Session 05-02, a
Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order
at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, HESS, CONNOR,
LEHNER, PFEIL, FOSTER, KRANICH
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
A quorum is required to conduct a meeting.
Chair Chesley welcomed Commissioner Ray Kranich
to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kranich served on the Port and Harbor Commission and the
City Council. Mr. Kranich
was appointed to the Commission to fill the vacancy left by Tom Bartlett who
moved to the East coast.
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
HESS/FOSTER – MOVED TO ADD ITEM A – MOUNTAINVIEW PETITION UNDER PUBLIC
COMMENT, PRESENTATION AND SAFEWAY PRESENTATION WILL FOLLOW AS ITEM B.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO ADD ITEM F – HOMER SPIT DOT RIGHT-OF-WAY TO
COMMISSION BUSINESS.
Chair Chesley explained the Commission would
like to have a worksession with the Parks and
Recreation Commission to consider making a joint recommendation that the City
lease the portion of DOT (Department of Transportation) right-of-way (ROW) at
the base of the Spit. The ROW is on the
Lighthouse Village side of the road and could be used for parking for the Spit
Trailhead.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The amended agenda was adopted by consensus of the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes with
any amendments.
A. Approval of December 8, 2004 Special
Meeting Minutes.
B.
Approval
of January 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Chair Chesley said in following the City
Council’s process, comments from the public would be taken on the meeting
minutes.
Frank Griswold, city resident, took the opportunity to note a number of
corrections to the minutes.
The amended Special Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2004 and amended
Regular Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2005 were adopted by consensus of the
Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not
on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe
time limits. Public commend on agenda
items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations are approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the
Planning Commission.
A.
Mountainview
Petition
Bill Abbott, city resident, appeared as the representative of the Mountainview neighborhood group. Mr. Abbott read a letter outlining plans of
the Master Transportation Plan which includes an east/west corridor through
residential neighborhoods north of
The neighborhood petition along with
B.
Safeway
Presentation
Bob Gordon, construction manager and Safeway representative, thanked
everyone for coming to tonight’s presentation.
He introduced Bryan Gootee, the project
manager, and lead project architect Craig Thompson of Dykeman
Architects. Mr. Gordon said the
presentation will include the site design and building design to address the
current codes. The permitting process,
phasing issues and construction schedule are also part of the
presentation.
Mr. Gordon explained the scope of the project has changed. Initially it began four to five years ago
when land was purchased north of the current Safeway site with the intent to
build a new facility and demolish the old building. During the time it took to put the land
purchase together, Homer’s market changed.
Fred Meyer moved in to the area looking for a building site. That affected Safeway’s plans, as they will
now be competing with Fred Meyer.
Safeway is now looking at remodeling the current structure and moving
into the existing retail spaces within the shopping center. They plan to remodel the interior of the
store to upgrade lighting, flooring, and fixtures. Additionally the exterior will be remodeled
to enhance the shopping experience both in the store’s interior and
exterior. Mr. Gordon said it is time to
bring the fifteen to sixteen year old building up to date. The main goal is to get the project design
permitted and construction underway this year, as the remodel needs to be
completed by the end of the year.
Safeway feels it is imperative the remodel is completed and sales
increases are achieved before Fred Meyer opens.
When Fred Meyer opens business will be impacted. The more sales Safeway can build now will
make them a stronger competitor and help maintain sales in the future.
Craig Thompson of Dykeman Architects thanked
the Commission and members of the audience for allowing the presenters to share
the plan. Mr. Thompson said in talking
with City Planner Beth McKibben the last couple of months the biggest issue is
that the store meets the requirements of the Community Design Manual
(CDM). He stated during the pre-application
hearing earlier today some of the questions were answered. It is their intent to meet the criteria of
the CDM.
Mr. Thompson said one issue is pedestrian linkage on the area to the
north, which is the library and park site.
Along the west side of the store a passageway is proposed to go by the
bank along with a pocket park in the grassed area. The path or walkway would be carried out to
the Bypass. A pedestrian link to the
library site comes in east of
Architect Thompson explained that perpendicular parking in front of the
store will be removed and rows of planters will be placed to define the drive
aisle. The parking lot lights will be
replaced with a cutoff fixture on the heads to lower the glare. The gravel area east of the store will be
paved to allow for parking.
Bob Gordon, construction manager, was asked if it was the plan to replat both lots into one parcel. Chair Chesley said
there could be a concern with spanning or development across the lot line. Architect Thompson said the two parcels
currently share an access easement. City
Planner McKibben added the pedestrian access and recycle bins are on the other
parcel, but the building does not cross any lot lines. Chair Chesley
explained he wanted to raise awareness, as if a preliminary platting process
was required it may take four months.
Architect Thompson said it may be a matter of just adding language to
allow for the path.
Architect Thompson said the current building does not meet any of the
design requirements. The new building’s
roofline will continue across then will end and create a gable. There will be a new entry tower on the west
end, a new sign flat on the store front, and another entry tower on the east
end with a closed vestibule, The gable
will then again continue to the Oaken Keg liquor store on the east end. The Oaken Keg will have its own
entrance. The west side will be similar
with the gable returning to look up towards the trail. Since it will be an important pedestrian
connection, towers at the northwest and southwest corners will give the
building’s appearance interest. The
backside of the building will have the tower element repeated. There will be a screen wall around the
receiving area. The blank wall on the
north side could be garnished with an evergreen screen with trellises or a
mural may also be used. The wall would
need to be maintained. Warm colors are
being used. The roof will have a
weathered copper pre-finished metal, the steel framed building has plywood
siding that will be re-stained. Masonry
veneers will be placed on the front of the building base, four feet up to
provide good protection from snow. Heavy
timbered truss elements may be used to give it an Alaskan look. The approach provides Safeway’s attempt to
meet the requirements of the CDM halfway.
Chair Chesley explained the CDM was adopted
by former Chair Bill Smith based on the
Architect Thompson said it is expected construction will start in May
or June and follow a six-month schedule.
Certain items within the newly adopted code trigger the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) process. Traffic is the
main thing that makes the CUP process mandatory. He said it is not clear if the code is
speaking of existing or new buildings.
Mr. Thompson said the traffic impact will be the same with the old
business as remodeled. With two large
grocery stores on the highway, traffic will be divided between them. He said on other remodel projects a traffic
analysis is done on what is added to the developed project. Mr. Thompson said the traffic study will show
no difference, but it takes the project through the CUP process with hoops that
may be difficult to achieve by May. He
asked the Commission for their input on the traffic study requirement.
Mr. Thompson said at the meeting earlier in the day with Public Works
Director Meyer, drainage was reviewed. A
little paving will be added to comply with the drainage requirement. He asked for clarification as to how the replat would apply to remodels.
City Planner McKibben said the requirements for traffic impact are
specific. Those are if it generates more
than 100 trips per hour or 500 trips per day, or changes by use or user
density. Architect Thompson said the
addition of 3,600 sq. ft. will not generate more traffic. He said they are not trying to avoid the CUP,
but would like to prevent the lengthy process.
Chair Chesley said the Commission and the
City Planner need to talk about the traffic analysis before they can
reply. As to the building permit, Homer
does not have a building code, only a zoning code. The State of
Bob Gordon, construction manager, said the use of the store will not be
changed. They are adding gondola space
to increase the selection of merchandise, with the same products, just more
variety. The cases will be changed and
there will be a wider selection of products in the deli and bakery. Customer service moves across the interior of
the store to add more gondola space. Mr.
Gordon said the remodel will be mostly cosmetic.
Commissioner Foster said if the Storm Water Management Plan is required
he would encourage Safeway to look at the requirements. It is such a vast area of pavement and
addressing how the water will be moved, where the snow will be stored, and how
it will affect the creek across the street is important. He added it would be an advantage for Safeway
to explore the plan for the benefit of the community. Architect Thompson said in creating the
landscape buffer in the front, the curb could be broken to penetrate the
water. Pervious paver
blocks could also be used.
Commissioner Hess told the Safeway group he appreciated their
willingness to work with the new codes and looks forward to improvements in the
building. Chair Chesley
thanked the group for coming from
Commissioner Kranich stated he was glad the
problem with Hazel Avenue to the bank parking lot was addressed.
Chair Chesley said there was a representative
from the
Bill Smith, city resident, passed out the consultant’s schedule that
was hired to complete the feasibility study for the conference center. Mr. Smith said if the Commission wished to
meet with the consultant they could discuss it with him.
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.
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 05-03 Re: Oscar Munson Subdivision Brant Replat Preliminary Plat
Commissioner Connor declared a continuing conflict of interest from the
prior meeting on this plat consideration.
Commissioner Hess said he had also asked the Commission for
determination of his conflict of interest.
Chair Chesley answered that the Commission had
decided Commissioner Hess did not have a conflict of interest. Chair Chesley asked
the Deputy City Clerk for the procedure on continuing the conflict of interest
from meeting to meeting.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at
Chair Chesley said after conferring with the
Deputy City Clerk it was decided the conflict of interest should be determined
for both Commissioners Connor and Hess again.
CONNOR/PFEIL – MOVED TO DISQUALIFY HERSELF DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
IN THAT SHE OWNS A LOT NEXT DOOR TO THE SUBJECT PLAT.
Commissioner Foster questioned if Ms. Connor would gain financially from
the approval of the replat, Commissioner Connor
answered that she did not foresee a financial gain. She said if any of the Commissioners felt
uncomfortable about her participation she would be glad to step down. Commissioner Kranich
said if her property value were to increase by more than $300 it would be an
indirect gain. Commissioner Connor said
she did not believe her property value would increase or decrease. Commissioners Hess and Lehner
said they saw no effect on the next door neighbor’s property in relation to Ms.
Connor’s.
FOSTER/PFEIL – MOVED THE COMMISSION FIND NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR
COMMISSIONER CONNOR.
VOTE: NO. FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
Motion failed.
Chair Chesley added Mr. Griswold pointed out
the code is unclear whether the Commissioner declaring the conflict can
vote. It is Chair Chesley’s
understanding that the best practice was that the Commissioner could not
participate in their own decision.
HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO BE DISMISSED FROM THE ACTION DUE TO A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST WITH MR. BRANT.
Commissioner Hess through his business Puffin Electric has a business
relationship with Jay Brant Construction that is worth more than $300.
All Commissioners stated there is no conflict of
interest.
VOTE:
NO. CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR,
LEHNER, KRANICH, FOSTER
Motion failed.
City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendations. A plat map was provided as lay-down
information.
Cameron Frye appeared and stated he worked with Ability Surveys. He explained the lay-down plat map as an
agreement between Public Works Director Meyer and Bob Brant. Instead of an additional 10 ft. north and 10
ft. south, a 20 ft. easement for underground sewer line will be over the same
area with a 15 ft. pedestrian easement.
Both easements will be joint use.
Public Works Director Meyer told the Commission there have been some
issues since the last discussion on the vacation of the alley. In early December Public Works said 10 ft.
easements on either side would be needed.
It was realized they do not need the 10 ft. easements. He suggested that the additional easement not
be created as part of the plat. The
easements will be obtained in the same manner as the other lots that front the
alley. Mr. Meyer suggested withdrawing Staff Recommendation #1, stating that
Homer Electric Association (HEA) was not particularly happy with surface
improvements being created in corridors within the alley that they want to put
underground electricity in. Public Works
enjoys a pathway to access their facilities to clean manholes and jet out sewer
lines. HEA isn’t as appreciative of the
surface improvements as they have to replace things that they dig up. In a compromise, the applicant, HEA and the
City of Homer suggested an easement specifically for electrical and
telecommunications facilities on the southern five feet of the 20 ft. alley. The northern 15 ft. is to be established as
the corridor for pedestrian easement.
Mr. Meyer suggested creating a 20 ft. easement for sewer and overlaying
that 15 ft. on the north side for pedestrian and 5 ft. on the south side for
electrical. It would keep the
conflicting uses within the easement separate and everyone is happy.
Commissioner Hess questioned who Mr. Meyer had talked with at HEA, as he
had called HEA when working on the Non-Motorized Transportation and Trails
Plan. Mr. Hess said they had no
opposition to joint use easements as a way to gain trail access. Public Works Director Meyer said he talked
with Dave Baer. He added that Public
Works likes to have surface improvements to gain access to the easements, but
Mr. Baer was adamantly opposed to overlapping of easements. The compromise
works for all.
Commissioner Kranich said he understands the
concern as the extra 10 ft. on each side would make a 40 ft. easement. He said if more room is needed an easement
could be obtained for construction.
Public Works Director Meyer said property on each side needs to be
treated equally. It is less impact on a
building site if the easement can be kept to a minimum. He said 5 ft. of additional permanent
easement on each side of the alley and a temporary alley of an additional 5 ft.
would be required for construction.
Frank Griswold said
legislative matters require no substantial financial interest, but quasijudicial matters require the absence of bias. He said it constitutes a quasijudicial
matter as it deals with a private property owner’s property. A close neighbor may not be able to make an
impartial decision. Mr. Griswold cited
HCC 1.12.010(B)(2) and (c) in regard to a person’s financial interest. He said if someone voted against their boss there
could be serious repercussions or he might feel obligated to vote for him. The conflict of interest vote is designed to
protect the Commissioner and the Commission may have failed to consider that. Mr. Griswold said if the City Attorney was
contacted to clarify the conflict of interest definition a code rewrite should
be demanded so it is more consistent with the City Council procedures. Mr. Griswold said a training session should
also be demanded.
FOSTER/LEHNER – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-03 ELIMINATING THE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL 05-04 Re: Webber-Bluff Park Replat
Subdivision Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben read the staff report and
recommendations.
Tom Latimer works with Mullikin Surveys. He said the greenhouse is on a temporary
foundation and is currently functional.
If it is moved it will be destroyed in the process. He asked that the requirement to remove the
greenhouse be deleted as there is no reason to destroy the usable greenhouse at
this time.
Bill Smith, city resident, said it is an encroachment zoning issue rather
than a platting issue. He added that the structures are so small they don’t
require a zoning permit and it is not appropriate to have the recommendation on
the plat.
PFEIL/FOSTER – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-04
WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION #1 AND STRIKE RECOMMENDATION #2.
Commissioner Pfeil said
there is one citizen concerned about the historical name being changed to a new
name.
Commissioner Hess said the Commission had received
interpretations on zoning and platting actions.
If there is a zoning violation the Commission can turn down a platting
action. He asked for City Planner McKibben’s interpretation of how the small buildings
apply. City Planner McKibben answered
that because a building doesn’t have to acquire a zoning permit doesn’t exempt
it from the setback requirements.
Commissioner Lehner
questioned staff recommendation #1 to correct the street name to Cowles
Way. Tom Latimer answered that in the
original submittal the street name was spelled differently. The recommendation is irrelevant as the name
was previously corrected.
LEHNER/CONNOR – MOVED TO AMEND MAIN MOTION TO DELETE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
#1.
VOTE:
YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess asked for clarification on existing zoning violations
in regards to platting actions. City Planner
McKibben said a platting action is separate from a zoning action—two different
things. In some cases there may be a
zoning violation that is significant enough that using the platting action as a
tool to gather compliance may be appropriate.
In other cases the violation may not be significant enough to worry
about it through the platting process.
She said the Commission may want to make a judgment call on a case by
case basis.
Commissioner Kranich noted the number of lots
needed correction, to three lots from four.
VOTE: (Main motion as amended) YES. CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY,
FOSTER,PFEIL
NO. HESS
Motion carried.
C. Staff
Report PL 05-05 Re: Vineyard Estates Replat
2005 Subdivision Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben read the staff report and
recommendations.
LEHNER/HESS – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-05.
VOTE:
YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
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 05-06 Re: Proposal
Amending HCC 21.59 Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District.
City
Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendations.
Robert
Pickering stated he is one of the original developers of the Kelly Ranch
Estates Subdivision. Two additional
partners are in tonight’s audience. Mr.
Pickering said there was an allowance in the BCWPD ordinance that allowed
people to apply for 6.4% impervious coverage with a mitigation plan.
City Planner McKibben
said lots under two acres can apply to increase the 4.2% impervious coverage up
to 6.4% impervious coverage with an approved mitigation plan.
Mr. Pickering said in
reading the minutes from the last meeting he noted the Commission approved a
plan stamped with an engineer’s report to show the perviousness. City Planner McKibben said the Commission
adopted that specific plan although they may not want to include the language
in the code amendment.
Mr. Pickering told the
Commission there is less than 50% interest in the subdivision. A vast amount of information was provided to
the Commission on November 5, 2003 objecting to the impervious coverage. The subdivision was there before the
watershed. A percentage of the
properties within the subdivision are restricted as there is not enough sq. ft.
to build a house and driveway. Mr.
Pickering still objects to the numbers and has tried to get a 10% increase, but
to no avail. He noted that the lots
require long driveways making both percentages too restrictive. He said they are losing prospective buyers as
they are sent to the City for the permit and then disappear.
Mr. Pickering
questioned if the Planning Department didn’t do business by mail as he has not
yet received any response from his letters dated January 14, 2004 and June 29,
2004. City Planner McKibben responded
that she would look in the matter.
Commissioner Foster
told Mr. Pickering he appreciated his efforts in looking at the mitigation
efforts. In his experience in research
in pervious coverage, water quality and mitigation, the Commission is in the
process of developing the best management practices. He said they are good sound measures than can
make the situation even better.
Commissioner Foster remarked that there are inexpensive, common sense
ideas to collect the increased runoff from a roof or road and filter some of
the pollutants from the driveway.
Mr. Pickering added
that crushed gravel on top of Typar can make a
driveway 99% pervious. Crushed rock with
sand in a 2” layer tracks in no sand and there is no standing water.
Commissioner Foster
said he was a proponent of modifications in impervious coverage. All soils differ, as well as the distance
from the creek and slope. In view of the
costs of doing individual parcel evaluations the Commission was more conservative. Mitigation measures as to lot locations is a
viable way of dealing with the restrictions without placing a major burden on
the property owner.
Mrs. Pickering from the
audience questioned the public notice requirements of hearings. City Planner McKibben explained the process
for public hearings and stated for this type of proceeding it was not a
requirement that property owners in the district be notified.
Commissioner Lehner said at the last meeting she had downloaded a
landowner friendly handbook by the Puget Sound Action Team that is called Low
Impact Development. She explained that
Low Impact Development is the term to keep storm water where it lands.
Diann
Martin, Martin Realty, stated she represents the Pickerings
with their Kelly Ranch properties. The
properties have been on the market for some time and she has only had one sale
in the last two years. The properties
are below market value compared to other subdivisions but they do not dare to
increase the price as there are no buyers now.
Ms. Martin said it was a glimmer of hope when she heard driveways may be
removed as impervious coverage. In
conferring with City Planner McKibben Ms. Martin learned the City Council has
to change the ordinance. She said many
of the remaining lots are long pie shaped with the leach wells sitting at the
back of the properties making for longer driveways.
Bill Smith, city
resident, stated he appreciates Mr. Pickering and his group coming here to
talk. A year and a half ago he asked
staff to come up with a code modification to eliminate driveways from
impervious coverage. With mitigating
measures in place, driveways can be removed.
Mr. Smith added the City is obligated to look at development as a whole
and can make more modifications.
Commisioner
Foster stated he supports modification of some of the recoverage
requirements and believes mitigation along the driveways is a sound idea. Regardless of the structure type contaminants can be associated with
driveways. Mr. Foster’s concern is in
looking over the extensive research that has been on other communities you have
to look at the type of control you are trying to maintain, whether it is
sedimentation, nutrients or pollutants. He recommended to the City Planner
based on the work done in the plan that much of the work was modeled after Lake
Tahoe. Sedimentation and nutrients going
into the waterway were issues.
Commissioner Foster asked the City Planner to look at the work done in
Lake Tahoe and how they have identified their impervious coverage. The work was done and adopted in 1987 and has
been modified based on ongoing monitoring.
The pavers have been very accepted in increasing the amount of
permeability. There is a program called
NEMO (Nonpoint Pollution Education for Municipal
Officials) from the University of New Hampshire [2]and
funded by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. First you determine what type of pollutant
you are trying to keep from the water system and then you can mitigate for it.
City Planner McKibben
said several communities were looked at although all were not listed. The 50% or 25% were round numbers utilized by
other communities including Chicago, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and West
Virginia. The typical numbers found were
50% or 25% and it seemed to be the simplest and clearest way to start moving
ahead.
Commissioner Hess
questioned the status on the mitigation manual.
City Planner McKibben answered that Commissioners Foster and Lehner were to work with her offering their expertise. One of the interns from Cook Inlet Keeper was
to be utilized last summer but it did not come together before the end of the
summer. City Planner McKibben said
although there is no handbook they have lots of information in different areas
listing experts they can meet with.
Commissioner Hess said
he is not comfortable calculating driveways at 50% pervious coverage unless a
mitigation method is in place or engineering involved. He hopes there will be better language for
the driveways.
Chair Chesley suggested the topic be continued to the February 2,
2005 Worksession.
Commissioner Lehner suggested information be relayed to City Planner
McKibben. City Planner McKibben said
there is a code amendment and a mitigation handbook, both being separate
items. The only reason the Commission
may want to look at mitigations is if driveways would be allowed to be
calculated as 100% impervious, with certain mitigations being allowed. The mitigations would then need to be
specified to allow for the calculation.
It was determined
Commissioners Foster and Lehner and City Planner
McKibben will lead the worksession regarding the code
amendments.
LEHNER/HESS – MOVED TO
CONTINUE STAFF REPORT PL 05-06 TO A FUTURE DATE.
VOTE: YES:
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL 05-02 Re: Resolution
04-68 A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City of Homer, Accepting and
Acknowledging The 2004 Homer Area Transportation Plan.
HESS/LEHNER
- MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2004 HOMER AREA TRANSPORTATION
PLAN WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO DELETE HEATH STREET EXTENSION AND ADD ENHANCEMENTS
OF THE EAST HILL AND EAST END ROAD INTERSECTION.
Chair
Chesley said the Commission asked the Mountainview residents what would be a reasonable response
in exchange for the proposed east/west extension through their
neighborhood. Paul Gavenus
and Mike Heinbuch made the recommendations to delete
the Heath Street extension and add enhancements at the East Hill and East End
Road intersection. They see more benefit
to moving traffic by developing the existing corridor until another solution is
reviewed for traffic.
Commissioner
Kranich said to eliminate the Heath Street extension
from the long range plan is wrong. He
believes it should remain included with a caveat listing several different
scenarios to be reviewed with the community and the neighborhood prior to the
construction. No one knows when the
street will be built and it may be twenty years or more.
Commissioner
Lehner said Tom Kizzia doesn’t
want to see the Heath Street extension removed from the plan. As roads are developed Mountainview
may end up being connected to East Hill.
Without identifying the Mountainview area in
the plan Ms. Lehner’s concern is that it could slip
through the cracks without neighborhood involvement. She suggested that any road development or
improvements that hook up to Mountainview not be
designed without the active involvement of residents.
Commissioner
Foster said small community neighborhoods developed around pedestrian direct
routes are encouraged. He wants to see
language along the lines of the walkable
communities.
Chair
Chesley said the public testimony and the Mountainview residents’ petition showed the opposition to
the Heath Street extension.
VOTE: NO.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion failed.
LEHNER/KRANICH
– MOVED THAT LANGUAGE BE ADDED TO THE 2005 HOMER TRANPORTATION PLAN TO MAINTAIN
MOUNTAINVIEW AND ELDERBERRY AS DEAD END STREETS AT THE EASTERN END CLOSER TO EAST
HILL IN ORDER TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND DISCOURAGE THROUGH
TRAFFIC.
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The Commission discussed their individual
proposed amendments to the draft Transportation Plan. Some of the items that will be discussed
further are:
¯
Turning
lanes, pockets or roundabouts at East Hill and East End Roads should be
considered prior to the Heath Street extension
¯
Greatland
Street be considered as a north/south corridor through the Central Business
District
¯
Poopdeck
Trail remain as a trail
¯
One-way
couplets (with a map) would be included after the discussion of roundabouts as
another alternative
¯
Safe
pedestrian and bicycle crossing on
¯
Connections
on local streets to provide a thoroughfare between a collector street and an
arterial will use traffic calming methods
LEHNER/KRANICH –
MOVED TO CONTINUE TO NEXT MEETING.
VOTE: YES.
NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 04-56 Re: Review
of HCC 21.42 Zoning Permit.
City Planner McKibben
asked the Commissioners to read the lay-down correspondence and contact her
with questions.
HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO
CONTINUE STAFF REPORT PL 04-56 TO THE FEBRUARY 2 WORKSESSION.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
D. Staff Report PL 05-08 Re:
Ordinance 05-02.
City Planner McKibben
read the staff report and recommendations.
Chair Chesley explained the City Council is
holding a public hearing on Ordinance 05-02 on January 24, 2005 and the
Commission will hold theirs on February 2, 2005. The final outcome of Ordinance 05-02 is
scheduled for the City Council’s February 14, 2005 meeting.
Bill Smith, city
resident, said the Commission listened to neighbors about the Transportation
Plan and made appropriate adjustments.
He added input from city residents is important as the Ordinance belongs
to them and there is a need to support the direction they desire. Mr. Smith
said he was influenced when the petition to hold the referendum on the 66,000
sq. ft. was put before the City Council at the same time that Ordinance 04-11
was amended to establish the new size limit.
Both the petition and ballot issue need to be respected as commentary
speaking for larger limits than we have now.
Although we have heard and argued about a lot of parts of the same
issue, they remain the ordinances and plans of the community and need to
reflect that. Even if the Planning
Commission does not support the concept they should develop the technical
backup the Council will need if the proposal is adopted. Appropriate support language required by
state law for zoning ordinance amendments may need to be included. Mr. Smith said an advantage of the
legislative process over the initiative process is there is room for
consideration of other things.
Frank Griswold, city
resident, said he hoped the Planning Commission was as influenced by the
Comprehensive Plan as they were the ballot initiative. He thinks the ballot initiative was not worth
the paper it was written on and cannot be convinced people want larger
limits. People voted for the ballot
initiative and got what they voted for, Ordinance 04-18. Some people are confused and are deliberately
confusing others. The ballot initiative
said what it said and we got what we got and there is no need to put the will
of the people in the code as it is in there.
Mr. Griswold added at the Council level Memorandum 05-03 was included
and mentioned as backup. It was
influential in explaining purposes behind the ordinance and would be
informative for the Commission and the public.
Mr. Griswold said he wrote a five-page letter with attachments including
the City Attorney opinion dated April 4, 2004 to the Council at their January
5, 2005. He had asked that it be included
in the Commission’s packet for this evening although he did not see it. City Planner McKibben responded that the
letter was provided to the Commission as lay down material.
Mr. Griswold added he
had written a letter to the editor at Homer News about the discrepancies. He asked that it be included in the next
Commission packet and Chair Chesley indicated it
would be included as supporting documentation to Ordinance 05-02. Mr. Griswold said there is wide-spread
confusion on the origin of the 66,000 sq. ft. figure. He said Councilmember Wythe at the last
Council meeting said it came from a design on the wall by the University of
Washington grad students. The design
included a 66,000 sq. ft. proposal based on Fred Meyer’s request. Just because the design had 66,000 sq. ft.
doesn’t mean it originated there. It
originated further up as one of three designs; 20,000, 45,000 and 66,000 sq.
ft. The University of Washington grad
students are not experts on box store size, they just designed around that premise. The design mentioned the Fred Meyer store
three or four times. The students’
expertise was in doing a Town Square proposal, rather than store size. He said the grad students gave some input
about a civic center and the City then spent $45,000 to have a professional
analysis of the feasibility of the center.
Mr. Griswold said too much has been credited to the grad students;
although they did a good job on their proposals.
Frank Griswold told the
Commission there are legal questions that need answers. If any of the Commissioners had the courage,
they and the public deserve answers. He
provided the Commission with the legal questions he believes need to be
addressed prior to any public hearing at the Commission or Council level.
Chair Chesley said he would like to confer with the City Manager
about the questions. He said Mr.
Griswold raised a good point on the 66,000 sq. ft. size as it was never
evaluated by the Commission or anyone else.
Mr. Chesley explained it was a floor plan size
suggested by Fred Meyer as a store design they already had. It was added to the University of Washington
grad students study to see what a store of that size would look like in the
Town Center. The misconception began
when Bruce Turkington said there was a previous study
done by the City evaluating the 66,000 sq. ft. size.
HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO
MOVE ORDINANCE 05-02 TO PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 2, 2005.
Commissioner Foster
said when the Commission did the analysis and came up with the standards the
Council believes to be the saving grace for maintaining and managing the
planning process. It gave Safeway the
guidance to develop their ideas. The
parking lot sizes, amount of landscaping and other factors were analyzed at
40,000 sq. ft. All research showed a significant
change happened beyond the 40,000 sq. ft. limit. Commissioner Foster recommended the
Commission look at an additional set of standards from 40,000 sq. ft. to 66,000
sq. ft. The increased size will make
significant changes for the storm water plan.
He said it frightens him to take the same standards that work up to
40,000 sq. ft. and keep them up to 66,000 sq. ft.
VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
E. Staff
Report PL 04-109 Re: Commission Work
List.
Commissioner Hess asked
that subheadings be added under definitions and Commissioner Connor requested
tree trimming be added.
F. Homer
Spit Right-of-Way
City Planner McKibben
reported Planning Technician Engebretsen contacted DOT and an encroachment
permit application was sent to address the parking. The City applied for an encroachment permit
at an earlier time and it was not approved.
Chair Chesley explained there is a section of DOT ROW that is
adjacent to the Homer Spit Road. Right
now there are zoning violations with the perpetual garage sale. He spoke with Dave High the DOT ROW Manager
for the Kenai Peninsula. The DOT
personnel were in Homer over the summer and looked at the property and are
upset with boats and vehicles for sale along with signs in the ROW advertising
their flea market. DOT would like to
stop those activities on the lot. The
Homer Spit Trail is used more in the summertime and the parking lot is not large
enough to accommodate the overflow parking.
People are parking on the shoulder of Kachemak
Drive creating a poor situation. Chair Chesley said he would like to attend the Parks and
Recreation meeting to bring the parking matter to their attention. He asked the Commission if they would like to
see a community initiated request pursued to allow public comment.
Bill Smith said the
issue relates to the Beach Policy Committee (BPC) and their desire to develop
more parking spaces in the area.
Protection of pedestrians is foremost and signs on both sides are needed
to attract motorists’ attention. Mr.
Smith said the BPC wants a joint session with the Planning Commission for
presentation of the Beach Erosion Study.
The BPC is to meet sometime in February.
Chair Chesley asked the Commission for their permission to
contact the Parks and Recreation Commission and the BPC to present the idea
from a community planning perspective that the Commission believes it would be
a good use of the property. The DOT may
not give the property to the City for free and uses a formula to determine the value. For-pay parking is not allowed on the
property. The Commission approved of
Chair Chesley contacting the Parks and Recreation
Commission to present the idea.
REPORTS
A.
Borough
Report
Commissioner Foster stated he was absent from the last meeting.
B.
Kachemak
Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Planner McKibben said there was no new information on Steep Slope
Development. She has been collecting
ordinances from other communities to review.
Chair Chesley said Kevin Doniere
from DOWL Engineers recommended a multi-stage process with significant dollars
attached. He questioned if there was
money budgeted for development of the steep slope in 2005. City Planner McKibben answered there are no
monies identified in the newly adotped budget. There is money from grants increasing the
steep slope development budget to $14,000.
The example ordinances could be put together and some of the funds could
be used to do some mapping for red, yellow and green zones. When more work is done on the wetlands there
will be an ordinance with standards for the sensitive areas.
Chair Chesley said in talking with
Commissioner Kranich he has excellent ideas on the
steep slope. He said development in the
sensitive areas could be defined as a conditional use, allowing the Commission
to review the proposal first.
Commissioner Kranich said it would give the
City an extra lever in dealing with developers in the sensitive areas until the
ordinance can be drafted.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies
of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government
units.
A. Zoning violation letter to Yi Yong Suk dated December 30, 2004 re: 581 East Pioneer Avenue – Sign code
violation.
B. Zoning violation letter to Jose Ramos
dated December 30, 2004 re: 3850 Heath Street – Sign code violation.
C. Zoning violation letter to Barbara
Seaman dated December 30, 2004 re: 185 East Pioneer Avenue – Sign code
violation.
D. Zoning violation letter to Kurt
Marquardt dated December 30, 2004
re: 106 West Bunnell
Avenue – Sign code violation.
E. Zoning violation letter to Kathleen Belmonte dated December 30, 2004 re:
453 East Pioneer Avenue – Sign code violation.
F. Zoning violation letter to Mike Dye,
First National Bank of Alaska dated December 30, 2004 re:
3655 Heath Street – Sign code violation.
G. Zoning violation letter to Douglas Fraiman dated December 30, 2004 re:
432 East Pioneer Avenue – Sign code violation.
H. Zoning violation letter to Nathan Wise Glacierview Baptist Church dated January 6, 2005 re: 960 East End Road – Sign code violation.
I Zoning violation letter to Tom Keesecker, Seldovia Village Tribe
IRA dated January 6, 2005 re: 890 East
End Road – Sign code violation.
J. Zoning violation letter to Patrick
Huffman dated January 6, 2005 re: 1020
East End Road – Sign code violation.
K. Zoning violation letter to Geoff &
Susan Coble dated January 6, 2005
re: 910 East End Road – Sign code
violation.
L. Zoning violation letter to Kenton Bloom
dated January 6, 2005 re: 1044 East End Road – Sign code violation.
M. Zoning violation letter to Martin Zeller
dated January 6, 2005 re: 1060 East End Road – Sign code violation.
N. Zoning violation letter to KPB dated
January 6, 2005 re: 4122 Ben Walters
Lane – Sign code violation.
O. Zoning violation letter to Christopher
& Angela Newby dated January 6, 2005
re: 4141 Pennock
Street – Sign code violation.
P. Zoning violation letter to Tony &
Diane Romeril dated January 6, 2005 re: 1172 East End Road – Sign code violation.
Q. Zoning violation letter to Alfonso &
Susan Lamendola dated January 6, 2005 re: 4381 East Hill Road – Sign code violation.
R. Zoning violation letter to Paul Eneboe & William Bell dated January 6, 2005 re: 4136 Bartlett Street – Sign code violation.
S. Zoning violation letter to Julia A.
Currier dated January 6, 2005 re: 309 W.
Fairview Avenue – Sign code violation.
T. Zoning violation letter to Pat
McDonnell dated January 6, 2005 re: 863
East End Road – Sign code violation.
U. Zoning violation letter to Gary &
Gayle Mastolier dated January 6, 2005 re: 3953 Bartlett Street – Sign code violation.
V. Letter from Office of the Mayor dated
January 11, 2005 appointing Ray Kranich to the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address
the Commission on any subject. The Chair
may prescribe time limits.
Frank
Griswold said his personal observation is that pleasers make great friends but sometimes
they make bad planners, so don’t feel bad about having to say no every once in
awhile. He added a possible solution for
the Mountainview neighborhood area is to encourage
mid-street property owners to request a vacation of ROW in front of their homes. There is now a precedent for this.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff
and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Kranich said tonight has been an
interesting experience and he is looking forward to serving on the
Commission. In reading the packet he was
totally shocked upon reading that the letters that went out to the residential
office district were a result of the Planning Commission instructing staff to
notify the property owners the City Code will not actively be enforced. Mr. Kranich
questioned where the Commission comes off with the authority to instruct staff
to not enforce code. He said legally he
does not believe the City Council can choose not to enforce code. Code is law, on the book, valid. The only way it can be un-law is for it to be
deleted and taken out of the code book.
For a certified letter to go out stating an Advisory Commission
instructed staff is a ballsy statement.
Mr. Kranich said he finds it really offensive
to be part of such a group.
Chair Chesley told Commissioner Kranich he raised a good point but his guess is it wasn’t
worded the best. He said the Commission
can’t instruct staff to do anything and it would have been better if it said
the HAPC advised staff to notify the property owners receiving the violation
letters that the sign code requirements would not be actively enforced on the
residential office sign code requirements, rather than suspending the entire
Homer City Code. Commissioner Kranich replied that the code was being suspended at the
instructions of an Advisory Commission.
Chair Chesley said the Commission does not get
to review the correspondence before it goes out.
Commissioner Hess said if Commissioner Kranich
was in the context of the last meeting he would understand why it went that
way. Commissioner Kranich
answered the minutes reflected the Vice Chair instructed the Planning
Director. Commissioner Hess said it was
on the Work List and the residential sign code was to be amended. He agreed it was not done correctly as to how
staff was advised. He explained the
intention was not to cause heartache to the people in violations of something
that was planned to change. It was not
something the Commission was forcing staff to do and he believes City Planner
McKibben agreed.
Chair Chesley said Code Compliance Officer Eggertsen-Goff wrote the letter and is a relatively new
staff member with the Planning Department.
City Planner McKibben stated she reviewed the correspondence and
believed it to be an accurate statement.
She stated she was directed to do so.
She added that Commissioner Kranich is
suggesting the Commission should have suggested rather than instructed. Chair Chesley
questioned if Commissioner Kranich wanted new
certified letters sent to everyone.
Commissioner Kranich said it had already been
done and would not undo the letter already sent. Chair Chesley asked
City Planner McKibben if she raised any concerns about being instructed or was
offended by the language of the Vice-Chair.
City Planner McKibben answered no.
Commissioner Hess said it was not intentional. Chair Chesley said
he was not at the last meeting, adding that they are all volunteers. Commissioner Pfeil
said he didn’t believe anyone at the last meeting picked up what Commissioner Kranich picked up.
Commissioner Kranich said it was the Advisory
Commission directing staff.
Commissioner Connor welcomed Commissioner Kranich
to the Commission. She said the Commissioners
are really well-intentioned people although sometimes the procedures may not be
quite in line with the rules. She added
they are trying to do what is right and the motion Commissioner Hess made at
the last meeting was done from his heart.
She herself received calls from people that were upset that they would
have to change their signs. Commissioner
Connor concluded that the Commission is trying to do right by the people too.
Commissioner Lehner welcomed Commissioner Kranich. She
presented City Planner McKibben with a book titled Conservation Design for
Subdivisions and each Commissioner with Suburban Nation books. She said there are interesting road standards
that recommend smaller roads because they are to slow traffic down and be
consistent with the activities around them.
The Eight Steps of Regional Planning are insightful. She said the whole book is provocative and
will give the Commission shared language and something to talk about.
Commissioner Hess said the events on the news last week drive home the
necessity of developing the sensitive area plan. He welcomed Commissioner Kranich
to the Commission and took some blame citing his inexperience in running a
meeting. He stated it was his first time
to run an entire meeting. He added the
Commissioners are here for their dedication to the community.
Chair Chesley welcomed Commissioner Kranich, stating it was fun to be part of a Commission
where people show up and are productive members. He said it is great to have folks that can
contribute. Chair Chesley
welcomed Commissioner Foster back, hoping he had a nice break. He also let the Commissioners know an
executive session would need to be set for the Deakins
appeal with those members that participated in the hearing. Chair Chesley welcomed
Deputy City Clerk Johnson back, adding that staff was on a three-month
rotation. Additionally he thanked City
Planner McKibben for her work and preparations for the meeting.
Commissioner Foster welcomed Commissioner Kranich
telling him he appreciated him calling a spade a spade in the method of
planning. He added he tries to focus on
science-based planning with sensitive areas.
He stated there was a meeting today on the floodplain workshop that is
scheduled for March 31st and April 1st. It is expanding beyond floodplain to focus on
no adverse impact and different ways floodplain mapping can include sensitive
areas. It will include the transitional
floodplain happening in Seward and the flashflood here. There is funding for all City Councilmembers and staff from the City of Homer and one of
the Planning Commissioners. He would
encourage anyone interested in attending the workshop to contact him to work
out scholarships. He said it will be an
excellent workshop. He appreciates the
welcome back, had a great time but missed everyone.
Commissioner Pfeil welcomed Commissioner Kranich and thanked him for serving on the Commission. His dedication to the community is a big deal
as he has put in a lot of time. He
thanked everyone for all the work they did for the Commission. Commissioner Pfeil
said the events around the world are a wake-up call. It made him think of the steep slope and a
tsunami warning system for the new facility on the Spit.
Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work session will
appear on the agenda following “adjournment.”
There being no further
business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 11:51 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for
February 2, 2005 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.
____________________________________
JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY
CLERK
Approved:
_________________________