Session 07-07, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich
at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, SCHEER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER ZAK (Excused)
STAFF:
DEPUTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
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.
There were no public comments.
RECONSIDERATION
Reconsideration of Staff Report
PL07-18, Guy Waddell Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary Plat, Chesley. (If Reconsideration is Approved the Plat will be back
before the Commission under Pending Business)
CHESLEY/SCHEER I
Commissioner Chesley stated two reasons for reconsideration. First is that the developer is proposing not to build road to the rural residential road standard, which would normally be required in subdivision. It appears the driveway standards aren’t going to be consistent with the Alaska State Fire Code standard. He and Commissioner Scheer met with Fire Chief Painter and discussed the nature of the fire code. Second is the issue is that one lot has two structures, which is non-conforming for this district.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, SCHEER, CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
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 of
2. Time Extension Requests
3. Approval of City of
4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
5. Commissioner Excused Absences
The consent agenda was adopted by consensus of the Commission. Commissioner Chesley and Chair Kranich commended staff on the preparation of the minutes.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the
Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address
the Planning Commission
There were no presentations.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster advised the Commission that Country Club Estates will be before the Borough Planning Commission at their next meeting, May 14th in Soldotna.
B.
No KBAPC Report
C. Planning Director’s Report
City Planner McKibben thanked the Commissioners who came to the Comprehensive Plan workshop. She felt it was time well spent with the consultants. Ms. McKibben advised the Commission that City Council reviewed the sensitive areas ordinance, made some amendments and postponed action on it to a further date.
PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Commissioner Scheer stated he has a conflict of interest.
FOSTER/CHESLEY MOVED THAT
COMMISSIONER SCHEER
Commissioner Scheer advised the Commission that his firm, DnA Designs did work on the site regarding the drainage.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
Commissioner Scheer left the table.
Commissioner Minsch advised the Commission that the applicant contacted her regarding this action. She advised the applicant that she is a member of the Planning Commission and could not discuss this with her.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Charlene Johnston, applicant,
advised the Commission that the existing house on the lot is very charming, but
too close to the bluff to expand or refurbish.
Mrs. Johnston explained that she and her husband currently reside in
There was discussion regarding
the foundation for the new residence and the status of
There were no further public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
MINSCH/FOSTER I
STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS that the Planning Commission approves
the request for a Conditional Use Permit with on the following conditions:
1.
Applicant
to provide proof of compliance with city, state and federal codes per
2.
Applicant to provide an
as-built survey to the City, within 6 months of completion, which verifies
that, the new structure meets the required setback requirements per
3.
Outdoor lighting to comply
with the Community Design Manual standards.
4.
A written statement from a registered engineer stating
that the existing septic system will support the waster water flow demands of
both structures is required by prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit.
5.
Both structures will connect to the public utilities
within 6 months of installation.
There was brief discussion regarding calculations and measurements on the lot.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
Commissioner Scheer 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.
There were no plats scheduled for consideration.
PENDING BUSINESS
A. Staff Report PL07-18, Guy Waddell Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary Plat
The amended main motion back on the floor:
MINSCH/SCHEER I
Planning Commission recommend approval of the
preliminary plat with the following comments:
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission of an email, provided as a laydown, from Fire Chief Painter regarding this action.
Regarding the issue of non conformity, Ms. McKibben noted that it was identified in the staff report and Mr. Spurkland, representative of the Uminski family, stated that they would be removing extra structures rather than applying for non conformity. It was noted by Commissioner Chesley that this is a situation that needs to be rectified before the preliminary plat comes before the Commission. He cited an instance on a previous action where an applicant said they would do something during approval of the CUP and it turned into an enforcement problem.
Discussion ensued regarding the Alaska Fire Code requirements regarding the percentage of the road grade for fire apparatus in relation to this plat. Public Works Director Meyer and Kenton Bloom participated in the discussion.
· Fire apparatus has to be able to get within 150 feet of the closest portion of a structure to fight a fire.
·
Requirements of the Design Criteria Manual were
noted regarding Fire Chief requirements and State of
·
Per Jack Cushing[1],
in the City of
· There needs to be discussion with Planning, Public Works and the Fire Department to harmonize the requirements.
· Fire Chief Painter had commented to Mr. Chesley that the main concern is when they are driving an apparatus down a grade that there is sufficient run out at the bottom to decelerate and stop the truck before it gets to an intersection. When climbing a grade there needs to be sufficient time at the top to be able to maneuver and not have to do it in a grade situation.
· State Code requirements supersede Homer City Code.
· When a developer comes in and a condition is placed on the plat that the roads have to meet standards, there needs to be some sort of percentage guidelines for Public Works to communicate in the subdivision agreement.
·
An option for resolution of this issue is rather
than considering alternative subdivision designs, requiring that all
subdivisions meet the subdivision requirements of the City of
· The Planning Commission is a group of volunteers. When the paid staff reviews something any concerns should be addressed in the staff report. It is not the Commission’s job to beat the bushes and find out if staff did their job or not.
· The Fire Chief should be consistent in applying the Fire Code requirement in all subdivisions.
Mr. Bloom stated that they want
to have emergency vehicle access in any subdivision his firm is involved
in. They have always approached shared
driveways in a consistent manner with four accesses being about the maximum
density for a shared driveway. He added
the driveways are usually about 18 feet wide with grades not to exceed 12% and
turns have extra of the lane width of the road and a run out. There is no driveway ordinance in the City
code. It isn’t required that information
be provided on the plat regarding driveways, however it is added in an effort
to show how the development w
Specific to this development, the main reason lot 7 was in the project is that they thought it would be appropriate, considering the development, to give legal access. Mr. Bloom further commented that in the areas where the steeper slopes are involved, if the City wants micro lots then implement the road standards to all the lots. He explained to the Commission the efforts he puts forth in his designs to achieve a workable level. Mr. Bloom commented that the lots designed in this type of model, unless the idea is designated that there is the potential for a second lot, include a deed restriction on the building envelope.
Discussion continued regarding issues concerning roads, grades and emergency vehicle accessibility.
CHESLEY/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE STAFF REPORT TO REQUIRE THAT
The whole idea is through the planning process a way is figured out to meet these requirements that the Fire Chief says he has an obligation to meet.
Comment was made regarding requirements for driveways being addressed through subdivision agreements. Public Works Director Meyer clarified that driveways are not addressed through subdivision agreements.
Commissioner Hess called for the question, but there was no second. Discussion continued reiterating many of the discussion points brought up earlier in discussion.
FOSTER/HESS MOVED TO AMEND THE
AMENDMENT
There were comments made in support of the amendment.
VOTE: (Secondary Amendment) YES: HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, SCHEER, KRANICH
NO: MINSCH
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: (Primary Amendment) YES: HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, SCHEER
NO: MINSCH, KRANICH
Motion carried.
It was clarified that it is recommendation eight.
There was brief discussion regarding the issue of non conformity. City Planner McKibben noted a workable solution presented by Mr. Bloom in which they will work to comply before the final plat is approved and the City will work to handle future situations differently.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, SCHEER, HESS
MINSCH
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich called for a short
recess at
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 nonconformity).
CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS TO A FUTURE MEETING.
Commissioner Chesley commented that there was good discussion during the worksession and something different needs to come back to the Commission. He suggested he and Chair Kranich could talk with staff and determine when to bring it back.
VOTE: YES: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Letter dated
B. Letter dated
C. Informational materials provided by Commissioner Minsch to be discussed at a later date
Chair Kranich commented in regard to the letter from the Handley’s regarding their preliminary plat. He said it was disturbing and unless there is a drastically different side to the story, he thinks there was an injustice done to the applicants. City Planner McKibben said she and staff had tried to reach the Handley’s, with out success, through out the day on April 18th to ensure they had received a copy of the memo on the non conformity. Ms. McKibben stated that Planning Technician Harness didn’t understand that they were requesting the plat be pulled and none of the other staff members heard that in the conversation, although they were not party to the whole discussion. She reported that the Handley’s are meeting with her and Ms. Harness tomorrow.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
There were no audience comments.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Chesley thanked everyone for a good meeting.
Commissioners Hess, Foster, Scheer, Minsch and Chair Kranich had no comments.
ADJOURN
There being no further business
to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: