Session
04-03 Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by
Chair Smith at 7:08 p.m. on February 4, 2004, at Homer City Hall, Council
Chambers, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.
A Work Session was held from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. regarding the Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Adding Chapter 21. Large Retail And Wholesale Structure Development, Impact Statement And Standards.
PRESENT: COMMISSION: FOSTER, SMITH, BARTLETT, HESS, CHESLEY, PFEIL, CELENTANO
ABSENT:
STAFF: DEPUTY CITY CLERK BENSON
CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
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
Chair Smith announced a request to add the City of Homer Design Manual as the last item under New Business. The addition was approved by consensus of the Commission.
Commissioner Chesley noted that the CUP application from the Homer Hockey Association under Public Hearing had been canceled by the applicant, however, because it had been advertised for public hearing the item was left on the agenda for public input.
Commission
approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of January 21, 2004 meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved by consensus.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Chair may prescribe time limits. The Commission may question the public.
A. Staff Report PL 04-04 Re: Request For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup #04-01/Homer Hockey Association (previously CUP 02-06) For Multi-Purpose Facility For Recreation Including Ice Rink And Social And Cultural Events Located At 3768 Waddell Way, Lot 2, Waddell Park Subdivision
City Planner McKibben advised that the applicant has requested an extension. She added that there has been discussion of a potential withdrawal of the application at this time by the applicant so they can continue working on their application. Because the item had been advertised the public is afforded an opportunity at this time to comment, however, the commission would not be taking action at this meeting.
There were no public comments.
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 04-05 Re: Pepper
Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff
report and staff recommendations. Staff recommends the Planning Commission
grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions and
the Public Works Department’s recommendations: 1. Clearly define the drainage
area and add a plat note stating: An Army Corps of Engineers permit is required
for any disturbance of the drainage area. 2.
Provide and show access to a fifteen-foot utility easement as required
by HCC 22.10.051. 3. Driveways will be shown for Lots 12 and 13 as approved by
DOT. Public Works
recommendations: 1. The preliminary plat could be approved, as is, with the
understanding that during the Subdivision Agreement process, some changes to
lot lines, easements, etc. may change in order for the water and sewer lines to
operate properly. 2. There should be a fifteen-foot utility easement around the
Pepper Ridge Court right-of-way. 3. Dedication of radius is required at the
East hill and East End Road intersections and at the point of curvature in the
Pepper Ridge Cul-de-sac. 4. The Pepper Ridge intersection should be aligned so
as to provide a 90-degree approach to East Hill Road. 5. Improvements required are water and sewer mainline extensions
with service sub-outs, and the construction and paving of road improvements
within the Pepper Ridge Court right-of-way. 6. Note #8 on the plat should
reference the City of Homer not the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Roger Imhoff advised he was present to answer
questions.
Gloria Corey testified that she and her
husband own lot 4 in the Mutch-Gangl subdivision. Her home is located approximately
20 feet down from the property line.
She expressed her concern regarding natural drainage problems and a lot
of over flow of water. She advised that
she and her husband are considering placing a culvert in a driveway that
deteriorates every year. She reiterated
her concern of being straight down from the run off. Ms. Caroy indicated on the map where her home is located
commenting on how close they are to the water.
She also indicated on the map the location of the flow as the water
comes down the hill to East End Road.
CHESLEY/HESS - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT
PL04-05 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Chair Smith asked City Planner McKibben for
further comments on the paving requirement.
Ms. McKibben advised that the City Subdivision Criteria Manual in Street
Design Section 5.8 Paving has three points and all three have to apply. Water and sewer is available; it’s not
smaller than a five-lot subdivision; and in this case all three of the cases
apply. Additionally, it does apply to
Rural Residential.
Commission Chesley asked if surveyor note 9,
as in note 8, had the same concerns regarding changing the note to the City of
Homer. He asked that it be changed to
remain consistent. Mr. Chesley
expressed his concern regarding access onto arterials as applied in this
situation; i.e. two additional cuts onto East End Road on Lot 12 and Lot
13. City Planner McKibben advised that
those two lots are proposing to share a driveway.
CHESLEY/ PFEIL - MOVE TO ADD UNDER
RECOMMENDATIONS TO AMEND SURVEYOR NOTE 9 TO DELETE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH CODE
AND INSERT CITY OF HOMER.
There was no discussion.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
Chair Smith noted that it appeared this
subdivision would require application to the Borough for an exemption to the 3
to 1 ratio. He asked if the Commission
had any comments to forward to the Borough with this report. Chair Smith commented that in this instance
it is not at all clear that if the property owner has to adhere to the size
ratio, they can’t use their land. He
explained that it’s simply the way they are dividing up the land that creates
the situation, rather than the land form itself. Three commissioners commented that they were in favor of letting
the Borough handle the decision.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, SMITH, PFEIL, CHESLEY,
CELENTANO, BARTLETT, HESS.
NO:
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL 04-06 Re: Hillside Acres Dorothy’s Addition Subdivision Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff
report and staff recommendations. She noted that the applicant proposed to
create three lots, not four lots, from one lot as was originally submitted and
advertised and that the new proposal was shown on the lay-down before the
commission. The property is part of Hillside
Acres Water and Sewer Local Improvement District (LID) and in response to
issues with the LID process, the property owner combined lots 9B and 9A. Therefore, the subdivision will be comprised
of lots 9A, 9C and 9D. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat
subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission grant an exemption
to the subdivision improvement requirements as permitted by Homer City Code
232.10.040a., in that the subdivision does not exceed three lots and there is
no new dedication of right-of-way. 3. Provide and show access to a fifteen-foot
utility easement per HCC 22.10.051.
Roger Imhoff, spoke on behalf of Dorothy
Webster, and commented on the fact that they had made the panhandle 40 feet
wide. He described this as a generous
panhandle because the lower lot will most likely be re-subdivided at some
future date so they wanted to leave enough room. He further commented that they might move the panhandle to the
center of the parent lot depending on the feedback from Public Works as to
where the service lines would run. He
added that he considers this a minor change and that the concept would still be
the same.
PFEIL/BARTLERR - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT
PL04-06 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE REVISED THREE LOTS
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
C. Staff
Report PL 04-07 Re: Glacier View Campus Addition Subdivision
Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff
report and staff recommendations. Staff recommends the Planning Commission
grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1.
Planning Commission grant an exemption to the subdivision improvement
requirements as permitted by Homer City Code 22.10.040a., in that the
subdivision does not exceed three lots and there is no new dedication of
right-of-way. 2. Plat notes be amended to reflect the correct sewer and
electric easement dedication.
Kenton Bloom commented, representing the
University of Alaska (UA). He advised
that also present at the meeting was a UA representative who was available for
questions. Mr. Bloom testified that
there had been a lot of discussion and a lot of change in direction in terms of
coordinating architects, public works and HEA.
Mr. Bloom distributed to the commissioners the University’s “preferred”
easement document integrated into the subdivision plans. He pointed out that the old easement
reflects moving the sewer and that it will not happen. The new plat shows that the sewer easement
didn’t exist on the city portion of the parent plat so they created a 10’
easement on the existing sewer line. On
the University portion of the plat, they created an easement for utilities
within the 20’ wide swath. On the plat,
SS stands for sanitary sewer and the black dots are power lines. The net result is that between the City and
the University property the easement is 30’ wide on the University side and
close to 36’ wide on the City side; because of the location of the manholes the
sewer line jogs. Both existing City
Hall and a small corner of the proposed addition of the University are in the
easement about 2 feet. Where there is a
parking lot now, there will no longer be a parking lot. The whole parking area will be to the
south. The north end will have a
pedestrian entrance and landscaping.
The vehicle entrance will be off Heath Street - one way in, one way out. The University is not interested in granting
utility easements north of the existing easement line, but they would be
willing to grant maintenance and temporary construction if there was a need to
excavate. This is the version the
University would like to have considered.
The City side is an attempt to integrate the sewer line easement and the
HEA easement. GCI wants to place their
cables underground.
Chair Smith advised that he would not be able
to agree to an easement that runs under a building. It would create a cloud if the City should ever decide to sell.
Mr. Bloom stated that the easement is only a
few inches under the building and that reviews would be done and solved at the
Borough level. He added that the City
might have their own idea of what they want done and that this plat portrays
what a 10’ easement for the utilities would look like.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Bloom and the
University representative to address the necessity of maintaining the driveway
easement on the southern portion of the City’s lot. He explained that there is a driveway easement on the City’s
property and he asked if the University would need that driveway easement to
access their property. Mr. Bloom
advised that this is something the City and the University can negotiate. He added that there is no physical
requirement for that easement to continue to exist.
Meg Hayes, contractor for the University,
advised that the university wants to use it as an alternative access into the
parking lot. She didn’t think a
decision had been made on that yet and no one from the University had talked to
anyone at the City about it yet, so it’s still open for discussion.
Chair Smith noted that it clearly encroaches
on the area the City can use for parking.
He stated that if there is no longer a need for the University to
maintain it, this is a perfect time for it to go away.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that
when he received the plat several weeks ago he was surprised because he hadn’t
seen any of the building expansion plans to know how the outcome of the
vacation of the alley was going to be followed through on. He advised that the Borough had vacated the
alleyway with the condition that utility easements be provided to take care of
the utilities that are in or adjacent to that alley. Shortly after he received
the plat the architect asked if they could build to the sewer line. There is an existing easement five feet to
the north of the existing sewer line.
There’s an easement to the south of the sewer line between the sewer
line and the old alleyway. He added
that until the vacation of the alleyway, the alley was an area that the City
could use. He described this as “not a
very good situation”. Mr. Meyer advised
that the City’s as-built shows the sewer line in the middle of the alleyway. He said Mr. Bloom’s survey shows the sewer
line only 5’ from the edge of the easement.
Typically, the City is looking for a 30’ wide easement with the utility
down the middle providing at least 15’ on either side of the line. This created two problems 1. the existing
situation wasn’t good and 2. the University was trying to build as close as
possible to the sewer line. After
several meetings with Vickie Williams, the architect and several other people
involved, they came up with not a perfect situation but a compromise worth
discussing which was that the University could build close to the sewer line
however the permanent structure must have footings down to the invert of the
sewer line. That way if the sewer were
dug up there would be no chance of undermining the structure. Another condition the City felt was
appropriate was the City needed another 15 feet on the north side of the sewer
line so that across the entire width of the property they would have an
easement they could work in. In
addition, the City having the 15 on the north and south side of the sewer line
would start to reduce the encumbrance that the alleyway easement might have on
the property. He also suggested that
the easement be wider as it goes around the building to allow for a place for
the sewer line to be relocated in the future should that ever need to happen. He concluded that this seemed to be worked
out with the architect and project engineer in Anchorage, however,
unfortunately last week the real estate department advised they were adamantly
opposed to providing any additional easement for sewer lines. Further, they did not see any reason why they
should have to vacate the driveway easement.
They pointed out that what the City was asking them to do on their
property, the City would have to accept on the city hall property. They were willing to show an easement on the
plat that the City had requested on City property but were not willing to show
that same easement on University property.
Mr. Meyer said he thought it would be a little premature to approve the
plat at this time. At this time the plat is a negotiation tool for looking out
for the best interests of the community.
Many people use the sewer line that runs through this property and
expect the City to be able to have access to maintain it. Although the City would like to be as
partnership -like as possible, there hasn’t been a final agreement on the
easements.
Chair Smith noted that this is the line the
University connects to.
Public Works Director Meyer stated that the
sewer couldn’t be better located from a cost perspective than where it is right
now. Mr. Meyer addressed the concerns
of the easement being shown under buildings.
He stated that he expected a jog in the easement and didn’t have a
problem with that. He didn’t think the
easement should be shown going under the building. Mr. Meyer addressed the driveway easement concerns stating that
the City Manager is going to look into that easement and see what the wording
is and decide whether it even exists at this point. It’s possible it doesn’t apply.
The driveway easement was created to serve a mobile home park and once
that goes away, the easement goes away.
If it turns out the driveway still exists, the City would then look to
see if they’d like to have it vacated.
Kenton Bloom asked to point out a couple of
things for clarification in the content and inaccuracy in Mr. Meyer’s
statement. He stated that Mr. Meyer met
with Mary Montgomery with the Office of Land Management. The easement portrayed above the sewer line
is only 10 feet wide, not 15 feet. He
addressed the issue of postponed saying that his client specifically asked that
this plat not be postponed. He added that the issues regarding the easements
are not substantial enough to warrant postponement. These can be negotiated and resolved prior to recording the final
plat. Further, Mr. Bloom wanted to
clarify that the University wants to limit the uses in that easement to what
they are today.
Commissioner Bartlett asked how far the
design would move to the north.
Meg Hayes, University representative, advised
that the building would be moved about a foot.
She advised that the sewer is not on center on the 10’ easement. It is actually 4 feet from the north side
and 6 feet from the south side and what the architect is going to do is move
the building back one foot and dig a deep footing as suggested by Mr. Meyer to
avoid any impact on sewer maintenance.
She discussed the reason for trying to narrow the easement. The building is designed so that the parking
lot is welcoming to people as they come in.
At some point the University would like to build their campus building
across the strip that used to be an alley and are trying to keep it as narrow
as possible so they can connect the building on the trailer court property and
the existing building. They are trying
to look down the road to what they would want as a bridge if they had to. She asked that everyone remember that there
is quite a bit of drop-off between the parking lot and the trailer court. She imagined that the work crew would
probably work on the utility on the lower level and that is another reason to
try to put more of the easement on the south side of the property. She acknowledged that the University does
have a vested interest in the sewer continuing to operate and is more than
willing to do temporary construction easements and that sort of thing if there
were ever a need for maintenance.
Mr. Bloom added that this isn’t a “deal
stopper”; that delaying the plat delays the project.
Meg Hayes stated she was asked to point out
that the building is under-funded as it is.
The basement will not be finished.
The bond money doesn’t go that far.
A delay would affect the availability of the money for use on the
building. This would have a real effect
on what actually gets built.
HESS/FOSTER - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT
PL04-07 WITH AN ADDITION TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE CITY OF HOMER
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE FINAL PLAT.
Mr. Bloom expressed no objection and noted
that the City approval is a part of the process for the final plat.
Commissioner Foster commented on the request
by the University for no postponement and his reluctance to pass this due to
the request for a postponement by the Public Works Director.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
Chair called for a break at 8:05 p.m. and
reconvened at 8:21 p.m.
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 03-78 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. -On-going
Chair Smith noted that the Commission had been working on Page 36-37 of the work session packet on Conditional Use Permit and had just amended the section referring to community and economic impact. They began on Line 548, Item 4; Packet page 37...
- Reviewed the Conditional Use Permit section of the draft
- Reviewed section on requirements for large retail and wholesale development more than 15,000 square fee in area.
- Looked at City Attorney’s suggested changes
- Public Space; 5% of the what ?? discussed the wording at length
- Referred to outdoor common areas in the design manual – inside and outside
- Deleted wording in the draft on page 39 of the packet
- Reviewed the chapter of the draft on Zoning Permits
- Looked at changing very little wording
- Building code
- Need definition of “drive-in”
- Reviewed definitions – changed some wording slightly
- Discussed and reviewed language for sizing buildings
- Discussed perspective – draw a line on where to tell people what to do with their property
- Looked at commercial economic impacts – sustainability
- Traffic issues were discussed at length
- Lots of upcoming development in Homer this year acknowledged and discussed
- Each commissioner weighed in on their preference for size limits
Chair Smith took a consensus of the commission regarding maximum square footage.
CBD-
Consensus to agree on 30,000 as a top
Intermediate consensus – 5,000
Total square footage – 35,000
Conditional Use for large retail currently 15,000
Stayed at 15,000 by consensus.
GC1 & GC2 as one district-
Consensus – same as CBD knowing that the intent is to recommend different areas on Ocean Drive and the Spit –
Commissioner Celentano had to leave the meeting.
PFEIL/HESS - MOTION TO MOVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE - CBD, GC1, GC2, MARINE COMMERCIAL, MARINE INDUSTRIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, ZONING PERMITS AND DEFINITIONS - AS THE COMMISSION HAS DISCUSSED AND AGREED UPON AND MOVE THESE TO PUBLIC HEARING.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
Due to the late hour the commission discussed postponing this item.
HESS/CHESLEY - MOVE TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING OR WORKSESSION THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGN MANUAL.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster advised that at the last Borough meeting and at the next one there would be no action from the City of Homer. The Borough voted to change the name of his street from Gladys Drive to Gladys Court. He asked if the commission would like him to comment when the Glacier View plat comes up.
The commission advised that their general consensus was that they were not opposed to it, however definitely weren’t supporting it. Commissioner Foster commented on how the Borough interprets the 2 to 1 saying that at the first place that gets to 60 feet is where the set back line is called. The Borough indicated that they would respect the city ordinance if there were a different ordinance. He recommended that after the current issues are over, the commission look at that and the rural residential size cap allowance of 10,000 square feet.
PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT
City Planner McKibben advised that she would email out the Flood Hazard agenda for Friday to the commissioners on Thursday.
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. Letter
from Robert & Charlotte Pickering, re:
Kelly Ranch Subdivision/Homer Watershed Ordinance.
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 advised he would be absent from February 22nd to March 10th, at least.
Commissioner Pfeil had no comments.
Commissioner Foster had no comments.
Commissioner Bartlett commented that it’s been a long way to get to this point with the work the commission has been doing. He thanked everyone for their patience and input. He commended his fellow commissioners for politely listening to him even if they didn’t agree with what he had to say. He thanked Bill Smith in particular for all his work. He then quickly acknowledged that everyone has worked hard and didn’t mean to take away from anyone else. He hoped the commission would get a consensus on this important issue.
Commissioner Chesley said he’d like to echo Commissioner Bartlett’s comments. He thanked everyone for their support of the Homer Hockey application. He expressed his wish to get the Hockey Association to an informal setting with the commission and work with them sometime in February. He was hoping to meet with them next week and help them move the process along. Mr. Chesley acknowledged that they are still waiting to hear from the city attorney on what can be done, however, it would be nice to report back to the Hockey Association that they have a date to meet.
Chair Smith thanked everyone for all their effort. He expressed extra appreciation for Commissioner Foster representing the City at the Borough level and thinks he’s doing a good job. The commissioners echoed their thanks to Commissioner Foster.
The commission discussed their upcoming schedule. On Monday, February 9th, Chair Smith and Commissioner Chesley would be giving a presentation at the Committee of the Whole. Chair Smith welcomed all members of the commission to attend. The Commission has a worksession with the Council on Tuesday, the 17th. On the 18th is a Commission worksession at 5 p.m. - Regular meeting and the first public hearing for all of the code changes. Also on the 18th the Commission hoped to move the Design Manual to public hearing. On the 25th, the last Wednesday in February, the Commission would like to hold a Special Meeting for additional public comment and make amendments to the ordinances and forward it to the council with a recommendation for adoption. The findings would need to be ready at that time. Locations for the meeting were discussed (the City Calendar was booked). Commissioners Hess and Foster advised they would miss the meeting on the 25th. The commission decided to leave it to the staff - the city clerk - to find a place to meet. Chair Smith advised he would be absent from any meetings next week. The Design Manual would be adopted and forwarded to the Council at the Regular Meeting March 3rd. The Commission tentatively scheduled February 11th to meet with the Hockey Association. The commission decided to meet on the 25th at 6 p.m. for the work session and at 7 p.m. for the Special Meeting. The commission decided on 5 p.m. to meet with the Hockey Association on the 11th .
Notice of the next regular or
special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following
“adjournment”.
There being no further business to come before the commission the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for February 18, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. There will be a work session at 5:00 p.m. prior to the meeting. A work session with the Hockey Association is scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 5 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
____________________________________
DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: ___________________________