Session 06-28, a Special Meeting
of the Homer Advisory
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, PFEIL, ZAK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY (Excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
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 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.
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.
There were no minutes on the
agenda for approval.
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 will be heard
at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations are 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 or
presentations.
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. Chair Kranich noted the attachments included as part of the record:
1. Public Notice
2. Vicinity Map
3. Notice
of Appeal Filing and Record of Appeal dated
4. Letter from Bradshaw’s/Central Charters
re Central Charters Board Walk at
5. Letter dated
6. Letter date
stamped
7. HCC 21.60, Article 1 sign regulations.
Garth Bradshaw, property owner and appellant, commented the he believes the City is in error in their interpretation of the Code. A sign permit was issued to Alaska Coastal Marine maintaining that it was part of the business cluster allotment. Mr. Bradshaw noted that City Code says that the land owner has to apply for the sign permit for the business cluster. He believes that the City issuing the permit to Mr. Cashman of Alaska Coastal Marine was an error. Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview of his business, Central Charters, and explained that the Kachemak Bay Ferry does ticket sales out of the Central Charters office. There are 2 signs for the ferry that account for about 64 square feet. Seldovia Tours is the other business that works out of the same office and should be allowed signage as well. Mr. Bradshaw believes the sign code was well written and particularly applies to their business. He believes that Central Charters is allowed 150 square feet because it is a cluster business, which includes his charter business as well as the other two business work out of the Central Charters building. They applied for the additional signage and agree that the ordinance is unclear as to how much additional signage should be allotted to them. Mr. Bradshaw said it is his understanding that their building qualifies for 150 square feet of signage and when referenced to the table they should get another 150 square feet for their cluster business. Per HCC 21.60.120 (d), as lot owners they can apply for the cluster business permit. According to the City, Mr. Cashman gets 50 square feet of the cluster business sign based on the frontage of his building. The Bradshaw’s feel that is incorrect and Mr. Cashman’s sign should be separate as his business is separate and has its own building frontage.
Rhonda Bradshaw, property owner and appellant, gave a synopsis of what has happened and explained that through the process they learned that sign permits were required and after measuring all the signage and based on their frontage, it was determined they were out of compliance. She explained that they had put up a banner advertising half day charters and some complaints came in, which is where this started. Their plan is to put up some nicer, permanent signage once this gets worked out. Mrs. Bradshaw said they understand the reason for the sign code and read HCC 21.60.020.
It was clarified that their total signage is 178 square feet and the banner added 50 more square feet. It was noted that their signs are all on the building with the exception of one freestanding sign where they hang the fish from the charters and it is included in the 178 square feet. Discussion followed regarding the status of Central Charters as a business and the boardwalk as separate. Mr. Bradshaw reiterated that per City Code, only the Landowner can apply for the cluster business sign permit.
Commissioner Minsch questioned if there were photos. City Planner McKibben responded that there were photos in the file and she reviewed them with the appellant then gave them to the Commission to review.
There was discussion regarding
the number of building on the boardwalk and the Bradshaw’s intent with the
additional signage. Mr. Bradshaw
commented that currently there are the two other businesses with signage on the
Central Charters building, which takes away from their 150 square feet. By obtaining a cluster permit, the other
businesses w
Chair Kranich noted that there are eight photos labeled as follows:
1.
2. Central Charters Boardwalk
3. Central Charters Boardwalk, Continued
4.
5. Central Charters Boardwalk (black and white)
6. Central Charters Boardwalk -
7. Central Charters Boardwalk - Sea Lion Gallery
8. Central Charters Boardwalk - Alpaca Connection
The photos were accepted into the record and discussion continued.
Points were noted regarding signage:
· The appellant believes that they should be allowed 150 square feet of signage as a cluster business and another 150 square feet for Central Charters.
· Presently Central Charters is allowed 150 square feet and have to share it with the two businesses that work out of their building.
· Those two businesses can’t apply for a sign permit as they do not have store frontage.
· Below table two in the sign ordinance it states under cluster business that each individual business is allowed a maximum allowed signage according to its respective frontage, using the table above. In addition each business cluster is allowed a maximum allowed signage according to the table above.
· The phrase “in addition” gives the appellant the understanding that they be allowed the additional 150 square feet according to the table 2.
· The appellant recognized the requirement that there is to be only one free standing sign per zoned lot. Should they choose to have a free standing sign it has to fall with in the parameters in code.
There was discussion concerning the concept of a business cluster and a cluster business. Mrs. Bradshaw noted an understanding that there are two definitions. Business cluster which would be the boardwalk and cluster business which would more than one business in a building. City Planner McKibben commented that there are a lot of different ways someone could work with that language.
Tim Cashman who does business with the Bradshaw’s commented that signage on the spit is incredibly important and valuable to the businesses there. He agrees that the Bradshaw’s are in a unique situation, having a business cluster and a cluster business. He believes the interpretation of the code is to allow for the business cluster, which is the boardwalk, to have a sign to advertise all the businesses and each individual business have signage based on the store frontage for each business. He agrees their intent is to revisit how the signs are up on the building, define the amount of signage allowed, dress it up, clean it up and make it more effective and professional. They had hoped to do so this summer. He expressed his support for the Bradshaws. Signage makes a huge difference to the people who rely on their business for income.
B
Mr. Bradshaw rebutted Mr. Smith’s
comments, noting that the H
There being no further comments from the appellant or the public, Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
MINSCH/PFEIL MOVED TO CONTINUE 06-118 CENTRAL CHARTERS APPEAL TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED.
Commissioner Zak commented he would prefer an open discussion and move forward.
There was discussion that if time allows, they could deliberate after tonight’s meeting.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, PFEIL, KRANICH, HESS
NO: ZAK
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich noted that if they
are not able to get back to this tonight, they w
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 items for plat consideration.
OLD BUSINESS
There
were no Old Business items.
NEW 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.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report.
Philip Alderfer commented to the
Commission on behalf of the property owners regarding their request for a
variance to allow them to have a fence that is 24 inches higher than what is
allowed in Code. He said the Code allows
for a variance if a certain set of circumstances exist. He noted item A in the staff report and
whether or not a variance permit is both reasonably necessary for preservation
of valuable property rights and full use and enjoyment of the property. Mr. Alderfer questions by whom. He and the applicants believe it was telling
by the comments from the Planning Department, “if the HAPC approves this
conditional fence permit staff recommends a modification that would allow
partial view.” His understanding is that
it is for people driving on
There was discussion regarding a
“dominating fence” and reference was made to a fence on
It was questioned if the fence is 20 feet from the lot line and Mr. Alderfer responded that it is his understanding that it is.
There was discussion of the definition of fence height,
which means the distance between the ground either natural or f
Mr. Alderfer commented that
previously the property owners had put up some chains in an effort to keep
people from using their property as photo spot, but people would st
MINSCH MOVED TO ADOPT
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Chair Kranich called for a break
at
MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO ADOPT
Discussion points included:
· Regardless of the decision, part of the finding reflect the fact that we deal with the definition of the fence height to ensure there is a basis in their finding that would address using mounds in relation to fence height.
·
There is some uniqueness regarding
· This lot has not been vegetated for many years.
· They have to be standardized with the fence code because there are view properties all over and people could make the same argument as these folks.
· HCC 21.32.195 reads that the two foot mound is legal and measurement of the fence would begin at the top of the two foot mound.
·
F
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ADD A FINDING THAT THE FOUR FOOT FENCE HEIGHT MENTIONED IN CODE SECTION 21.60.230 INCLUDES ANY MOUNDS PLACED TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.
Commissioner Hess commented that this is to establish precedence for future permits and there was discussion of the merits of this when it comes to future actions similar to this regarding fence height.
It was clarified that this would be finding g on the staff report.
Commissioner Zak commented that page 27 Community Design Manual (CDM) shows an example of a rock retaining wall with a fence built on top and page 28 makes a recommendation for use of landscaping to screen parking and service area and bringing in a mound about 3 feet high. Mr. Zak spoke in favor of using mounds and sees examples in the CDM where mounds are used as landscaping and would be better than using six foot fences. He noted that if the intent of the CDM was for use in the Central Business District, some of those concepts could carry over and believes that mounds used properly can look good. He also agrees that out of control heights of fences aren’t good for a community.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL
NO: ZAK, KRANICH
Motion carried.
FOSTER/MINSCH MOVED TO AMEND
STAFF FINDING D “The fence appears to be a
planned architectural feature, however Because of the size of
the lots, it does [not] appear to dominate the site”
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: YES: ZAK, FOSTER, MINSCH, PFEIL
NO: HESS, KRANICH
Motion carried.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND STAFF
FINDING E “The orientation and
location of the fence is NOT in proper relation to the
physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood”.”
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, ZAK, MINSCH
NO: KRANICH, PFEIL HESS
Motion failed for lack of majority.
HESS MOVED TO AMEND FINDING A “Lack
of vegetation is not an unusual or special circumstance. Spruce bark beetle k
Motion failed for lack of a second.
There was discussion to clarify
the main motion and amendments.
Commissioner Zak stated that
agrees with denying the variance for the fence but if he votes yes he w
VOTE: (Main motion as amended) YES: PFEIL, MINSCH, FOSTER
NO: HESS, KRANICH, ZAK
Motion failed for lack of a majority.
City Planner McKibben passed out information for the Commission to read before their worksession next week. She read over the staff report and gave them a brief overview of the Sensitive Areas Plan.
HESS/ZAK MOVED TO CONTINUE THESE ITEMS[1] TO OUR NEXT WORKSESSION.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster reported that the Borough provided
funding for him to attend the same training[2]
that City Planner McKibben and Planning Technician Engebretsen attended in
City Planner McKibben commented something else that was noted was the importance of findings and when adopting them, include key thoughts and ideas in the reasons for the findings.
B.
There
was no Kachemak Bay Advisory
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Planner McKibben
commented that there was a lot of good information at the training and she w
The Commission discussed
holding a worksession for the Gateway Overlay on December 4 at
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items
listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning
violation letters, reports and information from other government units.
A. Letter dated
B. Letter dated
C. Letter dated
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members
of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
There were no audience comments.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including
requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
ZAK/FOSTER MOVED FOR IMMEDIATE RECONSIDERATION OF PL 06-119.
Commissioner Zak commented they could make a consideration and provide input to the applicants.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER, ZAK
NO: HESS
Motion carried.
It was clarified that the main motion and its amendments are back on the floor.
FOSTER/ZAK MOVED THAT WE REMOVE THE MOUND AMENDMENT, FINDING G.
Commissioner Foster believes that it is the right action for this situation.
The Commission discussed mounds being used in conjunction with fences. The Commissioners acknowledged that there is a need to look at issues where people may use mounding specifically to raise their fence level and it is something that needs to be addressed in Code, however including it as a finding in this instance may not be the best solution. They agreed to look at a future Code amendment.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion carried.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, MINSCH, PFEIL
NO: KRANICH
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster commented
that he was glad to see staff at the training in
Commissioner Pfeil advised the
Commission that tonight is his last meeting.
He said it is time to step back for a while and let others step up and
guide Homer in the days to come. He
thanked the Planning Staff and Clerk’s Office for all their hard work and
support over the years. He said it has
been an honor and privilege to serve on the Commission and they w
Chair Kranich reluctantly
accepted Mr. Pfeil’s resignation and thanked him on behalf of the community for
his service and the untold hours he has put into the Commission. He hopes Mr. Pfeil w
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 CITY CLERK
Approved: