Session 04-06 Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by Chair Smith at 7:00 p.m. on March 3, 2004, at Homer City Hall, Council Chambers, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.

 

A Work Session was held from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. regarding the City of Homer Design Manual. 

 

PRESENT:   COMMISSION:           FOSTER, SMITH, BARTLETT, CHESLEY, PFEIL, CELENTANO

 

                   ABSENT:                    HESS (excused)

 

STAFF:                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK BENSON

                                                            CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                                                            PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER

                                                            CITY MANAGER WALT WREDE

                                                                                                                                   

A quorum is required to conduct a meeting.

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA

 

All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in one motion.   There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular agenda and considered in normal sequence.   

 

A.     Time Extension Requests

B.     Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.

C.     KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

D.  Commissioner Excused Absences

 

City Planner McKibben made a request to add Reconsiderations, Item A and Commission Business Item B, Oscar Munson Subdivision 2004 Preliminary Plat to the agenda.

 

Commissioner Chesley made a request to add to the agenda Commission Business, Item C, Consideration in CBD, HCC 21.48.020N, Building Supplies, Materials Provided, Such Use Including Storage Materials as Wholly Contained within an Enclosed Building.

 

Under Commission Business Item B would change to Item D, and Item C would change to Item E.

 

The commission adopted the amended agenda by consensus.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.

 

            A.        Approval of February 18, 2004 meeting minutes. 

 

The minutes were approved by consensus.

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

City Planner McKibben advised that Commissioner Chesley called for reconsideration on the vote on Oscar Munson Subdivision 2004 Preliminary Plat on February 19, 2004, at 9:28 p.m.  At the request of Commissioner Bartlett, staff had requested information from City Attorney Tans regarding the authority of Public Works, Planning Department and/or Planning Commission to require paving outside the subdivision.  After review of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Subdivision Code, City of Homer Ordinances and the City of Homer Design Criteria Manual Attorney Tans found nothing that granted express authority to require off site improvements.  The attorney further found that there was no ordinance to justify, nor a case for implied legal authority to justify requiring improvement on an off site road.

 

CHESLEY/PFEIL -  MOVE TO RECONSIDER STAFF REPORT PL04-09 OSCAR MUNSON SUBDIVISION AND THE CONDITIONS PLACED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS

 

The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda.  The Chair may prescribe time limits.  Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission.  Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission.   A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

 

Frank Griswold requested 11 minor corrections to the February 18th minutes.  He commented that it would be preferable if the public had the opportunity to do this prior to approval by the commission.  He and the chair discussed briefly the agenda format.  Mr. Griswold presented his list of grammatical errors.  Mr. Griswold commented on the new design standards fence height.  He stated that the fence height of 3 feet for arterials would be in conflict with 21.48.020(ii), which calls for 8 feet high fences to hide the debris and junkyards along Main Street.  He cited this as another reason to delete ii (as cited in his testimony on February 18th ).  Mr. Griswold questioned why the commission suggested an addition to 21.48.030 the conditional uses of “other uses similar to and not more objectionable than permitted in conditional uses listed for this district as determined by the commission”.  He then read his letter to the Planning Commission asking that it also be sent to the Council for their consideration.  Chair Smith interjected that this was amended following his suggestion and asked Mr. Griswold to hold his comments regarding the design manual to the proper place on the agenda.  Mr. Griswold thanked the commission.

 

Chair Smith asked the clerk to review the typographical errors that Mr. Griswold relayed.

 

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.

 

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 04-13   Re:        Request For Review Of Proposed Residential Development Of 6.4% With Mitigation As Required By HCC 21.59.070 (A) (2) On Lot 7, Kelly Ranch Estates Subdivision Within The Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District.

 

City Planner McKibben noted that this is the first request for the Planning Commission such as this and commented that they were charting uncharted territory.  She reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations.  Staff recommendations: The Planning Commission should review the plan, make recommendations and approve the mitigation plan with the following conditions: 1.  Applicant shall comply with all other applicable federal, state and local regulations. 2. Construction activities shall minimize impact to the site, and natural vegetation shall be retained to the maximum extent possible.  3. Areas disturbed by construction shall be planted or seeded as soon as possible to reduce sedimentation.  4. Drain fields and leaching areas will be lined with filter fabric to enhance filtering capabilities.  5. Redesign the driveway to meet city standards.  Ms. McKibben noted the map on the board showing the new aerial photography of the plat being considered.  She pointed out the topography of the land noting the location of the ridge, the slope and the creek.

 

Arthur Dunn, applicant, advised that the repositioning of the driveway would not be an issue. His idea was to keep the southern exposure open to the house as much as possible to maintain the radiant heat through the windows.  He stated that they could position the house a little bit differently.  He added that he just threw this together to get it to the commission so he could meet the deadline.  He reiterated the importance of the southern exposure.  He said he felt it was important to get the expansion because he didn’t want the house to sit right on the road.  He said he understood the commissions objective was probably to keep the subdivision from getting too big because of all the problems that can come with that, however, he’d still like to have the house back a little way for privacy, parking and snow removal.  This should be enough to accommodate two cars so there would be no cars parking on the road.  Mr. Dunn commented on the leach field stating that it is standard and the same as the one at the last house he built up there which is a lot larger than this one and is working very effectively without erosion.  Mr. Dunn commented that the vegetation would be disturbed the least possible for construction.  He described the completed project as simply a house sitting there and grass where there was moss.   He advised that the rain gutters would go into the drain field.  As far as the drainage along the driveway, he stated that it would be easy enough to run it into the drain field if that was what the commission wanted.

 

Chair Smith discussed the drainage off the driveway and parking pad saying that runoff going down a ditch is a discouraged practice because the runoff from the impervious cover is better diffused through vegetation or the like before arriving in a stream channel.  He added that the subdivision developers had shown a design with detail that the commission hasn’t had a chance to review.

 

Mr. Dunn stated that he thought this could be reasonably met.  He added that his primary goal was to get the square footage to get off the road and have some parking area.  He said he felt that he and the guy doing the dirt work, Jason Johnson, could come up with something that would meet the objective without too much cost to him.  He offered that he was willing to do whatever was needed providing the costs did not accelerate out of control, which he didn’t see happening in this case.  Mr. Dunn asked if the porches counted as impervious coverage.  City Planner McKibben advised that decks count as impervious coverage - covered or not.  Mr. Dunn described the decks as covered and with gutters that drain the water away through the drain field so he didn’t see a lot of water getting in there.  What little water that did blow underneath would seep into the drain field and out the side.

 

Chair Smith explained that the goal was to make sure there was an impervious coverage filter through vegetative cover or the ground before it sees daylight and heads for the creek.

 

Mr. Dunn answered the commissions question saying that he is not the current owner of the lot and is reluctant to purchase the lot until he has the blessing of the commission on this plan.  He added he is not willing to build anything smaller and if the commission doesn’t approve this design he would go elsewhere.

 

Commissioner Bartlett confirmed with Mr. Dunn that the total impervious coverage of this area is 1846 square feet plus 1000.

 

CHESLEY/BARTLETT - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-13 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Commissioner Bartlett voiced his opinion that the plan is sufficient for the size of the lot; it is appropriate and should be allowed.

 

The commission looked at the map and noted the flow of the water from the property; that there is a road between the creek and the property.

 

The commission discussed the legalities of approving a mitigation plan for a person who does not own the property.  Transferable rights and entitlements were discussed.  The Homer City Code was consulted and Chair Smith read “coverage of up to 6.4% if the owner or owner’s representative submits a mitigation plan for commission approval and if approved thereafter implements and continuously complies with the approved plan”.   The commission concluded after further discussion that the mitigation plan would be approved for that lot.  If the lot is sold, the plan is still approved for that lot no matter who owns it.  If someone wants a different plan, they would have to get a different plan approved.

 

Commissioner Chesley expressed a concern that the mitigation plan might have some commercial value. 

 

There was further discussion on the drainage for the parking and driveway.  Mr. Dunn clarified for the commission the flow of the drainage prior to reaching the creek.  He said the water ran down two ditches, then hit a road and must go underground before it could reach the creek.  Mr. Dunn advised that there is a lot of vegetation for the water to run through.  There was some discussion regarding not using ditches, the issue of snow removal and erosion from melting snow.  Mr. Dunn assured the commission that the land would be reseeded as soon as possible including everything along the driveway.

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.  NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

B.        Staff Report PL 04-09   Re:        Oscar Munson Subdivision 2004 Preliminary Plat. ( Reconsidered)

 

PFEIL/CHESLEY -  (amended motion on the floor) MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-09 WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS and amended NOTE SIX IN THE PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOTE FOUR IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO ALLOW ACCESS FROM LAKESHORE DRIVE TO THOSE LOTS THAT COULD USE IT.

 

Public Works Director Meyer commented that if there is no authority to do something, they couldn’t do it.  He expressed his opinion that the City should have the authority to do that and suggested that a provision be placed in the City Code to require developers to do some off site improvements if the development justifies it.  As far as not allowing access on the east side of the lots to Lampert Lane, Mr. Meyer commented that he thought the City should encourage access to the property on the side roads versus main streets.

 

There was a brief discussion regarding statutory backup for asserting the authority to not allow direct access onto Lampert Lane.  Staff researched the transportation plan and could not find anything.

 

Mr. Meyer explained some of the thoughts that Public Works had in coming up with the recommendation to required the developer to pave a portion of Lampert Lane.  He said that the City had tried to create a road local improvement district (LID) to pave Lampert Lane and Lakeshore Drive as part of water/sewer project and it failed.  At that time this property would have contributed to the cost of paving Lampert Lane.  He explained that if the new subdivision required them to pave Lampert Court and no access is allowed to Lampert Lane, it would be difficult to assess paving Lampert Lane in an LID.  This was a way to get this property to pay their fair share of paving Lampert Lane.  If it were stipulated that the developer cannot have access to Lampert Lane from the lots, that eliminated them from having to pay for any portion of paving Lampert Lane.  Prior to subdividing, the lots would have been assessed for any LID’s on Lampert Lane.  Mr. Meyer commented that there was a possibility that by approving the subdivision without the conditions to pave a portion of Lampert Lane, that piece of property would escape entirely any responsibility for paying for Lampert Lane.

 

City Manager Wrede elaborated on Mr. Meyer’s comments.  He advised that he had spoken to City Attorney Tans and read his email.  Mr. Wrede explained that Mr. Tans had advised against this because case law is mixed.  There were cases where municipalities had been able to do this and other cases where they haven’t, but the research must be done and documentation would be required of what the impacts were that the development would have.  This would be similar to what the Commission was doing with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Conditional Use Permits.  Mr. Wrede advised that this would have to be documented or quantified in some way.  Further, when a requirement is placed on someone it has to be proportional - therefore it must be known what traffic problems already existed and how much the developer is adding to it.  He added that the documentation had not been done in this case and the attorney would find this a difficult case to defend.  Mr. Wrede clarified that the city attorney did not say the Commission could not do this; that municipalities can do this under certain conditions, but they have to be careful.

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the possibility that a TIA be required by the developer and included in the code.  This would give the Commission the information they would need to document the impact of a subdivision. 

 

Mr. Meyer commented on a recent situation that came up in the Bear Creek area regarding the subdivider do improvements off site.  He stated that at that time it was noted that there was an authority problem however it was logical that there was some responsibility of the developer due to the traffic generated.  Mr. Meyer spoke in support of authorizing the Planning Commission to place these conditions on a development.

 

At his request the Commission permitted the owner’s representative to speak at this time.

 

Kenton Bloom, surveyor, commented that he was glad the City chose to review this and hoped the reconsideration fulfilled the information that was forwarded by the attorney and addressed by staff.  He commented on participation outside the boundary of a subdivision saying that the basic questions of developers are --what are the rules, what do I have to do to get approval and how much does it cost?  He expressed his opinion that a breakdown was happening between the rules and what the developer really had to do and the cost.  He commented that every case he worked with this year the developers had come away with positive developments.  Mr. Bloom said that in this case, he had spoken to the developers about a pedestrian easement to the sewer line easement and their response was to question what would happen with the other problem.  He added that it was difficult for him to facilitate a partnership process therefore he suggested that to be effective there needed to be a development matrix developed that everyone can understand and look at that had values and elements all lined out.  People could then plug in their development and come out with a real evaluation of how they fit in.  Mr. Bloom commented on the length of time it took for Public Works to complete their review (due to their workload) and suggested that some other body do this. 

 

Commissioner Chesley stated that he believed that the commission voted in support of the Public Works recommendation because they saw the change and the substantial impact on that road segment than what there currently is and found it reasonable to want to protect that road segment.  After further thought, study and research he voiced his opinion that the commission had wanted to make a point and thought that Mr. Meyer identified something really important which is that if the Commission feels it is important to protect the City’s infrastructure interest, a tool is required that give the authority.  He suggested that the city manager work with the city attorney to draft some proposed language to consider inserting in the code and to allow the commission to do that.  He affirmed Mr. Bloom’s concerns on the part of the process regarding the timing.  He recommended that the Commission remove the requirement to pave a segment of Lampert Lane.

 

CHESLEY/PFEIL- MOTION TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO PAVE LAMPERT LANE FROM OCEAN DRIVE TO THE LAMPERT COURT INTERSECTION

 

Commissioner Chesley commented that as a volunteer on the commission he believed the over riding interest was a public safety and public property issue and it shouldn’t be perceived as anti-development.

 

Commissioner Pfeil commented that he originally supported the recommendation of Public Works for paving the segment of Lampert Lane and he still agreed with that, however, upon the advice of the city attorney that might be trouble.  He added that he felt the City needed more teeth in the subdivision code so the Commission had more tools to use in the future.

 

Commissioner Bartlett commented that the obvious conflict was that the approval of this might allow these lots to escape LID assessments in the future.  He voiced his opinion that this may not be the case seeing that there is a single access.  If there were not other accesses onto Lampert Lane why wouldn’t each of the lots be a function in an LID.  He said that that if they were allowed to place it in the recommendation, the commission should required that in any future LID that might occur on Lampert Lane that all of these lots be subject to that LID.  Mr. Bartlett stated that he didn’t think it was ever his intent that if someone were a part of the use of the road, that they shouldn’t be a part of that cost.  He stated that his problem in the beginning was to apply all of the cost onto the developer and now the City’s saying what if these don’t, but this is a two-way street.  He again voiced his support for adding this into the wording as it may help in the interim until the subdivision regulations are changed.  He added that he didn’t know if this was an allowable factor.

 

Chair Smith voiced his support for allowing the lots direct access to Lampert Lane, which would remove the LID problem that Mr. Meyer had discussed regarding these lots not being subject to assessments in the future.

 

Commissioner Bartlett commented that requiring the paving of Lampert Lane would be the same as requiring the developer to upgrade Lakeshore Drive if the lots access there.  He added that if he had to favor in the either/or he would have to favor in leaving Lampert off.

 

Chair Smith commented on the LID that failed which included one of the parent lots in this subdivision.  He added that if the Commission were to require the paving it would all fall on the subdivision and none of the LID areas that would potentially benefit from it.  He commented that there was a provision in the Design Criteria Manual that if a developer develops a street that is designated a collector/arterial the developers were only obliged to develop the road to the district standard and the City had to pay the difference.  In this case, Mr. Meyer had named this street a collector.  To ask for the paving based on the fact that it’s a collector, it seemed to him that any additional burden should fall on the larger community rather than just the subdivision.

 

There was some further discussion regarding how an LID works, the assessments that would have taken place prior to subdividing and the fairness of what the situation is now.  Allowing access onto Lampert Lane was discussed in light of any future LID assessments.  Mr. Meyer commented that the issue here is not whether requiring paving is a good idea, but whether or not the City has the authority to require it.  He added that at this time the City does not have the authority and reiterated that he thought there should be.

 

VOTE: YES: (amendment) UNANIMOUS CONSENT.  NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

City Planner McKibben suggested that if the Commission allowed direct access onto Lampert Lane that they limit access to Lake Street because it is on the curve and would be a safety issue; and because Lake Street is closer to being an arterial whether it’s classified or not. 

 

FOSTER/ PFEIL – MOTION TO STRIKE ITEM 6 OF PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPLACE ITEM 4 IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE PHRASE ‘NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM THESE LOTS WILL BE GRANTED TO LAKE STREET OR OCEAN DRIVE’.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

Commission Chesley confirmed that the developer would be entering into a subdivision agreement with Public Works, so Public Work’s concerns could still be addressed.  He stated that his point was that there was a commissioner that didn’t think the Commission had any authority at all to do what they did and he didn’t think this was the case.  He asked to be on the record asking that the developer and Public Works work on addressing some of the original issues.

 

VOTE: YES: PFEIL, SMITH, BARTLETT, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CELENTANO

 

Motion carried.

 

Chair Smith made a brief comment regarding sidewalks in the Design Criteria Manual.

 

Chair Smith called for a recess at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m.

 

C.        Consideration in CBD, HCC 21.48.020N, Building Supplies, Materials Provided, Such Use Including Storage Materials as Wholly Contained within an Enclosed Building.

 

Commissioner Chesley advised that there was a use in the CBD that was not consistent with the code, HCC 21.48.020N, Building Supplies, Materials Provided, Such Use Including Storage Materials as Wholly Contained within an Enclosed Building.  He read his letter to City Planner McKibben on behalf of the Commission:

 

“The HAPC has been copied with a letter from Mr. Bruce Turkington, Manager, Spenard Builders Supply, Inc. (SBS) addressed to the City.  The business is located on Lake Street and is within the Central Business District.  In his letter, Mr. Turkington has expressed his interest and shared his intentions to modify and expand his building supply and material business.

 

Currently zoning code for the Central Business District contained in HCC 21.40.020 described the Permitted Uses and Structures within the district.  The classification of business that describes SBS is contained in 21.48.020(n) Building supplies and materials, provides such use, including storage of materials, is wholly contained within an enclosed building.

 

It is our understanding that the “old” SBS site received certain grandfather rights to the requirements of the zoning code adopted in 1982 that would allow an exemption to the requirement for all of the “building supplies and materials” from being wholly contained within an enclosed building.  Further, it is our understanding that the expansion of the business beyond it’s pre-1982 state is not covered by any grandfather rights which would allow an exemption from existing code.  It is the desire of the Commission to clarify this “understanding” and make a determination as to whether or not SBS is in compliance.  A benefit of this determination is that it will provide important information as to the zoning requirements which may apply to existing and future business planned by SBS.

 

I request that you place this item on the Agenda under “Commission Business” for the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 7, 2004.  Please review any documents or other sources of information and prepare a report to share your findings with the Commission.  Please discuss with the City Manager as to whether or not we need the assistance of the City Attorney to review and interpret the information that is assembled.”

 

Commissioner Chesley stated that there was an understanding by the chair that when SBS acquired the adjacent lot and replatted the whole site that the grandfather provision did not apply to the new area that was replatted into the new development.  Upon a request for information, Mr. Chesley explained that the old site is the upper level and ends at the edge of the parking lot and the line runs between the lots in the break in the hillside.  Commissioner Bartlett advised that in the new addition in the lower level they are storing material in the back and at the side of the building.  Commissioner Chesley stated “for the record that this issue was an issue that one that was planning to be addressed prior to any participation that Spenard Builders Supply or any of their employees may have and any actions that address square footage caps in our town, so this has nothing to do with that.  This is an issue that they were wanting to expand their facility to address the new market conditions they are facing with the new competitor up the highway.  He said he felt it was important to address this now so the Commission knew if they have grandfather rights or not.  If not, it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission and SBS to know because when the Conditional Use Permit comes before them they would know how to respond and work with the developer.” 

 

Commissioner Chesley asked if staff could do the research and place this issue on the April 7th meeting agenda.  Chair Smith suggested that the city manager and city attorney do the background work and this be scheduled subsequent to their findings.

 

Commissioner Bartlett agreed with Mr. Chesley’s request and lauded him for being proactive so problems could be eliminated before they become problems.  Further, he stated that he was curious if the grandfather rights were in place after the CBD ordinance is passed.

 

Chair Smith read HCC 21.64.010 regarding nonconforming use; ... “nonconformities may continue but may not be expanded beyond the present lot boundaries”.  Therefore, he said, that when SBS obtained the lower property they replatted into one parcel and the nonconformity only applied to the original lot boundary and does not expand beyond those original lot boundaries.

 

Chair Smith explained that this needed to be clarified because there were substantial questions raised about the Carr/Gottstein development and whether or not they met their conditions.  Commission Chesley advised that they didn’t meet their conditions and the City Council specifically exempted them from being a part of the LID on Hazel Street.  He explained that it was a condition of their CUP that they develop Hazel.  He stated that his understanding was they agreed to those conditions initially; then after getting the CUP they fought and balked and got a hearing of the City Council and were relieved from having to do that, which is where the first cuts in the curb were made into what was supposed to be the Bypass.  He further stated that this is why they don’t have an entrance off of Hazel. 

 

The commission came to a consensus that they would return to this subject when the other opinions are brought to them.

 

D .      Staff Report PL 04-11   Re:   City of Homer Design Manual

 

Frank Griswold said he wanted to reiterate what he said earlier in the proper place on the agenda.  He noted that the commission limits fences to three feet along the arterial and along the front yard in Item 3B, which he thought would be in conflict with 21.48.020(ii) that addresses “automobile and vehicle repair, vehicle maintenance, public garage and motor vehicle sales, show rooms and sales lots along Main Street from Pioneer Avenue to the Sterling Highway excluding the corner lots”.  He further read the list of vehicle parts, etcetera, that would be parked inside a fenced enclosure so as to be concealed from view on all sides in which the fence would be a minimum height of eight feet and constructed to prohibit visibility of anything inside.

Mr. Griswold added that he was not saying that the proposal was bad; he was saying that ii is bad and previously had requested that it be deleted.

 

Chair Smith commented that the code requirements and the design manual were not a requirement, therefore if the code has a specific requirement it over rides whatever the design manual suggests.  

 

The Commissioners returned to their work on the design manual.

 

They dealt with the suggestions about changing the name of the manual.  Suggestions were -

City of Homer Community Design Manual

Community of Homer Design Manual

            City of Homer Design Manual

            Community Design Manual for the City of Homer

 

The Commission agreed by consensus that the name for the design manual would be “Community Design Manual for the City of Homer”.

 

The Commission reviewed and discussed the following-

-         Multiple structures

-         Packet- Page 51 common areas; changed wording

Draft –

-         Line 744 – delete off-site common areas qualifying for parking credits sentence

-         Line 759 – discussed changing “wind and rain” – kept same wording

-         Discussed parking requirements for outdoor dining seating

-         Discussed line 802 regarding clarifying service/delivery access

-         Line 771 – rename wording to vendor carts in common areas and changed wording for maximum and provided for storage

-         Line 780 – changed wording to temporary art displays

-         Discussed driveway widths – advantages of left turn lanes

-         Discussed awnings and definitions – take off descriptions and illustrations

-         Line 880 – changed wording for tree topping

-         Discussed retaining trees and no removal to create a view

 

Chair Smith called for a recess at 9:27 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m.

 

-         Discussed fences and designs of security fences

-         Line 982 added unless otherwise required by HCC

-         Looked at streetscape on page 22 and possible duplication on page 28/29

-         Line 1018- added Main and Heath between Pioneer and Sterling

-         Line 1035 changed to 24 or more vehicles to be consistent with code

-         Discussed buffer requirements for parking lots and handicap parking requirements

-         Discussed outdoor lighting

-         Discussed outdoor furniture

 

CHESLEY/FOSTER - MOTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED IN THE WORK SESSION AND AT THE REGULAR MEETING TO THE COMMUNITY DESIGN MANUAL FOR THE CITY OF HOMER AND ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS BEING TO NAME THIS DOCUMENT THE COMMUNITY DESIGN MANUAL FOR THE CITY OF HOMER.

 

There was no further discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.  NON-OBJECTION.

 

Chair Smith called for a recess at 10:07 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:09 p.m.

 

CHESLEY/FOSTER- MOTION TO ADOPT THE COMMUNITY DESIGN MANUAL FOR THE CITY OF HOMER GLOSSARY SECTION AND TABLE OF CONTENTS AS EDITED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES.

 

Commissioner Bartlett commented on the flow chart pertaining to fees and the permit process previously discussed asking if it should be a stand-alone item or added to the manual.  Mr. Bartlett explained that for a new person walking in the door, this would be a useful tool beyond what is relayed verbally.  The commission discussed the flow chart briefly.  Comments included that it doesn’t belong in the design manual; it only addresses large retail/wholesale conditional use permits; it’s a great tool as a formal checklist; as an internal document it would assist the Council to follow the process; could become part of a handout to the public; and doesn’t have to be part of the code.

 

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.

 

Motion carried.

 

C.        Staff Report PL 04-10   Re:  Homer City Council Resolution 04-13(A) – A Resolution of the City Council of Homer, Alaska, Providing Input to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Regarding the Borough Comprehensive Plan.

 

The Commission made no changes or additions to their previous comments.

 

REPORTS

 

A.        Borough Report

B.        Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

Commissioner Foster reported that he had an excused absence at the last meeting however, he reviewed the packet for the upcoming meeting and noted that there were six plats for the plat committee.  He expressed his appreciation that the Homer Planning Commission minutes are included in every report in addition to the fact that there was a description within the Borough’s staff report of Homer’s responses and how they voted.  He added that the Borough was responding directly to the Homer Planning Commission’s concerns.

 

PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT

 

City Planner McKibben commented on the amendments for the size previously discussed in which a resolution was suggested.  She offered to prepare a resolution for the meeting on the 17th.  She clarified that included in the resolution would be the size and the amendments to the language in the GC2.  Ms. McKibben inquired as to what the Commission wanted in the design manual as far as staff preparing it for Council.  At this point the chair, with the permission of the Commission, returned to that item on the agenda to adopt the glossary and the table of contents.

 

Commissioner Chesley asked staff about looking into the signage at the East End road sign, the Cosmic Kitchen banner and the hot tub business sign.  He commented that the Planning Department was continually not able to get to these issues and it kept sliding, however, at some point something had to be done or they’d continue to perpetuate.  He acknowledged that the City Planner had been busy with back-to-back meetings and asked for a date to receive report on these issues.  Ms. McKibben advised that there would be a report at the next regular meeting.

 

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

 

Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units. 

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

 

Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject.  The Chair may prescribe time limits. 

 

Frank Griswold commented that he was confused about the part on the fencing in the design manual that first says to choose fence materials carefully and chain link is not allowed; then the next page says chain link is allowed in certain areas, which sounded to him like the high school chain link, the airport chain link and the ball field chain link fences were all disallowed because they are in site of City right-of-ways.  Mr. Griswold noted that in some places it’s written “right-of-ways” and in other places written as “rights-of-way” and it needed to be consistent.  He commented on the wording in the parking lots section where it says “use landscaping to screen parking-and service areas” and suggested the hyphen be removed and insert “lots”.  On 3, limit with the driveways, would be better if 2, 15, 24 and 34 were left out.  He wondered about the colored paving asking if black was a color.  He relayed that Sammy Davis, Jr. once ordered a flesh colored limousine and was very disappointed when it didn’t come in black.  He said he wasn’t sure how to surface it with “other devices” and suggested that ‘devices’ was wrong.  Item 8, “avoid parking in front of building entrance” sounds like the parking spaces are available and one should avoid parking in them.  He suggested that it say “do not provide parking in front of buildings” if that is the intent.  Mr. Griswold commented that he didn’t hear any comments to his minutes corrections and hoped that this meant they were approved.  He pointed out that the Homer City Council agenda has public comments prior to the first item in the consent agenda in which the first item is approval of the minutes, therefore the public has an opportunity to comment on the minutes before they were approved.  Mr. Griswold clarified that at the last meeting regarding staff report PL04-08 where he may have indicated that the city code required a zoning permit be issued before water and sewer were hooked up; that this was information relayed to him by Dan Gardner, Public Works.  He stated that he had requested the specific code and Mr. Gardner was unable to provide it.  He suggested that if it were not in the code or hard to find it should say so in the staff report or what now would be Ordinance 04-11.  He added that it should specifically state that before the City hooked up water and sewer that the owner provide proof of a zoning permit which would put the burden on the landowner.

 

Mr. Griswold commented that from time to time the City awards “encroachment permits” of which several were recently granted in his neighborhood.  He stated that he had been unable to ascertain where the authority came from to do so.  He noted that HCC 21.42.030 states under C, “no city official or employee has authority to grant a waiver, variance or deviation from the requirements of the zoning code or other application laws and regulations unless such authority is expressly contained therein”.  He suggested that if the authority were not there, it would be a good idea to look into that.

 

Chair Smith asked Mr. Griswold to expound on this issue as he had confirmed with Public Works Director Meyer that there was no such thing as an “encroachment permit”.

 

Mr. Griswold advised that there were several cases in his neighborhood where there were structures within right-of-ways and setbacks that have been approved by the City.  He continued saying that without some permit it is illegal to construct a retaining wall or a rock wall or place a trailer within a setback and get a zoning permit; therefore the City has either authorized these or allowed a temporary variance.  He commented that he was using the term “encroachment permit” in a general fashion; not that there actually was a permit by that name. 

 

Chair Smith asked City Planner McKibben to address one of the issues of the trailers.  Mr. Griswold explained that there were two trailers and one didn’t have a permit.  The situation was that the trailer sits in the setback because it got mired and the tongue started to come apart.  The owners asked to move the trailer in July when the ground was firmer.  Mr. Griswold commented that the ground might not be more firm in July than it is now since it’s frozen.   He said he didn’t see where the City had the authority to grant permission to place a structure in a setback.  Ms. McKibben advised that the terms of the zoning permit allowed one year to complete construction.  She acknowledged that she could not speak to the legalities of it and may be out of line, however, it was decided that it was temporary and that the better public health interest was served to hook them to water and sewer until such time as they could move it into compliance with the setback regulations.  She added that in an effort to work with the owners and in the spirit that they were trying to cooperate, that was the decision that was made. 

 

Mr. Griswold advised that it was his understanding that the trailer without a zoning permit is hooked up to City sewer and water because their meter technician did not look in the records.  The other trailer has a zoning permit, is not hooked up to water and sewer despite the fact it is required and it is in the setback.

 

Ms. McKibben commented that there may be some confusion because her understanding was different, however, she would look into the situation.

 

Mr. Griswold clarified that his concern is the permitting of structures within rights-of-way without the sufficient language in the code to do it.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

 

Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence. 

 

Commissioner Celentano expressed her appreciation for the commissioners.

 

Commissioner Foster commented that the Coastal Erosion workshop was coming up on the 17th and 18th.  He advised that the chair would be attending both days and asked if anyone else within the commission would be attending both days. 

 

City Planner McKibben advised that she would be attending and discussed a time conflict with the next Planning Commission meeting and the workshop.  The next meeting had a work session scheduled at 5 and the conference ended at 5:30.

 

The commission discussed whether or not to have a work session.  It was noted that there had been a work session every meeting since July.  Comments were made on how the commission might handle the concept of not having a work session, what their reaction might be, what they might do with their time,[1] etc.  The commission agreed there would be no work session at the next meeting.

 

Commissioner Foster advised that the 17th workshop was a public meeting and everyone was invited, however, the 18th was a work session for invited participants only.  He asked that whoever attended the 18th work session go both days.  He further asked to be advised if anyone else was going so he could make the arrangements.

 

Commissioner Chesley advised that the next meeting he would be attending would be April 7th.  He reminded everyone that there would be a celebration supplied by the City Clerk after the meeting and he extended an invitation to Mr. Griswold.  He expressed his appreciation for Mr. Griswold’s thoughtfulness, care and attention to detail and his input.

 

Deputy City Clerk Benson expressed her appreciation for all the work the Commission put into the ordinance.  She expressed her opinion that the large extent of the project became more readily apparent the paperwork came out.  She commented that people were impressed with the size of the document.  Ms. Benson congratulated the Commission on their completion of the project and a job well done.

 

Chair Smith reminded City Planner McKibben that the permit fees needed to be amended.  He advised that Planning Technician Engebretsen had posted zoning maps on the website in pdf format and can now be downloaded.  He asked if Ms. McKibben would ask Ms. Engebretsen to prepare a map that showed the arterials and collector streets for informational purposes.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.

 

There being no further business to come before the commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.  

 

 

______________________________________

DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: _____________________________

 

 


[1] With humor.