Session
06-18, a Special Meeting of the Homer Advisory
ROLL CALL
A quorum is required to
conduct a meeting.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, ZAK
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CHESLEY, PFEIL (Both excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY
CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
All
items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the
A. Time Extension Requests
B. Approval of City of
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
FOSTER/MINSCH MOVED TO MOVE
ITEM 4, COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE, TO BE ABOVE ITEM NUMBER 3, COMMISSION
BUSINESS.
City
Planner McKibben requested comment from the Clerk regarding whether the
Commission can take Public Comment once the Public Hearing has been
closed. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen
responded that there needs to be Comments of the Audience at the end of the
meeting. She proceeded to read the
notation under Commission Business on the packet agenda; however it did not
have the standard verbiage regarding public comment, so she suggested the
Commission add an agenda item to take public comment.
Commissioner
Foster stated he realizes the public hearing was closed at the last meeting,
but would like to hear comments from the people in the audience.
Commission
Kranich noted that the text on the two agendas regarding Commission Business
appears to be different that what the Commission sees on their normal agenda. He noted that normally the note under the
Commission Business title says the Commission w
Vice
Chair Hess called for a short recess at
Vice
Chair Hess explained that in his discussion with the Clerk and City Planner it
had been decided that because the public hearing had been closed, they could
not open the public comment period because that would, in effect, open up the
public hearing again. He noted that
there are advertising requirements that have to be met to re-open the public hearing.
VOTE: NO: FOSTER, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion
carried.
There
was further discussion regarding the Commission questioning the public and public
comments with the following points:
·
The Commission
can question the applicant during the course of their discussion.
·
Discussion at the
last meeting regarding the CUP was that this Commission is one of the rare
cases that do allow comments after the public hearing had been closed;
otherwise they were going to recommend that the public hearing not be closed.
·
If final action is
not taken regarding this CUP tonight, is there issue with public comments at
the end of the meeting.
·
An instance was
noted at a prior meeting where the Chair had recommended the person making
comment refrain from discussing.
Vice
Chair Hess asked staff to check into the procedure for reopening the public
hearing. City Planner McKibben said she
would check with the City Clerk and City Attorney.
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
It
was clarified that the Staff Report number is PL 06-65 and City Planner
McKibben noted the proposed amendments to the staff recommendations that the
applicant had provided.
City
Planner McKibben asked Commissioner Kranich if he had listened to the audio of
the public hearing and if he had read the staff report and all associated
materials. Commissioner Kranich
responded that he had. She also noted
that Commissioner’s Minsch and Zak were in attendance at the public hearing and
asked if they had reviewed the record.
They both responded that they had.[1]
Commissioner
Kranich commented that in the recording there was reference made to a color
hand out that was provided at the last meeting and asked what that was in
reference to. City Planned McKibben
provided a copy for him.
Vice
Chair Hess stated that some of the Commissioners received an email from Sue
Post and questioned if copies should be made for everyone. City Planner McKibben responded that the
Commission could choose to accept the letter into the record. She said the email did not come to the City
and requested a copy. She noted they
would need to accept the letter from Jenny Stroyeck. Vice Chair Hess said they would accept those
into the record.
Commissioner
Foster stated that he had received an email from Rika Mouw regarding this CUP
but didn’t bring a copy in to the meeting.
He stated that nothing in email would influence decisions. Dr. Foster responded that her main concern was
maintaining the trees on the property.
City
Planner reiterated that the applicant had provided suggested changes to the 19
conditions listed by staff. She suggested
two additional conditions that are not on the staff report.
1. Final
approval.
City
Planner McKibben stated Fred Meyer had provided a preliminary plat through the
2. Obtain
required access permits from DOT for the two street accesses on the state roads
and any necessary mitigation agreements that may be required by DOT.
Karen
Wise, the Consultant who prepared the Traffic impact analysis, was in
attendance. There was discussion
regarding her report.
Vice
Chair Hess commented that after an article was published in the Homer News, it
was brought to his attention that after further analysis of the traffic impact
analysis that the level of impact from the development on some of the
approaches of the intersections could be construed as not meeting the intent of
the code.
City
Planner McKibben responded that the traffic impact analysis made recommendation
for certain mitigations but the question came up regarding the
·
Homer City Code
is very similar to state law and in some areas more restrictive.
·
There is no
driveway access or direct access from the building site to a
·
When a
preliminary plat goes to the Borough, they forward it to the State for review
for traffic.
·
From the State
review, the access to the highway and
·
Before access
permits can be approved, a traffic impact analysis is required.
·
Since a traffic
impact analysis has been done, a revised analysis has to be done for the state
and if mitigation is needed, the applicant w
·
In this case it
could include negotiations and contributions for mitigation projects from the
applicant, the State, the City and CIRI.
·
·
Having Fred Meyer
as the applicant for those access permits would make them responsible party.
·
Code states, in
reference to large retail/wholesale, if the developer derogates the level of
service at an intersection, they have to have a mitigation plan.
Other
discussion points included
·
The analysis
takes into account the entire build out of
·
Once the
·
Remediation for
the two roads that meet the
·
The traffic
impact analysis proposes the remedies, ADOT reviews and accepts or suggests
changes. It w
·
The Fred Meyer
Plat w
·
2% per year was
used for estimating the population increase.
·
It should be the
responsibility of Fred Meyer to purchase what ever property is necessary to
make the project feasible.
It
was noted that the Traffic Impact Analysis recommendation two has the road
aligning with the driveway of the
There
was brief comment regarding issues that have developed on State roadways in
City
Planner McKibben clarified that the second suggested amendment w
There
was discussion of verbiage to clarify that it meets City requirements.
KRANICH/FOSTER
MOVED TO ADD CONDITION 20 THAT THE APPLICANT WILL OBTAIN REQUIRED ACCESS
PERMITS FROM AK DOT FOR THE
There
was brief discussion regarding the numbering.
VOTE:
YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion
carried.
The
Commission discussed the recommended requirement for final plat approval. City Planner McKibben noted that final plat
approval is not a code requirement. The
Fred Meyer project is more complex than most, in addition to building their
building, through the subdivision development agreement they w
Public
Works Director Meyer did not express any specific concern for the
recommendation for final plat approval as a condition of the permit.
FOSTER/MINSCH
MOVED TO ADD CONDITION 21, FINAL PLAT.
There
was discussion to clarify intent.
KRANICH/MINSCH
MOVED TO AMEND THAT FINAL PLAT APPROVAL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUING A ZONING
PERMIT.
VOTE
(Secondary Amendment): YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
NO: ZAK
Motion
carried.
Commissioner
Zak questioned if this is setting policy in some way. Commissioner Kranich responded that in this
instance, the zoning permit is where the applicant will start constructing a
private facility. In other cases where
it only involves subdivision, the developer can enter into a subdivision agreement
with Public Works because they haven’t sold any lots or a client starting to
build a home or something in the subdivision.
VOTE
(Primary Amendment): YES: MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER
NO:
ZAK
Motion
carried.
Community
impact analysis
The
Commission discussed the Community and Economic Impact Analysis (CEIA) prepared
by Civic Economics. Initial discussion
comments included:
·
The general
analysis is okay, but the 1/6% population growth is inaccurate as 2% is
typical.
·
Page 89 of the
packet contains notes on the data and explains how they arrived at the number.
·
2% is being used
regarding traffic and assuming a lot of traffic is in the summer, it would
include tourists so it is important to use the same numbers for people coming
into the area.
City
Planner McKibben was asked to summarize the mitigation assessments from the
CEIA. She noted the following:
·
The purpose of
the study is to show development will not have a significant adverse impact to
the City in terms of balancing as near as possible the cost of public services
and public revenue provided through taxes and other income.
·
The project w
·
Homer City Code
says the proposed project shall not have a significant adverse impact, the project shall
be designed to minimize negative impacts to adjoining property values, and the developer shall demonstrate the
financial ability to complete the project.
·
Regarding
mitigation, it shall include a Community and Economic Impact Analysis and
propose mitigation.
·
No mitigation was
proposed in the application. The CEIA
noted that in general the store will have an overall benefit to the community,
but it did indicate that it is likely that one of the local grocery stores will
close.
The
Commission discussed whether the concern of the CEIA noting a potential grocery
store closure required any further mitigation requirements.
There
was discussion that when Fred Meyer first came before the City, Tom Gibbons, of
Fred Meyer, had stated that they could provide training for existing retailers
on how to mesh their business plans with Fred Meyer’s business plan so it is as
advantageous as possible for all entities to survive.
Charles
Moseley of Fred Meyer commented that in the past Fred Meyer has offered
seminars through an areas local Chamber of Commerce. He said that they have met with the Homer
Chamber in an effort to find out what goods are needed in Homer for ideas to take
back and use when determining how to stock the Homer store. With regard to the market basket on page 15
of the CEIA, Mr. Moseley commented that it doesn’t refer to specific items, it refers to departments and is a broad brush stroke
of what goods w
Concern
was expressed that the CEIA focused primarily on groceries. Commissioner Foster noted, as an example that
the CEIA did not take into consideration that if Fred Meyer has a full blown
book store, it could negatively impact the two local book stores in town. Point was made that through the seminars and
discussion with local merchants in town that the applicant w
Commissioner
Kranich noted a potential discrepancy in the tables provided on page 90 of the
packet. He said it looks like the
surplus/deficit table is opposite of what it should be. City Planner McKibben responded that she
would have to talk to Civic Economics to determine what it should be.
Commissioner
Kranich said he would work on wording for an action regarding future seminars.
The
Commission discussed the citizen comment meetings that were held by Fred
Meyer. Commissioner Kranich noted that
there were several requests to see some type of profile of what the elevations currently,
then overlaid with a final elevation profile.
He said it would be beneficial to see how the grade differentials are
going to be accommodated. He feels it
would help the Commission make determinations pertaining to landscaping and how
retaining walls are constructed and so forth.
Commissioner Foster agreed in that it would show how the developers will
utilize natural features and topography.
The Commissioners agreed it would be beneficial for Fred Meyer to
provide elevation profiles of the existing
Bruce
Creager of Barghausen Consulting Engineers responded that is information that
could be provided but the information along with the post finished grades is
available in the storm water protection plan.
Randy
Sauer of Mulvanny G2 Architecture pointed out that graphics requested were provided in
the packet. Based on citizen comments
they provided a site section that goes from property line to property line. Visually, they showed the terrain from the
southwest corner to show softening of the slope and lower retaining wall.
There
was discussion regarding highway grades and retaining wall heights. Mr. Creager commented the approximate grades
on the
Vice
Chair Hess called for a recess at
KRANICH/MINSCH
MOVED TO ADD CONDITION 22, APPLICANT TO CONDUCT EDUCATIONAL SEMINAR FOR LOCAL
BUSINESS TO CO-EXIST WITH APPLICANT.
Commissioner
Kranich feels it would be advantageous for the local community, especially
businesses to have an opportunity for more formal interaction with the
applicant.
FOSTER/KRANICH
MOVED TO AMEND TO ADD PRIOR TO OPENING THE BUSINESS.
There
was no discussion on the secondary amendment.
VOTE
(Secondary amendment): NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
There
was no further discussion on the primary amendment.
VOTE
(Primary amendment): YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER,
MINSCH, KRANICH
Motion
carried.
Commissioner
Minsch commented on page 90 it is noted that the store will fill gaps in the
general merchandise market and asked if there is any point in adding it to the
CUP in effort to mitigate community impact.
MINSCH/FOSTER
MOVED TO ADD A CONDITION THAT FRED MEYER AGREES THAT THE STORE WILL SEEK TO
FILL GAPS WITH GENERAL MERCHANDISE RATHER THAN COMPETE DIRECTLY WITH EXISTING
MERCHANTS.
There
was discussion that the Commission doesn’t want to pigeon hole the applicant
into a requirement. Mr. Moseley
expressed concern about that sort of a restriction. He said their intent is to meet the needs of
the community, not to put people out of business. He said they have market studies that show
how others will survive in other communities.
He said they have gone into other communities and do not have a Wal-Mart
impact. Fred Meyer wants to fit into the
community and work with the community.
City
Planner McKibben expressed her concern as to how the City can enforce that type
of a restriction.
VOTE: NO:
FOSTER, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS
Motion
failed.
The
Commission discussed parking.
Commissioner
Kranich commented that the staff report makes reference in the site plan the
full 10 feet of landscaping in the north property line next to
·
Shorting the
spaces on the north side to 17.5 feet to allow for a 2.5 foot overhang as
allowed by the parking plan provided the landscaping or terrain is such that
the vehicle can hang over the curb.
·
Reducing the
perimeter driving lane to 26 feet would bring the landscape buffer on the north
side into compliance.
City
Planner McKibben recommended it be an amendment to condition 6 and noted that
Fred Meyer’s suggested amendment to condition 6 would be a good place to start.
There
was discussion regarding the parking design requirements in HCC 7.12.030. HCC 7.12.035(b) states that if a parking plan
varies because of the configuration of the lot, the Planning Commission must
review the plan, which implies the Commission has the ability to allow for
something different.
Question
was raised where an RV pulling a boat is going to park. It was suggested that they would have to find
a space on the outer edge where they can pull through two spaces on both
sides.
The
Commission agreed to deal with Commissioner Kranich’s recommendation before
moving on to another topic.
City
Planner McKibben drew a diagram on the board to help explain Mr. Kranich’s
suggestion. Mr. Creager did not have any comment and felt it could work.
In
discussion for clarification it was noted that this refers to the north side,
it was pointed out that if the same rule were to apply down the north/south
road at least as far as the driveway, or even all the way down, it would widen
their green space between the road and parking lot. Commissioner Kranich pointed it out on the
drawing provided. They discussed wording
for a possible action.
After
discussion, City Planner McKibben stated that if amended, condition 6 would
read -
Parking lot will be redesigned to have a
minimum 10 percent of the area landscaped in island or dividers to comply with
HCC 21.61.105 (l)(7)(a)(ii)(l) and allow for the 10 foot landscape adjacent to
Hazel Avenue. Drive aisles adjacent to
rights-of-way will be 26 feet. Parking
spaces adjacent to rights-of-way will be reduced to 17.5 feet with 2.5 feet
overhanging the curb and landscaping for a total parking space of 20 feet.
It
was suggested that further language be added that narrowing the perimeter and
shortening the parking spaces shall be accommodated in further green
space. There was discussion that Fred
Meyer and the City have a difference of opinion of the definition of
landscaping inside parking lots. Part of Fred Meyers recommended amendment
includes the hardscape, which staff does not include.
The
Commission began discussion regarding pedestrian ways within dividers being
included as landscaping.
City
Planner McKibben read Fred Meyer’s suggested amendment of staff condition 6 - “Interior
landscape may include landscaped areas connected to the perimeter landscape but
that protrude into the parking lot.” City
Planner McKibben said that is in line with what the Commission has been
discussing and suggested they have a separate discussion about including
pedestrian ways as they are included in the list.
There
was discussion regarding the way the adjustments in the Commission’s suggested
amendment would affect the applicant’s requirements for landscaping.
City
Planner McKibben repeated the suggested amendment for recommendation 6:
Drive aisles adjacent to rights-of-way
will be 26 feet. Parking spaces adjacent
to rights-of-way will be reduced to 17.5 feet with 2.5 feet overhanging the
curb and landscaping for a total parking space of 20 feet.
KRANICH/ZAK
SO MOVED.
It
was clarified that amendment is added to condition 6.
There
was brief discussion in favor of the amendment.
VOTE: YES:
MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion
carried.
The
Commission discussed the interior protrusions.
City Planner McKibben suggested language to add to condition 6 would be:
Interior landscape may include
landscaped areas connected to the perimeter landscape but that protrude into
the parking lot.
ZAK/MINSCH
SO MOVED.
It
was discussed that it would be easier to research as an amendment rather than
just a determination.
VOTE: YES:
MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, ZAK
Motion
carried.
The
Commission discussed whether flush pedestrian ways should be included in the
landscape calculation. Comments were
made that the flush pedestrian ways were not to be counted as landscape.
There
was brief discussion on the wording for a motion. City Planner McKibben suggested amending the
last sentence that was added to condition 6 to be “Interior landscape may
include landscaped areas connected to the perimeter landscape but protrude into
the parking lot and do not include pedestrian ways.”
It
was clarified that pedestrian ways within landscaped areas would have some
landscaping and pathways within and the pathways would be included in the
landscaping.
Commissioner
Zak suggested pedestrian ways in raised landscaped areas or heated walkways are
included in the percentage considered for landscaping. During discussion, the following points were
made,
·
The goal of
landscaping was green space, permeability and trees.
·
Heated walkways
would be made up of different material than concrete, so it would stand out
differently in the parking lot.
·
The area being
discussed is in a raised area separated from the parking lot, with a couple of sections
that cross the traffic flow.
·
Concerned was
raised that this idea gets away from the intent of landscaping.
·
This is only a 30
foot area, where it crosses if it is heated.
It is obvious on the plan that the area is a walkway.
·
The pedestrian
ways are counted toward the overall landscaping requirement of 15% and not
included in the 10% requirement for islands and dividers in a parking lot.
·
Landscaping for
the parking lot is more specific that the overall landscaping requirement.
The
Commission reviewed code requirements for parking lots and pedestrian ways and
continued discussion.
Mr.
Creager asked under what circumstances it would be acceptable to count walkways
toward landscaping as it is included in code.
City Planner McKibben responded when they are inside an island or
buffer. She noted in their plan there
are a couple places where the pedestrian way crosses a landscaped area, so
those sections could be counted.
City
Planner McKibben suggested the following amendment:
Items
6 as it reads now with the last sentence that ends, “Interior may include
landscaped areas connected to the perimeter landscape but protrude into the
parking lot” and add “and include pedestrian ways where they are within a
divider or island.”
Comments
included:
·
If the applicant
includes a heated walkway, to provide an ice free surface for the people
walking, then give the applicant credit where it crosses the traffic lane too.
·
The Commission
has heard over and over that if the islands are too small, there won’t be room
for trees growing in it, so you end up with grass. The idea was to have larger islands to make
sure there are trees.
·
If the walkways
are included it takes away from the landscape concept that was important to
many people who commented at the community meetings.
·
The earlier
action gave the applicant the option for the five islands to increase 3.5 feet
in width, correspondingly in square footage and correspondingly the
survivability of trees.
·
The Commission
has authority to set modify the amount of coverage of pedestrian ways in
islands to 50 % allowed for pedestrian ways to a smaller percentage.
·
Currently only
two islands have pedestrian crossings and it appears that the rest w
·
The goal of the
landscaping requirement is to avoid a “sea of asphalt” and the applicant has
gone to lengths to accommodate the requirement.
·
This could lead
to a situation where the applicant either narrows the walkway or takes the
island out.
There
was discussion where the walkway in question is located. City Planner McKibben pointed out it would be
in front of the main entry. Commissioner
Minsch commented that she doesn’t believe the applicant is going to plant large
trees in that area as it would cover their signage and take away from the nice
way they have designed the front of the store.
It
was questioned whether there needs to be clarification regarding the
landscape/pedestrian requirement. City
Planner McKibben responded that if the Commission agrees with her
interpretation that the walkways do not count toward the 10% dividers and
islands at all, whether they are in the island or not then they can move
on. If not, they need to take an action.
There
was discussion for clarification.
MINSCH/FOSTER
MOVED TO SUPPORT STAFF ON THIS ISSUE.
There
discussion about including pedestrian ways.
VOTE: YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
NO: ZAK
Motion
carried.
ZAK/KRANICH
MOVED TO ADD A SENTENCE TO CONDITION 6 AND INCLUDE
There
was discussion regarding definition of pedestrian ways.
VOTE: YES: ZAK, HESS, KRANICH
NO:
FOSTER, MINSCH
Motion
fails for lack of majority.
Vice
Chair Hess called for a break at
Vice
Chair Hess asked the applicants if they felt it would be unreasonable for the
Commission to request an extension of the time frame for a CUP. He explained that this is a first for the
City of
Mr.
Moseley responded that they appreciate the City’s concerns, but they have been
working with the City for quite some time and are getting to a critical period
to get construction documents started and resolve issues with the plat
process.
The
Commission confirmed that the drop dead date is July 29th. They discussed meeting dates and times for a
special meeting and agreed to a special meeting on July 26th at
The
Commission reviewed the other conditions to see if there were any that could be
taken care of before postponing.
City
Planner McKibben commented that at their next meeting they need to finish
talking about parking, building aesthetics and snow removal.
The
applicant suggested an amendment that minor plan changes resulting from the
conditions of approval or peripheral agency review such as Corps of Engineers,
may be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.
KRANICH/MINSCH
MOVED TO ADD CONDITION 23 MINOR PLAN CHANGES RESULTING FROM THESE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL OR PERIPHERAL AGENCY REVIEW, SUCH AS THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY
BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNER.
Concern
was raised regarding what a minor change might be. City Planner McKibben cited an example of a
modification to move the building on direction or another to a certain degree,
but st
VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, ZAK, HESS, MINSCH
Motion
carried.
Commissioner
Kranich commented that the staff report had said there was no historical value
to the site. He said that as a life long
resident of Homer he feels there is significance to the site. He explained that it was build either during
or just after World War II as a low frequency radio navigation site, or at that
time a Civil Aeronautics Administration and it was one of a chain of station from
Vice
Chair Hess commented that the drawings do not depict where the jogs are in the
building that are noted in condition 8.
Mr. Sauer pointed them out on the drawing and explained that they are 2
inches.
The
Commission requested a sketch of a side view of the building to get a better
understanding of what the site w
FOSTER/MINSCH
MOVED TO POSTPONE TO THE SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 26TH.
There
was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion
carried.
COMMENTS
OF THE AUDIENCE
Members
of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may
prescribe time limits.
Debbie
Poore, city resident, commented she cares about Homers growth and development
and encourages the Commission to abide by the Code and the Community Design
Manual. She recommended the Commission
have another public hearing.
Sue
Post thanked the Commission for their time.
She said the community is better off because of the process and is sorry
to hear that there is only one public hearing because summer is a busy
time. She encouraged the Commission to
look at the Code and standard. She
thanked the Commission for requesting the profile view. She said she has a hard
time visualizing what it w
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners
may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for
excused absence.
No
commission comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special meeting or
work session w
There being no further business to come before the
Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved:
[1]
Commissioner Kranich was absent from the June 14th public hearing
and Commissioners Minsch and Zak had not assumed their seats on the