Session 06-20, a Special Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at 6:05 p.m. on July 26, 2006 by Vice Chair Hess at the Homer City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:         HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, ZAK

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:           CHESLEY, PFEIL, FOSTER (All 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 Planning Commission and are approved in one motion.   There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular agenda and considered in normal sequence.   

 

            A.  Time Extension Requests

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

            C.  KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

D.     Commissioner Excused Absences

 

PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS

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

 

Vice Chair Hess advised the audience that a public hearing is scheduled for the August 2nd regular meeting.  He explained that the Commissions agenda allows for comments on each agenda item and at the end the public may comment on any subject.  He said if anyone wishes to speak on the CUP that is before the Commission tonight, it will not be considered as part of the official record and should not and will not be taken into account in the decision making process.  He suggested if anyone wants to make comment regarding the CUP that they do so at the August 2nd public hearing. 

 

City Planner McKibben added that if people are unable to attend the meeting on the 2nd, written comments will be accepted until 5:00 pm that day. 

 

Vice Chair Hess said that nothing prevents the audience from speaking on the issue tonight, however if anyone were to comment, they would give the Fred Meyer representatives the opportunity to speak to any comments.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

A.                Staff Report PL 06-65, CUP 06-07, Fred Meyer

The Commission started the discussion with landscaping requirements. 

 

Randy Sauer of Mulvanny G2 Architecture handed out maps of the site based on the Commission’s request at the last meeting.  He referenced the same map that was on the wall and explained that the drawing is based on the view of the retaining wall on south side of building.  Mr. Sauer noted that the first drawing is the view from across the street and shows the trees at time of planting, noting that the retaining wall is visible behind the trees; the second view is the south elevation at approximately 10 years as the trees reach maturity and last is the viewpoint of a pedestrian from across the street.

 

There was brief discussion of the chain link fence.  It was noted that the fence is curbside behind the trees at the edge of the drive aisle and would not be seen from the perspective of the pedestrian across the street.  The fence is 42 inches high and the purpose of it is to keep people out of the retention pond. 

 

Vice Chair Hess noted that he failed to ask if there were any public comments before they started discussion.  He restated his recommendation regarding waiting to make comment at the public hearing on August 2nd for the benefit of the people who arrived late. 

 

Carole Hamik, City resident asked why the applicant is going to mow down all the trees.  Vice Chair Hess responded that they were just getting ready to address that and suggested she listen to their discussion and would perhaps have her question answered. 

 

Vice Chair Hess offered a suggestion that would allow the applicant the opportunity to meet the spirit of HCC 21.61.105 (7)(a).  Landscaping shall not be less than 15 percent of the total lot area and shall include the retention of existing native vegetation to the maximum extent possible.

 

Vice Chair Hess suggested that Fred Meyer make the effort to save some of the existing vegetation and make it available to Parks and Recreation, local non profits and the general public in an attempt to meet the spirit of retaining the natural vegetation. 

 

Bruce Creager of Barghausen Consulting Engineers responded that it was something they could look into.  He felt it would need to include discussion not only with Fred Meyer but also with CIRI.  He thought there may be some juvenile trees, shrubs and vegetation that could be excavated and made available.  The more mature trees wouldn’t make it if they were dug up. 

 

Commissioner Minsch questioned whether there would have to be more clearing done so people turning onto the highway will be able to see to make their turns.  City Planner McKibben responded that when DOT reviews the plan there may have to be some adjustment to the alignment, but ultimately the applicant will have to have the required amount of landscaping. 

 

There was discussion regarding Vice Chair Hess’s recommendation.  Points included,

·        Code says to maintain the vegetation to the maximum extent possible.  The applicant has explained that it is not possible because of the type of construction, the amount of clearing and etcetera, but has explained how many trees they are taking out and how many they are planting.

·        When the Islands and Ocean Visitor Center was built they did something similar and it there were many people who were able to obtain some of the existing vegetation.

·        Giving the vegetation away is a great idea but it does not do anything for the spirit of the code as far as preserving anything natural on the property.

·        Adding this recommendation would at least get the target of retention addressed.

 

City Planner McKibben stated that language like “Maximum extent possible” allows for some flexibility.  The applicant has explained why they can’t do it, so the Commission can disagree, recommend something different or accept their reasoning.

                                                                                                                                               

MINSCH/KRANICH MOVED TO ADD CONDITION 24 THAT THE APPLICANT WILL RETAIN FOR USE BY EITHER PARKS AND RECREATION, NON PROFITS OR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE EXITING VEGETATION THAT EXISTS ON THE LOT.

 

Commissioner Minsch commented that she thinks this is great for the people who can use it but it doesn’t resolve the issue of following the code. 

 

Commissioner Kranich commented that it is open ended.  There should be should be some parameters in place regarding how long it will be available, how much of the vegetation are they going to have to give to the public.  Mr. Kranich said he was not going to make a motion for those recommendations because he feels that the Code gives the Commission the ability by stating “to the maximum extent possible” to say yes, we can see why you want to get rid of all the vegetation and come back with new.

 

Vice Chair Hess commented that there has been considerable public comment on the issue of removing the trees and it should be addressed somehow and make some sort of effort to try to do something to comply with the spirit of retaining some of the natural vegetation in some manner. This would not be an exceptional hardship to the applicant and could help their standing in the community. 

 

Commissioner Zak said he agrees with Commissioner Kranich, but thinks making the trees available would be a good gesture. 

 

Discussion continued reiterating the differing opinions.

 

ZAK/KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT FRED MEYER ALLOW A MINIMUM OF THREE DAYS AND NOTIFY THE PUBLIC THAT VEGETATION FROM THE SITE IS AVAILABLE AND HAVE A PERSON ON SITE TO LOAD THE TREES.

 

There was no further discussion.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

The amended motion to add condition 24 was repeated at the request of Commissioner Kranich.  There was brief discussion of bringing this up again under discussion of the Community Design Manual or through a new motion.

 

VOTE:  YES:  MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

There was no further discussion regarding buffers, lighting or loading and delivery.

 

The Commission discussed building and aesthetics. 

 

Commissioner Minsch said she is still looking for some kind of mitigation to the fact that they are not keeping any of the trees.  Vice Chair Hess reminded the Commission that Fred Meyer is planting more trees than they are taking out. 

 

City Planner McKibben commented that the applicant has submitted their design and the way they feel it meets the requirements.  While she doesn’t recommend the Commission try to redesign the building, but this is their opportunity if they feel there needs to be more wall jogs, windows or things of that nature.  

 

Comments were made that grey seems to be the predominate color on the building and more  browns would be better and that having a more Alaskan type log where the wood is would look nice as well.

 

Vice Chair Hess noted that there is a code requirement regarding building aesthetics regarding the jogs and there may be issue with the applicant meeting that requirement. 

 

City Planner McKibben commented that the applicant had provided information regarding why they could not they could not meet the requirement for the western elevation and how they believe they met the intent of the code.

 

Mr. Sauer commented that they have periodic jogs in the western elevation that break up the massing of the façade.  Due to operational layouts within the store, they believe that by providing the awnings, entry jogs, change of materials, as well as textural changes, color changes and vertical changes in height, they have met the intent of the code by breaking up the mass of the façade.

 

City Planner McKibben commented that code states that if a building façade exceeds 60 feet in length it shall be broken down into smaller elements by jogging the wall in or out a minimum of four feet for at least 10 feet in length or by adding in elements such as a porch, recessed entry, bay window, projecting trellis or similar substantial architectural feature at intervals so that no continuous wall plane is more than 60 feet in length.

 

It was noted that in the future when the applicant remodels that those features can’t go away and have to be replaced in kind.  The Commission was in consensus that the applicant had met the intent of HCC 21.61.105(11)(a). 

 

The Commission discussed HCC 21.61.105(11)(b). 

 

City Planner McKibben read the following from the staff report regarding HCC 21.61.105(11)(b):

This site is a corner lot within public view on 3 sides.  The main entrance, the western elevation, does have architectural features, varied rooflines and windows which all contribute to visual interest at the pedestrian scale.  The southern elevation is clearly not intended for use by pedestrians as it provides the drive-through window for the pharmacy.  Lower roof overhangs are provided on this side of the building.  The northern elevation is visible from Hazel Avenue.  At some time in the future this will be a primary access to Town Center.  This elevation does not appear to include those “human-scale” elements, such as a porch or lower roof overhang that the code calls for. 

 

She said the applicant had indicated that they are willing to make changes to the northern elevation to comply, so she would only question the western elevation.

 

She noted that Condition 8 states

The northern elevation of the building will be redesigned to incorporate wall jogs or architectural elements creating a human-scale and roofline variation. 

 

There were no further comments regarding the human scale elements of the remainder of the building and the western elevation and Vice Chair Hess commented that there was consensus of the Commission that they are okay there. 

 

Regarding HCC 21.61.105(11)(c), (d) and (e), City Planner McKibben read the following staff report note:

Rooflines are to be varied.  Entryways are to be designed to orient customers and to provide protection from the weather.  The public entrance to the building is on the western side. It clearly orients the customer to the primary entrance of the building and will provide protection from the weather.  Variations in the roofline are provided on the south and west sides of the building, and to some extent on the east side.  However, roofline variation is minimal on the north side of the building.

 

She commented that she would expect roofline variation to be incorporated into the redesign.

 

There were no comments from the Commissioners.

 

Regarding HCC 21.61.105(11)(f), Commissioner Kranich commented he would like to hear the other Commissioner’s input regarding color and texture.  He commented about the new Fred Meyer store in Palmer and how it is made up primarily of brown tones and blends well with the surroundings.

 

Mr. Sauer commented that he appreciated Mr. Kranich’s comments.  He said during the Community involvement meetings they heard comments to look at the Islands and Ocean Building, and Alaska USA, which are very different buildings.  He said the in the Fred Meyer design they are incorporating both traditional and contemporary in the same building.  They looked around the community and reviewed the Community Design Manual which says to keep colors subdued with earth tones, whites, soft sands, greys, and light pastels.  He displayed the color samples and said that the colors in the walls are split faced to give shadows and textures at a 75 natural /25 sandstone split.  It won’t be totally grey; it will be a more random intermesh between the two natural earth tones.  The intent is that it is not solid grey and with the shadows and intermixing of the sand stone it will give it a more natural feel. The bottom band is darker and it is four feet tall.  

 

There was no further discussion on the colors.

 

Regarding HCC 21.61.105(11)(g), City Planner McKibben read the following excerpt from the staff report:

No less than 5% of the floor area shall be dedicated to interior or exterior public spaces. For a store of this size a minimum of 3,300 square feet of public space is to be provided.  The applicant indicates there will be 2 outdoor common areas, one located adjacent to the southwest building corner having an area of 1,650 square feet, and the other located at the northwest building corner with an area of 1,700 square feet. 

 

Mr. Creager pointed out the two primary public spaces, one adjacent to the northwest corner and one adjacent to the southwest corner of the building.  He said the public spaces are formed by the building, planters, benches, and tables, giving a sense of enclosure but open to views in and out and offers a place for people to stop and rest.  Mr. Creager said that there are minor spaces and explained for example at the end of the pedestrian walkway that extends out from the southwest corner out to the north/south road which is a plaza area with benches and a trash receptacle and it will offer some view to the road activity as well as a view out to Kachemak Bay.

 

Commissioner Minsch noted an idea that Commissioner Zak had mentioned previously regarding a cover over the area on the southwest corner.  It would provide a protected area during inclement weather.  Mr. Sauer said they would look into covering a portion.

 

Commissioner Kranich suggested the applicant bring a recommendation to the August 2nd meeting. 

 

Regarding snow storage areas, City Planner McKibben read the following excerpt from the staff report:

Snow storage areas must be identified and may not use required parking or sidewalks.  Three snow storage areas are shown on the site plan.  One is shown in the loading and delivery area.  No required parking areas or sidewalks are used for this snow storage area.  One is located in the northwest corner of the site.  No sidewalks or parking spaces appear to be used by this snow storage area.  The third is located in the southwest corner of the site.  It appears to staff that some required parking spaces may possibly be used for this snow storage site.  Staff notes this parking area is a fair distance from the front entrance of the store, and is unlikely to be used heavily during snow storage months. Staff recommendation 9 states Snow storage areas will be redesigned so that no required parking is used.

 

Mr. Creager commented that revisions are still under discussion but will comply with the requirements.  He said they may have to have additional stalls behind the store and there is a fourth storage area above the northeast corner.  They are trying to spread out the snow storage to have the least impact.  

 

Regarding Outside Sales and Storage, City Planner McKibben read the following from the staff report:

Areas for outdoor sales are permitted if they are extensions of the sales floor area.  They must be permanently defined and incorporated into the design of the building and landscaping. The applicant has indicated that outdoor sales of seasonal goods may be provided along the front plaza area of the store.  While staff understands that patrons are allowed free access to the plaza/common space it can not be considered an extension of the sales floor. Staff recommendation 10 states No outside sales will be permitted in the front plaza.

 

It was clarified that an outdoor sales area that is part of the building, like the stores in Eagle River or Wasilla, would be allowed, but aren’t incorporated into this design.

 

There was brief discussion regarding trash and recycling.  Mr. Moseley commented that the store has a compactor for all trash including wet and organic.  It is all enclosed and a truck comes in to pick up the trash.  There is no threat of bears being able to get into the garbage.

 

Vice Chair Hess commented to the applicant that it may be hard to envision bears running amuck in the Fred Meyer parking lot, but there is great concern within the City regarding bears getting in to trash cans and it that it does happen, even along Pioneer Avenue. 

 

Mr. Moseley said they would certainly look into bear resistant trash receptacles for the outdoor public areas. 

 

Vice Chair Hess commented that he believes the Commissioners at the table tonight feel comfortable that the conditions in the Code have been met. He commented that there are areas in the Community Design Manual that will be addressed. 

 

Vice Chair Hess called for a short recess at 7:45 pm.  The meeting resumed at 8:00 pm.

 

City Planner McKibben recommended that the Commission adopt each finding separately because of the magnitude of this application.

 

City Planner McKibben summarized the following findings:

a. The use is consistent with the purpose of HCC Chapters 21.28 through 21.70 and the purpose of the zoning district;

Finding:  The stated purpose of Title 21 is to enhance and promote the public health safety and welfare by regulating land use, height, location, size, use of structures, regulate yards and open spaces.  The purpose, in part, of the CBD is to provide for a centrally located area for general retail shopping.  The district is intended to accommodate a mixture of uses.  The district is designed to encourage pedestrian movement throughout the area and avoid traffic congestion.  Buildings and other structures should be compatible with one another and the surrounding area.  Ample, convenient parking and safe limited access characterize the area.

Retail uses are permitted outright in the CBD.  Buildings more than 8,000 square feet are permitted through the conditional use process.  Additionally, the proposed development will generate more 100 trips in day and therefore requires conditional use permit, as do drive-in establishments.  Retail and wholesale development of more than 15,000 square feet in area are required to meet a very complete set of standards.  The purpose of those standards is insure that this type of development is of a quality that enhances the character of Homer and does not overwhelm the surroundings.  All conditional uses are required to conform to the Community Design Manual.

Locating a large retail establishment in the center of the CBD helps to minimize sprawl and insures that shoppers continue to patronize the down town area.  Locating within the Town Center area will spur development of the infrastructure there, which in turn promotes pedestrian movement. 

b. The value of the adjoining property will not be negatively impacted greater than that anticipated from other permitted uses in this district;

Finding:  One of the required analyses for large retail development is the Community and Economic Impact Analysis (CEIA).  The purpose of this study is to show that the 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.  That the project will minimize negative impacts to adjoining property values, and show that the developer has the financial ability to complete the project and achieve long term financial stability.

The CEIA for this project was completed by Civic Economics in accordance with the requirements of the Code.  The study reaches several conclusions.  One (pg 6) that the addition of a 66,000 square foot Fred Meyer store offering grocery and general merchandise will add somewhere between $4.8 million to  $7.5 million dollars in new sales, add between 17 and 33 new jobs, and between $189,000 to $303,000 in additional sales tax revenue.  The study suggests (pg 36) that large retail stores located in communities that collect sales tax generate a net fiscal impact, even when accounting for increased public costs for police, public works and capital improvements.   Additionally, the study states that if the building has fire protection such as internal sprinklers (which is indicated by the developer) than the development will not impact the community’s ISO rating.  When considering the impacts to adjoining property values the study suggests that because of the strict review and requirements of the large retail standards there will not be a negative impact.  Nothing in the study suggests that Fred Meyer does not have the financial stability to complete the project and achieve long-term financial stability.  Staff notes that Fred Meyer has a long and successful history in Alaska.   The study does however state the grocery market is already largely saturated and that the opening of the proposed Fred Meyer will divert grocery sales from other local stores.  The study suggests it is possible that an existing grocery business may choose to close their doors.  However, the study also states that the proposed Fred Meyer is expected to “cannibalize” about 5% of the sales of the Soldotna Fred Meyer, and further suggests that a Homer Fred Meyer could expand food and drug sale in Homer by keeping local shoppers and by attracting people to Homer from other communities. 

c. The proposed use is in harmony with the community plan and with surrounding land use;

Finding:  The 1999 Comprehensive Update has several goals for commercial/business land use:  Improve the attractiveness and usability of the area; encourage a balance of open space and attractive, retail orientated development of vacant land in the business/commercial area; actively pursue a theme for Pioneer Avenue; Support the establishment of a Town Square and connecting green spaces through town. 

The Town Center Development Plan was adopted by the Homer City Council in 2006 as an element and update to the Comprehensive Plan.  This plan is the policy framework for the area defined as Town Center, which is where this proposed development is located.  This plan contains a number of guiding principles that apply to the proposed development:  Town Center will provide economic opportunities for property owners and other community members; Economics will drive a variable and diverse group of businesses; Town Center will have connected green spaces which include trees, flowers beds, native plantings, playgrounds, buffers, landscape screening trails and public art; Town Center will be pedestrian friendly providing walkways, trails and other amenities to enhance connectivity; Water runoff systems will be integrated into the design of Town Center; Commercial buildings will generally be located close to the street; Parking areas will be located to enhance the streetscape.

The Town Center Plan states that in order to be a successful destination and focal point it must provide an environment where a variety of businesses can thrive in combination with residential, governmental and recreational opportunities.  The plan is based on the concept of a “three-legged stool” of three anchors consisting of civic (such as City Hall), open space (parks) and commercial.  The plan states that the commercial anchor in Town Center will consist of a major private sector development, which will draw people of different ages and incomes year-round.  This could consist of a single store or a collection of stores, or a hotel with meeting facilities and retail components.  The Town Center Plan is based on the systems based approach, which is a flexible framework concept.  Two viable design alternatives are presented in the plan, one of which incorporates a variety of sizes for building footprints up to 66,000 square feet. 

The proposed Fred Meyer Development is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and the Town Center Development Plan.

d. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use;

Finding:           Public Works indicates that the City water and sewer services are capable of serving the proposed development.  The developer will be responsible for expanding the existing infrastructure to the development site.  The developer and Cook Inlet Regional Inc. (CIRI), the current property owner, have submitted a preliminary plat for this area.  The plat is almost identical to the Plan B as shown in the Town Center Development Plan.  The developers will be required to enter into a subdivision development agreement with the City of Homer Public Works.  This subdivision agreement will address such things and water and sewer lines, design and construction of roads, sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities.  The new infrastructure will be required in order to serve the proposed Fred Meyer development. It will also go an enormous way in developing Town Center. 

The Fire Department has not identified any concerns with the development.  Electric, telephone, cable and other utilities are all near the site and can easily be extended. The CEIA indicates that other public services such as police are also adequate to serve the proposed use.

e. In evaluating the above-mentioned conditions, consideration may be given to harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density, to the harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character, to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets and roads, and to any other relevant impact of the use;

Finding:           The proposed development is quite large, larger than most other commercial development in the CBD.  The Building and Aesthetics standards in the Large Retail Standards are intended to help create an attractive façade by reducing the mass of large buildings and create structures in scale with existing development.  Additionally, all conditional uses are required to meet the intent of the Community Design Manual.   Together, if these requirements are met, a large structure can be considered to be in harmony with the scale and bulk of the neighborhood character.   Other standards of the large retail requirements address coverage and density. 

A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed by Northland Systems Engineering.  The TIA conclusion (pg 21) states that overall the proposed site plan appears to meet the objectives of the Homer Community Design Manual in regard to site access and pedestrian walkways.  The Fred Meyer complex proposes to construct the commercial anchor discussed in the Town Center Development Plan and nearly half the proposed town center roadways as shown on Plan B.  The following recommendations are made: 

1.       At the intersection of Main Street Access (east/west) and Fred Meyer Drive (north/south), the eastbound and westbound approach geometry should match.  An all way stop should be installed.

2.       The southbound approach of Fred Meyer Access Drive at the Sterling Highway should be two lanes, a right turn and a through-left, and should be aligned with the Islands and Ocean driveway to the south.

3.       The Hazel Avenue Extension should be constructed as soon as feasible.  This will provide additional access to Fred Meyer and the rest of the town center and relieve traffic pressure on Sterling Highway, Main Street and Pioneer Avenue.  The report recognizes that Fred Meyer has no control or authority to implement this recommendation.  Nor is it necessary that the extension be in place when Fred Meyer opens their store.  Levels of service are adequate at all intersections in the construction year 2006.

Other relevant impacts of the use are those addressed in the Community and Economic Impact Analysis. In a general summary the CEIA has indicated that the over all effect of the Fred Meyer store will be positive.

City Planner McKibben noted that condition 12, 13 and 14 are recommendations from the Traffic Impact Analysis and last week number 20 was added regarding the applicant obtaining required access permits from DOT for two street accesses, one on Main Street and one on Sterling Highway and any necessary mitigation agreements that may be required by DOT. Such mitigation will meet HCC 21.61.110.  She noted that she attended the annual meeting with representatives from DOT to review the STIP list and City projects.  She said they talked briefly about Fred Meyer and the condition 20.  They didn’t feel it would be a problem for the State and City to coordinate is their preference.

 

f. Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the Commission to fulfill the above mentioned conditions shall be met by the applicant. Guarantees and evidence may be required that such conditions will be or are being complied with. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, requiring:

Finding:           Homer City Code 21.61.105  establishes standards specific to retail uses of more than 15,000 square feet in area. 

1. Special yards and spaces,  - The large retail standards require that no less than 5% of the floor area shall be dedicated to interior or exterior public spaces. For a store of this size a minimum of 3,300 square feet of public space is to be provided.  The applicant indicates there will be 2 outdoor common areas, one located adjacent to the southwest building corner having an area of 1,650 square feet, and the other located at the northwest building corner with an area of 1,700 square feet. 

2. Fences and walls, - The applicant proposes safety fences at the top of retaining walls, and indicates these are required by building codes.  Homer City Code requires that all conditional uses comply with building codes.   The fences are proposed to be chain link with metal posts and rails.  The retaining walls are required for development of the unique topography of the site.  Neither the standards for large retail, the CBD, or the supplemental standards address the material of fencing.  The Community Design Manual (pg 27) states that chain link fences should be limited to non-visible areas.  Staff notes the fencing is proposed for less visible areas and according to the landscaping plan will be screened.

3. Surfacing of parking areas, - The applicant indicates parking areas will be paved.  They will comply with the requirements of HCC 7.12.

4. Street and road dedications and improvements (or bonds), - Through the platting process for this site, significant street and road dedications and improvements will be made.   The subdivision agreement process will address this improvements and bonding as deemed necessary by Public Works.   These improvements are required prior to development of the Fred Meyer project.

5. Control of points of vehicular ingress and egress, -The TIA has made recommendations for traffic control and improvements.  These recommendations are incorporated as recommended conditions.

6. Special provisions on signs,  - All signs will comply with Homer City Code 21.60.

7. Landscaping and maintenance thereof, - Large retail standards require landscaping to be no less than 15% of total lot area.  The applicant indicates that 62,866 square feet of landscaping (including storm pond) is planned for the site.  A minimum of 42,014 (15% of 6.43 acres) is required.  It should be noted that according to the applicant’s narrative (pg 19 of CDM response) and the site plan, 10 feet of landscaping adjacent to Hazel Avenue is not provided on site.  Of the required 10 feet of landscaping required adjacent to a ROW, 7 feet is shown on site. The applicant has suggested that the right-of –way width on Hazel could be reduced to move the lot line, thereby meeting the required 10 feet. Staff suggests instead that the internal drive aisles of the parking lot be reduced from 27 to 24 feet.  This reduced width will allow all required landscaping to be located on site, and is consistent with the requirements of other communities such as Anchorage.  The reduction also addresses a problem discussed in the next paragraph, and will help to reduce impervious coverage.  HCC 7.12.035(b) states that if a parking plan varies because of the configuration of the lot, the Homer Advisory Planning Commission must review the plan.

 

City Code requires that a minimum of 10 % of the parking area be landscaped. The applicant has indicated that the hardscape pedestrian walkways that extend from the street to the store, and all interior parking lot landscape islands totals 20,315 square feet, which is 12% of the parking lot.  Staff notes that parking lot landscaping, HCC 21.61.105(l)(7)(a)(ii)(1), requires that 10% of the parking area must be landscaped with dividers and islands.  The general landscaping requirements allow pedestrian ways and public spaces to be used as landscaping. The parking lot will have to be redesigned to incorporate the minimum 10% landscaping required by code if the hardscape is not included in the calculations. 

Both HCC 21.48 (CBD) and the Community Design Manual speak to the retention of native vegetation to the maximum extent possible.  The applicant has provided information as to why they are unable to maintain native vegetation.  They have indicated that a total of 285 trees will be planted.

8. Maintenance of the grounds, - HCC 21.48.060(h)(2) requires that all required landscaping be installed within 9 months of occupancy of the building, or in the next growing season (which ever comes first) and will maintained thereafter. 

9. Control of noise, vibration, odors or other similar nuisances, -No unusual noise, vibration or odors are expected with this development.  Trash and recycling areas are screened.  The large retail standards require that overnight camping is prohibited in parking lots and that the parking lots be posted with this information.

10. Limitation of time for certain activities, - No activities proposed by this development appear to require a time limit.

11. A time period within which the proposed use shall be developed – The schedule proposed by the applicant is to start construction early May 2007 and complete construction February/March 2008. 

12. A limit on total duration of use – No time limit on total duration of use is proposed and none is suggested by staff.

g. Buildings shall comply with building codes adopted by the State of Alaska. 

Finding:  Applicant has indicated that all buildings will comply with building codes adopted by the State of Alaska. Proof of compliance will be submitted, as it is available.  A Fire Marshall review certificate will be required prior to approval of the zoning permit.

 

Vice Chair Hess suggested adopting some of the findings tonight.  He thought it would be acceptable to discuss findings C and F, but wait to adopt those two after the public hearing. 

 

There was discussion regarding adopting findings.

 

KRANICH/ZAK MOVED TO ADOPT FINDINGS A, B, D, E AND G.

 

There was brief discussion that these are not controversial and by adopting them they can concentrate on the two that may require more discussion. 

 

VOTE:  YES:  MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, ZAK

 

Motion carried. 

 

City Planner McKibben reviewed staff’s findings regarding the Community Design Manual:

h. Building and site development shall conform to the City of Homer Community Design Manual.

The Community Design Manual was adopted by resolution in April 2004.  The CDM is divided into sections: architecture, site design, and connections.  Currently the connections section has not been completed.  The architecture and site design sections are applicable to conditional uses within the central business district.

 

The CDM represents a statement of policies, which shall be observed for building and site design in the City of Homer.   The CDM states:  “The City of Homer encourages a creative approach to design by providing a flexible review standard. The Commission is authorized to waive specific Design Manual requirements if it finds that (a) an alternative design represents an equivalent or superior design solution to what would otherwise be achieved by rigidly applying specific requirements, and (b) the alternative design meets the intent of the general requirement.”

 

The building and it’s setting:  Buildings shall be designed to reflect the natural conditions of the site and shall include design elements, which visually anchor the building to the site.

1.                   Incorporate building design elements into landscaped areas.

2.                   Determine allowable building height.

3.                   Respect natural topography.

 

·         The design proposed incorporates building design elements into landscaped areas by use of earth toned paving materials and building materials, and timber columns.  The highest point of the building is 35 feet, which the maximum allowed by Homer City Code.  The applicant has indicated that terracing will be to soften grades throughout the site, create the building pad and the stormwater retention feature.  The Town Center Development Plan states that each building site has small-scale terraces that guide building development.  The applicant has used some natural topography to screen the service areas of the building.  Additionally, the Town Center Development Plan states that vegetated bioswales border impervious surfaces.  Developing the retention pond implements this.

 

Building Lighting:  Lighting may be used to accent a building but shall not be used to denote a corporate or commercial image except on allowed signage.  Lighting may be directed to a building but should generally not emanate from a building.

1.                   Avoid back lit panels and awnings.

2.                   Keep light sources hidden from public view.

3.                   Avoid bright lighting on outdoor surfaces of buildings.

4.                   Avoid colored lighting on buildings.

5.                   Apply utility lighting sparingly. 

6.                   Lighted accents, canopies, color bars, stripes, or areas.  (used sparingly)

 

·         The proposed development does not appear to promote a corporate image aside from signs. 

·         Backlit panels or awnings are not used within this project. 

·         No exposed light fixtures are shown on the building.  The main entry awning will use a recessed light.

·          No surface lighting is proposed on the building.

·         Light poles in the parking area will be Metal Halide fixtures placed at various heights to minimize glare and light spill and to match the ambiance of the landscaping. 

·         No color lighting is proposed.

·         Utility lighting is only proposed for the loading docks and employee entrances.

·         Lighted accents, canopies, color bars, or stripes are not proposed in this design.

 

Prominent Facades:  Prominent facades include all building facades visible from waterways, arterials, and activity centers, and also facades, which face the road(s) providing primary access to the building site.  Prominent facades may not be sterile wall planes void of architectural interest.  They shall be detailed with added relief, shadow lines, and visual depth unless screened with landscaping. 

1.  Apply all design criteria to prominent facades.

·         The applicant indicates that all four of the building’s elevations incorporate relief, shadow lines and architectural features.  Staff notes no sterile wall planes are presented, building materials and wall jogs, varied roof lines, architectural features and windows create visual interest.

 

Building Scale and Mass:  One of the most prominent characteristics of a building’s design is its scale and massing.  The scale of building determines its size in relation to surrounding buildings; the massing of a building gives it interest and character.  Modern building trends emphasize large-scale designs with no thought toward massing.  This imbalance between size and visual character has resulted in visually obtrusive development, which is out of character with surrounding structures of a smaller scale.  Large retail boxes epitomize this trend and are considered incompatible with Homer’s small town characteristics.

1.                   Avoid long low wall planes.

2.                   Provide substantial shifts in walls and roof surfaces.

3.                   Provide visual terminus to tops of buildings.

4.                   Avoid unusual or atypical roof forms on all structures.

5.                   Limit roof areas in the same plane.

6.                   Reflect mass and scale of adjacent structures.

 

·         The applicant indicates there are no areas on the prominent facades where the length exceeds 2.5 times the height without incorporating a height change as well as a change in the vertical plane.  The western elevation presents the primary façade.  Shifts in the walls are provided, however one could question whether they are substantial.  The addition of the architectural feature (covered walkway) does provide variation.  The applicant indicates such shifts are not practical and have instead tried to meet the intent of this by providing regular shifts both horizontally and vertically.

·          

City Planner McKibben noted that the sentence in bold is something the Commission may want to look at as they adopt their findings.

 

·         The south and west elevations do provide substantial shifts in the roof surfaces. Unusual roof forms are not proposed.  At this time adjacent structures are the Petro Gas Station and Islands and Ocean Visitor Center.  The mass and scale of Islands and Ocean is quite large, and Petro is not. 

 

Parking Garages:

1.  Recess vehicle entries in main façade.

2.  Screen parking garage façade.

3.  Acquire Commission approval for all parking garages over 1 story or which enclose 20 cars or more.

 

·         Parking garages are not included in the proposed development.

 

Window and Door Fenestration: 

1.  Maintain balance in the placement of windows.

2.  Conform to solid/void ratio requirements.

3.  Reflective glass is discouraged.

 

·         Reflective glass is not proposed.  Windows placement is not unorganized, but balance is not provided on either side of the main entry.  The CDM states that generally windows and doors constitute a minimum of 25-30 percent of prominent façade wall planes.  It further states that when this is not practical, emphasis is placed on the building’s form and texture by using vertical/horizontal shifts combined with roof forms, variations in texture, lighting and use of vegetative screening.  The proposed design does use vertical/horizontal shifts and roof forms.  Additionally public common areas and shrubs provide visual interest.

 

Siding and Trim:  Traditional building materials such as brick, stone or wood reflect human handicraft and provide texture to building exteriors. Materials for new construction and remodeling should convey similar visual qualities.

 

1.  Use materials which simulate quality traditional building materials.

 

·         Composite siding (cedar) and colored split-face concrete block are the primary materials proposed.  Smooth concrete block is used for textural variation.  The color board provided by the applicant shows materials to be of earth tones.

 

Miscellaneous Architectural Devices:  Building design should be executed in a straightforward manner. Tack-on devices may not be used to mitigate poor design or to promote a particular theme.  If a particular style or theme is desired, it should be reflected in the building’s form and general detailing.

 

1.  Architecturally integrated artwork in encouraged.

2.  Avoid architectural gimmicks and fads.

3.  Maintain consistency in awning design.

4.  Avoid awnings, which obscure or dominate the building design.

 

·         Covered walkways are shown, and serve to create the human scale environment required by the large retail standards and strived for in the Town Center Development Plan.  No architectural gimmicks are shown.  No architecturally integrated artwork is proposed.  The applicant suggests that niches in the walls provide an artistic quality.  Awnings are shown at the employee entrances and loading dock.  The proposed awnings and covered walkways do not obscure architectural details, but are instead integrated into the design. 

 

Roofing materials: Views of roofs from the ground and from higher elevations play an important role in the architecture of the city.  Roofing materials shall be selected according to following criteria.

1.  Use roof materials which provide texture and shadow lines.

2.  Avoid bright-colored, reflective, or unsightly roofing materials.

 

·         Roofing visible to the public is to be green metal seamed roof.  The general horizontal lines of the roof do not afford easy views of the roof from the ground.  The applicant indicates the color of the visible roof was chosen to blend in with the natural surroundings.

 

Color:

1. Keep field colors subdued.

2.  Limit bold or bright trim colors.

3.  Finer details may be accented with brighter colors.

 

·         Colors shown in the drawings and color board submitted are of subtle earth tones, primarily brown and gray.  These are accented with the composite wood materials that simulate cedar wood.  The base of the building is of concrete masonry, also in earth tones.  The pitched roofs are dark green.

 

Hierarchy in building design:  Visual interest in the urban-scape can be achieved through a hierarchal approach to design.  For example, strategically located structures, architectural elements or site amenities designed as focal points create a visual “draw” and suggest a point of activity.  These also serve as a reference point for all subordinate structures.  This concept is particularly applicable to large parcels with multiple structures.  Multiple carbon copy buildings provide no visual hub and shall be avoided.

 

·         No other structures are proposed in this development.  The entryway into the building creates a visual draw to the site. Outdoor public areas are on either side of the main entry to the building.  These areas are screened from the parking lots.  The CDM further states that primary structures are encouraged to have two levels.  The type of structure proposed in this development does not facilitate a 2-story development.  Prominent facades are not shown as blank walls.  Materials, design and texture appear to be applied consistently to the entire structure.  No high fences are shown concealing any prominent façade.

 

On-site walkways:

Primary walkways:

1.  Link commercial buildings and the public rights-of-way with primary walkways.

2.  Assure that primary walkway width is proportionate to scale of project.

3.  Differentiate walkway surface.

4.  Accent walkway with significant landscaping.

5.  Accent walkway with lighting and seating areas.

6. Identify historic events or structures.

 

            Secondary walkways:

1.  Link each building with walkways.

2.  Assure adequate walkway width.

3.  Differentiate walkway surface.

4.  Avoid walkways which cross parking stalls.

 

·         The site plan shows walkways linking the structure to the interior roads of Town Center. No pedestrian ways are shown to the Sterling Highway.  This serves to orient pedestrians to Town Center. The applicant indicates the on-site walkways are to be 6-feet wide and be made of scored concrete, light gray in color.  The applicant further indicates walkways will be grade separated except when they cross drive aisles and in the central walkway where ADA access is required.  The site plan also shows sidewalks within the ROW on Hazel Avenue and the north/south street.  The north/south sidewalk connects to the Sterling Highway sidewalk, creating connectivity and pedestrian access strived for in the Comprehensive Plan, Town Center Development Plan and the Non-Motorized Trails and Transportation Plan.

 

City Planner McKibben noted that the portion above in bold has not been discussed by the Commission yet, but the Town Center Task Force has recommended that the cross walks and streets be color concrete marked by painting. She suggested the Commission consider it as they think about the aesthetics of the building and site.

 

·         The landscaping plan shows that the walkway connecting to Hazel and the southernmost walkway connecting to the north/south road are well accented with landscaping.  The northern walkway connecting to the north/south road crosses the parking lot. The entrance at the street is accented with landscaping. The applicant indicates that low-level lighting and trash cans will be provided.  The landscaping plan shows the southern pedestrian way connecting to the north/south road has a bench near the right-of-way.  Staff does not identify similar features on the other two walkways and suggests they be added.  To the best of the applicant’s and staff’s knowledge there are no historic events or structures to be identified on the site.

 

·         Because there is only one building on the site there are no walkways that are considered to be secondary.  No walkway is shown to cross a parking stall.

 

Outdoor Common Areas: A common area is a designed outdoor space which encourages outdoor activities and leisure in outdoor spaces associated with commercial development.  Required common spaces must be provided on-site, but may be enlarged and extended into city rights-of-way to connect with the sidewalk, subject to City of Homer approval.

1.  Provide common area of a size proportionate to development.

2.  Choose type of common area best suited to development.

3. Locate common areas in view corridors.

4.  Provide direct access to common areas with pedestrian walkways.

5.  Provide outdoor seating where people want to sit.

6.  Consider allowed activities in common areas.

 

·         The Fred Meyer proposal includes two outdoor public areas on either side of the main entry.  These are required by the large retail standards of Homer City Code. Walkways, landscaping (trees, shrubs and annual flowers), and seating are incorporated into the site and the common areas.  The plaza links the main entry of the building to both the parking area and Hazel Avenue.  These common areas are made of scored concrete and the larger one includes horizontal bands that visually divide the area into small sections.

 

·         The applicant suggests that these outdoor common areas function as pocket parks.  Further to the north of the site, between the building and Hazel Street is a green space landscaped with lawn and shrubs.  All common areas appear to be provided direct access to walkways and seating appears to be provided.  The applicant indicates vendor carts are not applicable. 

 

·         The applicant has indicated that outdoor sales of seasonal goods may be provided along the front plaza area of the store.  Staff notes that is contrary to Homer City Code 21.61.105(l)(15) which requires outdoor sales and storage for large retail developments to be extensions of the sales floor into which patrons are allowed free access.  While staff understands that patrons are allowed free access to the plaza/common space it cannot be considered an extension of the sales floor.

 

Commercial streetscape:

1.  Locate structure near front setback line.

2.  Orient service and delivery areas away from the street.

3.  Limit number of curb cuts.

4.  Limit width of driveways to 15, 24, or 34 feet.

5.  Link dissimilar buildings with common site amenities.

6.  Provide covering over walkways where appropriate.

7.  Place no more than 50% of required parking in front of buildings.

8.  Avoid parking in front of building entrance.

9.  Choose awning designs appropriate to building style.

 

·         The site has three street frontages.  The building is not placed near the front setback line on any of the three frontages.  Placing the building approximately 100 feet from the Sterling Highway facilitates compliance with the Town Center Development Plan by allowing creation of the retention pond and forested buffer.  At the same time it allows placement of the drive-through pharmacy window in such a way as to not create internal traffic circulation problems. 

 

·         The applicant has indicated that locating the building close to 20-foot setback of Hazel Avenue and the north/south connector creates difficulties because of the topography of the site.  Staff notes, that while the Town Center Development Plan, plan B, shows a large retail development built closer to the street, this placement does not allow the site to screen the loading and delivery areas, which is required by City Code.  Service and delivery areas shown for the proposed development are oriented away from the street.  Four curb cuts are shown, all of which orient traffic into Town Center, none access the Sterling Highway.  The applicant indicates curb cuts will be 30- 34 feet wide. 

 

·         The applicant indicates 56% of the parking is located in front of the building.  They have provided information as to why limiting that to 50% is not practical.  Staff notes that Homer City Code 21.61.105(l)(5)(c) states that where practical no more than 50% of the required parking for the development will be located between the front façade of the building and the abutting streets or adjacent arterials.  It may be possible to relocate some parking area to the north side of the development, between the building and Hazel.  However, that would mean the loss of that green space and create hardscape all around the building.

 

City Planner McKibben commented that moving parking to the north side would lose a lot of green space and impervious coverage, which she doesn’t believe facilitates the Community Design Manual or the Town Center Plan.  If the Commission doesn’t agree, they can address it.

 

Landscaping and Screening:

1. Control vegetation to preserve existing significant views.

2.  Avoid removing significant vegetation.

3.  Provide adequate room for retained vegetation.

4.  Protect existing trees during construction.

5.  Replace lost trees which were intended to be retained.

6.  Choose plantings which are compatible with existing vegetation.

7.  Locate vegetation to preserve existing views.

8.  Retain natural symmetry of trees.

9.  Use shrubs or vines on blank walls.

10.  Conform to all other landscape criteria in the Homer City Code.

 

·         The applicant indicates that complete clearing of the site is required for construction, not for opening any views. From review of aerial photography it appears that any significant vegetation is not located in any area where it could possibly be retained.  The applicant indicates that approximately 220 trees will be removed and 285 planted. 

 

·         The landscaping plan and information provided by the applicant shows that care has been taken in choosing plants that are either native or have good survivability in the Homer area.  The landscaping plan creates a 20-foot forested buffer between the development and the Sterling Highway as shown in the Town Center Development Plan.  The applicant suggests that with the difference in grade between the site, Sterling Highway, and areas to the north that no significant blockage of views is expected.

 

·         The landscaping plan shows shrubs on many blank walls, providing visual interest.  Landscape criteria in the City Code have been addressed elsewhere in this staff report.

 

Vacant parcels in all zones:

1.  Limit clearing to no more than 50% of significant vegetation and retain vegetation in all required buffers and setbacks. Clearing limitations apply to all vacant parcels with no approved Development Activity Plan, Storm Water Plan or zoning permit for development.

 

·          Both the development standards in the Central Business District and for large retail stores require this site to be developed with an approved Development Activity Plan and Storm Water Plan. 

 

Fences: 

1.  Choose fence materials carefully.

2.  Limit chain link to non-visible areas.

3.  Limit height of fences.

 

·         As previously mentioned fencing proposed is required for compliance with building codes.  Chain link fencing is proposed but is shown to be screened with landscape plants.  Fence height is expected to be no higher than 6 feet.  

 

Parking:

1.  Use landscaping to screen parking lots and service areas.

2.  Limit the number of curb cuts.

3.  Limit the width of driveways.

4.  Screen or enhance parking lots visible from the Sterling Highway, Lake Street, Heath Street, Main Street, or Pioneer Avenue.

5.  Incorporate  pedestrian ways into parking lots.

6.  Limit parking in front of buildings.

7.  Provide trees within larger parking lots.

8.  Avoid parking in front of building entrance.

9.  Handicap Parking.

 

·         All parking lots are surrounded by landscaping.  Service areas are located behind the building and are screened by the building, fencing and landscaping.

·         Four curb cuts are proposed, three public, and one for service and delivery vehicles.

·         The applicant indicates driveways will be between 30 and 34 feet wide.  These driveways are two lanes and the proposed width seems to be appropriate.

·         The parking area is screened from the Sterling Highway by the 20-foot forested buffer suggested by the Town Center Development Plan.  The difference in elevation between the parking lot and the Sterling Highway will also help to screen the parking lot from travelers.

·         Pedestrian ways are incorporated into the parking lots.

·         The landscaping plan shows trees in the parking lot.

·         No parking spaces are shown immediately adjacent to the building. 

·         Handicap parking spaces are located closest to the entrance, but are located within the main parking lot and joined to the entrance by a pedestrian way. 

 

Parking Garages:

1.  Recess vehicle entries in main façade.

2.  Screen parking garage façade.

3.  Receive Commission approval for parking garages over one story or which enclose 20 or more vehicles.

 

·         No parking garage is proposed for this development.

 

Outdoor lighting:

1.  Keep light source hidden from public view.

2.  Use downward directional lighting.

3.  Avoid lighting large areas with a single source.

4.  Avoid excess light throw.

5.  Choose approved outdoor light designs.

6.  Avoid light fixture designs, which have an industrial appearance.

 

·         The applicant has indicated that a variety of lighting is proposed in the development, including parking lot lighting.  From a practical stand, parking lot lighting can not be hidden from view. 

·         Downward directional lighting will be provided. Parking lot lights will be a “shoebox” style.

·         A single source of light will not be used, multiple lights will be provided.

·         All lighting will comply with HCC 21.48.080, which requires that no outside lighting be installed so as to cause light trespass or glare.

·         Shoebox style lights are proposed.  The CDM (pg 31) states this style is approved.

·         Lights having an industrial appearance are not proposed.  Applicant has stated that no mercury vapor or cobra lights are to be used.

 

Outdoor furnishings:

1.  Use City approved furniture designs on public rights-of- way.

 

·         No outdoor furniture is indicated on public rights-of-way. 

 

Finding:  In general the Fred Meyer development complies with the Community Design Manual.  The applicant has provided justification for not locating the building close the ROWs.  Homer City Code permits more than 50% of parking to be located in the front of a large retail establishment.  The applicant has provided justification as to why it is not practical for this development to meet this criteria. 

 

Vice Chair Hess commented that the CDM came about late in the process of the large retail and wholesale and that is why there are some redundancies and although it was adopted by Resolution, it says in HCC 21.61.020(h) that the development will conform to the CDM.  The CDM does provide for some flexibility because it states the Commission is authorized to wave specific design requirements if it finds a) An alternative design represents an equivalent or superior design solution that would otherwise been achieved by rigidly applying specific requirements and b) The requirement design meets the intent of the general requirements.

 

There was discussion regarding sidewalk access.  There will be sidewalk access from the north/south road.  The southeast corner of the building is where delivery vehicles will be and the pharmacy is in the area of the west side so due to safety reasons, pedestrian traffic is not desirable in those areas.

 

Vice Chair Hess said they may want to discuss the fencing material.  City Planner pointed out that Condition 15 states Fencing will not exceed 6 feet in height and will be screened by landscaping.  Applicant will explore the feasibility of using fencing materials other than chain link.

 

Vice Chair Hess thought they may want to go further with it.

 

Comments regarding parking included

·        It seems the Commission has some leeway regarding the 50% requirement for parking and they may want to look at whether additional condition are needed to deal with the 50% versus 56%.

·        Something to consider is how far do they want parking moved from the public access point of the building.  There is one primary public entrance and do they want to move parking farther away from it.

·        Currently off street is not counted toward parking requirements, but part of the goal of Town Center is to count some of the on street parking to reduce parking. 

·        There will likely be some code changes dealing with on street parking.

·        The developer/applicant is dedicating substantially larger rights-of-way than what are required.  It could be addressed in the subdivision agreement that this be set up to utilize some on street parking in the area of the facility. 

·        It is set off Main Street and has an access street that comes into the development and doesn’t have the adverse effect of a parking lot directly on Main Street or Pioneer Avenue would have.

·        The retention pond is a good buffer from the highway. 

 

There was discussion regarding lighting.  City Planner McKibben said maximum height allowed for drive way parking lot luminaires in code is 28 feet.  The applicant suggests they have a variety of different heights but would not exceed 28 feet.  The Town Center Task Force recommended the lights not be higher than 20 feet.  Their reasoning was that they didn’t want the street lights to light the streets because vehicles have their own lights, they want them to be pedestrian scale and 20 feet seems to meet that scale and not over light the area.

 

Vice Chair Hess requested more information from the applicant regarding details on how lighting proposals will affect architectural detail, outdoor lighting and accessory review, cut sheets or a review of what is going to go into the project.  The lighting can influence the aesthetics of the parking area and make it look very nice.

 

City Planner McKibben commented that the Town Center Task Force had suggested lighting in the rights-of-way and suggested it be more modern and contemporary and the Commission may want to see something like that in the parking lot as well.

 

Commissioner Kranich commented regarding the walkway color in the parking lot.  He suggested they consider that rather than having them be scored concrete have a colored concrete like a red brick color.  A black asphalt parking lot will eventually turn grey. 

 

City Planner McKibben noted that the Town Center Task Force had suggested the crosswalks be colored, textured and defined with paint on the outside.  Part of it is a traffic calming technique used to visually draw out the crossing area so it is more noticeable to drivers.  It is also a good visual cue for pedestrians. 

 

Vice Chair Hess questioned monument signs.  City Planner McKibben stated that code allows for one free standing sign on the lot.  It is shown on the site plan on the east side of the north/south street intersection.  Concern was expressed regarding the site triangle for the intersection.  Ms. McKibben said code addresses the site triangle and it is looked at when considering a sign permit.

 

Commissioner Zak suggested they may want to consider allowing a fence higher than six feet for the back of the building as it will most likely be the most unaesthetic side of the building.  It can be seen clearly from the intersection from Tesoro.

 

The use of other materials than chain link for the fencing was briefly discussed. 

·        It doesn’t seem unrealistic to have some effort put into other types of fencing for aesthetics.

·        There could be issues of noise buffering between the back side of Fred Meyer and the subdivision.

·        A wood fence could help accommodate the sound buffering as well as the view of the back of the building.

·        Wood fences are easily damaged and risk graffiti.  Green slats could be used in chain link.

 

City Planner McKibben suggested that since the she and the Commission have pointed out areas they feel need to be discussed, it would be helpful for the Commissioners to write down things they would like to see or suggested amendments to help them move along more quickly.

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

 

Vice Chair Hess repeated his statement encouraging people to make their comments regarding the CUP at the public hearing scheduled during their next regular meeting.

 

Valerie Connor, City resident, commented that the code has a requirement for 10% for outdoor leisure space.  Regarding parking she encourages the Commission to look at the plan and decide for themselves how much parking they want in front of the building.  It looks like more than 56% to her.  She thought condition 22, regarding other businesses taking a seminar on how to coexist with Fred Meyer was odd and she takes offence because if anyone should be making the effort to coexist it should be the new people coming into town in trying not to duplicate efforts already existing in town.  Ms. Connor thanked the Commission for their work and has confidence in them that this will be a development she can live with. 

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION 

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

 

There was discussion regarding what happens if the Commission does not get through this on August 2nd.  Vice Chair Hess expressed his confident that they will get through it.  City Planner McKibben said they can either approve it, request to extend, vote it down or do nothing and therefore it becomes approved.

 

Commissioner Kranich commented on the status of his research on the historic significance of the site.  He spoke to a lady at the FAA regional office and found out that it was the next to last in a range of stations in Alaska that were decommissioned, Northway being last.  She is going back into the archives to find out when the site was commissioned other historical information and will pass it on when she finds it.

 

ADJOURNMENT

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

 

There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at

9:21 pm. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled  August 19, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers.  There will be a worksession at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.  There is a worksession scheduled for August 9, 2006 at 6pm.

 

 

 

                                                                                   

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: