Session 03-19 Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by Chair Smith at 7:08 p.m. at Homer City Hall, Council Chambers, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.

 

PRESENT:     COMMISSIONERS: FOSTER, SMITH, BARTLETT, HESS

EXCUSED:                 CHESLEY,CELENTANO, PFEIL

 

                        STAFF:            BETH MCKIBBEN, CITY PLANNER

                                                DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

                                                                                                                                               

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

 

Chair Smith announced that he had requested a reconsideration on Item 8A.  Staff Report PL 03-86 Re: Resolution renaming Forrest Glenn Street to Glenwood Road due to similarity of street names within the Emergency Service Number area in the City of Homer, Alaska.  That item was moved to 5A under Reconsideration.

           

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.

 

A.        Approval of November 19, 2003 meeting minutes.  To be passed out & e-mailed.

 

The minutes were approved as amended.

 

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.

 

Councilmember Fenske, with permission of the commission, testified as a concerned citizen of Homer, regarding the Planning Director’s memorandum on the convention center.  He said he thought this was a good time for the community to begin thinking about the process of having a convention center.  This is an opportune time to look at what the community has that will support a convention center and what amenities need to be added to the community.  All of this is going to require some kind of feasibility study.  He noted that the planning budget is being considered as the source of funding for this study.  He added that Economic Development might have some money.  In his mind, he was looking at some type of time-line for this to proceed forward.  He commented that the planning department/commission is probably busier than anyone else and expressed his appreciation that the commission was taking the time to make comments on this issue.  He thought it would be important for the community to see that the commission sees this as important enough to take time for at this particular point.  Mr. Fenske thought that it would be good to give people time to engage during the summer and come up with something by next fall.  He said he felt the people who would be most involved would be the stakeholders/property owners in the Town Center Development area, the Chamber of Commerce and the Town Center Committee.  He encouraged the Planning Commission to follow through with some type of recommendation to pursue this in some fashion.  He added that he thought this was something that would eventually take on a life of its own once everyone is involved in it.  He said he thought it would be meaningful enough to the economy of the area that it may blossom into its own turnover.  He thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak.

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

A.        Staff Report PL 03-86     Re:      Resolution renaming Forrest Glenn Street to Glenwood Road due to similarity of street names within the Emergency Service Number area in the City of Homer, Alaska. 

 

This item was moved from New Business during Agenda Approval.  Chair Smith advised that he had requested reconsideration in response to the Planning Director’s email that there were public comments that hadn’t been considered at the previous meeting.

 

FOSTER/HESS   MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE RESOLUTION RENAMING FORREST GLENN STREET. 

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.  NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

The motion to approve is now back on the floor.  Amended Motion on the floor-

CHESLEY/HESS – MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 03-86 AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION.  Staff recommendation was amended to read “…renaming Forrest Glen Street to Glenwood Road.

 

City Planner McKibbin advised that planning had received comments at the end of the workday at the last meeting and wasn’t aware of it, therefore they didn’t make it before the commission to be considered.  She did not have a recommendation for a name.  The Planning Department received numerous suggestions from one family and did not hear from Mr. Anderson.

 

There was some discussion regarding where the names come from, how they were chosen and what the process was for determining duplicates.  City Planner McKibben advised that the proposed name is run through the Emergency Services District system to ensure no duplicates.

 

The commission reviewed the names suggested by the residents and asked staff for a recommendation.  Ms. McKibben thought Pine Tree blended in with the subdivision and Pacific View works because while driving down Westwood there is a view of Kachemak Bay.  The commission concluded by asking staff to perform an additional mailing to the property owners on this road, stating the proposed name of Glenwood Road.

 

HESS/BARTLETT- MOTION TO POSTPONE THE MOTION TO RENAME FORREST GLEN STREET TO GLENWOOD ROAD UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ARE NOTIFIED BY MAIL BY THE STAFF.

 

There was no discussion

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.  NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

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.

 

There were none.

 

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.

 

A.        Staff Report PL 03-107   Re:      Bayview Subdivision 2003 Addition Preliminary Plat and Vacation of Alley Easement.  POSTPONED FROM 11-19-03 HAPC meeting.

 

City Planner McKibben noted a handout from the Parks & Recreation Commission.  She added that the Road Standard Committee discussed this proposed vacation of the easement and came to a consensus that they were not in favor of vacating the easement.  She spoke with Mary Toll, Kenai Peninsula Borough Platting Officer, who advised that the easement vacation does take a separate action from that of vacating lot lines.  The commission could approve the vacation of the lot lines without the vacation of the easement.  Ms. McKibben offered that the property owner consider moving the easement to a different location.  This would accommodate the public need to retain the easement and allow the owner to develop the property to fit their needs.

 

Chair Smith advised there was a motion to approve the plat with staff recommendations and noted that the preliminary plat shows the vacation of the easement.

 

HESS/FOSTER- MOTION TO AMEND REPORT PL03-107 TO APPROVE THE REPLAT WITHOUT THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY EASEMENT.

 

Roger Imhoff, surveyor, spoke for Sam Beachy.  He advised that the beneficiary of the easement was not who it was assumed to be.  He clarified that this is an easement over private land - not a right of way.  He stated that he felt this easement was not for the public, but for the benefit of the property owners in this subdivision so they could access the backside of their lots.  The owner and the surveyor have since passed away so there is no way to know what the intent was.  Mr. Imhoff agreed that right-of-ways and easements should not be given up that may be used in the future, however, he questioned whether or not this was for public use.  He referred to internet resources he was able to access.  He cited a Dillingham case where an alleyway easement had been developed into a roadway that the public had been using for several years and was trying to turn it into prescriptive rights through the court to make it a public alleyway.  That led him to believe that not all alleyway easements should be considered wide open for public use and that if the public desires to establish an easement in this situation, this trail would have to be developed without the permission of the owners and would have to be in continuous and hostile use for 10 years.

 

Chair Smith commented that because it is an “alley” easement, it changes the nature of it.  He noted that there were access driveways to lots on the east end of the easement off of B Street by Amso’s.  Mr. Imhoff suggested that the alley was in use by the owners of the property.  Chair Smith noted that those owners have to cross another’s property and Mr. Imhoff reiterated that the beneficiaries of the alley would be all of the lots owners along the alley.  He pointed out that the property owners in the middle would have to use the alley from either end.  He noted that there had been no objections from any of the owners in this block adding that he thought all of them had been contacted.

 

Commissioner Foster commented that during a discussion with the Research Reserve Manager, he was told that one of the houses next door to them on the east is actually sitting on the easement.

 

Chair Smith gave the definition of the Homer City Code for “alley” - “a public thoroughfare less than 30’ in width which accommodates only a secondary means of access to the abutting property” noting that it was not referring to the primary access to the abutting property.  He acknowledged that it supports the argument that it’s for access to the property, however, it also says a “public” thoroughfare.  Mr. Imhoff rebutted that this plat was recorded many years prior to the code.  Chair Smith noted that the borough code did not have a definition of an alley that he could find.

 

Commissioner Hess reiterated that there was another process to vacate the alley easement.  Mr. Imhoff stated if they were not successful in vacating the easement at this meeting he would see if the owners want to pursue the vacation.  Ms. McKibben asked if he would see how the owners feel about relocating the easement.  Chair Smith commented that the Public Works Director thought it could be a potential gas line easement.

 

VOTE: YES: (amendment) UNANIMOUS CONSENT.  NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE: YES: (motion to approve replat) UNANIMOUS CONSENT.  NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

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 03-86     Re:      Resolution renaming Forrest Glenn Street to Glenwood Road due to similarity of street names within the Emergency Service Number area in the City of Homer, Alaska. 

 

Moved under Agenda Approval to Reconsideration Item A.

 

B.        Staff Report PL 03-109   Re: Memorandum from Walt Wrede, City Manager regarding Proposed Homer Civic and Convention Center.

 

City Planner McKibben reviewed the memorandum. Memorandum “to solicit the Planning Commission’s recommendation on whether it would be beneficial to use up to $30,000 from the Planning Reserves to conduct a feasibility study.”

 

The Commission discussed possible uses for the Planning Reserve Fund and the restrictions for its use.  City Planner McKibben advised that the fund had been used for project costs and didn’t think it could go for operating costs, ie personnel salaries.  Chair Smith pointed out that some money from this fund had been used on the Transportation Plan and for the TIA consultant.  He shared some background on where the fund money came from.  Commissioner Bartlett stated that although he thinks this is a worthwhile project he expressed his concern regarding the source of future funding requirements after the project feasibility study is complete.  He asked if the Planning Department needed to make a list of future expenditures they anticipate are needed to determine if the $70,000 is enough to complete the project. 

 

Chair Smith emphasized that he would like to have a formal study by qualified personnel versus an in-house study.  Further, he’d like to see a decent study versus a hurried one.  He recommended that some funds be taken from the Town Center Development Committee because that’s what this is about; some from the Planning Reserve and research sources for other monies such as a matching grant. 

 

The use of the facility was discussed.  Chair Smith clarified that the project would be a Civic and Convention Center used by the community for its needs and also host conventions from other areas.  In that sense, it would be a great boon to year-round economic activity.

 

In discussing other uses for the fund it was suggested that a watershed handbook as needed and could be produced locally by water quality experts.  City Planner McKibben advised that she had budgeted some printing money for printing the text for a handbook.  She had originally planned to do a cooperative research effort involving Cook Inlet Keeper and NRS, however, that part was removed from the budget.  She acknowledged that it is a big project, however, there are local experts that can be utilized and the handbook could probably be done for a fairly small amount of money. 

 

The commission discussed the need for the $30,000 specifically, noting this figure was the top end for completing the project requested.  They concluded that this was a going rate for what was being requested.

 

The sense of the commission was reached as a recommendation to:

Portion out the total required costs for the study-

Ø      Use some money from the Town Center Development Committee.

Ø      Use some money-intentionally unspecified- from the Planning Reserve

Ø      Look at other resources such as matching grants.

 

The commission concluded that this is a needed project and using funding to get it jump-started is important, however, the commission did not want to take the whole amount from the Planning Reserve.

 

Chair Smith recessed at 8:08 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m..

 

C.        Staff Report PL 03-78   Re:     Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Adding Chapter 21.  Large Retail And Wholesale Structure Development, Impact Statement And Standards.  POSTPONED.   

 

The commission continued their discussion where they left off at the worksession.  Items discussed included.

 -     traffic assessment requirement

-         storm water section of the draft

-         parking as allowed by Chapter 7.12

-         parking buffers

-         Page 15 of the draft

-         Development Activity Plan – storm water

-         Best Management Practices

 

REPORTS

 

A.                 Borough Report

 

Commissioner Foster reported that he was pleased to see that “they” acknowledged any type of development changes to the road system would take into account the city’s, community’s and borough’s comprehensive plans.  Regarding railroads, the committee asked the borough to acknowledge that if they were looking to bring the railroad to Kenai, that they continue it to Homer.  The Kenai Mayor talked about a high-speed ice-breaker ferry currently being built by Boeing through the military as a prototype troop carrier.  He saw photos.  The plan is to test it between Anchorage and Knik until the bridge is built.  Apparently “Stevens” has something in the appropriations bill that says that once the bridge is built, the ferry can’t run at that location, so it will then been assigned to run from Anchorage to Homer via Nikiski.  The Kenai Mayor wants a road to Point Possession so it’s just a 15 minute ferry ride and then run to Homer from there.  Commissioner Foster advised that the road and the ferry would be included in the transportation plan.

 

Commissioner Foster described the ferry as a hydrofoil catamaran that rises up off the pontoons to let the ice go through.  City Planner McKibben advised that in the Mat-Su Borough it could not be called a “ferry”; that the terminology would negate the need for a bridge, therefore it was called by another name similar to an emergency transportation device.

 

Commissioner Foster described working with the borough commission as a “good learning experience”.  They will hold elections to go on the plat committee at the next meeting.  He will not be a candidate at that meeting, however, he might be recruited at the next go-around.

 

B.        Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

           

PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT

 

City Planner McKibben stated she was considering inviting Mary Toll to speak to the commission regarding general education on platting.  Ms. Toll does this for the advisory commissions within the borough and has done this for at least one or two of the municipalities. She added that she would like to invite Christy Miller, DCED, to Homer for staff education regarding flood hazard permitting.  The commission agreed with her suggestions.

 

Chair Smith asked if the Alaska Chapter of the APA was planning to have a conference in March.  City Planner McKibben didn’t have that information.  She advised that she tried to budget for attendance, however, it was removed from the budget.  She added that she might have enough money to at least pay the registration costs.

 

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.        Villanova Urban Stormwater Partnership, Lessons Learned – Porous Concrete Demonstration Site

 

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. 

 

Commissioner Hess commented on seeing in the local newspaper another position in the Planning Department saying he hoped it was true.  He expressed his appreciation for the parliamentary procedures handbook he’d received from staff.

 

Commissioner Bartlett asked what would be required to prepare for the next meeting. Chair Smith advised that building aesthetics would be the main agenda item and there would be some revised drafts.   He suggested looking at the drafts and making quick changes for about twenty minutes, then concentrating on the main item.

 

Commissioner Foster invited everyone to attend the Islands and Oceans Visitor Center’s unveiling on the 13th - if for no other reason than to hear him play the trumpet in the Inlet Winds band and to see the wonderful lighting and great artwork.  The unveiling is from 12 to 5.  He thanked the City Planner for participating in the planning of the Coastal Dynamics workshop scheduled for March 15, 16, and 17.  The next planning meeting for it is on Tuesday or Wednesday.  He announced that he would be gone for the next 3 1/2 weeks and he would be thinking of everyone.  He would be leaving right after the unveiling.  He added that he was surprised that the City doesn’t have a building setback from streams.  He thought there was.  He suggested that maybe he was looking at drainage in the CBD where an open ditch must have a 15 foot buffer and a closed system drainage must have a 10 foot buffer -see line 272 on page 42.  It was in a couple of places;  there and in site development.  Chair Smith offered to look into it.

 

The commission discussed scheduling the next worksession.  All agreed on 5 p.m. prior to the next regular meeting.

 

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 9:26 p.m.  The next Regular Meeting is December 17, 2003 at 7 p.m.  There will be a work session at 5 p.m. prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

____________________________________

DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved:___________________________