Session 07-02, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich
at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, SCHEER, ZAK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY (Excused)
STAFF:
DEPUTY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
All
items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the
Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There w
A. Time Extension Requests
B. Approval
of City of
C. KPB
Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
The agenda was
approved as presented by consensus of the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes
with any amendments.
A. Approval
of
Commissioner Foster questioned a
comment made by Valerie Conner that was noted in the minutes on page 16. He asked that the recording be reviewed and
the comment be clarified. Chair Kranich
concurred and asked if there was any opposition to approving the minutes of
Chair Kranich commented regarding public comments. He stated that after reviewing the Commission’s Policies and Procedures Manual, it is his interpretation, as well as staff’s, that an applicant does not fall under the same three minute time limit as public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT,
PRESENTATIONS
The
public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the
agenda. The Chair may prescribe time
limits. Public comment on agenda items w
Frank Griswold, City Resident, commented that on the agenda under old business it does not say that the public does not have the right to speak. Chair Kranich stated that on a matter that there has been a public hearing on and the public hearing has been closed then the Commission can receive no further testimony.
Mr. Griswold commented regarding the Comprehensive Plan Community Advisory Committee. He said he was surprised that the Planning Commission would give up their duty regarding the plan. The way he understands it the Commission doesn’t get to review the plan until the $86,000 has been spent and the draft plan has been formulated. He doesn’t know why they would want to serve on a Planning Commission and then let a committee do the most important task that a Planning Commissioner can do during their term. He noted that there are rules in place, including conflict of interest standards and oaths of office and the committee has none of that. There are stakeholders coming in to form this plan to benefit their personal interests and then the Commission gets to look at it. Mr. Griswold does not believe that is right. Mr. Griswold stated that he reviewed the Commission’s oaths of office and said that Commissioner Scheer is the only one that has the phrase that is required by Alaska Statues where he pledges to “honestly, faithfully and impartially perform all duties of the office.” Mr. Griswold thinks that the oaths of office are important and he thinks the Commissioners should be aware of what they sign and follow it. He said maybe the Commission needs to sign and file new oaths of office, and take a look at them from time to time.
A.
Borough Platting Officer Toll, introduced Marie Sweppy, Platting Planner for the Borough and gave the Commission information regarding the Borough’s platting time line.
· Complete preliminary plat is submitted to the City, the City has 49 days to act on it.
· Complete preliminary plat is submitted to the Borough, the Borough has 56 days to act on it.
· Public Hearing notices are sent, plats are sent to agencies, beneficial interests are notified, if known, staff reports are prepared and due for mail out packet 11 days before the Borough Planning Commission meeting.
· Packets are posted on the Borough web site 6 or 7 days prior to the meeting.
· Preliminary approval or denial by the Plat Committee of the Planning Commission. Any parties of record have 10 days after Notice of Decision date to request reconsideration of decision to full Planning Commission.
· Agency comments and utility request sent to surveyor.
· Final plat submitted for administrative final approval.
· Review letter sent.
· Mylar is submitted by surveyor.
·
When the final submittal is complete,
administrative approval is granted and the Borough signs the Mylar. It is sent to the recording office or to the
surveyor for transport to the recording office.
Recording is usually required within 5 days of Borough signature.
During discussion it was noted,
·
That an applicant
can request to extend the time that the City and Borough have to act on a plat
approval.
·
If the
Borough makes significant changes to a plat, the Borough may request that it go
back to City staff to review and staff will decide if it should go before the
Planning Commission. In some cases they
may specifically request that it go before the Planning Commission.
·
If a
developer puts in roads prior to final plat approval, the Borough may find it
necessary to ask for slope easements, wider right-of-way. The installation agreement that the City has
is the City’s tool to ensure roads are done properly.
Borough Platting Officer Toll reviewed some of the questions that the
Commissioners submitted via City Planner McKibben. A copy of her information was provided for
the record.
Discussion points included,
·
The
preliminary plat is conceptual and therefore engineering does not have to be
done prior to approval of the conceptual plan.
·
Requests
for the 3 to 1 ratio are made prior to engineering, but the engineer has to
confirm that it is going to work.
·
The
primary purpose of the 3 to 1 ratio is to attach unusable land to usable land;
an example would be to include wetland or a steep bluff. For taxable and ownership purposes the
unusable portion needs to go somewhere.
·
Sometimes
it is not bad to grant the 3 to 1 even if it isn’t based on terrain. Another reason may be based on likelihood of
development.
·
Commission
findings of fact are important in the event that the decision goes to
court. One finding is enough, sometimes
Commissions make more.
·
Recommendations
must be based on something that is codified or based on policy. Recommendations based on the Comprehensive
Plan would have to be considered on a case by case basis.
·
The
Borough only wants items on the plat notes that the Borough enforces.
·
Borough
Staff Reports now individually address Planning Commission concerns and
requests.
·
The
Borough fee for submitting a plat is $100 for up to five lots and $5 per lot
over five lots.
·
The
amount of contiguous usable property required for certain acreages has to do on
site waste water disposal and on site well and to ensure there is adequate
distance for the subject lot as well as adjacent lots.
The Commission expressed their appreciation for Platting Officer Toll
attending their meeting. She said she
would be willing to get together with them another time for a worksession.
RECONSIDERATION
There were no items for reconsideration.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The
Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public
testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Chair may prescribe time limits. The Commission may question the public.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report.
There were no public comments. Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
HESS/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION THAT WE OPEN DISCUSSION ON CREATING THE 21.41 SENSITIVE
No opposition was voiced and discussion ensued.
Commissioner Foster commented that essentially there are three levels of focus for flood damage. First are the minimal standards that FEMA usually supports regarding damage to structures; second is that building in flood plain does not affect fish and wildlife habitat; and third is that building in the flood plain does not have hazardous impacts on streams or sewage system impacts on infrastructure or down stream neighbors. He reviewed the amendments he provided as a laydown item to the Commission. The amendments are as follows:
Line 67:
21.41.010(C) Purpose. The purpose
of this Flood Damage Prevention chapter to promote and protect the public
health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses
due to the impact of flood and coastal high hazard areas.
Line 108:
Line 111: 21.41.030(a)(9). “Development” means any manmade change to
improved or unimproved real estate,
including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging,
filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials, or any
other activity which results in the removal of substantial amounts of
vegetation or in the alteration of natural site characteristics located
within the area of special flood or costal high hazard.
Line 199: 21.11.030(b) General provisions. A.
Lands to Which this Chapter Applies.
This chapter shall apply to all flood hazard areas within the City of
b. Basis for Establishing Flood Hazard
Areas. Flood hazard areas are identified
by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps with an effective date of
Commissioner Foster said that he found this information after reviewing other plans and from information received after attending the floodplains work shop.
It was clarified that the amendment for line 199 should start at line 196.
FOSTER/SCHEER I WOULD
Commissioner Minsch expressed her concern that what was advertised was to move this information from Title 12 and create a new chapter in Title 21 and not to amend the new section. She doesn’t believe it was noticed properly to make these amendments.
The Commission carried on discussion regarding whether to move the ordinance forward as it is in the packet or make the amendments. City Planner McKibben concurred, commenting that the first amendment regarding the purpose was acceptable, but the rest of the amendments could use some more discussion.
City Planner McKibben commented that the last sentence “Development activities should not jeopardize existing critical facilities” should be removed from the amendment noted for line 108 in an effort to take regulation out of definition.
There was more discussion for and against moving it forward.
FOSTER/SCHEER MOVED TO REMOVE THE
LAST
Commissioner Foster commented
that he supports the statement but perhaps it needs to be in another
location.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: SCHEER, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER
NO: MINSCH, ZAK
Motion carried.
There was discussion regarding postponing action on this.
City Planner McKibben commented that this revision was born out of discussion of where the City is going regarding the wetlands regulations and steep slope ordinance. This is a convenient time to make this move. If the Commission wants to look at a major rewrite, then it should be added to the Commission’s priorities and they need to determine when they want to deal with it.
HESS/MINSCH MOVED TO POSTPONE
FURTHER ACTION ON THIS ORDINANCE UNTIL THE
Commissioner Foster commented that the disadvantage to postponing is that it wouldn’t allow the public the opportunity to review it.
It was noted that another public hearing could be scheduled if needed.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS
NO: ZAK, FOSTER, SCHEER
Motion failed for lack of a majority.
Commissioner Zak commented in favor of moving the ordinance forward and dealing with changes as needed.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: SCHEER, ZAK, HESS, FOSTER
NO: MINSCH, KRANICH
Motion carried.
There was discussion regarding the meaning of “small poles” on line 77. They were unable to determine the meaning.
FOSTER/SCHEER I
There was brief discussion regarding the order of business.
VOTE: YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, SCHEER
NO: MINSCH, KRANICH
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report.
Frank Griswold commented that at
the last meeting City Planner McKibben had suggested that the Commission adopt
the current, flawed
· Table two is a portion of the actual table because he does not see where some of the footnotes apply, C-E for example.
· Page 4 says square feet of wall frontage, maximum allowed signage is 700 feet and over 150 square feet, but thinks it should say over 750 square feet. Saying 750 square feet and up would be clearer.
· Only one free standing sign is allowed per zoned lot. A definition of zoned lot would be helpful.
· It says it may not exceed ten feet. It is a clerical error and ten should be changed to match the eight.
Chair Kranich pointed out that Mr. Griswold is referring to a laydown item that was provided by Commissioner Foster and that the Commission hasn’t discussed yet. Mr. Griswold comment further,
· It says no lot may exceed 750 square feet and it should say no sign.
· Clerical error, it references public safety/benefit nature which is correct and in other portions it says “natures”. Nature is correct.
Mr. Griswold noted several other
clerical errors. He said that if there
is something significantly wrong with the
There were no further public comments and closed the public hearing.
MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION TO BRING THE SIGN CODE THAT IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE GATEWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR DISCUSSION.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster commented
that he provided this information for discussion purposes. He noted that a goal for the GBD is that it
should look different than the
Chair Kranich commented that presently there is no sign code for the GBD. Moving the ordinance forward as it is will provide some regulation for the area. Right now there is nothing.
City Planner McKibben commented that she has already noted many of the typographical errors and plans to correct those that do not change the intent of the code.
MINSCH/HESS I
Comment was made that it would not be harmful to make some basic changes to the types of signs that are allowed in the GBD.
Chair Kranich called for a break
at
HESS/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE
Comment was made in favor of amending portions that apply only to the GBD. There was discussion regarding temporary signs, which is any sign that is temporarily used and not permanently mounted. With the amendment, banners would not be allowed. It was clarified that the proposed amendment would include three changes.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: SCHEER, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDED MOTION TO INCLUDE THE CHANGES TO GATEWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT SIGN TO TABLE 3.
Chair Kranich noted that it would include four changes to not allow animated, changeable copy, internally illuminated signs or neon signs in the GBD.
There was discussion regarding sign types and keeping the GBD a tasteful entrance into town. Other comments included concern that the public and business owners should be allowed to review and comment on the changes.
VOTE (Primary Amendment): YES: SCHEER, HESS, FOSTER, ZAK
NO: MINSCH, KRANICH
Motion carried.
FOSTER/SCHEER MOVED ADD THE TWO WHEREAS CLAUSES:
WHEREAS, THE CURRENT SIGH
REGULATIONS DO NOT REFLECT THE
WHEREAS, SIGN REGULATIONS
Comment was made that the whereas clauses are informational and provide reasoning why the City is making this ordinance.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER, SCHEER
NO: MINSCH
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): VOTE: YES: FOSTER, SCHEER, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
NO: MINSCH
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.
There were no plat considerations.
OLD BUSINESS
Commissioner Hess advised the Commission that he has a close personal friendship with the applicants. He also stated that he had discussion with Mr. McNamara about the project before he had applied for the permit.
FOSTER/MINSCH MOVED THAT
COMMISSIONER HESS
Commissioner Hess was asked if he felt he could be impartial. Mr. Hess said he believes that he could be impartial, but he would be uncomfortable participating.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, SCHEER, KRANICH
NO: ZAK
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess left the table.
Commissioner’s Minsch was absent from the public hearing. City Planner McKibben questioned if they had reviewed the record regarding this item. Commissioner Minsch stated that she had listened to the recording. City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that Ms. Faulkner was in the audience if they have any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Kranich stated that because the public hearing is closed, they will not be taking anymore public testimony.
MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED TO ADOPT
It was noted for the record that the finding under item h should be amended to state that the outdoor lighting section of the Community Design Manual applies to the Rural Residential District.
Question was raised regarding whether permits would be required to put the buildings on permanent foundations. City Planner McKibben responded that if they were not changing locations, they would not need a permit. There was discussion that it was preferred that the buildings remain on skids due to the proximity to the bluff and seawall.
It was clarified that rooming houses are allowed in the district, the parking is sufficient and that there is City water and sewer to the lot.
VOTE: YES: SCHEER, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, FOSTER
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess returned to the table.
MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT
City Planner McKibben clarified the statement in the staff report that determination needs to be made that communication antennas and towers are public utilities.
Discussion ensued regarding the antenna and the structure that is supporting the transformers. In this case the antenna does not have a support base, it is free standing. City Planner McKibben stated that if the Commission agrees it is a public utility then she recommends they proceed with a conditional use permit and depending on what they decide about the base that it may or may not require a zoning permit. Chair Kranich noted that in addition to the 10 by 10 base there is a 15 by 15 foot fence. City Planner McKibben said that a fence does not require a zoning permit. Chair Kranich commented that it sounds like the question has been answered that the 10 by 10 platform would not require a zoning permit, nor would the fence, but a public utility would require a conditional use permit.
The Commission reviewed
There was discussion regarding other antenna on the spit. The representative from Alaska Digitel confirmed that they do have FAA approval for the antenna. It was also confirmed that the antenna is a very unobtrusive model. The concept of sharing antenna was commented on as an option to keep the number of antenna down.
VOTE: YES: SCHEER, MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, ZAK
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich clarified for the record that if this had not been considered a public utility, than a CUP would not required. Because they did adopt a CUP for this antenna structure the Commission has deemed it a public utility.
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.
Prior to reviewing the staff report City Planner McKibben commented that given the time, she would like to see this discussed during the one hour worksession before their February 21st meeting.
HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO POSTPONE DISCUSSION TO THEIR WORKSESSION ON FEBRUARY 21.
Frank Griswold stated that he
wanted to comment regarding this agenda item.
He said after reading the staff report he had a tear in his eye for the
all the nameless businesses that are struggling to meet the code
requirements. It doesn’t state who they
are, whether or not they meet the code.
Rather than stating the several businesses who would like to expand, it
goes back and uses as an example, Fireweed Gallery, which got an expansion in
2000. The staff reports talks about the
poor businesses who are struggling to meet the requirements for code because
they are on small lots. The point that
seems to be missing is that if their permits required them to build a structure
that met the lot density for that lot, then they wouldn’t have the problems and
would be able to meet their parking, landscaping and storm water plans. If it is a small lot, you have a smaller
structure. On page 96 of the packet it
says, in reference to the Fireweed Gallery, the non conforming status was not
accepted by the HAPC with was the practice at that time. Mr. Griswold said he has no idea what that
means. Was it accepted or not? It looks like the Commission is being asked
to give a legal opinion and Mr. Griswold said he thinks they would want to
consult with the attorney. The staff
report asks this because the Commission is authorized to waive requirements of
the Community Design Manual so it is being questioned if they can waive the
requirements of the storm water plan and landscaping for these three lots. He referenced page 97 numbers 1,2 and 3. It is Mr. Griswold’s opinion that without
expressed authority of the code the Commission does not have any authority to
waive the code requirements. Mr.
Griswold noted that in the staff report under item f it says “Long Term Options
beyond HAPC authority, but worth considering” and he asked why the Commission
would want to consider something that is beyond their authority. He said it raises a lot of question. He feels the author of this has some private
motives as a property owner in the
There was no discussion on the motion to postpone.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster commented that there are two Homer projects on the next agenda. One is a subdivision the HAPC approved and one is the vacation of the section line easement they just did. He expressed his appreciation for Platting Officer Toll coming to their meeting tonight and commended Platting Planner Sweppy for her work on the staff reports. They have been very clear in addressing the City’s concerns.
B.
There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S
REPORT
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that a training day is in
the works for April. She said the plan
so far is to do a half day with all Boards and Commissions regarding how they
do business, Roberts Rules and etcetera.
The second half of the day will be dealing with planning issues. She asked that the Commission let her know
what areas they are interested in and would like to see included.
Ms. McKibben stated that when the Commission is considering ordinance
amendments, a lot of times it is information that they have spent a lot of time
on at worksessions and meetings. She
suggested that if a Commissioner has significant amendments to the ordinance,
they let staff know that they would like to have the ordinance as a business
item before it goes to public hearing.
It would allow the Commission the opportunity to review and discuss the
amendments prior to the public hearing and not end up a situation like they did
this evening. If a Commissioner would
like something added to the packet, she requested it be submitted before packet
time. She said this will help us all do a better job and be more efficient.
Ms. McKibben gave a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan Consultants
visit. She anticipates that they will be
returning in April to hold a community meeting.
She said one of the primary goals in the proposal is a grass roots
public process and they are working hard to integrate the public in the
process. They are hoping to schedule one
on one appointments with Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers for
their next visit is. She ensured the
Commission that they will be part of the process and it won’t be a surprise
when it comes to their formal opportunity to review the plan.
INFORMATIONAL
MATERIALS
Items
listed under this agenda item can be
A. Letter dated
B. Letter dated
C. Letter dated
D. February 2007 Clerk’s Calendar
COMMENTS OF THE
AUDIENCE
Members
of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Frank Griswold commented regarding the sign ordinance. He said it sounds like the Commission wants to arbitrarily decide whether or not to grant a sign permit based on a public hearing. He said it should be very clear in the code whether a sign is permitted or not, it shouldn’t be up to a vote of the public or one time say yes and one time say no. Regarding the conditional use permit 06-13, it seems to him that if the Commission can consider letters from the applicant that are submitted after the public hearing, they should have been able to take additional public testimony as well. The staff report and Planning Commission failed to address the requirement that the use be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district. The purpose of the rural residential district is to provide an area of low density development in the city, to allow for limited agricultural pursuits and provide adequate lot sizes in areas not served by city water and sewer. This didn’t even appear in the staff report. He thinks the Commission should go through these different requirements one by one instead of wholesale adopting findings of staff. He pointed out that he has followed a lot of conditional use permits and he has never once seen any application not meet staffs requirements. Mr. Griswold commented that when the Chair states the policies of the City, such as the time for the applicant to speak or whether or not more public testimony can occur, it would be helpful if the Chair provided the basis for the determination. He asked that it be stated where the determination came from to allow the public to find it also.
COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION
Commissioners
may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for
excused absence.
The Commission agreed to hold a worksession
on the Gateway Overlay District on Thursday February 22 at
Commissioner Hess welcomed Commissioner Scheer to the Commission.
Commissioner Foster apologized for the last minute laydown of
information, but he felt they were issues that need to be addressed. He said he appreciates the diligence of the
Commission.
Commissioner Scheer said thanks, and he is enjoying himself.
Commissioner Zak had no comment.
Commissioner Minsch commented that if the time is going to be put into
writing up these amendments, she wants them in advance so she can do the
courtesy of giving them the same time for review.
Chair Kranich said he appreciates Platting Officer Toll and Platting
Planner Sweppy coming tonight. He thinks
it would be beneficial to have more time with them for general discussion on
platting issues. He said he attended the Comp Plan Committee meeting. He said they had a good meeting with a
diverse group of people with a diverse group of ideas. He said he did make a comment regarding a
point for Homer to market it self for economic development regarding surplus,
ultra fast, state of the art communication as there are surplus fiber optics in
and out of Homer available for someone to start a business. Regarding Mr. Griswold’s comments, he said
the Commission had nothing to do with establishing the procedure or the
Committee for the Comp Plan Review. He
further commented that the reference for an applicant being in a different
category is in the Commissions Policy and Procedures manual starting on page 8.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next
regular or special meeting w
There being no further
business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: