Mr.
Rykaczewski, KSMA requested an explanation of what just occurred with the vote.
City Planner McKibben stated he could contact her tomorrow and she would let them
know what options were available. Mr. Rykaczewski commented on the discussion
regarding parking designated for uses for this and that and inquired who would make
the determination and enforce parking regulations in the right of way, he
clarified his questions, he mentioned the Commissioners referencing the parking
in town, snow removal all very different from the Spit. He felt that the Spit
requirements would be very different.
Mr. Bill
Smith, Resident of Homer, commented that the work is almost complete on the
Comp Plan and there was going to be some items addressed concerning zoning on
the Spit but they backed away from that; zoning on the Spit is like falling
into a pit of Vipers, there is a plan for long range planning to address a
whole range of zoning issues, right of way parking, approaches to the ramps, permission
from DOT is debatable; in regards to leasing for off premise parking for a
project is for the life of the project and the City has to agree to this, he
felt it was a pretty large assumption. He wished everyone a Happy Holiday and
handed out chocolates to the Commissioners and staff for their hard work.
Mr. Frank Griswold
felt there were more issues than parking that should have been addressed; Staff
reports were not objective, they only addressed the positive aspects not the
negative ones. Staff is required to look at things balanced. Not focus on one
thing. It was alarming to him that some Commissioners were eager to give up
public right of way for a private business when the Comprehensive Plan gives
Open Space Recreational priority in this area of the Spit. To spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars on a Comprehensive Plan and then not pay attention to it
is for naught.
4. COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
(Commissioners may comment on any
subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.)
Commissioner
Howard wished all a Merry Christmas.
Commissioner
Hess wished everyone the same.
Commissioner
Foster wanted to commend the Staff again on a very well written and researched
project and was sorry it did not go all the way. Merry Christmas.
Commissioner
McNary felt that the staff report gave them all options that was
needed although the options that were needed were not in Chapter 7; this is not
over by a long shot; need to get our heads down resolve this issue. Happy New Year.
Commissioner
Minsch at some point would like to address the email that Councilmember Heimbuch
wrote regarding the process and ways on running the meetings; getting the work
done or not done; get somebody to train the Commission to be more focused and
do a better job getting their work done; Maybe this
will facilitate conversations at the Policy & Procedures meetings. Merry
Christmas.
Chair Kranich
thought that this was looked at long and hard; that Chapter 7 especially
pertaining to the Spit is sorely lacking; all concerned everyone on the
Commission would like to see this project go forward.
Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year.
There being no further business
to come before the Commission Chair Kranich adjourned the meeting at
RENEE KRAUSE, DEPUTY
Approved: