Session 08-12, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 7:01 p.m. on June 4, 2008 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

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

 

ABSENT:           COMMISSIONER FOSTER (excused)

 

STAFF:             ACTING CITY PLANNER ENGEBRETSEN

                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

                       

AGENDA APPROVAL

 

HESS/STORM MOVED TO MOVE PLAT CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

 

There was brief discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

The Public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not scheduled for public hearing. (3 minute time limit) Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

 

There was no public comment.

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

There were no items for reconsideration.

 

ADOPTION OF THE 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.

 

1.         Approval of the Minutes of May 21, 2008

2.         Time Extension Requests

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

4.         KPB Coastal Management Program

5.         Commissioner Excused Absences

 

MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

 

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

PRESENTATIONS

Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.      

 

REPORTS

 

A.         Borough Report

 

There was no Borough Report.

 

B.         Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

There was no KBAPC report.

 

C.         Planning Director’s Report

            1. Staff Report PL 08-66, Planning Director’s Report

 

PLAT CONSIDERATION

The Commission hears a staff report, testimony from applicants and the public, The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public, The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant.

 

A.         Staff Report PL 08-64, Forest Glen Subdivision No. 11 Preliminary Plat

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen reviewed the staff report.

 

Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, commented about plat note 9 regarding the setback for Lot 4. He forgot to include the distance on his preliminary submittal and said it should be 49 feet. He said he would be happy to answer questions.

 

Commissioner Minsch questions why they didn’t use cul-de-sacs instead of panhandles. The panhandles could result in four curb cuts on the street. Mr. Imhoff responded that he didn’t expect there would be four curb cuts, he imagines they would build one good shared driveway to access both back lots.

 

There were no public comments.

 

MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-64 FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

There was discussion regarding driveway width for fire apparatus. Acting City Planner Engebretsen commented typically that kicks in when dealing with a multi-family development.

 

Drainage information was provided, but did not make it in the packet. Mrs. Engebretsen said staff had no concerns regarding drainage.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and the acting on the Public Hearing items. (3 minute time limit) The commission may question the public. Once the public hearing is closed the Commission cannot hear additional comments on the topic.

 

A.         Staff Report PL 08-65, CUP 07-12, 1563 Homer Spit Road

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen summarized the staff report.

 

Gary Nelson, project surveyor, commented that all the information has been provided to the Commission in the staff report or other letters of submittal. He reminded them that the impetus for being here is because the Community expressed a lot of opposition to construction of a thoroughfare through B Street. The project has been revised so B Street will not go through at this time because the community has made the request and the developer felt it would not be a good idea to offend the community at this time.

 

Chair Kranich opened the public hearing.

 

Bette Seaman, city resident, commented that the reason she is here because in the staff report it appears that staff is recommending that B Street be put through. The developer has been kind enough to listen to the people in the neighborhood and make changes according to what they want. Mrs. Seaman commented that she didn’t realize that a traffic impact analysis doesn’t have to do with safety; it has to do with travel flow and seconds of traffic time. Personally she doesn’t care about seconds; she is concerned with public safety. She never turns left from B Street to Ocean Drive in the summer. She relayed an incident where she was going out to the spit and there were three cars on Kachemak Drive wanting to go right into town. She heard someone honk their horn and it was someone who was annoyed because he had to slow down hard due to the traffic pulling out of Kachemak Drive. If those cars wouldn’t have been there he would probably still be going 40 mph around there. It is a very dangerous intersection. The TIA says 60 to 70 cars during peak hours. Those people are not going to pull out on B Street to turn left toward town, they will go down B Street and turn out of Douglas or E Street. It will have a huge impact on the neighborhood. Mrs. Seaman said she noticed in the TIA that if you are going 35 miles per hour you need 250 feet to stop and at 40 mph you need 305 feet. At B Street you have 250 feet, which is adequate according to law, but if people are going 40 mph then it takes them 305 feet to stop, if they aren’t pulling a boat and a lot of them are. She said obviously she wished there wasn’t going to be a huge development by her house, but she is willing to go along with it if the traffic doesn’t go down her street.

 

Mrs. Seaman requested additional time to read a letter into the record from Ida Gryte who owns the lot immediately adjacent to B Street. The Commission concurred to allow more time. The letter said “With reference to the request for a conditional use permit at 1563 Homer Spit Road, Lighthouse Village, I would like to state that I oppose the request because it may adversely affect my lot Bayveiw Subdivision Lot 163. Sincerely yours, Ida M. Gryte.”

 

Chair Kranich noted for the record that the Commission received two laydown letters in opposition to the Construction of B Street. The letters were from Peter and Jo Michalski and Susan Cushing.

 

Jack Lentfer, city resident, stated that he is opposed to the extension of B Street up to Ocean Drive. He felt Mrs. Seaman did a good job of explaining the intersection. The visibility is limited and cars do come off the spit at a fairly high rate of speed. He agrees that many people coming off the development would turn on to Bay Avenue then onto Ocean Drive from Douglas or E Street. Bay Avenue is now a nice quiet street. He hopes this traffic will not occur and does not support E Street being turned into a regular street. He appreciates the changes the developer has made to not develop B Street and that they are continuing with a bike path through the subdivision.

 

Jack Cushing, city resident, commented that the Planning Department made it easy for the Commission in that on page 4 of the conditional use application there is an or. He suggest they accept the second item of the or. He doesn’t think a lot of the argument in allowing the conditional use permit stands very well if they choose item a. It does have impacts, as the residents have been testifying. Another issue is saying it is the Transportation Plan that wants interconnectivity. He suggests it be revisited in the Plan because it seems that all the neighborhoods in town that have these issues with subdivisions coming in and putting traffic on roads that aren’t designed to handle the additional traffic. He thinks the argument for the CUP is a lot more acceptable if the Commission adopts alternative b. Regarding the bike path, Mr. Cushing suggested giving the developer the option of putting the bike path on the water side of the road to avoid the bike trail crossing the parking lots.

 

Mary Ann Fell, city resident, said she has the same letter of opposition as last time this came before the Commission. She is opposed to the B Street extension.

 

Ruth Hall, city resident, stated that she is opposed to the extension of B Street. She thanked the developer for listening to the public. She said she was surprised that the City is recommending that B Street be constructed.

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen clarified that staff made the recommendation for extension of B Street based on the adopted Homer Area Transportation Plan, part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, based on the idea that connectivity is better for the community. She said staff recognizes the neighborhoods concern with that and that is why there are two options.

 

Susan Cushing, city resident, said she submitted a letter and asked if the Commission had been down to see the street and what the neighbors are talking about. She is pleased that the developer is listening to the concerns of the neighborhood and admits that the traffic, if B Street were punched through, would have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Recommending that a bike trail go through there is a welcomed compromise and she hopes the staff and Planning Commission will recognize it positively. Mrs. Cushing also noted concern for the wetlands there and how the traffic lights and extra traffic coming through will affect the wildlife that live in the wetland.

 

Glenn Seaman, city resident, thanked the developer for listening and trying to be a good neighbor. Mr. Seaman said when reading staff’s report it was very frustrating to see the staff recommendation for B Street go through. In looking at the Transportation Plan it looks very general and he wonders if connecting streets is really intended when there is something beyond it. Mr. Seaman said it looks to him like a road to nowhere; it goes to one development, and is a major cost to the developer. There is no place else to go unless you are going to develop the wetland or the flats. He commented that the TIA is a model based on numbers, not reality. In recalling the comments of the traffic engineer he started to see at the end how the intersection is difficult as there are some barriers and some concerns. The developer has proposed to do a lot of things that he doesn’t have to do. He offered to upgrade the road going to Lighthouse Village, make improvements which will make Kachemak Drive meet level of service C, and put in a bike trail. He has been very cooperative and has the intent of protecting the value and importance of the wetland for his own project and for the community in general. In the staff analysis it states B Street is in the best interest of the community, but he doesn’t see in the analysis when the whole neighborhood pointed out that it is a real concern. The analysis talks about “minimizing land use conflicts, to the extent possible, between industrial and residential land uses” and the analysis says it is still in harmony with the community plan and the surrounding plan uses”. He doesn’t see how it can be concluded with the comments the Commission has heard over the last few months. Doing B Street is moving the problem, not really addressing the problem. It is a very difficult intersection. This has brought the community together and convinced them that they are not crazy and that it is a difficult intersection. Mr. Seaman concluded by saying that after the TIA, Mr. Knapp came to the citizens in the area and said he sincerely hears what they are saying and he wanted to make it right. Since then he has had an open communication and Mr. Seaman encouraged the Commission to consider that, as well as all the other comments they have heard.

 

Maurine Hunter, city resident, stated her opposition of this. She said the realities of this are very difficult to understand unless you are living this on a daily basis. She said in the summer, when she needs to go west, she usually ends up turning to the east and doing a turn around to come back because it is so dangerous. The closer you get to B Street, the wilder it gets. She relayed her experience trying to cross Ocean Drive with two children to go to Wagon Wheel and explained the difficulty of having to stand there for 10 minutes waiting and if someone did stop for them to cross the cars coming up behind are going so fast they would hit the car that stopped. She said Ocean Drive is busy and it is nice to have A Street and those areas that are still slow moving. She thanked the developer for listening to the neighbors concerns.

 

There were no more public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.

 

Mr. Nelson commented regarding the position of the bike path. It was put on the north side to alleviate the concern expressed about fill in the corner of the wetlands. In order to put it on the other side you would be filling, probably as much as if building the road there. The developer proposed option B of the staff recommendation because of community concern. He felt it was the best compromise for vehicular safety, lower city maintenance costs by way of private road tract built to City standards, lowest impact to wetlands, and voice community concerns and opposition to the B Street thoroughfare.

 

MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-65 CONDITION USE PERMIT 07-12 FOR LIGHTHOUSE VILLAGE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1A AND 2 THROUGH 15.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Planning Commission make the following decision:

  1. A. (Staff recommendation) The applicant to construct the B Street extension through from LHVD, a public right-of-way, to B Street per p28, Figure 8, TIA 2/22/08.  This is in the best interest to the community and meets HCC 21.61.110.  This also meets the goals and objectives of the 2005 Homer Area Transportation Plan, p26-33.  This includes a bike path in the B Street right-of-way and along the LHVD, turning lanes on both the eastbound LHVD and the westbound Kachemak Drive, p22, Figure 7, TIA 2/22/08.

      OR

B. The applicant to construct one-lane approaches on both the east bound, LHVD, a private drive, and westbound on Kachemak Drive, p22, Figure 7, TIA 2/22/08.  LHVD to be its own Tract and built to city standards.  The portion of the bike path running through LHVD Tract would be a dedicated public access easement, Note 4, 5/13/08 site plan.  Upon completion of the intersection improvements at Homer Spit Road and Kachemak Drive, LHVD could be dedicated as a public right-of-way.  At that time, the City could decide if it is willing to accept the public right-of-way.

Staff further recommends: Planning Commission approve CUP 07-12 with the following conditions, in addition to A or B above:

  1. The project will meet all applicable local, state and federal requirements.
  2. Due to the mixed uses and that 95% of the required parking can be accommodated by garage parking, a 50% parking reduction for outside parking spaces is granted.
  3. Prior to excavation activity, a Development Activity Plan per HCC 21.49.060(d) will be submitted and approved by the City of Homer. 
  4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit, a Stormwater Plan per HCC 21.49.060 (f) will be submitted and approved by the City of Homer.
  5. All lighting to be down lit.
  6. In the event that the utility and road infrastructure is not installed and paved, and minimum of 3 units are not ready for occupancy by November 1, 2013, lapse. The applicant shall have one year to present a new timeline to staff. If no timeline is presented, the CUP shall expire at the end of that one year period. Any construction permitted under a valid zoning permit may continue. In the event that the applicant must reapply, new code requirements and conditions may apply and the project must conform to the Homer City Code in effect at the time of re-application. 
  7. Prior to installation of signs, the applicant must submit a sign plan that meets the intent of HCC 21.60 and obtain the necessary permit.
  8. Fire Marshal certification required prior to foundation work.
  9.  Maximum of 22 residential dwelling units.
  10.  A minimum of 27% of the lot area must be landscaped and meet the following conditions: 

 

·         All trees susceptible to moose will have winter protection.

·         Trees that do not survive the winter will be replanted the following growing season.

·         Landscaping to be installed in phases, in conjunction with the building phases.

·         For a year round visual buffer, 50% of the tree planting to be evergreens.

·         The minimum trunk diameter is 1 ½” for deciduous trees.  A minimum 3 foot height for evergreen trees. 

  1. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit an engineer to provide a Phase One Environmental Assessment that specifically states whether or not additional investigation or remediation is required.
  2. Upon 50% completion of the building area, Lighthouse Village Drive to be paved.
  3. Upon 50% completion of the building area, improvements to Kachemak Drive shall be completed or substantially under construction. If the AKDOT installs traffic control measures at this intersection prior to 50% project completion, the applicant may work with the HAPC to determine if the improvements are still needed.
  4. The developer will record a copy of the decisions and findings prior to the issuance of a zoning permit.

 

Commissioner Hess commented that the TIA was based on the fact that B Street would be constructed. He asked what impact there will be to the level of service on Ocean Drive, Kachemak Drive, and Homer Spit Road if B Street is not constructed. He is concerned how much the level of service will be degraded without B Street.

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen responded that they will not meet a level of C without the B Street extension. It was noted that is shown on page 73 of the packet.  She pointed out page 33 of the packet says the TIA indicated the construction of B Street would distribute traffic resulting in LOS C or better for Lighthouse Village Drive. If Lighthouse Village Drive is not a public road then it does not need to meet the requirement of LOS C or better. Further it states to lessen turning delays on Homer Spit Road the applicant intends to construct a right turn lane on Lighthouse Village Drive; however this is where the east bound approach will have a LOS less than C which staff cannot recommend.

 

Commissioner Hess said the purpose of the TIA is to find out how much traffic is generated by the development and what kind of impacts it will have on safety. If there is a degradation of the level of service after the development goes in how do we, as a Commission, justify approving a development that would potentially lower the level of service and lower the safety level on the existing roadways. He understands that the neighbor’s don’t want the B Street extension and he understands their concerns regarding safety at the intersection of B Street and Ocean Drive. If they don’t put in the B Street extension, what are the solutions to mitigate the impacts on Ocean Drive, Kachemak Drive and Homer Spit Road.

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen noted that the applicant has proposed to build a turn lane on Kachemak Drive to partially mitigate the delay at Kachemak Drive, which is part of option B.

 

Commissioner Zak commented that if the private drive is constructed to come out across from Kachemak Drive there is not requirement to meet the level C standard. The community here does not want B Street. He said he feels confident that option B is a workable situation.

 

Commissioner Storm commented that you can look at the TIA and say that B Street is going to alleviate some congestion and provide a certain level of service but it is potentially creating other issues on Bay Avenue and other roads that weren’t addressed in the TIA.

 

Commissioner Hess reiterated that he could support option B if he knows the level of service on Kachemak Drive, Ocean Drive, and Homer Spit Road is not degraded.

 

It was pointed out that it will be a year or two before this project is built and within that time DOT is already looking at mitigation options for an intersection they already know has problems.

Acting City Planner Engebretsen referenced recommendation 14 Upon 50% completion of the building area, improvements to Kachemak Drive shall be completed or substantially under construction. If the AKDOT installs traffic control measures at this intersection prior to 50% project completion, the applicant may work with the HAPC to determine if the improvements are still needed. There is recognition that something is going to happen at Kachemak Drive, when it will happen has not been determined.

 

Commissioner Hess questioned the level of traffic and level of service 50% completion will put on the segments. Acting City Planner Engebretsen commented that it is hard to say if the applicant is going to build residential units or commercial units first. Trying to consider each one puts everyone in a position of dealing with a lot of what ifs. The recommendation of 50% was staffs attempt at a reasonable alternative given the information that was provided.

 

Chair Kranich stated his opinion that it would be better not to build B Street and increase the traffic on the B Street/Ocean Drive intersection even if it increases the wait time on Kachemak Drive. He doesn’t think it would create as much as a safety problem because it is an intersection where you can see in all directions where as at B Street you can’t.

 

Commissioner Minsch noted that at 50% completion, if the State has come in to do mitigation at Kachemak Drive, the developer doesn’t have to build B Street.

 

Commissioner Hess reiterated his concern and said he wants to know what the LOS of Kachemak Drive will be at 50% build out without the B Street extension.

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen reviewed HCC definition of level of service. She noted level of service has nothing to do with pedestrian safety; it has to do with vehicle movement. [1]

 

Commissioner Minsch commented that she understands the TIA to say that if B Street is added then you don’t reach the unacceptable level and it leaves the option that if DOT comes in and makes the improvements then B Street doesn’t have to be built. She restated that without DOT improvements and without B Street the level of service is unacceptable, but with B Street it will meet the appropriate level of service. If DOT comes in and does Kachemak Drive, then the developer does not have to build B Street. She noted that approving option B sets a precedent, because no neighborhood wants roads in their neighborhood, but Homer City Code says what it has to be. She supports option A because if DOT comes and makes improvements on Kachemak Drive, it is the out, because the developer won’t have to build B Street.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if there is anything that can be brought before the Commission that would assure the Commission that the development without B Street would not degrade the level of service and creating greater safety concerns for those segments. If that was brought forward he could support the development.

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen replied that Kachemak Drive is slated to have a LOS F sometime in the near future, even if the property stays vacant. She is not sure how the developer can meet what Commissioner Hess is asking. Any development is going to add traffic. Commissioner Hess said within 10 years it will reach LOS F and that obviously before it gets to LOS F they are going to do something with the intersection. This development is potentially going to have impacts within a year, so there will be a nine year period that it will be affecting the segments.

 

There was brief discussion of the project’s timeline.

 

Consideration continued reiterating concern of level of service impacts from the development of this property.

 

Commissioner Zak asked Mr. Nelson if he had any information he could add.

 

Mr. Nelson responded there are 22 residential units and 10 commercial units in the project, 50% completion would be about 15 units. He explained there have been about 10 units eliminated when taking into consideration the body shop and the businesses that were there previously. A fair amount of traffic has been eliminated, so 50% would be 15 units, both business and residential, so it would be a small increase from what was there before. Duane Knapp, project developer, commented that he voluntarily eliminated the first access coming around the corner and added the bike path. He feels strongly that he is improving the safety of this more than what the Planning Commission is discussing right now.  Mr. Nelson referenced the plat and pointed out the access for the property.

 

There was discussion regarding traffic mitigation measures with option B. Acting City Planner Engebretsen explained that with option B the developer would build a right turn lane on Lighthouse Village Drive and Kachemak Drive. She noted if Lighthouse Village Drive remains a driveway the applicant has made it very clear that he intends to build it to City standards, regardless of it being a public right-of-way.

 

MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO AMEND CONDITION 7 LINE TWO TO READ “In the event that the utility and road infrastructure is not installed and paved, and minimum of 3 9 units are not ready for occupancy by November 1, 2013, lapse.”

 

there was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Hess commented that he is starting to get a better understanding of the reduction by what has been eliminated there. We are assured that only 50% of the development can be done prior to any improvements to Kachemak Drive.

 

Point was raised that the TIA was generated when there were more units in the development and also that the TIA was a requirement of the Commission, not a requirement based on trip generation.

 

Commissioner Storm read into the record page 73 of the packet, page 23 of the TIA, “With turn lanes constructed on Kachemak Drive and Lighthouse Village Drive the new eastbound approach, which is Lighthouse Village Drive, will have a LOS less than C without the B Street extension. However this approach only serves site generated traffic and is a de facto driveway.”  She said that if it becomes a future planned, platted, public street it must comply with code and a LOS of C would be required. The other stop sign approach, which is Kachemak Drive, westbound traffic will have an acceptable operation under this configuration, with the turn lane. If we are saying at 50% completion, they have ensured the turn lane is in, you have an acceptable LOS C on Kachemak Drive and Ocean Drive/Homer Spit Road is not impacted.

 

STORM/HESS I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR CHANGING FROM APPROVING STAFF REPORT PL 08-65 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1A AND FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 2-15 AS AMENDED TO APPROVING STAFF REPORT PL 08-65 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1B AND FURTHER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 2-15 AS AMENDED.

 

There was no further discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: KRANICH, STORM, ZAK, HESS

            NO: MINSCH

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, STORM

                                                            NO: MINSCH

 

Motion failed. Five yes votes are required to approve a conditional use permit.

 

Chair Kranich called for a break at 8:55 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:07 p.m.

 

B.         Staff Report PL 08-52, CUP 08-03, 331 Sterling Highway

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen reviewed the staff report.

 

Commissioner Zak stated he may have a conflict of interest.

 

HESS/MINSCH MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER ZAK HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

Commissioner Zak explained that he had a transaction with the applicant in which he traded a boat for a yurt. The transaction took place prior to his knowledge of this CUP application. He said the transaction is complete, he isn’t in possession of the yurt yet, and the value exceeds $300.

 

There was brief discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: MINSCH, STORM, KRANICH, HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Zak left the table.

 

There was discussion on how to proceed and the Commission determined that they could hold the public hearing with four Commissioners present, but would not be able to take action tonight.

 

Jessica Tenhoff, applicant and Owner of Nomad Shelter & Alaskan Yurt Rental, commented that they are planning to make a demonstration of their product at 331 Sterling Highway. They are planning to rent the space that is created as studio space and artist retails. They are hoping to encourage small artisan participation. Right now at Nomad Shelter they are creating 10 jobs and are in the process of developing the space on the highway. They are hoping the retail space will also create jobs in town and also to create a nice connection to Old Town and Pioneer Avenue for walking. They are developing flower beds along the sidewalks and the path to Ohlson Lane which is a nice walking street down to Bunnell Street. She feels it is something that needs to happen as their intent is that it be a welcoming business for that first intersection into town.

 

 

 

 

Chair Kranich opened the public hearing.

 

Alex Willie Flyum commented that he owns the building next door at 345 W. Sterling Highway. He said concern has been expressed by the tenants of his building regarding the yurts being assembled and used as retail spaces, the issue of transients utilizing the yurts, and they wonder what impact it will have on the business in his mall. Currently it houses the LIO office, Total Office Products, Try My Thai Restaurant, a financial services company, and a music teaching company. Mr. Flyum also expressed concerned regarding a fuel generating pump of some kind and tank behind the building. The fuel lines had broken off and fuel was running on the ground in the right-of-way. One line was in a five gallon bucket and the other was feeding back on the fuel line. He doesn’t think more than five gallons spilled. He said he hasn’t talked to the owners of the yurt business. He is in the process of dealing with cleanup of a gas spill from 1999. He looks at this as very serious. Between him, the State, and the insurance company, about $5 million has been spent to clean his area. He doesn’t have the time or the place for anyone to come along and spill oil, gas, fuel oil, or anything like that because of the impact it has had on his land. It is very expensive to clean up even a small spill. The spill at the Arts Council was $60,000 to $80,000 to clean up.

 

Gary Nelson, city resident, commented that he thinks this is a great business idea and he hopes they get support for their project.

 

There were no further public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.

 

Mrs. Tenhoff responded that she was not aware of a spill. She said they fired up the furnace that is there, it is not a safe working furnace so they stopped using it and are currently using electric heaters. Their intent is to be oil free and they are researching a wood boiler system and the utility building would house the wood boiler system that is low impact, smoke free, and heats everything with hot water. If they had thought or if someone would have notified them that there was a spill they would have been out there immediately and it is the first thing she is going to check on when she gets back. If there is a problem with any of the buckets spilling they will definitely clean it up. She commented that yurts are low impact. In the past there has been a reputation for hippie transient, but since they began their manufacturing in 1995 they have been trying to mainstream their product and get people to realize that their product meets all the structurally engineering zoning requirements for residential housing in south central Alaska. They have engineering stamps on them. They are viable structures for housing anything and anybody. She said they are open to talk to anyone about that if they want to stop by and take a look.

 

The Commission agreed to schedule a special meeting the last week in June to finalize action on this CUP.

 

PLAT CONSIDERATION

The Commission hears a staff report, testimony from applicants and the public, The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public, The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant.

 

A.         Staff Report PL 08-64, Forest Glen Subdivision No. 11 Preliminary Plat

 

This agenda item was addressed prior to the public hearing.

 

PENDING BUSINESS

 

There were no pending business items.

 

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff. 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. Any items brought before the Commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following introduction of the item. The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant (such as acceptance of a non conformity).

 

A.         Staff Report PL 08-67, Introduction of the Title 21 Technical Rewrite

 

Acting City Planner Engebretsen reviewed the staff report.

 

MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO DISCUSS AND MOVE TO PUBLIC HEARING THE TITLE 21 TECHNICAL REPORT REWRITE AND STAFF REPORT PL 08-67.

 

The motion was adopted by consensus of the Commission.

 

Clarification was requested on what was excluded regarding item 3 in the staff report. Acting City Planner Engebretsen responded that City Code deals with retail sales of automobile, lumber, farmers markets, and heavy equipment, but we deal with them differently than general retails sales, so those activities need to be excluded from the definition. It was noted that the definition includes the term “Business, retail” and “retail business”. It needs to be consistent to avoid the issue they had with “Business, cluster” and “cluster” business. Mrs. Engebretsen said she would contact the City Attorney to finish the business, retail definition to include the exclusions that were noted.

 

Point was raised that modular homes aren’t referenced in Code. The Commission briefly discussed modular, manufactured, trailer homes.

 

Regarding staff report item 6, townhouses, Acting City Planner Engebretsen commented that there were discrepancies between what council adopted and what the recommendations were. The Town Center code exempted town houses from certain rules that apply everywhere else. It was done in an effort to created more density. The code regulates townhouses very strictly, but a town house is an architectural style. Staff recommended the new item h to specify which sections of code a town house has to comply with.

 

The Commission agreed to hold the public hearing on June 18th.

 

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

 

A.         Frank Griswold vs. City of Homer, and Robert and Pamela Brant, Decision Denying Motions for Public Interest Litigant Status and Waiver of Cost Bond        

        

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

Members of the Audience may address the Commission on any subject.

 

Gary Nelson commented regarding the CUP denial. He asked the Commission to make a motion for reconsideration. He would like it to come up when the absentees are here. He asked if there was any idea when the vacant position might be filled. Acting City Planner Engebretsen explained that there were no applicants as of yet. Mr. Nelson commented that it is difficult to get business accomplished when they need 100% of everyone to agree. It is almost a pathetic situation. He would like to see it considered again. He added that Mr. Knapp is one of the finest developers he has seen that has come to do business in Homer. He is new here, but is just about ready to leave because he has spent enough money to buy a new pickup truck in an effort to get the project to this point. Tonight the Commission basically said, “Why don’t you go home, we don’t want you here.” The project will bring millions of dollars of tax base into the town, and clean up a corner that is kind of unsightly, so there is a lot of benefit there.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

 

Commissioner Hess commented that the rule of necessity would be very beneficial for the community and there needs to be discussion with Council about getting it in to City Code so we can deal with these issues when the Commission is short handed. These are volunteer positions and sometimes you wonder why any of us are here. Sometimes we have to take pretty heavy flack from the public and the public needs to understand that these are volunteer positions, we are doing the best we can to make the best decisions based on our personal beliefs, and that is how the cookie crumbles sometimes.

 

Commissioner Storm agreed that the rule of necessity needs to be addressed. If we are limiting business being done in the City, then we are not serving the City.

 

Commissioner Zak commented that when considering CUP’s in the rewrite we talked about taking a percentage of the total board, so when we are in a situation like this we can still do business. We are not being fair to ourselves on the Commission or to the public when we find ourselves in this situation.

 

Commissioner Minsch asked for a short break.

 

Chair Kranich called for a brief recess at 10:08 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:14 p.m.

 

Commissioner Minsch had no comment.

 

Chair Kranich commented that they are all volunteers to help perpetuate and run our form of City government and everyone has a life to live. You can’t expect people not to take vacations or drastically alter their life to be a public servant. Everyone has their right to an opinion, we try and act under the Code for the betterment of the Community and everyone’s opinion has to be respected. He hopes the group makes the proper decisions to help the community go forward.

 

ADJOURN

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 10:15 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There is a worksession at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.

 

 

                                                                       

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved:                                                       


[1] Safety is not mentioned for either pedestrians of vehicle and occupants.