Session
04-07 Special Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by
Chair Smith at 7:22 p.m. on March 30, 2004, at Homer City Hall, Council
Chambers, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.
PRESENT: COMMISSION: SMITH, BARTLETT, PFEIL, HESS
ABSENT: CHESLEY
(excused), FOSTER, CELENTANO
STAFF: DEPUTY
CITY CLERK BENSON
CITY
PLANNER MCKIBBEN
A quorum is required to conduct a meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
All
items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the
Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless
requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public, in which case
the item will be moved to the regular agenda and considered in normal
sequence.
A. Time
Extension Requests
B. Approval
of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C. KPB
Coastal Management Program Reports
The agenda was
approved by consensus.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission
approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Special Meeting of
February 24, 2004 meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved by
consensus.
B. Approval of the Regular Meeting of March 3, 2004 meeting
minutes.
The minutes were approved by consensus.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Chair may prescribe time limits. The Commission may question the public.
A. Staff Report PL 04-14 Re:
Request For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup #04-02/UAA Kachemak Bay Campus
Expansion As Permitted By HCC 21.48.030 (n) Permitted Uses With Structures In
Excess Of 8,000 Square Feet Of Building Area On A Lot Within The Central
Business Zoning District At 533 East Pioneer Avenue, Lot 3-A-2, Glacier View
Campus Addition Subdivision
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations. Staff recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit contingent on the following conditions: 1. The parking lot to be paved and striped within five years. At the time the parking lot is paved storm water run-off shall flow through a spill-containment type of oil/water separator prior to discharge into a drainage or storm drain system to eliminate non-point source pollution. The driveways accessing the parking area shall be paved as well. 2. A detailed Landscape Plan identifying plant species and location be submitted prior to final landscaping or within three years. All areas disturbed by construction will be replaced with topsoil and seeded until such time landscaping is completed. 3. The pole-mounted lights should be limited to twenty-eight feet above grade and shall be cut-off luminaries. 4. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) be completed for evaluation by the City prior to the submission of a zoning permit. The City will select the consultant for the TIA, and the cost of the TIA paid by the applicant. 5. The project meets all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.
Scott Brodt, of McCool Carlson Green Architects from Anchorage, represented the University and commented on the financial challenges of the project. The funding was lower than would meet the needs of the campus, therefore, the project had been divided into phases in regards to completion and finishing the interior. The lower level would be unfinished, however, would be offices when completed. The goal was to get the maximum square footage with the monies available. The site work/landscaping currently being addressed was also subject to budget constraints, therefore was deferred to what would become phase II of the project. Mr. Brodt presented a poster of a landscaping plan stating that had the university had a full landscape plan, they would have been willing to meet the demands of the commission. He noted that the poster indicated the conditions that were required for approval on the landscaping along Pioneer Avenue, Heath Street and Kachemak Way. He stated that everywhere there was construction or removal of the trailers it would be topsoil and seeded at this point. He noted that at the end of this phase, probably December, there would not yet be landscaping. He hoped that in the summer of 2005 they could implement a landscaping plan that addressed the concerns of the CUP and will spruce up the site.
Mr. Brodt reiterated that the funding has been the most challenging. He commented that the bidding climate in the past couple of years has been non-competitive. He explained that throughout the State generally the prices of building supplies had been much higher than owners and cost estimators expected.
Mr. Brodt commented on the schedule for the project. The invitation to bid would go out the beginning of April and the bid opening the end of April. The University hoped to have a contract by mid May and complete the project by the end of the year.
Mr. Brodt discussed the staff recommendations. He addressed paving the parking lot within five years saying that the owner intended to do that, however at this point it would be a gravel surface prepped for pavement which would be a two foot layer of fill with 6 inch D1 topping. He addressed spill containment requirements in Item 1 asking if an alternative method could be used for the oil/water separator. He asked if it would be acceptable to use a bio-swale or bio-filtration system where the parking lot would have a sheet drain to one side that goes off into a swale area that’s probably 20-40 feet wide. Then through a seeded swale the oil and other contaminants would be filtered out of the water and directed to a termination point of a catch basin or a city storm water system. Mr. Brodt added that he has seen this system done on other projects where the ground is capable of filtering the water.
Chair Smith commented that if the system meets the intent and there is appropriate area to do that, it would be a viable option.
Mr. Brodt asked if the commission would consider his proposal and advised that it would appear in the landscape plan to be submitted within three years.
When questioned by the commission Mr. Brodt explained that he had used this bio-swale/filtration system in a couple of 200 car parking areas where it was sheet drained into a shallow ditch in a seeded area. This was done in a Class C (non-buildable) wetlands and was approved and overseen by the Corp of Engineers. His assumption was that the Corp had confidence in the system.
Carol Swartz, Kachemak Bay Campus Director, University of Alaska, addressed the Traffic Impact Analysis requirements. Ms. Swartz handed out a letter to the Commission saying it was a request to reconsider Staff Recommendation #4. She read the letter: “ To the Homer Planning Commission, Subject Conditional Use Permit Traffic Standards. It is my understanding that Ordinance 04-11 proposes a change to the traffic standards 21.48.090 and specifies a Conditional Use Permit be required for every use that is estimated to generate more than 100 vehicle trips during any hour of the day based on the proposed land use and density or calculated using the trip generation handbook. It is also my understanding that you may be considering requiring our campus to conduct a formal traffic impact analysis before granting us a zoning permit. Though these code amendments that specify the use of this handbook in a TIA as a guideline have yet to be adopted by the Homer City Council, I would like you to know that the educational activities at the Kachemak Bay Campus and its expanded facilities will not generate more than 100 vehicles trips during any hour of the day including Saturdays. Universities in the lower 48 that the Trip Generation Handbook bases its analysis on is in no way similar to our campus -the number of students, types of students, class sizes, campus class schedules, type and size of interior space uses, etc. Furthermore, our staff conducted a specific survey during the busiest times of the school day on March 15th and 16th. Each car entering and exiting the parking lots at both the East and West Campus’s were individually counted per hour. The total square footage of the East Campus after this 200 sf addition is constructed will be similar to the current size of the current East and West Campuses combined. Also, the three classrooms being added to the East Campus equates to the three we currently have at West. We found that during the busiest times, when classes end and begin, there were a maximum of 17-47 vehicles that entered and exited the parking lots. For example, from 12-1 p.m. on March 15th 15 cars entered and 19 exited for a total of 34 on the West Campus lot. At East Campus from 1:10 to 2:10 p.m. there were a total of 31. This illustrates that this facility’s activities do not meet the standard of generating more than 100 vehicle trips during any hour Monday through Fridays. Regarding Saturday, there are only one to two regularly scheduled classes - estimated 30 vehicles on that day - for 2 ½ to 4 hours in duration. Though we expect in years to come, to hopefully have more students, we will still not generate more than 100 vehicle trips per hour. It is also relevant that the new parking lot will have two entrances and exits, Heath Street and Kachemak Way. Currently, each campus only has one. Thank you very much for providing us with an opportunity to clarify our current objective vehicular traffic patterns. A formal traffic impact analysis is not warranted.”
Ms. Swartz reiterated that there is no way they will have 100 cars coming and out of the parking for any hour of the day. She added that the budget is extremely restricted and they do not have the funds to pay for the TIA. She offered that if the Commission would recommend at a later point to do a TIA - after the addition is built and traffic has resumed - she would consider one at that time. However, to make it a condition of the zoning permit, she asked that it be reconsidered. Ms. Swartz stated that she had people standing out there counting cars during the busiest hours of the days. She commented that a lot of the students car pool and it’s rare to have a class with more than 20 students in it and if there are three classes going at one time that is 60 maximum. There may be a maximum of 18 staff members who would be there for the duration with the exception of the lunch hour. She again asked the commission to reconsider the TIA recommendation at this point in time.
Ms. Swartz commented that the college is very excited about the project and sees it as first phase and she assured the commission that the University does as well. She advised that there is a House Bill 507 before the legislature now that is for another bond, a General Obligations bond, that is for facilities of the University of Alaska around the state. Homer is included on the early side at $500,000. If the bond passes the legislature it would be before the voters in the fall. She added that upon examining the shortfall in the funding they are looking at upping the $500,000 to possibly $1.3 million, which shows that the University is very committed to funding and finishing the second phase. That phase includes the landscaping on the lower level, parking and paving.
Ms. Swartz explained why the budget got so tight after the fact. The University did not receive last year from the legislature a separate line item appropriation that had been for the purchase of the trailer park. Therefore $500,000 of the construction budget was used for the property purchase and immediately the construction budget became very tight.
Ms. Swartz noted that there were not the required five commissioners present to vote on the CUP. She advised that a University representative would probably not be able to attend the next meeting when the vote was taken. She offered to assist or answer questions.
The Commission asked if there were plans to pave the entrances to the driveways at this time. Mr. Brodt explained that there were not. The commission observed that the displayed poster had the driveway off of Kachemak Way to the University property cutting across the City lot and asked if that had been agreed upon. Mr. Brodt advised that what he believed would be agreed on was a paper easement for the triangular shaped portion of the driveway.
The Commission discussed the Trip Generation Handbook information, saying that it used much larger campuses than the Homer campus. City Planner McKibben stated that the size of the models evaluated in the handbook are “quite a bit larger” than the Homer campus. She explained that there are two different ways to figure it - by per 1000 square feet or by a 33,000 sf model. There was nothing close so she used the per 1000 square foot model. She acknowledged that the samples in the handbook were not very comparable to this situation. There was no table for calculating trips per student. Commissioner Hess commented that the Commission needed to look into the TIA requirement far enough that they could be comfortable with their decision.
Ms. Swartz commented that Homer was off the charts on the lower end on students per square foot. Right now there are only 106 “full time equivalent” students. She said that represents 400 part time students, which would only be there for two weeks or one single day and added that the numbers are very low compared to standards in the rest of the state, never mind “outside”. She advised that Homer is similar to Bethel, Dillingham and Ketchikan in student numbers. She reiterated that there was not one hour where there would be 100 cars coming in and out of the parking lot.
Mr. Brodt answered a question from the Commission regarding what would happen to the parking lot in the front of the school now. He advised that this area was one of the biggest changes - for the better. He referred to a poster pointing out that there are now 5 entrances in a row on Pioneer Avenue into three facilities. The college was taking their two out and creating a pedestrian entrance. The asphalt area would be landscaped. The building would be buffered from Pioneer Avenue by the landscaping and the vehicles would be accessing the college only from Heath Street and Kachemak Way.
City Planner McKibben advised that she did her traffic figures two different ways. The highest numbers in the sample were on Saturday. She ran that number - 617 based on 1000 sf of the total facility. The second model was run on a week day and calculated that change from peak hour at the existing sf to the peak hour with the new sf and it was an increase of more than 100 trips a day, maybe 114-ish. She advised that there wasn’t a table of students per square foot. Again she explained that the figures were by 1000 sf or the set 30,000+ sf.
The Commission asked if the parking lot would be closed after-hours. Ms. Swartz advised that currently the parking lot is not closed after-hours and that this concept hasn’t come up. She commented that the parking lot is public and she would like emergency vehicles to have access at all times. She advised that right now she doesn’t have a budget to pickup trash for 71 spaces as she does now. She added that right now her first inclination would be to leave it open and see how much of a problem it becomes. She expressed her support of leaving the parking lot open for people to use for shopping. In addressing security and safety she advised that she would take note of the Commission’s question and evaluate it further.
The Commission questioned Mr. Brodt and Ms. Swartz regarding their request for an alternative to the oil/water separator. Mr. Brodt advised that the system relies on the earth filtration for general vehicle discharge of oil and is not a maintained system.
The current roof colors were discussed noting that there is a red roof and a white roof. Mr. Brodt advised that when the construction was finished there would be two different colors. The new addition would not match the white. The samples the University were given was a forest green, brown and copper which would go on the new addition. In phase two the white roof would be replaced to match or it would be painted. There are no plans to change the red roof. Mr. Brodt commented that the red roof could not be seen from the street. Ms. Swartz added that part of the $1.3 million requested was to replace the entire roof. Short of that, she added, it would be painted to match the new addition. Further, she would be able to budget within five years to have the roof painted in her maintenance budget. Mr. Brodt advised that the existing siding on the building would not be changed in the first phase.
The commission discussed with Mr. Brodt and Ms. Swartz the plans for lighting on the building. There were plans for two exterior lights on the building on the south side - one over the door and another high on the wall between windows on the second level. On the front there would be a yard light that shoots up on the blank wall that would be a potential canvas for artwork. The plans showed 4 parking lot lights that were cut-off luminaries. Mr. Brodt confirmed in the plans that the building lighting meets the requirements.
Next, the commission discussed the possibility of paving the driveways one to two car-lengths which would make a big difference in how much gravel got carried onto the street. Mr. Brodt cited budget constraints as a reason that this might not be done and that adding any costs to the project would be difficult right now. The owners want to guarantee the 9200 square feet first before further concerns are addressed.
Mr. Brodt assured the Commission that the University was committed to pursuing the paving and landscaping however, it may not happen this year.
There was no one from the audience who wished to speak.
Chair Smith noted that there were not five commissioners present to vote on the motion.
HESS/PFEIL - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-14 AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING THE FINDINGS SUGGESTED BY THE STAFF
BARTLETT/PFEIL - MOTION TO AMEND TO DELETE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM #4
Commissioner Bartlett noted that the TIA hadn’t been adopted. He voiced his opinion that Ms. Swartz had made a good case. He added that although one day’s count does not make a TIA, he’s lived in Homer a long time and observed the amount of traffic generated in that area. He said he thought Ms. Swartz analysis seemed to be reasonable and noted that the City Planner’s analysis followed the standards. For the above reasons, he advised he felt this was a little stringent upon the applicant and was willing to let it go at this time.
Commissioner Pfeil stated that his comments mirrored Commissioner Bartlett and added that he felt the Commission should delete that recommendation and possibly require that it be revisited in the near future.
Commissioner Hess rose to a point of order that the commission could not vote on a CUP with only four commissioners in attendance[1]. Chair Smith ruled that five votes were required to approve Conditional Use Permits and during the process amendments could be made with a majority. Commissioner Hess requested comments from staff regarding the TIA.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report comments stating that the universities that were canvassed were different - they are not in the Central Business District; they are located separately; the sample size is quite small; the sizes of the campuses are quite different; and they have isolated parking facilities. In that respect, she stated that it might not be fair to evaluate them in the same way, however, it was the only tool available to her. She commented that the Conditional Use section of the code clearly stated the Commission evaluates traffic ingress and egress. This is one tool to do that.
Commissioner Hess rose to point of order stating that he wished to postpone voting on amendments until there were more people. Chair Smith ruled that with unanimous consent the motion to amend could be withdrawn and a postponement would be in order.
Commissioner Bartlett asked to comment before proceeding and pointed out that the university would not be able to attend the next meeting or be able to address any issues that may come up later. He advised that he did not think that was fair and he was not comfortable doing that. He asked that if the Commission could go back, he would like to have the TIA tied to the parking at a later date.
Commissioner Hess advised that he wanted further information on the TIA before he made an opinion and added that he thought the university’s request was reasonable.
Commissioner Bartlett continued his discussion regarding the parking. He acknowledged that there may be 75 cars and rhetorically asked what would be the ultimate impact. He pointed out that the parking lot would not change and the building size would not change. There are two entry/exits that decreases traffic on the main thoroughfare in exchange for what happens off a side lateral street to a parking lot that’s been expanded beyond the immediate needs. He said he didn’t see the negative side of not putting something out there to approve and did not see a huge impact there to hold up the process.
Chair Smith acknowledged Commissioner Bartlett’s point and added that if all traffic exited at one point the impact would be greater. He added that a mitigation plan might be two exits if there were only one, however the university has already addressed this issue. Mr. Smith commented that even if Ms. Swartz numbers were off by one half they would still be within the range to not create a significant impact. He commented that the City Planner’s analysis based on the information she had available was as good as could be had from the traffic analysis book, which is one of the reasons that the commission had written into their recommendations that they could exercise judgment in a given case either way. He pointed out that the parking lot was for 71 vehicles and was more than is required. He stated that he was comfortable not having a TIA.
Commissioner Hess stated at this point that he would be willing to take a vote.
VOTE: YES: (amendment) PFEIL, SMITH, BARTLETT, HESS
NO:
Motion carried.
PFEIL/BARTLETT - MOTION TO AMEND STAFF REPORT ITEM 1 TO STATE “THE PARKING LOT TO BE PAVED AND STRIPED WITHIN FIVE YEARS AT THE TIME THE PARKING LOT IS PAVED STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL FLOW THROUGH A SPILL CONTAINMENT TYPE OF OIL/WATER SEPARATOR OR APPROPRIATELY SIZED BIO SWALE PRIOR TO DISCHARGE....” THIS WOULD INSERT ‘APPROPRIATELY SIZED BIO SWALE’.
Commissioner Bartlett commented that he felt the bio swale should be engineered to whatever standards were required.
Commissioner Hess pointed out that the requirements for the oil/water separator is in Ordinance 04-11 under the storm water plan. He added that he would not have a problem with the wording that the bio-swale must meet the requirements of the storm water plan. Chair Smith suggested and he agreed that the word “appropriate” covered his concerns.
VOTE: YES: (amendment) UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess stated that he would like to go on record saying that he appreciated the fact that the applicant has gone as far as they have to meet the requirements of the new ordinance that was not in place at that time. Chair Smith echoed the expressed appreciation and added that the Commission has the authority to apply conditions under existing code.
Chair Smith asked Ms. Swartz if the Commission had her permission to postpone this until next week. Ms. Swartz replied that it was at their pleasure.
PFEIL/HESS - MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING NEXT WEEK.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
NO:
Motion carried.
Ms. Swartz advised that if the conference phone was available next week she did not have a problem calling in on her own dime. There was a brief discussion regarding the lack of University representation at the next meeting and the possible need for it. Chair Smith and Ms. Swartz agreed that Ms. Swartz would call in to staff on Tuesday to see if the conference phone was available and/or that the Commission would contact Scott Brodt if there were any questions.
Since the Commission did not have a majority vote plus one that is required to approve a Conditional Use Permit, Chair Smith opened the public hearing for this issue. No one testified.
Chair called for recess at 8:45 p.m.
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.
The commission gave unanimous consent to suspend the rules to consider Item C prior to Item A and Item B due to a 9:00 p.m. commitment of the applicant.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff
recommendations. Staff
recommendations: Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat
subject to the following conditions and the Public Works Department
recommendations: 1. Provide and show access to a fifteen-foot
utility easement per HCC 22.10.051. 2.
Provide a drainage easement on Lots 1 and 2 over the existing drainage. 3.
Add HEA’s plat note regarding the Transmission Line easement. 4. Add a plat note stating: A twenty-foot
naturally vegetated buffer be retained or enhanced on Lot 17 on the boundary of
the eastern lot line, Lot 18 on the boundary of the two northern lot lines, Lot
19 on the boundary of the eastern lot line and on Lot 20 on the boundary of the
eastern lot line. The Public Works
Department had the following comments and recommendations: 1. The applicant
requested waiving the requirement for a fifteen-foot utility easement along the
right-of-ways and allow HEA to request utility easement alignments. Public Works recommends requiring the
standard fifteen-foot utility easement along the right-of-ways and any other
easements that HEA may want within the subdivision. The utility companies are making it their policy to utilize the
easements should not have any negative impact on the lots since the easements
are within the building setback.
Dedicating the easements provides for more options in utility
placement. HEA may come up with
something other than parallel with the right-of-way, but gas, telephone or TV
cable may be different. 2. A drainage
easement should be dedicated between Lots 1 and 2. 3. It would be good to know what the reasoning is for the
alignment of the proposed Posey Lane alignment at the SW corner of the
subdivision. Was there any contact with
the adjacent property owner? If there is no particular reason for the proposed
alignment, it might be worth considering aligning the road between Lots 10 and
11 as this would be less road to have to construct.
Roger Imhoff, Surveyor, went over a preliminary plat he had displayed on the board. He showed where it was located across from the water tanks on Skyline Drive and described the surrounding terrain. He added that after turning in the preliminary plat he added a connecting road between lots 8 and 9. This was because of a conversation he had with Mary Toll at the Borough office regarding what would be required in the way of connecting roads and breaking up a loop style subdivision into block lengths. Ms. Toll advised that there would need to be at least one connecting road. Mr. Imhoff advised that the decision on where to place the road was difficult because where it joins the adjacent property it is sub-dividable but not desirable because even though the property is on Diamond Ridge it doesn’t have a view - it’s in a big swale. Therefore, he decided to come in at the corner and then Public Works said they had to construct all connecting roads whether they were needed or not per Homer City Code. Mr. Imhoff said Dan Gardner, City Inspector, suggested bringing the road in between 9 and 10 or 10 and 11 because it was shorter. One of the owner suggested moving it to lot 6 and 7, which would require the dedication of additional right of way to make a decent intersection braid in there. He commented that they would need to get a driveway permit from DOT to access Skyline Drive. He explained that the location of the intersection was chosen because it is a gentle slope coming off Skyline and they thought it was important to bring the traffic onto Skyline in a flat area where there is about 450’ sight distance to the north and 850’ to the south. Given the speed of the road, he said he thought this would be acceptable to DOT. He expressed his hopes that some day Skyline would be reconstructed as it’s kind of “goofy” the way it comes around the corner. He described it as a “cat skinner road” that’s been fixed up over the years and hoped it would someday be better than it is now. Mr. Imhoff stated he was open to questions.
Commissioner Bartlett noted that approximately ½ of the subdivision drainage goes into the Bridge Creek watershed. Chair Smith explained using a map on the board where the water drains into a culvert that goes into the reservoir.
The Commission asked the applicant and surveyor if they were aware that once the City gets its Lidar and wetlands mapping complete that the description of the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection Area would be modified to include areas that drain into the reservoir. Mr. Imhoff advised that he was told by Planning staff that this was the intent. Chair Smith explained that the original boundaries were established by the Borough and then when annexation happened, the City did not have the tools to either exclude or include additional areas. He advised that he wanted to make sure that everyone understands that when the City establishes the drainage patterns with some certainty those additional areas that drain into the reservoir would be included in the watershed protection district. He explained that this would mean that they’ll be subject to the impervious cover limitations.
Mr. Imhoff said he thought the lot sizes were comparable to or larger than the lots in Kelly Ranch Estates. He voiced his hope that the Commission would take this opportunity to work with the property owner. He said he had thought of a couple of ways that runoff could be avoided and he had hoped that the Commission would address road construction methods in the watershed albeit it didn’t happen. He suggested narrower roads and siltation dams and in this case he suggested smaller setbacks from the road because it would be a natural tendency on these lots to build as high as possible, which would leave a greater area for vegetative filtration.
Chair Smith acknowledged Mr. Imhoff’s point and noted that this subdivision has a problem with the regulations as they stand because when the Bridge Creek Protection Ordinance was passed, it made an extra allowance in terms of impervious coverage for subdivisions with smaller parcels. This subdivision doesn’t qualify because it wasn’t subdivided prior to the date the protection district was established. Therefore instead of getting an allowed coverage of 6.4%, it would only be 4.2% and half of the developed right-of-way would be subtracted from the available square footage. He explained that this means the developer would be facing much more severe development restrictions in this subdivision than the people in the Kelly Ranch estates who are currently complaining that they do not have enough space in many instances to do their development. Chair Smith advised the applicants that they would have a very difficult time developing these small parcels with the impervious cover restrictions. He noted that the smallest parcel in the watershed district allowed is 4.5 acres and stated that if these parcels were sold after being placed in the protection district the owner would not be able to build a house larger than 200-300 square feet.
Mr. Imhoff discussed the suggestion of the Planning staff to create larger lots. He addressed the costs of development saying that developing is a very risky business. He added that a road costs X amount and the higher the costs run the more pressure there is to put smaller lots in. He suggested that possibly the developers could put in a narrower road or eliminate a couple of the lots along the northeast corner. He stated that developers have to be able to project X amount of income off a project. Mr. Imhoff said he understood this could be a problem in the future with the building permits and that he thought the owners realized it also and still wished to proceed.
Commissioner Bartlett said he wished to add his comments to that of Chair Smith. He commented on the issues with the Kelly Ranch estates trying to get things built saying that anything from 2-3 acres is a tough sell for a 6.4% limit. He commented that the advice being given is good advice and that the developer may want to reconsider the lot size. Mr. Bartlett added that he fully realizes the issues and does not oppose different road standards, etc. however he didn’t think it would have the effect the developer thought it would on the reduction.
Mr. Imhoff advised that the Kelly Ranch subdivision has long narrow lots and they are getting into trouble when they try to build a 200 foot driveway which eats up the impervious restriction. He added that he felt the builders in this subdivision would build close to the road.
Mike Arno, one of the owners of the property, stated he would appreciate the Commission’s consideration to pass the proposal. He commented on the cost development. He stated that when he purchased the property he was not aware that the watershed would expand into this area so in the investment analysis and cost of development this was not included. He described finding out this information as a shocker and that something like this not having been figured into the development hits pretty hard in the pocket. Mr. Arno asked if the Commission would consider the extra right of way into Tract C be left as an easement and not built to help cut costs. He explained that it’s going nowhere and is extra cost to the City to maintain a road to a dead end.
HESS/BARTLETT - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-17 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Chair Smith commented that the platting process does not require the building of the road - the subdivision development agreement dictates that and has to be executed between the developer and Public Works. He added that it is possible for the Commission to recommend to Public Works that they simply dedicate it as an easement and not require it be developed at this time. He noted that the Public Works Director has the right to waive any of the requirements.
Mr. Imhoff interjected that the Borough would require some type of dedication and was not sure what the Borough would accept. He stated that one part of the code requires access to the adjoining property owners and another part requires access over a 1400 feet block length.
Chair Smith explained at the request of Commissioner Hess whether or not the impervious coverage included right of ways or constructed roads only. He said that on subdivisions that are constructed after the date of enactment of the protection district, take ½ area of the right-of-way (not constructed road) and deduct that from the 4.2% allowable impervious coverage. The remaining area is what is allowed for impervious coverage. It doesn’t actually work out to 4.2%. It works out to be 4.2% of the entire subdivision including the right-of-way.
City Planner McKibben noted that a problem in the Kelly Ranch Estates is a minimum square footage footprint by covenant. This eliminates some flexibility. She explained that one could have a 1400 square foot house with a 700 square foot footprint, however that is not allowed in this subdivision.
The Commission discussed briefly decreasing the width of the ROW for more impervious coverage, however, this subdivision doesn’t quality for that. It would be appropriate to work out ways to have less right of way width developed into road surface and that could be accommodated in the calculations, however, they were not there yet.
HESS/ PFEIL - MOTION TO AMEND TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADD A NOTE 5 TO RECOMMEND TO PUBLIC WORKS THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY TO TRACT C BE DEDICATED BUT NOT DEVELOPED BY THESE DEVELOPERS AS A PART OF THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: (amendment) UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
VOTE: YES: (main amended motion) UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
A. Staff Report PL 04-15 Re: Westwood Estates Amended
Earls Replat Subdivision Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben reviewed and staff
report and staff recommendations. Staff
recommendations: Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat
subject to the following conditions and the Public Works Department’s recommendations:
1. Planning Commission grant an
exemption to the subdivision improvement requirements as permitted by HCC
22.10.040a, in that the subdivision does not exceed three lots and there is no
new dedication of right-of-way. 2.
Provide and show access to a fifteen-foot utility easement per HCC 22.10.051. The Public Works Department had the following
recommendation: Note 5 should indicate
a fifteen-foot utility easement rather than ten feet.
There was no one present to represent the
applicants and no one testified.
PFEIL/BARTLETT - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF
REPORT PL04-15 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL
04-16 Re: Oscar Munson Subdivision Scheffell Replat Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben
reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations. Staff recommendations:
Planning Commission Grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to
the following conditions and the Public Works Department’s
recommendations: 1. Planning Commission
grant an exemption to the subdivision improvement requirements as permitted by
Homer City Code 22.10.040a in that the subdivision does not exceed three lots
and there is no new dedication of right-of-way. 2. Provide and show access to a fifteen-foot utility easement per
HC 22.10.051. 3. Prior to final platting
an Asbuilt will be submitted to the Planning Department to establish location
of all structures on the lot. The
Public Works Department had the following recommendation: the fifteen-foot
utility easement along the right-of-way of Lake Street and Cape Douglas Way
should be dedicated. Although it may
not be a requirement for the replat, the owner should submit a site plan with
existing structures and obtain a zoning permit for those structures that are
not already permitted. (There is a building straddling the existing lot line
that is not permitted.)
There was no one present to
represent the applicant and no one testified.
HESS/BARTLETT - MOTION TO
ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-16 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Commissioner Bartlett asked
staff if having an as-built of the existing building was enough. City Planner McKibben advised that it
provided a starting point and initiates a conversation regarding a zoning
permit.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The Commission hears a report
from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning
issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants,
and the public.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff
recommendation. Staff
recommendation: Review and consider the
proposed resolution for Council action.
Amend as necessary. Ms.
McKibben noted a mistake on page 93; bottom line should say $1000 for uses
8,000 sf and larger that aren’t wholesale/retail” and the next line needed to
say “$5000 for Large Retail and
Wholesale Development 15,000 sq ft and above that aren’t wholesale/retail”.
HESS/PFEIL - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-18 WITH STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Bartlett proposed amending the resolution rate structure
to:
$1000 for buildings 8,000 to 12,000 square feet; $2000 for buildings 12,000 to 15,000 square
feet; $5000 for buildings 15,000 to 25,000 square feet; $7500 for buildings
25,000 to 40,000 square feet; and, $10,000 for buildings more than 40,000
square feet. Commissioner Bartlett
explained that his point was that the larger the structure the more time staff
had to spend on doing the plan, the review process, issuing the permits and
following through with the inspections and/or other requirements.
Staff acknowledged that right now the wholesale/retail is the most
complex section of the code for anything over 15,000 square feet if that gets
adopted by the council. The Commission
discussed the additional steps in the retail/wholesale process - building
aesthetic standards, community and economic analysis, TIA and community participation
plan.
The Commission agreed to change the wording to Community and Economic
Impact from Community Impact Statement in the resolution.
The Commission discussed the impact analysis and fees covering aspects of
the Conditional Use Permit and Traffic Impact Analysis. There was a suggestion of a 10%
administrative fee for the TIA and a suggestion to create a fee for change of
use. There was a brief discussion.
The tiered categories were discussed by the Commission. Staff advised
that the 8,000 and 15,000 square foot were logical and suggested leaving off
the 12,000 to 15,000 sf. Commissioner
Bartlett agreed that this sounded fair to him.
He expressed his intent to insure that the fees covered the City’s cost
of issuing the permits. Commissioner
Bartlett discussed his rationale behind the costs he came up with in the
tiers. His intent was to bring this up
for discussion and was not locked in to these numbers.
The commission agreed to leave off the 12,000 to 15,000 square foot tier.
City Planner McKibben commented that the Commission sees mostly
Conditional Use Permits for more than one permitted structure on a lot. Those are single and not time
consuming. The more complex Conditional
Use Permits such as the ice rink and the University are few and more complex. She commented that more tiers makes it more
complicated.
Commissioner Bartlett gave an analogy of where his numbers came
from. He estimated a 40,000 square foot
building at construction cost of $100 a square foot. That would be a $4 million project of which $10,000 is 2/10th
of 1 percent for a permit. He added
that this did not seem extreme to him for the cost of a project on a
developer. The other side of the
equation, he noted, is if that really would cover the cost.
City Planner McKibben advised that she researched the fees for areas such
as Anchorage, Juneau and Wasilla. She
stated it was important to keep in mind the prior fees did not come close to
actual costs. She added that the
proposed fees were the “best guess”.
When asked by the Commission, Ms. McKibben guesstimated 27-30 hours were
spent on the university CUP. This
figured at $75/hr for a total of $2250, without the cost of mailing or
administrative fees. They paid $1000.
After a brief discussion Chair Smith proposed the following schedule:
Up to 8000 sf - $500
8000 sf to 15,000 sf – $1000
15,001 sf to 25,000 sf - $5000
25,001 sf to 40,000 sf - $8000
40,001 over is $8,000
There was no objection by the Commission.
The Commission agreed that when required under the TIA and Community and
Economic Analysis the applicant would be charged the cost of the study plus an
administrative fee.
The Commission noted that where there were changes made in the fee
schedule there would need to be the appropriate changes made in the whereas’ of
the resolution and agreed to change it to
”Whereas increasingly larger projects require more staff time and expense to
the City”.
The Commission agreed that the fee schedule would read: “$500 for uses
less than 8,000 square feet of floor area; $1000 for uses 8,000 square feet of
floor area to 15,000; 15,001 to 25,000
at $3000; 25,001 to 40,000 at $5000; and 40,001 and above at $8000. They agreed to take out the Large
Retail/Wholesale wording and correct wording on Community Economic Impact and
insert the 10% administrative fee.
HESS/BARTLETT/PFEIL - MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT JUST DISCUSSED.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
No further discussion on the amended main motion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL 04-19 Re: Amendments to Title 21 scheduled for City
Council Public Hearing March 22, 2004.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff
report and staff recommendation. Staff recommendation: Review and consider
the proposed resolution for Council action. Amend as necessary.
Chair Smith acknowledged a fax from Frank
Griswold regarding 11 points and a comment on this issue in which he suggested
replacing the word “structures” with “buildings”. Chair Smith explained that structures would include such things
as signs and fences. The Commission reviewed a lay-down document with
amendments. They looked at using the
word “setback” as two words, which would give it a different meaning. The difference would be that a setback would
be used as a thing and not as a description and there was a suggestion to amend
the definition of setback. The
difference in the definitions is: Proposed change - “the required minimum
distance between the lot line and the closest point of a building to the lot
line” and is what the Commission’s intent is.
Currently reads - “the distance between the lot line and the building
line which is where the building is”.
Chair Smith reviewed the added definition of “islands” as “areas, when
used to describe landscaped areas within parking lots means....”
The Commission reviewed the wording in the
Standards, Outdoor Sales and Storage section of the proposed lay-down
resolution and noted that these would be amendments to the proposed ordinance
before the council at this time.
Commissioner Bartlett expressed his concern
that the outdoor storage wording might preclude Spenard Builders Supply and
allow someone like them to have lay-down storage and not have it counted. He said he wasn’t opposed to separating
lumber businesses out and allow a larger square footage for a lay-down area
specifically nor did he want to see a lot of lay-down areas around town. The
commission held a brief discussion using analogies and whether outdoor storage
should be allowed in different zoning districts. A point made was whether or not the outdoor storage should be
included in the total square footage and it was noted that outdoor storage must
be screened. The commission discussed and
agreed that storage must be more than 40 feet from the building. Anything closer than 40 feet would be
counted in the allowed sales square footage.
Commissioner Bartlett advised that Home Depot
is now delivering to Homer every Thursday at $125 a truckload.
The Commission discussed “stand-alone” and
the meaning of it and how it applies.
The question was, is there a loophole for not being a stand-alone
business. Wording suggested was “for buildings that contain retail/wholesale
uses, the total square footage of floor area of retail/wholesale business uses
within a single building shall not exceed 35,000 square feet”. The Commission agreed to use this language
and insert the correct square footage in each district. The Commission decided to leave out “stand
alone” and delete it from the definitions under HCC 21.32.471.
The Commission discussed how to word the
35,000 square foot limit. The original
intent was an allowance of 30,000 square feet and under special circumstances
5,000 more would be allowed. The
original intent was not to allow 35,000 square feet.
The Commission agreed to change the wording
to say “the total square feet of floor
area of retail/wholesale business uses within a single building shall not
exceed 35,000 square feet”.
HESS/ PFEIL - MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS AS AMENDED.
Chair Smith reviewed the amendments that
include-
Ø Building area - this ripples throughout the
document with the appropriate editorial corrections in each district.
Ø Adding “islands”
Ø Removing “stand alone”
Ø Changes to storage setbacks
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
Commissioner Foster not present to give a report.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Planner McKibben advised that Islands and Ocean Center is doing something for Earth Day and would like the Planning Commission to participate around the 20th or 21st of April. She will have more details next week.
City Planner McKibben said she intends to invite Mary Toll, Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning to do a presentation about platting.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units.
A. Zoning
Violation letter dated 3/5/04 to Paul Cooper, re: 508 Bonanza Avenue, placement of a mobile home.
B. Zoning Violation letter dated 3/8/04 to Aurora Novell Ventures LLC, re: 1246 Sterling Highway, placement of a structure on a lot without a permit.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may
address the Commission on any subject.
The Chair may prescribe time limits.
There were none.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Bartlett stated that he had nothing more to say.
Commissioner Pfeil asked if staff
had responded to his call on Friday regarding the huge banner on Pioneer
Avenue.[2] (Staff advised that they had not responded.) He thanked everyone for all their work.
Commissioner Hess called for a paperwork reduction act saying that the
Commission has to get more information electronically.
Chair Smith asked City Planner McKibben if she had any comments on Mr. Griswold’s recommendations. She commented that he had some interesting points and added that the City Attorney had reviewed the document and didn’t have any comments. Chair Smith explained that Mr. Griswold’s issue was that the Commission was permitting buildings closer than 20 feet; that the setback is determined by Conditional Use Permit. Chair Smith advised that Mr. Griswold thinks this is a “sweetheart deal” and that there was some special deal for excluding the Sterling Highway and Lake Street even though Mr. Smith explained to him the reasoning behind the decision and that it was a considered judgment call. Ms. McKibben explained that the Variance has a 4 step process to prove a single unique situation and that the owner did not create their own hardship. The Conditional Use Permit doesn’t require the same four steps. Commissioner Hess commented that the Commission is allowing to anyone a reduced setback on lots that don’t have problems associated with reducing the setback. Chair Smith commented that this is not a common way to use conditional uses and bears some consideration. Further, that the Commission has other code available to using conditional uses in a non-standard way. Chair Smith stated that he’d like to have the letter reviewed by the City Attorney and rely on his input.
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 11:12 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 2, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
__________________________________________
DEENA BENSON, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: _________________________________