Session 05-13, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHESLEY, HESS, PFEIL, FOSTER, LEHNER
EXCUSED: CONNOR
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
A quorum is required to conduct a
meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND 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 w
A. Time Extension Requests
(a)
B. Approval of City of
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.
Commissioner Hess requested COMMISSION BUSINESS Item G –
The agenda was adopted as amended by consensus of the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission
approves minutes with any amendments.
A.
Approval of
The Regular Meeting Minutes of
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
A.
City Planner McKibben introduced Town Center Development Committee (TCDC)
members
Flow- wetland and water flow using surface waterways to maintain natural
habitat.
Terraces – for roads, buildings and trails to provide a more dense land use and preserving views from the higher
areas.
Green and Open Space – open park, plaza, forested and pocket parks to
spread green space throughout the area.
Connections – to integrate
Development Pads – for buildings and parking lots.
Live, Work, Play Area – focal point for community activity.
Derotha Ferraro explained the development guide provides goals for achievement
and incentives. Sustainable landscaping,
natural storm water drainage, architecture guidelines and integrated
development are encouraged. Ms. Ferraro
referred to the two displayed plans explaining that Proposal A uses the concept
of view corridors and small building footprints allowing for multiple
stories. Roads are aligned with the
existing land form and on-street parking.
It includes a forest, a park, smaller parking lots and neighbors
participating in the
Chair Chesley thanked the TCDC members in the
audience and others that served on the Committee to bring the plan
forward. He stated they are the unsung
heroes who volunteered to make a huge contribution to the community and that
the Planning Commission looks forward to working with the TCDC. The TCDC was given applause for their hard
work and the positive results they produced.
Chair Chesley opened the public comment period
and asked for a three-minute limit on each speaker’s remarks.
A map of the proposed Quiet Creek subdivision was displayed and dwelling
areas of those people concerned of the new housing development were highlighted
in orange.
Gary Thomas,
Commissioner Hess pointed out the local control the city has is bypassed
sometimes and requests are taken directly to the KPB. He suggested the neighborhood group address
those concerns at the KPB. Chair Chesley clarified Mr. Neal’s letter, stating all platting
actions in the City come before the Planning Commission who act in an advisory
role to the KPB Planning Commission. The
KPB does not have to follow the Commission’s recommendations, although Planning
Commissioner Rick Foster is the Commission’s representative that also serves on
the KPB Planning Commission and advocates for the City of
Gary Thomas commented that the group is willing to work with the
Commission if changes at the City, Borough or State level are needed.
Carole Hamik, city resident on
Nancy Vait,
Mary Ann Krohn, city resident on
Chair Chesley commented when the preliminary
plat is brought back to the Commission there w
Linda Browning, city resident, lives on
Virginia Espenshade, city resident on
Mike Illg appeared as an advocate for the
Leo Vait, city resident on
Dave Aplin, city resident on
Laura Patty, city resident on
Susan Drathman, city resident on
Marianne Schlegelmilch, city resident on
Donna Maltz, city resident, is concerned about
Homer’s growth whether it is residential or commercial. She said Quiet Creek subdivision is a high
density development in a vulnerable area.
Mrs. Maltz sees no reason why the lots have to
be so small. She hopes there is nothing
wrong with development of the area. People
should enjoy living there and current residents should maintain their enjoyment
of living there with less density. Mrs. Maltz sees this proposed subdivision as the first of many
developments within Homer.
Jean Parker, city resident lives on
Francie Roberts, city resident on
Chair Chesley explained that the developer,
Tony Neal, voluntarily offered to host a community meeting. He clarified it is not a City meeting and is not
sponsored by the City or the Planning Commission. Cowles Council Chambers at City Hall was
chosen as an adequate facility to host the meeting. The developer noted the concerns and is going
the extra mile to have a community meeting.
It is the developer’s offering to facilitate dialogue. Mr. Neal will have the proposed preliminary
plat and changes he and the surveyor may have drafted. City staff and members of the Planning
Commission may be in attendance as observers.
Paula Setterquist, city resident on
Chair Chesley explained the City requirement is
to notify property owners within 300 ft. of a proposed development, although
the developer extended the notification on this proposal to 1,000 ft.
Brian Bennett, city resident on
Paul Gavenus, city resident on Rainbow Court,
cited HCC 21.28.020(d), (e), (g), (h) and (i)
regulating population density, property values, lessening street congestion,
and promoting health, safety and general welfare. Mr. Gavenus pointed
to the area map, explaining the density differences between urban residential
areas and the proposed subdivision. The
subdivision abuts
Chair Chesley announced the Neighborhood
Meeting for the
Chair Chesley called for a recess at
REMAND FROM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A. Staff
City Planner
McKibben stated CUP (Conditional Use Permit) 05-06 was remanded back to the
Planning Commission for further consideration as the zoning code was not
properly applied. Allowing the
Staff recommends
the Planning Commission withdraw the motion to allow the deck outside the long-term
care facility to stay in its current configuration and amend Condition #2 of
the CUP to read: The small shed dog
kennel w
Frank Griswold, city resident, is
the appellant in this issue and agrees with the revised staff recommendation. Mr. Griswold said if the Commission follows
the BOA option there w
HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO RECOMMEND
BRING
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley
said the Commission tries to support staff by dealing with zoning
violations. The encroachment issue was
an enforcement issue of a zoning setback.
It came to the Commission for a recommendation to support staff’s
efforts. The Commission was outside of
its bounds by allowing the deck to exist inside the setback, and incorrect in
not following the staff recommendation to bring the deck into compliance.
Commissioner Lehner commented that the Commission had legitimate considerations as both lots are owned by the City and the encroachment was on the adjacent property of the same landowner. Additionally the deck was beneficial to the long-term care patients with its sunny southwest location. The cost of removing the deck and providing one in a different location was considered.
Chair Chesley responded that the lot line could also be moved to accommodate the deck. Commissioner Kranich pointed out HCC 21.47.040 requires a 20 ft. setback unless firewalls are provided and access to the rear is otherwise provided. He questioned if there was a firewall and access to the rear of the building. City Planner McKibben clarified a firewall can extend into the setback, but not a deck.
HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO RESCIND THE MOTION TO ALLOW THE DECK TO REMAIN IN
ITS PRESENT CONFIGURATION.
VOTE:
YES. CHESLEY, PFEIL, LEHNER, HESS
NO. KRANICH,
FOSTER
Motion carried.
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 and staff recommendations adding that Planning Technician
Planning Technician Eggertsen-Goff noted there were issues with the parking
calculations. The guest numbers have
changed to two cabins with two guestrooms in each structure and one guestroom
over the loft for a total of six. A
question pertaining to the buffer is presently before the City Attorney for
review. The 8 ft. buffer was part of the
approved CUP on
City Planner McKibben explained if there was a disturbance of the vegetation that could not be remedied it would be a violation of the CUP. She advised the Commission they could take action on the amendment to the CUP or postpone.
Eldon Adair, owner of the project,
stated his neighbors requested the cabin unit be moved to prevent blocking the sunlight
and view from their west windows. He
calculated it w
Donna Maltz, city resident, presented a slide show to the Commission showing pictures of ground work being done on the site by Mr. Adair. She states the project is in violation in many areas, not just the drip line, parking spaces and 8,000+ sq. ft. of development on less than half of an acre. There are eight slots for 50 ft. RV’s. Mrs. Maltz questioned how this was passed without the neighbors and herself being notified. She said they are looking at revoking Mr. Adair’s permit. She sees thousands of people a week who want a piece of Homer. They are looking to develop Homer or to put their kids through college at the expense of the integrity of the community. Mrs. Maltz is not anti-development and not opposed to people prospering and living a good, healthy life. The drainage issue on the Adair property is huge. When the addition was built on the Sourdough Express at the basement level there was flooding. A huge sump pump system was put in. The drainage issue is huge with a lake and the Homer Spit in a tiny tsunami zone. There is nothing in the proposed development to address drainage, parking, or the Code of Ethics. The Red Man working on the land and feeling and knowing what is right for the land and people of the community are Mrs. Maltz’s concerns. She has a 3,000 sq. ft. building, 500 sq. ft. of that is underground storage on a half of an acre. One quarter acre is dedicated to parking and trees.
Mrs. Maltz
stated nobody knew the magnitude of the development. Mr. Adair, his wife and granddaughter were coming
to her restaurant having lunch and friendly conversations. He told her he was going to build a couple of
cute cabins, a few nice RV slots and a retail fish store. They were thr
Chair Chesley
told Mrs. Maltz she raised some good points. He pointed out property owners within 300 ft.
of the proposed development were notified and the public hearing was
advertised. Initial
Mrs. Maltz
provided a letter written by property owners addressing staff reports, code
violations and other determining reasons.
Again she stated none of the neighboring property owners were aware of
the magnitude of the project. Although
she does not disregard Mr. Adair’s ability to be a good developer, this is
Homer,
Chair Chesley
relayed to Mrs. Maltz the Commission w
Ron Nieman,
neighboring property owner, respects Mr. Adair’s right to develop the property
until it affects neighboring property owners.
The original notice of the proposed development was not unreasonable,
although the change appears to be significantly different. Mr. Nieman doesn’t
see a change on parking with the amendment, but questioned how parking is
articulated. He stated parking in the
neighborhood is already an issue and now there w
Mr. Adair stated he worked closely with staff planning the project. The plans submitted show all the dimensions and elevations with everything there. The Commission asked that parking be changed as there was not adequate parking space. One of the buildings shown as a restaurant and bar combination was put on the second floor of the fish processing plant reducing the square footage of the footprint of the buildings on site to allow for the additional backup space. Drainage arrows are there for the direction of drainage and the elevations are shown. The trees in question are outside and beyond the 8 ft. line. What is not realized is the bakery building (the buildings down below) are less than 5 ft. away from the property line. One of the structures is as close as 3 ½ ft. Those people that are running their drainage on his property and have buildings closer to his property than code allows are requesting that he move away from them.
LEHNER/KRANICH – MOVED TO ADOPT
Chair Chesley recommended the Commission postpone this action until staff receives a recommendation from the City Attorney.
City Planner McKibben explained the City Attorney must approve the letter before submitting it to Mr. Adair, and depending on his decision there may or may not be a violation of the CUP. She explained the Chair is suggesting continuing this amendment to the site plan to the next meeting.
Commissioner Kranich questioned Condition #6. City Planner McKibben cited HCC 21.49.060(a): “no disturbance shall occur within 8 ft. of the eastern lot line or within the drip line of the trees on the adjacent lot to prevent root damage” and HCC 21.61.060(f)(5): “to ensure privacy of adjacent property”. Commissioner Lehner requested a more detailed copy of the site plan.
PFEIL/FOSTER – MOVED TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING.
Commissioner Kranich
questioned what continuing the amendment to the CUP had to do with the possible
violations, as they have not been documented, only alleged. He said it is a different item of business
before the Commission and if the revision is approved it st
VOTE: YES. LEHNER, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
NO. KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben referred to City Attorney Tans’ correspondence relating to amendments in the Code to allow a more clear reading. Staff recommendations were read.
There was no public comment.
HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO ACCEPT
City Planner McKibben referred to Line 29 of the ordinance stating *RO designated would be RO (e) and Lines 45 -51 would move to the bottom of the page and be inserted as Line 85 as (e). RO Designated would be changed to RO Portion keeping it consistent with the other formatting.
HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO AMEND LINE 29, LINE 85 AND LINE 85 TO THE PORTION.
VOTE: YES. KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS
Motion carried.
VOTE: (main motion) YES. LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, PFEIL, KRANICH
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.
Chair Chesley declared a conflict of interest.
CHESLEY/KRANICH – MOVED TO DECLARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DUE TO THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIS EMPLOYER AND THE APPLICANT’S COMPANY.
Chair Chesley explained he worked for Sunland Development Company, a commercial general contractor and Jason Weisser is owner of Timberline Development. Mr. Weisser’s company has been a subcontractor to Sunland Development Company for construction of the Homer Hockey Arena and Coast Guard housing. Sunland Development Company has an on-going relationship with Timberline Development.
Commissioner Kranich said there was no financial gain although there could be an appearance of impropriety. Commissioner Lehner said her past work experience with the government included on-going relationships with subcontractors, and she doesn’t believe that affected their ability to remain impartial. Commissioner Hess cited his own similar situation with his business relationship and a general contractor, stating the Commission ruled no conflict of interest.
VOTE: NO. FOSTER, PFEIL, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
Motion failed.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations.
PFEIL/HESS – MOVED TO ACCEPT
Chair Chesley pointed out the .918 acres does not exceed the 40,000 sq. ft. standard as it is 12 sq. ft. short.
HESS/KRANICH – MOVED THAT
CONDITION #1 BE ADDED THAT LOT 1B MEET THE REQUIRED 40,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
VOTE: (main motion) YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations.
HESS/FOSTER – MOVED TO ACCEPT
Commissioner Kranich
questioned if the City’s new wetland mapping had been adopted by the City
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City
Planner McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations.
HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO ACCEPT
Planning Commission grants approval of the preliminary plat with the following condition:
1. Comply with Public Works request for either re-aligning the
proposed lot lines so that the existing service lines are inside of
Commissioner Lehner noted
Public Works question if the owner should combine Lot 2 Block 1 to the north
into his proposed
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley called for a
recess at
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.
A. Staff
Report PL 05-65 Re: Request
For A Conditional Use Permit, CUP #05-11, Foster/Harness, For Approval Of A
Reduction In The Setback From A Dedicated Right Of Way As Permitted By HCC 21.48.040 (B)(4) And A Reduction In The Number Of Required Parking
Spaces In HCC 7.12.020 At
459 Klondike Avenue, Lot 1, Block 8, 9 And 10, Glacier View Subdivision No.
2. POSTPONED from June
15, 2005 meeting.
Commissioner Foster’s previous declaration of a conflict of interest was noted and he was excused from participation.
City Planner McKibben noted the supplemental staff report responding to code citations by public testimony made by Frank Griswold. As to conflict between Titles 21 and 11, the City Attorney’s response is when two subchapters of the code conflict the more current code takes precedence. Title 21 is the most current of the two and more specific, therefore would take precedence.
Rick Foster, applicant and non resident, thanked the
Planning Director for thoroughly going through the allegations made by Frank
Griswold. As to #7 that the parking
facility shall be located on the same lot as the building they serve, Mr.
Foster agreed that the commercial parking regulations were inadvertently
used. Mr. Foster remarked that Mr.
Griswold is so good about pointing out little things. HCC 7.12.040(a) refers parking to the same
lot as the building they serve. Mr.
Foster read the definition of “
Frank Griswold, city resident, replied to
As to Item #2 regarding conflicting code Mr. Griswold
believed the more restricting provision would take precedent. HCC 11.08.110 is currently code and applies
to the subject property. If the CUP is
approved it w
In reference to Item #3 Mr. Griswold noted that the CUP application was submitted after the zoning permit approval to increase its chances for approval. If the application was submitted prior to the issuance of the zoning permit the applicants would have been encouraged to shift the proposed structure 5 ft. south and 5 ft. west so no encroachment into the setback would be necessary.
As to Item #4 Mr. Griswold said HCC 21.48.040(b)(4) is a blatant circumvention of the law. If a setback encroachment is not allowable by variance it should not be allowable by a hermaphrodite CUP. Conditions were not provided in CUP 05-11 to mitigate or eliminate the potentially harmful effects of building in the setbacks. Authorization for any deviation from the zoning permit must be expressly contained within the zoning permit. Mr. Griswold said HCC 21.42.070 requires that a CUP be obtained prior to the issuance of the zoning permit, not several months later.
As to Item #5 Mr. Griswold said when the zoning permit
was issued the City Planner did not have the authority to delegate the responsibility
to a Planning Technician. The
retroactive ratification of permits by a signed document is no substitute for a
thorough review of the City official mandated by Code to perform the task. If other staff had sufficient training or
expertise to issue zoning permits they would be authorized within the zoning
code. Staff
As to Item #9 Mr. Griswold commented that The New
Illustrated Book of Development Definitions has not been incorporated into the
HCC, nor does it state anywhere in the Code the minimum setbacks establish the
required yards. The 20 ft. setback does
not establish the front yard; it only does so in this case where the dwelling
has been constructed on the setback boundary.
Front yard is defined as the area between the exterior wall of the
building and the front lot line.
Unroofed landings and stairs may project into front and rear yards only
if no portion other than a light handrail extends higher than 16” above the
finished level. Mr. Griswold is not
aware of any front, side, or back yard requirement in the Code, but if there,
HCC 21.48.040(b)(4) would obliterate those
requirements, as buildings or structures could cover an entire yard. Although The New Illustrated Book of
Development Definitions and every other city in
Mr. Griswold cited HCC 21.48.040(d) stating no lot shall contain more than 8,000 sq. ft. or an excess of 30% of building area of the lot area without an approved CUP. Although setbacks are part of the front and rear yards they are regulated by more stringent rules. Where there are front or rear yards in addition to the area within the setbacks it would not be unreasonable to assume unroofed landings and stairs may project into that space without reducing the total amount of un-built lot area. In cases where there is no front or rear yard outside of the setbacks HCC 21.60.220(b) would be moot by HCC 11.08.110 and similar provisions which prohibit any and all construction within setbacks. If an entire front and rear yard were covered in landings and stairs it would ensure open space within the front, rear and side setbacks. Mr. Foster’s application involves roofed landings and stairs and a side yard setback so HCC 21.60.220(b) does not really apply.
Mr. Griswold commented as to Item #10 staff made a
finding of the use being consistent with purposes of Chapters 21.28 through 21.70
and the purpose of the zoning district.
Mr. Griswold said staff cherry picked phrases out of the zoning
provisions to justify the permit. No
negative aspects of the use were considered.
It was not an impartial or objective review. Compliance with HCC 21.48.040(b)(4) only, does not mean the CUP application is consistent
with the above chapters. Mr. Griswold
asserted the following points were not considered: regulation of size of yards and open spaces,
limit the density of population, conserve and stabilize the value of property,
provide adequate open spaces, prevent undue concentration of population, lessen
congestion on streets and highways and promote health, safety and general
welfare. Setback requirements were put
in effect thirty years ago and they should not now be circumvented to promote
private interests. Mr. Griswold commented
that staff findings did not fully identify the purpose of the CBD, nor reasons
for the setback reduction. Mr. Griswold
said reducing setbacks does nothing to avoid traffic congestion, provide for
ample off-street parking or promote safe and limited access to major
streets. Mr. Griswold provided a photo
showing eight vehicles parked along the street on
Rick Foster responded that he respects Mr. Griswold’s attention to detail as it is very important. He stated he went through the process based on an ordinance in place. If Mr. Griswold has a problem with the ordinance he needs to take that up rather to nit pick on people that have followed City Code. Mr. Foster explained he is asking for two one-bedrooms and a two-bedroom apartment for handicapped. It is intended that his mother and two of her friends occupy the units. The intent of the design is that it could be commercial. The covered walkway and handicap access is for the future to fit into the nice looking establishments within the community. Mr. Foster defended that his comments about fitting into the design and intent of the Comprehensive Plan were honest and sincere. He added that he is not trying to circumvent the Code or do anything sneaky. Frank Griswold’s concern with the ordinance should not be taken up, as the applicants have followed City law.
Chair Chesley noted the motion
on the floor (MOTION TO ADOPT
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends
approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1.
The
applicant w
2.
The
project w
Commissioner Hess asked City Planner McKibben if she had
any comments on Mr. Griswold’s points and she stated she w
Commissioner Kranich commented it is not the first CUP for porches in a setback and it is not setting precedence, but rather following it.
VOTE: YES. KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations. She stated the cabin/caretaker is to be removed.
George Hamm,
applicant and city resident, was asked about the agricultural operations by
Commissioner Foster. He stated he didn’t
want to lose the right to have animals as he has had animals since moving to
the location and his wife loves rabbits.
Mr. Hamm stated he moved outside the city and the city followed him.
Frank
Griswold, city resident, stated the staff report implied that anything that happened
prior to annexation was good to go now. The
KPB Sales Tax Division told Mr. Griswold that George’s Trucking
was terminated in 1998. The only
businesses registered now are George’s Storage and Treasure Chest. Previously these situations require hard
evidence such as tax records, receipts and business licenses. He stated there are a number of qualifying
criteria regarding businesses being operative.
Mr. Griswold asked the Commission to take a close look at the request,
remain consistent and keep the burden of proof on the applicant.
Mr. Hamm said
living in Homer the work is seasonal and jobs come and go. He st
Chair Chesley commented that Mr. Griswold was correct in the
specific criteria in the nonconforming code that requires uses be conducted for
twelve consecutive months prior to applying for nonconforming uses.
Mr. Hamm
defended he presently has a business license for George’s Storage, has land to
build boats on and a business license to build boats. He had three different businesses for
building boats as the products changed allowing him to do different
things. With his manufacturing business
license he can build boats or houses. He
has maintained that license since acquiring the property. Mr. Hamm stated he lives in an industrial
area, as boats are built across the street, down the street and behind him and
there is a concrete plant beside him.
The Commission questioned the charter fishing business and Mr. Hamm
responded he owns a vessel but is not currently engaged in the charter
business.
Karen Hamm,
city resident and applicant’s wife, said Mr. Hamm doesn’t have a business
license for George’s Trucking, but every year he uses a truck to move people’s
boats in and out. Mr. Hamm st
HESS/KRANICH
– MOVED TO ACCEPT
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends
the Commission accept the three nonconforming uses located at 3505 East End
Road, Section 11, Township 6 South, Range 13 West, Seward Meridian, in the
Homer Recording District, Portion Thereof Lying North of Lot 1 Block 1 and East
of Lot 2 Block 1 Puffin Acres and South of East Road excluding the DOT ROW, per
Homer City Code 21.64:
·
Agricultural operations,
·
Fishing charter business,
·
Boat construction and repair business
Staff also
recommends modification of the structure within the DOT ROW to bring it into
compliance with HCC 21.49.040(b)(1). Thus there are no nonconforming structures to
be accepted.
Staff requests the
Commission recognize the existing multiple uses on the lot and determine that
the future expansion of the existing uses, including expansion of the storage
use, on the lot is allowed by HCC 21.64.030(a). If the Commission determines this to be
true, then the expansion of the storage use and other existing uses would
require only a zoning permit and not a Conditional Use Permit. If however, new uses are proposed to be added
on the lot by the Hamms or future owners or persons
who lease the lot, a Conditional Use Permit would have to be obtained.
The
Commission discussed the uses of the property as a boat yard and agricultural
operations.
HESS/LEHNER
– MOVED TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION TO STRIKE FISHING CHARTER BUSINESS.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The Commission discussed permitted uses on the
lots.
HESS/KRANICH -
MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRIKE LAST SENTENCE: If however, new uses are proposed to be added
on the lot by the Hamms or future owners or persons
who lease the lot, a Conditional Use Permit would have to be obtained.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The
Commission discussed the need for continuous operations for nonconforming uses,
specifically agricultural operations.
George Hamm
told the Commission he would withdraw the agricultural operations and w
HESS/PFEIL
– MOVED TO CHANGE WORDING ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS “THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE
NONCONFORMING USE” AND STRIKE AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS.
City
Planner McKibben said residences are not listed as permitted uses on GC1. The Commission discussed the need to add
residences for nonconforming uses.
HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCEPT THREE NONCONFORMING USES – TO INCLUDE:
* BOAT CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR BUSINESS
* EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
* EXISTING
CARETAKER’S RESIDENCE
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
VOTE: (motion to amend the amendment) YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
VOTE: (main motion – staff report as amended) YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
City Planner
McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations.
Chuck Walkden,
applicant, stated he is requesting an increase to 6.4% impervious coverage to
avoid costs. Mr. Walkden
explained the location of his parcel to the Commission noting there was a great
deal of undeveloped land between his parcel and the creek system.
LEHNER/PFEIL- MOVED TO ADOPT
Staff
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission should review the
plan, and approve the mitigation plan with the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with all other
applicable federal, state and local regulations.
2. Construction activities shall minimize
impact to the site, and natural vegetation shall
be retained to the maximum extent possible.
3. Areas disturbed by construction shall
be planted or seeded as soon as possible to reduce sedimentation.
4. Drain fields and leaching areas w
5. Shallow ditching w
Commissioner Lehner
pointed out some math errors, the house data calculates at 1,760 sq. ft. and
the driveway at 2,180 sq. ft.
Commissioner Kranich questioned if there is a
turn around in the driveway or would you need to back out? Mr. Walkden
explained the driveway w
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
PFEIL/HESS – MOVED TO CONTINUE TO THE
VOTE:
YES. NON
OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
KRANICH/PFEIL – MOVED TO CONTINUE STAFF
VOTE:
YES. NON
OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
G.
Low Residential
Chair Chesley said the
increased level of development and how it relates to the current Code may need
review. The statement of purpose in the
Rural Residential district needs review.
Having one or other of city sewer or water allows a 20,000 sq. ft. lot,
both city sewer and water would allow for a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. The Commission has approved hauled city water
as being the equivalent of city water.
As Homer continues to grow, Chair Chesley
questioned how the city would stay consistent with the statement of purpose for
low density development. He asked if it
was appropriate for a RR district within the city with a minimum lot size of
40,000 sq. ft. or more reasonable, to think RR districts should be equivalent
to the Urban Residential (UR) district going down to 7,500 sq. ft. Development is on our heels and it has been
suggested a moratorium be placed on subdivision development. The question has been posed to the City
Attorney if the Commission has latitude in determining if a 10,000 sq. ft. low
would be low density development. The
City Attorney’s response was that the Commission would be within bounds not to
accept a development of all lots within those size limits.
Commissioner Foster stated that after annexation the
Commission listened to comments from each area as to their zoning
requests. Rural Residential was the top
choice, regardless of water and sewer services, as the citizens liked the way
it was defined. The City cannot enforce
covenants people are using to maintain the rural feeling. Discussion is needed.
Chair Chesley said lot
size is not the only factor as tighter cluster development with green and open
space could be provided. Provisions to
allow a percentage for green space may be needed. Commissioner Hess said just because the
smaller lot size is allowed there is no provision in the RR district that all
lots must be that size. Commissioner Lehner said the book Suburban Nation addressed regional
planning and identifies the kinds of lands you want to protect as functioning
green space. If drainages, wetlands,
steep slopes, unique features and wildlife habitat are protected, smaller lots
could be allowed. Protecting elements of
the environment that enable sustainable functions is desired.
Commissioner Foster commented that regardless what
the Commission recommends the Borough says if there is sewer and water it can
be a certain size lot. If requirements
of DEC are met smaller lots w
Chair Chesley explained to
the audience the Kenai Peninsula Borough grants the powers of planning and
zoning to the City. They can also grant platting
authority to allow the City to handle it all here. A local community with a vision for itself
may lose connectedness by a different level of government approving plats. However, taking control of all platting
actions comes with a price, as staff has to handle all platting actions. Chair Chesley said
it is something the City may need to explore.
The change would need to be mandated by the people.
Commissioner Kranich said
another option would be to expand the
Gary Thomas, city resident, asked the Commission if
the plat approval process was changed to the City level would that need to be
requested by the City. Chair Chesley understands the City makes the request and the
Borough has the discretion to grant it.
The City would have to demonstrate they can handle the work load. Chair Chesley said
there is a lot of research in the plats and notifications to the utilities and
state agencies. The plat maps are
prepared by the platting officers and for Homer it would require one to two
more staff positions.
City Planner McKibben explained the City’s Code is
supplementary to the Borough Code, with the majority of requirements in the
Borough Code.
Ginny Espenshade, city
resident, commented it is a whole issue in and of itself. She would support local control. She said it is the people of Homer’s problem
that the Commission’s decisions are not upheld.
She said if it requires traveling to Soldotna to have our voices heard
there it is a problem she is w
When asked why the Borough was overriding some
decisions, Commissioner Foster answered it may be that a developer says the
requests or conditions are too restrictive and appeal to the KPB. The Planning Commission consists of thirteen
people all over the Borough. Quite often
recommendations get overridden. Anything
that comes through with Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District gets a lot
of respect, along with local option zoning requests.
Commissioner Hess said from his standpoint when the
Commission goes through approving or placing conditions on a preliminary plat
and the Borough ignores or does not take into account the recommendations, it
is a total slap in the face. Public
Works Director Meyer commented that the Borough is sending a message to the
developer that they make the end decision.
He questioned why the City hires staff to provide recommendations to the
Commission and they work at
Commissioner Foster said the Borough has a process
for allowing exceptions. If there are findings
of fact and no one appeals, it moves on.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that all cities are
concerned. Homer is ahead of the curve
with their standards. He said we can’t
be the only ones that are concerned how the Borough looks at the advisory
planning commissions. A group of
communities could go to the Borough and remind them of the work that is being
done.
Gary Thomas commented that it seems like the City of
Chair Chesley thanked the
audience for their attendance and said the discussion needs to be
continued.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
B.
No
reports were given.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
There
was no report.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items listed under this agenda item can
be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and
A. Clerk’s July Calendar.
B. Zoning Violation Letter dated June 17, 2005 to Brad Drew
re: Zoning Permit required.
C. Forward Motion – Making the Connection.
D. Safe Growth
E. Letter from Public Works Director
F. Homer Resolution 05-53 – A Resolution
of the city
G. Letter to Eldon Adair dated June 24,
2005 regarding Zoning Permit for 1302 Ocean Drive, Lots 29, 30, 56, 57 Bayview Subdivision (replat pending).
H. Zoning Violation letter to Peter J. and
Melissa Arno re:
1005 Skyline Drive, Lot 4 Skyline View Subdivision, that portion thereof
lying south of Diamond Ridge Road, KPB 17402402.
I. Letter from the Mayor re-appointment of
J. Letter from the Mayor re: appointment of Rick Foster to the
Homer Advisory Planning Commission.
K. Copy of the Supreme Court of the State of
L. Zoning violation letter to Douglas Fraiman
dated June 30, 2005 re: KPB Parcel
#17420313, Tract B, Rumley Collie Subdivision No. 6,
M. Zoning violation letter to Douglas Fraiman
dated
N. Letter dated June 7, 2005 to
O. Letter dated June 3, 2005 to Property Owners & Interested
Persons re: Barnett’s South Slope Quiet Creek Park Subdivision Preliminary
Plat.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the
Commission on any subject. The Chair may
prescribe time limits.
Frank Griswold said the conflict
of interest issues keep coming back again and again. He told the Commission they need to ask the
City Attorney for a ruling. The comments
made about avoiding the appearance of an impropriety were alarming. If you do not disclose a conflict of interest
the public may not know about otherwise is totally wrong. He told the Commission they were obligated to
reveal a conflict of interest and they do not avoid an appearance of
impropriety by covering it up, but only increase it. Mr. Griswold referred to a three-page opinion
written in 1998 about the condos at the end of the Spit. He said it deals with contractors and
subcontractors and a conflict of interest.
Mr. Griswold read from an
City Planner McKibben answered it
was an amended recommendation and the finding speaks of it stating there is no
need as there is a mechanism for the encroachment. Mr. Griswold believes it is important that Condition
#2 follow the original recommendation that the deck needs to be corrected before
the permit is issued.
Gary Thomas thanked Chair Chesley for declaring
a potential conflict of interest, stating if in doubt it should be put out
there. He is amazed and delighted after
going through years of debate of a sign ordinance there was not a single public
comment. Residences not being allowed in
GC1 may need cleaning up. Mr. Thomas
thanked the Planning Commission for their time and putting Item G. Low
Residential Lot Sizes on the agenda. He
said he looks forward to working with the Commission and pressing for the
issues.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners
may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for
excused absence.
There
were no comments from the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special
meeting or work session w
There being no further business
to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
_________________________________
JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: ________________________
[1] The