Session 08-04, a Special Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 6:34  p.m. on February 13, 2008 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

Chair Kranich noted for the record that Commissioner Storm has read and signed the oath of office.

 

PRESENT:         COMMISSIONER FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, STORM, ZAK

 

ABSENT:           COMMISSIONER HOWARD

 

STAFF:             CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

 

AGENDA APPROVAL

 

The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

COMMISSION BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues; request for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public.

 

A. Staff Report PL 08-18, Town Center Zoning District

 

City Planner McKibben asked Commissioner Storm if she has had the opportunity to review the minutes from the public hearing. Commissioner Storm said she has.

 

Commissioner Zak commented that after consideration since the last meeting he believes he has a conflict of interest regarding the town center.

 

HESS/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER ZAK HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

Commissioner Zak explained that Matt Shadle owns property next to the proposed Town Center District and he earned more than $300 working for Mr. Shadle selling Christmas trees. Commissioner Zak said he has also been in discussion with people who own property near the Town Center District regarding a future business idea, but hasn’t gone anywhere with that.

 

There was brief discussion regarding the potential business and the location of Mr. Shadle’s lots.

 

VOTE: YES: KRANICH

            NO: FOSTER, MINSCH, STORM, HESS

 

Motion failed.

 

Commissioner Hess asked about the laydown item that refers to a conflict of interest with Chair Kranich. The Commission just received it and hasn’t had an opportunity to review it. City Planner McKibben said it had been forwarded to the City Attorney for review.

HESS/STORM MOVED TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Frank Griswold, City resident, commented regarding the copy of the legal opinion he provided the Commission, and said the property that Assemblyman Coffey owned was outside the area rezoned by about a block. When the Commission does discuss conflict of interest issues he thinks it would be very good to refer to the specific provisions of the conflict of interest code. Mr. Griswold said in today’s Homer Tribune there was a letter to the editor from Frank Vondersaar in which he makes a reference to Homer’s first Comprehensive Plan in 1969 where page one allegedly includes a statement  that the  plan “outlines objectives for future development, emphasizing the need for a strong centralized downtown.” Mr. Vondersaar states “39 years later we are hoping to begin development that will finally tie together existing business districts on Pioneer Avenue, Main Street and Old Town with a vibrant pedestrian core.”  Mr. Griswold commented that Mr. Vondersaar fails to point out that Pioneer Avenue, Main Street and Old Town are not separate business districts. By the time the 1983 Comprehensive Plan was enacted all of these areas were tied together as part of the Central Business District. The Town Center district threatens to untie the CBD by creating an isolated zoning district within it. There is no justification for including some CBD properties and excluding others. Excluding some of the Main Street properties which were included in the 1998 automotive sub zone creates an exclusionary spot zone for the rest of lower Main Street. If removing some of the automotive uses and properties from the Town Center is a valid public purpose or justification for this rezone, as claimed in the whereas clauses, then why not remove all of the automotive uses and properties. Another point is that if they allow open air business, they may be allowing car lots throughout the new district. He suggested they take a good look at the open air business as it has some pitfalls. Mr. Griswold questions why the library property is excluded. It has green space and is part of the trail system; and why are the college campus property, Al Waddell’s undeveloped property excluded and why is Stan Well’s property included and his excluded. There are a lot of other properties and no one even asked if he wanted to be included. Mr. Griswold said this is a classic case of arbitrary and discriminatory decision making. Why haven’t they requested a legal opinion as to the defensibility of this ordinance. All of the goals and objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan, which apply to Town Center District, apply to the rest of the CBD as well. This ordinance should be expanded to include the entire CBD or voted down completely. Either way Chair Kranich does have a conflict of interest due to the ownership of property in close proximity owned by his brother, a relationship that is in the first degree of consanguinity[1]. He referred the Commission to the court case with Dan Coffey. Mr. Griswold raised a question to Commissioner Hess, at the last meeting he believes Mr. Hess stated that “the uses are not the only thing that distinguishes this zone from the rest of the CBD.” Mr. Griswold would like to know what does. In other zoning actions the Commission has said that it is obvious that this line should be here and this line should be here. When someone shows this diagram, how is it explained which properties are out and others are in? Are they going to say in the future, “Oh that was an obvious mistake and they should have been included or excluded.” It is a classic case of arbitrary zoning and he believes it is a large spot zone. If there is no true public purpose for doing it then it is still a spot zone. Mr. Griswold thanked the Commission.

 

Chair Kranich reiterated the Commission’s recommendation against building heights being increased above 35 feet. He commented in opposition to reduction in the setback as noted on lines 170 and 171. He feels it will create a tunnel effect, reduce views, and will not allow for green space and meandering sidewalks as mentioned in the Town Center Plan.

 

Commissioner Storm disagreed and commented that in a lot of very successful small towns Main Streets are successful because what they are doing is creating an exterior room in which personal bodies feel comfortable. The reason Pioneer is not a nice place to walk is because the physical body does not feel comfortable in space that is overwhelmingly large. In order to make this space a destination place, creating smaller exterior spaces make it more attractive for people to be on the sidewalk. The landscape architects are looking at how to create some traffic calming and create spot landscaped zones. There may not be a whole alley of trees, but there will be a smaller space for pedestrians and in effect it is a more comfortable space for pedestrians.

 

Question was raised whether lines 193 and 201 where it refers to the square feet of building space are the same. City Planner McKibben explained that this language is the same as they exist in the Central Business District and mean different things. Line 193 limits the size of the footprint and line 201 limits the building square feet.

 

There was discussion of #7 on line 249 regarding whether a grading and drainage plan is required for all projects. City Planner McKibben responded that it is for all projects in this proposed district. In the CBD it is only required for projects that require a DAP. She explained that she is not sure how far the Town Center Master plan is going to go in identifying the drainages, but part of what they are doing is identifying a way to manage the run off in a more comprehensive way rather than site by site. HCC 21.48.060 (c) Drainage, would apply in the Town Center District. She reviewed the code citation.

 

Discussion ensued regarding parking, specifically line 337, parking lots with one single or one double loaded aisle and their buffering requirements. City Planner McKibben explained that if there is a minimum of a 15 foot buffer between the right-of-way then they don’t have to have the internal landscaping with in the parking lot. She drew an illustration for clarification. Northern climates have issues with plant survivability in the smaller islands, so the bigger the area the better chance of plant survivability. In a smaller parking lot this seems to work better. They don’t have to have the islands until they reach 35 spaces. Ms. McKibben noted that she will change the (i) to (1) on line 340.

 

There was discussion about utilities. It was pointed out that there are some criteria in the subdivision code.

 

MINSCH/FOSTER SO MOVED THAT ALL UTILITIES INSTALLED IN THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND.

 

Comment was made that this is the time to add it and the Council can discuss it.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Question was raised regarding cell phone towers and whether they should be prohibited in the district. City Planner McKibben said it may be covered in the Community Design Manual. No action was taken.

 

HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR AN ADDITION TO 21.50.070 AN ADDITIONAL NUMBER 4 ON SITE DEVELOPMENT OF C STARTING AT LINE 301. IT SHALL READ “STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.”

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

Discussion ensued regarding open air business and the farmer’s market. Allowing open air market with out specifying farmers market is moving backward. Concern was raised regarding limitless mobile food service and itinerant merchants. They should be limited to City property. Right now there is no oversight when it is in peoples parking lots and potential problems arise. It was noted that currently the farmer’s market sets up in the spring and breaks down in the fall, and that will take up a good portion of the acre or so that is allotted for the Town Center. There needs to be a specific place for mobile food vendors and the farmers market.

 

FOSTER/MINSCH MOVED TO REPLACE OPEN AIR BUSINESS WITH FARMERS MARKET.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

There was discussion regarding the Town Center District boundaries. Comment was made that zoning can be extended, but it isn’t something that is easy to do in this town, because of the rule that it has to meet a certain standard. Someone who wants to add a property to this zone isn’t doing it because it is a benefit to the community, it will be done from a business stand point. City Planner McKibben noted that the boundaries are similar to what was identified in the Town Center Development Plan. Different administrative staff contacted different surrounding property owners and asked if they were interested in being included and apparently only Mr. Wells was interested.

They further discussed extending the boundary and what boundaries they want to have considered. Non conforming status could be extended to those properties that need it. This is the way to preserve this core and encourage it to grow together.

 

STORM/MINSCH MOVED TO EXPAND THE DISTRICT SO THE DISTRICT IS BOUND BY THE STERLING HIGHWAY ON THE SOUTH, MAIN STREET ON THE WEST, POOPDECK ON THE EAST AND THE LOTS ADJACENT TO PIONEER BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND POOPDECK ON THE NORTH.

 

Commissioner Zak requested to abstain from voting on this motion because if the amendment passes the lots he referred to in his earlier discussion of conflict would be included in the boundary.  Chair Kranich called for a recess to clarify what action needs to be taken at 8:11 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:19 p.m.

 

Discussion resumed and Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen reviewed the bylaws that pertain to abstaining. It was suggested that they vote on Commissioner Zak abstaining and then if the vote on amending the boundaries of the district passed, the Commission could take up his conflict of interest.

 

HESS/STORM I MAKE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER ZAK TO ABSTAIN FROM THE QUESTION ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF THE DISTRICT.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, STORM, KRANICH, HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Foster commented regarding including the library property. There was brief discussion that it wouldn’t benefit to the inclusion.

 

Chair Kranich noted that if the expansion of the boundary takes place his brother’s property would be in the neighborhood of 300 feet from the corner of the new district. There was no action taken.

 

VOTE (Main motion): YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, STORM, HESS, MINSCH

            ABSTAIN: ZAK

 

Motion carried.

 

HESS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER ZAK HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING THE REST OF THE DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH A PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS NOW ENCOMPASSED IN THE DISTRICT.

 

Chair Kranich called for a second. Hearing no response he stated the motion dies for lack of second.

 

FOSTER/MINSCH I MOVE THAT WE PUT MOBILE FOOD SERVICES AND ITINERANT MERCHANTS ON CITY PROPERTY ONLY.

 

It could be changed if needed but this would start things off on the right foot and this would make it easier to enforce. On the other side of that it prohibits property owners from leasing spaces. Discussion ensued.

 

HESS I CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: ZAK, HESS, STORM, FOSTER

            NO: MINSCH, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE (Main motion): YES: HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, STORM

            NO: MINSCH, ZAK

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Zak reiterated his concern regarding his conflict of interest.

 

HESS/FOSTER I MOVE THAT COMMISSIONER ZAK HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

Commissioner Zak stated three reasons he feels he has a conflict. The first is having worked for someone who now has property in the district, the second having discussed a future business with someone who now has property in the district and third because he has submitted a proposal for art in the Town Center and if selected he would earn more than $300.

 

Commissioner Hess did not agree with the conflict due to the art project because that was available to anyone in the community to participate in.

 

VOTE: YES: HESS, STORM, MINSCH, KRANICH

            NO: FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Zak left the table.

 

Comment was made that he participated for the rest of the conversation and it was noted that he participated until the zoning boundaries were changed.

 

There was brief discussion regarding parking.

 

STORM/FOSTER MOVED THAT ON STREET PARKING AND SHARED PARKING BE ADDRESSED IN TITLE SEVEN PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT.

 

It was noted that it isn’t likely to happen with the schedule the Council has set up for the Town Center Ordinance. City Planner McKibben said they have started working on the Title Seven amendments that are recommended in the Town Center Development Plan and are likely to be done before the final plat.

 

STORM/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND THAT IT BE ADDRESS PRIOR TO FINAL PLATTING.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE (Primary amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

There was no further discussion.

VOTE (Main motion as amended): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Question was raised on the reasoning for no frontage roads. City Planner McKibben responded that frontage roads don’t facilitate moving buildings closer to the street and creating the human scale environment the Town Center Plan calls for.

 

There was discussion regarding whether there would be another public hearing required. City Planner McKibben cited HCC 21.69.030 which states “when a public hearing is to be held about a zoning ordinance amendment involving a change in the text or major district boundary changes, no notification of neighboring property owners shall be required, but notices shall be displayed in at least three public places.”

 

City Planner McKibben suggested they recommend a whereas clause that says the Commission held a public hearing since it is a requirement. The Commission concurred and City Planner McKibben said she could take care of it.

 

There was some discussion regarding how the Community Design Manual is tied into this ordinance.

 

It was noted that a courthouse would be considered under offices.

 

There was brief discussion recapping some of the amendments that were proposed at the previous meeting where the Town Center Zoning was first discussed and amended and also some discussion regarding parking.

 

AUDIENCE COMMENTS

 

Frank Griswold commented regarding a few procedural matters. He said the doctrine of necessity allowing all conflicted members to participate only kicks in if the meeting cannot be postpone to a time when a meeting of non conflicted members is available. The City does not have the authority to adopt extensive changes to its land use plan only non extensive changes and the Town Center Plan was very extensive and both extensive and non extensive revisions to the land use plan must be adopted by the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The Town Center Plan was not. The purpose of the CBD is to provide ample, convenient, off street parking; that has not changed. The Commission keeps saying they need an attorney to help them, all they have to do is demand it. The last time he remembers the City Attorney being here was in 1991 and he gave extensive advice on the Main Street rezone, which they are now undoing. At the very least the Commission should write their questions down and get a legal opinion. The Commission is just making it hard on themselves. The substituted change to the ordinance does not require additional notification to neighboring property owners, but because the change is very substantial and he thinks they need to have another public hearing. This is very similar to the issue with Assemblyman Coffey in the Wal-Mart case. Mr. Griswold noted Chairman Kranich pointed out that a quarter acre lot in Town Center will cost $250,000, which would be a million dollars an acre. His brothers one acre lot is assessed at $50,000 so assuming that the neighboring properties will also appreciate, this is possibly a $950,000 conflict of interest. For small Commissions of less than twelve members the Chair can make motions, it is in Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Griswold questioned who said the library didn’t want to be or didn’t belong in this zone. It makes no sense not to include the library.

If the zone is expanded to include the entire CBD, this might constitute a large enough area and class of people affected that general conflicts of interest would not be. Property owner approval is not required for determining what property should be included in a district. Zoning is done for the public good. Mr. Griswold said Commissioner Storm pointed out, regarding setbacks, that Pioneer Avenue is not nice because a physical body does not feel comfortable there, smaller space for pedestrians supports what we are trying to do. Mr. Griswold said that is very subjective. He does not like walking in a confined space, he like open space. When structures are placed very close to the road it creates traffic hazards. For example if you have ever come down Kachemak Way turning left on Pioneer, you are blocked by Cosmic Kitchen, as they are close to the road and have a bad parking situation. He thanked the Commission.

 

Commissioner Zak returned to the table.

 

COMMISSION COMMENTS

 

The Commissioners welcomed Commissioner Storm.

 

ADJOURN

 

There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m.  The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There is a worksession at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.

 

 

                                                                       

Melissa Jacobsen, Deputy City Clerk

 

Approved:                                                       

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Mr. Griswold clarified via email that the relationship is the second degree of consanguinity.