Session 04-08 Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by Chair Smith at 7:05 p.m. on April 7, 2004, at Homer City Hall, Council Chambers, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.
PRESENT: COMMISSION: SMITH, BARTLETT, PFEIL, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER
ABSENT: CELENTANO
(excused)
STAFF: DEPUTY CITY CLERK BENSON
CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
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.
A. Time
Extension Requests
B. Approval
of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C. KPB
Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner
Excused Absences
Staff asked that the Approval of the Minutes be pulled from the agenda. Chair Smith requested that a Memorandum from Planner McKibben be added to the agenda under Item E of Commission Business.
The Commission approved the changes by consensus.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission
approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Special Meeting of March 30, 2004, meeting minutes.
This item was pulled from the agenda by consensus.
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.
Frank Griswold, commented on the comments he heard during discussion on the Coffee Table[1] that morning – specifically addressing zoning enforcement. He shared that the reasons given for not enforcing the city code was limited staff, lots of work and efficiency issues. He added that the comment was made that if a violation were known the City goes after them. Further, he stated it was implied that if a member of the public was aware of a zoning violation and reported it to the Planning Department they could expect a response. Mr. Griswold advised that he has reported violations in his neighborhood that he described as being out of control to the Planning Department including no zoning permits, multiple buildings on a lot with no Conditional Use Permits, a church on a 6,000 square foot lot built with another residence and a garage, and on and on. He declared “nothing’s done” in response to his reports. Mr. Griswold stated that after repeated attempts to get information from the Planning Department he receives no response and is “stonewalled”. Mr. Griswold commented that he assumed this was the City’s answer to zoning - not that there was limited staff and a lot of work to do. He gave an analogy of the Finance Department claiming limited staff and too busy to get the payroll checks out. Mr. Griswold voiced his opinion that zoning enforcement was part of the job description, that they can’t pass the buck and it’s no less important than other responsibilities and “something should be done”. Mr. Griswold commented further on Coffee Table comments that Ordinance 04-11 had been substantially changed. He pointed out that if the Ordinance had been substantially changed since the public hearing it would probably require remand to the Planning Commission for an additional public hearing.
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. Staff Report PL 04-20 Re: Request For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup #04-03/Homer Hockey Association For Multi-Purpose Facility For Recreation Including Ice Rink, Social And Cultural Events Located At 3768 Waddell Way, Lot 2, Waddell Park Subdivision
City Planner
McKibben reviewed the staff report, staff findings of fact and staff
recommendations. Staff
recommendations: Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request for a
Conditional Use Permit contingent on the following conditions: 1. A timeline for phasing in the development
of the complete facility be submitted with the zoning permit. 2. The area in
front of the Fire Department Connection to the sprinkler system be dedicated
“No Parking”. 3. A Landscape Plan to be submite3d with a phased development
plan including pedestrian/bike path access from Lake Street, Waddell Way and
the parcel located immediately south prior to final landscaping or within 4
years. All areas disturbed by construction will be replaced with topsoil and
seeded until such time landscaping is complete. 4. The parking lot be
paved and striped within 5 years. An
appropriately sized storm water retention system be installed during Phase 1. 6.
All lighting in the parking lots and on the structure shall be down lighting
and not create light trespass off the site.
Lights will be no higher than 28 feet and shall be cut off luminaries. 7. A
traffic impact analysis be completed prior to submittal of a Zoning Permit.
8. When design work begins on the
enclosure of the facility and the 9,000 square foot addition, the applicant
will meet with the Homer Advisory Planning Commission to discuss building
aesthetics. 9. The project meets all
other applicable local, state and federal requirements.
Harry Rasmussen, President of the Homer Hockey Association (HHA), stated that there would be a three-phase presentation - himself, the architect, then the project manager. He commented that over the last two years the HHA has worked hard to build a partnership with the City of Homer, the Lower Peninsula and benefactors. They feel they had been good listeners and were good partners. Over the last two months the HHA had listened to the Planning Department and tried to satisfy those needs. During the past year as far as budgetary projections, most of the money for phase 1 has been completed. This last week Arctic Winter Games announced some additional funds, which should complete phase II. He added that the money was not pipe dreams. They are secure and in hand. Phase III would be the final upgrades to the facility and hopefully that will happen. Mr. Rasmussen advised that the City of Homer and the Homer Hockey Association had entered into a partnership in the facility. HHA has submitted plans of numerous pages and had received $500,000 from the Rasmuson Foundation; $150,000 from the Murdock Foundation; over $30,000 from the Kachemak City and more from hundreds of people who had donated in the community and probably $1 million plus from the Arctic Winter Games. He expressed his opinion that Homer would have a facility that all can be proud of. He introduced Blaze Burkhardt, Managing Partner of Kumin Associates, an Architect firm in Anchorage.
Mr. Burkhardt advised that he had been working with the HHA for three years on various studies and site analysis’ and had lots of knowledge and expertise on ice rinks. He added that he agreed with the staff report entirely. Mr. Burkhardt voiced his opinion that from the time the original application was pulled the efforts had been to not only respond to the various staff comments but also to modify the design in an effort to comply or at least meet the intent of the proposed design standards for Homer. Some offsets had required the building to be a little smaller. He noted that the parking requirements are a few spaces shy of what’s required and that there were some problems from their perspective that he’d like to discuss. He showed the Commission a layout that differs from the packet and explained the difference. He advised that the only staff comment they did not follow was the one on the Fire Department to remove all parking from in front of the building. The reason for that was that it drastically reduced the effectiveness of handicap spaces. They felt that putting the handicap area against the front of the building was essential. He offered to work with the Fire Department to widen one of the planting areas, or whatever, in terms of solidifying a space that would be directly opposite the Fire Department Connection (FDC). He said he didn’t see that as a problem. Mr. Alderfer held up the site plan and Mr. Burkhardt commented. The major changes were on the Waddell Street edge. What they were not happy about with the plan in the packet is that each of the lanes required full backout. The new plan incorporates a loop around and a more traditional way of getting in and out. That cost some parking spaces so they were not able to hold on to two ways out to Waddell that was desired. The bottom lot close to the building met the spaces required for the 9,000 feet and as such they thought the Commission might consider one curb cut on Lake Street. It was his understanding that the traffic folks were not supporting that idea but it was something they thought might improve traffic flow on that size of a lot. The bus staging areas were shown East of the future addition. The handicaps spaces - the six required - were immediately adjacent to the passenger drop-off area. He offered that the passenger drop-off area could also be the location of the FDC as an option. He changed drawings with Mr. Alderfer and further commented. He noted that the masonry and tile would not be cast in stone at this point because the program for the 9,000 feet wasn’t entirely known. This drawing was shown to indicate how the goals and the aspirations of the design standards could be met. In keeping the scale down it offered the opportunity for pedestrian canopies. Mr. Burkhardt commented on his latest project - the ice rink in Kodiak at Baronoff Park. It was designed in a two phase approach and phase 1 had been completed very much in a pavilion style like Homer’s. Mr. Burkhardt stated that it had proven to be very successful. He addressed the residential issues because it is one fire lane away from homes. They found that there were no adverse affects regarding light or noise. In fact, he stated, that it had been viewed as an improvement on that edge of the park. In terms of the multi-use aspects of the facility (Mr. Alderfer held up a different poster), Kodiak initially put some basketball standards across the rink and that was fairly easy on the local’s needs for kids. Beyond that, Kodiak waited to see what would arise. They ultimately made the decision to leave the dashers up in the summer months because the most popular use was when it would be raining and the soccer team would play under cover. Mr. Burkhardt recommended to the Commission to take the same approach.
Ron Alderfer commented that Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Burkhardt gave a great summary of where the HHA was right now. He thanked the Commission for helping them learn where the City stood in the planning and design standards.
When questioned by the Commission, Mr. Rasmussen clarified that the three phases he referred to were the three funding phases and two phases to the building. Mr. Burkhardt addressed the number of parking spaces per spectators. He advised that the parking spaces was figured on the size of the building, that at this time there was not a way to know how much seating would be needed. He offered that the Eastern side lot could be extended if need be. Mr. Burkhardt acknowledged that as phase II developed they would need to keep track of the difference in calculations. He told the Commission that it was unlikely there would be a need for seating of more than 350 in a rink this size. He referred to the rink in Wasilla as having ultimate seating for 2000 but it’s done in a way so that most of that is in pull-out mode so the flat spaces could be used for other activities. The permanent space was for about 500 seats. He added that for the Homer rink, if locker space were provided, they could probably plan for much less than 300-500 seats.
The Commission asked for clarification on the option of access for fire trucks and widening one of the islands as a possibility. Mr. Burkhardt indicated on the poster where the Fire Department would have a reserved spot; a place they know there won’t be a car.
Al Waddell stated that he is probably the most affected person by this property of anyone in the room in what the Homer Hockey Association (HHA) and the City of Homer is involved in. He presented schematics and paperwork from a lawsuit with HEA regarding pollution on the property that he felt was extremely important. Mr. Waddell acknowledged receiving the notice from the Planning Department so he could address this issue before the Planning Commission. He noted that the notice included a site layout of the size of the rink and not the size of anything else. Mr. Waddell expressed his feelings that he and his family have nothing against the HHA or them having their own building and that they felt it would be great for children and adults of Homer as well as a boost for the local economy. Mr. Waddell stated that he would like to see a large to-scale site plan professionally done that contained all of the dimensions. He advised that this was what was required of him by the Planning Commission when he developed the property adjacent to this. In addition to having the site plan certified by certified State engineers he was required to have a certified drainage plan and the engineer drawings with all of the dimensions appropriately stamped prior to getting a Conditional Use Permit. He added that if it was required of him, it should also be required for all. Mr. Waddell called for a drainage and hydrologist plan for the entire four acres. Due to some severe property damage on the HHA property, Mr. Waddell expressed he and his family’s concerns, adding that these should also be the Planning Commission, the HHA and the City of Homer’s concerns. He stated that before any permitting or excavation began everyone should be reassured where the contaminated soils were, where the contaminated water and soils are going and how it was to be dealt with and stored. He expressed his concern regarding how it would affect the four acres and his non-contaminated six acres, which lays below the four acres. In addition, he called for the facility to meet or exceed the new building standards currently being “pushed down the throats” of all of the property owners in the City. Mr. Waddell expressed his opinion that if the HHA needed 57,000 square feet to perform its business and services it should be granted. He added that the same should be applied to any future business in Homer.
Mr. Waddell stated that he was very upset about the fact that he had not received any invitations, letters or phone calls regarding this project except for 25 minutes with Ron Alderfer in December. He added that he felt it was highly appropriate for the HHA to do so. He alleged that apparently that was why the meeting was taking place this evening.
Mr. Waddell advised the Commission of 8 or 9 monitoring wells on the four acres being considered. These wells were monitored on a monthly basis for as long as he had access to them, which was until HEA took ownership 4 years ago. Mr. Waddell stated that three of the wells could be lit with a match when the hatches were removed - not from methane - but from unleaded gasoline. He acknowledged that things may have changed over the past few years, however, one of his family’s concerns was that the upper property had a very high aquifer water table. Mr. Waddell expressed his concern that if the aquifer were opened up it would flow downstream onto his non-contaminated property. He advised that he was told the toxins appeared to be contained underground two to three feet down and if left undisturbed it would be contained for the next ten to twenty years. He added that HEA did not have to be as diligent as he in the clean up or testing according to the EPA and DEC.
Mr. Waddell addressed concerns on the reconstruction of Waddell Way from the corner of Lake Street to the corner of Waddell Way and below that corner regarding pollution along the HEA fence line. He stated that any further widening of the upper part of Waddell Way would definitely affect the contaminated water table and soils. He noted that every four feet along the HEA fence there were tubes in the ground to attempt to generate that aquifer. HEA was required by EPA and DEC to continually add oxygen tablets to that area to facilitate the remediation, which included the road and the four acres below. Mr. Waddell added that if the road were widened on the HEA side these remediation tubes would be lost. He noted that the contamination wells still exist on the HEA property and that if the property were deemed clear of contamination he speculated that the wells would have been removed. He added that he does not go on HEA property. Mr. Waddell spoke confidently that many cubic yards of contaminated soils were never exhumed by HEA nor was it cleaned or burned during their “so called remediation”, therefore some pollution of soils and ground water still exists. He added that this was brought out in court as a matter of public and court record. Mr. Waddell advised that there were buried power lines that were never dug up during remediation. This was stated in court courtesy of HEA’s hydrologist, Hart Crowser, who is a very respected name throughout the State of Alaska and specializes in pollution studies.
Mr. Waddell addressed the proposed facility for the HHA, noting that it would only have a roof and three sides. He expressed his concerns that neither City of Homer Police Department nor the HHA has enough money to police this facility for vagrants, drinking, drugs and parties. He cited problems of vagrants and vandalism that already exist below and to the west of that property as an example.
Mr. Waddell advised that Waddell Way was built to meet City standards on a 30’ right-of-way and can be verified by Homer Winter Services, Paul Hodgdon, and the past city manager Phil Shealy, his then secretary Denise Cronin and Whitey Morgan (retired) from Public Works. Further, he stated that the United States Postal Service (USPS) also verified in 1986 that Waddell Way was accepted by the City of Homer and met all of the standards of a city road.
Mr. Waddell expressed his opinion on the hearsay that the City of Homer wanted to run water and sewer from Lake Street to the USPS on the reconstructed right-of-ways. He expressed his opinion that this was a total waste of taxpayer’s money and time asking who would ever use it. He suggested that the HHA, with donated funds, access water and sewer from Lake Street. Mr. Waddell stated that when the City oversees a project they get a 15% project commission when the grants come in. He added that he felt HHA was a charity organization and expressed his opinion that the City shouldn’t accept that 15%. Mr. Waddell added that there was another plan that had not been addressed because no one had spoken to Fred Meyers, which was that Fred Meyers had agreed to furnish the sewer into the four-acre property from the Bypass if they were allowed to do business in Homer. He noted that this would cost the HHA and the City of Homer absolutely nothing - “it’s free”. He expressed his opinion that it would be in the best interest of the taxpayers of the City of Homer to exempt all of the City fees if the City were going to be part owner of the project. Mr. Waddell called for no 15% project fee, no water hookup fee, no sewer hookup fee and no electric fee.
Mr. Waddell addressed access to the property stating that there would be an easy access point from Lake Street. He pointed out that there was already one there - right on the curve, as DOT wanted it.
Mr. Waddell referred to his testimony as a “large red flag”. He stated that as a large property owner and as a citizen of Homer he was not going away. He stated that his family had owned this property for over 51 years and the next generations were here.
Mr. Waddell stated that he was the only one concerned about the pollution and questioned the powers-that-be in the City of Homer government. He asked why the Mayor and the City Council were not concerned. He asked why Bob Shavelson of Cook Inlet Keeper wasn’t making sure the pollution remained contained and did not spread down to other properties.
Mr. Waddell passed around to the Commission photos he had taken that day of the property and commented:
- the tubes in the ground on Waddell Way
- a power line never dug up and remediated of which HEA says doesn’t exist
Mr. Waddell held up a poster of a schematic he said was used in his court case with HEA. He explained the location of HEA, a fence post and Waddell Way. He noted that the schematic stated the ground water flow direction. He pointed out the location of the former generator building and warehouse and noted an excavation that stated “1990 UST” which meant underground tank excavation limits. He read “fall and winter of 1997 warehouse contaminated soil excavation limits sandy gravel”. He noted on the schematic a scale showing one foot above sea level. He pointed out a 68’ and 62’ indicator on the schematic and noted that the excavation was 6’ for remediation. He pointed to “MW7” which meant well #7. He noted that at the bottom of the well it said, “sample collected indicated presence of hydrocarbons at a depth of at least 20 feet”. He pointed out that this schematic was signed by Dowl Engineers in 1991.
Mr. Waddell again stated that he was concerned and added that he thought every one in the room should be concerned. He clearly stated that if the pollution started coming down on this property he would stop the project.
Mr. Waddell then showed the audience the schematics diagram and re-explained it.
Mr. Waddell expressed his thoughts that HEA was selling everyone a “pig in a poke” and predicted that somebody will end up paying dearly for this situation. He added that he thought the HHA deserved everything they can possibly have and that he wished someone had come to talk to him, but no one did.
Mr. Waddell returned to explaining his photos:
- HEA pole that they say was disconnected. He pointed out that it wasn’t.
- Every cone in the photo is covering a well.
- Well #1 which 2-3 years ago would burn when the lid was removed.
- Cone smashed and tipped over. HEA ran over their own well.
- More wells marked on HEA’s property.
- Driveway prior to HEA getting property, right on the curve where DOT wanted it.
Mr. Waddell advised he would answer questions and stated that he was afraid he may be raining on somebody’s parade, however he was overly concerned especially for his own well being on the property below. He advised that he has had a long and treacherous time and it has cost him, virtually, his wife at the time and cost him the ability to sit in the Planning Commission seat.
Chair Smith asked for confirmation from Mr. Waddell that his recommendations to the HHA were; that they don’t utilize the site however, if they utilize the site that no disturbance occur that may disturb the pollution.
Mr. Waddell responded saying that he would like to see the HHA use that site and that they would be a good companion. He noted that he thought a better use would be a mall. Mr. Waddell went on to comment on his legal case with HEA; The jury told HEA through Judge Link to give the Waddells $1.2 million to make them come onto the property and burn up the approximately 2.5 acres of the worst pollution. He stated that after the jury was dismissed the judge addressed Mr. Baldwin, HEA’s exceptional attorney, and threw it out of court 2.5 months later. The Waddell’s immediately appealed to the Supreme Court who kicked it out - as Mr. Link was being appointed to the Supreme Court. Mr. Waddell stated that Judge Link said this case would be settled outside the courtroom. Mr. Waddell stated for the record that it was settled for $1,050,000 of which most went for attorney’s costs.
Chair Smith called upon Dr. Alderfer, who had been on a board certifying pollution engineers, to address the pollution concerns brought forward by Mr. Waddell. Dr. Alderfer advised that HHA had been in touch with HEA consistently. HEA’s work that followed on the heels of the remediation that had been done was overseen by DEC and their engineer Hart Crowser. Dr. Alderfer added that he had not presumed to re-do their work, however, he was in close contact with HEA, the engineers and DEC. The plan from day 1 had been to proceed with their work under the guidance and continued observation of DEC and Hart Crowser, the engineer responsible for samples and their analysis and verification that contaminants were not mobilized as a result of the excavation. He added that most of the site would receive additional fill therefore there were very few reasons to excavate deeply. Dr. Alderfer acknowledged that he did not pretend to know what goes on in every corner of that space below grade, however, the monitoring wells had been there for a long time and some would continue. Based upon the data as evaluated by DEC some of the wells could be removed when the contaminants were no longer above the levels of concern. Dr. Alderfer advised that monitoring must continue based upon the timeline of continued presence of contaminants in any wells. Most of them were hydrocarbons and the primary focus was on benzene, which is more toxic at lower concentrations than other constituents, however when there is a presence of petroleum products there was always a look at total hydrocarbons as a screening test. DEC would continue to look at those numbers and if they go down and stay down below the level of concern they could stop monitoring. This would be set by DEC. Dr. Alderfer confirmed for the Commission that legal and financial responsibility associated with the environmental condition of that land remains with HEA. In addressing questions from the Commission regarding excavation, Dr. Alderfer advised that there would be limited excavation in higher elevations that would be monitored. Their goal was not to remove any soil from the site, however, if they have to remove soil or organic material, samples would be taken to verify that no contamination exists.
The Commission inquired of Dr. Alderfer HHA’s plans for security at the facility. Dr. Alderfer advised that HHA presumed to keep it open in phase 1 as an open pavilion building. HHA did not picture chain link fencing or 24 hour guard or presume it would be necessary.
Frank Griswold testified that Attorney Lee Sharp was well known as an authority on Conditional Uses. Mr. Griswold quoted that the purpose of a condition use was “to deal with uses that have a particular potentially adverse impact on the surrounding area that cannot be predetermined and controlled by general regulations. It is used to ensure such uses will be compatible with surrounding development by placing conditions on the use to minimize or elimination adverse impacts”. Based on this, Mr. Griswold commented that there must be reasons why this use was not allowed as a permitted use in a CBD. He added that it would be helpful to him to know what the adverse affects were and to know how each of the adverse affects were going to be eliminated or minimized by the conditions imposed. He stated that this responsibility lay with the applicant. He referred to condition #7, the Traffic Impact Analysis. He commented that this would be one of the first things he would have done before considering a Conditional Use Permit. He asked, what if later on during the project the TIA shows that traffic issues can’t be mitigated. He questioned why there was a four year delay for the landscaping to be completed and a five year window for paving and striping. He stated that if this were the answer to adverse impacts to the neighboring properties, he didn’t think they should have to wait four or five years. Mr. Griswold stated that he felt that all of the conditional uses should be imposed and in place prior to the facility being operational.
Mr. Griswold stated that most of his comments would apply to the Kachemak Bay Campus Conditional Use Permit coming up under Commission Business Item A and he’d rather not repeat it.
CHELSEY/FOSTER - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-20 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE STAFF FINDINGS.
Commission Chesley questioned the difference in square footage numbers between the staff report and HHA’s report. City Planner McKibben explained that the difference was that the calculation provided by the applicant didn’t include the Zamboni storage area.
Commissioner Chelsey expressed concern regarding terminology. He referred to the staff report introduction, that under 21.48.030(b) this was classified as an indoor recreational facility and he suggested the applicant consider and the Commission consider the merit of using that term because it was referred to as a multi-purpose recreational facility. He added that this was an issue in the parking code because there was a category for mixed uses whereas skating rinks have a different calculation. He suggested that instead of calling this a multi-purpose recreation facility that it be called an indoor recreation facility. He commented that he felt this was important.
The Commission discussed briefly the calculations.
Commissioner Foster expressed his concern regarding the security of the building.
Harry Rasmussen addressed the security saying that the suggestion from the mayor and others was that the police could more effectively secure the building if it was open rather than if it were enclosed. Therefore, for the first year at least it would be open. He added that the final enclosure had not been decided. He acknowledged that security was a definite issue and would be addressed and was a huge concern for HHA. He reiterated that the first year it would be open, however, so open that it would be difficult to hide. Mr. Rasmussen advised that the lighting would not be on at night and in the dark it would be impossible to skate.
The Commission agreed by consensus to call the facility the Indoor Recreation Facility, thus clarifying the parking situation requirements.
Commissioner Pfeil questioned what type of system would be used for the storm water retention area mentioned. Dr. Alderfer advised that they were still working on that and it would be a storm water “detention” - they do not intend to hold the water - that it’s a matter of filtering and slowing the movement.
City Planner McKibben commented that this would be similar to the bio-swale type of system rather than an oil/water separator system. Dr. Alderfer agreed.
Commissioner Bartlett declared to the Commission that his company had some building designs under consideration for the HHA for possible acceptance. He added that there might be a financial benefit for him if those designs are selected. The Commission found that Commissioner Bartlett did have a conflict and he left the table.
Commissioner Hess questioned the long time frame of four and five years in staff recommendations. City Planner McKibben explained that this would give them adequate time to find the additional funding to complete the work. She added that she didn’t have an objection to a shorter time period.
Commissioner Hess confirmed with HHA that the Arctic Winter Games are in 2006 and that HHA would be receiving funding from them. Mr. Rasmussen advised the Commission that he was confident that HHA could exceed the guidelines and that was a high priority for them. He added that they were okay with it if that got modified.
HESS/PFEIL - MOTION TO AMEND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE TIME LINE ON ITEMS 3 AND 4 TO 3 YEARS.
Commissioner Hess commented that it was too long of a time frame and that HHA could live with this time frame.
Chair Smith commented that the disturbed grounds should be at least seeded within the first growing season regardless of the final landscaping issues.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
HESS/CHESLEY - MOTION TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ITEM #3 TO “ALL DISTURBED CONSTRUCTION BE REPLACED WITH TOP SOIL AND SEEDED WITHIN ONE YEAR”.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
Chair Smith called for clarification regarding the Fire Department Connection (FDC). He confirmed that the connection was on the building and asked if the fire truck parking was further away from the building. Blaze Burkhardt explained that in phase II it gets closer. He stated that the reason for the FDC was to engage the sprinkler system when one was provided - that it is not a source of water unless the building gets to a certain size where that was required. The FDC was designed to be on the front of the building at the passenger drop off. He added that typically passenger drop-off is signed unloading only. He explained that the Anchorage Fire Department did not have a problem using those as the dedicated place where they know they would have an opening to stop and charge the line. If the Homer Fire Department were concerned there would be cars qued there it could be moved. Commissioner Hess confirmed that HHA did not have a problem with Item #2.
City Planner McKibben suggested that Item #4 be changed to “detention”.
CHESLEY/PFEIL - MOTION TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION #4 FROM “STORM WATER RETENTION” TO “STORM WATER DETENTION”.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
Chair Smith asked City Planner McKibben to discuss how the TIA in Item #7 could do forward. She explained that the City would work with the HHA to contract with a consultant to conduct the work so everyone would have that information prior to the application for the zoning permit. If there were necessary mitigation measures, they could take action on that with the applicant at that time.
Commissioner Chesley explained his understanding of the process in the new standards that in order for a Conditional Use Application to be considered complete and be eligible for public hearing by the city manager, that all of the elements of the application had to be in place. That would be the case for the TIA in the future, however, he asked City Planner McKibben if that were the case now.
City Planner McKibben clarified that was not the case now, that the code did not make that requirement. It allowed the Commission to evaluate traffic impacts. She added that given the timing of this application it felt appropriate to require the analysis but not hold up the action on the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to gather the information. She advised that in the future some uses would go through the Conditional Use process strictly because of the Traffic Impact Analysis and that would be the whole act of the CUP.
Commissioner Chesley asked to clarify the wording regarding application of a zoning permit in Item #7.
CHESLEY/FOSTER - MOVE TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM #7 TO READ AS FOLLOWS ‘THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR A ZONING PERMIT’.
There was a brief clarification by Commissioner Chesley.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/HESS - MOVE TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM #7 TO ADD THAT PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND APPROVE ANY MITIGATION MEASURES THAT MAY BE IDENTIFIED.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion on the amended main motion.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, SMITH, PFEIL, CHESLEY, HESS
NO:
ABSTAIN: BARTLETT (conflict of interest)
Motion carried.
Chair Smith thanked the Hockey Association for their efforts stated that they had clearly created a significant impact to the building design that would add a great deal to the community as well as a wonderful skating facility. He thanked them again for working on that and expressed his appreciation.
Chair Smith called for a break at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Bartlett returned to the table.
B. Staff
Report PL 04-21 Re: Resolution 04- A Resolution Of The City
Council Of Homer, Alaska Renaming Gjosund Drive To Pacific Place Within The
City Of Homer At The Request Of The Property Owners.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff
recommendations. Staff
recommendations:
Councilmember Rick Ladd testified that Louis Gjosund, Sr. was an old time resident of this community. The Pratt Museum was in the process of doing an oral history of early homesteaders in the community of which the Gjosunds are certainly one. Mr. Ladd advised that Louis Gjosund, Jr., was heading up the oral histories. He was putting in a lot of his own time and money and doing the research with the libraries in the Anchorage area, gone to bureau of land affairs to get the old maps himself. Mr. Ladd expressed his opinion that to change the name of an old homesteader takes away some of Homer’s history. He added that he’d prefer to see Homer maintain as much as possible and recognize those founders of this community. He further added that Gjosund was a good Norwegian name, was a good cultural aspect of the community and that he felt Homer needed to keep it.
Bruce Turkington stated that he agreed 100% with Rick Ladd.
Allen Turkington echoed that agreement.
Al Waddell also echoed that agreement.
HESS/CHESLEY - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-21 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
The Commission acknowledged the public testimony and the property owner’s request. Staff advised that the people notified were only the property owners affected - versus all property owners within 300 feet. The Commission noted that they hadn’t seen a street sign and that if the concerns were for assisting 911 response[2] a sign would help. There was concern expressed that all of the property owners were not contacted directly by staff nor a written response received to confirm that everyone, in fact, wanted to change the name.
HESS/PFEIL - MOVE TO POSTPONE RENAMING OF THE ROAD UNTIL STAFF HAS DIRECT CONTACT WITH AND INPUT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
Commissioner Foster asked to recommend that the Council name something in the city Gjosund.
Councilmember Ladd stated that this was a very old family in town. Linda Gjosund worked for Rep. Gail Phillips for years in Juneau. Louis Gjosund was a Road Commissioner in town for a while. His fishing boat was still in the harbor and he was currently paying taxes here. Mr. Ladd stated that they have a legacy here. He said he thought that if the Senior Center and the Pratt Museum people were contacted, one would find there was tremendous history there. Mr. Ladd referred to the book “Pioneers of Homer” stating they were in it. He stated that he felt that what happens is two or three people come in and buy property and suddenly want to change the name - change the history - and history shouldn’t be messed with like that. He advised that Louis Sr’s home was still located at Miller’s Landing. He noted that the large home near the road was where Louis Jr lived.
Bruce Turkington commented that a lot of the old timers left a legacy of a subdivision. He advised that his father was a great example. He explained that near the Connelly House there was a street named after his brother, himself, his sister and his mother. He added that the Borough has been going through and changing names, but so far they had been leaving the main name in. This leaves a legacy of the family that’s created a family subdivision. He was neighbors of Louis Gjosund. He expressed his opinion that the legacy should be there. The property owners bought the property with those names and it should be left there. Mr. Turkington commented that it was not a safety issue; the family name should be the name of the street. He stated that the 911 directory has the directions; that’s what the 911 directory was there for.
Commissioner Pfeil stated that he agreed with Mr. Turkington. Having lived here for quite some time himself, Mr. Pfeil stated that he knew Louis and he thought it was important to retain that name. He added that he did not support the change.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
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 none.
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.
A. Staff Report PL 04-14 Re:
Request For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup #04-02/UAA Kachemak Bay Campus
Expansion As Permitted By HCC 21.48.030 (n) Permitted Uses With Structures In
Excess Of 8,000 Square Feet Of Building Area On A Lot Within The Central
Business Zoning District At 533 East Pioneer Avenue, Lot 3-A-2, Glacier View
Campus Addition Subdivision – POSTPONED FROM MARCH 30TH HAPC SPECIAL
MEETING.
Staff recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit contingent on the following conditions: 1. The parking lot to be paved and striped within five years. At the time the parking lot is paved storm water run-off shall flow through a spill-containment type of oil/water separator prior to discharge into a drainage or storm drain system to eliminate non-point source pollution. The driveways accessing the parking area shall be paved as well. 2. A detailed Landscape Plan identifying plant species and location be submitted prior to final landscaping or within three years. All areas disturbed by construction will be replaced with topsoil and seeded until such time landscaping is completed. 3. The pole-mounted lights should be limited to twenty-eight feet above grade and shall be cut-off luminaries. 4. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) be completed for evaluation by the City prior to the submission of a zoning permit. The City will select the consultant for the TIA, and the cost of the TIA paid by the applicant. 5. The project meets all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.
Prior amendments to the main motion made:
BARTLETT/PFEIL - MOTION TO AMEND TO DELETE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM #4
Motion carried.
PFEIL/BARTLETT - MOTION TO AMEND STAFF REPORT ITEM 1 TO STATE “THE PARKING LOT TO BE PAVED AND STRIPED WITHIN FIVE YEARS AT THE TIME THE PARKING LOT IS PAVED STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL FLOW THROUGH A SPILL CONTAINMENT TYPE OF OIL/WATER SEPARATOR OR APPROPRIATELY SIZED BIO SWALE PRIOR TO DISCHARGE....” THIS WOULD INSERT ‘APPROPRIATELY SIZED BIO SWALE’.
Motion carried.
Amended motion on the floor -
HESS/PFEIL -
MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-14 AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING THE
FINDINGS SUGGESTED BY THE STAFF
City Planner McKibben supplied a copy of the
landscape plan the University provided from the last meeting to Commissioners
Foster and Chesley. They looked it over
briefly.
The Commission commented on the covered
material in the lower campus and speculated that it had the classic signs of
remediation - probably contaminated
soils from leaking oil from the fuel tanks for the trailers. The Commission assumed the remediation was
being monitored.
Chair Smith commented on the phasing of the
finish of the existing building. He
stated that the University was anticipating having funding within approximately
two years at which time the rest of the building would be re-sided to match the
new addition. He further stated that
the roofing on the new addition would not be the same color - currently one is
red, one white. He explained that the
intent was, when they get the funding, to re-roof the existing building. At a minimum they would repaint it. He explained that the whole front parking
lot becomes landscaped area, so there would no longer be the entrance or the
exit onto Pioneer Avenue. The addition
would be built between the existing building and City Hall.
Commissioner Hess advised that the House
passed the funding for the University and it still had to go through the
Senate.
Commissioner Foster commented that
communities that have college campuses tend to be very nice communities. He looked forward to the opening of the
University here.
VOTE:
YES: PFEIL, SMITH, HESS, BARTLETT, FOSTER, CHESLEY
NO:
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL 04-22 Re: Review of Spenard Builders Supply Conditional
Use Permit and Nonconformity Use, 3978 Lake Street, Tract E-1-A, Carl Sholin
Subdivision 1996 Addition No. 2.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff
report. She advised that this
information was before the Commission for discussion at the request of
Commissioner Chesley.
Bruce Turkington, of Spenard Builders Supply,
had no comments and stated that he was available for questions.
Commissioner Hess commented that after some
research it seemed to him that a Planned Unit Development was a good way to get
away from the regulations of the Code.
He supported this item’s existence on the 2004 work list.
Chair Smith voiced his opinion that this
Commission would not have made the same decision regarding conflict of interest
that the Commission did when Mr. Gannaway was chair, worked at SBS, and the
Commission found he had no conflict.
Mr. Turkington disagreed that it was found that Mr. Gannaway did have a
conflict and was not allowed to vote.
Chair Smith noted that the minutes reflected “Chair Gannaway stated he
did not feel he had... “ Mr. Turkington
interrupted stating that the minutes were incorrect and urged the Commission to
listen to the tape. He added that Mr.
Gannaway had declared his conflict and
the chair found him not to be in conflict.
Chair Smith further noted that Mr. Gannaway was the chair at the time.
Mr. Turkington asked if there was any
particular problem that the Commission had with Spenard Builders Supply (SBS);
otherwise, it shouldn’t be an issue right now.
He stated that he did not understand why he was asked to be at the
meeting.
Chair Smith explained that this information
was brought forward as research information for the Commission to look at in
planning for future Planned Unit Developments.
Commissioner Chesley noted that Mr. Turkington’s
presence was not requested, however, he expressed his appreciation that he was
present. He explained that during
discussion of the large retail/wholesale standards the Commission was looking
at lumberyard’s storage issues in the CBD.
Further, he brought this forward because of the letter from Mr.
Turkington to the Council with copies to the Commission to someday expand
SBS. He stated that his intent was to
take a look at the history and the permitting process so the Commission would
have a foundation for when the plans were submitted. Mr. Chesley advised that he wanted to make it very clear that
this issue did not have anything to do with the size of the store.
Chair Smith commented that the Commission’s
recommended amendments to the proposed Ordinance 04-11 clarified the definition
of outdoor storage and how it’s used or not in the calculation of store
size. He added that it essentially says
that if the outdoor storage were 40 feet from the building, it would not be
counted as part of the building size.
He noted that this was now before the Council.
C. Staff Report
PL 04-23 Re: Homer Advisory Planning Commission Work Plan
And Goals for 2004.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations. Staff recommendations the Commission review and discuss the work plan and develop an updated work plan for 2004.
There was no public to testify on this issue.
The Commission reviewed the past three Work Lists, specifically the 2002 list.
The Commission noted on the list the rezoning of the East Road Ben Walters area. Chair Smith explained the intent behind this item. Considering Residential Office in the area of Ben Walters and East End Road from Lake Street to East Hill was not a good idea because they do not want a classic house right next to East End Road. Instead, the undeveloped land might be more properly developed as something else such as something with an apartment over it. The Commission wished to reassess this zoning; that maybe another designation may fit better. They noted that Ben Walters has been heavily developed for Professional Offices.
There was a brief discussion on the use of Ben Walters Lane - whether sidewalks and widening of the road were in the Transportation Plan.
The Commission discussed the Transportation Plan and the integration of the Trail Master Plan. The noted that when these are adopted it will mean that the Commission will have more enforceable items in the subdivision code. An example would be that in the Design Criteria Manual it says that if there is an arterial or a collector that is approved by the City Council and a subdivision is created that the developer’s have to include it. It’s a requirement. There has been a question whether or not the City has an enforceable plan and the adoption of the Transportation and Trails plan would provide key elements.
City Planner McKibben advised that these could be adopted as part of or as an update to the Comprehensive Plan and then staff would be looking at that when they evaluate subdivision and include that information. She added that it does provide a strong counter for the Commission if they want to make recommendations.
The Commission reviewed the 2003 Work List and kept the following on the new list -
-Additional work for Bridge Creek Watershed is back on the list.
-Scenic Gateway Overlay District. - the Commission discussed this item briefly.
-Rezone of Area: West Hill Rd to Jr High - the Commission discussed this item briefly.
-Limit internally illuminated or back lit signs
-Update Procedural Manual - clean up inconsistencies and include CUP process changes.
-Rezone Ben Walters Area
Recognize change in use in this area
-Redefine RO zoning district regulations
Review Purpose and allowed Activities in Zone
Focus on East Rd Portion of Zone, possibly creating a new type of zoning district
-Redefine GC1 and GC2 Zoning District Designations
Allow Residential uses subordinate to commercial per comp plan
Review mix of allowed uses
-Steep Slope Development Ordinance – Staff to check the time line on this per the grant
-Subdivision regulations renamed to bifurcation of platting – Remodel of subdivison code
There was discussion regarding the possibility of changing the regulations so City replats would not need to be reviewed by the Borough.
-CBD setbacks - the Commission discussed the use of setbacks in the CUP and the points the Mr. Griswold has made
The Commission asked staff if the 2003 Work List and the list produced by Chair Smith be integrated for the next meeting.
Chair Smith asked to review the list he submitted as a lay-down. The commission reviewed and discussed the list.
-Community Design Manual; Complete connections section, Scenic Gateway, Scenic Spit, Old Town.
-GC1, GC2 Revisions (Boatyards, residential uses, mix of uses)
-Rural Residential; cottage industry revisions, lot size changes.
-Commercial Districts; lot size changes.
-Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District (proposed resolution with 18 items)
-Conservation Zoning for city properties
-Amend non-conforming and PUD code sections
-Residential Office regulations, possible amendment
-East Road Residential Office uses
-Ben Walters Lane Land use and zoning exam
-Bifurcation of Platting
-Examine rezone of West Hill to Bidarka
-Visitor industry zone
-Trailer Park regulations
-Shoreline, Wetland, Steep Slope Committee
There was a suggestion that the Beach Committee could become a Shoreline, Wetland, Steep Slope Committee. Another suggestion was that the Planning Commission could form a committee.
-Parking code; needs more flexibility
Commissioner Bartlett suggested that the Spit could be designated for a future overlay. He saw that Gates is out and there were other over slope development potential. He asked if the Commission would want that or other City land to be a permitted use to be re-leased or sold. He said he just wanted to throw that out for thought. He stated that the development around the Harbor as a strong potential in the near future.
D. Staff
Report PL 04-24 Re: Hazel Avenue Street Improvements.
City Planner McKibben explained that Commission Chesley has requested further information regarding the Hazel Street Improvement requirements for the Carrs/Gottstein and development of that street. She reported that there was no Conditional Use Permit contrary to what was previously understood. It was built prior to the requirement for a CUP. A preliminary plat was approved and did not indicated requirements for public improvements. The final plat was approved. The applicant signed a utilities installation agreement with Public Works including requirement for the construction and installation of streets drains, sewer, electricity, telephone, sidewalks, monumentation, curbs, gutters, street lights and signs with no time line. The owner asked the City Manager for a waiver of the construction of Hazel Avenue, which was a part of that agreement. The manager agreed to the waiver. The waiver was legal according to a city attorney opinion. The Planning Commission approved a subdivision replat. September 1988, Carr/Gottstein applied for a building permit for the store. December 1988, a letter from Carr/Gottstein and property owners stating opposition to the formation of a Local Improvement District for Hazel Avenue. A City Council Resolution created an LID for Hazel. In January 1989 a letter to the Planning Commission from the City Attorney regarding the City Manager’s authority to waive the Hazel Avenue Construction. In January 1989 A City Council Resolution dissolving the Hazel Street LID. In April 2000 there was a Resolution Awarding the construction of Poopdeck Street and Hazel Avenue. Somewhere in there was another formation of an LID. City Council Resolution 00-88 shows that Carr/Gottstein was current on their portion of the LID costs for Hazel Avenue/Poopdeck Street.
Commissioner Chesley thanked staff for the information. He stated that he was not comfortable with the process that the Planning Commission who is advisory to the council who is in essence enacting legislative requirements from the zoning ordinance and then on a whim they can be waived by any given City Manager.
City Planner McKibben added that the Plat did not have any requirements for improvements. The staff report and the minutes do not reflect that there was any recommendation or any conditional of approval for the plat that the applicant provide those improvements. There was a subdivision agreement after that that did require that, but there was no requirement by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Chelsey stated that he held a Memo of August 22, 1988, from Pamela Black to Susan Regan that differed with the staff report and minutes.
E. Memorandum From City Planner, Re: Proposed 21.61.105(f) and (1)(2) Community and Economic Impact Analysis
City Planner McKibben reviewed the memo stating that Chair Smith had suggested making a recommendation to the Council regarding further amendments to the proposed Ordinance 04-11. With regards to the Community and Economic Impact Analysis the current proposal has a horizon year of 25 years. After further communication with Joe Murkins, the economist with the Community and Economic Development, it was found that this would be appropriate for a feasibility analysis for the development of a particular project - the life of the building and project - however, in reviewing the language that is more of an impact analysis and that a 10 year horizon would be complete appropriate. This was a recommendation to change that 25 year horizon to a 10 year horizon.
FOSTER/PFEIL - MOTION TO ADOPT THE MEMORANDUM
Commissioner Foster voiced his support.
Chair Smith expressed his appreciation of staff in putting the memo together.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster reported that he is on the Borough Plat Committee and is a three month commitment. He said he’d be keeping the Commissioner updated on what goes on there. He mentioned that at the last Borough meeting there were two Assembly members and all of the members of the Commission that came to Coastal Erosion Workshop were ecstatic about the program. His next meeting was Monday.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Planner McKibben reported that she had been following up on Mr. Griswold’s complaints, however, she hadn’t rapped any of them up so there wasn’t a lot to report. She added that she would try to do a better job so he didn’t feel ignored.
Ms. McKibben requested some direction from the Commission. She had been asked to look into the Hot Tub store and she had talked to them. She was not clear whether or not the water tank on the top of the store was considered a sign. The owner advised that it was not something for sale - it was placed there for architectural interest. She advised that they would take it down if asked to, but she wanted to know the intent when the code was created.
The commission discussed at length whether or not the water tank on the roof was a sign. The consensus what that it was a sign.
Commissioner Chesley asked for an update on the sign violation out East End Road. Ms. McKibben advised that they did not have a permit and had been contacted, but no reply had been received. She wasn’t sure of the deadline. In regard to the Cosmic Kitchen, McKibben advised that their banner was permitted.
The Commission discussed briefly doing work on banners, signs and corporate logos in the signage requirements. The Commission added to these work list.
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. A Resolution of the City Council
Approving the City of Homer 2004 Land Allocation Plan.
B. A Resolution of the City Council of
Homer, Alaska, Providing Input to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
regarding the Borough Comprehensive Plan.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may
address the Commission on any subject.
The Chair may prescribe time limits.
There were none.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on
any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commission Hess asked if staff would check with City Manager Wrede and have Steve Bambakitis, Systems Manager, provide the wireless networking connection at the Council table. He explained that it’s free. The City already has the equipment. All that needs to be done was to turn it on.
Commissioner Hess commented on the Northern Dynasty proposed mine over by Illiamna and the implications that the mine would have on Homer. He advised that they are talking about having this mine in operation in five years. There would be 2000 employees at the mine. The City was working hard to get the dock business for this mine. He stated that chances were that a majority of the workers would live in the Homer area. Conservatively, that would be an impact of 1000 new families within five years. The work rotation would be week on, week off and the families would not live on location. Homer is the closest place. He advised that the jobs would probably pay $80,000 to $150,000 per year. He expressed his opinion that the impact would be nothing like anything Homer’s ever seen. He added that he didn’t know what the Commission could do, but he thought it was something they should think about. The road to the mine would end up in Williamsport and expressed his hopes that they get the dock done. He commented that it would be a huge boon for the Port. He predicted that the development in town would be “incredible”.
Commissioner Bartlett commented that was why he was talking about developing the Harbor area. He added that they were talking about hundred of pieces of huge equipment alone constantly going back and forth.
Chair Smith commented that Commissioner Hess has a good point because the Commission has not addressed condo’s and townhouses.
Commissioner Foster apologized for missing the last meeting and thanked City Planner McKibben and Chair Smith for attending the workshop. He added that Councilmembers also attended. He stated that their presence was important to him.
Commissioner Bartlett commented that he found it interesting to have to stop aside and look back at what’s going on. As a general observation he said he found a lot of “silent talking” going on at the table. He advised that the audience could not hear and he got the sense that it was confusing. He suggested that everyone, himself included, needed to speak into the mic.
Commissioner Bartlett commented on Mr. Waddell’s comments regarding the contamination on the HHA property. He wanted to state for the record that he had brought this subject up a couple of times, so it has been brought up. He added that he felt Mr. Waddell made a couple of points in that they excavated on the upper lot down six feet and stopped and yet they have wells showing contamination at 20+ feet. He noted that he had not heard from HEA or the HHA that this was a clean site. He suggested that the Commission consider that if they were going to excavate on the downward lot at all the deepest excavation would probably be in relationship with the water line, which typically could be 7-10 feet deep. That would be below the grade level of which the upper lot was graded and cleaned and it’s still above the line where the wells are. He stated he was interested in what the upper lots are saying from the well standpoint and what the lower lots would indicate. He pointed out that if they excavate, it had been his experience that there are experts out there that come in with “sniffers” that detect contamination on that level. Once that is opened up by installing a water line off of Lake Street it would create a new channel where water may flow and may cause the transfer of contaminants from one point to the next. He stated that there was a liability issue there. He suggested that the City consider having the testing done when they were doing the excavations. That way, later on, there would be back-up information. Mr. Bartlett suggested that this be considered in a review process.
Commissioner Chesley cautioned the Commission to be careful because just because someone presents an exhibit of information doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the information was true. He explained that he was not saying that Mr. Waddell’s information was not true, however, he asked the Commission to remember that this was prepared by an attorney and was presented with a bias.
Commissioner Bartlett commented that the information was several years old.
Commissioner Chesley commented on the possibility of another location within the CBD for the ice rink that would not have all of these issues. He noted that ground pollution is an amazing thing. He referred to and issue on the East Coast regarding a tannery that the book was made into a movie that John Travolta starred in where a Harvard Law Professor was given permission to work in the attorney’s office and follow the whole case. He commented that ground water pollution in this inciden involved birth defects and cancer and that the company lied in court to say that there wasn’t anything there. Mr. Chesley stated that it was incredible, the long term health consequences of pollution like that, therefore he was concerned about the things that Mr. Waddell said and thought the administration should take notice. He reminded everyone that they were considering opening that ground up to install utilities.
Commissioner Chelsey thanked City Planner McKibben for responding to his request for information.
Commissioner Pfeil added to Commissioner Bartlett’s comments on not being able to hear in the audience. He stated that this had been mentioned to him. One elderly lady said she felt she was not part of the meeting. She could not hear and it looked like the Commissioners were only speaking to one another.
Commission Foster shared that at the Borough the mic’s have on/off switches and the speaker has to consciously move forward and turn on the mic and talk in the mic and say what you have to say. It’s not like carrying on a conversation.
Chair Smith commented that it was an excellent point about the water and sewer however, the main responsibility with that would not be HHA. The City of Homer would furnish the water and sewer and there was a right-of-way there that belonged to the City of Homer. He stated that he didn’t know how that was going to work and reiterated that Dr. Alderfer is on a national board that certifies pollution control engineers.
Chair Smith commented on a technical aspect. He explained that when the Commission held a public hearing it was essentially a legal process. When the public hearing was closed and brought to the Commission, the public hearing is closed. He stated that the Commission, at that point, could not keep going to the people in the audience for comments. He explained that this in effect reopens the public hearing but not to everyone. He said he thought they were getting lax and the Commission needed to be conscious of the process. There was a brief discussion of the public hearing process.
Chair Smith referred to his point-by-point response to a letter from Frank Griswold to the City Council. He stated that he submitted this so it would be part of the record of the Commission so the Council would have it as part of the record because they would be looking at Mr. Griswold’s fax to them on Monday.
Commissioner Chesley asked everyone to be at the Council meeting on Monday if they could for the possible final action on Ordinance 04-11.
ADJOURNMENT
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 was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 21, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
__________________________________________
DEENA BENSON, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: _________________________________