Session 04-13, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: PFEIL, BARTLETT, FOSTER, CHESLEY, HESS, LEHNER
ABSENT: NONE
STAFF: CITY PLANNER McKIBBEN
PLANNING ADMIN ASSIST GUYTON
Chair Chesley passed the gavel to Vice Chair Hess due to a conflict of interest.
RECONSIDERATION
If the Commission votes to approve the Reconsideration, the Staff Report is addressed under Plats, item E. “Consideration is only for the original motion to which it applies.” Excerpted from HAPC Bylaws.
Chair Hess reviewed
the motion.
PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED
FOR RECONSIDERATION.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER,
PFEIL, LEHNER, BARTLETT, HESS
NO: NONE
Motion carried.
A
quorum is required to conduct a meeting.
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.
The Agenda was approved as amended by consensus.
A.
Time Extension Requests
1.
Scenic View Subdivision No. 7
B.
Approval of City of
C.
KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
Commissioner Hess requested the Commission removed Item A off the consent agenda onto the regular agenda.
HESS/FOSTER MOVED ITEM A OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA ADDING IT AS ITEM A UNDER COMMISSION BUSINESS.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
City Planner
McKibben requested to add
FOSTER/PFEIL
MOVED TO
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Regular Meeting of
The minutes were approved by consensus with amendments.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The
public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the
agenda. The Chair may prescribe time
limits. Public comment on agenda items
will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations approved by the Planning
Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address
the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Chair may prescribe time limits. The Commission may question the public.
City Planner McKibben reviewed
the staff report and staff recommendation.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a Conditional
Use Permit contingent on the following condition: 1.The project meets all other applicable
local, state and federal requirements.
Bonnie Nelson the applicant explained they wished to develop the
existing home into a group care home for seniors. She explained how they were phasing in all
the improvements as they both work.
Commissioner Pfeil questioned the parking, if there would be a handicap
parking space. Mrs. Nelson stated that they
could do that.
Commissioner Foster also questioned the parking. He was concerned that there be enough parking
for visitors. Mrs. Nelson answered there
is ample parking space and if more parking were needed they had the area. Mr.
Foster was concerned that they not park in the road and cause problems for the
neighbors.
HESS/BARTLETT MOVED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, LEHNER, BARTLETT, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the
staff report explaining the reason for the second application. Staff recommends approval of the
Linda Reed representative of the
Commissioner Pfeil asked if the sign would be mounted below the Ocean Shore Motel sign. Ms. Reed answered yes; the sign would have to be reformatted to fit his post.
PFEIL/HESS MOVED TO ACCEPT
It was questioned if the new sign
had to be added to the permit and calculated as part of the
Chair Chesley had concerns about adding the public sign to a private sign.
City Planner McKibben thought it
was a logical solution; it is not fair to add it to his permit. It is a public
sign. He was offering the use of his poles for the public sign. He has a valid sign permit. If the public signage was added he would not
have enough signage.
Chair Chesley reviewed the public sign code; he thought there was a five year renewal clause after which they must have the permit renewed by the Commission.
City Planner McKibben stated the permit is for a maximum of five years from date of issuance.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND THE
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION:
YES: PFEIL, HESS, BARTLETT, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
NO: NONE
Motion carried.
PLAT CONSIDERATION
The
Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the
public. The Commission may ask questions
of staff, applicants and the public.
City Planner McKibben explained
that this is a very unique subdivision in that there are three non-contiguous properties
and platting actions by three separate property owners on one preliminary plat.
The preliminary plat is legal according to Max Best, Planning Director for the
Kenai Peninsula Borough. Each lot with
its platting action is unique with different requirements; each is presented as
if they were three separate plats and each action should be voted on
separately.
Ms. McKibben showed
the location of each lot on a map. She reviewed
the staff report portion for
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED TO ACCEPT
Commissioner Lehner questioned why the square
footages shown on the staff report are different than the square footage shown
on the plat.
Cameron Frye works for Ability Surveys,
explained that the Certificate to Plat said that Lot 9B was 11, 250 s.f. and it
was supposed to run 150’ up the east and west lot lines but when you measure
those off, it was only 10, 317 s.f. He had to move the lot lines to match the
Certificate to Plat designating the 11,250 s.f.
The Staff Report corrected to reflect the
change in square feet for
Commissioner Foster asked if there was a time
limitation that prevented another subdivision within a certain time
period. The City does not have any time
limitation.
VOTE: YES:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed
the staff report and staff recommendations.
Staff recommendations:
Planning Commission should grant approval of that portion of the
preliminary plat relating to the subdivision of
Francis L. Risinger, property owner, pointed
out the different buildings and stated all the sheds/buildings will be moved
soon. He questioned if there was enough room on the flag
There was discussion on the power line easement
and the room needed for a driveway.
Francis Risinger was concerned that the
easement not take away from the lot size.
It was explained that it did not take away from the lot.
There was discussion on where the existing
water and sew lines were located.
HESS/LEHNEY MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF
Commissioner Hess did not believe that the
dedication of the utility easements across
The Commission reviewed Gordon Tans, City
attorney, opinion relating to utility easements.
Commissioner Hess interpreted the opinion to
say that the easement was not required along the entire lot line.
City Planner McKibben related that
Cameron Frye was asked if the utility
easement was removed from a requirement, how utilities would be provided to
Commissioner Hess related that the surveyor
can keep the easement if that’s what he wants.
They were giving him the option as the city attorney did not require it
by code. Gary Nelson requested that they not be required to have a fifteen foot
utility easement.
There was discussion regarding the
interpretation of the attorney’s opinion if they could require a utility
easement. The commission discussed what was adequate for
Public Works to work in a utility easement.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ASK APPLICANT TO DEDICATE
A FIFTEEN-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT BY 20’ LONG ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6B OR
OVER THE EXISTING UTILITY ACCESS TO LOT 6B PER HCC 21.010.051.
VOTE: YES:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
VOTE ON MAIN AMENDED MOTION:
YES: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
City Planner McKibben reviewed
the staff report pertaining to
Cameron Frye spoke with the applicant about
the requirements in the staff report, he didn’t have any problems with
them. The applicant didn’t know where
the Public Works Department would require the sewer easement to be located at
the back of his lots or in front.
There was discussion on the location of the
existing sewer line.
Commissioner Hess questioned
Mr. Frye about the dedication of 15’ utility easement. Mr. Hess stated that the
owner has the option of where to dedicate the utility easement on his
lots.
Chair Chesley related
that the easement could run along the back lot lines of 1A, 1B and 1C.
Commissioner Hess
reiterated that
Cameron Frye stated Gary Nelson thought it
would be better to dedicate the utility easement across the front of the
property because of the building setback.
Commissioner Hess stated that the dedication
of the partial cul de sac is something that the City would like, not what they
require.
Mr. Frye reviewed the wording that if he goes
ahead with three lots that “it may require a sewer main line extension,” he
questioned if that was ambiguous, “may or may not.”
Commissioner Pfeil also questioned that
wording and thought that the property owner should pay for the extension of the
sewer main.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL
04-41 LOT 1 WITHOUT PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS #2 AND WITHOUT STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS #1 AND #2.
Commissioner Hess stated that the owner was
willing to do the dedication of the cul-de-sac but he wanted to further discuss
the issue of Public Works Department “would like” not something that the owner
would be required to do. That was the
same issue with the fifteen foot utility easement, the applicant has a
requirement for a fifteen foot utility easement on each lot but they have the
option to create those easements along any portion of the south side of the
lot, if that’s where they wish to have them.
He wished to give the applicant the chance to amend his plat or he could
agree to staff’s recommendation.
Chair Chesley qualified the question
explaining they were asking if the applicant wanted to postpone action until
after they have conferred with the Public Works Department.
Commissioner Foster stated that the surveyor
did ask the applicant and the applicant was okay. Requirement #1 states that they show where
the fifteen foot utility easement is located.
Commissioner Hess replied that he was bringing
up the point because the Commission is going to be dealing with the utility
easements each time. It is important
that they discuss it on each preliminary plat so that the applicant thoroughly
understands the requirement of the City.
And that the Commission thinks about the requirements of the utility
easements and the other recommendations from Public Works.
Chair Chesley asked if the Public Works can
require the cul-de-sac, does the Public Works Director have the authority to
ask for it. If Public Works doesn’t have
the authority to ask for it would the applicant want to take two weeks to think
about it?
Commissioner Bartlett had some concerns, he
didn’t think the Public Works Director explained it clearly. That is his interpretation about the need for
fifteen feet. If you take the typical utility that is water and sewer, it will
have a minimal of six to eight feet of depth because of frost problems, when
you go to excavate there are OSHA law requirements that requires a two to one
slope on either side of that and a six to eight foot deep bury is going to take
twelve to fourteen feet wide at the top of your utility easement. They’ve been around long enough to know that
there have been a two or three deaths in town because of cave-ins, etc. There is new technology that allows the
digging of narrower ditches and put bracing inside but not all do that and it’s
a lot more expensive to do. The
simplistic thing is we need fifteen feet when it comes to the excavation of the
existing utilities if you’re not going to go outside that perimeter that you
just set for each property owner, you have safety and legal things to consider. A ten foot puts a potential legal argument
that you’re destroying other property outside the easement. The
arguments aren’t clear on this one, he’d love to give everyone ten feet but
it’s going to boil down to a lot-by-lot basis.
Chair Chesley stated the point Commissioner
Hess is trying to point out, isn’t to give less than a fifteen foot utility easement,
the issue is that staff has routinely required for years an easement in all
cases, regardless of the conditions, to run the entire length of the lot line. That
was what Gordon Tans said we do not have the right to do. The code says they require a fifteen foot
utility easement, it doesn’t say how long it has to be.
Commissioner Bartlett pointed out that it has
to be continued, you’re not going to stop unless it’s the end of the line; it
has to continue somewhere.
Commissioner Hess stated the owner has the
ability to do the utility easement along the lot lines anywhere.
Commissioner Foster related that was what the
recommendation #1 stated.
Commissioner Hess believed that the
recommendation needed to be clarified.
Commissioner Foster stated that they don’t
want to throw the baby out with the bath water; his concern was the need for the
cul-de-sac. The Commission worked hard
on the last ordinance looking at the traffic impacts, he had concerns about the
need for the cul-de-sac and the Commission not requiring it.
Commissioner Hess interjected, stating there
was no legal basis to require it. In his
research, he hasn’t found any bases for that requirement even thought it might
be a good idea. The issue is if it’s a
staff recommendation than there had better be a bases in code to require it.
Commissioner Pfeil asked how would vehicles
turn around, would they use
Commissioner Hess didn’t disagree that it may
be necessary but reiterated that it must be based in code.
Commissioner Bartlett agreed with Mr. Hess
stating the applicant should be informed that this was not a mandatory requirement
for the cul-de-sac.
Administrative Assistant Guyton related that
the dedication of a cul-de-sac, paving roads, etc. is part of a subdivision
agreement that will be developed between the Public Works Department and the
applicants.
Commissioner Hess related that they were
going to review the subdivision agreement but didn’t get to it.
HESS/ PFEIL MOVED FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THE
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley requested that at the
Commission’s next work session, they discuss the issue of the utility
easement. He suggested that the City
Manager, Public Works Director, Planning staff and surveyors could be present
to help the Commission understand the issue.
Commissioner Hess related that he had tried
to contact the Public Works Director but did not hear back from him.
City Planner McKibben stated that Mr. Meyer
was on vacation.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff
report and recommended the following conditions: Planning Commission grant approval of the
preliminary plat with the following conditions:
1. Dedication of a fifteen-foot
utility easement per HCC 21.10.051 Utility easements. 2. Provide
a drainage easement on Lots 1 and 2 over the existing drainage.
Roger Imhoff, surveyor, related that after the Commission reviewed the preliminary
plat the owners heard what the Commission said and took it to heart; they did
not want to create issues. They
realigned the subdivision road and made the lots on the north with the
potential for drainage into the watershed larger and reduced the lot sizes on
the south to adjust for the larger lots. They don’t have any problems with the
fifteen foot utility easement requirement, although HEA was okay with a ten foot
easement. While surveying last week where they had thought there was a creek
was instead a dry drainage until it gets almost to the south property line. The
creek was a foot or two wide and a couple of inches deep. The drainage
protection easement would be on the common lot line of
Chair Chesley clarified that Mr. Imhoff’s recommendation was to provide a
drainage easement between Lots 1 and 3, instead of between Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Imhoff answered that was correct.
Commissioner Foster asked where the twenty-foot vegetative buffer was
located. Mr. Imhoff answered it was along the edge of
Commissioner Lehner questioned the location of the subdivision in
relation to the sand pit. Mr. Imhoff showed
its location on the map.
FOSTER/HESS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF
Chair Chesley suggested they amend the motion to correct the drainage
easement to be over the common lot line of Lots 1 and 3.
PFEIL/BARTLETT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO PLACE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
OVER THE COMMON
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess commended the applicant for amending the subdivision to
more closely conform to the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District
requirements.
Commissioner Lehner questioned if there was any discussion with the
developers about doing a neighborhood trail.
Mr. Imhoff answered no he thought the owners would be willing to talk
about it. He hasn’t seen a copy of the Master Trail Plan and doesn’t know what
is planned for that area. There is a trail through the Tulins property and it
might dovetail into a trail through this property. There is a trail on the south side along the
power lines. He thought they would be
willing to talk about it.
VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION:
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 04-43 Re: DeGarmo
Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben
reviewed the staff report and recommend approval with the following
requirements. Planning Commission grant
approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide
and show access to a fifteen-foot utility easement per HCC 22.10.051. 2.Planning
Commission grant an exemption to the subdivision improvement requirements as
permitted by Homer City Code 22.10.040 (a) in that the subdivision does not
exceed three lots and there is no new dedication of right-of-way. 3.Grant an exception to the Kenai Peninsula
Borough Code, Section 20.20.180 which requires a 3:1 lot depth to
width ratio.
Kenton Bloom, surveyor, stated the applicants have no objection to staff
recommendations.
Commissioner Hess asked about the fifteen foot utility easement location.
Kenton Bloom speaking to the fifteen-foot easement, the client didn’t
have any objection, they already took a fifty-foot half right-of-way dedication
from the center line of the existing road. The Council had an interesting
discussion on this same thing questioning if there was a point where enough is
enough or whatever. A point by point,
case-by-case basis is really important perspective. He thinks they need to have a variety of
options as solutions depending on specific instances. He discussed a previous
plat where the applicants did not wish to argue the point. He thought that there should be a reason for
requesting an easement besides “this is a good time to get it, because it’s a
planning action.”
Commissioner Foster asked what the measurements were from the road to the
top of the bluff and then to the toe of the bluff. Mr. Bloom answered that he did not have those
measurements with him. Mr. Foster asked what
was the applicants need an exemption from the 3:1 ratio. Mr. Bloom explained that the land above the
bluff probable meets the Borough code requirement of 3:1. It
was just over the 3:1 ratio requirement.
Commissioner Lehner asked about the location of leach fields on the adjourning
properties. Mr. Bloom answered that
there were leach fields on
Kenton Bloom answered that the applicant had said the adjacent lots like
his are all using cisterns because the well water is not usable.
There was discussion on cisterns.
Rika Mouw, a neighbor, welcomed Devony Lehner to the Commission. She related
that
Chair Chesley asked about the conditional use permit that she referred to
previously.
Ms. Mouw related that Collette Ireland owned the property to the west;
she built a cabin on her lot that was not to have kitchen facilities. She received a permit after the fact and Ms.
Mouw thought that was a messy issue.
That increased the water load to the neighborhood. It shouldn’t have
been allowed but it was.
Commissioner Foster remembered Mike Yourkowski speaking against the conditional
use permit because of the impacts to the water table. Ms. Mouw answered he did.
Commissioner Lehner asked about the bluff erosion.
Ms. Mouw responded that the erosion was from surface water. It’s blowing out of the bluff. Mr. Yourkowski dug a pond and that increased
the problem. That became an issue
between him and his neighbor to the west as it changed the water dynamics and
increased the bluff erosion. Geoff Coble
is working with them, there’s head water pressure and other issues.
Kenton Bloom responded to Ms. Mouw’s concerns. The analysis by the engineer is not complete
nor is it conclusive. There are a lot of theories and none have been proven
regarding bluff erosion and ground water forces. They learned that area is the
base of an old lake bottom that was silted in towards the north. The contours on
the map are shown to rise up toward the bluff and slope down to the north. The
concern being address by the study is whether
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT
Commissioner Lehner asked about the wetlands.
City Planner McKibben stated there are no wetlands on that site. Ms. Lehner
asked about the soils maps and when the new wetland maps would be available. Ms.
McKibben related that it is an ongoing long process.
Commissioner Foster was going to vote against this subdivision. This was
exacting the type of situation that was discussed at the Coastal Dynamics Work
Shop. It does not meet the Borough 3:1 requirements; he would not grant an
exception for it at this time. The Commission does not have the ability to
require best management practices as far as dealing with the impact of
impervious coverage, collecting the rainwater and coordinating it so it doesn’t
change the hydraulics of this whole system.
It’s a very narrow lot and just because the neighborhood has had these
problems doesn’t mean they should add to the problem with an additional 2500
gallon water tank and the impervious coverage issue. Mr. Foster related that
Mr. Yourkowski argued against the same kind of a thing with the lot next to him. Until there is sewer and water and this
situation can be better dealt with he is not willing to vote for an exemption
to the 3:1.
Commissioner Hess questioned the Commission’s ability to grant as
exception to the Borough’s code. He also
questioned 22.10.040, it was his understanding that they must meet all four
conditions.
City Planner McKibben informed him that the attorney had stated the code
is not clear whether it’s a four point check list that all four conditions must
be met in order to grant the exception or not.
Discussion ensued regarding HCC 22.10.040 exceptions.
Commissioner Hess requested the attorney’s opinion regarding the HCC
22.10.04 suggesting the Commission remove the requirement of the Borough’s 3:1
requirement.
Kenton Bloom related that the applicant knew that the Borough would
require an exemption from the 3:1 requirement and believed the City staff was
passing on that information.
Commissioner Foster related that the City needed findings for granting an
exemption to the 3:1 requirement of the Borough and they were not provided.
City Planner McKibben suggested the language be changed to, “recommend
granting” as the City did not have that requirement in their code.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO DELETE STAFF RECOMMENDATION #3.
Commissioner Hess did not think it was appropriate to be included in the
City’s recommendation.
Commissioner Foster related the reason it will be appropriate is that for
the Borough, this will be a red flag.
People question the 3:1, if there are not findings, it will be
stopped. If the Commission wants
approval of an exemption to the 3:1 ratio than they should have findings.
Commissioner Bartlett questioned Mr. Bloom’s remarks about measuring from
the lot line to the bluff line and the usable area.
Kenton Bloom explained that he
approaches calculations in two ways, one to meet the Borough exception
requirement which deals with lot-line-to-lot-line and one from his own
perception of what’s a reasonable lot, is there a 3:1 ratio on the lot and in
that scenario they are very close. The
extension over the bluff to the mean high water line that these lots run down
to would not meet the 3:1 ratio.
Commissioner Lehner asked what the acreage was for the top of the
bluff. Mr. Bloom didn’t have those
figures with him.
Commissioner Lehner questioned if the plat should have plat note stating
that the lots would be served by on-site water and septic.
City Planner McKibben stated that should be corrected as they will not
have on-site water.
Mr. Bloom explained that there has never be a requirement to differentiate
between a cistern being on-site and a well being on site, as opposed to city
water through a pipe. The on-site
classification includes a well and/or a cistern.
Ms. McKibben related that a cistern meets the definition of a public
water supply which means they can allow a smaller lot size if it’s a cistern
versus a well. Therefore to call it a
20,000 s.f. lot size it must have a cistern.
Ms. Mouw related that if with the 3:1 you can count from the bluff to
road rather than the entire lot, then she asked that would make the lot size
smaller. But if you’re not counting the whole lot to define the 3:1, then you
can’t count the whole lot for water and septic requirements.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT:
YES: HESS, CHESLEY, BARTLETT
NO: LEHNER, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion fails.
City Planner McKibben suggested they amend the motion to say, “recommend
the Kenai Peninsula Borough grant an exception.”
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO REMOVE THE WORD “GRANT” AND CHANGE IT TO “RECOMMEND.”
Discussion ensured regarding the Borough’s 3:1 ratio and should the
Commission vote on this issue or leave it for the Borough.
Chair Chesley suggested that the Commission continue this issue to their
next meeting, ask the surveyor to bring his numbers and ask staff to further
research this recommendation and whether the Commission should have findings
for it or if it is appropriate for the Commission to review this issue.
HESS/ FOSTER MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at
Chair Chesley handed the gavel to Vice Chair Hess due to a conflict of
interest.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the additional
information that included a revised preliminary plat, including an e-mail from
Mr. Schroeder representing the Seldovia Native Association with an attached , a
sewer easement document, that was sent before the last meeting but not received
until after the meeting. Gordon Tans review of the fifteen foot utility
easement requirement for this platting action.
Based on Mr. Tans recommendation that this is not a new subdivision but
an elimination of a lot line and this recommendation does not apply, staff recommends
removing the recommendation for the fifteen foot utility easement and accept the
existing ten-foot utility easement that the applicant indicated would be
acceptable.
PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND STAFF REPORT PL 04-33 TO DELETE RECOMMENDATION #1 WITH THE NEW STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO SHOW THE EXISTING TEN-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.
Vice Chair Hess asked if the applicant representative wished to speak to the matter.
Mr. Chesley related that as Gordon Tans pointed out, that traditionally the City and Borough classify replatting actions and subdivisions with the same administrative procedure. Mr. Tans pointed out that a replat is not a subdivision by City Code definition. In this case the replat action is not subject to the subdivision code. One suggestion recommended by Mary Toll when it’s a simple removal of a lot line without any significant changes, that staff could review and make a recommendation.
Commissioner Foster questioned if that had been previously proposed about two years ago. It was stopped at the Council level.
Mr. Chesley stated he wasn’t on at that time, but this wouldn’t be an abbreviated plat procedure but an administrative procedure. With an administrative procedure Mary Toll doesn’t have to mail it to all the utility companies that is the responsibility of the applicant to get all the signatures and comments. He agreed with Commissioner Foster that the Commission needs to work with staff to understand the implications of Gordon Tans opinion. The Commission needs to have a work session with Walt Wrede, staff, Carey Meyer, and Gordon Tans; they want to do it right and not be asking for something that they shouldn’t be asking for.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT:
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION:
FOSTER/BARTLETT MOVED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
City Planner
McKibben reviewed the staff report recommending the Planning Commission grant
approval of the Vacation of Right-of-Way,
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED
FOR APPROVAL OF
Commissioner Foster explained that the Borough Planning Commission had reviewed the Vacation of Right-of-Way at their last meeting. At that time he could not see any problems with the request. He thought he could call for reconsideration if there are any problems with the plat.
Chair Chesley related that lay downs are hard to review. Because it was in the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District, it was necessary to review it closely.
There was some discussion on the time line for reconsideration. It was explained that a “reconsideration” must be requested within forty-eight hours of the time the original action took place.
There was some discussion on postponing action.
City Planner McKibben reviewed her discussion with the applicant. His intent was to replat so the right-of-way actually follows the traveled way. And then recombine the several properties that he owned into one parcel. Staff’s recommendation is that it is conditioned on the submittal of a preliminary plat. It will reduce the number of lots and reducing the amount of coverage as the existing traveled road is a shorter distance than the platted right-of-way. It was a very sensible and practical proposal.
Chair Chesley had concerns because there were new members on the Commission who were not a part of the drafting of the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District ordinance.
After hearing brief comments from the commissioners who helped in the drafting of the ordinance, vote was taken.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The
Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the
public. Commission business includes
resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other
issues as needed. The Commission may
ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public.
City Planner McKibben
reviewed the staff report regarding the time extension request.
Staff recommendation; Planning Commission approval of the extension of
the preliminary plat approval for two years, through December 12, 2006.
Chair Chesley related
that Commissioner Hess wished to give the surveyor the opportunity to change
the utility easements.
Roger Imhoff related
that the final plat mylar had been turned into the Borough and he did not wish
to change anything.
PFEIL/BARTLETT MOVED
TO ACCEPT ST PL 04-46 PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the Zoning Permit
code stating that questions have arisen regarding the addition of “parcel” to
the code. How to reasonable interpret and apply the rules to the words “alter”
and “improve” as they relate to “parcel.” Because the wording does not allow staff to
make allowance for someone altering or improving their property by ditching for
drainage or improving the property by tilling, planting grass, trees and shrubs
or erecting a fence. Planning, Public Works and the City Manager have discussed
how to address the issue in a way that would satisfy the Commission’s reasoning
for adding “or parcel” to the code.
Carey Meyer had suggested adding a requirement for a grading permit
prior to significant changes to a parcel which came up in a discussion with
David Cole as a method for addressing steep slope development. Bruce Hess has provided another method for
addressing the issue. There are no
exceptions allowed for a lot. There are different
opinions as to what is reasonable.
Chair Chesley related that he had spoke to
City Planner McKibben stated in this
particular case, what seems like a reasonable interpretation would be the
requirement for a Development Activity Plan. The first time the new standard of
alteration of a “parcel” was applied brought to mind that the Development
Activity Plan was not a requirement within residential districts. In her
discussion with
Commissioner Hess believes the code needs to
be changed so that the public can understand it.
City Planner McKibben agreed that it is
difficult for staff to interpret, but for the average person how do they know
when they need a permit. The newspaper
article was good in that the public was made aware they should contact Planning
if they are thinking of developing property.
Staff already gets a lot of inquiries from people who are looking at
property, or want to do something on their property.
Discussion ensured on the process for getting
permits. Ms. McKibben related that once
the new person comes on board, Planning will be doing the Zoning Permits. Public Works will still issue driveway,
water/sewer, and right-of-way permits.
Planning will be coordinating with Public Works.
Commissioner Hess stated anytime there’s
ambiguity in the code the Commission needs to correct it so the public can
understand it. The Commission should be
constantly changing the code anytime there’s an issue the Commission should be
working on it.
Chair Chesley thought that the reason the
previous chair was reluctant to do small changes was that it’s a cumbersome
process in that it goes to public hearing with the Commission, and it goes to
the Council for another public hearing.
Discussion ensured regarding the need for the
Commission to work on the different issues that could be lumped together. It was decided to have a work session and
request the presence of Walt Wrede, Gordon Tans, Carey Meyer, Beverly Guyton
and Beth McKibben to discuss easements, the zoning code, and subdivisions.
City Planner McKibben asked the Commission to
submit questions and suggestions regarding the Zoning Permit code to her by
June 28th, in order for her to prepare for the meeting.
There was discussion on what subjects would
be on the work session agenda.
PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED ADD THE ZONING PERMIT
REVIEW TO THE NEXT WORK SESSION AND THE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley thought there was a misunderstanding about what the
Commission was looking for. This item
was an issue that Rick Foster and Fred Pfeil brought up. It wasn’t that they wanted to understand
nonconformity, the issue was the history of nonconformity on those lots on the
City Planner McKibben
explained that information was in their last packet. That was the limit of the information on
those lots. There were no permits issued. Staff could compare the older Borough
aero-photography to the
Commissioner Foster thought it was interesting that the person applying for nonconformity must come up with the proof of nonconformity.
Chair Chesley asked the Commission if there was any thing else that the Commission would want done regarding the use of the lots.
There was discussion
regarding the history of the non-conforming uses on the
The Commission suggested staff write the letters to the property owners requesting that they prove up their non-conformity.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report – Commissioner Foster related that the
Commission had already covered the two Borough issues.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Planner McKibben related that she had spoke with John Liber, who works for Department of Community and Development, they offer planning commission training. They are willing to come down. They would like to tailor it to a specific request. They could do it on a Saturday but would prefer to do it on two evening meetings, one in one month and one in another month. Depending on the subject John would be down but Christie Miller might or maybe both.
Chair Chesley would like to have a plan. He told Walt Wrede that the only platting training they had was when Mary Toll, Platting Officer for the Borough came down. That’s one time in two years.
Commissioner Foster related that he was learning by immersion by being on the Borough Plat Committee now.
Chair Chesley asked the Commission to think about those areas where they feel deficient in and where they might be empowered by some training. He saw the training as a way to help the commission be more effective in what they are doing, in terms of how they exercise judgment, and how they interpret things.
City Planner McKibben related
that she and Walt Wrede had been talking about it. DCED does training; AML
might have training. They could pay Lee
Sharp to come down. There are a few
things that come to mind, ex-parte contact, conflict of interest, and
quisi-judicial and legislative type decisions and what the differences are and
what the role of the commission is; the purpose of the findings and the
commission’s role and authority and how the commission interplays into the City
as an organization. Those are important
things to know and it helps you as a commissioner understand where your cog
fits into the wheel. She didn’t know how much expertise John and/or Christie have
on platting issue.
Chair Chesley requested that staff should plan in their budget to have at least one training session a year.
City Planner McKibben related that the Alaska Chapter was doing some training and she had budgeted for it but they did not have it this year.
Chair Chesley asked that Ms. McKibben and Walt Wrede get together to talk it over.
City Planner McKibben passed
around some information that she had received at the APA Conference training. One session was Beyond Traffic Calming, it
was about things that can be done in addition to traffic calming, creating a
balance, creating a safer environment, they focused on balance, balancing
circulation for the regional area and the local area, balancing safety and
different modes of transportation, balancing function and aesthetics, curb
extension and trees to slow traffic, things that can be done that don’t require
signs that make the traffic behave, creating gateways that announce your arrival
somewhere, by narrowing the road or adding trees, things that announce you’re
somewhere else. They talked about healthy
holistic roadways. They had created an
assessment sheet to evaluate pedestrian friendliness that she requested. She also
attended a session on affordable housing, but it wasn’t geared for government,
it was more for other types of agencies. It is an issue common to growing
communities. As housing costs go up it becomes more difficult for people who
work in the service industries the waitress, the cashiers at the grocery store,
can’t afford to live in the community where they work. They talked about different programs that
help developers include affordable housing in their designs. She attended Big Box
on
Commissioner Foster asked about narrowing the roads, was there any discussion about how to work with State highway systems that have their own viewpoint that tends to be status quo and not as creative thinking.
City Planner McKibben related that it didn’t come up in this session but she has been in other transportation planning sessions and there are communities where a main road an I- something goes through a town and they’ve slowed it to twenty-five miles an hour speed limit with a center island, boulevard type. It’s still I- something and everybody who drives on I- goes right through town.
Commissioner Foster related that
in
Discussion ensured on
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. Zoning Violation letter to N. Basargin
re: 4464 Mariner Drive, Lot 4, Blk 3, Mariner Subdivision, dated May 26, 2004.
B. Zoning Violation letter to J. Ramos re;
C. Zoning Violation letter to R. Vann re:
Tax ID #17714008, T6S R13W S20, portion of Government
City Planner McKibben related that there
hasn’t been a response to the
Chair Chesley
stated that Mr. Foster had brought to his attention that Doug Fraiman on
City Planner
McKibben stated that
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Bartlett remarked that it was nice to be back. Referring to the vote on the 66,000 s.f. retail/wholesale size, he hopes that it works out.
Commissioner Foster related that
in 1913 at the accumulation of a five year controversy about the damming of the
Commissioner Pfeil was glad they were going to revisit the utility easement again. Because he is still having a problem with that and they need to revisit the minimum lot sizes though out town. As Homer grows, its going to get cut up into smaller and smaller parcels. It’s killing him to see that. Yesterday was a sad day but he’s happy he’s on the commission.
Commissioner Hess related that there was a 40% vote that segment can not be ignored. He’s hoping there will be some consideration to the 40%. The other thing he would like to touch on, is trying to come up with formal procedure to track the violations. Ms. McKibben asked if he wanted staff to start keeping a data base. Mr. Hess answered exactly, not only that but the little items, there’s a tendency for things to get lost. They fall through cracks.
Chair Chesley stated that on page14 of their Policy and Procedures Manual, it says that the Homer Planning Commission will be presented with all violations, interpretations and abatement action at their next regular meeting. He didn’t know if staff had been doing that but it’s clear that’s one mechanism to keep the Planning Commission advised of what’s been going on.
City Planner McKibben related that when letters are done prior to packet time they go into the packet.
There was discussion regarding how staff handles violations.
Commissioner Lehner related that re-writing the subdivision ordinance is going to be really interesting to her. She is a believer in every possible avenue to connect policy making and environmental data collecting with day to day community meeting activities. The way the community voted is a reflection of how they feel in terms of their own survival issues and what they consider important in terms of the future of their community and how what happens in the future of the community is going to affect them. All of these are attitudes and attitudes can be changed. You get enough information out there, you get enough discussion going on and in the way the selection was working in that direction. But you have got to get things in peoples hands to make them feel that they are a part of what’s happening in the community and they can see where its going and why it’s going there and why they should want it to go there. She is hoping they can do some real incentive things, she doesn’t know if they can within the subdivision process. To get rid of lot lines should be an easy thing to do and be encouraged. Seeing the Skyline subdivision, we’re going to be seeing some of the most gorgeous recreational areas subdivided. We don’t know it’s happening and so we can’t sit down with the developer and say boy you could really tie your subdivision in with this trail system that’s happening over there. The value of these lots is just going to go up, etc. There are so many things we could be doing that’s incentive based and pro-active and vision oriented but none of that happens without constant communication with the community. I have the thought that there are lots of things that would be fabulous to do that we aren’t going to be able to do because we have a narrow mission or something. But there are so many players in this town that aren’t working together in really effective ways to get information out there. I feel that its going to be really useful for me to be hearing what’s happening here and also staying involved with the Soil and Water Conservation District because they do some real neat stuff. If all these subdivisions are coming before us, it’s because people are coming here and if people are moving here we have an opportunity to educate and promote certain attitudes and appreciation and whatever. It’s a dynamic time when a lot of good stuff could happen if we could just figure out the ways to do that. She hoping they can get creative about doing that.
Chair Chesley commented on the election, he spoke to a fair number of people who voted yes, it really wasn’t a vote on zoning issues and what the town was going to look like twenty years from now, the people I spoke to was we want a Fred Meyer. We know what Fred Meyer is, we shop at Fred Meyer in Soldotna, we like the things we get there, we can get things there that aren’t at Safeway. I want a Fred Meyer. It wasn’t about zoning, it wasn’t about the 66,000 s.f. for a lot of folks. Thinking about the broader Homer area, there was an effort going on with people gathering names outside who were opposed to it because a huge amount of public testimony was from people who lived out side of the City but in fact owned businesses inside the City. They were excluded from the vote, so if there had been a wider area than we might have had a different election result. But we have what we have and we’ll stay tuned to the process. What happens at the Council level and what happens at the community level, if there are any challenges to it because it’s not over until it’s over. I’m sure the City Manager, the City attorney and the City Council are going to be having some conversations and we’ll be getting some direction.
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 was
adjourned at
__________________________________________
Beverly J. Guyton, Administrative Assistant
Approved: _________________________________