Session 05-18, a Special Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley
at 7:11 p.m. on September 22, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council
Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue,
Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CHESLEY, HESS, PFEIL, LEHNER, CONNOR
ABSENT: FOSTER, KRANICH
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY
CITY CLERK JOHNSON
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 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.
B.
Approval of City of Homer
Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C.
KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D.
Commissioner Excused Absences
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes, with any
amendments.
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 approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address
the Planning Commission.
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.
A. Conditional Use Permit 05-09 1302 Ocean Drive, Planned Unit Development, Adair, Remanded
to the Homer Advisory Planning Commission by the City of Homer Board of Adjustment.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report
and recommendations.
Commissioner Hess clarified that HCC 7.12.030 item 20 should be HCC
7.12.020 item 20 on the staff report page 4.
Chair Chesley stated the changes on the June 1, 2005 site plan are for discussion tonight and he
asked that public comment be limited to those changes.
Eldon Adair, owner of the project, addressed the Commission, stating this
was his third time before them and he is starting to learn the rules. Mr. Adair doesn’t want to take a lot of the
Commissioner’s time, as they have already spent time, yet he has a sizeable
investment and a great need to finish the project. On a happy note, today a couple of people
looked Mr. Adair up in the local motel to provide letters of support. Complimentary letters in favor of the project
from Alice Hamik and Dan Reyes were read and provided for the record.
Mr. Adair explained that he selected the property for its location, as it
fronts Ocean
Drive and everyone passes by to go to the famous Homer Spit. In July there is no parking on the Spit,
businesses there are maxed, so he looked for the next closest place which was Ocean Drive. He
found a nice piece of property for sale by owner that was large enough for a small
project. He chose a diverse project so
all his eggs wouldn’t be in one basket.
He decided upon a few RV spaces and a few cabin spaces in a log type
structure. People that come to visit and
fish need their fish processed, packed and sent home. Boat owners and captains are
dissatisfied with the present facilities as they are overwhelmed. They encouraged Mr. Adair to think about
packing fish for people that visit. People
also need to be fed. The Adair’s are
planning on booking in Hawaii to bring people to Homer and decided they would also bring Hawaiian food
here. They picked the spot for a reason
as it was zoned proper to do everything, with the exception of fish processing. Mr. Adair said fish processing will be kept to a minimum for sport caught fish
only; it is not a commercial operation.
They will receive fillets only and cut them into chunks, vacuum
pack and freeze, and ship the fish home.
It is not a smelly operation as it will be sanitized daily.
The main issue tonight is for the changes that were made. Mr. Adair
recognizes the Commissioners as the same ones that heard his CUP on May 18,
2005. The second meeting on June 1,
2005 was requested
as he had overlooked the fact that highway ROW could not be used. The plan was revised to allow for the 27 ft.
backup space for RV’s. To make the
additional room Mr. Adair had to take one building on the original plan and
place it on top of another building, lowering it to a lower level. The new design does not increase the height of
the roof line, it just makes it two-story, comparable to everyone else in the neighborhood. From the basement level up to the top it will be 32 ft. to 34 ft., 12 ft. of that below highway
level. With the change to accommodate parking
he took the cabins built on the Douglas Street side and moved them over to the east side
and adjoined them. The engineer advised
Mr. Adair a steeper roof height was needed for the snow. Mr. Adair said he could finish the loft with
a beam roof, in the same building footprint.
He decided he could use one of the loft spaces as his residence, the manager
quarters while he was here. Mr. Adair
was willing to give up part of the retail space, a 16
ft. x 16 ft. area to turn into the office.
Additional parking would not be needed as the owner/manager will occupy the office as well.
Mr. Adair said he gave City Planner McKibben the plan with 37 stalls, to
include parking spaces within each RV space.
The RV spaces are 30 ft. wide to allow room for a tow vehicle. He worked with the Planning Department on the
first set of plans and was told that he needed 19 spaces. Complainants that have submitted letters are
now stating 41 spaces are needed. Their
first plan showed 21 spaces, the next showed 22 spaces and then 23 spaces. It has never been brought up in a public
hearing that any more spaces are needed.
Mr. Adair said he is about as confused on the parking issue as anyone
else. The City Planner says 35 spaces
are needed and he can provide 35 spaces.
Mr. Adair said David
Scheer is here to offer many complaints about the plans and how Mr. Adair
conducts business. As far as Mr. Adair
knows, Mr. Scheer is not a licensed architect, a licensed planner, nor an
attorney. He is misrepresenting the
project in a professional fashion.
Mr. Scheer’s buildings and those across the street are taller than the
planned development and the bakery is as tall as Mr. Adair’s. All the cabins at the Homer float plane lodge
have lofts that are finished. Mr. Adair
stated he is to comply with what is common in the neighborhood and he has. He has complied with every code and worked
with the Planning Department. City
Planner McKibben and her staff have been very helpful guiding him through the
process and offered advice when he asked.
Mr. Adair wants to build a first class project and be a good neighbor. His size increases are well under the maximum
density for the size of lot. The bakery and
the cabins behind have more square footage and buildings than Mr. Adair is
asking for and they are the ones complaining.
He concluded that it is time to be fair and equitable.
Mr. Adair answered the Commission’s questions
regarding the number of cabins, stating there are four cabins 20 ft. x 25 ft.,
each representing one guest unit, or four guest rooms. The roof covers all four rooms and the loft will be finished as a manager’s residence. There are four units on the bottom and two on
the top. Both lofts will be finished; one will be used as a residence and the other will be rented out or used as storage. There is no entrance from the lower cabin to the
upper loft on the inside, the stairway is outside.
Mr. Adair said there have been comments made by some people how the
proposed development affects their residences.
He said it is not a residential neighborhood he is infringing upon, but
a business zone or General Commercial.
The residences are the invaders.
In determining the number of rental units, City Planner McKibben
explained the May 18th application had two guest cabin structures,
one on the east side and one on the west side with two guestrooms. The June 1st application
consolidated those into one larger structure with four-guest rooms. Since June 1st the applicant
wishes to add two more guest spaces, for a total of six.
Commissioner Hess questioned the CUP application and if there was an
additional change since June 1st.
City Planner McKibben answered that the zoning permit should be
consistent with the CUP. Two additional
parking spaces would be required for the additional two guest spaces. Mr. Adair has submitted a new parking plan
that will be evaluated when the CUP decision is
made. Chair Chesley said the BOA asked
the Commission to look at the changes on the June 1st plan and if
Mr. Adair wants additional spaces he must apply for an amendment to the CUP.
David Scheer, neighbor of the Adair property, said
he is frustrated the neighbors are present and Mr. Adair came back from Hawaii although there are no plans to show the neighborhood
what is being discussed tonight. When
there is a new final plan the neighbors concerns will be incorporated. He said it is a waste of everyone’s time, as
they need all the information
in front of them. The building square
footage on the plan does not come out to 4,500 sq ft., but over 6,500 sq. ft.
and adding the lofts computes to over 8,000 sq. ft.
City Planner McKibben said Mr. Scheer is implying that Mr. Adair’s
proposed plan is not sufficient for a complete review. The information was determined to be complete and in
compliance with Homer City Code.
Elevations are not required for CUP’s.
The information required to verify parking spaces and
setbacks, the vegetation, the RV spaces and building size has been
received. Mr. Scheer commented that is opening
the City to criticism as they are admitting there was enough information to make a judgment and admitting a
mistake was made in calculations. He
asked why it was so confusing and why there were so many hearings. Mr. Scheer said another plan is needed, as
this one is not legal. There is no space
for seven more parking spaces. Personally
Mr. Scheer said he was not affected by the buildings. His concern is for safety factors including
traffic and having an RV park by his property.
The traffic issues are related to the number of parking spaces required,
directly related to the size of the buildings and uses in those buildings. The RV spaces are not built as shown in the plan
as the RV parking stall is less than 500 sq. ft. and the space for the car is 7
½ ft. wide and 15 ft. deep. Mr. Scheer
said it is too tight to fit everything in.
David Scheer told the Commission he came in front
of them with two projects that passed.
The Commission thanked him for complete documentation and he was able to
answer questions in reference to drawings.
He said documentation of Mr. Adair’s proposed development was the least the
Commission could ask for, as a project of this size is a big impact on the neighbors. The applicant needs to show that the concerns
can be taken care of. Without specific
guidelines in the zoning code there is the public safety and traffic issues. Mr. Scheer talked to three RV park
consultants for an analysis of the project.
When the neighbors come forward with concerns they are told they need to
prove the project will
affect property values.
Mr. Scheer resents that his professional practice came up tonight. This is a request for a special permit and
the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove this project will not have a greater effect on the City than a
normal permitted project. Information is
needed to make a good judgment on the plans.
The applicant is to be blamed for the assumption that things get worked
out as you go along in the process. Mr.
Scheer provided measurements of the site and told the Commission the drawings
need to be on paper so they could trust what was to happen. Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben if
her department did a site visit to confirm measurements and she answered they
had not She stated that the Code
requires a minimum 600 sq. ft. RV space and one parking space within each RV
space. It doesn’t specify the area that
the parking space within the RV space needs to be, although it is clear from
the Code it is included in the 600 sq. ft. RV space. Mr. Scheer said it is not his analysis the
parking space is within the RV space.
City Planner McKibben referenced HCC 21.61.090.
Donna Maltz, city resident, thanked the Planning Commission and read a
letter from the RV Park Consulting LLC and a letter from Shari Daugherty. Both writers suggested the eight spaces be
reviewed carefully for maneuverability within the park and traffic issues. Mrs. Maltz said in comparing Mr. Adair’s
buildings to hers, the Sourdough is on one acre and there are 8 RV slips on ½
acre. Her building is 3,000 sq. ft. With the Adair building being two stories it
will affect her light. Mr. Adair said the development was in a General
Commercial area, yet the residents have been there long before Mr. Adair. Property owners are upset. Mr. Adair said there are needs in the
community, but he is trying to accommodate too many developments on the lot. The town has plenty of lodging facilities and
restaurants already. Mr. Adair needs
about five acres to accommodate all his needs.
Mrs. Maltz said her concern and that of hundreds of her customers is the
proximity of the lodge building to her restaurant. Mr. Adair made it sound like a development
with little impact, but the most recent plan shows a 2,000 sq. ft. footprint
and a 3,000 or 4,000 sq. ft. floor plan.
The motel building will be
just on the other side of the 8 ft. setback from the west window of their
dining room where customers have enjoyed the privacy and view of the natural
setting. Mrs. Maltz said if permitted it
will adversely affect the light, view and ambience
of their established restaurant. The
motel is 1,000 sq. ft. larger than the Sourdough restaurant and the Maltz’s barely
have enough parking. The other building
proposed is 4,832 sq. ft. of floor area.
The impact of the two large buildings would tower over their business
and block visibility to the road. The
Maltz’s are concerned the combined density and proximity of Mr. Adair’s
development will negatively impact their business and
property value. When buildings are
butted up against another it is the least valuable development on the
market. Another concern is that Mr.
Adair’s customers may park in the Maltz’s lot or on the road creating
additional traffic problems.
Mrs. Maltz said you need 75 ft. minimum area to back in an RV space. She questioned where the dumpsters will go.
They will not go near her outside dining or playground
area, not in the middle of the RV park or road.
With this many projects going on they will need two to three dumpsters. Mrs. Maltz asks that issues of public safety,
impact on neighboring streets be answered.
Mr. Adair started to clear the site without a permit, construction
continued after the City notified him that there were miscalculations in
parking. Construction continued when the
project was in appeal. What else will not be done correctly if it is not done
now? What permits are required? This being a special permit request, it is
the responsibility of the applicant to answer these questions. Another major concern is the owner will allow the RV’s to remain in the park year
round. She questioned where the second
RV would stage (as they usually travel in pairs) while the first one was
parking. She asked how the larger
vehicles with towed cars would make the turn onto Lakeshore Drive without impacting the fire hydrant. A true traffic flow plan needs to be
done.
Ron Nieman, adjoining property owner across the street, said there have
been inconsistencies with statements made.
Mr. Adair made the comment that he is only asking for one exception, the
fish processing, yet he needs a special CUP for more than one building on the
lot. Additionally, the RV park on a
20,000 sq. lot is also an exception. Mr.
Adair also stated the impact on Dave Scheer and Donna Maltz’s lot. Mrs. Maltz has a full acre lot and Mr. Adair
has ½ acre lot. Another comment was made
about the neighboring landscape and Mr. Nieman assured the Commission both the
Manley’s property and his were landscaped.
When the first plan was drawn there were four cabins. Now there is a 25 ft. x 80 ft. building which
is another inconsistency. They were to
be one-story cabins and now he has been told of the intent to have a loft occupied
by a human being. Mr. Nieman said it takes
more than a 14 ft. height to be occupied by a human being. Now there is the potential for six
cabins. The 3 ft. retaining wall has now
become an 8 ft. retaining wall. The building
on the corner is now metal, not log and it has gone from 18 ft. to 33 to 34 ft.
in height. The City approved an
exception with the RV spaces on the 20,000 sq. ft. lot. With all the other inconsistencies who is to
say there won’t be a trailer park in the area?
Brian Bennett, city resident, stated there was a significant variance between
the May 18th and June 1st site plan. The cabins went from two buildings to one. The fish processing entity went up 25%. The restaurant is now part of another
building. The retail service went from
nothing to 1,300 ft. The development
doesn’t have a focus. Ocean Drive has been an example of good zoning with each
location having a good focus. When Mr.
Bennett hears restaurant, fish processing, hair salon, guest house, hotel,
motel, RV site, and manager’s quarters he is not getting a focus for the
development. The goal is changing every
month. Mr. Bennett said HCC 21.61.090
requires safe and sanitary standards are met and that no portion of the park is
permitted for permanent occupancy. He
said the manager’s quarters would be permanent.
When Mr. Bennett hears fish processing plant on Ocean Drive it raises a big red flag. When you do it right it smells clean, but
when it goes wrong it gets really bad. Sport
fishing could produce a few thousand pounds in five months. Mr. Bennett concluded it is not clear what
Mr. Adair wants to do and it is time to put the project on hold until he figures
out his goal.
Joe Super said he has lived here since 1982 and has developed a lot of
subdivisions all over the area, including the float plane area across the
street that Mr. Tulin owns. He has purchased property next to the float plane
that Mr. Super will be cleaning up. Mr. Adair has demonstrated that he wants to
come to Homer and build a quality park.
The changes were to assist and upgrade the original plan for the good of
the people. Mr. Adair has tried to jump
through the hoops and do all the planning to make something of quality and has
done an adequate job in doing so. Mr. Super concluded the changes are to
accommodate a better park and make it more pleasing for people.
Bill Smith, city resident, said he came by to observe the
process. He noted when Mr. Bennett was talking
about the fish processing, it is a permitted use in Marine Industrial, but not
permitted or a conditional permitted use in GC1. City Planner McKibben stated it was a
permitted use in a PUD.
Bob Brant noted the plan does not designate whether the area has paving. He said the RV parking area has a decent
slope and it appears the intent is to sheet drain the entire lower half of the
parking area. Mr. Brant said the
experience in Homer with hard rains, melting snow, and thawing ground is that sheet
draining that large of an area with that much slope will result in erosion problems and go into Beluga Lake. The
Commission may want to consider a storm water mitigation probability addressed
if the applicant does not want to pave the area.
Commissioner Lehner questioned if sheet runoff should be a concern if the
area were paved or not paved. Mr. Brant
said storm water pollution is a concern on steep slopes. Water runoff from RV’s, vehicles, human use
and spilled fuel ends up in contaminated surfaces on
pavement as well. There are federal EPA
regulations about stormwater protection.
Mr. Adair offered the following rebuttal:
The RV spaces are 30 ft. wide and were 50 ft. deep before he had to incur
the additional setback on the east side.
Mr. Adair stated 30 ft. x 50 ft. is a lot more than 600 sq. ft. The driveway in between the RV spaces is 40
ft. wide. As to the turning or back up
radius, if you can’t take a RV in a 40 ft. road and put it in a 30 ft. parking
space you are a pretty bad driver. Mr.
Adair has a 33 ft. RV there and he didn’t use half the room.
Mr. Adair said the photo from the Maltz’s shows two container units. They are refrigerated freight boxes that will go as the freezer units in the fish
processing area. Presently they contain furniture
for the cabins, building materials and tools.
They will not be sitting out where the public can see
them. As to putting his building up in front
of the bakery building, Mr. Adair explained the picture looks a lot different
now as the bakery could not be seen from that angle. By removing the trees and brush from Mr.
Adair’s lot the bakery now has a view of the lake and they don’t want to lose
it from the construction of the cabins.
Mr. Adair stated he felt bad about that, but they did not have a view of
the lake until he cut the trees and brush down.
The other picture the Maltz’s provided shows Mrs. Maltz’s car along with
someone else’s parked in the county ROW rather than in their own parking lot. Mr. Adair said he is trying to build a good
project and the change of the parking lot required him to change plans to
accommodate the backup space. The size
and heights of the buildings are well within the code. The building uses are either coded or exempt
by PUD and recommended by the planning staff.
Three times a plan was submitted to staff and all three times they
recommended accepting the plan. Either
the staff is grossly in error or they are right—and Mr. Adair thinks they are
right. Planning staff worked with Mr.
Adair closely with the goal in mind he wants to achieve. Whether he uses building space for retail or
office is a difference. Mr. Adair
explained he sacrificed retail space that was shown clearly on the first plan
as well as the second plan. He said he
would give up the retail space and loft if needed, but would like to keep at
least 100 ft. of retail space. Mr. Adair
asked the Commission to approve the plan as they did before.
Mr. Adair clarified his lot size is an acre, as he bought four lots each
measuring 70 ft. x 150 ft.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at 8:40 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Chair Chesley asked for a motion to bring the matter before the Commission.
HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO BRING CUP 05-09 OCEAN DRIVE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT REMANDED TO THE HOMER ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE
COMMISSION.
Commissioner Hess questioned the landscape buffer requirements in
GC1. City Planner McKibben answered 24
contiguous spaces or more require a 10-ft. buffer when adjacent to a ROW. HCC 21.49.060(h)(1)(b) states parking lots
with 24 spaces. City Planner McKibben
said the upper parking is one parking lot.
There are not 24 spaces but there is the natural vegetation being retained
in the ROW. The lower parking lot is not
24 spaces and is not adjacent to the ROW.
The 8 ft. retaining wall remains in the development. Commissioner Hess said the parking lots would
be separate as they can not be accessed from one to another. Clarification on PUD uses is per HCC 21.61.060
states that 40% of the uses within a PUD to be not conditional use or permitted
outright in the zoning district. Chair
Chesley said he has concerns about the parking calculation for the fish
processing operation.
Commissioner Hess stated the Commissioner’s present are here after last
night’s Planning Commission meeting and are not as sharp as they should be. He said there are a lot of things to consider
and it may be reason to discuss continuing this proceeding. Chair Chesley stated the next available date
would be October 12th. Due to
the absence of two commissioners this evening Commissioner Hess requested that
staff determines who can participate in the next hearing.
PFEIL/HESS – MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO OCTOBER 12, 2005 AT 6:00 P.M. FOR A SPECIAL MEETING.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley said there will be
no additional public hearing. Parking still has to be resolved. Commissioner Connor
asked for an updated site plan with the proper dimensions and in 3D.
Mr. Adair asked if submitting another plan will require another public hearing. City Planner McKibben answered the Commission
is requesting a site plan that accurately reflects Mr. Adair’s plan.
Commissioner Connor questioned the status of the fire hydrant in the
outgoing driveway. Mr. Adair stated he offered
to have the fire hydrant relocated and was denied that request to have it
relocated either by Public Works or pay for it himself. The exit plan is approved as is and it will not change.
There is a coded distance between fire hydrants and they are the maximum
distance down the road. Chair Chesley
suggested correspondence between Public Works and Mr. Adair be provided to the
Commission.
Commissioner Pfeil said GC1 is intended to provide sites for businesses
and commerce close to transportation. Mr.
Adair mentioned residential areas are invaders, yet the Code pertaining to GC1
states congestion and adverse influences will be minimal on adjacent
residential areas.
City Planner McKibben clarified the information needed for the next hearing included:
Clarification on Commissioners not present for the public hearing,
whether they are allowed to participate in discussion and vote.
Parking – clarify parking with Mr. Adair and bring formulas.
Updated site plan showing what is accurately depicted.
Building elevations.
Square footage of buildings.
Kevin Maltz recommended a staff member go to the site with Mr. Adair and
take measurements to know and have on record.
Mr. Adair stated he leaves at 6:00 a.m. in the morning. He said the land is there and he would much
rather have staff visit the site than the neighbors as they have been tromping
through his newly planted lawns.
The Commission thanked Mr. Adair for coming back from Hawaii to attend tonight’s meeting.
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.
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.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
B. Kachemak
Bay Advisory Planning
Commission Report
PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT
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.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members
of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any
subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special
meeting or work session will appear on
the agenda following “adjournment”.