Session 07-15, a Regular Meeting of the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER
FOSTER, HESS, HOWARD, KRANICH, MINSCH, ZAK
STAFF:
DEPUTY
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.
There were no public comments.
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 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 the Minutes of August 14, September 5, and
2. Time
Extension Requests
3. Approval
of City of
4. KPB
Coastal Management Program
5. Commissioner
Excused Absences
The minutes of September 5 and 19 were moved to New
Business items C and D.
The Consent Agenda was approved as amended by
consensus of the Commission.
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 suggested the Commission go on
line to view the information for the Borough Planning Commission, specifically
regarding the James Waddell, Burns Addition Plat. The City had recommended a
thirty foot dedication across the top and bottom. In the first packet the
Borough had recommended an exception to the requirements for all the
rights-of-way for a subdivision. It was postponed and there were letters of
opposition regarding the use of the driveway and the Borough came back
requiring a 60 foot right-of-way dedication on all four sides. Commissioner
Foster noted that he had to recuse himself at the Borough level since he
participated in the action when it was before the City. Mr. Foster advised the Commission that Mr.
Tulin is involved in a project right outside City limits,
B.
There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning
Commission Report
C. Planning
Director’s Report
1.
Staff
City Planner McKibben reviewed her staff report.
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
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
HESS/FOSTER I
Commissioner Zak advised the Commission that he
lives in the area that was noticed regarding the proposed greenhouse but he
feels he can be fair in making a decision regarding this action and has no financial
interest.
Commissioner Hess noted code recognizes that
property owners within 300 feet are interested parties when it comes to
appeals. He thinks that if it would apply in appeals it would also apply in
conflict of interest.
VOTE: YES. FOSTER, HOWARD, KRANICH, HESS
NO:
MINSCH, ZAK
Motion carried.
It was noted that Mr. Zak shouldn’t have voted but
regardless the four votes prevailed.
Commissioner Zak left the table.
Paul Mackie and Tracy Asselin, applicants,
addressed the Commission. Mr. Mackie
explained that they are planning to sell vegetable starts, no actual produce,
in the short window of the spring time when people buy vegetable and flower
starts. His understanding is that they can have a greenhouse and run an
agricultural business as long as there are no wholesale or retail sales.
Ms. Asselin said there w
Commissioner Foster noted the agricultural
operations state that there can be a greenhouse if there is no wholesale or
retail business sales office. He questioned how their plan meets the
regulation. Mr. Mackie expressed his understanding that what they have proposed
is allowed in Rural Residential. City Planner McKibben clarified that a listed
conditional use is a commercial greenhouse and tree nursery for sale of produce
grown on premises.
There was brief discussion regarding the access to
the lot.
Chair Kranich opened the public hearing.
Bryan Zak commented in support of the CUP.
There were no further public comments and Chair
Kranich closed the public hearing.
The applicant had no further comments.
MINSCH/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE FLOOR A
MOTION TO ADOPT
Commissioner Foster noted that finding E
specifically states the seasonal window as May 10 through July 30 and once the
CUP is adopted the window can’t be changed.
HESS/HOWARD I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE
THE LAST SENTENCE IN FINDING
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the main motion
as amended.
VOTE: (main motion as amended) YES. HOWARD, MINSCH,
KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
Kenton Bloom, Applicant’s representative and city
resident, commented that the staff report thoroughly addressed the content of
this application and he is available for questions.
There were no questions for the applicant.
Chair Kranich opened the public hearing.
Jody Murdock, city resident and property owner
within 300 feet of the easement being vacated, expressed his concern that the
trail system involved in this action is on property lines. He said there seems
to be an easement situation where trail heads are on property lines and he
thinks it w
City Planner McKibben commented that easements do
not have setback requirements, like a right-of-way. She explained that a trail
easement can’t be placed on a property with out the owner’s permission. The
trails w
Mr. Murdock said he has a problem with the fact
that this trail is on all the property lines all the way through and he doesn’t
think it addresses the fact that there might be some issues with adjacent
property owners in the future.
Brief discussion ensued trying to clarify the
situation and City Planner McKibben reiterated that an easement can not be
created on another person’s property without the property owner’s permission.
Jim Preston, city resident, has lived on
Chair Kranich said the project would go through a
public process for the project and easements would have to be requested or
purchased from land owners. The proposal outlined in the comp plan does not
appear to tie in to the proposal before the Commission tonight.
City Planner McKibben noted a laydown that was
provided. It is a letter dated October 12 to all concerned relevant parties
regarding the
There were no further public comments and Chair
Kranich closed the public hearing.
The applicant had no further comments.
MINSCH/HESS – I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT
PL07-99 VACATION OF
HESS /FOSTER - MOVED TO ADD A RECOMMENDATION THAT
THIS VACATION ACTION IS CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE
Commissioner Foster commented that a right-of-way
can’t be vacated unless there is an approved access.
It was clarified that this action only vacates the
right-of-way.
HESS/MINSCH - MOVED THAT THE VACATION WILL BE
CONTINGENT UPON THE ADDITION OF THE TRAIL EASEMENT WITHIN THE VACATED
City Planner McKibben noted that this issue was
addressed in the findings. The precedence for approving the vacation is
contingent upon the development of the pedestrian access.
VOTE: (Secondary amendment): NO: KRANICH, FOSTER,
ZAK, HOWARD, HESS, MINSCH
Motion failed.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: ZAK, HESS,
FOSTER, MINSCH, HOWARD, KRANICH[1]
Chair Kranich called for a break at
Chair Kranich advised the Commission that the first
amendment regarding the vacation being contingent on the approval of the
preliminary plat was not voted on. He
explained that the Commission will vote on the amendment and then re-vote on
the main motion as amended.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER,
MINSCH, HOWARD, KRANICH
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: (main motion as amended): YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER,
HOWARD
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
Gary Nelson, Project Surveyor and Applicant’s
Representative, commented that he, Duane Knapp, and Doug Meeker are available
for questions.
Chair Kranich opened the public hearing.
Melanie Whitney, City Resident, read her letter
that was included in the packet. She is in support of the project because it w
When asked about traffic reduction, Ms. Whitney
said the lot has been used to accommodate an open air market, boat storage, an
auto shop and has the cabin business. She thinks the condo project would reduce
the amount of traffic coming in and out of the property from all those
different uses.
There were no further public comments. Chair
Kranich closed the public hearing.
The applicants had no further comments.
MINSCH/HESS I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT
PL 07-102[2]
STAFF
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission
approve CUP 07-12 with the following conditions:
The project w
Commissioner Zak disclosed that in the future he
may sell a piece of property, not this specific property, but one that belongs
to the applicant. He doesn’t believe it w
No motion was made regarding conflict of interest.
There was discussion clarifying that the
Conditional Use Permit is number 07-12, it has been corrected from CUP 07-11.
Commissioner Hess commented that he likes the
project but expressed concern that traffic impact w
·
A
traffic analysis would be beneficial as traffic crosses the road to
·
Access
on the back of the property w
·
Building
one is retail office and business and is not expected to generate as many trips
as straight retail.
Commissioner Minsch questioned what soils test
would be required on the property as referenced in staff recommendation 4. City
Planner commented that there is some concern that there may be contamination
there as a result of the auto shop. The City is interested in knowing if there
are soil issues on the property and if so, she expects there would be
appropriate remediation. Mrs. Minsch explained that the staff recommendation
does not explain what the applicant is supposed to do. She asked how the City
deals with the issue. City Planner McKibben said Homer City Code doesn’t have
anything that deals with contaminated soils.
MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION FOR CONDITION 13 THAT
AN ENGINEER PROVIDE A PHASE
There was brief discussion about when it should be
done.
Commissioner Zak cautioned that the City doesn’t
overextend themselves by the Commission making recommendations that aren’t
required in Code. They should be careful about the restrictions that the
Commission places here.
FOSTER/MINSCH I
There was no further discussion.
VOTE (Secondary amendment): YES: HOWARD, MINSCH,
HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER
NO:
ZAK
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: HOWARD, MINSCH,
KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
NO:
ZAK
The need to amend staff recommendation three was
discussed. Commissioner Minsch suggested leaving it as it is since it ties it
into the
There was discussion regarding condition seven. City Planner McKibben clarified that this
requirement is to ensure that if no development is done by
It was clarified that
HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE
THE STAFF ANALYSIS COMMENT ON THE BOTTOM OF
Commissioner Zak commented that this could be added
to almost any development on the
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER, HOWARD
NO:
ZAK
Motion carried.
HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD TO
THE FINDING ON THE TOP OF
Commissioner Zak said his previous comments stand
and a traffic analysis could show improvement of the situation there. He thinks
they are adding much to the findings. Just require a traffic analysis, versus
adding the additional statements that don’t have any firm facts. It is as if
they are building a case against it before a traffic analysis is done.
VOTE: YES: HESS, FOSTER, MINSCH, HOWARD, KRANICH
NO:
ZAK
Motion carried.
HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD A
CONDITION 14 TO REQUIRE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Commissioner Zak questioned why it needs to come
before the Commission. Mr. Hess responded that there may be mitigation choices
presented that the Commission may want to discuss. City Planner McKibben said Code
requires the TIA be managed by the City so she w
VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, HOWARD, HESS, MINSCH
NO:
ZAK
Motion carried.
Commissioner Minsch noted that this project is
approximately .40 of a mile from the end of the airport runway asked if there
was any policy regarding buffer areas between airport and residential uses.
City Planner McKibben said there is not.
The Commission discussed parking. Points included:
·
Actions
at the Old Town Condos and the Latitude 59º added provisions similar to what is
listed here, along with provisions that there w
·
No
RV parking or storage is something that may want to be considered.
·
If
the Commission adopts the condition they have determined that the two parking
spaces in the garages meet the two spaces per dwelling unit requirement. The
garages have to be used for parking.
·
RV
and boat parking would have to be accommodated in another way.
·
Additional
parking could be made available on an adjacent lot owned by the applicant.
·
There
aren’t dimensional requirements in GC1 zoning district.
·
There
are 42 outside parking spaces shown on the site plan. There w
·
It
is noted that the lot to the south is owned by the same property owner and
there is some potential to add parking down there.
Chair Kranich questioned the 15 foot utility
easement on referenced the conceptual site plan. Gary Nelson clarified that a 15
foot easement has been recorded and is in existence. It is on top of the
Question came up again regarding counting the
garage as parking spaces. City Planner McKibben commented that Code says there
has to be two parking spaces per dwelling unit but it doesn’t say they have to
be outside or can’t be inside.
There was discussion about the definition of a town
house and condominium.
Commissioner Foster commented that he is not
comfortable with the parking situation and w
HESS/MINSCH I CALL FOR THE QUESTION.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, HOWARD, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
NO:
FOSTER
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: MINSCH, HOWARD,
ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
NO:
FOSTER
Motion carried.
Chair Kranich called for a break at
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 will accept testimony or a
presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Barbara McBride, applicant, read her letter to the
Planning Commission. She referenced a previous action from April 2006 where she
addressed the Commission as a representative of the Mountain Park Homeowners
Association regarding vacation of
A copy of Mrs. McBride’s letter was provided for
the record.
Roger Imhoff, applicant’s representative, thanked
the Commission for all the hard work they do. He referenced the previous action
and said that is a huge project and hats off to the Commission for having patience
and working through it.
Mr. Imhoff had comments regarding the staff
recommendations. He said
Question was raised as to why the City would need
to bring heavy equipment up there. There was brief discussion that they may
need to respond due to flooding or some other emergency situation. Mr. Imhoff
explained that he learned from the property owners during a site visit that the
Henwood’s took a dozer up and buried the pipe when they built the spring box.
Mrs. McBride added that they have replaced it all except at the steep section
at the top. The Henwood’s will be able to get into that with the easement.
Chair Kranich asked Mr. Imhoff about
There were no public comments.
MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT
PL 07-97
STAFF
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning
Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following
comments:
There was discussion regarding the unsubdivided
remainder and whether it is part of the subdivision. City Planner McKibben commented that if the
unsubdivided remainder is not part of the subdivision then the Borough Platting
staff can address it and the recommendations would be irrelevant. If the
Borough decides the unsubdivided remainder is part of the subdivision the
recommendations are there. Mr. Imhoff
explained that in the plats of Westview and Westview Unit 2 designated the
remaining unsubdivided area as unsubdivided remainders. Technically the
unsubdivided remainder did not have a lot or tract designated. They are simply
carrying forward the unsubdivided remainder from the previous platting action,
which is allowed by Borough Code as long as the unsubdivided remainder fronts
somewhere on a right-of-way.
VOTE: YES: HOWARD, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS,
FOSTER
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Kenton Bloom, applicant’s representative, commented
that in a case like this where there is a driveway and a trail that have to be
integrated with each other and the adjacent properties, the preliminary plat
shows the intent for the design at this point. The actual site design won’t be
developed until this concept is approved. Mr. Bloom explained that prior to the
submittal of the preliminary plat he walked the property with representatives
from the museum, middle school and interested property owners to talk about the
general concept of the trail and driveway. Mr. Bloom outlined the plan and
noted drainage on the aerial photo. He explained that the goal is to establish
functional connectivity. Mr. Bloom suggested
the Commission address the drainage issue on the southerly portion of the
proposed subdivision. He thought it would be fair since the City addressed
another property owners concern regarding the buffer on his lot.
City Planner McKibben commented that addressing the
drainage is outside the pervue of the Commission. Mr. Bloom agreed but noted
that staff recommendation 5 to accommodate the property owner is too.
There were no public comments.
MINSCH/ZAK I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT
Planning Commission recommend approval of the
preliminary plat with the following comments:
1. A plat note indicating that
this subdivision may contain wetlands.
Property owners should contact the Army Corp. of Engineers prior to any
on-site development or construction activity to obtain the most current
wetlands designation (if any).
2. Correct the drainage
easement note on the plat to refer to the correct plat note.
3. Dedicate a 15 foot utility
easement along Spruce View, to also be a slope easement or contain a 5 ft slope
easement.
4. Dedicate a 15 foot utility
easement along
5. Shift the trail at least
twenty feet to the west Along Mr. Schlein’s property, to allow for retention of
vegetation and screening between the trail and his parking lot. An alternate
trail alignment to
HESS/MINSCH I
There was brief discussion regarding the need for
this. City Planner McKibben said it wouldn’t hurt anything to have the added
recommendation. She noted that the plat addresses trail easements
recommendation to shift the trail in recommendation five is in order to support
the vacation which allows this re subdivision; staff has addressed the trails
and wants to make sure there is a connection in order to support the vacation. The
recommendation is to shift it from where it is shown on the preliminary plat.
There is no information on the plat that addresses the drainage.
VOTE: (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: HOWARD,
MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, ZAK
Motion carried.
PENDING
BUSINESS
City Planner McKibben reviewed the supplemental
staff report. She noted that the staff recommendations from the previous staff
report 07-86 are included along with one additional recommendation which is number
6.
Kenton Bloom and City Manager Wrede addressed the
Commission reiterating that it would be inappropriate to dedicate a trail
easement at this time. City Manager Wrede added that the City couldn’t day light
the drainage because it is about 15 feet off the property and onto the adjacent
property.
There was discussion
regarding the drainage. Mr. Bloom pointed it out on the aerial photo.
The motion on the floor
from the
MINSCH/HESS I
MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT PL07-86 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Planning Commission recommend approval of
the preliminary plat with the following comments:
1.
A plat note indicating that
this subdivision may contain wetlands.
Property owners should contact the Army Corp. of Engineers prior to any
on-site development or construction activity to obtain the most current
wetlands designation (if any).
2.
Dedicate a 15 ft utility easement along
3.
Verify the legal
description in the title block.
4.
Depict the approximate
location of the drainage and create a drainage easement. Dedicate a 30 ft
drainage easement, beginning and centered on the culvert outfall south of the
paved portion of the parking lot, and continuing south along the
creek/drainage.
5.
Verify whether or not there
is an area of 20% or greater slope on the lot, and depict the area on the plat.
There was discussion that it would not be
appropriate to adopt the recommendation 6 on the supplemental staff report.
VOTE: YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, MINSCH, HOWARD,
KRANICH
Motion carried.
City Manager Wrede left after the completion of
this action.
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
non conformity).
HESS/MINSCH MOVED TO POSTPONE ITEMS A
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
C.
MINSCH/HESS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
Chair Kranich suggested the motion regarding the
sign code on page 13 of the minutes may be incorrect. City Planner McKibben
confirmed the wording is the same as what Mr. Chesley read at the meeting.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION, UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
D.
MINSCH/HESS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
Commissioner Foster clarified that under commission
comments he was referring to the work taking place at the end of
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
A. A Brief Conflict of Interest Guide for Real Estate Agents
and Other Real Estate Professionals:
Ethical and Legal Issues for Council members who are in the real Estate
Profession
B. Conflicts of Interest and Other Legal
Ethical Considerations for Planners and Lawyers
C. Avoiding Ethics Traps in Land Use
Decision making
D. Letter
dated
E. Letter dated
F. Letter
dated
G. Letter
dated
H. Letter
dated
I. Letter
dated
J. Memorandum
dated
K. Letter
dated
L. Letter
dated
M. Letter
dated
N. Letter
dated
O. Resolution 07-94(A), A RESOLUTION OF THE
P. October
2007 Calendar
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the Audience may
address the Commission on any subject.
There were no audience
comments.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comments
on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioners Howard, Zak,
Hess and Minsch had no comment.
Commissioner Foster read an article about a
business man who was distraught after his zoning permit was denied and killed
himself in front of the City Council in
Chair Kranich had no
comments.
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 11:
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: