Session 07-03, 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
STAFF:
DEPUTY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented by consensus of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The
public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not scheduled for
public hearing. (3 minute time
limit) Presentations approved by the
Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works
representative may address the Planning Commission.
Jane Tollefsrud read a letter of opposition for the Country Club Estates Plat Waiver of Tract 2-1. Points included:
· Granting this request would encourage further growth, which would exasperate a situation already riddled with problems and compound the demand on the City for safety and protection which is impossible to provide due to access.
· Previous proposals have been denied because they have not adequately addressed issues of concern such as steep slope, erosion and legal access. This proposal does not provide any insight or solution to these ongoing concerns.
· This proposal would increase the existing problem by adding an extension of an “ATV Trail” into the proposed four parcels. The City cannot get emergency vehicles through 20 acres of ATV Trails.
· Past proposals from Country Club Estates could not meet the requirements for City Code and were dealt with through the plat waiver process available through the Borough, which have fewer restrictions. This request is a plat waiver on another plat waiver and goes against responsible development.
A complete copy of Mrs. Tollefsrud’s letter is included in the Commission Packet.
RECONSIDERATION
There were no items for reconsideration.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
All
items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the
Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the
public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular agenda and
considered in normal sequence.
1. Approval of
Minutes
2. Time Extension Requests
3. Approval of
City of
4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
5. Commissioner Excused Absences
The Minutes Approved by consensus of the Commission. Chair Kranich said he had some typographical errors that he would provide to the Clerk for correction.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the
Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address
the Planning Commission
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster commented
that there has been discussions that if the Commission is only advisory to the
Borough do they need to spend so much time going over the plats. He said there is one coming up that has to do
with creating a shared driveway easement for access to the
Create shared driveway easements for access to the
Borough staff comments: The standard plat note regarding State highway
access is on the plat. Curb cut requirements are a matter to be worked
out between the owner, the State of
He noted that the Borough is trying to support what the Commission was discussing in looking at a way to address this.
B.
There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report.
C. Planning Director’s Report
City Planner McKibben reminded
the Commission that there is a worksession with the City Council on Monday,
February 26 from
Ms. McKibben also commented
regarding the upcoming Planning Commissioner Training that is scheduled on
March 2nd. She believes all
the Commissioners w
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a
staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing
items. (3 minute time limit) The Commission may question the public. Once the public hearing is closed the
Commission cannot hear additional comments on the topic.
City Planner McKibben noted that
there are two laydown items from Frank Griswold regarding the CUP 07-03. City Planner McKibben briefly summarized the
Staff Report. She noted that one of the findings that the Commission has been
asked to make is regarding the applicant’s request to be considered as “Other
uses similar to and not more objectionable than permitted uses in this district
as determined by the Commission.” There
are findings that support this application and fourteen conditions
suggested. She suggested an amendment to
condition two which says “An as-built survey is required prior to construction
of additions, structures or fences, to verify that improvement(s) do not cross
property lines or encroach on rights-of-way” would be amended it to say “An
asbuilt survey w
Commissioner Foster was determined to have a conflict of interest at the previous public hearing and left the table.
Doug Dodd, City Resident, advised the Commission that he is on the Board of Directors at the Refuge and he and his family live about a block and a half from the refuge on Bonanza. He stated that he is happy to answer any questions. He commented that he did see the information that was provided today on NIMBYism and said the refuge is in his back yard. He has a minor son and a wife and he feels safe because he has gotten to know the residents that live in the Refuge. He expressed his appreciation for the time the Commission has spent on this.
Darren Williams, Pastor of the Refuge Chapel, said he was also available to answer questions.
Frank Griswold, City Resident,
commented that the use at issue is not a men’s dormitory shelter. Staff
previously determined the Refuge Room constituted a men’s homeless shelter and
that determination was not appealed. The
use more closely fits Wikipedia’s[1]
description of a flop house which is not allowed in any of Homer’s zoning
districts. No homeless shelter should be
allowed within or adjacent to any residential neighborhood. The dormitory use would be allowable in GC1
and GC2 so you cannot consider it as a similar use in the
Karen Devaney, City Resident on
Chase Dunkley, overseer for the
bunk house, stated that he is the person that the so-called homeless people w
Pastor Williams commented that
they do have a Fire Marshall certificate that has been filed with the City and
it did include the men’s dormitory. He
said they did get a visit by the Fire Marshall a few weeks ago and received a
letter stating they are in compliance, they are changing the things that were
requested by the Fire Marshall, but the Fire Marshall did not pull their
certificate. The blue prints they gave
the Fire Marshall a year ago included the Refuge Room and it was approved. Regarding the teen center, they have
requested neighborhood participation to help keep the area safe and sound. There is a family directly behind the chapel
that has said they will organize people in the neighborhood to help police to
make sure the kids aren’t going in the woods to smoke, drink or whatever. There are two people on staff when the teen
center is open on the
There being no further testimony, Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
MINSCH/SCHEER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 07-10 CUP 07-03 STAFF REPORT WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use
Permit with on the following conditions:
·
If parking is expanded on the south lot
which fronts
·
An as-built survey is required prior to construction
of additions, structures or fences, to verify that improvement(s) do not cross
property lines or encroach on rights-of-way.
·
A landscaped buffer will be planted in spring of 2007
consisting of two, 3’ x 8’ raised planter boxes located between the
·
The minimum 3’ buffer between the east parking area
and Homer Travel will be maintained.
·
If applicant sells the southern or eastern lot, the parking
requirements to be reevaluated and approved by the Planning and Zoning Office.
·
The CUP will be reviewed by the HAPC 2 years from the
date of decision.
·
Newly installed lighting related to The Refuge Room
will comply with
·
The shelter will be staffed 24 hours, 7
days a week.
·
No more than 10 residents will be served
at any time.
·
If an individual is denied a bed because
of the zero tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol the shelter will immediately
contact the Homer Police Department.
·
The project
meets all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.
·
By
·
Signage is limited to 6 sq. ft. on the south side of
the building which abuts the residential use area.
·
Change of use permits will be submitted as needed to
facilitate review of the parking requirements.
City Planner McKibben suggested the Commission make the determination of what the use is and then work through the findings and conditions.
The Commissioned discussed the definition of the use for the facility they reviewed definitions in the code. Comments included:
·
After reviewing all of the definitions, what is
being operated does fall under the definition of “Shelter for the Homeless”,
unless something can be found that would fall in this less objectionable
class.
·
Amend the finding that states “The Refuge Room is similar to, but less
objectionable than
·
Shelter for
the Homeless means a building primarily used to provide onsite meals, shelter
and secondary personal services such as showers and haircuts to the homeless
and the needy on a non permanent basis for no or nominal compensation.
·
The
application states the facility will continue to be used as a very low cost
dormitory style housing for men. There
is no definition in
·
Although the
Refuge Room is not providing meals they are providing the secondary service of
showers.
·
The Refuge
Room is charging an amount that would be considered nominal in today’s market.
SCHEER/MINSCH
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MODIFY THE WORDING FOR THE FIRST FINDING ON
There was no discussion.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: SCHEER, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
It was questioned whether the action satisfied the need for determining the use. Comment was made that the use would be “Other use that is similar”; these uses are similar but not more objectionable. It does have some, but not all of the criteria for the shelter for the homeless, so there could be allowance made through conditional use.
Chair Kranich stated that on page 22 there is a finding that they would like a non conforming status granted and proposed wording for an amendment.
MINSCH/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REPLACE THE STAFF FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT APPLIES FOR NON CONFORMING STATUS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASBUILT.
There was no discussion.
VOTE(Primary amendment): YES: SCHEER, MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, ZAK
Motion carried.
There was discussion regarding an amendment to staff recommendation 2.
MINSCH/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND CONDITION TWO TO STATE THAT AN ASBUILT SURVEY IS REQUIRED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF ISSUANCE OF THE CUP.
There was discussion whether or not to add the additional wording in the recommendation.
HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO NUMBER TWO TO INCLUDE “THAT WILL INCLUDE VERIFICATION THAT THE IMPROVEMENT DOES NOT CROSS PROPERTY LINES OR ENCROACH ON RIGHT-OF-WAYS.
City Planner McKibben stated that the original condition was requiring an asbuilt prior to any new construction taking place. She said it seems prudent to have an asbuilt now to verify what exists on the site.
VOTE (Secondary amendment): YES: HESS, SCHEER,
NO: ZAK, MINSCH, KRANICH
Motion failed for lack of majority.
There was discussion regarding a condition for non conforming use.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, SCHEER
Motion carried.
SCHEER/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO
Chair Kranich noted that there is a finding that the applicant should apply for non conforming after an asbuilt is done.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: KRANICH, ZAK, SCHEER, HESS, MINSCH
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich suggested a motion that would state that the guest bed area will only be placed in the 540 square foot Refuge Room addition.
MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO ADD A
CONDITION NUMBER 16 THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT
The Commission discussed the lay
out for the resident beds, staff beds and trainee beds. This action would help ensure that the guest
beds w
HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION 16 TO ADD
LANGUAGE SAYING THE GUEST BEDS BE ONLY LOCATED WITHIN THE 540 SQUARE
Commissioner Scheer questioned if this action is within the Commission’s pervue, noting that layout of the building would an issue for the Fire Marshall. City Planner McKibben commented that the intent is to keep the Refuge Room in the designated area rather than having it take over the rest of the building. It is questionable if it is as effective as limiting the total number of residents that can live in the facility.
Discussion continued.
VOTE (Secondary amendment): NO: SCHEER, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion failed.
There was no further discussion on the primary amendment.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): NO: MINSCH, SCHEER, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion failed.
Discussion continued regarding the wording of a motion that would ensure the beds for the residents and staff is confined to the area allotted for the Refuge Room. Discussion points included:
· It may be determined that there will be better ways to organize the building and it wouldn’t be fair to pigeon hole them to one location.
· It was noted that if they change the floor plan in the future it could put the residents closer to the teen center.
· A separation distance between the teen center and Refuge Room could be required.
· The CUP is for the use that is occurring in a portion of a building. It is appropriate to limit a use to a portion of a building so that it will not expand, or limit the number of residents.
HESS/MINSCH I
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD CONDITION 16 THAT READS “CLIENT
There was comment restating concern for locking them into one location. Discussion resumed on previous comments. City Planner McKibben noted that a condition is that the CUP comes back before the Commission for review two years after the final decision. That would be an opportunity for the applicant to make changes. It was noted that the applicant could bring changes to staff prior to the two years.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): YES: MINSCH, KRANICH
NO: SCHEER, HESS, ZAK
Motion failed for lack of a majority.
ZAK/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION THAT A
Commissioner Zak stated that he is supportive of the shelter, but does not support the two together.
City Planner McKibben clarified that Commissioner Zak’s intention is that the uses not be operated in the same building. Mr. Zak responded no, not at all with this conditional use. Ms. McKibben asked again, not in the same building. Mr. Zak said not anywhere. The question was posed, “Not on the property?” Mr. Zak responded “Right.”
Concern was expressed that the
Commission could not deny the teen center under this action. Commissioner Zak referenced
Commissioner Hess expressed his
agreement that the Commission would have standing to recommend that the Teen
Center no be allowed. He said there are
probably other scenarios where two uses in the same building would not be
compatible and disallowing both uses in the building may be inappropriate even
though both uses are allowed in the
Discussion
ensued and comments included:
·
The
·
The Refuge Room
is not licensed through the State. If it
were, there would state and federal restrictions placed on the facility.
·
There could be
issue with concerts at the teen center in proximity of residential area.
·
·
This action does
not say it would be inappropriate to have a
·
If adopted this
will be Condition 16.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
NO: SCHEER
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich called for a brief
recess at
ZAK/MINSCH I
City Planner McKibben commented
that the code citation
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: ZAK, HESS, MINSCH, KRANICH
NO: SCHEER
Motion carried. [2]
Chair Kranich recommended a motion to address the issue of the CUP being reviewed in the event that the ownership of the property changes.
HESS/MINSCH I
There was no further discussion on the motion.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: KRANICH, ZAK, SCHEER, HESS, MINSCH
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich raised the issue of an amendment regarding the parking determination on page 96 of the packet would be utilized rather than the one in the original staff report. The change refers to the table for parking lots on site. There was consensus of the Commission to implement the change to the parking layout.
City Planner McKibben suggested that if the Commission wants to keep the recommendation to record the building and parking plan then they should make it a condition.
HESS/SCHEER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION THAT WE ADD CONDITION 18 THAT THE PARKING
There was brief discussion regarding recording a parking plan.
SCHEER/MINSCH MOVED TO AMEND
CONDITION TO READ PARKING
There was no discussion.
VOTE (Secondary amendment): NON OBJECTION, UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the primary amendment.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: MINSCH, SCHEER, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich commented regarding
removing condition 12. He suggested it
may be better not to restrict taxi pick up at the
ZAK/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION THAT WE REMOVE CONDITION 12
There was brief discussion on the reasoning behind staff’s recommendation. Ms. McKibben commented it was in an effort to reduce impacts to neighboring residences and said both sides could be easily argued. Further comment was made as to whether it is a reasonable requirement since is in the business district.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: SCHEER, MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, ZAK
Motion carried.
MINSCH/SCHEER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION REGARDING NUMBER SIX THAT CUP WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Minsch commented that the year will give the applicant time to get all their conditions met and up and running. It would give time to see what any problems may be and see if they can give any help in resolving them. It also lets the public know there is a reckoning coming sooner than later.
Commissioner Scheer added that
the year may show that they are a benefit to the community and could possibly
look at the
VOTE (Primary amendment): MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, SCHEER
Motion carried.
Further comments were made clarifying actions that had been taken.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: MINSCH, SCHEER, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster returned to the table.
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. The
Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve
an applicant.
Commissioner Zak stated he believes he may have s a conflict of interest.
HESS/MINSCH I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
Commissioner Zak advised the Commission that he owns property that is affected by the proposed access. He stated he owns Tract 1A and has concern that the applicant may feel he has additional knowledge and may be influenced to vote one way or another.
VOTE: YES: HESS, MINSCH, SCHEER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster asked to recuse himself from this discussion so he will be able to participate at the Borough level. The Commission was in agreement to excuse Commissioner Foster from the discussion.
Commissioners Zak and Foster left the table.
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that a packet of laydown items was provided in regard to the Country Club Plat waiver and she gave a brief overview of the contents.
City Planner McKibben reviewed staff report.
Brooks Chandler, representative
for Baycrest Investment Corporation, said he was in attendance to have a first
hand understanding of the concerns that were expressed at the meeting and to
answer any questions the Commission may have.
Mr. Chandler stated that the process they are engaged in is taking a
large piece of property and making it into four smaller pieces of property. This is about dividing land and in doing so
the applicable requirements are set forth in state law, which he believes the
staff has accurately represented, analyzed and concluded all have been met.
That is the basis in which their request has been submitted and will go forward
to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission. Mr. Chandler noted that he had glanced
through the laydown packet and on page 51 the minutes of
Bryan Zak, owner of
Frank Griswold raised a procedural issue as there are lawyers involved all ready. He said he is not sure that Commissioner Foster has grounds for not participating in the discussion. If he does have a conflict of interest or bias that he can’t participate in this discussion and then he wouldn’t be allowed to participate in the next discussion. Mr. Griswold said he hasn’t seen anything from the Borough that suggests that in order to participate in the Borough discussions that a Commissioner should recuse himself from this proceeding. He suggested they consider postponing this until they can get an opinion from the City Attorney.
Jane Tollesfrud asked for
clarification regarding a statement in the staff report regarding utility
rights. City Planner McKibben read the staff report statement on packet page
102 that “Due to dedication of utility easements as part of the plat a
subdivision development agreement will be required to ensure the construction
of utilities. Mrs. Tollesfrud commented
regarding Plat waiver condition number two “Provide legal and physical access
to public highway or street created by they subdivision” and it states that
this condition is satisfied. She knows
that in the 2005 passing of the plat waiver for Laura Peek, they brought in one
page testimony from Wilson and Associates that said it was their opinion that
the beach could be considered legal access and it was accepted. Mrs. Tollesfrud believes that this could be
revisited and perhaps challenged that there is legal access to the public
highway and street. Mrs. Tollesfrud pointed out
HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION TO ACCEPT
Planning Commission forward to the
Planning Commission
recommend denial of the plat waiver because it does not meet the intent of KPB
Code 20.040.010.
Comments were made that the Commission has not had an adequate opportunity to review the 130 pages of information that was provided as a laydown.
It was noted that the applicant had requested that this be extended at the Borough level and postpone to the next meeting would still allow time to get the City’s comments to the Borough for consideration.
HESS/MINSCH I
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioners Zak and Foster returned to the table.
Commissioner Hess asked to be excused from the meeting. Chair Kranich excused Commissioner Hess from the meeting.
PENDING BUSINESS
A.
Staff
There was discussion regarding
postponing discussion to the
MINSCH/FOSTER I
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The Commission hears a report from staff. Commission business includes resolutions,
ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as
needed. The Commission may ask
questions of staff, applicants, and the public. Any items brought before the
commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following
introduction of the item. The Commission
will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an
applicant (such as acceptance of a nonconformity).
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items listed under this agenda item can be
A. Letter dated
B. Letter dated
C. Of the City Council of Homer, Alaska,
Adopting the Functional Wetland Assessment for the 2005 Wetlands Mapping of the
City of Homer and Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District, Setting a Time
Frame for the Planning Department and Commission to Conduct a Public Process
for Public Input on Future Management of Homer Wetlands, to Report Back to the
City Council by the End of 2007. City Manager/Planning.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Members of the audience may address the Commission
on any subject. (3 minute time limit)
Frank Griswold commented that he
believes the Chairman of a small town Board or Commission can make and second
motions, it might be appropriate to pass the gavel. He said there is no purpose served by just having
someone else read your motion. Mr.
Griswold commented “revising” CUP 07-03 is ambiguous and possibly
meaningless. All conditions should be
put in the original regardless of whether there is a change of ownership or
whether the property is sold. He is not
aware of any authority in the code to amend and extend a CUP. The Commission possibly meant to sunset
it. Other uses is not a use as Chair
Kranich pointed out the use must be defined in the second part of the
applicable standard was not addressed by staff or the Commission. That part
required that the other use was not allowed in another district and whatever
the use for the Refuge Room was, it would clearly be allowed in GC1 of GC2 as a
conditional use. The non conformity
issue should have been decided prior to approving any CUP. That was critical as
far as lot density and everything else.
Making that decision a year from now will really present some problems
if it is not a non conforming use. Mr.
Griswold stated there seemed to be concern for teens in general, but no
concerns about Karen Devaney’s teens or other children in the
neighborhood. The issue of property
values was not even discussed. The
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including
requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Zak commented that they did a good job and considered factors tonight to help people. Some interesting things came up tonight and he thinks it is good that the Commission can leave their personal feeling behind and act as a good Commission.
Commissioner Minsch had no comment.
Commissioner Foster questioned if there was a reason for the supplemental staff report not to be included just before or after the staff report. City Planner McKibben responded that there was not and she would mention it to staff to have them together. Mr. Foster added that it was not his intent to add a whole bunch of stuff on the Commission; his intent was that there is a lot of public information and knowledge of some of the back ground of the concern of the issue.
Commissioner Scheer had no comment.
Chair Kranich commented that they discussed a lot of issues and he hopes they covered them all but they gave it their best effort. He hopes it works for everyone concerned. He commented regarding the memo from the Assistant Borough Attorney which clarifies the reasoning behind Mr. Foster’s recusing himself earlier this evening. He suggested getting a copy for Mr. Griswold.
ADJOURN
Notice of the next regular or special meeting or
work session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.
There being no further
business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved:
[1] Clerk’s Note:
per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
collaboratively written by many of its readers. It is a special
type of website, called a wiki, that makes collaboration easy. Many people are constantly
improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are
recorded on article histories and recent changes.
[2] Commissioner Zak commented during minute’s approval at
the March 7 regular meeting that his intent of this action was that a Teen
Center not be allowed on any of the lots with the conditional use of the Refuge
Shelter being allowed.
[3]
During discussion of the minutes at the