Session
04-05 Special Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by
Chair Smith at 7:08 p.m. on February 24, 2004, at Homer City Hall, Council
Chambers, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.
A Work Session was held from 6 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, CHESLEY, PFEIL, CELENTANO
ABSENT: HESS
(excused)
STAFF: DEPUTY CITY CLERK BENSON
CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
A quorum is required to
conduct a meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
All
items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the
Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless
requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public, in which case
the item will be moved to the regular agenda and considered in normal
sequence.
A. Time
Extension Requests
B. Approval
of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C. KPB
Coastal Management Program Reports
D.
Commissioner Excused Absences
The agenda was approved by consensus.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission
approves minutes, with any amendments.
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 none.
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 04-12 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.
Larry Slone, resident, made several comments with regard to specific elements within the ordinance. His first comment was directed at page 44 of the packet, 41.48.0701c regarding nuisance standards, particulate matter. He read from the draft quoting “highest and best” and stated that this was too stringent of a requirement. For an example, he stated that the best might cost $100,000 whereby the next caliber down might only cost $10,000. The $10,000 piece of equipment may suffice in removing 90% of the particular matter whereas the $100,000 unit may only remove 91%. He said he thought this may be too much of a burden on the applicant and he would change the phrase to insert “high quality”, so it would say all facilities would be designed and operated using “high quality” emission control equipment. Mr. Slone’s second comment referred to page 85 of the packet, #4 under the Conditional Use Ordinance 21.61.105f4, community and economic report required of the large retail stores where it says “the project shall minimize the adverse impact on effected business community”. He pointed out that the definition of adverse impact is found under 21.32.017, which states that any deleterious effect on the waters or wetlands which is harmful to property and makes no reference to economic impacts. He expressed his opinion stating that the adverse effect may be misused in this context. If it was not misused, he stated that he still thought that if the phrase were to apply otherwise then it would be inappropriate. He added that if the commission were suggesting that any adverse impact on the economic conditions or viability of other stores in the CBD were going to be modified by this, then the obvious way not to have an adverse impact would be not to have the store in the first place. He stated that this statement is too broad and needs to be further defined or removed altogether.
Mr. Slone further commented on the maximum size allowed in the Central Business District. He stated that the maximum cap for the retail wholesale store was set at 30,000 square feet in the CBD, however, it was qualified by making sure that the store would have to comply with conditional use requirements. He added that he felt the conditional use requirements are quite stringent. They address the situation of the environment and the situation in regard to storm run off and traffic patterns. That being the case, he didn’t see why that should be the basis for putting a maximum limit on the size of the store. If Fred Meyer wants to put in a 35,000 sf store and if their plan can adjust the situations based on the conditional use requirements and they think it’s only economically feasible for them to put in a store that’s 45,000 square feet, then that should be up to them. Mr. Slone commented on the fact that Homer would be growing and that there would be larger consumer demands on the stores and if we don’t allow a higher cap at this point later on we would have to be faced with it again. He recommended at least a 45,000 square foot cap for the Central Business District. Mr. Slone acknowledged the large amount of work and compilation of information from a lot of different sources. He advised that his perspective is that this had been a very convoluted process and had been difficult for him to follow what the justifications or reasons have been for any particular aspect or segment of the proposal. Therefore, he suggested an informal town meeting within the next 10 days if possible to have commissioners and staff sit down with the public to explain the reasons and answer questions to bring everyone up to date without the techno-speak.
Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Slone to clarify his recommendation of the 45,000 square foot cap. Mr. Slone explained that what he was thinking was inserting 45,000 square feet where the commission currently has 30,000. For the whole building size, Mr. Slone suggested 60,000 square feet.
Chair Smith commented as a point of information that most of the nuisance standards were imported word for word from the GC1 section, i.e. particulate matter has been in the code since 1982 and it hasn’t forced anyone out of business yet. Further he pointed out that the word “practical” is contained therein.
Joel Cooper thanked the commission for taking his testimony and stated that he lives within the Bridge Creek Watershed protection district. He thanked the commission for their hard work. He sat on the task force last year and saw everything the commission had been working on. He commented that the commission had done a great job and he wished he could have provided more input during the time they were working on it. Mr. Cooper commented on the size limits saying that he still recommends 20,000 and 25,000 throughout all districts. He stated that no matter how big Homer gets it could develop with this size standard; that large stores are not the answer to everything. The smaller stores would create a more realistic economy. Large stores end up with a lot in the landfill versus quality stores bringing in quality products. Mr. Cooper addressed buffers within the standards saying he didn’t see any buffer limits along the streams like there is in the Bridge Creek Watershed Ordinance. He said he thought there should be a buffer of 50’ with an allowance down to 25’ with a conditional use permit. He gave an example in New Jersey of a Commission that just adopted an ordinance that had a 200’ buffer within their zone. He expressed his opinion that buffers can be realistic within a city area and is needed to protect the water quality. He stated that keeping the riparian area in tact and minimizing stream crossings were the best ways to maintain the water quality. He recommended bridges versus culverts for stream crossings. He added that recently in his work he learned of a stream being used as a drinking water source and that he felt all of the streams are drinking water sources and should be considered just like the watershed. Mr. Cooper commented that Homer has the intelligence and technology to do this; just that there is no economic will to protect the streams. He encouraged buffer limits. He also encouraged the commission to put limits on the impervious coverage on a watershed basis. Given the way the City is right now, he recommended starting at the 10% level. He reiterated minimizing the number of stream crossings. He suggested using the Town Square Project, the Pratt Museum work and Woodard Creek as a model and try to replicate it within the more heavily impacted areas within the City. Mr. Cooper noted in definitions regarding “native material”, that he found no definition. However, there is a definition for “native vegetation” which he found to be too loosely worded. Regarding “direct discharge” in definitions, he commented that it is addressed in tidal and wetlands but not in streams and he felt it should be there. Mr. Cooper addressed the requirement for having a plan prior to land clearing with a limit of 10,000 square feet. He said he’d like to have a plan prior to any clearing to avoid wiping out land with an impact on the vegetation and streams on the property. He encouraged less impact on the land and expressed his opposition to scraping it clean. He expressed his appreciation for all the work the commission has done.
Jennifer Edwards thanked the commission for all their time, effort, research and energy and thanked Joel Cooper for reading this three times. Ms. Edwards advised that she had just skimmed the document and that she thought smaller was better. She said she thought large businesses would threaten the existing small businesses. She didn’t want to see small businesses lose what they have going, but also she didn’t want empty storefronts - the ones at Safeway are ugly. Ms. Edwards expressed her opinion that in addition to the size limit the aesthetics are really important including the light glare. She voiced her appreciation for the lighting aesthetics in the ordinance. She added that Homer doesn’t need lots of lights on all the time. She addressed buffers saying she was not supportive of paving paradise. She talked about pedestrian traffic and sidewalks saying that it’s important to interface with other members of the community that are looking at developing Homer. This would take more time, energy and collaboration to bring this all together for Homer’s future. Ms. Edwards addressed the economic analysis requirements saying she’d like an independent analysis done by someone not on either side that has the expertise and the ability at the expense of the developer. She cautioned that she felt the company doing the analysis should be screened, interviewed and selected by the commission, the council and the developer to be assured that there is no bias or favoritism. She added that this isn’t something new, that other communities face this same challenge.
Commission Foster inquired if Ms. Edwards had a number in mind as a cap. She responded that she thought Save-U-More was “horrendous”, therefore she would go with 20,000 that Joel talked about for the CBD. She suggested raising it another 5 or 10 thousand for outside. She reminded everyone that a bigger footprint for a store brings a bigger parking area. She said she thought that considering traffic patterns and pedestrian traffic considerations was a good thing.
Commission Chelsey clarified the impact analysis requirements addressed in the local newspaper. He said that the paper almost got it right and explained as follows: a councilmember asked that the Planning Commission conduct an economic analysis to justify their square foot size cap which was set aside by the council. However, the economic impact analysis is still in the standards therefore the City would be contracting with an independent economic analyst to analyze a proposed development by a developer. It was only one councilmember that had a concern that the commission backup the number they chose from an exclusively economic point of view.
Larsen Klingel thanked the commission for the work they did. He expressed his concern about the economic impact tool in the proposal. He stated that he would like to see a gross business tax for all businesses that would kick in at a certain level of sales, i.e. $2 million, as a tool to not drive small businesses out of business. Mr. Klingel commented that there is a severe impact and difference between a dollar spent at eagle versus a dollar spent at the Homer Book Store. There is a much larger economic bang from the City perspective if that dollar is spent in a smaller business. He stated that square footage is important, however, it doesn’t matter if a store such as Fred Meyer comes in with a 10,000 square foot store. They have the economic capital to run the store at a loss until the competition is gone; then control the market. He used the Soldotna Fred Meyer store as an example saying that the significant amount of sales tax revenue gives them undo leverage. Mr. Klingel suggested a 3% business tax for gross sales over $2 million. He said thought it was legal as long as it applied to all businesses and this is what he’d like to see happen.
At the request of Commissioner Foster, Mr. Klingel explained what he meant in his letter to the commission regarding a permitted system similar to taxi cabs. Mr. Klingel stated that an owner can’t just start up a cab business in Anchorage. They have a limit on how many cab companies are allowed. By comparison, he explained that Homer could set up what is a reasonable amount of retail space and once that cap is hit a new owner would have to buy a segment of the existing retail space from an existing owner. Mr. Klingel referred to the UA studies specifically Bainbridge who does this same thing - allows a certain amount of square footage for big box. He added that this is a wise tool. In answer to Commissioner Foster’s question, Mr. Klingel stated that the maximum square footage allowed would be arrived at by using the population and figuring what a community of this size could support by looking at the demographics. Homer knows what their population is and does not have to consider people from Soldotna coming to Homer to Safeway to buy groceries, so those figures would be easy. Mr. Klingel suggested taking the population of 10 square miles and dividing it by the number of retail square feet and seeing where it stands on a sustainable basis and not letting it exceed that other than for an adjustment for population. During tourism time, the business would make a little more profit - no big deal. Mr. Klingel stated that the City is in business with the businesses in the City; the City benefits when the businesses in the City are profitable. He gave an example: If Fred Meyer came in and Lakeside Mall becomes empty, Homer has gained nothing. All that’s happened is a shift of economic activity from the Lakeside Mall to the new store. That’s what happened when Eagle came in and the Lakeside Mall sat empty for a lot of years. Nothing was added; just shifted.
David Stutzer commented on the proposal saying he thought that the commission had done a lot of work and in general had a pretty good plan. Mr. Stutzer voiced his support for the numbers the commission chose. He said he thought that Eagle and Ulmers were about the size stores he was looking at to make a maximum that he could live with. He expressed his concern that a large building was always associated with large parking lots and he was happy to see the requirements for buffers. He said that to him this was new to Homer and he thought it was great. Mr. Stutzer noted that there were architectural standards and he voiced his support for that saying this was something he’s wanted ever since he moved here. He called it “long overdue” and applauded the commission for putting it in there. Mr. Stutzer expressed his concern regarding a process for limitation and enforcement.
Commissioner Celentano left the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to take her young children home.
Mr. Stutzer commented that this was a great plan. He referred to runoff, impact on neighbors and lighting as something he hadn’t seen before and was really good. He shared that when he traveled he noticed lighting and commented that Hawaii was very sensitive to lighting because of their telescopes. The light was there for safety but there’s not a lot of light going into the sky. Mr. Stutzer commented on the definitions. He did not understand in the stand alone business under 23.32.471 where it said “if the business establishments share entrances, excluding mall entrances”. He asked if they were saying that a mall is a bunch of little separate businesses and each one could be the maximum. He stated that if there were confusion someone would exploit the confusion and this was why he was bringing it up. He asked the commission to be clear in their intent so they could explain it to the lawyer. He stated that he was happy with the size caps.
Chair Smith advised at this point that the City lawyer wrote that. By way of explanation he used the Diamond Center mall as an example saying that the mall entrance is separate from all of the different businesses as opposed to the Fred Meyer in Soldotna that has the jewelry store and a pharmacy within the same shopping environment. He further explained that the total amount of retail in the same building under the same ownership is an issue even if they have separate entrances. Mr. Klingel stated that he liked the size the commission set. His concern was that one owner would be allowed to have several businesses of 20,000 sf under the same roof. He further commented that from an aesthetics point of view and the tone it sets for the community size makes a difference however, he said that if Fred Meyer owns the building there would be a problem whether it’s 10,000 or 50,000 because they have capital and can run other businesses out by operating at a loss. Mr. Klingel voiced his opinion that for him the question was how big the wallet was behind the business, therefore he supported a gross business tax.
Jenny Stroyeck advised that she is not a city resident, however, is a part owner of a business and property in the City. She commented that she should live in the city because decisions are being made that affect her property and life and she would like to be able to vote on them. She added that she did vote to be annexed! She thanked the commission for all the time they’ve given from their lives. She acknowledged the incredible amount of time spent and advised that the commission had done a very good job. Ms. Stroyeck voiced her support for 20,000 sf cap with 25,000 for the add-on in the Central Business District (CBD) and a little bit higher out of the CBD. She advised that her motivation for the cap in the CBD was as follows: She attended the Dan Burden Walk-able Communities presentation. She described slides she saw. One slide was of a long straight six lane road with power above ground and no sidewalks; every store one after the other was a box, many with clear corporate logos on them, with large parking lots in the front; one tree; and one pedestrian stuck on an island in the middle of traffic. Ms. Stroyeck said she and the audience envisioned this as something Homer could have on the Bypass. The next slide was only four lanes of traffic with green buffers between the traffic and pedestrians; there were planters and trees; there were benches along the sidewalk; the crosswalks were paved different than the street and easily identified; the businesses were “human scale architecture” - the windows were different on each building, there were nicely letter artistic signs on the windows and doors; there were pedestrians on the streets and sitting on the benches and window shopping; the traffic appeared to be traveling unimpeded. After seeing this slide, Ms. Stroyeck advised that everyone thought this was what Homer wants. She voiced her support for landscaping and buffers and public space. She expressed her appreciation of the commission supporting public space and noted that she has observed people at her business standing on the porch talking and that this is an important part of life and in keeping with a small town. She commended the commission for including corporate colors as signage. She expressed her pleasure at seeing the attention given to traffic because there is a lot of development coming to Homer that is not retail/wholesale - the library, bigger college campus, and a hockey rink that would all affect traffic. When all added together, she said the traffic has a potential of becoming a serious consideration. She noted that there were a lot of specific standards and a lot of “teeth” in the Conditional Use Permits process. She lived in Anchorage for 12 years and a CUP didn’t mean a thing there because there were no specifics or standards to back it up. She thanked the commission for all their time and effort.
Sue Post commented that she is not a resident and is a part owner of a business in town. She thanked the commission for all their hard work. She had sat on the beginning project of this and expressed her admiration and appreciation for the work the commission had done to follow through. Ms. Post testified that she thought that the people who come to Homer are here because they like the size, quaintness and independent feeling, rather than the corporate feel. She added that this is why the commission keeps seeing the faces that they do at the meetings. She referred to a Fred Meyer representative’s comment made last year that if City’s had the standards and guidelines in place, they would build to suit those. Without standards they would build what they wanted and she has seen that in Anchorage and Wasilla and Soldotna and Anytown, USA. She advised that this bothers her and she would like to see Homer remain independent and unique. She commented that the aesthetics are a very important part of these standards and she would like to see the buildings come down to less than 8,000 square feet and be applied to any new building in town. She specifically stated that a current building smaller than 5,000 sf with snow on it is not something she wanted more of. Ms. Post acknowledged that Homer is growing and needing more competition and more stores. She added that she didn’t see a need for a store larger than 20,000 or 25,000 in the CBD. Other things are happening within the CBD (Hockey Rink - Library - Trails) and traffic is already a problem and would continue to be more of a problem if large retail were not limited. She would like to see a cap at 30,000 or 25,000 outside the CBD. Further, she would like to see a cap per lot. Ms. Post commented on the standards and expressed her appreciation for the consideration for the environment, ie water, buffers, aesthetics, public spaces, trail, etc. She again thanked the commission.
Marla McPherson commented that she is a non-resident however she knows people in Homer. She advised that she has stuck with the 20,000 sf size all along. She could go with 25,000 if there were more than one store in the facility. She addressed comments that there are larger stores than that in the community already and it’s not fair, by saying that she didn’t think Homer should look back and base this on what already exists - Homer should look forward and state what is wanted. She further commented that there were not standards before and there are standards now to correct things to make a better scenario. She added that what exists now is not so far from what would be created that it would create an inequality in competition. She voiced her agreement with Mr. Cooper on the buffer requirements. She expressed support for 50’ and 25’ with a Conditional Use Permit with extra mitigation measures where there are no other options. She shared that she had walked across the bridge at Islands and Oceans and stated that she would like to see more of that versus culverts in the streams. Ms. McPherson voiced her support for replacing culverts with bridges. She addressed aesthetics saying it sounded like there was a lot in there and that lighting was something she was sensitive to. She voiced support for signs that have directional lighting versus signs that are lighted from within like at Petro Express and Arby’s. Regarding impervious surfaces, she expressed support for green spaces and “broken up pavement” and as much natural vegetation as possible. She concluded by saying that as much natural vegetation left in tact as possible is best.
Eva Saulitis, a newly annexed resident, thanked the commission for all their work and expressed her appreciation for how the commission responds to public input - attentive, receptive and respectful of other people’s views and opinions. She voiced her support for the 20,000 sf cap in all of the districts. She explained saying that her concern is with the future of the small business community. She relayed a conversation she had with an owner of a very popular small business in Homer who told her of the struggle she goes through to keep the business going. Ms. Saulitis noted that there are two health food stores in town. She shared that those two businesses are working together so they can both survive in the community. She noted the economic impact study in the standards that asks “how will such a project minimize adverse impact on the affected business community”. She rhetorically asked, how could it? Would Fred Meyers be willing to sit down with local storeowners and discuss how they will mitigate the impact on them and keep them in business? Ms. Saulitis shared that a new resident to town took a class at the college and was excited about opening a small business. After researching the project as part of her class she was discouraged enough that she decided not to try a small business. Ms. Saulitis stated that she didn’t see how Homer could bring the large retail stores and hope to keep small business owners going. She wanted to know if the recommendations had anything in them about energy efficiency and said she would like to see that addressed since we are in Alaska. She voiced her support for aesthetics standards and environmental standards to be applied to all buildings and said that an 8,000 sf building can be just as ugly as a 50,000 sf building. She thanked the commission for all their work.
Ms. McPherson voiced her support for the size limits she gave for all districts and smaller on the Spit.
Joel Cooper voiced support for what Ms. Saulitis said about energy use.
Eva Saulitis pointed out that the library is working with a design that conserves energy.
Chair Smith inquired how energy use ties in to the purpose allowed for the commission to regulate the private properties.
As a group the audience commented that energy conservation would tie into the health and welfare of the people by creating cleaner air and clean water.
Chair Smith called for a recess at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:27 p.m.
The commission continued their review and
changes to the draft ordinance where they left off at the worksession;
-
Discussed the
location and format of the definitions.
-
Native
vegetation and natural vegetation definitions were reviewed - no changes made
-
Addressed
Commissioner Hess’ letter regarding landscaping percentages
-
Changed number
of parking spaces in ratio to buffer widths in landscaping requirements
-
Reviewed at
length adding 15’ and/or 25’ minimum requirement of natural vegetative buffer
along streams or drainages
- Discussed going to 15% of the lot area minimum landscaping for large retail and in the design standards
Chair Smith called for a break at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:53 p.m.
- Discussed building size- the chair took a poll of the commission
o Changing building size in CBD - failed.
o Changing building size in GC1 not adjacent to Ocean Drive - failed.
o Changing building size in GC1 East End road - there was some support.
o Changing building size in GC2 - there was some support.
The commission discussed different areas in GC1 and came up with an understanding of the boundaries to each.
They settled on CG1 Ocean Drive being 30,000 - 35,000 sf. There was discussion surrounding dividing CG1 into sections. The history is that Ocean Drive used to be the only area for GC1, but now there are three areas with GC1 zoning. They are not described as separate districts. The future gateway and scenic overlay influences were discussed.
CHESLEY/FOSTER - MOTION TO CLASSIFY THE GC1 DISTRICT OF WHICH OCEAN DRIVE GOES THROUGH AS THE OCEAN DRIVE GC1 DISTRICT
Commissioner Chesley clarified that this district would not be just the properties adjacent to Ocean Drive, but all GC1 property in that area.
There was discussion on what would be done with the GC1 area at the top of Baycrest Hill.
Commissioner Chesley and Commissioner Bartlett made a friendly amendment to the motion to add - TO RECOGNIZE THE GC1 AREA AT THE TOP OF BAYCREST HILL AS SCENIC GATEWAY GC1 WITH A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT CAP AND FURTHER RECOGNIZE THE GC1 DISTRICT SOUTH OF BELUGA LAKE AS OCEAN DRIVE GC1 WITH A 30,000/35,000 CAP AND RECOGNIZE GC1 AREAS EAST OF ALDER LANE AS EAST ROAD GC1 WITH A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT CAP.
Chair Smith suggested that the description of the separate GC1 districts be placed in the definitions therefore allowing for just using the phrase in the body of the code. City Planner McKibben expressed apprehension for placing the descriptions in the definitions to create a district. There was discussion on whether or not the commission was creating districts at this point. Ms. McKibben explained that the commission would be creating sub-districts by changing the rules in each one and the definitions might not be the proper procedure for that. Chair Smith noted that there have been areas in the past that are in the code that call for different treatment without map amendments; Main Street allows car related uses by describing a particular area; Sterling Highway used to have a limit in the height and size of signs without defining it as a special area. Ms. McKibben expressed her opinion that the districts should be tied down a little more, especially Ocean Drive because the commission has previously identified it as the adjacent properties to Ocean Drive in the landscaping section. Chair Smith commented that this area had also been described as the GC1 area south of Beluga Lake and Ms. McKibben agreed that this was probably descriptive enough to use.
Commissioner Foster expressed his appreciation for the scenic gateway wording entering Homer, however he noted that the East Road people enter Homer from the east gateway and voiced his support for 30,000/35,000 sf in the East Road district. He added that he could support the 40,000 sf cap if it didn’t go higher.
Commissioner Pfeil voiced his support for the larger cap on East Road GC1.
Chair Smith voiced support for the Scenic Gateway GC1 and the Ocean Drive GC1 cap, and for a 50,000 cap in the East Road industrial area.
Commissioner Bartlett noted that there was no GC2 in Study Area 8 - East Road - that it was all GC1 and voiced his support for a little higher cap there of 45,000 to 50,000 square feet.
BARTLETT/CHELSEY - (secondary amendment) MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO 45,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE EAST ROAD GC1.
There was some discussion about how this fits with the existing language. If there were to be a single limit the last sentence would probably read “the total square feet of the area of all retail/wholesale business within a single building shall not exceed ...” and then the square footage where there is a single size.
Commissioner Foster pointed out that there were eight people who testified earlier that the cap size should be at least the same or no higher in the outlying districts in the CBD and two people the previous night testified the same. He didn’t see a need to jump up to 45,000.
Commissioner Pfeil noted that the GC1 district definition read that it is “intended to provide sites for businesses that require direct motor vehicle access and may require large land area that would be needed in the CBD”. He added that there is a need for larger retail/wholesale business and voiced his support of the higher cap.
VOTE: YES: (secondary amendment ) PFEIL, SMITH, BARTLETT, CHESLEY
NO: FOSTER
Motion carried.
No further discussion.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, SMITH, BARTLETT
NO: FOSTER
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/PFEIL - (main motion) MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND FORWARD THEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THEIR APPROVAL
The commission noted that there were several changes discussed and agreed on in the worksession.
CHESLEY/FOSTER - MOTION TO ADOPT THE CHANGES MADE AND AGREED ON IN THE WORKSESSION.
There was no discussion
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/FOSTER- MOVE THAT WE AMEND AND ADOPT A RETAIL/WHOLESALE SQUARE FOOT SIZE IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF 20,000 AND 25,000 SQUARE FEET.
The commission referred to page 24 of the worksession packet and discussed the wording changes effected by the motion. Commissioner Chesley commented that this motion came as a result of the public testimony received in both public hearings. Commissioner Foster expressed his concern of bleeding off the CBD into the Eastern Scenic Gateway area, by having such a large cap out there and a 20,000 cap in the CBD. He expressed his appreciation for the small stores in the CBD and added that 4.5 miles is not a significant distance to drive or bike ride out to East End to get to the larger stores. He advised that his feeling was that this would create another business district out East, therefore he could not support this motion. Commissioner Bartlett commented that he didn’t get it - he spent a year of his life looking at standards and then supported the 20,000 sf recommendation suggested a few months ago simply because there weren’t any standards in place. He expressed his opinion that the CBD could support a higher square footage because there are other safeguards in place. He acknowledged testimony at this meeting for a preference of 20,000 sf and that they were not the only ones. He voiced his support for sticking with the original 30,000 - 35,000 square feet and did not support 20,000.
Commissioner Chesley advised that he made the motion to be clear on what numbers the commission supported. He voiced his support for 30,000/35,000 square feet for the CBD. Commissioner Pfeil voiced his support for the 30,000/35,000 square feet.
VOTE: YES:
NO: SMITH, BARTLETT, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion failed.
The commission discussed Item #4 on Page 83 of the worksession packet “the project shall minimize the adverse impact of the affected business community”. There were suggestions to delete the word “adverse” and to expand the definition of adverse impact which would need an amendment because it is drawn too closely to environmental issues and is used in other places in the code. The commission used a scenario for discussion-- a company wanted to build a small warehouse store of 20,000 sf in the CBD; the economic impact analysis was done; it was determined that the project would take away so much from another store that it would was not economically viable. What would the commission do? The commission discussed different options and wording, noted the source of the definition and suggested a more general language.
CHESLEY/BARTLETT -(primary amendment) MOVE TO STRIKE SENTENCE 4 FROM THE ECONOMIC IMPACT
Commissioner Chesley noted Mr. Klingel’s comment that the City is in business with businesses. He expressed his wish for more assistance and guidance on how these things are evaluated and how this plays out in real life. He said he felt like this was a struggle to set a context around and if that’s the case maybe it’s not a good thing to have in the code at this point. He suggested working on language of prescribing mitigation measures, if needed, that might give the commission the tools and not have the same language implications that item 4 does.
Commissioner Bartlett commented that he believed the way this sentence read was contrary to all forms of business practices and also against the comprehensive plan that encourages business. This pits one business against the other by having the evaluation done. He stated that he’d rather not see it in the code here.
Commissioner Pfeil advised that he is a strong believer in free enterprise and would not want to curtail business in any way, however, he said he understood why this was put in.
Commissioner Foster agreed that the terminology under F gave the commission the teeth to prescribe mitigation measures if needed, but he thought it was important that a modification of this sentence to “shall attempt to minimize the adverse impacts” puts it out that the commission is concerned about the health and welfare of the small businesses in the community. Dr. Foster voiced his agreement with free enterprise, however, that goes along with natural selection in which the process is rather ugly but has a likeable end result. He didn’t want to see the empty buildings out there with the adverse impacts of the larger structures, therefore he maintained that some form of the language should be kept - i.e. the project shall attempt to - which would give the intent of it.
FOSTER/PFEIL- MOVE TO AMEND TO DELETE THE SENTENCE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE PROJECT SHALL “ATTEMPT” TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE AFFECTED BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
The commission noted comments made by two members of the public regarding this issue. There were two suggestions for wording changes; amend to “adverse economic impact” and delete “adverse”. Chair Smith reiterated his prior question regarding what the commission would do/say if another fabric store opened and had an impact on an already existing fabric store.
Commissioner Chesley called the question.
VOTE: YES: (amendment to the amendment )FOSTER
NO: BARTLETT, CHESLEY, PFEIL, SMITH
Motion failed.
VOTE: YES: (primary amendment) CHESLEY, SMITH, PFEIL, BARTLETT
NO: FOSTER
Motion carried.
Commissioner Chelsey suggested that the commission ask staff to contact an economic consultant for mitigation measures because that would still come up. It would also be helpful as the Council works on this section. Chair Smith shared that he was hopeful that during the Council’s lengthy consideration of these issues, that if the commission comes across something they felt needed further input they could offer further amendments to the Council.
Commissioner Bartlett commented on the energy efficiency brought up in public testimony saying he didn’t know if it was appropriate to place it into the standards. He said he thought that it should at least go into the design manual and he suggested a statement such as “the developer either shall or is encouraged to explore energy efficient building systems throughout the design, permit and construction process”. He expressed his thoughts that maybe this was something the commission might consider giving credit for and he thought it was a valid point and worth incorporating into the standards somehow.
The commission discussed ways to incorporate the information into the design manual.
Chair Smith called a break at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
The commission discussed the issue of requiring landscaping in established parking lots such as the one at Safeway if they were to remodel (and acknowledged there are other stores in Homer in this same position). Page 85 of the worksession draft states that no more than 50% of the required parking area for the development shall be located between the front facade of the building and the abutting streets or adjacent to arterials. Grandfather rights were discussed and noted they would have to stay inside the existing footprint. Aesthetics in the draft on page 87 states that any building over 60 feet in length shall be broken down into small elements. Buffers in the parking lot was a suggestion or an exchange provision might be doable. Dealing with this issue in the design manual and some possible wording was discussed. It was noted that the commission was trying to get people to restructure their development so it’s not the big parking lot with the big building in the back; that they were trying to promote pedestrian friendly areas by bringing the buildings closer to the sidewalk.
The commission discussed examples of parking lot issues using local business layouts. They further discussed wording that would give the commission some wiggle room in the requirements for special situations. They noted that parking requirements for large businesses who wanted to remodel would be dealt with by the Planning Commission via the CUP process and would be looked at on a case by case basis. There was discussion for putting the 50% requirement in the design manual, however, for the long-term look and feel of Homer it would need to be in the code.
CHESLEY/PFEIL - MOVE TO REWRITE STANDARDS 21.61.105 ITEM 5 PARKING, ITEM C TO READ AS FOLLOWS ‘WHERE PRACTICAL, NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING AREA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING AND THE ABUTTING STREETS OR ADJACENT TO ARTERIALS’
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
The commission noted the time was 10:30 p.m.
The commission acknowledged a set of whereas’s written by City Planner McKibben. They noted that whereas’s are created for the ordinance to show the reasons behind such things as lighting, parking and traffic.
The commission took a break at 10:32 to read through staff’s whereas’s and the chair reconvened the meeting at 10:39 p.m.
Commissioner Bartlett advised that he had a list of suggested whereas’s for the ordinance. He read them into the record “Whereas the commission considered selecting optimum maximum sizes from 20,000 to 50,000 square feet with standards in all commercial zones in 2004. Whereas, the commission considered input from the State of Alaska registered engineers and architects regarding the standards. Whereas, the commission considered standards and size caps as relates to Homer’s future growth and expansion needs versus the property right uses throughout the zoning districts that may create or prevent undo hardships or losses to property owners. Whereas, the commission has considered other design manuals and adopted, formulated its own City of Homer design manual to assist the owner/developer in easier compliance with the new code standards. Whereas, the Planning Commission has considered Title7 of the vehicle and traffic and parking code. Whereas, the zoning districts and zoning maps were considered. Whereas, the Alaska Statute 29.40.40 Land Use Regulations regarding the standards have been considered. Whereas, the commission has considered changes and revisions as outlined in the Homer Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee April 7th outline on input for the statement and standards. Whereas, the commission has considered the Alaska State adopted building codes in consideration of the standards.”
There was a consensus of the commission to add these whereas’s as appropriate.
City Planner McKibben asked to change wording in staff’s whereas’s to the performance standards to “the commission reviewed existing performance standards and standardized them within CBD, GC1, GC2, MC etc”.
There was a consensus of the commission to add staff’s whereas’s as amended.
The commission noted that they have held 26 worksessions, 18 regular meetings and 1 special meeting, a total of 45 meetings, to create this draft ordinance.
Commissioner Bartlett commented that he plans on approving this draft ordinance and acknowledged all the hard work that went into it. He added that he would like to see it expand from wholesale/retail and that he was willing to work on that later on.
Commissioner Foster echoed Commissioner Bartlett’s comments in addition to the same comments made by members of the public.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, FOSTER, SMITH, PFEIL, BARTLETT
NO:
Motion carried.
The
Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the
public. The Commission may ask
questions of staff, applicants and the public.
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.
Chair Smith asked the commissioners to provide him with their comments and edits by next week to get them in the packet on Thursday. He noted that he changed the preamble and moved some “stuff” around in the site development requirements and X’d out cantilevered buildings pursuant to the city attorney’s comments as well as other little changes, but nothing major.
REPORTS
Commissioner Foster reported that he wasn’t present at the meeting however, he contacted six commissioners regarding inviting and paying the way for the Borough Planning Commission to the Coastal Dynamics Workshops. He said he was told that at the last meeting there were a lot of street name changes and that it wasn’t as much fun without him present.
PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT
City Planner McKibben stated that this has been a phenomenal effort. She said she had to admit that being at the meetings has been enjoyable even though it has been a lot of work.
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.
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.
In response to the completion of the draft ordinance, Commissioner Chesley exclaimed, “WOW!” and thanked the commission. He reminded the commission of the meeting with the Hockey Association at 6:30 at the Flex School. He announced that the goal is to finish working through the building requirements and expectations and explaining to the association what’s been adopted and what the commission would be looking for. They would then talk about landscaping, storm water and lighting and other parts of the code. He added that this should finish up with them. He asked staff if there had been progress since meeting with Ron Alderfer.
Ms. McKibben advised that the Hockey Association would have photos of the arena in Kodiak, which illustrates the fascia and the lighting. They have some work to do on the parking and it was helpful for them to hear and understand the kind of information that’s needed to evaluate it because the City’s CUP forms are lacking. She added that when someone applies for something of that magnitude they don’t get the information they need to provide staff the information required to do a good evaluation.
Commissioner Chesley asked to address the signage issue and the building supply indoor storage at the next regular meeting.
Commissioner Bartlett thanked one and all.
Commissioner Foster exclaimed, “Yowza, Yowza, Yowza!” He noted that there was only an announcement on the radio for Wednesday’s meeting of the commission, which was confusing and he hoped that people would not attend the Hockey Rink meeting to speak about the wholesale/retail ordinance. He thanked everyone for their hard work.
Commissioner Pfeil thanked the staff and commissioners for all their time and work. He added that it has left him with a good feeling about what had been done. He acknowledged that there was still a lot of work to do.
Chair Smith reiterated his appreciation of the extraordinary effort that the staff has had to do to keep up with the work of the commission - and still has some to go -and to keep up with the intensive process as well as adding quality input to the process along the way. He expressed his appreciation for all of the commissioners sticking to it and the work done. Chair Smith made a suggestion that at the end of the Hockey Association meeting each commissioner hand them a $20 bill to help them with their goal. There was support expressed from the commission for this idea and a suggestion that it be done after the meeting was clearly over. Chair Smith, in accordance with prior vocal exclamations and in following a presidential candidate’s comment, exclaimed, “Yee Haw!” and adjourned the meeting.
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 11:00 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 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.
___________________________________________
DEENA BENSON, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: __________________________________