Session 05-03, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory
Planning Commission was called to order at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL, HESS, LEHNER, CONNOR,
KRANICH
STAFF: CITY
PLANNER McKIBBEN
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSIST. GUYTON
PUBLIC
WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
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
Commissioner Foster requested to add Site Development
Requirements to the agenda.
Chair Chesley asked for consensus approval and added it as
item H. under Commission Business.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A. Approval
of January 19, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Chair Chesley asked for comments from audience.
Frank Griswold had the following changes:
Ø Page 5, “Commissioner Hess through his
business Puffin Electric has a business relationship with Jay Brant
Construction that is worth more than $300.”
It’s kind of hanging there, it’s not a statement, it’s not a motion. If that is a statement, he thought it should
say, Commissioner Hess stated that through his business and if it’s a
motion it should be clearly stated that it’s a motion. It’s not clear if it’s a disclosure or if
it’s a restatement of the motion. And if it is a disclosure. . . (discussion on
where he was in the minutes as he apparently had a different set of
minutes.) Whatever disclosure is made it
should be included in the minutes in its entirety. It was confusing to him.
Ø Page 6 Public Works Director Meyer –
four lines to the end of that there’s a typo, The northern 15 feet.
Ø Page 6 down three paragraphs –
Griswold’s comments, second sentence, “He said it constitutes” it would be
better if it said, “He said this constitutes” Otherwise it is
ambiguous. Next line it says, “Mr.
Griswold cited HCC 1.12.010(B)(2)”, he cited that and (c), add after B(2) “and (c)”. Four lines down, “Mr. Griswold said if the
City Attorney “was,” should be “were” contacted, “ to clarify the
conflict of interest definition” what he really said there was something about
asking for clarification of procedures for declaring a conflict of interest and
he mentioned these codes, but because it’s been shorten and paraphrased
“definition” instead of “definition” it would be closer to what he said if
“definition” was changed to “procedures”. There were many issues not just a
definition.
Ø Page 9, Ms. Martin “in conferring
with City Planner McKibben Ms. Martin learned the City Council has to change
the ordinance.” It would be less confusing if “has” were changed to “would
have.”
Ø Next paragraph, Bill Smith’s
comments, Mr. Griswold wanted to talk about the comments that he made, Mr.
Griswold took notes at the meeting but the comments that he wanted to address
didn’t make it in minutes. He feels
uncomfortable trying to re-state what was said because he doesn’t like others
to re-state something that he had said, wrong. He can’t remember exactly but
from his notes it was something about a request to have the modifications made
and work with them to make their lots commercially viable. He wanted to address
that, he requested that one line or two sentences be included as verbatim as
feasible.
Ø Page 10, sentence before the vote, Chair Chesley
… “resident’s” should be “residents’.”
Ø Page 11,
Ø The next paragraph, “Mr. Griswold
added he had written a letter to the editor …”
He said he had to back up to the previous paragraph where it said, “Mr.
‘Griswold added at the Council level Memorandum 05-03 . .., “added” is the
wrong word, because it sounds like he added the Memorandum. If it said “Mr. Griswold stated” that
would be more clear.
Ø Page 12, Mr. Griswold stated he read
into the record five legal questions; but they didn’t make it into the record.
He saw them in the packet, but a lot of people don’t have access to the packet,
where they do have access to the minutes. He would appreciate it if the legal
questions be included in the minutes.
Ø Page 14, Comments of the
Audience. It says “his personal
observation is that pleasers makes (should be make) great friends but
sometimes they make bad plans … . (He went over it with the Deputy Clerk, they
both listened to the tape and he did say “planners” not “plans” and
requested that be changed. “awhile”
is one work, not “a while.” The next
line there should be “of” between “vacation ROW.
Ø A brief suggestion, it is very time
consuming and expensive for staff to make a records request to get the $10 tape
or in this case five tapes, if when the tapes are submitted, it wouldn’t be
that difficult to run off one set for the public and have a cheap tape recorder
somewhere here or the library. That way
he wouldn’t be wasting somebody’s time just to verify that it’s true.
Ø He noticed before when he corrected
records, in the minutes it said the commission noted the minute corrections.
That’s not really a formal action. He noticed that half were changed and half
weren’t changed which was puzzling. He didn’t know how the commission would
deal with that. But just noting them,
technically isn’t adopting them. If you
have a problem with them, he assumes if they don’t call him on it, than they
don’t have a problem with it but if you don’t say you approve them, then you
have a problem with all of them.
Chair Chesley explained that when the commission goes
through the minutes whether it’s recommendations that the commission made or
recommendations that the public made.
The minutes never come back before the commission again to know whether
or not the clerk took action on the edits.
We’re assuming that they did but the good part is that it is
recorded. Mr. Griswold stated that if
there were substantial changes the Commission had the option of postponing
approval of the minutes until a latter meeting.
Commissioner Lehner had the following changes:
Ø Page 2, A. Mountainview Petition “Mr.
Abbott said … the process of notification” need to add “land owner
notification.” The last sentence needs
to read, “and thinks those potentially impacted…” Add potentially.
Ø Page 3, Mr. Thompson “… along the west side of the
store a (add) pedestrian passageway.” She stated that if it’s on the
west side of the store, it doesn’t go by the bank. She would take out, “go by the bank” as
that’s on the east side of the store. Ms.
McKibben explained the “bank” was the side of the hill. Ms. Lehner continued, “They are looking at
relocating the driveway into the ROW that currently goes through the bank.” She
thought they meant the bank parking lot.
“The streetscape, however, can be made more commercial with landscaping.” She thought it should say more attractive not
commercial. Ms. McKibben remembered that
he did say “commercial” because she thought it was strange. “Recycle containers” were to be moved to the west
side not north. The commission
agreed that west side was what was said.
She questioned if the illustrations could be included with the minutes.
Ms. McKibben explained they are in the permanent record in the Clerk’s Office.
On the bottom of page 3, second
paragraph from bottom, “Chair Chesley explained the CDM was adopted by former
Chair
Ø Page 4 Six paragraph down. (Commissioner Foster …)
The last sentence should read, “the curb could be broken to allow water to
penetrate.” She suggested deleting
“the” in “Commissioner Kranich stated he
was glad the problem with the
Ø Page 8 “City Planner McKibben said lots less than
two acres … .” Ms. McKibben agreed to
take out from “lots less than two acres can apply to increase impervious
coverage to 6.4%, whereas” as it was confusing and a duplication of the
rest of the sentence. She questioned
“Mr. Pickering said in reading … a plan stamped with an engineer’s report to
show … ; she questioned what it was stamped with.
Planning Director McKibben interjected that this is what was
said, it’s the same case with as with the Diane Martin statement and again to
the Safeway folks with “commercial” this
is what was said. Do you the record to
show what was said or do you want it to show what you think they meant? It’s one thing to correct a statement of your
own but ..
Ø Page 9 “Ms. Martin … many of the
remaining lots were long … with leach wells?
She questioned if that’s what was said.
There was discussion on what was thought was said .
Commissioner Kranich interjected that she (Ms. Martin) used
some language that was not exactly clear.
If the commission is going to go through (the minutes) and changing this
to what we think they meant. Ms. Lehner
agreed that she won’t worry about somebody else’s quote.
Ø Page 11,
Ø Page 12, Commissioner Foster said
when the Commission … . She didn’t know
what that meant.
Ø Page 13, Planning Director’s
Report. City Planner McKibben answered …
in the newly adopted budget. Correct adopted.
Ø
Page
15, Correct floodplain to “floodplain.”
Commissioner Foster stated on page 9, he agreed that this was
probable a correct quote but it should be the
Commissioner Kranich stated on page 3, last sentence of Mr.
Thompson, “The area proposed for recycling … on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
property . . . .” That should be the “former
U.S. Fish and Wildlife … .” Mr.
Kranich referred to page 8 of the minutes where Mr. Pickering related that he
had not received a response to his letters to the Planning Department
questioning staff’s response. Ms.
McKibben apologized as she was going to check into it but did not remember
seeing the June letter.
The amended minutes were approved by unanimous consent.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may speak to
the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public commend on agenda items will be heard
at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations are approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the
Planning Commission.
Buck Laukitis, lives outside the city, he and his wife own
Compass Rose Properties LLC at
Chair Chesley related that he had talked previously to Mr.
Laukitis about the issues of outhouses in the area and he passed that along to
staff. He asked Ms. McKibben what she
had found out.
City Planner McKibben answered that the letter received did
not have a signature and staff didn’t want to act on it as there might be more
pages missing. Staff hasn’t done any
investigation. The Vans have a sewer permit and she would assume the
portiapottie was for use during construction.
The other issues will have to be investigated. Residential areas require hookup to sewer or
approved system. She would like to take the time to review the letter and
further investigate.
There was discussion on the description of the portiapottie
and outhouse.
Chair Chesley asked the commission for permission to allow
two young girls to speak to the commission at this time.
Sidney Dolma a young girl, stated, “I don’t think we need a
big store in our small community.” Mrs. Dolman read, “Kathy Dolma lives in the
city limits, she is nine years old. Our town is unique for its small stores and
businesses; we don’t need any more box stores. It would ruin our small
community. Age 9.”
Frank Griswold suggested the commission fix their own
mis-statements with footnotes in stead of changing the minutes. There should be a distinction between
correcting what was said and what was meant. It would make it very clear that
he said
Chair Chesley related that
Commissioner Hess asked if that was a legal opinion or a
staff opinion. Mr. Smith answered that
it was from staff although he did not see a legal opinion, staff did research
the issue.
Commissioner Kranich referred to the circles at Greatland
and the
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 05-07 Re: CUP 05-01 Simpson, Request For More
Than One Permitted Principal Use On A Lot At 448 Klondike Avenue, Lot 4, Block
7, Glacier View Subdivision No. 2.
McKibben reviewed the staff report
for the conditional use permit recommending approval.
Lanny Simpson, applicant, was available.
Commissioner Lehner asked about the footprint of the house
and the cabin.
It was explained that the footprints of both the house and
the cabin were on the site plan.
Commissioner Hess asked regarding the Fire Departments
comments regarding separation of the buildings, if he had checked with fire
marshal if it needed to have more separation than what he presented.
Mr. Simpson answered he had not talked to the fire marshal
or the Fire Department to see that was a requirement. His request was to leave it where it is. Because of the requirement of the fire walls,
he could add additional sheet rock in the cabin and his residence.
City Planner McKibben related that according to the Fire
Chief they do not have jurisdiction over residential use of the buildings. The
Fire Chief is strongly recommending the ten-foot separation.
Commissioner Pfeil asked about the two-foot separation on
the drawing.
Mr. Simpson replied that it is two-feet.
Commissioner Foster asked about the separation of the eves, if
they were overlapping and was he collecting snow.
Mr. Simpson answered he is collecting snow and there is a
platform where the snow collects and the water drips off on one end and it’s a
gambrel roof and the eve actually comes under the eve of his house.
Frank Griswold didn’t think it was relevant that the
structure was built in anticipation of being moved, you still need permits.
Even if the fire department doesn’t have jurisdiction, they are approving the
conditional use permit, remember it’s not an allowed use, it’s a conditional
use and they are within their jurisdiction to apply a condition that it be
moved ten feet. He wrote letter to the City Planner on the 20th of
December, it wasn’t addressing this issue but it applies to this issue. It applies to after-the-fact zoning permits
but this sounds like this is an after-the-fact zoning permit and an after the
fact conditional use permit. He read part of his letter, “I am concerned about
the City policy of issuing Zoning Permits after construction has already
commenced. Homer Code 21.42.010(a) and
(b) mandate that a zoning permit must be obtained prior to construction; HCC
21.30.060 provides that no permit may be issued unless all structures and uses
of the property conform to city regulations and “any permit issued in violation
of this section is void.” On
FOSTER/LEHNER - I MOVE THAT I MAY HAVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Commissioner Foster related that he owns the property across
the street.
Commissioner Hess believed this is a quasi-judicial matter.
It requires an absence of bias. It not necessarily a dollar amount
reflected.
Chair Chesley related that the commission needs to make a
determination as to whether or not the fact that Commissioner Foster owning
property across from the applicant constitutes a bias.
Commissioner Kranich thought that if something was occurring
across the street from him that he could be influenced either positively or
negatively, more so than someone living down the street or around the block.
Commissioner Hess commented that they need to be more
careful in their conflict of interest, unfortunately, the commission may not
have been handling that 100% correctly and he would like them to improve on
that issue. He would vote yes.
Commissioner Lehner asked Commissioner Foster if he could be
un-bias.
Chair Chesley thought it was not appropriate to ask whether
or not he had a bias.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH,
HESS
NO:
Motion carried that Commissioner Foster would be excused.
Commissioner Foster related that he had not received
notification of the conditional use permit.
City Planner McKibben related that she couldn’t speak for
the Post Office.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT
Commissioner Kranich referred to G. of the staff report
where it stated the building was constructed prior to obtaining permits, he
questioned if the cabin was permitted at this time.
City Planner McKibben explained that the building was built
without the required conditional use permit and G. requires buildings to comply
with building codes adopted by the State of
The second structure could not get a zoning permit until the
applicant received the conditional use permit. Presently there is not a zoning
permit for the second structure nor has it been shown that they have complied
with State of
Commissioner Kranich asked if the commission required the
cabin to be moved to meet the ten-foot separation between it and the
house. Would it still be possible to
have a ten-foot separation between it and the shed also?
Mr. Simpson answered it would be possible, he would have to
move the sheds to the west and it would be a project he couldn’t undertake
until winter was over. Yes, it would be
possible, although obviously it would a lot easier for him to continue where it
is.
Commissioner Pfeil asked if it would be necessary to have
the ten foot separation between the residence and the sheds, he thought it was
only between residences.
City Planner McKibben answered that she didn’t know enough
about the fire code to answer that question.
Commissioner Kranich related that based on the fire chief’s
comments, that as long as it’s not commercial there isn’t a requirement for a
ten-foot separation.
There was discussion regarding the difference between the
fire code and city code relating to commercial uses. It was further reiterated that if the cabin
is not used commercially it does not need to meet fire code. There was concern about the lack of a zoning
permit.
City Planner McKibben explained she would not issue a zoning
permit until the conditional use permit was in place.
Commissioner Hess questioned the procedure for determining
which permit came first and how or when were they required to meet certain city
standards.
The commission reviewed the conditional use code and
compared it to the zoning permit code reviewing lot coverage.
Chair Chesley asked if the applicant had a permit to connect
to city water and sewer. Mr. Simpson
related that he did not have a permit and he did run a trench for the sewer
stub-out. He spoke with Steve Eayrs to
see what was required by code. He has
not got any permits but it’s not being used presently. It’s a shell.
HESS/CONNOR MOVED TO INCLUDE A CONDITION THAT THE
APPROPRIATE WATER AND SEWER PERMITS WOULD BE ACQUIRED.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Chair Chesley had concerns because if an applicant came
before the commission wanting to build something this way, he would not support
it. He believes for safety’s sake that
there needs to be the separation between the different buildings.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED THAT EITHER THE BUILDING BE MOVED TEN
FEET OR FIRE WALLS ACCORDING TO FIRE MARSHAL STANDARDS BE CONSTRUCTED.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Commissioner Pfeil commented that those were reasonable
conditions.
The main amended motion was unanimously approved.
Chair Chesley call for a break at
B. Staff
Report PL 05-10 Re: Request
For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup #05-02 Scheer, For A Planned Unit
Development, Motel, Phased Office,
Residence And Workshop At 1311 And 1299 Lakeshore Drive, Lots 59 And 58,
Bayview Subdivision.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and the
staff recommendations.
Dave Scheer introduced himself to the commission and related
that he had owned the buildings since 1997 not 2001. He was present to answer
any questions.
Commissioner Connor thanked Mr. Scheer for the maps and the
clear description of the project.
Commissioner Kranich stated he did drive down by the
property and asked for clarification regarding the junky buildings, if they
were on his lot or a neighboring lot.
Dave Scheer stated that right below the parking lot for the
Sourdough Restaurant were the three existing buildings on
There was discussion regarding structures on neighboring
lots.
Commissioner Foster asked about the floor area of the
buildings, if they were all one story.
Scheer answered there was one two-story building with a 540 s.f.
footprint with 200 s.f. on the top floor.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT WITH STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Connor asked Ms. McKibben about the buffers
that were being required. Ms. McKibben
explained that site development requirements in the General Commercial 1
District requires vegetated buffer three feet along lot lines and ten feet along
right-of-ways. There was discussion of
the parking area along the lot line.
VOTE: YES: LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR,
PFEIL, KRANICH
The motion carried.
C. Staff
Report PL 05-14 Re: Ordinance 05-02 Of The City Council Of
Homer, Alaska Amending HCC Chapters 21.32 Definitions To Add A New Section
21.32.208 Footprint Area, Amending Chapters 21.48 Central Business District,
21.49 General Commercial One District, And 21.50 General Commercial Two
District, Building Area And Dimensions, To Increase The Allowable Area Of
Buildings Used For Retail And Wholesale Business To 66,000 Square Feet.
City Planner McKibben referred the commission to several
lay-downs, public comments received by staff after the packet was run. Ms. McKibben explained the memo from
Councilmember’s McLay and Wythe that had been inadvertently left out of the
previous packet was also included. She
also included for the benefit of the new commissioners, the memorandums from
Carol Hamik lives at
“To our Homer Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
members,
It is wonderful to see the healthy growth and competition in
Homer. I think we all agree that Homer
is a very special place to live and visit and has unparallel beauty. When you
have an asset and you want it to grow, the first thing you do is protect the
original asset, then you try to grow it in a smart way and you don’t risk your
natural assets. Some of Homer’s greatest
assets are its visual resources, and being a caring and intelligent town. This should not be at risk; the 45,000 s.f.
was an acceptable compromise. We don’t
want to see a sea of asphalt that a larger building would require for more
parking spaces. I hear many people who
live in Palmer who are not happy with these huge box stores in their town. Why can’t we learn from their
experience? I think if our town retains
its uniqueness, then more visitors will come and that can increase our tax
income and also protect the visual resources of our special community. Lastly,
how much more tax revenue for the town that can be taken with a 66,000 vs.
45,000 s.f. Is it worth impacting even
more of our natural beauty? Thank you,
Carole Hamik, Mimi Tolva p.s. For
the record. I do agree with and
appreciate Frank Griswold’s input about this issue to our Mayor, City Council
& Planning Commission.”
“To Mayor, City Council & Planning Commission
From: Jack Hamik, Homer Resident, Homer Business, Wood Plus
(25 years)
As a small business owner, now within the city limits of
Homer I want to say that I feel very intimidated having a large corporate
footprint in this area. One foot print will be matched by another. Growth is inevitable but please keep it
small. Large corporations will still
make profits at 45,000 s.f. To keep it
small would keep my business, and similar businesses competitive. At 45,000 s.f. stores would not sell any but
the most profitable commodities at 66,000 s.f. they’ll have room for more
ceramics, more fabrics, more deli, more flowers, more books, more videos, more
specialty items, more everything. At 45,000 s.f. there will be more small
businesses like mine filling in those gaps.
Growth throughout Homer will be helped by a 45,000 s.f. limit. Please
don’t close the gap in which we exist by allowing a 66,000 s.f. footprint. Jack Hamik, 2/2/05”
Brenda Dolma, a resident of the city, thanked the
Commissioners for their time and effort that they put in dealing with details.
The issue is about 45,000 s.f. as we work toward mindful development, looking
at green space and protecting what we have, she wanted everyone to remember
that people live here because they chose to be here. As the city moves forward she would like it
to keep its unique face. If we move to a
larger space, we will loose what we have. It would no longer be unique, it
would be anyplace
Rika Mouw echoed Brenda Dolma’s remarks to the Commission on
the time spent on this issue. She thinks
that 66,000 s.f. changes the dynamics of where it should go, the Central
Business District (CBD) is too small. If we compromise and allow it, then they
should re-think where it is allowed. The CBD is the core of the town and 66,000
s.f. would dominate so much in such a small area that we would lose diversity. In nature diversity is what builds strength
in the whole system and if there is too much of one business or one species
than its imbalanced. It doesn’t work for the whole system. CBD is too small for
66,000 s.f., and we need to think of GC1 and GC2. Preserve the heart of Homer for something
less than 66,000 s.f. 66,000 s.f. is too
dominant and like an alien species that is introduced into another environment
if there isn’t a natural predator, they gain control. With an outside, non-local store there is not
a natural predator as with local business; therefore, it’s not on the small
playing field. She suggested again that they look at an area outside of the
CBD. She thinks their recommendations in
the past were right. Planning is
different than the Council; she didn’t think anything had changed but the
vote. The vote said they wanted a bigger
store, that’s okay but not in the CBD.
Sue Post is not a city resident but a business and property
owner in the CBD. She thanked them for their time and effort on this
issue. She can’t understand why the need
to go larger than 45,000 s.f. She would like to say that she is not against
growth, bring it on, but let’s bring it on in a planned method. If you look around Homer you’ll see a lot of
stores that have recently remodeled and grown, as well as corporation stores,
Spenard’s has grown, Ulmer’s has grown, the Bookstore has grown, Two Sisters
Bakery has grown, Safeway is in the process of growing, Old Inlet Book Shop,
the Art Shop Gallery grew, we’re not against growth in the community, but we
want to keep things here. She thought
they had come to a fair compromise with 45,000 s.f., so why are we back
here. Why 66,000 s.f., who suggested
this figure? She believed that Fred
Meyer’s suggested it to the
Frank Griswold related that it may come as no surprise that
he does not support this ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan does not support it
either. The Comprehensive Plan is not
mentioned in the Whereas clauses of this ordinance. The objectives that are stated are contrary
to existing zoning law. The Design Manual was designed around the 35,000 square
foot floor space limit. It was not designed for a 66,000 square foot
structure. The Ordinance that was passed
last year Ordinance 04-11A was enacted after eighteen months of deliberation,
it does comply with the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan which
are included in that ordinances Whereas clauses, he urged them to stick to
their guns. The 35,000 square foot floor space limit was a compromise in the
first place, it was further compromised by the Council to 45,000 square feet by
Ordinance 04-34 and now they are asking you to compromise it again. He is curious why it is suddenly so important
to have the footprint size equal the floor space size in the Central Business
District when in the Marine Industrial it is deemed perfectly fine to have a
66,000 square foot footprint limit and a 25,000 square foot limit for floor
space. At the last Council meeting
Councilmember Wythe said, “The voters voted to increase the cap.” In fact, the voters voted to decrease the
foot print size limit from infinity to 66,000 square feet. They did not vote to
increase the limit in the CBD for floor space from 45,000 square feet to 66,000
square feet. That’s what this ordinance
is designed to do. The ballot initiative
was poorly crafted and it has lead to much confusion. It has no validity whatsoever.
Jean Calhoun has lived in the Homer area for over fifty
years and inside the city for two years.
She has spoken on this issue before the commission before and hasn’t
changed her mind. She still believes in
the larger 66,000 square foot store, she voted for the larger store during a
special City election. The outcome of that vote was yes for a larger store. She feels that her vote has not counted and
it’s not a good feeling.
Chair Chesley seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the
public hearing.
There was discussion regarding the dimensional requirements
in General Commercial 1 and conflicts with item d 1. and d.2. negates item k. (The tape was too garbled
to understand what was being said.)
Chair Chesley related that he had some recommendations for
the commission to consider.
Commissioner Connor was disappointed that this issue is up before
them again. She’s having a hard time accepting that it’s here one more
time. She also does not like the way it
was written with all due respect to the author, it is misleading and
incomplete. In reading through the
Whereas it seems like the Whereas’ should be in support of the amendment of why
they’re doing this. When I look through
them they do not support the amendment.
Due to the definite bias language in the Ordinance 05-02 and Memorandum
05-02 she would like make a motion to remand and to send it back to the Council
for further reconsideration and review.
After conferring with Chair Chesley, Commissioner Connor
withdrew her proposed motion.
Connor moved to
request the Council to hold another public hearing. The motion died for lack of a second.
CHESLEY/FOSTER MADE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSION REAFFIRMS
THE SIZE CAPS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL IN ORDINANCE 04-11(a) AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL IN
ORDINANCE 04-34. DISCUSSION: THE
PRESENTATION OF THE SUBSTITUTE SIZE OF 66,000 SQUARE FEET CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE
05-02 IS A SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL POLITICAL PROCESS TO THE COMMISSION PLANNING
PROCESS. IN ALL CASES REGARDING THE
ZONING CODE, THE COMMISSION ACTS IN AN ADVISORY MANNER TO THE COUNCIL. THE
COMMISSION IS COGNIZANT THAT THE COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF ZONING
REGULATIONS, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAX AND JOB LOSS OR
CREATION. HOWEVER, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO GIVE CONSIDERATION
TO THESE SAME TYPES OF FINANCIAL ISSUES AND THEREFORE HAS NO BASIS TO RECOMMEND
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 05-02.
Chair Chesley explained he is trying to point out the two
different processes, there’s the Commission process which generally isn’t
political and they have certain standards that they have to make a decision
by. The political process is a different
process and totally different from the Commission’s process. That was why he was making the motion and
why it was not appropriate for the commission to endorse Ordinance 05-02.
Commissioner Lehner related that after reading the Planning
Commissioner book, it made it clear that the planning commission must defer to
the Comprehensive Plan. They can not change what they are authorized to do
which is to implement the Comprehensive Plan. There are no references in the
Whereas’ to the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Foster commended the Council on sending it to
the Commission. The Commission is an
important part of the link. He wanted the Council to know that he appreciates that
they sent it to the Commission because they didn’t have to.
Commissioner Kranich related that even though the Council
was having a second meeting, they still take comments at that meeting. Regarding the motion on the floor, while the
commission may be valid in their charge to abide by the guidelines in the
Comprehensive Plan, they must be bound by the message sent by the citizens of
the city. Those voting residents know
they want larger shopping centers in Homer and that would be a heavy influence
on the Commission.
Commissioner Kranich questioned if we’re trying to limit the
45,000 square foot within the CBD in an effort to protect the businesses that
are already here from competition.
Right today we have a large store competing in our market. Every time he goes to Fred Meyer in Soldotna,
he sees people from Homer. Those large
stores are already competing with Homer.
We would capture a fair share if the store was in town. If someone comes to town to build a large
building, in this building they want 25,000 s.f. retail space, 50,000 s.f. of
theater and 50,000 s.f. of professional office.
In that 125,000 s.f. building is going to have to comply with all the
standards. There is no way you can say that building could not be built. Because those uses are permitted in the CBD.
At this point in time, a building of 66,000 s.f. should be covered by the
standards. Do we want to push
development into the General Commercial 1 and General Commercial 2. Mr. Griswold said that a Wal-Mart was built
outside
After discussion the commission made the following amendment
to the motion:
LEHNER/HESS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO READ: THAT THE COMMISSION REAFFIRMS THE SIZE CAPS
ADOPTED BY COUNCIL IN ORDINANCE 04-11(a) AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL IN ORDINANCE
04-34. DISCUSSION: THE PRESENTATION OF THE SUBSTITUTE SIZE OF 66,000 SQUARE
FEET CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE 05-02 IS A POLITICAL COUNCIL PROCESS SUBSEQUENT TO
THE COMMISSION PLANNING PROCESS. IN ALL CASES REGARDING THE ZONING CODE, THE
COMMISSION ACTS IN AN ADVISORY MANNER TO THE COUNCIL REMAINING EVER MINDFUL OF ITS RESPONSIBILITY
TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE COMMISSION IS COGNIZANT THAT THE
COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF ZONING REGULATIONS, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO SALES TAX,
PROPERTY TAX AND JOB LOSS OR CREATION.
HOWEVER, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO
THESE SAME TYPES OF FINANCIAL ISSUES AND THEREFORE IT HAS NO BASIS TO RECOMMEND
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 05-02.
VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL,
HESS, CONNOR
The amendment to the motion carried.
Commissioner Foster related that the commission should take recommendations
from the voting public as well as those who spoke to them. It was disconcerting
that Chair Chesley suggested that the majority of the public didn’t know what
the Comprehensive Plan does because we have to focus on that. One of the concerns about giving the vote to
everybody was having an un-educated population voting on things that they don’t
know anything about. That was why he was
an opponent of the education system. The question is whether we should be
making decisions based on based on this kind of political and financial issues
not related to the Comprehensive Plan.
He agrees with Chair Chesley, his concerns are the same. He could see a larger store going outside the
city limits just because the commission decided to have a smaller store.
VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION:
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY LEHNER, HESS
NO: KRANICH
The amended motion carried.
Commissioner Conner related in reading the Whereas’ she did
not see how they support the ordinance. The third Whereas’ doesn’t say what the
Commission’s recommendations were which she would like to be included. Also the commission has not talked about this
size limit. This Whereas is not very clear
to her and she doesn’t like the way it was worded. It makes it sound like this was something the
Commission had agreed upon. She wanted
to make a motion that would show the Commission recommendations.
There was discussion on the commission’s previous review and
discussion of this issue and the fact that the planning commission does not
wish to change their previous decisions.
It is the Council preview to do something different that is their right
to do but the Planning Commission does not want to change its decisions.
CONNOR/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND THE THIRD WHEREAS TO READ: THE
CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING THE SIZE LIMITS OF WHOLESALE AND RETAIL STORES IN THE AFFECTED
DISTRICTS; AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE SMALLER THAN 66,000 S.F.
There was further discussion regarding the wording of the
Whereas’ and if they should be amended.
The number of people that testified before the commission, the majority
of comments was not in favor of the larger store.
Commissioner Foster asked Commissioner Kranich what weight
do the Whereas’ have.
Commissioner Kranich answered that the Whereas’ support the
action as stated in the ordinance.
Commissioner Foster continued that if the Whereas’ were
misleading statements that the commission should fix that.
There was further discussion regarding what the Whereas’
statements. The Commission previously
had a Whereas’ that stated the majority were in favor of a smaller size. The Task Force and the Commission all had
public hearings where they all heard from the majority of the people that spoke,
that doesn’t support this Whereas’.
Commissioner Kranich stated that the commission’s amendments
were just another way of sending it back to the Council.
Chair Chesley disagreed stating the Commission is not going
to support it or not support it. We’re just saying the public and Council took
the action they took and the Commission stands by their previous action.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, FOSTER
NO: KRANICH, HESS
The motion carried.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND THE SECOND WHEREAS TO ADD: AND
THE MAJORITY WERE IN FAVOR OF A SIZE SMALLER THAN 66,000 SQUARE FEET.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, CONNOR, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
NO: HESS, KRANICH
The motion carried.
Chair Chesley commented that it was interesting that after
attending all the hearings to get all the public input that they did at the
commission level where it was pretty clear that it was there was a population
that was promoting smaller sizes.
CHESLEY/ FOSTER MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT
THE COUNCIL SEEK A LEGAL OPINION ON ORDINANCE 05-02 ON THE ISSUE OF SPOT ZONING
AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED SIZE OF 66,000 SQUARE FEET. DISCUSSION:
THE COMMISSION HAS CONCERNS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WITH REGARDS TO
THE SOURCE OF THE PROPOSED SIZE OF 66,000 SQUARE FEET. THE OVERRIDING CONCERN IS THAT THE CITY AVOID
EXPOSURE TO POSSIBLE LEGAL ACTION FOR SPOT ZONING BY ADOPTING A SIZE STANDARD
PROPOSED BY FRED MEYER CORPORATION. IN
RESPONSE TO FRED MEYER’S INITIAL PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A 95,000 SQUARE FOOT STORE
ON CIRI PROPERTY, THE COUNCIL HAD ADOPTED A MORATORIUM OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET
AND TASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STANDARDS TO ADDRESS LARGE RETAIL/WHOLESALE
BUSINESSES. DURING THE PERIOD OF THE
MORATORIUM, FORMAL AND INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS WERE
SUBSEQUENT TO THIS DIALOG BETWEEN CITY REPRESENTATIVES AND
FRED MEYER, THE
SHOULD THE COUNCIL GIVE CONSIDERATION TO A SIZE CAP LARGER
THAT THE CURRENT STANDARDS, THE COMMISSION ENCOURAGES THE ADOPTION OF A SIZE
OTHER THAN THE PROPOSED 66,000 SQUARE FOOT.
Commissioner Foster asked if it should say Fred Meyer had an
option to build on the CIRI property.
Chair Chesley didn’t think that was important, referring to
Bruce Turkington’s letter to the editor prior to the initiative vote stating that
the city had studied this a number of times.
He kept track of that because he thought it was important to get the
chronologicology down, supporting the evidence because he didn’t want to see
them build it big. He hasn’t seen any
correspondence that
Commissioner Kranich asked City Planner McKibben for the definition
of spot zoning.
City Planner McKibben answered that she didn’t have her
zoning books with her but that she had also been thinking about that issue when
she read it (the motion), by zoning the Central Business District and General
Commercial 1 and General Commercial 2 that did not indicate spot zoning. That’s not the right term but there might be
some merit to an evaluation of the appearance of zoning for a specific
development.
Commissioner Hess reviewed the definition of “spot zoning”
as defined in The Job Of A Planning Commissioner book. “Awarding of a use
classification to an isolated parcel of land which is detrimental or
incompatible with the uses of the surrounding area particularly when such as
act favors a particular owner; such zoning has been held to be illegal by the
courts on the grounds that it is unreasonable and capricious. A general plan or
special circumstances such as historic value, environmental importance or
scenic value would justify special zoning for a small area.”
City Planner McKibben thought there was some value in the
attorney reviewing that discussion.
Chair Chesley related that what he was asking the Council to
do, because Memorandum 05-03 was clearly influenced by Fred Meyers. There’s no
doubt in anyone’s mind that the intent of the ordinance is to accommodate one
business Fred Meyer. Doug Stark’s newsletter called Action goes to great extent
to talk about Fred Meyer’s. There are Council members circulating information
in the community specifically saying that the purpose of this ordinance is to
allow Fred Meyer’s to build a 66,000 square foot store. That may not be spot
zoning but his concern is there is the appearance that the Council is adopting
66,000 square foot to accommodate Fred Meyer. The Council should ask
Commissioner Kranich suggested that they amend the motion;
if they recommend the attorney review it for spot zoning than he will review it
for spot zoning but he won’t review it for what your concerns are.
City Planner McKibben suggested an amendment, the second
sentence under Discussion could say, The overriding concern is that the City
avoid exposure to possible legal action, delete for Spot Zoning, by adopting a
size standard proposed by Fred Meyer.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO READ UNDER RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2: THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL
SEEK A LEGAL OPINION ON ORDINANCE 05-02 ON THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED SIZE OF
66,000 S.F. AS IT RELATES TO ADOPTING A SIZE STANDARD PROPOSED BY FRED MEYER
AND THE SECOND SENTENCE UNDER DISCUSSION
SHOULD READ: THE OVERRIDING CONCERN IS
THAT THE CITY AVOID EXPOSURE TO POSSIBLE LEGAL ACTION BY ADOPTING A SIZE
STANDARD PROPOSED BY FRED MEYER.
There was more discussion on Doug Starks letter and on the
size that was discussed for adoption and the different ordinances that were
enacted.
The motion was unanimously approved.
VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION:
YES: CONNER, LEHNER,
HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
NO; KRANICH
The motion carried.
Chair Chesley read the following motion with Recommendation
and Discussion.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED TO ADOPT RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3 WITH
DISCUSSION: THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
THAT THE COUNCIL GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF DIFFERENT SIZE
CAPS THAT CORRESPOND TO THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
AND SUB-DISTRICTS. DISCUSSION: IN ESTABLISHING THE SIZE CAPS CONTAINED IN
ORDINANCE 04-11(A), THE COMMISSION GAVE EXTENSIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE UNIQUE
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMER’S COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS INCLUDE BUT ARE
NOT LIMITED TO, SIZE OF THE DISTRICT, PROXIMITY TO NON-COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS,
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, TRAFFIC PATTERNS, VIEWSCAPE, PROXIMITY TO WETLANDS AND
OTHER SENSITIVE AREAS. AS A RESULT OF
THESE EFFORTS, THE COMMISSION CREATED THE FOLLOWING SUB-DISTRICTS WITHIN THE
GC1 DISTRICT:
IN GENERAL TERMS, WHEN AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, IT IS
IMPORTANT TO HAVE CONSISTENT TREATMENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN ORDER TO
AVOID COMMITTING A SPOT ZONING ACTION.
THE CONCEPT OF “CONSISTENT TREATMENT” IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH “DOING THE
EXACT SAME THING.” ORDINANCE 05-02
ATTEMPTS TO TREAT THE AFFECTED ZONING DISTRICTS EQUALLY BY APPLYING THE 66,000
SQUARE FOOT STANDARD. WHILE THIS
TREATMENT MAY OR MAY NOT HELP AVOID A SPOT ZONING ACTION, IT IS THE
COMMISSION’S OPINION THAT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND DOES NOT TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICTS. WHEN THE COUNCIL
ADOPTED 04-34, THEIR ACTION RETAINED DIFFERENT SIZE CAPS ACCORDING TO THE
DISTRICT.
Commissioner Pfeil felt that the scenic gateway is important
to Homer and was discussed in length in all of their meetings. They didn’t want to see large development on
the hill.
Commissioner Foster was concerned because it doesn’t use the
term Comprehensive Plan but that is part of the Comprehensive Plan. It asks
that they look at the various districts and the environmental concerns. It would be appropriate to add something
about the Comprehensive Plan in the motion.
Commissioner Lehner commented when DOT originally designed
the Sterling Highway access into town they had proposed five lanes with a
median and one of the arguments that they made to DOT over and over again was
that this is the front door to Homer when you come down Baycrest hill and that
first impression when entering town is crucial to peoples response and sense
about what the community is like. The
gateway area needs to be constantly looked at for the first impression that Homer
makes.
CHESLEY/HESS MOVED TO AMEND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER
DECISION: AFTER “AVOID COMMITTING,”
DELETE A SPOT ZONING ACTION. ADD,
IMPROPER ZONING ACTIONS. AFTER,
“WHILE THIS TREATMENT …. DELETE – “SPOT ZONING ACTION” AND INSERT, “INAPPROPRIATE
ZONING ACTIONS.”
The amendment was unanimously approved.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND ADD TO THE END OF THE FIRST
SENTENCE UNDER DISCUSSION, “AND HOMER’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.”
The motion to amend the main motion was unanimously
approved.
VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION:
YES: FOSTER,
CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR
NO: KRANICH
The motion carried.
Chair Chesley stated he had another amendment.
Chesley/Foster moved Recommendation number 4, The Commission
recommends that the Council give consideration to removing or repealing the
provisions created by adoption of Ordinance 04-18 on or shortly after
Commissioner Kranich question what does this amendment had
to do with Ordinance 05-02?
Chair Chesley wanted to put before the Council so they can
take care of it. The initiative created
the square foot footprint which was the new item “d” and then we have the size
cap which was adopted by Ordinance 04-34.
Instead of the initiative overlaying the size cap and setting a
different standard, we have the size cap of the square foot retail/wholesale
space within a business and the initiative created the square foot footprint
area. So they are not consistent,
basically, this is a reminder to the Council that in the future we need to
correct it. The intent of 05-02 is to go
to 66,000 square feet of retail/wholesale space within a building.
Commissioner Hess asked what it had to do with Ordinance
05-02?
Commissioner Kranich also asked what it had to do with
05-02; they are separate items and by law can’t be changed for two years.
There was further discussion about the size caps and square
foot issues as they related to building size and business size.
Chair Chesley withdrew the motion.
Commission Connor referred to “Whereas” number 4 does not
support the ordinance, the Council majority voted for the smaller size. She
suggested a change.
CONNOR/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND “WHEREAS” NUMBER 4, WHEREAS THE COUNCIL VOTED 4-2 IN FAVOR OF THE
SMALLER SIZE.
There was discussion that a split vote would be 3 to 3, the
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
NO: KRANICH
The motion carried.
Commissioner Connor related that while she was not
experienced with legal documents it does seem that the six and seventh
“Whereas” mentions the “will of the voters.”
She is a voter too and her will is not expressed in this ordinance. She takes offence that the “will of the
voters” was used three times. She
suggested that in place of that the actual fact could be laid out. That there
were 717 no votes and 984 yes votes.
CONNOR/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND “WHEREAS” NUMBER 5, TO READ:
WHEREAS, IN CULMINATION OF THIS ZONING ORDINANCE PROCESS AN INITIATIVE WAS
CIRCULATED AND WAS PASSED BY THE VOTERS VOTE OF 984 YES AND 717 NO TO AMEND THE
SIZE LIMITS,”
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY,
FOSTER, PFEIL
NO: NONE
The 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.
City
Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report with the conditions for vacation of
the right-of-way and preliminary platting action.
Michael
Bartholomew, applicant, thought the purpose of the application was
self-explanatory.
Larry
Herndon thanked the commission, he disagreed with Mr. Smith. He asked if when
someone goes to vacate a right-of-way is that when you grab the land and say
we’re going to make a park out of it.
What they want to do where the creek comes down and runs down on their
property and the motels property after talking to
LEHNER/PFEIL
MOVE TO ADOPT
Commissioner
Hess read the Kenai Borough code relating to vacating right-of-way that
accesses the beach. Referring to KPB
20.28.180 Waterfront access provisions, he read the section which stated that a
right-of-way cannot be vacated if it access public waters and can be used by
pedestrians. He would not have a problem
with it being changed to a pedestrian right-of-way; it’s not a practical road
right-of-way to the beach. If there was
some way to change it to a pedestrian right-of-way but he didn’t know how to do
that. He didn’t know how they could
accommodate the developers.
Commissioner
Lehner would like it to be identified as a pedestrian right-of-way without the
possibility of people trying to drive on it.
City
Planner McKibben related that under KPB 20.28.140 Partial vacation allowed, the
Commission could do a partial vacation of right-of-way. Ms. McKibben reviewed the code. It seemed that the right-of-way width could
be reduced from sixty feet to less; there would still be a twenty-foot
setback.
Commissioner
Foster was concerned with the choice of the width, without doing an evaluation
of the area needed.
City
Planner McKibben related that the applicant had been working with Public Works
and they might know that information.
Mike
Bartholomew related that they had been working with Public Works and their
engineer. It was approved and the twenty
feet allows for more than enough width for a pedestrian access to the beach via
stairs and also within that it allows for the culvert system to handle the
drainage. Twenty-foot is a wide width for a straight culvert to the beach or
drainage and allow a set of steps with room on either side to allow
landscaping.
Commissioner
Foster asked if there was any room for parking at the top.
Mr.
Bartholomew answered that practically there’s no room for parking up there
without cars being parked partly in the street.
He related that they had addressed the width issue with Public Works to
make sure that recommendation for the width was adequate for the drainage and
for the pedestrian access with steps. There’s no other way to do switch-backs
because the bank keeps washing out.
Chair
Chesley thanked Mr. Bartholomew and suggested that the Commission continue this
item and allow the staff to work with the applicants with the concept of a
partial vacation.
Mike
Bartholomew thought that they had proposed a partial vacation. He stated that
their intent was a partial vacation, where there would be a twenty-foot public
access to the beach. That would
alleviate the building setback issue.
City
Planner McKibben explained that the end result is almost the same, calling it
an easement versus a smaller right-of-way except that when it’s a right-of-way,
there are still setbacks from the lot lines.
Commissioner Hess is correct in that the Borough code, even though the
Planning Commission recommended approval, once it went to the Borough, they may
not approve it.
Commissioner
Lehner related that Ms. McKibben check with the city attorney regarding the
Borough wording on 20.28.180.
City
Planner McKibben answered that the question is one Mary Toll needs to answer.
Chair
Chesley asked that staff send the application to the Beach Policy Task Force
and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their review also.
HESS/FOSTER
MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
The motion
was approved unanimously.
Chair
Chesley called for a break at
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.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and
recommended acceptance of the nonconforming shed.
Frank Griswold related that he built his shop in 1979 before
zoning but he still had to get a Building Permit and he still had to comply
with setback requirements.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT
Commissioner Connor asked if the shed was built before the
There was discussion regarding the location of the building
that is to be removed. It was pointed
out that the
City Planner McKibben reviewed the Nonconformity code.
Commissioner Pfeil was concerned about the fuel tanks to be
moved or removed and questioned if they had been discussed. Ms. McKibben could not remember discussing
them. Mr. Pfeil was concerned about the
fuel tanks.
The motion was unanimous approved.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report explaining
she included copies of zoning amendment procedures from the city of
There was a question as to how the amendment was initiated.
Ms. McKibben stated it wasn’t totally clear to her but
apparently a question came up and it was initiated several years ago but then
it got dropped, then the Clerk’s office picked it up as something on her work
list to complete. Ms. McKibben related
that it was one section in the code that concerned her.
Commissioner Hess reviewed the proposed amendment and
expressed a concern that an applicant did not have to have fifty voters or a
majority of the property owners in the area of concern nor did he have to be a
resident in the area. He was concerned
as the ordinance stated that an amendment must be initiated by a Councilmember
or the Planning Commission yet this was submitted by the City Clerk.
Ms. McKibben answered that she didn’t know that it was put
forth by the Clerk; it had started at some point in the past.
Commissioner Hess stated it was still submitted to the
Council by the Clerk’s office, so that means it was initiated by the Clerk’s
office not by City Council or the Planning Commission.
Chair Chesley wanted to spend more time on this issue at a
regular meeting. What is proposed is not a good idea and he cannot support
it. He likes the way it was originally
written because it sends a sense of accountability of a person to their community
because if you wanted to initiate a zoning amendment then you had to be
consulting your neighbors in the area.
For example you can’t have a realtor who just wants to wade into an area
and initiate a re-zone, just be a person to go in and ask for a change to the
zoning map without having to be accountable to the community in which that
person is requesting a re-zone. He would
ask for the next meeting a copy of the original ordinance with it’s Whereas
clauses. He suggested they continue this
until the next meeting. Ms. McKibben
will provide a copy of Ordinance 92-08(A), so they can spend more time on
it. If anyone from the Clerks Office
would like to address them regarding this issue that would be good.
City Planner McKibben related that it was important to note
that there is a difference between a zoning map or a re-zone amendment besides
amending the language of the code. They
are two different things, it seem proper that individuals should have a right
and a process to deal with re-zones or amend the zoning map. She appreciates the accountability and there
are different ways to do that but she was not comfortable with just anybody
being able to initiate changes to the language of the code.
Commissioner Hess stated that it seems that the commission
is obligated to go through the public hearing process. It could bog them down.
City Planner McKibben related that it was one thing to
initiate a petition process but anybody can always come to the commission and
ask. But for anybody to be able to do it
isn’t good.
Chair Chesley suggested they postpone action.
City Planner McKibben asked if they wanted to recommend to
the Council to not adopt the ordinance and the Commission could add it to their
work list.
HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL NOT ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE 05-04 AND THE COMMISSION WILL ADD IT TO THEIR WORK LIST.
The motion was approved by unanimous consent.
City Planner McKibben related there was a lay down and
reviewed what had occurred at the previous commission meeting with Safeway
which asked for a determination regarding the application of the Traffic Impact
Requirements to Remodels. It was a late
night and the commission didn’t answer the question. She reviewed the staff report.
Chair Chesley related that one of the things that he was
trying to figure out in the code in some conversations with Rick Foster and
Commissioner Hess thought that if the traffic assessment
handbook would not indicate any increased trips that we would probably say it
was the same thing.
Chair Chesley stated lets ask this question, can you give
the commission an opinion as to whether or not if you looked at the traffic
assessment handbook or from your experience, it looks like a mixed retail use
was there, does the calculation that you used to estimate the traffic
generation now, is it different than ..
Ms. McKibben answered, than a travel agency. Mr. Chesley continued, he didn’t know, part
of what we’re missing is if there had ever been a TA done on this property
because the development is fourteen years old.
Ms. McKibben answered, when I think about how I would evaluate it, I
would take the store as it exists today, how many trips does it generate and
that would be the existing grocery store, the existing liquor store, we know
there are vacancies now, we could do some history to find out what it was
before and how may trips, add those together to get a number; then you take
that and make it into the whole building as a grocery store and a liquor store
and see what you come up with. She knows
that either one of those numbers are going to be more than 100 trips in an hour
and more than 500 trips in a day.
Intuitively, no I can’t answer. But whether they are going to be
significantly different, it’s hard to say.
I don’t know how the volumes would change with the increase in size of
the grocery store.
Chair Chesley stated that they had to assume that the
development is generating x about of traffic. Ms. McKibben asked how much
different is it going to be based on their proposed development plan to
date.
Chair Chesley related what he was trying to explain what she
was saying is that the full development will generate x amount of traffic based
on what the occupancies were. The new calculation
would be based on what the Safeway standard footprint would be compared to...
Ms. McKibben interjected yes that’s what I said.
Chair Chesley asked Ms. McKibben if there was anything in
the zoning code outside of the TA issue at this point that would require a TA
if they started on an interior remodel.
Ms. McKibben answered no.
Chair Chesley stated part of what they were discussing was
Safeway’s interest to get going, if they could do a two track development. If they could begin their interior remodel
and at the same time begin the CUP process, then they can make progress while
they are doing this instead of waiting until the very tail end. He didn’t know if they would choose to do
that.
City Planner McKibben answered on the interior remodel,
aside from the trip generation, they would not.
The exterior remodel is a different story. Outside from the trip generation model, the
wall could be problematic. In your
discussion with them they would eliminate some additional square footage of the
vestibule and add it.
There was discussion on the floor plan showing a vestibule
over the walkway and the strict interpretation of the code is that is an
expansion of the building.
Commissioner Hess asked if anyone knows about the previous
stores that are no longer there. Was
there anything in the code that addresses when an area has been left vacant for
a period of time is that a non-use. Ms.
McKibben related that there is wording in the nonconformity code. Mr. Hess
believed that Safeway has been using those spaces for storage.
Chair Chesley related the thing is to have Safeway own-up to
everything that they want to do and go through the CUP process. That answers all the questions. On the other hand, if they choose to do it by
phasing their development, then they could get started.
City Planner McKibben related that brought up another
option, they could get their zoning permit for their interior remodel and at
the same time go through the process for the rest of their development. Mr. Chesley agreed that was what he was
suggesting. They are asking to do
everything they want to do and not go through the CUP process and he doesn’t
see how the code would allow them to do that.
Ms. McKibben related that she didn’t know enough about their interior
remodel plans.
Chair Chesley stated if they do an interior remodel on their
existing store, it doesn’t constitute a change of use. He didn’t know if the commission has
resolved the question if they expand the use into the strip mall does that
constitute a change of use.
Commissioner Kranich didn’t see how a travel agency or
associated businesses are listed as a specific use either permitted or
conditionally. They are not a
professional office because a professional office requires a higher degree of
education. Even real estate agents don’t
fall in that category. He didn’t know
where a travel agency would fall in there other than it’s a retail business
which requires a sale of merchandise and services. Other than the fact that that space has been vacant
for more than a year, that retail use has been an approved use and it wouldn’t
be a change of use.
The commission has consensus that the Safeway expansion into
the vacant spaces does not constitute a change of use.
Chair Chesley related that the commission has said they can
expand into their interior remodel of the existing space and not do a
conditional use permit. Because the
commission has made a determination that their type of business is for the same
use as those businesses that were previously there.
City Planner McKibben related that it still generates more x
amount and the code says, “for every use that is estimated to generate more
than 100 trips in hour or more than 500 trips in a day.”
Commissioner Foster related that was from zero use. Ms. McKibben related that is the question, is
that the intent.
Commissioner Hess stated yes, that was the intent.
Commissioner Pfeil asked “100 trips in an hour and 500 a
day.” Ms. McKibben corrected, “or.”
Commissioner Kranich related that in the sheet it says the
code further indicates a use that is estimated to generate an increase of more
than 100 vehicle trips in an hour, in any hour of the day.
Ms. McKibben stated that the commission’s determination is
that the traffic standard application to an expansion inside an existing
building of a previous use, doesn’t require a traffic impact evaluation?
Commissioner Hess answered correct.
Commissioner Foster stated he wanted to agree but Safeway is
open twenty-four hours a day and those other uses were not open 24 hours a day.
Ms. McKibben related that from a practical aspect by expanding in there, they
are not going to increase more then 100 trips in any hour, just by using the
vacant space. That use alone won’t
trigger it, it’s the complete package.
Chair Chesley related that part of the intent behind the
traffic impact analysis that they did.
He tried to explain, you have a Safeway development now which at its
mature time generated x amount of traffic and the site was built and designed
around egress and ingress and parking was designed around meeting those traffic
volumes. Are we really seeing any
additional traffic than they already had there in its full development. The zoning issue is it having a greater
impact on the community than it had when it was – it’s all owned by one owner
doing the same kind of uses that previously existed.
Commissioner Kranich referred to what the testimony of the
company representative when he said that they would like to get this through
and done before the other significant competition comes to town so they can
claim a larger portion of the retail market, is that not indicating that they
would hope to have an increase of traffic through their doors.
Chair Chesley answered they would have an increase of
traffic through their doors but would it exceed the amount of traffic that was
there when that development was in its full development. You had the bookstore, you had the art shop,
you had a travel agency and you had a liquor store.
City Planner McKibben understood that by expanding the
store, they can offer more varieties.
You know five different sizes of canned tomatoes versus two kind of
thing and that they don’t expect to have more customers than they have now but
they are expecting to retain more of their customers, they won’t loose as many
to the competition because they will be competing on a more level field. They will have five cans of different size
tomatoes and the same as the new store, whereas if they don’t they’ll only have
two and people are more likely to go to the other store because they want the
three other sizes that Safeway doesn’t have.
They are not saying they are going to increase their customer base, but
that they will retain more of their customer base because they will be on a
more level planning field. That’s the way it was explained to her.
Commissioner Lehner felt that they were all relatively
comfortable with the conclusion that the amount of traffic isn’t going to be
different but they have no quantitative way of making a finding to that
effect. So how do we make this decision
without making it sound subjective.
Chair Chesley related that they had to hang the decision on
a code and empower Ms. McKibben to make the determination.
Commissioner Lehner asked how would they know without
studying it that there will be no net change in traffic. Ms. McKibben related that is not what your
determination is, it’s how you want to apply this section of the code to a
remodel inside an existing building of the same type of use. The numbers aren’t something that you need to
consider in making your determination because how you make this determination
is how staff is going to apply that down the road when Kachemak Wholesale wants
or …
Commissioner Kranich interjected If Scott Ulmer wants to
take over more space in his mall, he is going to be treated the same way.
Commissioner Hess addressing Chair Chesley stated that he
was the main architect of the traffic stuff and he didn’t think that that was the
intention.
Chair Chesley stated the intent was to address new
development because Fred Meyer was knocking at the door. We wanted to develop standards for new
development and the second most important thing was to address the expansion of
other developments. He is comfortable
with the fact that an interior remodel of an existing building within the
existing mall space, we don’t have to require a traffic impact analysis. Like Mr. Kranich said, if Scott Ulmer wants
to move into a vacant unit in the mall, he doesn’t have to come back for a
traffic impact analysis or a cup process to do that.
City Planner McKibben interjected unless it was a change of
use. A change of use would call for an evaluation; it may or may not trigger
it.
Chair Chesley stated that the question becomes, they are
talking about adding another loading bay which is a simple addition of a door,
it doesn’t take any additional square footage and the other was the vestibule.
Commissioner Foster wanted to comment on that issue. There are allowances in our parking code
related to our cold weather snow environment where we’re saying you have to
have different types of landscaping and sizes because of the snow; he would
argue that because of the cold environment the closing in a section of a
walkway does not constitute necessarily adding floor space. It’s just making it more convenient for the
carts and for the people. That’s
something in the spirit that they wrote their standards for, they want.
Commissioner Pfeil stated that sounded good but what if they
started selling products out there.
Chair Chesley suggested it was possible that the commission
consider putting stipulations on that where they couldn’t stock dog food, fire
wood, or actually turn it into a retail space.
Commissioner Foster stated than when they do the expansion
that they go through the whole process, it could be re-evaluated.
Chair Chesley stated the question is, does a developer or
building owner enclosing a walkway not for retail purposes but simply for a
weatherized entry way, does that constitute expansion of the building, thus
requiring ..
City Planner McKibben was still struggling with the roof as
being an expansion …
Commissioner Lehner stated it was more of an enclosing.
Chair Chesley clarified that expanding the roof, is simply
an overhang, they can expand the overhang. We want all the exterior work to
conform to the manual, so what they have done is to expand the overhang because
they want to make that roofline comply with the design manual and then they are
going to enclose it to make it a weatherized entryway. One interpretation is that it expands the
footprint of the building and it triggers the cup. That’s one interpretation
one of the goals in winter climates is that they have safer pedestrian egress
and ingress out of the building and by simply enclosing the walkway, if they
didn’t expand retail uses into it. Would
it constitute an expansion of the footprint.
City Planner McKibben stated that it would. If it was a new building and you have your
main building and a satellite building and they are joined by a covered
breezeway for calculating building area, that’s one building. She would have to say that expanding that
walkway into a covered vestibule would be considered an expansion of the
building.
Commissioner Lehner stated that means that the code is
discouraging something that we want.
Chair Chesley interjected, no its not, the code doesn’t
prohibit them from doing it, they just don’t want to go through a conditional
use process because of it.
Commissioner Hess related that he was comfortable with the
interior expansion but they should go through the cup process for the rest of
it.
Commissioner Kranich interjected that following this line of
thought, the fact that we’re in most zone districts, covered porches are
allowed. If they are not, then there’s a
whole bunch of buildings … He questioned if we allow covered porches in
setbacks, it strikes a real discord, if they want to make a covered porch.
Chair Chesley stated that it is tough because what if they
were proposing adding 3,000 s.f. of additional covered area. That could be very
serious. The point is how far can you
take the covered porch adage.
City Planner McKibben stated that when you look at it from a
birds eye view, it’s part of the footprint of the building, it is part of the
structure.
Chair Chesley interjected that it was late and there was a
long debate in front of them as to whether or not a covered vestibule
issue. The important thing that they
wanted to achieve was to give Ms. McKibben some information so she can talk to
the architect and Safeway representatives and she can report to them what was
discussed tonight. Then if it’s the leaning
of the commission than they can bring back this vestibule/covered porch
question at our next meeting. They have
some information now that they can throw into their planning to see if they
want to do anything with it. Ms.
McKibben can arm herself with more information about whether or not our code
allows a covered porch as a part of the footprint.
Commissioner Hess read the definition of a building; it
means any structure built to support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals
or property of any kind.
City Planner McKibben related that building area means the
total areas, taken on a horizontal plane, at the main grade level of the
principal building and all accessory buildings, exclusive of steps.
Chair Chesley suggested that they postpone the rest of the
commission business.
It was unanimously approved.
H. Site Development
REPORTS
A.
Borough Report
Commissioner Foster stated they had a long work session to
work on the Comprehensive Plan. He was
very impressed with how it was progressing.
B.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
No 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.
A. Zoning Violation Table.
B. Zoning Violation letter
dated January 14, 2005 to Robert Simcoe, re:
C. Zoning Violation letter
dated January 14, 2005 to Jessica Tenhoff, re:
D. Zoning Violation letter
dated January 14, 2005 to John & Margaret Chapple, re:
E. Zoning Violation letter
dated January 20, 2005 to Randy Arndt, Twin Peaks Construction, re:
F. City of Lacey,
G. Letter from Mayor
Hornaday to Thomas Bartlett re: Thanking
for years of service to the City.
H. Letter from Mayor
Hornaday to Beth McKibben re: Thanking
for serving on the
I. Zoning violation letter
dated January 25, 2005 to Douglas Fraiman re: Change of Use at
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Frank Griswold related his random
comments, on the expansion of Safeway; you can’t assume a new store is coming in.
Just because they’re doing the remodel, that may scare off Fred Meyer. The next one, about the Initiation of zoning
ordinance by private individual, he didn’t think if a private party comes to
the commission with a proposed amendment, he did not believe that they were
obligated to go to public hearing. If I come up with a hair-brain idea, you
just say thank you and don’t forward it and it’s dead. It comes from the Council you’re obligated to
go to public hearing. The next one,
Staff Report PL 05-12 the key work in that definition of nonconforming use was
that the requirement that it legally exists at the time of the zoning, if
something were illegal, than it can’t be grandfathered. Illegal doesn’t just pertain to Homer code it
pertains to all laws in existence including Borough zoning standards. He is sure the city got its power to zone
from the Borough and he wouldn’t have had to get a building permit and follow
setback requirements. He thinks someone
should issue notice of re-consideration until they have a finding that that
structure was legally existing at the time; otherwise it’s not properly
done. He had two comments on the 05-02. The Planning Commission did not recommend
either 04-33 or 04-34 be enacted. As he remembered it, the commission
recommended that they both be voted down.
Last April the Council approved 04-11(A) which was 35,000 s.f. in the
CBD, then it approved 04-34 in August at 45, 000 s.f. and now they’re
considering changing size limits for the third time in less than one year. He
heard something that said 04-34 reaffirmed 04-11(A). He understood the concept that the commission
accepted what the Council did but 04-11(A) was different from 04-34 and 04-34
stretched the limits from 35,000 to 45,000.
The second point, he heard something about the Council being a political
body and if he understood them right, it was implied that they had to abide by
a separate set of laws than the commission and he doesn’t believe the Council
has any more right to zone for fiscal reasons than the Commission. The
Beth Wythe had a couple of comments
regarding the commissions’ order of business.
She thinks that for the commissions’ sake, for the sake of the people
who come to listen to their meetings would be wonderful if they changed
modeling a little more after the Council format, if the commission had open
public comment time in the beginning and the end as opposed to at every single
item that’s not a public hearing item.
You have public hearing times; I don’t know that having public comment
at every staff report is facilitating your process. She didn’t know what all the requirements
were or the planning design is. Having
Beth read everything into the minutes as it comes along seems to be very
cumbersome and time consuming for the commission. She is presuming that all
that information is provided to the commission in their packet. Where they
would have the opportunity to read and then bring forward to Beth their
questions so that you do not have to read it back in. Those packets are also available to the
community, if they wanted to read through there and come with questions and
comments during the opening and closing period.
Those are some thing that she would recommend that the commission to
consider to improve their service because they are spending a lot of time,
which is really appreciated, but it is a lot of time and she was sure they had
other things you would love to do with it.
She also wanted to comment on the great job Beth was doing for
them. She enjoyed listening to her and
the information that she brings to the table for you. She is doing a good job there. Thank you.
One last thing, on the Safeway issue I think the determination that they
wouldn’t need to do a traffic study is correct because she would venture that
having the entire building consumed in a grocery store compared to the building
when it was clothing store, a travel agency and other types of retail business,
they probable had more traffic than just encompassing that additional 3,500
feet in additional grocery space, because a portion of that is still going to
be storage area for them.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject,
including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Hess requested that
staff look into asking the Borough about legal platting issues. Ms. McKibben asked if Mr. Hess would e-mail
her in the morning exactly what his questions were. He would request that staff
ask Walt for internet access in the Council Chambers.
Commissioner Foster requested
information regarding the retail business opening on Fraiman’s. Ms. McKibben informed him that there was a
violation letter in their packet.
Chair Chesley asked that at the
next meeting they get to the outhouses in CBD.
It would be good to know what the code says. Ms. McKibben stated that the code is very
clear about requirements in residential but it isn’t as clear in the CBD. He would like to endorse the recommendations
of
There was some discussion about
staff reading the staff reports. Ms. McKibben stated that she has cut down on
what is read. She informed them that the
commission has flexibility in re-ordering items on the agenda, if there’s a
public hearing item that you know people are here for. You have that purview to move it to the head
of the list.
Chair Chesley related that
applicants get a chance later on under their business item to speak to their
application. Ms. McKibben answered that
was how he had been doing it. Mr.
Chesley stated he knew that but other people who want to speak on that item
have to wait until that item appears on the agenda.
Ms. McKibben related that
actually they shouldn’t be speaking; the commission shouldn’t be taking
comments from the audience on items that aren’t public hearing items in the
middle of the meeting. You should only be taking comments from the applicants
not from the audience.
Commissioner Kranich stated that
those other comments should be taken under Item #4.
Chair Chesley pointed to Item #7
and reviewed the language wherein the public is allowed to testify. He would love to shorten it and offered to
work with Ms. McKibben toward that end.
City Planner McKibben related
that she would find out where it came from, it might be in the Policy and
Procedures Manual but it is not consistent with Roberts Rules.
Chair Chesley thanked
Ms. Guyton related that it was
nice seeing them.
Notice of the next
regular or special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following
“adjournment.”
There being no further business to come before the Commission
the meeting adjourned at
____________________________________
BEVERLY J. GUYTON, ADMIN. ASSISTANT
Approved: _________________________