Session 05-05, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Chair Chesley at the Homer City Hall Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL, HESS, LEHNER, KRANICH
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER CONNOR (Excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
CITY MANAGER WREDE
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
1.Valerie Connor
HESS MOVED TO ADD AND APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM FROM DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN REGARDING IMPROPER ACTION FROM THE FEBRUARY 16, 2005 REGULAR MEETING AS ITEM E. ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben said that City Manager Wrede was there to talk to the Commission under Public Comments and Presentations.
Commissioner Foster advised the Commission that the presentation by the Research Reserve on Shoreline Change would be postponed until the March 16, 2005 worksession and requested that Item E. Development Activity Plan be added.
FOSTER MOVED THAT ITEM E. GENERAL CONDITIONS BE ADDED TO COMMISSION BUSINESS.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The amended agenda was accepted by consensus of the Commission.
City Planner McKibben stated that her notes showed Commissioner Foster’s information on Item E. was scheduled for the worksession on March 16, and she does have it as Staff Report PL05-20.
Commission
approves minutes with any amendments
A. Approval of February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes.
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING ON FEBRUARY 16, 2005 TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
The
public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the
agenda. The Chair may prescribe time
limits. Public comments on an agenda
item 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.
City Manager Wrede spoke to the Commission regarding a hospital expansion that is supposed to take place this summer, and the expansion will cross over lot lines. The hospital sits on City owned property, which is leased through the Service Area Board. The Borough is trying to get the City to convey that property to them so the Borough will have control over the hospital, but the City does not want to do that. Negotiations are in process and one suggested solution is a Planned Unit Development (PUD). With a PUD a permitting scenario could be allowed to build a structure like this across the lot lines. Mr. Wrede wanted to make the Planning Commission aware of this because there will be a lot of pressure on City Administration and the Planning Commission to hurry and get this done.
Mr. Wrede informed the Commission that the City Council had agreed unanimously to go forward with the library project, regardless of the results of the special election. It is good news to the contractors and will help bring in better bids.
Mr. Wrede reminded the Commission that the vote for the ballot proposition to raise the sales tax 1% and lower the mil rate by 1 mil is coming up. The are a number of reasons for this rational but the main reason is for a more fair and equitable distribution of the tax burden. The Library, the Animal Shelter, Community Schools and things like that are regional services and when looking at Homer, there is a City of 5000 people but a service area of 15,000 people and this is a way to equally distribute the responsibility. He told the Commission that this is an attempt to raise money because there are serious budget concerns and he outlined ideas that are being worked on to help raise awareness in the community of why this is important. Mr. Wrede stated that the City Administration cannot lobby for this, but are talking to groups like the Chamber, Council on the Arts, churches and et cetera to look for interested parties who can take this on. The City Council does not want to threaten or bully the public to pass this, but they do want to get the word out and let people know what won’t be in the budget next year. They want people to know this is real, not posturing.
Commissioner Hess asked for the scenario on the operation of the library if the vote does not pass. City Manager Wrede replied that the Council will have time to work on that, if construction stays on line, the new library won’t open until fall 2006. He said by that time there could be other monies coming in to help with staffing. Mr. Wrede pointed out that this has been a priority of the City for quite some time and there are volunteers who have raised a lot of money and grants have that have come in. The Council decided to take the risk and go forward. Not moving forward could delay the project for many years. The funding for this is a house of cards and delays will cause it to fall apart.
Commissioner Kranich asked about getting rid of the lot lines since the City owns the lot the hospital is on and the one they are expanding on to. City Manager Wrede said that is an option as well as extending the lease as long as they want. A concern of the Borough with their lease is that if they fail to use the structure as a hospital, the improvements revert to the City. Mr. Wrede is hoping there are some compromises to make this work.
Bill Smith, city resident, handed out some forms he created for calculating impervious coverage in the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection (BCWP) District. A second hand out he offered was a manual calculation sheet. He pointed out that in the City Code for this section, a division mark is missing at the end. Mr. Smith said if it suited the City to use the worksheet it could be distributed electronically.
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 05-21 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code 21.42 Zoning Permits
City Planner McKibben commented that the proposed ordinance draft provided has been reviewed by City Attorney Tans. Ms. McKibben read the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing, consider comments, amend as needed and forward to the City Council for further action.
There were no public comments.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL05-21 RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HOMER, ALASKA AMENDING HOMER CITY CODE 21.42.010 CONCERNING ZONING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO ADD ITEM #3 AFTER LINE 47. ITEM #3 REMOVAL OF ANY BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR ANY TYPE OF USE.
Commissioner Hess commented that this would clear up that a permit would not be required if demolishing or removing a building. There is a loophole at this point that a permit is required.
City Planner McKibben suggested that the new language they have now is clear with out Mr. Hess’s change. It states that a permit is required for construction, erection, expansion, or other site development activities. His change won’t hurt anything, but she doesn’t feel it is necessary.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion Carried.
Commissioner Hess asked for a review of City Attorney Tans’ changes. City Planner McKibben stated them as follows:
ü Added “type of use” back on line 28.
ü Changed Homer City Code to Homer Zoning Code on lines 24 and 28.
ü Changed line 43 from similar uses to accessory uses.
Commissioner Kranich asked for clarification on line 27, change of a building. City Planner McKibben said it applies to changes that are regulated such as adding a porch, because it would be an expansion and setbacks would need to be checked. Replacing windows is not regulated and wouldn’t constitute a change.
PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED TO CHANGE LINES 34 & 35 THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO READ “THE FOLLOWING ARE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A ZONING PERMIT, BUT NOT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY PLAN AND OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HOMER ZONING CODE:”
Commissioner Pfeil commented that it is important to educate the public. People could develop their property and do some damage without wording like this.
Commissioner Foster agreed this is a good idea, demolishing a building could trigger a Development Activity Plan (DAP) and without this wording it would be exempt from a permit.
City Planner McKibben agreed that the change would be helpful if the Commission wants an evaluation of a potential of a deconstruction. The deconstruction of a larger building, for example, could cause land-disturbing activity.
Commissioner Kranich questioned the use of the DAP for a vacant lot.
City Planner McKibben followed up that the DAP is being used in a way that it wasn’t intended for and what the City needs is a grading/disturbance type permit.
Chair Chesley commented that as the Commissions works through this process they are finding other development activities that are appropriate for the DAP to apply to that weren’t anticipated. The primary focus for the DAP was new construction.
Commissioner Pfeil related that any building activity, construction or destruction, is going to alter drainage and they need to keep tabs on it.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion): YES: LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, PFEIL
KRANICH
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL 05-22 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code 21.59
City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 05-22 into the record.
Diann Martin, of Martin Realty, thanked the Commission on behalf of herself and the Pickering’s for their work. Ms. Martin asked to clarify if the Ordinance allows a mitigation plan or a stamped, engineered plan regarding pervious coverage, or if both are required. She also asked if this would apply to the 4.2 % that isn’t required to have a mitigation plan or stamped, engineered plan.
City Planner McKibben answered that either of them are acceptable. It won’t be a requirement to have both. She continued that the 100% would apply to the 4.2% as well, if there is a mitigation plan or stamped, engineered plan.
Ms. Martin further questioned if the additional 2.4 percentage points, noted on line 39 of the proposed ordinance, would apply to the 4.2 percent and the 6.4 percent that is currently in the code.
City Planner McKibben answered that there in no longer 6.4 percent in the Code. The City attorney recommended 2.2 percent that could be added to the 4.2 percent for a total of 6.4 percent. [1]
Angie Newby, of Homer Real Estate, thanked the Commission for all of their work and said if the Commission could be liberal with smaller lots, it would be appreciated. She said in general, the Real Estate community is in support of the ordinance, but smaller subdivisions like Kelly Ranch Estates cannot be effectively marketed. She spoke about a subdivision in the watershed area whose owners are interested in selling and even though it slopes away from the watershed, it still falls under the requirements. Mrs. Newby agreed that the new proposal of eliminating the drive and walkway from the impervious coverage amount would be helpful.
City Planner McKibben commented that even though some lots slope away from the watershed, they could still drain into rivers or streams that drain into the watershed.
Bill Smith, commented that if a parcel does not drain into the watershed, then it can be exempt from the requirements, but it is up the property owner to demonstrate that fact. Mr. Smith commented that the proposed language basically reads is that it extends a higher allowed impervious coverage with a mitigation plan to all lots and he thinks that should not occur and should continue to be limited to the small lots. There is plenty of allowance for development on larger parcels. The base idea of the district was when someone comes in and builds a driveway according to the plan the Planning Department has, they don’t have to have a mitigation plan or an engineer, they just have to do it the specified way and it doesn’t count against total coverage. The intent of the plan was to make it simple and protect the water quality. Mr. Smith said he think Commissioner Hess’s amended language in his lay down is trying to restore the change of coverage to only the smaller lots. He recommended that if the City had a standard driveway plan it could be a base document that the City can offer property owners who want to develop property in the watershed area and not have the driveway count toward their total coverage. If a property owner wanted to do something different and offered an engineered plan, that could be acceptable too.
Mr. Smith commented regarding City Attorney Tans’ change, which would extend the potential 6.4 percent to the watershed district. He said the only reason for the additional coverage in the beginning was to try to accommodate the problems for the smaller parcels. Mr. Smith doesn’t see a need to extend those numbers, which is almost a 50% increase in allowable coverage, to all of the parcels. Because a mitigation manual hasn’t been developed, the requirements were left vague so people could bring in a variety of plans to be reviewed by the Commission. To keep Homer from getting to the point where other communities are that allow development right up to the limit and development pressure actually takes it over the limit, we must continue to be conservative and keep a low concentration of development in the watershed area. It is important to hold the line and recognize the reality of life that development will go over what is allowed.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL05-22 RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING HOMER CITY CODE 21.59.
HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH THE LAY DOWN ITEM THAT WAS PRESENTED AND READS AS FOLLOWS:
21.59.070 Requirements. The following requirements shall apply to all uses in the BCWP
District unless requirements that are more stringent are otherwise provided for
in Chapter 21.61 Conditional Use Permits:
a. Lot sizes and impervious coverage percentages.
1. Lots
subdivided after February 25, 2003 shall be a minimum of 4.5 acres and have a maximum total impervious
coverage of 4.2 percent.
2. Lots subdivided prior to February 25, 2003 two
acres and larger shall have a maximum total impervious coverage of 4.2 percent.
3. Lots subdivided prior to
February 25, 2003 and smaller than two acres area shall have a maximum total
impervious coverage of 4.2 percent, except these parcels may contain coverage
up to 6.4 percent if the owner or owner’s representative submits a lot specific
mitigation plane for Planning Commission approval, and, if approved, thereafter
implements and continuously complies with the approved plan. The mitigation plan must be designed to
mitigate the effect of impervious coverage on water flow and the effect of loss
of vegetation created by the impervious coverage.
b. Impervious coverage calculations for existing lots and new
subdivisions.
1. For the purpose of calculating impervious
coverage, driveways may be partially or fully excluded from the calculation if
constructed and maintained in accordance with standards contained in the BCWP
District Mitigation Manual. Maintained
driveway design, other than those contained in the manual, which meet the goals
of the BCWP District Mitigation Manual may be accepted if stamped by a
registered engineer.
2. Same as the old c1
c. Additional requirements for subdivisions and lots
1. Old c
2
Commissioner Hess commented regarding the proposed amended language he presented as a lay down item. He said the language he is proposing clears up some of the issue about changing the impervious coverage to extend throughout the district. It also clears up the confusing language about the requirements, lot coverage, impervious coverage percentages, and pervious coverage calculations. It continues to support the allowance up to 100% deduction for driveways.
City Planner McKibben voiced her concern about adopting an ordinance that references the mitigation manual that isn’t in existence yet, as Mr. Hess’s proposed amendment does. She continued that the existing proposed ordinance is very simple with the straight 50% and 25% for the public and the staff. It spells out that if you are going to have a gravel drive it is calculated at 50% impervious, open paving blocks at 25% and if the property owner wants to do something different, then the mitigation comes into play. Ms. McKibben continued that if Mr. Hess’s proposed change gets adopted and there is no mitigation handbook in place, she has nothing to give a property owner who comes into her office for information.
Chair Chesley disagreed, stating that there are two plans given by Kelly Ranch developers that the Commission has already approved plus information that the Pickering’s submitted.
Commissioner Foster commented that it keeps the ordinance cleaner if there aren’t examples. If there isn’t a mitigation handbook when the ordinance is adopted, the two plans that exist can be reviewed, or developers can come up with their own plan and the Commission can look at it.
City Planner McKibben related that if a person comes in with a plan that does not follow one of the engineered plans that claim to be 100% impervious, it doesn’t say that they have to come to the Planning Commission for an approved mitigation plan, and she has no guidelines on calculating their percentage of coverage.
Commissioner Hess pointed out that the second sentence under item b. 1. in his proposal states that if a developer brings in a plan that is stamped by a registered engineer, tells what the pervious coverage is and meets the goal, it would automatically be accepted and added to the manual. He apologized for presenting this at a late time, not allowing for much review, but he came up with it late in the afternoon, before the meeting.
Commissioner Kranich brought up the point that there could be issue with taking a Project Engineers design and putting it into a manual for everyone else to copy.
Chair Chesley counted that everything that is submitted with a zoning application is a public record.
The Commission discussed potential issue of including lot specific plans that have been submitted and approved. A suggestion was when a stamped engineered plan comes in, staff could ask if it could be added to the manual.
Chair Chesley said the purpose of putting the plans in the mitigation manual is to show that the City recognizes a plan like this meets the goals of the Bridge Creek Watershed District. The City is not taking the position to say take one of these City approved plans and use it. These are examples of plans that have been approved and if the developer does something similar to this, it can be approved too. A year and a half ago the plan was that staff was going to create a manual that had the mitigation information in it; what the Commission to talk about now is to let some of these things happen ahead of the manual being produced. Chair Chesley said that at a previous meeting with City Manager Wrede, Mr. Wrede talked about different priorities for Planning and Zoning and providing money for rewriting different sections of the Code and he would like to take Mr. Wrede up on the offer. The mitigation manual is an area where extra help is needed by the City Manager’s office to identify some money to get the mitigation manual where it is workable and the City Planner will have the tool she needs to work with. This has been one of the highest priorities since the BCWP District was started. By putting in the 50% and 25% options in the Code, it moves the manual down the priority list because staff has something to work with, but it doesn’t meet the goal of the district.
Commissioner Hess asked to retract his statement that stamped engineered plans that a developer might bring in be added to the plan.
City Planner McKibben recommended if Commissioner Hess’s changes that there be another public hearing. There are a lot of people who have read the proposed draft ordinance and are not in attendance to see Commissioner Hess’s proposed change and thinks it would be a good service to put it out there again if Mr. Hess’s proposal is accepted. She pointed out that there is substantial difference in that the proposed ordinance allows mitigation plans for all lots based on discussions following the Palmer Pines issue, and Mr. Hess’s proposal takes it back and allows lots that are 2 acres and less can submit a mitigation plan.
Chair Chesley asked the Commission if there was any opposition to re opening the public hearing to allow the two members of the public who consistently attend to give feedback on the proposal.
The Commission did not have any opposition. Commissioner Kranich did express his agreement with City Planner McKibben’s suggestion of another public hearing.
Chair Chesley said he is not trying to preclude another public hearing. He also commented that he would like Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen to contact City Clerk Calhoun to confirm whether or not there is a requirement to hold another public hearing if Commissioner Hess’s changes are adopted.
Diann Martin asked if Commissioner Hess’s proposed language would replace the language in the presently proposed ordinance and that 100% exemption could still be given. Ms. Martin voiced her concern that the existing proposed ordinance offers a tool that the City can use if a person buys a lot to develop; but under Mr. Hess’s proposal, if a person wants to buy a lot, they are not going to want to pay an engineer if they don’t know the plan is going to be approved.
Commissioner Hess answered that it would replace the language in the current proposed draft ordinance and explained that the biggest change is that it does not extend the 6.4% coverage to the areas that were subdivided after February 25, 2003. Basically everything else is a little different verbiage but has the same intent as the proposed ordinance language. Mr. Hess continued that on existing lots that are less than 2 acres it is possible to go up to 6.4% coverage and driveways can be 100% exempt if they meet the requirements. His proposal takes out the 50% and 25% allowances.
Chair Chesley reiterated that staff does have something to work with now with the plans that have been approved.
There was further discussion between Ms. Martin and the Commission for clarification that Commissioner Hess’s proposed change does away with the 50% and 25% allowances but maintains the intent of giving 100% exemption for an approved driveway plan. It also does away with the blanket 6.4% coverage throughout the district. There was also discussion about reference to a manual that doesn’t exist and Chair Chesley reiterated the need to contact the City Manager’s office to get funding approved to prepare the manual.
Ms. Martin asked Commissioner Hess why he waited so long to put this together.
Chair Chesley answered that is not a relevant question, this ordinance is an active item on the agenda and Mr. Hess can make changes while preparing for a meeting.
Commissioner Hess said it stemmed from reading HCC 21.59.070 and this is to make it easier to understand and incorporate some of the concerns about increasing impervious coverage in areas throughout the district.
Bill Smith said it is a good idea to give more soak time, but hopes this can be completed before the construction season. He said the manual, at this juncture could be a one-page single driveway plan that works for the City. There is a lot of information that has been gathered for a mitigation manual, it takes someone to put it together in an understandable way and have it reviewed by Public Works, then bring it out. If a resolution adopts it it is easier to amend than if it was adopted by ordinance.
Commissioner Foster asked if Mr. Smith sees a problem with walkways included with driveways in Mr. Hess’s proposed change.
Mr. Smith answered if the City has a standard for walkways it could be part of the manual. There are a lot of plans for walkways that are not gravel. He doesn’t know if there is any compelling reason to encourage gravel walkways when there are alternatives that work well. He wouldn’t have any objections to adding walkways, as long the property doesn’t have a gravel driveway.
Commissioner Hess asked Mr. Smith for his comments regarding mitigation plans and the idea of a trading plan.
Mr. Smith said that a trading plan is useful if a property owner wants to develop one acre of a 10-acre parcel more intensively, but proximity to creeks and other variables need to be to be counted, so a trading plan would have to be carefully worked out.
Chair Chesley closed the public hearing and recounted for the Commission that there is a main motion on the floor and a motion for a proposed amendment to the draft ordinance. He called for a recess at 9:10 p.m. He asked if Deputy Clerk Jacobsen would contact City Clerk Calhoun regarding the requirement for another public hearing.
The meeting resumed at 9:20 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen reported that she was unable to reach City Clerk Calhoun during the break.
Chair Chesley queried the Commission about how they wanted to proceed.
It was agreed that they would continue discussion Commissioner Hess’s proposal for five more minutes to clarify people’s questions.
Commissioner Kranich questioned a.1. and a.2. on Commissioner Hess’s proposal. If efforts are being made to streamline things, why not say that all lots over 4.5 acres can’t get an increase instead of breaking it down they way it is. Why not have 4.5 acres the cut off.
Chair Chesley called on Bill Smith to come forward and explain the reasoning behind the break down of dates and lot sizes.
Mr. Smith explained that when the BCWP District was being formed, the Planning Commission looked at a study that was done in Anchorage. It showed an impervious coverage range of 4.2% to 5.8% coverage, had a an impact to stream water quality. They used 5.8% as the target percentage of coverage to work with in the Bridge Creek watershed area. The Commission had to figure the coverage from the non-private lands and had to determine how much land was covered by roads in public rights-of-way (ROW). Using satellite photos and GIS systems, an intern at Cook Inlet Keeper took on the project of measuring the amount of land covered by dedicated ROW in the watershed area and the Commission looked at how much of the land was or could be covered by impervious coverage. It was determined that 50% of the ROW would be counted as impervious coverage. 50% of the ROW was 1.6% of the total coverage per lot and that is how they reached 4.2% of impermeable coverage per lot (4.2 % + 1.6 for the ROW= 5.8% total coverage). Then the Commission looked at Kelly Ranch Estates, with their small lots and roads, and saw that this method wouldn’t work for the smaller lots that are already developed. They went back, looked at the studies, and looked at another threshold where there was a jump in impact to water quality, which was 8%. The 8% minus the 1.6% average coverage in the watershed area gave them the 6.4% allowable coverage, if there was a mitigation plan. The Commission wanted to have a manual that would help people develop with low impact, but until the manual can be developed, there needed to be numbers they knew worked for protecting the water quality.
Mr. Smith continued that The Planning Department determined the amount of existing roadway in Kelly Ranch Estates that was covered by a developed gravel surface. Taking each lot in the subdivision into consideration and adding what is already there with the gravel road, it was well over 10% that was already being allowed in Kelly Ranch Estates given a mitigation plan for the building, driveways and roads. 4.2% was the standard for all lots in the watershed area, but that made the smaller lots un-developable. A higher level of impact is being accepted for those lots that were already subdivided before the BCWP District was developed. The Commission looked at all of the lots, including Kelly Ranch Estates, to see how much area could be developed on each lot in an effort to make sure that the lots can be developed with these regulations. People wanting the really long driveways turned out to be a problem, not only for Kelly Ranch Estates, but other lots as well.
Mr. Smith concluded that the concept was that 4.2% for a lot that was over 2 acres there would be little difficulty developing to the average construction for that area. Existing lots under two acres were allowed to have a mitigation plan to go to a higher number to balance the impact on water quality with the impact on property rights.
Commissioner Kranich commented that for the subdivisions prior to the February 2003 date, they started with a base number of at or close to 8% then started deducting for ROWs and got down to the 4.2%; but the new subdivisions start at 4.2 and deduct 50% for the ROW.
Mr. Smith replied that that is a good point, but the reality is that right now everyone has the same thing. If one owner decides to take his parcel and put a whole lot of roads in there, he is creating a lot of additional impervious coverage. The choice might be that they would have to go and calculate all the extra road into the total watershed and then change everyone’s coverage, so maybe what one owner does changes everyone else to 4.1%. Or, they could just say everyone gets 4.2% and if property owner A want to put roads in there that’s fine, but they are going to count. So if A divides up his property and sells a lot to property owner B you could say B only gets 3.2%; but really, when A owned the property he had 4.2% to start with and chose to cover the property with roads and buildings. That is A’s responsibility and if he sell a lot to B, A is selling part of that responsibility to B.
Diann Martin clarified that a few of the lots in Kelly Ranch Estates that are over two acres and have recommended areas for leach fields that are over 350 feet back. It was an issue for potential buyers to have to get a driveway in that far back.
Commissioners Hess, Lehner and Kranich reconfirmed that as long as the driveway is determined pervious by a mitigation plan or a stamped, engineered plan it may not count against the total coverage. They also confirmed that lots over two acres do not get the additional 2.4% with a mitigation plan. Only lots under 2 acres can get the extra percentage.
There was discussion between the Commission and Mr. Smith about the reasoning for setting the minimum lot size for the BCWP District at 4.5 acres. Mr. Smith said initially 2 acres was discussed, but studies show that development will go over the limit. There were others who wanted 10-acre parcels, but after debate 4.5 acres was decided on for the maximum lot size. It was pointed out that DEC requirements are that lots over 200,000 square feet can be sold with out having any proof that it percs for DEC standards, which was a driving component in deciding on the 4.5 acres to give developers a little more flexibility.
The Commission thanked Mr. Smith for his information.
FOSTER/KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND COMMISSIONER HESS’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT ITEM B.1 WOULD HAVE DRIVEWAYS AND WALKWAYS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED AMEND COMMISSIONER HESS’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS FOLLOWS:
ü SECTION A TITLE TO BE “IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE”
ü COMPLETELY ELIMINATE SECTION A.1
ü SECTION A.2. BECOMES A.1 AND READS “LOTS 2 ACRES AND LARGER SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OF 4.2%”
ü SECTION A.3. DATES ARE REMOVED AND READS “LOTS SMALLER THAN 2 ACRES SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OF 4.2%, EXCEPT THESE PARCELS MAY BE ALLOWED COVERAGE UP TO 6.4% IF THE OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE...” THE REST OF A.3 REMAINS THE SAME.
ü SECTION B STAYS THE SAME WITH THE ADDITION OF WALKWAYS
ü SECTION C.1. READS, “LOTS SUBDIVIDED AFTER FEBRUARY 25, 2003 SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4.5 ACRES.”
ü SECTION C.2. WILL BE THE OLD C.2
Chair Chesley called for a recess at 10:15 for City Planner McKibben to make copies of Ms. Lehner’s changes. The meeting resumed at 10:20 p.m.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
VOTE: (Commissioner Hess’s Amendment as Amended): YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
KRANICH/HESS MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION ON STAFF REPORT PL05-22 TO THE MARCH 16, 2005 REGULAR MEETING AND SCHEDULE, AT THAT TIME, A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE FINAL ACTION.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
Diann Martin asked if the purpose of the mitigation plan that would be submitted is to point out pervious coverage or impervious coverage.
City Planner McKibben answered that the purpose of the mitigation plan is implement specify a plan to slow down the flow of the water so it has time to sit in the soil and get cleaned out before it flows to the creeks or reservoir.
Chair Chesley asked for consideration from the Clerk for the loose way the discussion for this public hearing was conducted. He felt it was a very important and meaningful discussion.
PLAT
CONSIDERATION
The
Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the
public. The Commission may ask
questions of staff, applicants and public.
A. Staff Report PL 05-23 Re: Fairview Subdivision Flyum Addition Preliminary Plat.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL05-23 RE: FAIRVIEW SUBDIVISION FLYUM ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT.
There were no comments from the applicant, their representative or the public.
Commissioner Pfeil questioned if these lots, after they become one lot, get subdivided again down the line and the utility easement is needed.
Chair Chesley answered that if they are subdivided in the future they will become subject to the subdivision code and staff and Public Works can make recommendations for establishment of utility easements.
VOTE: YES: LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL 05-24 Re: Christensen Tracts Subdivision No. 4 Preliminary Plat.
LEHNER/HESS MOVED THAT SHE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING STAFF REPORT PL 05-24.
Commissioner Lehner stated that she is a neighboring property owner and may have personal opinions that are not without bias as a result of the proximity to her land.
VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, HESS
NO: PFEIL
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley queried the Commission about their preference if Ms. Lehner should leave the room or stay and be allowed to participate in discussion as a member of the public.
No Commissioner voiced any opposition to Ms. Lehner being allowed to stay and speak as member of the public.
PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL05-24 RE: CHRISTENSEN TRACTS SUBDIVISION NO 4. PRELIMINARY PLAT.
Roger Imhoff, surveyor, commented that Public Works has made the recommendation to dedicate a cul-de-sac at the end of the road. The cul-de-sac will only serve Tract 3, but in the future the property owners plan to further subdivide the tract, at which time the road will be extended into Tract 3. He asked the Commission to remove the requirement for the cul-de-sac at this time. If the cul-de-sac is dedicated, it creates a special situation in which all the owners of lots that border that road have to vote in the affirmative on a petition to vacate the cul-de-sac in order to extend the road. Mr. Imhoff asked that if Public Works needs some kind of easement, that it be done by document and not by plat.
Commissioner Kranich questioned the 30-foot right-of-way (ROW), Hough Road, when it should be 60 feet.
Mr. Imhoff answered that the ROW that Mr. Kranich questioned is not in the subdivision. The parent property has already given up the 30 feet. It is customary that when large parcels are being subdivided that an owner each side of the line gives 30 feet. There has already been 30 feet taken from the parent parcel. Hough Road isn’t in the subdivision; all the lots have dedicated road access, which is in the requirement. There is also a 50-foot private easement to the tract from the previous subdivision.
Commissioner Kranich and City Planner McKibben reviewed the map with Mr. Imhoff.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC NOT BE REQUIRED AS LONG AS TRACT 3 IS SUBDIVIDED WITH IN A ONE YEAR PERIOD AFTER APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT.
City Planner McKibben questioned what the procedure would be to go back and create the cul-de-sac a year and a half later. She asked Mr. Imhoff to explain the advantage of dedicated through a paper document rather than a plat.
Mr. Imhoff replied that if the easement appears on the plat, it has to go through a plat process to vacate it. If the easement is done by deed, then it is a matter of filing a new deed to get rid of the easement. In the language of the easement, the City would have the right to cause it to be constructed through improvements.
Commissioner Foster questioned the reasoning behind waiting to further subdivide tract 3.
Mr. Imhoff replied it is the three-lot rule that the City has.
Bill Smith interjected that the City does not have that rule anymore.
Mr. Imhoff continued that they are doing this way because the Planning Department advised them do so.
Commissioner Kranich questioned why Tracts 1 and 2 are associated with a cul-de-sac they don’t front on.
Mr. Imhoff said the intent of the creation of a cul-de-sac is that the road will forever will be a dead end road. People buy and own property along that road with that intention. If someone proposes to extend the road to access another property or subdivision, it can cause problems in the future.
After further discussion of the requirements for vacating a cul-de-sac, Commissioner Kranich called for the question.
VOTE: NO: CHESLEY, PFEIL, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion failed.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND STAFF REPORT PL05-24 RE: CHRISTENSEN TRACTS SUBDIVISION #4 RECOMMENDATION 1. “DEDICATION OF A 50’ CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END OF HOUGH ROAD” TO READ “CREATION OF A 50’ CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END OF HOUGH ROAD BY DOCUMENT EASEMENT.”
There was discussion as to whether or not vacating an easement requires the same process as vacating a ROW. A document easement is recorded, but doesn’t appear on the plat.
Mr. Imhoff commented that he confirmed the process with Mary Toll, Platting Officer of the Borough and has used it in a similar situation for a subdivision in Anchor Point.
Commissioner Kranich stated that 20.28.040 “Vacation Definitions” refers to the process to get rid of an easement the same as the process for a ROW.
Mr. Imhoff answered that the definitions are different than the actual process; the process is in a different part of the Code.
City Planner McKibben added that if the applicant is comfortable with the document easement and the Planning Commission is comfortable that it meets the City’s need, the property owner would have to take care of it.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster voiced his disappointment in the Planning Department giving a recommendation to override the rules of the City and Borough regarding zoning. He said he couldn’t, in good conscience, vote in favor of this. Dr. Foster explained that the three-lot rule, four lots with the Borough, has fewer restrictions than a large subdivision. There have been problems before in how this effects the ROW’s in other areas of the community.
City Planner McKibben said she didn’t make the recommendation so she couldn’t speak to it, but would look into it.
Ms. Lehner, owner of the adjoining parcel to the west, made effort to justify Mr. Hough’s intention. She said the way she understands it is that Mr. Hough is creating larger parcels from the three that he has already subdivided into. He purchased an adjoining lot and is now extending those parcels by eliminating lot lines into the parcel he purchased. She pointed out on the map that the boundaries will run along the drainage, which seems to be sensible.
Chair Chesley reminded the Commission to be mindful not to give any more weight to the testimony to a Commissioner that has declared a conflict of interest than any other member of the public.
Commissioner Foster commented that he does agree with the way that the Hough’s are reconfiguring their lots to have the boundaries run along the drainage and following the topography.
Commissioner Kranich asked for more clarification on the private 50-foot easement that was spoken of earlier.
Mr. Imhoff said it is located against the dedication on the south side. It was created for the benefit of the Jenson’s who owned the property when they did the original Christensen Tracts Subdivision. He confirmed that there is a section line easement along the north boundary.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at 11:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 11:06 p.m.
VOTE: (Main Motion): YES: PFEIL, CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
NO: FOSTER
Motion carried.
The
Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the
public. Commission business includes
resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, request fro reconsideration and other
issues as needed. The Commission may
ask questions of staff, applicants and public.
A. Staff Report PL 05-26 Re: Ordinance 05-12, An Ordinance of the City Council of Homer, Alaska Amending Homer City Code Sections 21.49.040 (E.)(1) to Read 35,000 Square Feet and 21.49.040(E)(3) to Read 45,000 Square Feet and 21.50.040(E)(1) to Read 45,000 Square Feet.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL05-26 RE: ORDINANCE 05-12 AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HOMER, ALASKA AMENDING HOMER CITY CODE SECTION 21.49.040 (E)(1), TO 35,000 SQUARE FEET AND 21.49.040(E)(3) TO READ 45,000 SQUARE FEET AND 24.50.040(E)(1) TO READ 45,000 SQUARE FEET.
Commissioner Lehner passed out a hand out of changes based on the original Ordinance 05-12. She likes the idea of acknowledging that one size doesn’t fit all. Her handout basically says that the size caps should take other districts into consideration.
Commissioner Foster commented that the likelihood of someone buying up a lot of lots and building something big in Old Town is slim, but it is saying that it can be done. That is a unique area and a sub-district and yet ignoring that fact.
The Commission discussed sub-zones and determined that Old Town is not a sub-zone. There were three sub-zones created in GC1 property when 04-11A was passed, GC1-Ocean Drive, GC1-Baycrest Hill/Scenic Gateway and GC1-East Road East of Alder Lane.
Chair Chesley said he supported Commissioner Lehner’s suggestion. The Commission did a lot of work on trying to make zoning sizes that were appropriate for those areas.
City Planner McKibben reminded the Commission that Staff Recommendation is for the Commission to hold a public hearing and make recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Chesley replied that Councilmember Novak had called him after Mr. Novak had talked to City Clerk Calhoun. Councilmember Novak had said to Mr. Chesley that they want the Planning Commission’s recommendation back for the March 14, 2005 City Council Meeting.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEND, AS ITS RECOMMENDATION, TO THE CITY COUNCIL COMMISSIONER LEHNER’S RECOMMENDATION WHICH READS:
Recommendation
to Council:
The Commission recommends
that the Council establish size caps that reflect the unique characteristics of
each commercial district and sub-zone.
Discussion:
In establishing the size
caps contained in Ordinance 4-11(A), the Commission gave extensive
consideration to the unique characteristics of Homer’s commercial districts
(CBD, GC1, GC2, MI, and MC). (See
“Whereas” clauses for Ordinance 04-11A).
These characteristics include, but are not limited to, size of the
district, proximity to non-commercial districts, road infrastructure, traffic
patterns, viewscape, and proximity to wetlands and other sensitive areas. As a result of these efforts, the Commission
created three sub-zones within the GC1 district: GC1 Ocean Drive, GC1 Scenic Gateway, and GC1 East End Road – East
of Alder Lane, and established a corresponding size cap for each sub-zone.
In general when
amending the zoning code, it is important to treat a zoning district
consistently. The concept of
“consistent treatment” is not, however, synonymous with “do the exact same
thing everywhere.” Ordinance 05-02[2] applies
the 66,000 square foot standard equally to all GC1 sub-zones. It
is the Commission’s opinion that this “one-size-fits-all” approach is not
appropriate in GC1 because it ignores the unique characteristics of each of its
sub-zone.
When the Council adopted
04-34, its action retained size caps tailored to each commercial district,
including GC1 sub-zones. Ordinance
05-12 would re-establish this “context-specific” approach. The Commission supports this approach and,
therefore, recommends adoption of Ordinance 05-12.
Commissioner Kranich said he wouldn’t have a problem dropping the square footage in the Scenic Gateway. Most of the GC2 land is either wetlands or away from the road, so doesn’t see the rational to limit the size there.
Commissioner Foster commented that in the Comprehensive Plan idea is to keep the Central Business District as a business district and keep the big stuff there, not starting another district out on Kachemak Drive.
Chair Chesley commented to the notion that Commissioner Hess put forward previously, that didn’t get any reading at Council level, of making a 66,000 square foot corridor along Lake Street to prevent something of that size from happening in scenic Old Town where we are trying to create a historic district. Chair Chesley thinks this new approach has made everything fair game and it is a travesty that the Council is doing it at this point.
Commissioner Kranich questioned the practicality of the lowering Ocean Drive GC1 district and the GC2 district.
KRANICH/FOSTER
MOVED TO AMEND DRAFT ORDINANCE 05-12 LINE 38 (35,000 66,000
SQUARE FEET) BE CHANGED BACK TO 66,000 SQUARE FEET.
Commissioner Kranich followed up stating it is highly unlikely that size of development will happen in that area due to the small lot sizes, however that lot size was included in the initiative and he feels that the people did vote to accept that size number.
Commissioner Foster commented that in the spirit of the sub-zones and keeping people in the Central Business District in a walking section, he would be opposed to the amendment.
Chair Chesley said he would be opposed to it as well because he does not like the logic that it is not likely that someone will build there so it’s okay. The reason the Commission recommended 35,000 square feet for that area is because of the impact of traffic along that corridor headed out to the spit.
VOTE: YES: KRANICH
NO: FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS
Motion fails.
KRANICH/HESS MOVED
TO AMEND DRAFT ORDINANCE 05-12 LINE 61 (SINGLE BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED 45,000
66,000 SQUARE FEET) TO READ 66,000 SQUARE FEET.
Chair Chesley clarified that is for the GC2 District.
Commissioner Kranich followed up that the amendment is in the spirit of the initiative results. Most of the area is wetlands and away from the major road system.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
NO: FOSTER, PFEIL, LEHNER
Motion fails for lack of majority vote.
Commissioner Hess commented that he would like to pursue working on establishing sub-zones in the very near future.
City Planner McKibben stated that the proposed amendment the Commission accepted is a significant change to the Draft Ordinance 05-12 she would like to go on record that she advised them that the Code does require a public hearing for an amendment for a zoning ordinance.
Chair Chesley called for the vote on the main motion.
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen questioned whether the Commission should vote on accepting Commissioner Lehner’s recommendation before the main motion, since the first motion on the floor was to accept the staff report.
Chair Chesley stated that accepting the recommendation was the main motion and that the staff report is not something what the Commission is adopting, just the recommendation.
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen did not question Chair Chesley and call roll for the vote on adopting Commissioner Lehner’s recommendation.
VOTE: YES: LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, PFEIL
NO: KRANICH
Motion carried.
KRANICH/HESS MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION BE HELD UNTIL AFTER SUCH TIME THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLDS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CHANGES TO ORDINANCE 05-12.
Commissioner Kranich followed up saying that if a public hearing is a requirement of the Code, then he doesn’t see much of a way around it. If the motion passes, Mr. Kranich recommended that staff should advise the Council that a recommendation is not back to them because the Planning Commission is adhering to Code and will hold a public hearing.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben asked when they would like to schedule the public hearing. The Commission agreed to do so at the next Regular Meeting on March 16, 2005.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION ON PL 05-02 TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
B. Staff Report PL 05-02 Amended Re: Draft - 2001 Homer Area Transportation Plan, Updated 2004.
C. Staff Report PL 05-28 Re: Land Allocation Plan
There was discussion that a majority of the Commission has prior commitments during the joint meeting with the City Council on the Land Allocation Plan on March 14, 2005.
Chair Chesley commented that here is merit in the City holding property even if there is not a specific plan, particularly the library parcels along Hazel and not dispose of the four lots closest to Petro Marine.
Commissioner Kranich agreed with Chair Chesley.
He asked City Planner McKibben to comment that to the Council from the Planning Commission.
D. Staff Report 04-109 Re: Commission Work List - Ongoing
Commissioner Hess requested two items be added to the work list:
E. Staff Report PL05-20 Re: General Conditions
Commissioner Foster asked that the Commission take the information home and read it for discussion.
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster commented that the Plat Committee approved all the City recommended plats. He gave a presentation on Shoreline Change that was done by the Research Reserve for the City. He further commented that although he voted against a plat tonight, he will support the City’s interest at the Borough level.
B Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report.
City Planner McKibben commented that it is very important to always give the public the opportunity to comment on substantial changes and expressed her appreciation to the Commission for their support tonight.
Ms. McKibben asked the Commission to give their questions to her prior to the meetings; she can prepare well-formulated answers, rather than trying answer questions on the fly.
Commissioner Hess asked if she had received any status from the Borough about the opinion of platting actions and zoning code actions.
Ms. McKibben said they are still working on it and it will be on the agenda when they have it squared away.
Commissioner Hess asked that she check into paper document easements.
Commissioner Foster asked if she or anyone else had gotten approval to attend the Floodplain Management.
Ms. McKibben said two maybe three from the Planning and Zoning Office would be attending.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items listened 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 Nancy Hillstrand dated February 16, 2005 Re: 4306 Homer Spit Road - Zoning Permit Required
B. Informational letter to Jane Swain regarding her neighbors activities.
C. Letter in reply to Frank Griswold letter of 1/15/05
D. Zoning Violation letter to Ronnie Lee Kuntz regarding 3050 Kachemak Drive residential use.
E. USACOE - Public Notice of Re-issuance of General Permit (GP) 1987-3P, Mooring Buoys on the Kasilof River.
F. Zoning Violation Log
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.
Commissioner Hess asked to be excused from the March 16, 2005 meeting.
Commissioner Kranich asked if Mr. Pickering’s drawings had official action taken on them.
Chair Chesley said they had come in as an informational item and the Commission acknowledged to Mr. Pickering that his information is what the Commission is looking for.
City Planner McKibben said there might be some confusion on this. Mr. Pickering had brought in information that may be acceptable as a mitigation plan for the handbook.
Mr. Kranich asked because in discussion tonight there was mention of approved mitigation plans from Mr. Pickering, but if there hasn’t been official taken, they are not official plans.
Chair Chesley commented that he attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to talk use of the DOT right-of-way on the Lighthouse Village side of the road. Their minutes reflect unanimous agreement in recommending that the Council needs that property to use as expanded parking for the Spit Trail users. It will go to the Beach Policy Committee as well and he hopes they will be supportive as well. Chair Chesley said he will be working with a Councilmember to bring a motion forward for the Council to take action on to give direction to the City Manager to lease that property.
Chair Chesley presented a map for the Commission to look at and said typically the development standards are that you can’t have structures crossing lot lines. He showed an aerial photo that shows Public Works has a building that clearly crosses the lot line and commented that once again in violation and suggested bringing this forward as a platting action to get it cleaned up.
Commissioner Foster said at the Borough the Jordan Hess property came forward, he reminded the Commission that they had taken out a sewer easement or something. There was some confusion about the removal of condition one. The plat passed but the recommendation was to contact of City Planner McKibben or Public Works Inspector Gardner for clarification. One of the Borough Planning Commissioner said that it should go back to the Homer Planning Commission; if it were his City he would like to have it that way. Commissioner Foster said he was in attendance at the meeting and said that it was okay for it to go between the Planning Department and Public Works. He wanted to make the Commission aware of the decision he had made.
Chair Chesley thanked everyone for their patience and persistence on Bridge Creek. The questions were good and people seem to be getting a clearer understanding of the history of the district. Hopefully the right information will get out to the Realtors and when pending zoning legislation like that, someone might bird dog it and follow it through to keep the information flowing. There is a responsibility to protect the water supply for the community. It is easy to look around at places like Gig Harbor, Washington where all the older have septic systems that are failing and the waters around those areas are closed to oyster mariculture and things like that because of high E-coli bacteria counts in the waters. If that happens in our little watershed, water treatment costs will go through the ceiling.
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 adjourned at 12:05 am
p.m. The next Regular Meeting is
scheduled for March 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. There will be a worksession at 6:00 p.m.
prior to the meeting.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved:
[1] There was an error discovered in the language on line 39 of the proposed ordinance should be 2.2 not 2.4. City Planner McKibben said she would take care of the correction.
[2] Ordinance 05-02, Of the City Council of Homer, Alaska Amending
Homer City Code Chapters 21.32, Definitions, to add a New Section 21.32.208
Foot Print Area, Chapters 21.48 Central Business District, 21.49 General
Commercial One District and 21.50 General Commercial Two District, Building
Area and Dimensions, to Increase the Allowable Area of Buildings Used for
Retail and Wholesale Business to 66,000 Square Feet.