Session 08-18, a Regular Meeting of the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Minsch at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER
BOS, KRANICH, MINSCH,
STAFF:
DEPUTY
PLANNING
TECHNICIAN HARNESS
AGENDA
APPROVAL
The agenda was approved 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.
Frank Griswold said he requested an opportunity to
speak before the worksession and he is unsure if the worksession agenda is part
of this agenda. Alaska Statute 29.20.020
states “Meetings of all municipal bodies shall be public as provided in AS
44.62.310. The governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the
public to be heard at regular and special meetings.” Homer City Code 1.14.070
states that a worksession is a special meeting of a public body. He questioned
why the worksession does not allow for public comments. If the Commission ran
out of time they should curtail their comments to allow the public an
opportunity to speak. Attorney Suozzo is the City Attorney and that mean she
represents members of the public, which includes him, and he questioned why he
didn’t get an opportunity to speak to her. One topic on the agenda is the Open
Meetings Act (OMA) and he would like to have asked if routine worksessions is a
violation of the OMA. When a worksession is held before every meeting it seems
to him it is an attempt to circumvent the OMA. What was discussed in the
worksession that couldn’t have been addressed now, unless it is done to keep it
off the record or keep the public from participating. Attorney Suozzo had
suggested during the worksession that staff be allowed into their executive
sessions and he would like to know who is allowed in an executive session. If
staff can be allowed in, can some members of the public be allowed in and not
others, he asked where they draw the line. He stated again that he wanted to
know if he could be allowed to speak at worksessions.
RECONSIDERATION
There were no items for
reconsideration.
ADOPTION OF THE 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
1.
Approval of Minutes of
2. Time Extension Requests
3. Approval of City of
4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
The consent agenda was approved by consensus of the
Commission.
KRANICH/SINN MOVED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
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 scheduled.
REPORTS
A. Borough
Report
There was no Borough Report.
B.
There was no KBAPC report.
C. Planning
Director’s Report
City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report. There
was discussion regarding Planning Commissioners involvement in discussion of
the spit comprehensive plan because there weren’t any on this recent committee
for the City comprehensive plan. City Planner Abboud commented that if there
are two Commissioners interested in participating, he would recommend it.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing
a staff report, hearing public testimony and the 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.
A.
Staff
PLAT
CONSIDERATION
The Commission hears a staff report, testimony from
applicants and the public, The Commission may ask questions of staff,
applicants and the public, The Commission w
Planning Technician Harness reviewed the staff
report.
There were no applicant or audience comments.
STORM/KRANICH MOVED TO ADOPT
It was clarified that this action is to vacate lot
lines and is a platting action rather than a subdivision. Commissioner Kranich
noted the directions were reversed in the staff report analysis. Planning
Technician Harness said she would make the correction.
KRANICH/ZAK MOVED TO AMEND ADD A RECOMMENDATION
THAT THE 15
There was brief discussion explaining why the
easements are shown on the plat.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was discussion regarding the purpose of
vacating lot lines. It was noted that there is nothing in code prohibiting this
property owner or a future new property owner from coming back to the
Commission and subdividing the property again. Point was raised that vacating
property lines in an effort to avoid assessments in an LID puts a burden on
neighboring property owners and results in less money to the City for services.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Moore stated he has a conflict of
interest.
KRANICH/BOS MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER MOORE
Commissioner Moore stated 2 to 3 years ago he
worked with the applicant in clearing another parcel of property the applicant
owns and stated that he would do business with the property owner if the
opportunity presents itself.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, SINN, STORM, BOS
NO:
ZAK
Motion carried.
Commissioner Moore left the table.
There was discussion regarding the location of the
road access, driveway, and wetlands.
STORM/KRANICH MOVED TO ADOPT
Commissioner Kranich commented that the packet
information refers to a Homer Electric Easement that is general easement with
no definite location disclosed. It is a blanket easement and is not listed as a
plat note.
KRANICH/ZAK MOVED TO ADD PLAT NOTE 10 INDICATING A
GENERAL EASEMENT, NO DEFINITE LOCATION DISCLOSED IN THE FAVOR OF HOMER ELECTRIC
ON THIS PLAT.
Commissioner Kranich clarified that it is a general
easement that covers entire parcel and Homer Electric can go anywhere on the
property and put in what ever they want. People w
VOTE: (Primary amendment) NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
Motion carried.
There was discussion regarding the importance of
the Borough remembering that if a parcel doesn’t have a buildable road, then
there is concern about subdividing property. Point was made that there is an
existing access to the property. It was noted that Rick Foster is their Borough
representative and this concern can be brought to his attention.
KRANICH/ZAK MOVED THAT 15
VOTE: (Primary amendment) NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
Motion carried.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: ZAK, SINN,
BOS, STORM, MINSCH, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Chair Minsch requested that after the plat is
approved at the Borough that it comes back to the Commission so they can look
at it and see what happens to the plats at the Borough level.
Commissioner Moore returned to the table.
PENDING
BUSINESS
The
following motion is on the floor from the September 17 regular meeting: KRANICH/ZAK
MOVED TO BRING TO THE FLOOR STAFF REPORT PL 08-97 FAIRVIEW SUBDIVISION 2008
REPLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL.
City Planner Abboud referred the Commission to the
communication from the applicant that had been requested at the last meeting.
KRANICH/ZAK MOVED TO DELETE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1.
Commissioner Kranich commented that underground utilities
are in on
Chair Minsch countered that they can’t predict the
needs of the future for things like natural gas, or nuclear power. Public Works
recommended that the easements should be shown.
There was discussion about the setbacks in relations
to the decks on the house and the requirements of Borough Code.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): YES:
NO:
MINSCH, SINN
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: STORM,
Motion carried.
City Planner off street
parking w
Planning Technician Harness
reviewed the amendments.
STORM/KRANICH MOVED TO
DISCUSS THE PARKING ORDINANCE.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
Commissioner Kranich questioned if the 20% parking
reduction includes large retail in the
There was discussion regarding line 164 and
requirements for screening.
In the future they would like to have more discussion
regarding line 208 paving parking facilities in the City. They may want to talk
about permeable, more sustainable methods of stabilizing parking lots. Drainage
should be addressed as well. In conversation it may be good to discuss parking
requirements separate from paving requirements. There aren’t currently any
paving requirements.
Commissioner Zak pointed out page 53 item 3 refers
to rooming houses as well as item 2, so perhaps it should be eliminated out of
item 3. Item 4 seasonal outdoor seating is inconsistent with the requirement on
seating in auditoriums and other places. If they are sitting outside he would
prefer there not be a seating requirement. On item 13 two spaces per bowling
lane would be more realistic. On 15 he questioned one space per ten students,
but didn’t have a recommendation. Item 21 taxi operations he recommended half a
space for each employee because they would come in and leave a car, and then
take a car. It was noted it should differentiate between water taxi and taxi cab. Item 22 impound yard, it needs to be
clarified between parking cars for impound and employee parking.
Parking issues for churches where their lots are overflowing
on Sunday mornings is something to talk about in the future. It was noted that those
parking lots, especially if they are paved, sit as empty heat sinks for the
other 6 days of the week. On street parking could help with the overflow,
especially in town center. Planning Technician Harness noted line 308 Joint use
parking areas. There are provisions for parking agreements to be recorded and
there was discussion about eliminating the agreement. The agreement should be
recorded to all properties sharing it.
Lines 400-410 are the only ones that apply to the
spit. It doesn’t say how close the off-site parking has to be. It could be
discussed during the Spit Comprehensive Plan.
Variances don’t belong in this chapter; they are
covered in title 21. They could just have references instead of all the words.
Other items that need to be addressed are deliveries
by large trucks for
Staff w
Chair Minsch called for a short break at
NEW BUSINESS
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 w
STORM/KRANICH MOVED TO DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REVIEW OF CHAPTER 7.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
Commissioners commended staff on the edit. Further
comments included:
·
Regarding
the implementation plan, should more work be done say the primary responsibility
is the City and then identify the group, departments or Commissions, within the
city that w
·
The
implementation graph should be shown on one page for easier review.
·
Attention
to graphics and shading that are legible after being copied to black and white.
·
Having
the implementation not only in the chapter but also in the appendix.
·
Parks
and Recreation might want opportunity to review now that it has been revised.
STORM/KRANICH MOVED TO EXTEND TO
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
KRANICH/ZAK MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW
PUBLIC COMMENT.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
B
ZAK/KRANICH SO MOVED TO POSTPONE.
It was noted that it would be postponed to the next
regular meeting.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The Commission agreed that they would like to see
the similar format as chapter 7. Comments were made that they may want to
consider the preambles of each chapter given Mr. Smith’s comments. Others felt
that it needs to be more focused. The goals are there and that is what the
community wants. If everyone is pointed in the same direction it w
Planning Technician Harness reviewed the staff
report.
STORM/ZAK MOVED TO DISCUSS THE NONCONFORMING CODE
AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
The Commissioners were in agreement to support
incorporating recommendations 2-4 in the staff report. It would have saved a
lot of time in previous actions. There was some discussion regarding the date
selected to go back to. Planning Technician Harness explained staff felt using
2003 was appropriate due to the date of annexation, aerial imagery, and the
Bridge Creek Watershed seemed to be an appropriate point to uses. She pointed
out that of the last 16 requests, 10 were results of annexations and the other
6 would have been here anyway. Issues
prior to 2003, like Blackwell, Safeway for example, would come before the
Commission. If a person made a request to bring their nonconformity to the
Commission they would have that option. The staff determination can be appealed
to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission decision can be appealed to
the BOA, and BOA decision can be appealed to the Superior Court.
There was discussion that if a building that is
nonconforming burns down the property owner should be allowed to rebuild.
Question was raised that if the building exceeded the height limit, when they
rebuild does building height have to conform or can they build back to the
original building height.
Staff w
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Email
dated
There was brief
discussion on the informational items.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the Audience may
address the Commission on any subject.
B
Regarding the informational item and the City’s
acceptance and adoption of its own subdivision regulations is referred to in
chapter 417 objective e. The guidance about drainage easement subdivisions is
in that 417 chapter e. There is a lot to discuss about the City taking over
more of the platting authority from the Borough. He would be happy to come back
and have discussion with the Commission about that.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comments
on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
There were no Commission comments.
ADJOURN
Meetings adjourn promptly at
There being no further business to come before the
Commission, the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN,
Approved: