Session
04-04 Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by
Chair Smith at 7:00 p.m. on February 18, 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--Design Manual and Glossary
PRESENT: COMMISSION: FOSTER, SMITH, BARTLETT, HESS, CHESLEY, PFEIL
ABSENT: CELENTANO
(excused)
STAFF: DEPUTY CITY CLERK BENSON
CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
CITY MANAGER WALT WREDE
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
The agenda was approved by consensus as written.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes,
with any amendments.
A. Approval of February 4, 2004 meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved by consensus as presented.
A. Staff
Report PL 04-07 Re: Glacier View Campus Addition
Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Chair Smith advised that he had called for reconsideration on this plat. If the reconsideration were approved, this item would be placed under Plat Consideration 7 B and any action taken by the commission would be at that time. He stated that the motion was filed within the 48 hours time requirement. Chair Smith explained that he had requested the reconsideration after the city manager had informed him that there were still issues to be work out with the University of Alaska prior to plat approval. He said he had some misunderstandings that were clarified and he agreed to reconsider this at the city manager’s request.
SMITH/CHESLEY - MOVE TO RECONSIDER PL04-06.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
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.
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 04-08 Re: Proposed Ordinance
Of The City Council Of The City Of Homer Amending HCC Chapter 21, HCC 21.32
Definitions, HCC 21.42 Zoning Permit, HCC 21.48 Central Business District, HCC
21.49 General Commercial 1, HCC 21.50 General Commercial 2, HCC 21.52 Marine
Commercial, HCC 21.53 Marine Industrial And HCC 21.61 Conditional Use Permit,
Proposed Code Changes Address Large Retail And Wholesale Development.
Frank Griswold stated that he is a resident of the CBD and owns a business in the CBD. He read over some of the lengthy ordinance-specifically the section that applied to the CBD. He acknowledged that it represents a lot of hard work on the part of the commission however, it needed extensive editing and attorney review and was not ready for public input. He relayed that he had a lot to say and asked the commission to stop him if he appeared to become pedantic or anal. He referred to the definitions stating that they contain specific terms, which require lengthy definition. He recommended keeping the text of the ordinance itself simple so there is no need to go into long definitions. It looses the effectiveness when it gets too technical because most of this information is for regular folk that are supposed to know how to develop their property. He added that basic and simple is the best especially when it gets into soil erosion, etc.
Mr. Griswold gave an example on Line 217 where the definition of “adverse impact” is “a deleterious effect on waters and wetlands”. Most people don’t need a definition of adverse impact and it doesn’t apply just to waters and wetlands. At this point the public would have to go look up the definition and then would have to look up deleterious effect. He advised he would delete that definition. He also referred to and discussed some of the definitions of “glare”, “trip”, “clearing of land”, “islands”, “living plant life other than ground cover”, and “design year”. He stated that there are different kinds of islands. There was no need to say that mowing of grass is not included in clearing of land. Instead of saying design year, say “the year that is 10 years after the opening date of development” and be done with it so people don’t have to go to the definitions. Although “design year” was defined, he noted that “growing season” wasn’t and called for the document to be consistent. There were a lot of words that could be defined that weren’t, such as “opacity”, “full control techniques”, “riparian corridor”, “nuisance”, “normal sensitivities”, and “items normally kept out of doors”.
- Line 91 ii; could delete “the most egregious ordinance ever passed”. Ordinance 98-9(A) allowed car lots, auto repair shops, auto-body paint shops and storage of unusable vehicle parts and debris along Main Street between Pioneer and the Bypass. Do you want to see this in the heart of town square? Although the commission voted against it, the Council passed it, so this would be a good time to put it before them again. Fred Meyer might not be the big threat if Cal Worthington came to town.
- Line 150 delete “nor shall any lot” and substitute “or”. Delete the comma after area.
- Line 155 change “one” to “the”.
- Line 158 delete “and”
- Line 163 delete “in no event may” and replace with “no”
- Line 168 delete “calculations” and add a hyphen between “tenant” and “specific”
- Line 183 doesn’t read well. Awkward and doesn’t make sense. Substitute it with under #6 “the plan shall show existing and/or potential easements to public land.
- Line 193 change to “where applicable frontage roads shall be developed in conformance with the transportation plan”
- Line 206 put a period after “beginning” and start a new sentence.
- Line 215 “adversely impact” and “damaging alteration” are redundant. Suggested “development shall not cause deleterious alteration, etc”
At this point Mr. Griswold asked if the commission would like him to go on as he had six more pages of these suggestions. Chair Smith asked if he could have the basic edits to review and expressed his appreciation for all the work done to create them. Other wise, he asked Mr. Griswold to continue with any generalized or specific focus on some of the issues.
Mr. Griswold continued. He referred to Line 522 in regard to the 20% opacity for smoke and asked if the City had the means to detect the opacity. At Line 525 regarding odors, he wondered if nuisance or noxious odors applied to coal smoke and coffee roasters. He wondered how “people with normal sensitivities” was defined. Mr. Griswold referred to “off site noise ordinance” and “ unusual vibrations” asking what a “usual vibration” might be. Line 569 talked about shipping containers - he wondered if the shipping containers outside City Hall are what this is talking about. If this is the case, he suggested that the City set a good example. Line 574 and 578 regarding lighting explained why the code exists. He thought the justification should not be in the code as it is assumed there were good reasons for it. Mr. Griswold commented that the Beach Policy seems to be going in one direction and the zoning policy in another. He noted that the signs on the beaches say sometime like less regulation more consideration. Since 1999 it seemed like the zoning policy had rhetoric and no enforcement. He found yesterday that the permitting has been relegated to Public Works and the records are sent to Finance. It seemed to him that Planning was washing its hands of the enforcement issue. He expressed his opinion that un-enforced zoning is far worse than no zoning at all - it gives scoundrels an unfair advantage over law-abiding citizens. He commented that he had heard a rumor that an enforcement person would be hired and expressed his wish that if this happened that the permitting be done in one location. He commented that after all the rhetoric and laws passed since 2000 it is not working in his neighborhood. There are several trailers moved to Bonanza from Bearfoot Trailer Park and the City is hooking them up to water and sewer and they have no zoning permit. The law says no one gets hooked up unless they provide a zoning permit and he suggested that the City enforce that. He concluded that if the City doesn’t enforce the laws he suggested that there is no hope that this ordinance or any other would be anything more than an exercise in futility.
Valerie Connor thanked the commission for all of their hard work. She said she read the comprehensive document and agreed with Mr. Griswold that there are some gaps, however, she didn’t have much criticism of it. She commented that one of the things missing is any provision to try to get existing businesses to comply with some of these new ideas. Ms. Conner stated that she liked the lighting and parking proposals, breaking up the lines of buildings and having open space. She liked the idea of trying to get existing businesses to plant some trees or create a walkway and commented on adding provisions that would encourage businesses to comply. She again commented on the lighting saying that she wanted to keep the problem from getting worse and wanted to see the stars from Homer. Ms. Connor expressed her support for the 30,000 sf size the commission came up with and the reasons they had. She commented on the application for a conditional use permit requirement for a community and economic impact statement. She described that as like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Chair Smith explained that when that is required, the City hires a consultant to produce that report.
Ms. Connor commented that a map would have been nice to have in the packet to see the boundaries. She liked the suggestion to the Council about treating Ocean Drive as a separate entity. She described that area as “really ugly”; that the trees are disappearing and a bunch of big ugly buildings are going up and there are no sidewalks. Although it’s not in the CBD she said she thought maybe that area could follow some of those regulations. She expressed her appreciation for the commission’s efforts.
Larry Slone commented that he wasn’t prepared to go into detail as Mr. Griswold had so his comments would be more general. He agreed with what the other speakers said; he expressed his appreciation for the hard work that has gone into this document. He also expressed his doubt as to how beneficial this proposal would be as it appeared to him that the requirements were so onerous that they could be detrimental to small businesses. There would be culture shock going from the code we have now to the one proposed. He used a B&B business in the CBD as an example saying there would be an incredible amount of work time and expense to satisfy the requirement of this ordinance. In regard to building dimension, Mr. Slone, commented that he understood this to read that if Fred Meyer wanted to come to this area the provisions they would have to comply with would be those of a conditional use. He added that these provisions provide adequate safeguards for environmental and traffic concerns for the future and that being the case if Fred Meyer wants to build larger than 30,000 sf they should be able to do so. He expressed his opinion that the commission should raise the 30,000 sf minimum to at least 45,000. He thanked the commission.
Angie Newby congratulated the commission on the amount of effort that went into this document. She described it as “phenomenal” and acknowledged that they had written the entire section. She advised that her comments, too, would be general as she had not read this in detail. She couldn’t see anything in terms of malls or how malls fit into the square footage standard. Under setbacks, she referred to property owned by a client of hers who owns property off of the Sterling Highway and Greatland Street. Her understanding was that there would be a 20’ setback from the Sterling Highway and would have to apply for a conditional use permit to have less than 20’ off of Greatland Street. She advised that the Greatland lots would be severely constricted. She called for less of a setback off the Greatland saying it would make more sense. Ms. Newby referred to property east of Pioneer on the Sterling where Chapples have an RV Park, calling it a fairly large tract that fronts on the Sterling Highway. She wanted to encourage buildings to be as close to the highway as possible to encourage parking in back, especially where sidewalks are already in place. She expressed her opinion that the more parking taken off the front near the highway, the more attractive it would look. She further commented that this is a perfect opportunity to clean up the spot zoning issue with the auto dealerships on Main Street, especially in light of the fact that Town Center is defined by Main Street over to Heath Street. She encouraged the commission to eliminate the potential for the car lots and auto repair shops there. She stated that there is plenty of room for those shops on Ocean Drive. Ms. Newby commented on the sign section. She appreciated the concern regarding national chains using their store as a sign, such as NAPA where the whole store is a sign. In order to deal with that, she suggested physical building standards, maybe a theme or standard. Ms. Newby asked the commission to consider having townhouses and condos in the CBD as an allowable use without a conditional use permit. She advised that there is a market in real estate right now for these types of homes from both outside and inside our community. She suggested Bishop’s Beach as a logical area for this type of development. She is working with a client to build off the Bypass near Islands and Oceans because it is a conditional use, however, reiterated her wish that it be an allowable use. Ms. Newby expressed confusion on the stand-alone definition for the 30,000 and the 5,000 sf. She used Safeway as an example to explain. Safeway has 25,000 sf and a liquor store they own at approximately 1500 sf. If they wanted to expand the store, they could only expand it by 3500 sf under the stand alone definition. Ms. Newby further addressed the square footage limit saying that this would apply virtually to grocery stores as there are no other uses that have been coming to Homer for a long time in the large store arena. The 30,000 sf would limit Safeway expansion and a Fred Meyer or others coming into the area. She expressed her opinion that the size of the store goes back to what we want to see in Homer, therefore 30,000 is too much. She explained that the City should go down to 20,000 or less or go up, because 30,000 sf does not accommodate any grocery store. She suggested that maybe 30,000 may be a politically correct number but it doesn’t carry enough weight. She challenged the commission to go to a lower lever or a higher left. She commented on breaking up the lines of buildings commented on by Ms. Connor, saying she didn’t see this in the ordinance.
Chair Smith explained that she could find it under conditional use permit under standards for large retail.
Ms. Newby expressed her appreciation for all the hard work put into this. She said she is proud of the commission although she still disagrees. She thanked the commission.
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 04-02
Amended Re:Glacier View Subdivision 2003 Preliminary Plat Subdivision. POSTPONED from Jan. 21, 2004 HAPC meeting.
City Planner McKibben reviewed
the amended staff report and staff recommendations. Staff recommendations:
Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the
Public Works Department conditions and 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. Provide and show access
to a fifteen-foot utility easement, HCC 22.10.051 on the plat.
Public Works Conditions: Public Works approves the layout of the plat. A Development Agreement will need to be entered into with the Owner prior to final plat approval. The improvements to be included in the Agreement are: 1. Extension of the water mainline for approximately 300 linear feet from Kachemak Way. 2. Extension of the existing roadway improvements within the twenty-foot alleyway on the north side of the subdivision (Harry’s Alley). 3. Providing sewer services to each lot from the existing sewer mainline in the alleyway.
Roger Imhoff stated that the owner was not at the meeting. He commented that the staff report sums it up nice. He had a couple of points to cover. The previous testimony of the neighbors stated that some drainages issues needed to be addressed as part of the development plan and that there is a safety issue with ingress and egress off Kachemak Way. He said he thought those two situations could be worked out with Public Works just fine. He added that he was available for questions and concluded that the Commission could approve this plat as is, with conditions or not at all and thanked them.
Ed Lyda commented regarding what Roger Imhoff had just said. He reiterated his concerns regarding the safety issue. He added that he didn’t want to be left out of the loop on this issue and wants to be told what’s going on. He repeated that he didn’t want to be left out.
FOSTER/FRED - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-02 AS AMENDED.
Commission Foster addressed the special conditions in the analysis saying he thought those should be more environmental versus a situation that was a bad or questionable decision of the original subdivision. In his opinion this is making a special condition worse, however, he understood the needs of the owner. He advised that he is opposed to this but doesn’t plan on standing in the way if the safety concerns of the neighbors can be taken into account.
Commissioner Pfeil asked how the safety and drainage issues would be dealt with prior to the final plat being issued. Public Works Director Meyer advised that anyone who constructs anything within a City right-of-way has to get a permit so whether it’s required by the subdivision agreement or by the permit to construction public works would be addressing drainage and intersection safety issues. He further advised that he is not aware of a situation where the public has input into a private development agreement other than right now. This is not to say that the City couldn’t do that. Chair Smith requested a mailing of the final agreement between public works and the developer to the property owners within the effected area. City Planner McKibben agreed to do that. There was a brief discussion noting that public input for the development agreement is not provided for in the code and is not required. Public Works Director Meyer suggestion that a condition to approve the plat be that the developer provide copies of the design of the improvements in the subdivision agreement to adjacent property owners and offer them an opportunity to comment on it. It is unusual but not onerous. The developer could get mailing labels from the Planning Department.
FOSTER/PFEIL - MOTION TO AMEND TO WHAT CAREY SAID.
City Planner McKibben clarified that this would added a condition to require the property owner to provide a copy of the development agreement to the affected property owners, using the standard 300’, prior to final approval by Public Works and provide opportunity for comment.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster asked for specifics on the safety concern by Mr. Lyda. Mr. Lyda commented that he was concerned about the wording “reasonable”. He has lived on the hill long enough to know that black ice is sticky compared to what happens there. He commented that the drainage gets extremely slick. He further stated that vehicles are parked in the one way street and it gets so slick that if the driver is not real careful they end up on Kachemak Way whether they’re ready or not. He reiterated the same as his comments in a prior meeting that getting stopped on that hill is like checking gas tanks with a match.
Chair Smith commented that it is Public Works responsibility to oversee the usability and the safety of the roads and that has to meet their review prior to their acceptance of a developer’s proposal, therefore hopefully the final agreement would incorporate all of the safety considerations as well as the drainage considerations. He clarified that if this motion passes, the agreement would be available to the neighbors for review prior to Public Works final acceptance.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL 04-07 Re: Glacier
View Campus Addition Subdivision Preliminary Plat – RECONSIDERED.
HESS/FOSTER - (main motion back on the floor) 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.
City Planner McKibben advised that a
teleconference meeting had taken place that day between the manager, the public
works director, the surveyor for the university and herself. Some amendments were made to Public Works
recommendations. The City and the
University agreed that they would like to recommend that the Planning Commission
recommend approval with the following conditions: That a 30’ wide utility
easement across the University property for utilities be shown on the final
plat. That the triangular shaped driveway easement across the City Hall
property would be vacated and become a document easement. This would allow for use of the easement
during construction and would give the City and the University an opportunity
to negotiate a shared driveway or another driveway easement that’s agreeable to
everyone. That the City would not approve the final plat nor should the City
sign the final plat until the above conditions are met.
City Planner McKibben clarified that #2 is
gone; #4 is unique to this case; and
the 30’ right-of-way has been left to be worked out between the City and the
University prior to final plat approval.
Merit Mitchel, representative of the public
as a member of the advisory council at the college, recommended that the
commission move rapidly to approve this preliminary plat so the architect can
go ahead with the plans. Expensive and
structural changes have delayed this.
The University is standing on one foot waiting for approval. He thanked the City and the Commission for
their constructive and enthusiastic support.
FOSTER/PFEIL - MOTION TO AMEND TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONS STATED BY STAFF
City Planner McKibben read the new
conditions: 1. That a 30’ wide utility easement across the
University property for utilities be shown on the final plat. Item #2 in the
Packet would go away. 3. That the triangular shaped driveway easement across
the City Hall property would be vacated and become a document easement. 4. The
City would not approve the final plat nor should the City sign the final plat
until the above conditions are met.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 04-09 Re: Oscar Munson Subdivision 2004 Preliminary Plat
Commissioner Hess declared a conflict of interest. He explained that upon completion of the Borough approval of this subdivision the corporation of which he has a direct ownership interest in would be purchasing this property. The commission agreed that there was a conflict. Commissioner Hess stepped down.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations. Staff Recommendations: Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions and the Public Works Department’s recommendations: 1. The plat shows a ten-foot utility easement along the west lots lines of Lots 1 and 7. HCC 22.10.051 requires a fifteen-foot utility easement. This utility easement should be shown along the Lampert Court right-of-way. 2. There should be a radius shown on Lot 7 where the Ocean Drive/Lampert Lane ROW and the Lampert Court/Lampert Lane ROW intercepts. 3. The recorded easement for the sewer line through Lots 2 and 3 should be shown or referenced as a plat note. 4. Add a plat note stating that all driveway access for these lots will be from Lampert Court.
Public Works Director Meyer advised that generally lots are accessed off side streets versus the main road, therefore it seemed reasonable to assure that all of the lots accessed onto the new cul-de-sac rather than introducing additional conflicts along Lampert Lane. He added that the lots could also be accessed on Lakeshore Drive, however, he reiterated that they also must access on Lampert Court. Mr. Meyer addressed the street names, noting Lampert Street, Lampert Court and Lampert Lane may be confusing. He suggested coming up with a more unique name so that the post office and the 911 emergency response vehicles do not get confused with too many names starting with Lampert. City Planner McKibben noted multiple points of access off Lakeshore Drive where safety issues could also be eliminated. Chair Smith further noted a right-of-way north of Lots 1 and 2 and asked why access could not be gained there. Mr. Meyer advised only that the road was unimproved and that he would consider allowing access to the north, however, he would request some road improvements be made from the intersection west. What’s there right now is more of a driveway and does not receive public maintenance at this time. If there was an addition to the condition to allow access off of Lakeshore, we would like to require road improvements and he would be willing to entertain such a condition. Chair Smith suggested that it would allow for a pull through driveway and added that any construction in the right-of-way would require permission of public works. He noted that if this is what the commission wanted then the staff recommendations and the public works recommendations would be amended to say “Lampert Court or Lakeshore Drive”.
Kenton Bloom, surveyor representing the developers, commented that the plat just shows the existing easements and that he has no problem with the plat requirements for the easements. He explained that in the process he usually gathers easements from the previous plat and would not hear from GCI, ASC or HEA formally until after the preliminary plat is submitted to the Borough. Another option could be to make up what they thought the property owners would require. Any issues must be resolved prior to the plat recording at the Borough level. He explained then that he was addressing the 10’ easement shown on the preliminary plat and that they were not trying to circumvent the requirements.
Mr. Bloom addressed the paving of Lampert Drive to the Lampert Court intersection. He could not find any precedence that required a developer to improve a street adjacent to the development. He noted that this area was developed last year by the City of Homer as part of the sewer improvement district. The City connected Lampert Lane to Lakeshore Drive into an effective roadway. With respect to the Public Works Directors interests for the City, Mr. Bloom expressed his opinion that it was unreasonable to require his clients to have to foot the bill for the pavement on their own. He suggested the answer would be an LID or something like that. He advised that the traffic on that road has increased due to the City’s improvements below there.
Mr. Bloom addressed the driveway access from Lampert Court. He stated that it is difficult for him to accept that Lakeshore Drive is not a legitimate access to the property that it abuts. Today they could build driveways there and this is an improper use of the development scope. He added that it was his understanding that this would be used as a drive-through utility entrance and would not be a public entrance.
Mr. Bloom suggested as a procedural item, that it would be helpful for he and his staff to receive a copy of the plat review prior to the meeting. He asked if there was a way to reframe the deadline for getting the information to the applicants. Chair Smith acknowledged the issue and advised that a rework of this process is in progress, however, higher priority items have come first.
Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Bloom to explain the topography of lot 2 in regards to wetlands. Mr. Bloom advised that this lot is under classification of low value wetland and implies it’s developable. It has a gentle northerly slope with sparse scrub spruce and a mossy floor. It could get slushy in certain seasons. He advised that he has heard discussion that it may be graveled and used for parking with a building on the drier side of the lot.
Mike Scruggs, property owner near this property advised that had no problem with this being development like this as long as it remains general commercial. He did not wan tot see a tract of homes going up and have a conflict of people wanting to sleep and people wanting to work next door. Otherwise, he had no opposition as long as it doesn’t include a residence on this property.
PFEIL/CHESLEY - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-09 WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
The commission discussed the issue of the Public Works Department having the authority to place the conditions listed in item 1- paving of Lampert Lane from Ocean Drive to Lampert Court intersection - of Public Works recommendation and item 4 - making all of the access from Lampert Court - of the staff recommendations. Public Works Director Meyer advised that these are recommendations that that he has no authority to make anybody to anything. He explained that his job is to make recommendations based on what he thinks is in the public good. He looked at seven lots, each with a potential for a building 30% the size of the lot, which could easily create over 30,000 square feet of structures there. At 30,000 a traffic analysis would be required if this were all one building. From a marketing standpoint, commercial lots with access over a gravel road might not be the best. With the amount of traffic generated from over 30,000 sf of commercial space, it seemed to him like a reasonable thing for the community to expect that section of road to be paved. He didn’t have information on where it says this in the Homer City Code. Mr. Meyer addressed the required access from Lampert Court versus Lakeshore Drive, saying he was sticking with trying to have property accessed off of side streets rather than a minor collector street - Lampert Lane. Mr. Meyer acknowledged that a business owner may want to access Lakeshore Drive to the north and commented that if they wanted to maintain that stretch of road, they could make that happen. Generally, he explained, that this comment comes from the idea that they try to encourage people to access off of side streets versus the higher traffic streets.
Commissioner Pfeil advised he would support changing Public Works recommendations for access to be “from Lampert Court or Lakeshore Drive”.
PFEIL/FOSTER - MOVE TO AMEND NOTE SIX IN THE PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOTE FOUR IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO ALLOW ACCESS FROM LAKESHORE DRIVE TO THOSE LOTS THAT COULD USE IT.
Commissioner Pfeil commented that he did not think it unreasonable to ask a developer to pave 125 feet of road for that density of development on that corner. He did not support paving Lakeshore Drive.
Commissioner Chesley called a Point of Order. The discussion did not pertain to the motion. The motion was seconded, there was no further discussion and the vote was taken.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion to amend
Commissioner Pfeil reiterated his previous comment. Two commissioners agreed. Chair Smith clarified that the expectation of Public Works would be a 22’ wide paving with shoulders. The road is currently maintained under the rural road standards. It would have to be built to meet the road standards for paving, however, there is a good base there now. The City just complete the Lakeshore Water/Sewer LID which include a water line down Lampert Lane and some gravel was imported. Backhoe testholes would be recommended to verify the status of the road base.
Mr. Bloom obtained permission to comment briefly. He stated that without the testhole and reconstruction - just the D1 and paving - 125 feet would cost over $10,000. When the City opened up Lampert Lane to Lakeshore Drive, the traffic was increased significantly. Mr. Bloom asked that if the paving is that necessary why wouldn’t it be paved all the way to the existing pavement on Lakeshore Drive.
Public Works Director Meyer advised that a road construction and paving LID was initiated but did not have enough support.
Commissioner Bartlett expressed his opinion saying that it seemed that 125’ of paving is unreasonable. He believed this to be a public thoroughfare and supported an LID shared by all of the property owners. The current recommendation seemed to be an additional burden to pub on a development. He voiced his support for requiring the paving of Lampert Court.
BARTLETT - MOTION TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR PAVING ON LAMPERT LANE FROM OCEAN DRIVE TO LAMPERT COURT INTERSECTION.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Foster stated that he would not vote against this. However, on the record he stated that since the City of Homer is going through the process of reviewing and renewing its general permit and its wetlands mapping, he is opposed to the whole concept of paving or graveling a wetland. He would like the surveyor and developer to consider that.
Chair Smith discussed the paving requirement. He addressed the $1500 additional cost for the paving, acknowledging that it adds to the sale price and makes them more attractive. He agreed with Commissioner Bartlett that the City should not be requiring this.
Commissioner Pfeil addressed Mr. Scruggs comments regarding residences in GC1 saying that the businesses in the zoning would take preference over the residents. This should not be a problem.
Mr. Scruggs gave an example of retail downstairs and residence upstairs and the conflict of a business trying to work while residents want quiet. He expressed his concern about limiting business in this neighborhood. The commission advised that residences, condos, hotel and motels are allowed in this zoning district and that there are residences and condos in the area now. The commission acknowledged Mr. Scrugg’s concerns as valid and is one thing the commission looks at in a conditional use permit.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, SMITH, BARTLETT, FOSTER.
ABSTAIN: HESS (conflict of interest)
Motion carried.
Chair called for a recess at 8:51 pm and reconvened the meeting at 9:02 pm.
The Commission hears a report
from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning
issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff,
applicants, and the public.
A. Staff Report PL 04-10 Re: Homer City Council Resolution 04-13(A) – A Resolution of the City Council of Homer, Alaska, Providing Input to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Regarding the Borough Comprehensive Plan.
City Planner McKibben reviewed
the staff report. Recommendation: The Homer Advisory Planning Commission
should review and forward comments to the Homer City Council.
Commissioner Foster advised that he had been approached by Tom Clark of Anchor Point regarding Item #10. (Item #10 That the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the City of Homer enter into an “area of city impact agreement” to promote the orderly development of land within one mile of Homer City limits. Because land in the area of “city impact” is in direct proximity to the City of Homer, it is an area in which growth and development is expected to occur and have future impact on the City of Homer. Proposed changes to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan which would include a proposed “impact area” surround the City of Homer where Management of land uses is jointly approved by the Homer City Council and the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly.) He said he explained to Mr. Clark the Commission’s concern, not knowing whether the area at the corner of Diamond Ridge and Sterling was a mile from Homer. However, he used that as an example along with the development just past that. He said that Mr. Clark then understood a little more about it. Commissioner Foster suggested that regarding Item #3 there be an addition or a separate #4 to adopt zoning regulations that support maintaining the economic benefits from recreation and tourism through maintaining aesthetic resources so that they support the attractiveness of bringing people to this area. (Item #3 That the KPB recognize the economic benefits from Lower Peninsula recreation and tourism to the entire Kenai Peninsula, and aggressively market this industry as a year-round activity.)
Chair Smith brought up the possibility of postponing this issue noting that the Borough schedule for their Comprehensive Plan is to gear up in July and would be taking comments in August and September. He added that he thought the urgency of getting these comments on the record was in regard to the school district issue.
The Commission discussed the wording in Item #3 with concern that it specifically addresses the Lower Peninsula; it is a Borough wide Comprehensive Plan and that Seward or Kenai might take exception to this. Conversely, it was noted that it is in Homer’s best interest to look out for Homer. It was suggested that the wording be that tourism be aggressively marketed without specifying any particular region or area of the Borough. A comment was made that what is good for Homer is good for the Borough.
The Commission expressed displeasure at having a short period of time to respond with feedback. They commented that they appreciated the Council affording them the opportunity to forward comments but that they didn’t have the time to work on this.
Item #5 was discussed by the Commission. (Item #5 That the KPB require developers to construct roads to borough standards prior to subdivision within the development area.) They noted that usually the roads are constructed in conjunction with the subdivision and not prior to the subdivision. Some suggestions to change the wording included - “prior to development of the subdivision” and “prior to sale of the lots in the subdivision” and insert the words “lot development” after subdivision and delete the remainder of the sentence or just say “That the KPB require developers to construct roads to Borough standards.” The last suggestion was to insert after prior to...“final recording of the subdivision plat” ... and delete the remainder of the sentence. Support was voiced for this wording.
The commission reviewed the subdivision improvements section in the Homer City Code.
It was noted by the commission that the wording the City presented would be changed by the contractor to create the proper verbiage to fit the format of the Comprehensive Plan however the intent would be there and it’s important to make sure the intent is clear.
FOSTER/HESS - MOVE TO TELL THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE APPROVE OF THESE 10 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOROUGH WITH THE AMENDMENT TO #5 TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO ‘FINAL RECORDING OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT’.
Discussion included a comment that this needed more thought process than five minutes in front of the Commission. The suggestion was made that there be more time to develop something that’s meaningful or ask “upstairs” to work on it and send it back to the Commission with their recommendations. Staff advised that this would not be the only opportunity for the Commission to comment on this subject and Chair Smith commented that there would be a hearing with the Borough.
The Commission discussed recommending changes to Item #3. They decided not to recommend changes.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, SMITH, FOSTER, CHESLEY
NO: HESS, BARTLETT
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed
the staff report. Recommendation:
The Homer Advisory Planning Commission should review, amend and forward to
public hearing.
The Planning Commission continued where they left off at the worksession- review of the Design Manual. Chair Smith discussed with the commission a list of suggested edits from Commissioner Hess. Edits were discussed as follows:
- Page 147 of the packet - clarified the wording on line 112.
- Discussed placing a preamble that explains that this information is taken from the existing code.
- Line 140 -eliminate section called Landscaping and Paving Review and the final Landscape Plan.
- Discussed paving requirements
- Line 151- a master sign plan definition discussed
- Line 177-179 Discussed surrounding building design requirements
- Discussed comments in the email from Gordon Thompson, Architect –
o Commission’s landscaping requirements were not enough
o Commission should require more landscaping. Currently stands at 10%.
o Discussed definitions of cantilever designs and long low wall plains
o Discussed item 4 - using certain materials for building, ie corrugated metal
City Planner McKibben agreed to put the manual in proper format.
The Commission discussed fence designs – chain link, coated chain link, conditional uses, fencing requirements regarding heights.
Chair Smith offered to talk to the architect for the library.
Commissioner Foster recommended that Commissioner Hess investigate a larger percentage for the landscaping and entertain the plant size recommendations. Commissioner Hess agreed to, but then advised he was leaving town so he took it back.
Commissioner Bartlett asked about having an appeals process in writing somewhere. The commission discussed having an appeal for requiring the traffic analysis. In the conditional use process it is appeal-able to the Board of Adjustment, then goes to the Superior Court. They discussed adding an E. in the chapters regarding adding the ability for someone to prove that they didn’t need to do a traffic analysis. Further, the commission wanted to be clear that the developers traffic study would not be accepted in lieu of the required city traffic analysis. They talked about having an avenue for the developer to prove their Traffic Impact Analysis. Chair Smith read Chapter 21.68 - Appeals and discussed the current process. The commission decided not to add anything further to the code to provide further avenues for appeal.
Chair Smith advised that he would work on illustrations for the design manual.
Commissioner Hess provided the extra definitions to Chair Smith.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
Commissioner Foster reported that they had been spending time on changing duplication names of streets within the Borough. He was glad to hear the comment tonight regarding duplicate street names. He advised that some streets have five names the same and that some people are coming in with good historic reasons as to why their name should be maintained. He added that it’s been interesting. Recently the commission changed names that were the same in Seldovia and Kenai. There were several streets with very close names. Commissioner Foster stated that the commission is dealing with roads in which the name changes as you drive along.
PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT
City Planner McKibben advised that Dan Burden, of Walkable Communities, would be here Friday night to give a presentation. Dowl Engineers[1] will be here this week to address. She encouraged the commission to attend. Ms. McKibben commented on the trailer on Bonanza Street. She advised it is something the staff is working on. One trailer is not within the required setback, however, it cannot be moved due to the current soil conditions, therefore the City allowed them to go ahead and hook up with the condition that they move the trailer when conditions allow. She added that this was a health and safety issue and that the property owners are making a strong effort to comply.
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. Memo from Clerk’s Office dated
2/12/04 re: Open Meeting Act
B. Planning Commissioner’s Corner: How to Turn a Public Hearing Into a Lynch
Mob in Ten Easy Steps.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may
address the Commission on any subject.
The Chair may prescribe time limits.
There were none
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Hess commented on the subdivision before the commission while he sat out. He stated that he would like to find out - and requested staff to contact the city attorney - what the authority of the Public Works Director, the Planning Staff or the Planning Commission is on requirements such as the paving requirements on PL 04-09, so the commission can get some clarification.
There was lengthy discussion regarding the authority of the commission to make such requirements. The Policy Manual was consulted. The Design Criteria Manual was consulted.
Commissioner Hess cautioned the Commission and asked that they carefully look at the recommendations they are receiving and look at their authority to apply those recommendations for a subdivision plat or for any action they can take.
Commissioner Bartlett asked that the question of authority be asked on his behalf of the City Attorney. He didn’t think Commissioner Hess should ask because he has a conflict of interest, therefore asking would also be a conflict of interest.
Commissioner Hess withdrew his request for an opinion from the City Attorney.
Commissioner Chesly commented that the Commission has very little training on platting issues and they often look to Chair Smith for the lead on this because he’s the most experienced. He added that he didn’t hear any negative comments, at which point Chair Smith advised that this is an issue he hasn’t researched. Commissioner Chesley and Commissioner Bartlett supported getting an opinion from the City Attorney for guidance in consideration of future plats.
Commissioner Hess addressed the comments by Mr. Griswold saying they seemed pretty valid. Chair Smith advised that he had Mr. Griswold’s comments and would go through all of them.
Commissioner Pfeil had no comment.
Commission Foster commented that at the Borough prior to allowing public testimony the chair reads a set statement about time limits and he thought that maybe it’s appropriate to have a time limit. He added that a standardized time would look like the commission wasn’t picking on one person.
Chair Smith offered that he tries to work through it, but sometimes it doesn’t work.
Commissioner Foster reminded everyone that March 17th is the first day of the Coastal Erosion Dynamic Workshop. They invited a list of 30+ people including the city councils of Homer and Kenai and the Borough Assembly and three slots for each City beyond the City Manager for staff. Due to space constraints, Commissioner Foster is the only Borough Planning Commission member attending. He wanted to extend invitations the others along the coast, but he especially wanted to invite the Homer Planning Commission to the meeting on the 18th which is a working meeting where they take the information on science and erosion and look at developing policies, where they go and what type of research is needed. Dr. Foster added that Senator Stevens said that all the Cities and Boroughs should come to the table and discuss policies of erosion and flood plains planning, although he was emphasizing the impacts of the north coast communities. They will get an opinion from Christy Miller to get something written. He repeated his invitation to the Commission to attend the workshop on the 17th and the 18th.
Commissioner Foster referred to the discussion regarding the differing caps for the various zones and confirmed that the draft would be voted on Tuesday. He asked for comments from Commissioner Hess before he left.
Commissioner Bartlett confirmed the next meeting with the Hockey Association is next Wednesday starting at 6:30 p.m. at the Flex School. He asked staff if there was any further information on their plan. Ms. McKibben advised that she would be meeting with Ron on Friday morning.
Commissioner Hess clarified and confirmed how many square feet an owner could have for separate businesses in the same building.
Commissioner Bartlett advised that he mirrored Mr. Griswold’s statement that having everything in effect is great but enforcement is an absolute necessity. He realized this is baby steps but this gets it started. He commented that the Chamber of Commerce put out a comment sheet on the finished language and they have expressed concern that the Commission review this in context to the final form. He added that the commission might want to look at that when reviewing the final language. He noted that there was no one speaking on it tonight, therefore they don’t have a problem with it or are still reading it and would be at the next meeting. He didn’t perceive a problem and just wanted to give the commission a heads-up.
Commissioner Chesley asked staff to look at the East End Road sign for the mini-storage development. He added that the sign needs to be addressed before it becomes an issue in that district. He asked that the sign be looked at in relation to the signs for cluster businesses. He further asked staff to check into the banner on Cosmic Kitchen. He added that this is a problem around here with Coke banners, etc. Mr. Chesley advised that at the next meeting he would bring up building material storage for lumber yards. He will bring an official request to the Planning Commission to look at that. Mr. Chesley further asked what the progress was on contacting the hot tub business. He had observed smoke coming out of the model sitting out front today. Commissioner Hess interjected that the commission had not addressed “burning signs”.
Commission Chelsey commented on the experience together with Commission Hess. This has happened twice now - one other time with himself. He added that he is learning that there is a good potential with the composition of the commission and the varied interests, it’s likely that any one of the commissioners will be sitting in the audience on a given incident. He suggested that the commission develop a standard of behavior so that if things don’t go the way the commissioner wants that they back off for 24 hours and do not present themselves as being more knowledgeable than the collective body or whatever. He asked that everyone understand the process and work with the process and do things that promote the cohesiveness as a team and not create situations that could divide the commission. He expressed his feeling that no one on the commission is trying to do things that would harass or impede development, however, not everyone likes what they say. He asked that everyone be sensitive to each other and as individuals coming before the commission be sensitive to the body and again that the commission focuses on team-building and try to understand the roles as best as possible.
Commissioner Foster advised that in his experience with the Borough there are a number of times when people have to recuse themselves. He commented on the power that people have. When a person steps down there is still a lot of power when there is something that is important to the person. This is no something one can forget. Dr. Foster agreed with taking the 24 hour breath because one is inclined to agree even though they are not supposed to - it is subliminal.
Chair Smith asked Commissioner Hess for his input on the square footage. He discussed traffic impact in Homer. He explained traffic gets moved around and new traffic is not created. As far as the cap, he stated that he has a tendency to go up a little bit. In the CBD he would go up. He is in favor of the Ocean Drive being the same as the CBD. He could live with 5-10 thousand more in the CG2 and CG1 areas. He asked to think about it more and email the numbers.
Commissioner Bartlett expressed his thoughts on the traffic impact. He explained - If a Fred Meyer came into town and opened a grocery some would say that the traffic would not increase because there would be the same people following in the same circle. He would follow along with that. He did not believe that Fred Meyer in the long run would end up being the primary grocery the entire time. He believed that Fred Meyer would change over into general merchandise in the first year after the development takes place. When that changes, the argument for traffic shifting is out the window, because general merchandise would bring in outlaying area traffic on a constant basis. He stated that this is what he projects and what he believes will happen.
Chair Smith addressed a problem with
a subdivision on Ocean Drive having their lots listed in acreage and the code
expresses lot sizes in square feet. He
called for a consistent reference. Mr.
Smith commented on having the traffic engineer figure a scenario of traffic
impacts if there were streetlights at the intersections in question on the Sterling
Highway. He speculated that the feeder
streets would have a lower impact and the main highway would have a higher
impact. He added that the report is
called a Street Capacity Report.
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 10:47 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 3, 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. There is a Special Commission Meeting on February 24, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. with a work session prior to the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
_____________________________________
DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: ____________________________