Session 07-05, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 7:15 pm on March 21, 2007 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, ZAK

ABSENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY, SCHEER (Both excused)

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER

AGENDA APPROVAL

Chair Kranich stated that the applicant for Plat Consideration Item B, Staff Report PL 07-18, Guy Waddell Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary Plat, has requested that it be pulled from the agenda tonight.

There was no opposition to the change and 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.

Public Works Director Meyer talked to the Commission about projects that are going on. He explained that he will be doing a formal presentation to the Commission regarding the Water Treatment Plant in the next month. There are some ownership issues that need to be resolved, but the City plans to have the new plant done by next spring and its purpose will be to provide more capacity. The City is working to purchase over 400 acres of additional property immediately adjacent to the water plant, down to the reservoir itself. The intention is to place some sort of conservation easement on it, and also on the property that was purchased from the University a few years ago. Mr. Meyer commented that the City wants to be part of setting a good example to development in the Bridge Creek area. The development footprint is minimally sized and very close to the existing building. There will be some additional gravel pads and access around the building. There was question regarding capacity from Bridge Creek. Mr. Meyer explained that Bridge Creek Watershed has the ability to produce about two million gallons of water per day in the critical summer time period. Twenty years from now, based on population projections there will be the need for three million gallons per day and the City will need an additional water source. He noted that ideas have been presented in the Water/Sewer Master Plan that include utilizing Twitter Creek, Fritz Creek, going across the bay or using reverse osmosis. He said this development will be able to produce the two million gallons per day and will be easily expandable to three million.

Mr. Meyer commented that other upcoming projects may include the New City Hall and harbor expansion. Funding for the Water Treatment plant was addressed and Mr. Meyer explained that over three fiscal years the City has obtained about 2.5 million in grants. The project is estimated at 7.5 million dollars and the City will have to borrow about 5 million to match the grants and get up to the full price. The money will be borrowed at 2.5% interest over 20 years.

There was brief discussion regarding a DOT contract for a mooring dolphin on the south side of the dock.

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 Minutes of February 21, 2007 and March 7, 2007

2. Time Extension Requests

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

4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

5. Commissioner Excused Absences

A. David Scheer

B. Lane Chesley

Chair Kranich requested the March 7, 2007 minutes be discussed as item B under New Business.

PRESENTATIONS

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

There were no presentations.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster reported that the Sutton-Cups addition the HAPC had looked at previously came before the Borough. He gave a quick over view that City staff had requested a right-of-way be included. The HAPC changed it to a utility easement. When the plat went to the Borough the applicant requested a plat amendment. Apparently the original Mylar said “Public Use Easement” instead of “Public Utility Easement”. The Borough is not allowing a plat amendment as they are only allowed on recorded plats to correct a surveyor’s minor technical error and changing the type of easement is not minor, even if it was a mistake.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no KBAPC report.

C. Planning Director’s Report

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that there is a Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee meeting tomorrow at 6:00 pm. The consultants will be participating via teleconference. She reminded them about the community meeting on April 25^th at the high school.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then 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.

There were no Public Hearings.

PLAT CONSIDERATIONS

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

A. Staff Report PL 07-21(S), Supplemental to Staff Report PL 07-16, Main Street Village Subdivision Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben reviewed the supplemental staff report.

It was noted that the vacation of the 30 foot access easement would require a separate action and the applicant has been notified. There was comment regarding vacating the access easement. City Planner McKibben responded that because the applicant is vacating a lot line between two lots to create one larger lot, vacating the easement would allow more flexibility in site design and they can address the access through driveway permits. She suggested the Commission may want to reconsider the recommendation on the supplemental staff report that Lot 1-A shall access Main Street only. She advised the Commission that when the applicant gets a zoning permit, they will have to get driveway permits from the state, as Main Street is a state road. The site and access plan has to be approved by the City.

Points noted in discussion of the Commission included:

· The 1987 plat vacated a portion of North Avenue between Main Street and Beluga Street.

· There are no right-of-way dedications on the new plat. Hopefully the Borough would agree if the Commission adds a recommendation that the new lot just access of Main Street. It would eliminate any curb cuts off that first 270 along the bypass.

· The portions of the 1987 plat that are not being changed would still apply, including the plat notes.

· Portions of Benson Avenue were vacated in 1987.

· The area noted as a 30’ wide by 160’ long access easement along the Sterling Highway in the original staff report was a portion of Benson Avenue.

City Planner McKibben reminded the Commission that the action before them now is the vacation of the common lot line, not vacation of the easement. The vacation of the easement will be done through a separate action. It was noted that the vacation is indicated on the preliminary plat. Ms. McKibben stated that staff has contacted the Borough and verified that the vacation requires a separate submittal.

It was noted that there are additional staff recommendations in the supplemental staff report that are not included in the main motion.

ZAK/HESS MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ADD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH OUT PUTTING THE STIPULATION THAT LOT 1-A ONLY ACCESS MAIN STREET.

Commissioner Zak commented that they may want to consider additional language to put a plat note to require the newly created lots 1, 3 and 4 to share access if they want to go to the Sterling Highway.

There was discussion regarding adopting the supplemental staff report with out the recommendations.

VOTE: NO: FOSTER, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS

Motion failed.

City Planner McKibben noted once again for clarification that the Commission is only voting for approval of the preliminary plat vacating the common lot line, not to include the utility easement vacation. She wants it to be clear when this goes to the Borough that the Commission is only evaluating the lot line, not the utility easement vacation.

HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND OUR ORIGINAL MOTION ON 07-16 TO INCLUDE STAFF REPORT 07-21(S) WITH OUT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

There was brief discussion clarifying the motion on the floor.

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

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 07-18, Guy Waddell Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary Plat

This item was removed during agenda approval.

PENDING BUSINESS

A. Staff Report PL 07-17(S), Development constraints on small Central Business District Lots

City Planner McKibben reviewed the actions listed in the staff report.

Action:

Staff requests the HAPC to consider the questions and concepts above. If the Commission supports these interpretations a motion to that effect would be appropriate. The specific questions are listed below:

1. Newly created impervious surface of 60% or more triggers the requirement for a SWP.
2. It is appropriate to use stormwater treatment/retention areas towards the calculations of required landscaping if the treatment/retention area meets the definition of landscaping.
3. The area of the required landscaping can be accommodated elsewhere on the site.
4. Landscaping requirements to only apply to the areas on the site that are currently being developed.
5. Contiguous properties can share SWP areas when the design is specifically developed for the areas in question and when there is recorded agreement between the property owners.

There was discussion regarding landscaping in action item 2. It was noted that the definition of landscaping include statues and art work and the intent here would be vegetation. City Planner McKibben referenced the Fred Meyer proposal as an example in which the retention pond was not integrated into the landscaping. She used the pond at the library as an example where it is integrated. She commented that a swale that is vegetated with lawn or other plants that would hold water during high water times would be appropriate to count towards required landscaping. Clarification could be made to specify that it be vegetated landscaping.

Further discussion included how this could benefit small lots that are paved. It was noted that it wouldn’t apply only to small CBD lots, it is appropriate to a larger GC1 lot as well. These action items are ideas and concepts that have come up as ways to be more creative or flexible with the smaller lots. The Commission has said that they want any lot that has 60% impervious coverage, whether new or existing, to have a storm water plan. If the property owner is going to re-do their storm water plan, they have to add landscaping. If they can include vegetation in their storm water plan and the vegetation also be counted toward their required landscaping, it will be beneficial to the property owner.

The Commission discussed the policy that if a lot is entirely paved and a person wants to add a structure, they may have to remove some pavement to meet the storm water plan requirement. In the case of an existing structure trying to accommodate landscaping requirements, planter boxes have been used as a way to meet the requirement.

City Planner McKibben suggested not including action #3 as code does not allow the flexibility for it.

City Planner McKibben noted that action item 5 creates flexibility when property owners are willing to work together and in the long run this is language that should be included in code. Discussion included the benefit of recording the document that would apply to each of the properties. There have been instances where a property owner has re-platted to accomodate the storm water plan on one lot. After reviewing the definitions in HCC 21.32.477, City Planner McKibben said she doesn’t see anything that prohibits the suggestion that was made in action item five. It would be good to record the agreement to tie future owners and property development to the agreement that storm water is going from one property to another.

Action item 4 was discussed whether the landscaping would apply to the lot as a whole or only the portion being developed.

City Planner McKibben commented that there was discussion at the last EDC meeting which was recommendation that rather than codifying landscaping requirements, require a dollar percentage of the development be put toward landscaping. She pointed out that the landscaping requirements are only three years old. Most of the landscaping you see is voluntary as there has been very little new development in the CBD since the landscaping requirements were established. It was noted that the City maintains a lot of the landscaping along Pioneer Avenue as well.

Chair Kranich called for a break at 8:48 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:54 pm.

It was questioned how these amendments would tie into the current and new Comp Plans. City Planner McKibben reviewed some of the broad goals from the current Comp Plan that were included in staff report 07-05. She said these action items help facilitate the goals. Her long range plan is to get through the Comp Plan re-write, then on to a re-write of title 21 with the intention that these items will be addressed in the title 21 re-write. These action items are not intended to be long term answers; they are intended to supply some clarification until the appropriate changes have been made to code.

The Commission discussed storm drains in the CBD with Public Works Director Meyer. The CBD is the only area that has real storm drains and most of those were tied in with DOT projects. Mr. Meyer said there is a need for a Drainage Master Plan. DOT tends to install storm drains that are sized only to take care of the water that comes off of their road. If a Pioneer Road reconstruction projects was underway, there would have to be storm drains that are sized for the ultimate development of the contributing drainage area.

Discussion continued on issues and types of storm drains.

MINSCH/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT ALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 60% OR MORE TRIGGERS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORM WATER PLAN.

It was noted that this requirement would be in conjunction with a project. Ms. McKibben concurred.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

There was discussion regarding clarifying acceptable landscaping for action item 2.

FOSTER/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT THE LANGUAGE THAT It is appropriate to use storm water treatment/retention areas towards the calculations of required landscaping if the treatment/retention area meets the definition of landscaping, HCC 21.32.257.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: YES: ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, KRANICH

NO: MINSCH

Motion carried.

HESS/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT NUMBER 3 WOULD READ THE AREAS OF REQUIRED LANDSCAPING CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE.

Comment was made that a problem could be that there are some places where you can vacate or limit a portion of the setback or where two buildings are very close together and the landscaping needs to be in a different area. It was pointed out that the portion of code says “Where setbacks permit”, so if you have a reduced setback you don’t have to put the landscaping there.

VOTE: YES: FOSTER, HESS, MINSCH

NO: KRANICH, ZAK

Motion failed for lack of majority.

It was clarified that City Planner McKibben had suggested earlier not accepting item three, so no further action was taken.

MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED THAT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ALL AREAS ON THE SITE.

There was discussion regarding whether or not to include that are currently being developed.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

FOSTER/ZAK MOVED THAT Contiguous properties can share Storm water plan areas when the design is specifically developed for the areas in question and when there is recorded agreement between the property owners.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

Commissioner Minsch said she would like to see what is happing with this and asked if staff could report back as these issues are addressed. City Planner McKibben said she would try to bring information to the Commission.

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 nonconformity).

A. Staff Report PL 07-20, 2007 Commission Work Plan

The Commission discussed the worklist. The following changes were requested:

· Rewrite of the table regarding the Cluster Business sign.

· Move the Comprehensive Plan down off the numbered portion.

· Move Item 5 Sensitive Areas Ordinance to Item 2.

· Add Development Activity Plan as a priority to review and rewrite where necessary in other districts.

· Remove moratorium on subdivisions.

· Remove completed items.

· Keep permit forms, process and enforcement on the work list.

B. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2007

Chair Kranich requested that the time of Commissioner Foster’s arrival be noted in the body of the minutes and noted a few other clarifications.

MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units.

A. Letter dated February 15, 2007 to Rick and Connie Vann from Beth McKibben, City Planner

B. Letter dated February 23, 2007 to Don Blackwell from Beth McKibben, City Planner

C. Letter dated March 12, 2007 to Mary Toll, KPB Planning Department regarding Country Club Estates Plat Waiver

D. Memorandum dated March 12, 2007 to the HAPC regarding Commission Chairperson from Melissa Jacobsen, Deputy City Clerk

E. Letter dated March 13, 2007 to Jerry Worthman, Alyeska Tire from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

F. Letter dated March 13, 2007 to Joey Allred from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician G. Letter dated March 14, 2007 to Beth McKibben, City Planner, from Frank Griswold regarding

Refuge Chapel

H. Letter dated March 14, 2007 to Mary Toll, KPB Planning Department from Beth McKibben, City Planner, regarding Country Club Estates Plat Waiver

I. Letter dated March 14, 2007 to Matt Shadle, Aurora Novel Ventures, LLC, from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

J. Letter dated March 14, 2007 to the HAPC from William J. and Judy A. Marley regarding Gateway Overlay District

K. Resolution 07-39, A Resolution of the City Council of Homer, Alaska Designating City Owned Lots In The Area Immediately Adjacent to the Homer Fish Dock as a Restricted Use Area and Limiting Primary Uses There to Activities Directly Associated with the Commercial Fishing Industry

L. Letter dated March 16, 2007 to Walt Wrede, City Manager from Frank Griswold regarding Delegation of authority to issue zoning permits

M. Planning Commissioner Corner: What you need to know about a Planning Commission

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. (3 minute time limit)

There were no audience comments.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioners Hess, Minsch and Zak had no comments.

Commissioner Foster commented regarding the wetlands that is going before the City Council. He requested that the maps be available on line for reference.

Chair Kranich commented that there are a lot of items that the Commission makes quick progress on and other items that require more deliberation. It is good to work through dissention as it makes for good well founded decisions. He suggested adding fence height to their work list for some more discussion and possible code amendment.

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2007 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There will be a Worksession at 5:00 pm prior to the meeting.

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: