Session
04-01 Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by
Chair Smith at 7:03 p.m. at Homer City Hall, Council Chambers, 491 East Pioneer
Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.
The commission held a work session from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Adding Chapter 21.Large Retail And Wholesale Structure Development, Impact Statement And Standards.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: CELENTANO,
PFEIL, SMITH, HESS, CHESLEY
BARTLETT
STAFF: BETH MCKIBBEN, CITY
PLANNER
DEENA
BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
EXCUSED: FOSTER
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
1. Scenic View Subdivision No. 07, KPB File
2002-278
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.
A. Approval of December 17, 2003 meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved as presented.
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.
Larry Slone, commented on the expressions of support for the Planning Department employee Ms. Engebretsen, made at the last meeting in reference to a letter to the editor. He voiced his support for their reaction, however, stated that he didn’t think they went far enough. He suggested that it might be better to have taken that support a step further and respond perhaps with another letter to the editor written by someone knowledgeable who could explain in very short terms that the letter was in error and explain the situation. He described this as a simple thing that could carry a lot of weight and dispel a lot of anger and resentment on the part of the residents. Mr. Slone explained that he is talking about the communication between the residents and their government and reiterated that a simple statement of explanation from the administration could go a long way and carry a lot of weight. He pointed out that there is still a member of the community out there that still doesn’t understand the situation. He was not aware of any follow-up. Further, the misinformed man has influenced a number of others to stoke or encourage their resentment at the City error, therefore widening the gap of the communication process between the government and the residents. He suggested that in similar situations in the future, it would be a simple and good thing to do for someone to write a letter - make it public so everyone can understand - and in so doing foster good communications. He acknowledged that the people could attend the meetings and read the minutes, however, not everyone has the time or inclination as he does. Mr. Slone advised that there are a lot of people who get their information hearsay, second hand, and are willing to form a negative impression by bits and pieces of information they hear from other people. People are predisposed that way and if the City doesn’t take active steps to squelch that, it would be a disservice to the community. He reiterated again that it is a simple thing that can be done. He concluded saying he just wanted to throw this out for future reference.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Chair may prescribe time limits. The Commission may question the public.
There were none.
PLAT CONSIDERATION
The Commission hears a report
from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the
public.
A. Staff Report PL 04- Re: Bunnell’s Subdivision No. 20 Preliminary Plat
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: 1. Planning Commission grant an exemption to the subdivision improvement requirements as permitted by Homer City Code 22.10.040 a., 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. 3. Prior to final platting action all existing structures shall meeting setback requirements on both lots.
Jeff Murphy advised he was available for questions.
HESS/PFEIL-HESS - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-01 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Commissioner Pfeil expressed his concern of possible encroachment of the access to the back lot within the 20’ width provided, because there is a ditch between the two lots that drains the lower lot. Mr. Murphy advised that there would be no encroachment, that the access will be engineered when it is constructed.
Commissioner Hess clarified Public Works comments with City Planner McKibben who interpreted it to read that they did not have an objection to the exemption and that their comments were only for information purposes.
HESS/CHESLEY - MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION BY EXEMPTING THE HCC 21.10.051 UTILITY EASEMENT.
At this point, it was clarified that this motion would strike Item 2 on the staff recommendations. There was discussion by the commission regarding the applicant’s request for an exemption. The commission asked Mr. Murphy to comment. Mr. Murphy advised that the easement was a mystery to him, so he discussed it with Public Works employees Dan Gardner and Jan Jonker. Mr. Murphy stated that it was explained to him that the easement would be strictly across the front of the property. He added that he was told that Homer Electric Association has no right to be in there right now and that it is the City’s goal to provide easements along main streets so that someday the power lines can be buried. He expressed non-objection to the easement as long as it is across the front.
VOTE: YES: (amendment)
NO: CHESLEY, PFEIL, SMITH, CELENTANO, BARTLETT, HESS
Motion failed.
VOTE: YES: (main motion) UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL 04- Re: Glacier View Subdivision 2003 Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations and noted that there was a photo-map on the board for reference. Staff recommendations: Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide and show access to a fifteen-foot utility easement, HCC 22.10.051 on the plat.
Roger Imhoff advised he was available for questions.
Jim Reardon, who has lived on the lot directly north of lot 2 as proposed for the last 44 years, testified to this preliminary plat. He expressed his concern regarding a water/drainage problem in this area. He explained that when Dickey Gregoire had the contract to rebuild Svedlund he disposed of the waste material on what would now be these four lots. At that time there was no drainage problem, and there was a creek that drained the area and passed by the “cabin court”. Mr. Reardon addressed the drainage issue with Mr. Gregoire who told him he would fix it if it created a problem. Mr. Reardon described the water problem that ensued by calling it “Reardon’s Lake”. During the last couple of weeks the lake has been 15’ by 20’ and is generally persistent throughout the winter. Until he placed some gravel in the alley a few years ago, it was under water through the winter. Mr. Reardon said he thought that this is a problem the commission should be aware of. He described Lot 1 has having a beautiful stand of spruce trees on it, most of which would have to be removed to build on the lot. Mr. Reardon gave some history saying that 48 years ago when he first lived here it was quiet in town when the wind blew. It is no longer like that. He expressed his opinion that the aesthetics of the trees is something that should not be lightly dismissed. Further, he expressed his concern that the neighbors have no idea what the owner would be building on the lots. In his case, any building would obstruct his view of Kachemak Bay. He advised that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Chair Smith commented on the drainage issues. He advised that the City has a requirement that the developer put in roadway improvements and because it is within a City owned right-of-way, he presumed that Public Works would supervise that and the drainage would be a part of that consideration.
Mr. Reardon added that a pair of Mallard ducks use the pond- it’s that persistent. He advised that he spoke to Dickey Gregoire about it however there has been no action taken. Now the property has been sold and is out of the Gregoire’s hands. Mr. Reardon moved to the map on the board and pointed out to the commissioners where the problem exists.
Mary Anne Lyda, lives next door to Mr. Reardon and purchased Harry Gregoire’s house. She advised that during the rains last year she took photos of the water Mr. Reardon was referring to. The water was over a foot deep running solid in the ditch where the blacktop goes down in front her house. Between her garage and the Reardon’s garage, there is a solid creek running through there. Ms. Lyda advised that her husband’s truck tires are frozen in the ice because of the water.
Chair Smith asked for clarification on the course of the stream of water.
Ms. Lyda described the water as running over the black top and on down the hill. She advised that the culverts on Kachemak Way are totally plugged from Harry’s Alley going down to Pioneer; and, that the snow plows are pouring all the snow into that ditch, therefore the water goes down onto Pioneer and floods.
Clay Norvell, lives on Lee Street, just north of the Reardon’s and the Lyda’s. He expressed his concern that a 20’ easement is not adequate as a residential street to access the lots. He stated that in Phoenix and Anchorage there is a problem with streets not being wide enough. It has been his experience that an alley is used for such things as garbage collection.
Carole Hamik, lives across the street from Ms. Lyda. Ms. Hamik advised that she didn’t know what the plans were for these lots. She expressed two concerns. One concern was regarding traffic. She speculated that if there were an apartment building or a house placed on the lots that would mean traffic on a 20’ narrow alley to access their residence. She expressed her concern that this would be too narrow. Her other concern was the beautiful spruce tree stand on one of the lots. She acknowledged the need to follow code, however, this is one of the last remaining spruce tree stands in the heart of Homer and she hoped someone would think about this. She expressed her appreciation for the commission’s work.
HESS/CHESLEY - MOVE TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL04-02 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Commissioner Hess commented to the people who testified that the commissioner’s duties are limited to what can be done regarding their concerns. He advised that the subdivision regulations are the only thing the commission is authorized to act on. He expressed his wish that the commission could do something more to address their concerns.
Commissioner Celentano brought up wetlands concerns due to the testimony of large amounts of standing water and the duration of the water in the area. She included the fact that the wetlands map is outdated and may not show the current status of that property. She suggested that this was something the commission might take into consideration. Chair Smith commented that the wetland status is something the Corp of Engineers would act on and that the status is reported for information purposes only. He advised that the reason for including this information in the report is because the Borough has some issues regarding the septic systems. He pointed out that the testimony the commission just heard is that the adjacent lots have water on them, but not the lots in the preliminary plat being considered.
Commissioner Pfeil commented regarding the comprehensive plan in regard to this plat. He read “ the areas planned or zoned residential office shall provide the flexibility necessary to accommodate the mixed uses of low to medium density residential access...” He expressed his opinion that this area has a rather high density. He questioned if there were a minimum sized roadway required for residential neighborhoods. He expressed his concern that the 20’ alley easement was pretty small.
Chair Smith noted that there are two lots that are accessed only by 20’ alleyways. He further noted that Public Works had no comments on this issue and that there was no information available from the Public Safety standpoint.
The commission further discussed their concerns regarding no primary access and the limited emergency access. Ms. Lyda advised that there was not enough room for cars to pass in the alley.
Chair Smith read the definition of “alley” from the Homer City Code - “a public thoroughfare less than 30’ in width which affords only a secondary means of access to abutting property. Alleys are not subject to 20’ setback requirements. The setback requirements for any lot abutting an alley shall be determined by the dimensional requirements of the zoning district in which the alley is located.” Chair Smith reiterated that only one lot of this subdivision would have a primary access to Kachemak Way. He further noted that this subdivision has more than three lots and is not exempted from the subdivision code, therefore they would need to have adequate right-of-way access to the parcels.
The Commission agreed to hear a response from the surveyor regarding the alleyway access.
Roger Imhoff acknowledged that in the conventional sense these lots do not have a primary access, with the exception of lot 1. He added that the whole series of lots extending from Kachemak Way to Svedlund only have a 20’ alleyway access on either side. He offered additionally that the subdivider has had discussions over the past several months regarding various ideas on what to do with the property. The developer has held discussions with Dan Gardner and Carey Meyer. Mr Imhoff advised that nothing had been mentioned to him by Steve Tutt regarding additional width requirements on the access. Mr. Imhoff acknowledged that it is in the Borough code that the minimum right-of-way width would be 60 feet in a normal conventional subdivision. He commented that he would be surprised if Mary Toll at the Borough didn’t question the width of the alleyways. He further advised that Mr. Tutt mentioned that the reason he wanted a panhandle on it was so he could provide a thru access from alleyway to alleyway. He believed it was Mr. Tutt’s thoughts that that would relieve some of the traffic flow. Mr. Imhoff said he didn’t know what Mr. Tutt planned to build on the lots.
HCC 22.10.050 (c) was read by Chair Smith. “...the subdivider shall be required to dedicate street rights-of-way according to the standards and specifications of Chapter 11.04 of this code and the City of Homer Design Criteria Manual.” Chair Smith stated that the requirement is that there be a 60’ right-of-way dedicated. He pointed out that the commission is now being asked to create additional lots without access and he didn’t believe the commission had that latitude. He advised that he would either not vote for this or support postponement to allow further exploration of this subject to occur for the developer.
Mr. Imhoff advised that Mr. Tutt is traveling. He offered on Mr. Tutt’s behalf his support for postponement so he could explore some of these issues.
PFEIL/CHESLEY - MOVE TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
Commissioner Chesley added “or until such a time as the developer or his agent can make arrangements with the Planning Department to put it on the agenda.” He then seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hess requested that staff ask Public Works to review the preliminary plat regarding the road standard requirements.
Commissioner Celentano and Chesley requested staff contact Mr. Painter and get his input on public safety access.
Commissioner Pfeil commented that he wished they could save the trees.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
Chair Smith called for a recess at 7:53 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:07 p.m
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The Commission hears a report
from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning
issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff,
applicants, and the public.
A. Staff Report PL 03-78 Re: Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Adding Chapter 21. Large Retail And Wholesale Structure Development, Impact Statement And Standards. POSTPONED.
The Commission continued their work on the ordinance draft. They continued at Section H, Line 77, Citizen Participation Plan. Commissioner Chesley led the discussion on this subject. There was reference to a handout and some discussion.[1] City Planner McKibben suggested expanding this section into different categories. The commission discussed extensively what the breakdown would be for an application for a CUP from beginning to end, in what order it would happen and some details in each step. The steps, listed in reverse order, included:
Commissioner Hess requested a flow chart from staff for the next meeting. He clarified that he would like to see it from beginning to end - instead of in reverse order.
The commission discussed the timeline in getting every aspect of the remaining work done by the deadline. Further, a timeline for fees paid by the applicant and what they cover was discussed by the commission. In cases of actual cost fees, a base amount would be collected. Then, a refund could be done or further payment made, whatever the case may be.
The commission decided that the TIA must be considered separately regarding fees because it will apply to several uses. There was speculation that it could be three months from the time the applicant walks in to Planning until the time the permit is issued. City Planner McKibben advised that it took from 3 to 6 months in the Mat-Su Borough which was not as complicated as this process.
Commissioner Celentano expressed concern several times about when the applicant would have their public participation meetings. The commission discussed and agreed to at least two public meetings that have to be noticed during the public participation process.
The commission reviewed detailed wording in the draft and the changes they had made during the work session and suggested further changes in various places.
The commission discussed Loading and Delivery Standards at length, including what would define a commercial vehicle, so that it would be allowed to park for extended periods of time parking in loading areas. They discussed the definition of a commercial vehicle in reference to signage on the vehicle.
The commission discussed using a consultant or “farming out” some of the remaining work and having their draft reviewed by a professional. Suggestions were made to farm out the financial and aesthetics sections. City Planner McKibben commented that she felt they had a framework of what the commission wanted, not what someone else told them to do. She suggested that the aesthetics is something the commission should do because that is what they would want Homer to look like - not what someone else wants Homer to look like. She added that she felt farming this out would gain nothing.
City Planner McKibben advised that she is working on farming out the financial fiscal impact portion. The commission talked about also farming out the landscaping section. City Planner McKibben said she would look into that.
The monetary impact analysis section was discussed. Wording for positive and negative impacts were discussed and inserted.
There was discussion regarding having the city pay and be reimbursed for an independent TIA.
During discussion on conducting work sessions for further work on the standards, the commission talked about and decided to hold a meeting on Saturday, January 24th, from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Chair Smith advised he would be gone the last week in January. Commissioner Celentano advised she would be absent from the January 21st meeting and Commissioner Hess advised he would be absent for the next work session.
The commission decided that at the next meeting they would go over aesthetics.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT
City Planner McKibben advised that she had sat in on the RFP evaluation committee for the Trails Plan to make a recommendation to the council and that Dowl Engineering had been selected. The Scenic Byways closes Friday and would be evaluated next week. There were no new updates on the Convention and Civic Center study. Councilmember Fenske had asked her to order a book on the subject. Ms. McKibben offered to check with Anne Marie Holen, Administrative Assistant, to obtain the latest on grant information and report back to the commission. There was no new information on changes in the platting process.
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 no audience comments.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on
any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Chair Smith called upon Ms. Benson, the recording clerk, for any comments. She had no comment.
Commissioner Celentano expressed her appreciation for continued Planning experience. She is learning a lot from everyone.
Commissioner Hess expressed his displeasure at being “under the gun” on a schedule, saying he thought it was ridiculous and he wanted to end it.
Commissioner Pfeil thanked the staff and all the commissioners for their dedication and hard work.
Commissioner Bartlett advised that he wanted everyone to be prepared when they get into building and aesthetics. He expressed his wish to bring up building codes and standards for further discussion. He referred to prior comments of “getting back to it” and felt it deserves further discussion. He asked everyone to be prepared to state their comments and concerns. Mr. Bartlett commented that he didn’t want to take up a lot of time, but he also didn’t want to make it disappear without a little more discussion. He thanked the commission for being patient with him on this issue.
Commissioner Chesley advised that he was disturbed by the lack of communication with the City departments. He explained that he had been in contact with Bill Abbott, as a citizen. Mr. Abbott had been receiving the Planning Commission agenda and had expressed his concern that the agenda was showing continual postponing on the work of the Large Retail/Wholesale item. Commissioner Chesley commented that he was glad this had been brought up. He had expressed his apologies that for some reason either the Planning Department or the City Manager or somebody was not effectively communicating on the Planning Commission’s behalf on the amount of work they are doing. Commissioner Chesley stated that Mr. Abbott was under the impression that the commission wasn’t making any progress on it. He stated that on one hand it’s nothing, but on the other hand it’s really “bothersome” to him that there is a perception out there that somehow the Planning Commission is not doing work on the Large Retail/Wholesale standards. He explained that part of the problem is that when it was brought up, no one rose to the Planning Commission’s defense and stated that they were working hard at home and working hard at work sessions and that staff is working with them and all are putting in lots of hours on this project. He expressed his wish that there be better communication so that people do know what they really are doing. He advised that the City Planner and the City Manager are the two people who can communicate to the City what it is the commission is doing. He thanked everyone for their hard work.
Chair Smith advised that during the break he had received a comment from a lady in the audience saying she was having a hard time hearing the commission. He had told the lady to ask the commission to speak up, however, he also wrote himself a note that says “Speak and be seen”. He commented that this is a public meeting and the commission needs to make sure they are projecting to the audience. He noted that he had taken the coffee pot down from the upper level of the counter. Mr. Smith advised that people really want to see what’s going on. When there is a mic in front of their face and stuff is stacked up in front of them, they are not making an exchangeable presentation with the audience. He asked the commissioners to pay attention to that, so they could be more connected with the audience.
Chair Smith expressed his disappointment that the City Manager didn’t stick up for the commission and say that he had written a memo a few months ago that said the Planning Commission shouldn’t be writing ordinances. Mr. Smith stated that the City Manager said that anyone who is following these issues knows what’s really going on. Mr. Smith speculated that this didn’t include Ray Kranich because he didn’t know what was going on. Mr. Smith relayed that there has been a lot of misrepresentation about what the Planning Commission has done. He pointed out that the Planning Commission did not take six months to take up the building standards and other issues; they immediately jumped into the fray and worked on the Standards Committee, which was what Council wanted.
Commissioner Hess wanted to know if the Council gets the information regarding the commission’s work sessions. Chair Smith pointed out that the only information given is that there is a work session; there is no information on what happened. There are no minutes for work sessions. A suggestion was made that staff could communicate to the City Manager, etcetera, the work the Planning Commission is doing through Committee of the Whole and Department Heads Staff Meetings. Further, a suggestion was made that the Planning Commission keep track of their time spent.
City Planner McKibben explained that the structure of the staff meetings doesn’t provide for each department head to give a department summary, there fore she doesn’t think to report it. The commission concluded that it would be nice to have their work acknowledged by the council and staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next
regular or special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following
“adjournment”.
There being no further business to come before the commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is January 21, 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 will be a work session January 14, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
_____________________________________
DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: ____________________________