Session 04-10, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. on May 5,
2004 by Chair Chesley at the Homer City Hall Council Chambers located at 491 E.
Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: PFEIL,
CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS
ABSENT: BARTLETT (excused) CELENTANO
(late arrival)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK BENSON
PLANNING TECHNICIAN ENGEBRETSEN
PLANNING ADMIN ASSIST GUYTON
PUBLIC
WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
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.
A. Time
Extension Requests
B. Approval
of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C. KPB
Coastal Management Program Reports
The Consent Agenda was approved by consensus.
The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission with the addition of Item 7C - “Planning Commission Appointment to the Road Standards Committee” and the addition of Item 7D - “Planning Commission Designee to the Town Center Development Committee”.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission
approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Regular Meeting of April
21, 2004 meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved by consensus.
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.
The Commission and Staff acknowledged the resignation of Deputy City Clerk Benson and gave a brief a presentation of their appreciation for her service. Ms. Benson commented that she had learned a lot from the Commission and enjoyed working with them.
A. Mary Toll, Platting Officer for the
Kenai Peninsula Borough, to review subdivision standards and requirements.
Chair Chesley advised that this was the one time a year Ms. Toll was available in Homer to visit with the Planning Commission for training and questions.
Mary Toll advised that she had worked for the Kenai Peninsula Borough for 15 years. She displayed a large poster of an example of the imagery now available due to a grant received by the City of Homer for satellite imagery lauding the quality of the image.
She gave a quick overview of how things work at the Borough in platting: Last year the Borough had close to 300 subdivision plats, 34 of which were in the City of Homer. That works out to over 10%. Between 40-50% of the plats were on the southern peninsula, which she described as the “hot area”. From Anchor Point to Homer, any place that was logged and a road went in, there are subdivisions.
She went over the processing of a plat -
Surveyor must submit the Planning Commission’s minutes with the plat to the Borough
Exception - A simple plat, minutes are backed up and Planning Staff can assure the Borough that it is non-controversial.
The cut-off for scheduling plats is three weeks before the meeting.
Once the plat is received the Borough sends notice to property owners within 600 feet. -
The planning assistant does the research and sends a reduced copy of the plat with the notice.
The Planning Commission looks at the plat-
The staff report and recommendations are presented
The Commission reviews any exceptions
The Commission reviews any findings
The Commission either grants the exception or requests a redesign
Preliminary conditional approval is usually granted -
Only two recently denied - one was City of Homer Glacierview Subd including Harry’s Alley.
Ms. Toll commented on the Glacierview Subd - Harry’s Alley plat specifically. She reviewed the subdivision plat and noted that there was enough acreage to make a lot of lots accessed by an alley. She could not make findings to grant an exception to the Borough’s minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet. She explained that cities were developed years ago and alley access was not uncommon. Usually the Borough could make findings to justify granting an exception, but not on this one. Since the development hadn’t taken place, it seemed in the best interest of the Platting Commission to deny it, which she described as “very, very unusual”.
Ms. Toll continued with the platting process -
Preliminary approval is conditional
Surveyor goes out and submits a paper copy of the plat to the Borough
A review letter is sent to the surveyor
The owners sign the Mylar and it is submitted to the Borough
The surveyor submits a final certificate plat issued by a title company
Taxes have to be prepaid - prior to being due the taxes are estimated by the Borough
The Borough grants administrative approval in-house and signs it
The final plat is sent to the surveyor to record
Ms. Toll answered questions from the Commission -
There are four authorized signatures on the plat -the Mayor, the Planning Director, the Mayor’s Special Assistant and Ms. Toll.
If there was a significant change on a plat from the preliminary to the final it goes back to the Committee. She determines if there was a significant change.
She addressed the issue of developers/surveyors not liking what the City’s conditions were and simply threatening to take it to the Borough to be changed. Ms. Toll advised that if there were codes to back up the Planning Commission’s conditions, the Borough follows them. Any conditions placed “just because” were not upheld. She added that the Borough had been sued enough times to realize that code was required. When a plat was denied, if an exception was granted they were tied to numerous findings and three conditions found in 20.24 - the exception procedure. These procedures were developed by the Borough’s legal department based upon numerous lawsuits. Ms. Toll commented that there were a lot of places where the Homer City Code could be stiffened up a bit.
Ms. Toll explained that if there was a significant change in a plat, which involves a question of the Homer City Code, she calls the Homer Planning Department for assistance.
In the Planning Commission’s review of the subdivision codes, Ms. Toll suggested they look at flag lots. She added that Homer Code could be more restrictive than Borough Code. The Borough Code was silent on flag lots so there wasn’t anything to stop them. The City goes with the Borough code on the 3:1 width versus length requirements. Ms. Toll explained that if the City does findings and the Borough does findings it makes it more difficult to sway the Plat Committee to allow flag lots.
Ms. Toll addressed the question of the legality of platting access that was non-constructible. The example given was a flag lot created to access a back lot, however the flag lot was a steep slope where no driveway/road could be constructed. She advised that there was nothing in the code that required a right-of-way to be constructible. She added that the Borough Code allows the creation of a land locked parcel. The Code says a parcel has to abut on a dedicated right-of-way; it does not say it has to be contiguous or join any other right-of-way. She explained that a developer could take a large parcel of land, dedicate 60’ of right-of-way across one side of it and chop it up into lots. She added that the last re-write on the Borough Code was in 1978.
Ms. Toll commented that she didn’t see any reason that the Planning Commission could not require that the access be constructible if it’s meant for residential purposes. Ms. Toll confirmed for the Commission that a subdivider could not go to the Borough level and override the rules Homer had in place. She explained that was because the Borough had given Homer zoning powers and subdivision design powers.
The Commission asked what the procedures would be for the City of Homer to have platting powers, so the plat would not have to be approved by the Borough. Ms. Toll explained that the City would have to request those powers from the Borough. That there was a process through the assembly where they would give those powers to the City just as they did for the zoning procedure.
A question regarding the appeal process was asked of Ms. Toll. She indicated a three-inch thick three- ring binder stuffed to overflowing with papers laying on the table, stating that this was small compared to the documents that were put together for an appeal. It was noted that the appeal would be made to the authority making the decision and that the City of Homer zoning was not appeal able to the Borough.
Ms. Toll recommended that if the Planning Commission did a re-write of the code that they include the Borough so the codes work together. She pointed out that the Bridge Creek Watershed Ordinance does not work with the Borough Code. She explained that it contained requirements but no process on how they would utilize it, such as right-of-way vacations. They were supposed to come to the Planning Commission first but there was no process, no time frames, no deadlines and no submittal forms. She advised that there was a right-of-way vacation in the works that had been petitioned in the Bridge Creek Watershed area. It had been scheduled with the Borough but she has been working with the City staff on it and it should come before the Planning Commission prior to coming before the Borough.
Ms. Toll answered a question stating that there were no cities in the Borough that do their own subdivision approvals. Ms. Toll advised that the Borough was on track to do 400 subdivisions this year so far. Right now they are 25% ahead of last year at this time. There was speculation that there would be a 10% reduction in the Borough workload if Homer took over platting authority.
Ms. Toll shared that the public was under the impression that the term “Borough staff” was a whole basement full of people reviewing the paperwork. The truth was that “staff” was one person - her!
The commission asked Ms. Toll her opinion on whether or not it was a good idea for Homer to take over the platting authority. She stated that from a purely selfish standpoint it was an “excellent idea” however from a headache standpoint she laughed and said she thought they were “lunatics”. City Planner McKibben interpreted that as a good idea for Ms. Toll and a bad idea for the Commission.
Ms. Toll suggested that the Commission approve an abbreviated plat process. She referred to Borough Code 20.04.070 whereby if a plat meets certain criteria a surveyor could submit it to the Borough staff and she then has six working days to review it. It gets approved administratively. The biggest problem with the Borough abbreviated process she had was the six day turn-around, but also hesitated to agree that it worked well otherwise, saying instead that “it definitely has a place”. She explained that a lot of the surveyors don’t use it. She didn’t know whether it was by choice or whether they didn’t know about it. When questioned, she advised that they do not do a mail out on this process because there was not enough time in the six-day turn-around requirement. She described this as one part of the Borough Code that was not a legal mesh. She added that the Mat-Su Borough has a 30-day turn-around on their abbreviated plats.
Administrative Assistant Guyton advised that the Homer Planning Department had tried to do that and was shot down by the Council. The Commission discussed the process briefly. Ms. Toll explained that this process requires the surveyor or the owner to run around to all of the utility companies and get their comments.
When questioned by the Commission, Ms. Toll advised that the fee schedule for the platting process with the Borough does not come close to covering the costs. She added that the fees had not changed in a long time. She explained the details of a mailed notice for the plats. Last year the Borough mailed out over 7000 notices with a minimum of two sheets of information each.
Ms. Toll explained that the 600-foot notice was not standard. It was only used for subdivision plats. The 600-foot notice came from the Mat-Su Borough where the Assistant Borough Attorney worked prior to coming to the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Everything else was 300 feet such as right-of-way vacations, utility easement vacations, etc. The gravel pit notice is 1/4 mile for the Borough. Ms. Toll advised that the River Center notice distance was different also, but she didn’t know what it was.
The Commission asked Ms. Toll to compare the local fees to others around the country. She commented that the local fees were “cheap”. She compared Anchorage fees saying that every time Anchorage looked at the plat there was a fee - preliminary, final, second final, and third final. She believed it was $500 to submit a preliminary plat in Anchorage.
In answer to a question, Ms. Toll explained the difference between “adequate public access” and “constructible access” in a remote area. She used Halibut Cove as an example stating that adequate access would be a shoreline or an airstrip. She added that this would not work in the city.
The subject of off site requirement improvements was brought up. An example portrayed was the requirement of the paving by the developer of a road segment that would be heavily impacted by the development. The question asked was if Ms. Toll saw any problem with language requiring an off site improvement that was the primary access to a subdivision. She responded saying that the Borough had been trying to adopt road construction requirements on roads that were the primary access to subdivisions. In the four times before the assembly that she was aware of it had been shot down. The intent was if a 50-lot subdivision was being created the developer would have to bring the roads up to standard that feed into the subdivision. She called it a “huge sticking point with the developer” and added that telling people they have to build or upgrade roads was a tough call. She advised that there were people who want that but they never show up at the hearings. The people who don’t want it show up.
The Commission expressed interest in this issue and Ms. Toll suggested they contact Milli Martin, Borough Assembly, as it was her understanding that Ms. Martin would be bringing the road standards issue back. The comment was made that it was not uncommon to bring the road up to standards before marketing the development in other parts of the country, especially in a zoned city.
The Commission asked Public Works Director Meyer for his comments. Mr. Meyer stated that this was an issue of interest to him in that the plat gets approved with only some recognition for utilities and then it’s left to the Public Works Department to make an agreement with the developer. He would like to see Public Works recommendations included on the plat approval. This would make things easier for Public Works because they don’t have to “sit down without a hammer” and try to get the developer to do the right thing. He stated that he thought it was also important to the developer because the developer gets plat approval without knowing the cost implications. He suggested that if and when the subdivision requirements were re-written, that this be looked at for change.
Ms. Toll commented that the issues should be able to be covered in the improvement installation agreement. Right now it just covered water and sewer.
Mr. Meyer added that it covered roads but not the fabric, paving, sidewalks or gravel. The paving was an issue that Public Works struggles with on review.
Ms. Toll acknowledged that it’s difficult to decide whether or not a street was going to be an arterial or a collector and that’s something hard to do because it requires looking 100 years into the future sometimes.
Mr. Meyer added that building trails was another big issue in the development agreement - that developers hesitate to build trails alongside the road or through easements to provide pedestrian access.
Mr. Meyer advocated for a Trails Master Plan, as it would help the City and the developer with guidance in the subdivision agreement. Mr. Meyer questioned if the City could require the developer to pave a road that leads to the subdivision when the Borough doesn’t require they build to front the lots they create in the first place. He added that he felt the City was way ahead of the Borough when it comes to requiring the necessary infrastructure be built.
When questioned, Ms. Toll commented that the legal authority covering the subdivision agreement was found in the code.
There was a brief discussion. The Commission noted that a developer going in would not know what the true costs were prior to developing the subdivision unless it was written in the code. Ms. Toll made the point that the installation agreement should tell them that except for the exemption for three lots and under. She added that she sees subdivisions come through with three lots and it’s obvious that in another year they are going to come through and split one of those lots into three more lots and so on. It’s a way around the code. Staff noted that the subdivision agreement had to be approved prior to the final plat approval and the problem with that is the developer waits until the day before the final plat approval to execute the agreement.
The Commission asked if the paving of a road was something that was stated in the subdivision agreement. Public Works Director Meyer addressed the question answering that it could or may not. There are three sentences that give an explanation and it’s tough to know if they all apply or if any one applies. Rules to consider were zoning districts for rural residential and rural road standards; there are rural road maintenance standards; water and sewer - always a tough one to say how far to expect the developer to take the sewer line. The agreement is complicated and has to settle on some middle ground so it doesn’t require the developer to construct improvements that benefit a whole lot of people who are not paying for it. On the other hand the city should expect some reasonable roads to maintain. Mr. Meyer referred to the annexed roads that do not meet the road standards. He commented that if the property developer doesn’t improve the roads, the City has to. He stated that somewhere the developer must be responsible and not lay the costs on the community for the cost of bringing the access to their development up to City road standards.
There was a brief discussion on the power of the property owner to finalize the plat. Ms. Toll pointed out that the plat was not finalized if the owner does not sign it. She noted that State plats have at least four signatures on them and it appeared as if every agency of the State signed their plats. She added that it would not be unreasonable to make the request of the developer that the City sign off on the final plat approval to assure compliance of the conditions stipulated. There was further discussion on exactly what official in the City might be required to sign off on the final plat. It was pointed out that this could be used as a balancing mechanism as a way of seeing that the requirements were adhered to. In one instance the fact that the City had to sign off on the plat (as a land owner) “broke the ice jam” on the resistance to the required improvements by the other party.
Ms. Toll advised she was unable to recommend a city with a good example for a model platting process. She added that most of the cities have the same problems because they are working with old codes. She noted that Homer’s code was adopted in 1982. Ms. Guyton commented that the subdivision code had not been amended in the 14 years she’s been in Planning.
The Commission thanked Ms. Toll for driving to Homer from Soldotna and jokingly asked her for her home phone number. She replied that the Borough now has the cutting edge ability to talk on the telephone on the computer - “voice over IP”. Her phone number was 714-2208.
Chair Chesley apologized for his newness at being chair and called for Public Comments Not on the Agenda. No one commented.
Chair Chesley called for a break at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Chair Chesley noted for the record that Commissioner Celentano arrived at 8:00 p.m.
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.
Chair Chesley read a statement regarding the Public Hearing instructions process and the right to appeal.
A. Staff Report PL 04-28 Re: Request For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup #04-05/Quiet Creek Community LLC Request For More Than One Building Containing A Permitted Principal Use, Quiet Creek Community LLC Condominium Complex, On A Lot As Permitted By HCC 21.44.030 (Q) At 4725 South Slope Drive, TR A, Barnett Subdivision Quiet Creek Addition.
Chair Chesley disclosed an ex-parte contact between the applicant, Tony Neal and Commissioner Bartlett. Mr. Chesley advised of an email received from Mrs. Bartlett passing on a message from Mr. Neal through Mr. Bartlett. Evidently, Mr. Neal had contacted Mr. Bartlett, knowing that he would not be attending the meeting, asking if he would do what he could to make sure the other Commissioners attend this meeting to hear his Conditional Use Permit and vote. Mr. Chesley commented that he was not saying the applicant did anything wrong. He described the ex-parte rules as being very clear on discussions between Commissioner and Applicants regarding CUPs, Variances, and PUDs outside the process. Once the document has been filed with the City, Commissioners are required not to discuss any of the matters with anyone outside the process. He added that is because it’s a quasi-judicial process; the rules are specific.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the following conditions: 1 A detailed landscape plan identifying plant species and location be submitted prior to final landscaping or within three years. All areas disturbed will be replanted or seeded within the next growing season. 2. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the Department of Public Works for all work that will take place in the rights-of-ways. 3. All roads constructed for the development will meet or exceed City standards. 4. Compliance with State Fire Code Section 503.2.5 Dead Ends, regarding turn-a-round areas at the terminus of all roads or compliance with the Fire Chief’s requirements as stated in the April 27, 2004, Memorandum. 5. The project meets all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.
Findings of Fact: A. The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code as it complies with a conditionally permitted use per HCC 21.48.030(q) Request For More than One Building Containing a Permitted Principal Use On A Lot. One of the stated purposes of the Rural Residential District is to provide an area for low-density development in the City. This plan results in a density of one unit to 23,000 square feet that is one-half the density if the site were subdivided into individual lots. B. The value of surrounding properties will not be negatively impacted by the Quiet Creek Community LLC a the property will have extensive open spaces and areas left in its natural state providing a buffer to other properties mostly to the south of the development. C. The Comprehensive Plan Update recommends that areas planned or zoned as Rural Residential shall provide a low density residential and limited agricultural environment while protecting groundwater and other natural resources. The proposed development is of a density far less than could be permitted should the site be subdivided and developed as individual house lots at the 10,000 square feet permitted when city water and sewer are available. Additionally, the proposed development maintains extensive green open spaces that assist in the protection of the slopes and the attractiveness of the residential neighborhood. Also, the low density of the proposed development protects the groundwater by reducing the impervious coverage of the site. D. Public services and facilities are adequate to service the proposed use. The developer intends to develop on-site water and sewer lines, which will be maintained by the project and will connect to the city’s water and sewer lines. E. Homer City Code 21.44.040(a)(3) states, “Each lot shall contain a minimum of ten thousand square feet per dwelling unit if served by both water and sewer.” The property is 730,000 square feet, which could support a large subdivision of at least 50 lots. The development will have fewer homes than a standard subdivision. This is a reduction in the potential generation of traffic to a surrounding area. The bulk, coverage and density are all greatly reduced by the proposed open space, trails and natural areas left undeveloped. Utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation information, staff has estimated the proposed project will generate 188 vehicle trips on a weekday; 181 vehicle trips on a Saturday; 14 AM peak hour weekday trips; and 17 PM peak hour weekday trips.
Tony Neal, Manager/representative of Quiet Creek Community LLC addressed the ex parte issue briefly. He stated that he didn’t know it existed and voiced his support for the ex parte rule. He added that he scrupulously avoids talking to the Commissioners individually about his applications. Mr. Neal stated that he did not talk with Commissioner Bartlett about this project. He only expressed his concern that there would be enough people at the meeting for the vote on his Conditional Use Permit knowing Mr. Bartlett wasn’t going to be there.
Mr. Neal commented that the application and the report were pretty complete. He advised that he was available for questions and gave a presentation advocating his development: This is the nicest residential development project in Homer. It meets all of the requirements of low density, it’s pretty, landscaped, is maintenance free and it’s in Homer - which conforms with the drive for Homer to be the center of things. This development would produce about five full time jobs in the City. It’s an $11 million value, which helps the local tax base. The residents would share in the expense of services in Homer. Mr. Neal handed out to the Commissioners a color brochure for the project stating that he wanted the Commission to see how the project was being presented to the community. He commented that he was happy about the project and could talk a long time about it. He asked if there were any questions.
City Planner McKibben asked Mr. Neal to talk about the slopes in his project particularly about the 15% grade.
Mr. Neal advised that this development is in the rural residential district and it was his belief that the slope of 15-25 could exceed one-quarter of the available property. He explained that 25-30 is 10%. He has 17 acres and it was questionable if there was any development with a 15-degree slope. He briefly discussed the definition of a slope giving an example that a 15-degree slope was a rise of 15 feet in 100 horizontal feet. He commented that houses all over Homer have more than 15%, that is only a 6 foot rise in a 40 foot house, therefore every house with a daylight basement has more than 15. He speculated that the steep slope restrictions came from the City not wanting people to build on the bluff behind town, which made sense to him. Mr. Neal advised that the contours are from a project mainly from the Corp of Engineers photo and that he had Roger Imhoff shoot grades in some places. The only place that would be questionable are the five units on the top left that sort of back into the hill, which might be 15% and would be about 5% of the project. He commented that he would want to stay away from slopes for the same obvious reasons that the City would want to regulate it. He made the point that this development was at the toe of the slope, not up the hill. At this point Mr. Neal referred to a contour map and an artist’s sketch of the project on display. While indicating on the map the location Mr. Neal advised of a wildlife refuge, a serpentine trail and a resting area.
City Planner McKibben advised that the numbers come out that the project is 730,000 square feet with an open space of 565,000 square feet, which does not include roads, parking areas or buildings. This creates an open space of 77% of the development and certainly meets the requirements of the code.
Mr. Neal advised that the civil site plan in its entirety was engineered by a registered professional civil engineer.
Mr. Neal told the Commission that he intends to obey every law there is and wanted to make that clear. He explained that he was before the Commission because it’s a requirement if he wants to place more than one building on a lot. He pointed out that if he wanted to build 32 buildings in a row he wouldn’t have to apply for a permit. Here, he is doing something better by asking - which is okay - but he wanted to make that point that he was not crowding anybody. He noted that the streets and utilities are designed to city standards. He referred to Fire Chief Painters recommendations that there be handicap access saying that all of the units are handicap accessible. He pointed out that the project was not close to building height nor close to property lines and that there was vegetation galore. He reiterated his intent to obey all laws.
In answer to the Commission’s questions he indicated on the map where a sign for the developed community would be located at an entrance. He described the sign as saying only “Quiet Creek Community”. This would be private property and have a gated entrance. He wanted people to be proud to live there.
The Commission questioned Mr. Neal on the location of the access to the community, asking if Shellfish was an access. He advised that Shellfish Avenue was dedicated right of way but not improved. South Slope was the only access to the project.
Mr. Neal confirmed that the trails would be for the homeowners only as they would be on private property.
There was a brief discussion regarding creeks and drainage in the area. Mr. Neal advised of one small creek in the South West area and one in the center of the development. He added that Quiet Creek is so quiet he couldn’t find it. On the West side there was drainage that was indicated as wetlands on the City’s map although he stated that the area was not wet - that his shoes don’t get wet. He didn’t plan to mess with the wetlands at all. The landscaping included an area he called the wildlife reserve that was in keeping with native grasses. Nearly all of the vegetation would be native - tried and true - plants including spruce, alder, birch and roses.
There was a brief discussion regarding the exact size of the acreage. The exact acreage number was not known. The Commission asked for the dimension plat with the certified acreage on it and asked staff to include that in the report for future reference. The discussion included how the figures were achieved. Ms. McKibben explained that this code referred to floor area, versus footprint, so she used the 2500 sf plus the garage area in her report.
Mr. Neal addressed a question out of curiosity stating that a 3-stop elevator costs $18,500 installed.
Mr. Neal stated that each unit was about 2500 sf of living space plus a 2-car garage. One half of the units have a garage underneath so the footprint on the ground was roughly 1000 sf. The other half - the lower houses - would have a grade garage entrance with a footprint of 1000 sf plus a 24’ square.
The Commission asked about compliance with the State Fire Code and emergency access. Mr. Neal advised that he did not plan to install sprinklers. He explained that sprinklers cost $4500 unit and only save $200 on insurance. He added that buyers, in general, don’t want to pay for sprinklers and the insurance carriers don’t care.
Mr. Neal addressed emergency access stating the he would be increasing the radius of intersections and turn-a-rounds. He indicated on the artist’s rendition of the community the locations of the increase. Mr. Neal advised that the turn-a-around areas were going to be graveled solid surface and grassed over and be posted as no parking-fire lanes. He assured the Commission that the area would be plowed in the winter.
The Commission asked Mr. Neal to address overflow parking for guests and owners. An example was the parking of a snow-machine trailer for a few days, etc. Mr. Neal replied that the covenants would not allow the trailer and added that the turn-a-round area would not be for overflow and therefore a good reason to landscape it. There would be four parking spaces per unit as is and the driveways would be big enough for three cars. He commented that where the zoning code requires two spaces he has provided 4 or 5 spaces; the streets are City standard width; and the ends of the driveways are parking spaces as well. He reiterated that he would post the turn-a-round area as no parking.
The Commission noted that the traffic volumes did not require a Traffic Impact Analysis. The concern expressed was the safety of traffic entering East Hill Road on the curve during peak hours. The question was brought up whether a turn lane or a de-acceleration lane might be needed in that area.
Mr. Neal commented, noting that he is generating less traffic in the area than would be allowed without a CUP. He was not generating more traffic than anyone else because the density was so low compared to what’s allowed. He shared that he had spoken to the Planning Department staff about the traffic and he understood that the Commission could make him “jump through the hoops”. He couldn’t do anything about the traffic - if Homer were empty there would be no traffic.[1] The traffic impact generated by the development was lower than the permitted use. He explained that South Slope is a wide street and East Hill Road is an arterial. Traffic does not pass through a residential area and South Slope is only 100 meters from the driveway. The targeted occupant group would be somewhat low traffic. Mr. Neal commented that he saw traffic as becoming a big issue in Homer.
Chair Chesley asked Public Works Director Meyer to address the Commission. Mr. Meyer stated that Public Works does not normally comment on Conditional Use Permits. They are more interested when engineering plans are submitted and in review for zoning permits. Public Works was most focused on required improvements within street right-of-ways that the City would maintain in the future. Mr. Meyer commented that the staff report spoke to the need for a development agreement. There would be utility work done within the street right-of-way that would require review by Public Works however they don’t expect the developer to have detail on those prior to obtaining permission to build the condominiums in the first place. He believed that Public Works had received some preliminary engineering construction plans for this project. Mr. Meyer addressed the access stating that South Slope is a City maintained road under the rural road status and meets the standards for a local residential road. He did not see any need for improvements on South Slope and noted that the City does not have the authority to require the developer to improve the access road. Mr. Meyer expressed support for the left turn lane and added that the authority should be included in the code for future consideration. At this time he did not see any need for serious road improvements for his project and added that he did not like that intersection. Mr. Meyer expected that there would be other ways to get in and out of that area. He referred to the Transportation Plan that suggests that Shellfish become a connection from East Hill over and down Heath Street so that there would be multiple ways to get to the downtown area. He believed that the developer owned the property south of this development and would be discussing this issue in greater detail later.
Mr. Meyer addressed utilities stating that sewer and water are available on East Hill. A sewer and water service was extended into the Barnett property, which would have to be upsized. The sewer is problematic in that once it hits the corner it goes downhill. Those would not have gravity sewer service until sewer would be brought in from the south or a lift station installed for the lower units. The utilities were his biggest concern, on what the plan was and the schedule for installation. He explained that a phased construction would create a phased subdivision agreement and they could identify just that portion of the improvements that need to be done for each phase.
The Commission reviewed the phase schedule in the staff report. Phase I - Summer 2004; Phase II -Fall 2004 or Spring 2005; Phase II - Summer 2005; Phase IV - Summer 2006 and Phase V - Summer of 2007.
Mr. Meyer commented that without the road improvements they could have a water and sewer extension agreement. They would still have the same performance guarantees. This could be a subdivision agreement linked to a plat where a utilities extension agreement could be a side issue of the platting.
Mr. Meyer commented on the access saying the only other access was to the parking area at the south end on Shellfish. He stated that some questions regarding development of Shellfish could be answered when they see the development of the property to the south. Mr. Meyer stated that this would be a development agreement.
The Commission confirmed that the developer would have to install a pump station for the lower units until the lower property is developed because a Conditional Use Permit requires connection to the City sewer and water system. Community sewer does not meet the requirements. The development agreement would assure that the properly sized sewer lines are installed to meet future needs. An 8” pipe on a reasonable slope would serve an awful lot. Mr. Meyer advised that generally all mains for water and sewer are 8”. For water, it’s required for fire flow and for sewer it works best for clean out.
Mr. Neal explained his sewer and water plan. William Nelson is doing the engineering and the plans are at the 95% category. They’ve gone back to the engineer and should be fine. It’s an 8” sewer line on South Slope tying into the manhole on East Hill Road. His plans for the lower units are Plan A and Plan B. Plan A would bring him before the Commission again because he owns the land below that that he would be doing a subdivision on and installing water and sewer. He has been coordinating with the Public Works Department to make this a win/win deal. He added that by the time he gets to the lower units phase there would be water and sewer available on the lower end. Plan B is if something really bad happens he would pump the sewer back up to South Slope. Mr. Neal stated that the 8” main on South Slope was all they would ever need.
PFEIL/FOSTER - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-28 REVISED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Pfeil commented that this looks like a great development. Commissioner Hess agreed and added that he thought it would enhance the community. He voiced his support for having exact numbers to look at in making these types of decisions. Chair Chesley commented that exact numbers were more defensible in findings of fact than estimates. Commissioner Celentano stated that she didn’t feel there was a problem in not having the exact numbers.
Commissioner Foster asked if there was any response to public notice. City Planner McKibben advised that there was nothing.
Chair Chesley noted that posting the fire lanes in the turn-a-rounds was not a requirement at this time.
HESS/PFEIL - MOVE TO AMEND TO ADD TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS A REQUIREMENT FOR SOME SORT OF SIGNAGE FOR THE FIRE TURNAROUND FOR NO PARKING AS CONDITION #6.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
FOSTER/HESS – MOTION TO AMEND TO INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
Amended main motion now reads - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-28 REVISED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION, A REQUIREMENT FOR SOME SORT OF SIGNAGE FOR THE FIRE TURNAROUND FOR NO PARKING AS CONDITION #6 AND FINDINGS OF FACT
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, CELENTANO, HESS
A Conditional Use Permit requires five Yes votes and findings of the Planning Commission.
Motion carried.
The Commission thanked Mr. Neal for bringing a quality development before them and for all his homework and effort put into it. Mr. Neal thanked the Commission for their consideration.
The Chair called for a break at 9:22 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
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.
There were none.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The Commission hears a report
from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning
issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff,
applicants, and the public.
A. Memorandum
Re: Staff Report PL 04-21 Re: Resolution
04- A Resolution Of The City Council Of Homer, Alaska Renaming Gjosund
Drive To Pacific Place Within The City Of Homer At The Request Of The Property
Owners. POSTPONED AT APRIL 7TH AND
21ST HAPC MEETINGS.
City Planner McKibben noted a withdrawal of the request for change of name in a letter from Jane Wiebe. The name Gjosund was retained for historical reasons and at the wish of Louis and Linda Gjosund.
Motion on the floor - HESS/CHESLEY - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL04-21 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES:
NO: CELENTANO, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion failed.
B. Staff Report PL 04-30 Re: Election of Vice-Chair.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations to nominate and elect a new vice chair due to the resignation of Chair Bill Smith.
The Commission discussed the proper election procedures pursuant to Planning Commission Bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order.
Chair Chesley opened the floor to nominations.
Commissioner Pfeil nominated Commissioner Hess who declined the nomination. Commissioner Hess nominated Commissioner Pfeil who declined. Commissioner Celentano nominated Commissioner Foster who declined. Commissioner Foster nominated Commissioner Celentano who declined.
With support from the Commission, Commissioner Hess reconsidered his nomination. There being no further nominations the Chair closed nominations.
The Commission elected Commissioner Hess as Vice Chair by consensus.
Chair Chesley explained that he has been serving on the Road Standards Committee who has been working on a review and recommendations for amending the Transportation Plan that has been languishing since 2001. Not having a Transportation Plan has created problems in that the City has to have a Plan to put projects on the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) list. The Commission discussed some details of the responsibilities of serving on the Road Standards Committee.
Chair Chesley announced that he had resigned from the Road Standards Committee and had notified the Mayor of his resignation.
Commissioner Pfeil expressed an interest in serving on the Road Standards Committee.
Chair Chesley further explained some of the workings of the Roads Standards Committee and included that the suggestion was made at their last meeting to change their name to something like “The Transportation Committee”. A resolution would be on the next agenda to be considered by the Road Standard Committee.
Chair Chesley commented that Ex-Chair Bill Smith was currently serving on the Town Center Development Committee (TCDC). He asked for a consensus of support from the Commission to see Bill Smith continue as a Planning Commissioner “emeritus”[2] attendee and make the recommendation to the Mayor. The Commission agreed by consensus to bring their recommendation to the Mayor. Chair Chesley commented that Barb Seaman on the TCDC had asked if Mr. Smith was staying on the committee and offered to check with Mr. Smith to confirm his interest in remaining on the committee.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Borough Planning Commissioner Foster reported that the Glacierview Plat concerning Harry’s Alley came back to the Borough Commission. He believed his position was coming up and advised that he was approached by the Mayor inquiring of his interest in remaining on the commission. He wanted to see if there was anyone else interested and if the Commission wanted him to remain. There was no one on the Commission interested in taking Dr. Foster’s place.
Commissioner Foster stated that he would not be at the next meeting.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Planner McKibben reported that she was in Washington DC for the American Planning Association Conference and that she had some “really good stuff” to share with the Commission however she had not had time to put her notes in order to make a presentation prior to the meeting. She advised that she had attended a session on “big box and Main Street”. This was sponsored by Target and one of the speakers was a well-known supporter of creating good communities without regulation. He had some great examples on chain retailers - McDonald’s, Target, K-Mart, Wal-Mart - who had done good designs and good positive things, but the communities had to hold their feet to the fire. She shared an example of McDonald’s on the East Coast wanting to destroy an historical building. It went to court. The City won and now McDonald’s uses preserving an historical building as touting what they do. Ms. McKibben found some of the material about affordable housing very interesting.
On the signs violations, Ms. McKibben reported that Mr. Fraiman had not picked up the certified letter. She is making arrangements to have a letter delivered by a police officer. She had discussed the problem with The Alibi and was waiting for them to show up. There was some discussion on whether or not the church banner on the semi-trailer was gone or not. She advised that the Planning Department was dealing with the hot tub store’s sign in addition to the spa outside. Ms. McKibben agreed to bring the Commission up to speed on the status at the next meeting.
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. Proposed Steep Slope Ordinance; Memo
from Ron Drathman, City Manager, dated November 12, 2002; Minutes from Joint
Work Session of HAPC & Steep Slope Task Force dated Jan. 29, 2003.
B. US Army Corps of Engineers, Public
Notice SPN 2004-04, Bank Stabilization within the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
Alaska
Chair Chesley explained that he had requested information from staff on the proposed Steep Slope Ordinance. At the next meeting he advised they would talk more about Steep Slope time lines. He asked that staff review the grant and provide a list of the Keystone time frames when certain things should happen by according to the grant just for the Steep Slope Ordinance section. He further asked for the deliverables - what they are supposed to have at what time so they can create a calendar for the final product by April 2005. Ms. McKibben said she thought this was a matching funds grant and is a multi-year grant.
The Commission noted that Bank Stabilization was part of the Steep Slope issue. Chair Chesley commented that the bluffs at the shoreline and the hillside to the top of the bluff should be thought of in the same context - not to separate shoreline standards from other stuff, but to think of it all as one standard to address all of those areas. Commissioner Celentano commented that an earthquake would change the way people think of it. There was a comment that drainages would need to be taken into consideration. An example was when Bay Avenue was paved it concentrated the drainage and caused erosion on the bluff that used to be one of the most stable bluffs in town. Commissioner Foster commented that this was one of the major concerns as well as one of the points brought up at the Coastal Dynamics Workshop and is the way the State of Washington was dealing with their coastal management.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
There were none.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Foster wondered if there could be a regular time when the Commission could get the enforcement update. Then, when the City gets the new enforcement person that person could report. He shared that he felt bad always asking the status of issues. Dr. Foster shared his observations regarding corporate flags while driving through Soldotna the other day. He noted that Safeway has a corporate flag flying high above Safeway. He wanted to bring awareness to the flag issue, to make sure the Commission keeps abreast of it. He acknowledged that it’s covered in the Ordinances but just didn’t want to have a problem with this.
Chair Chesley thanked Dr. Foster for his highway time traveling to the Borough Planning Commission meetings and his role that helps make the connection between the two bodies.
Commissioner Foster commented that he is combining his travel to Soldotna with a project in partnership with the Borough in which he works with Coastal Management Program with Dan Bevington. He thanked Commissioner Chesley for being the chair and doing an excellent job tonight. He thanked Commissioner Hess for becoming the Vice Chair.
Commissioner Pfeil congratulated the new Vice Chair Hess saying he would be a great vice chair. He thanked Deputy City Clerk Benson for everything. He thanked staff for all their hard work saying “keep it up”.
Commissioner Hess thanked Deputy City Clerk Benson for her professionalism saying the Commission would miss her services. He commented on an article in the Homer Tribune regarding the footprint ballot. He added that the article said that a ballot might not be a valid way to amend zoning. It’s interesting and he thought the Commission would see many letters on the issue. Commissioner Hess shared that his company had some plans in for a Safeway in Seward that would replace the old Eagle Quality Center, which was basically the same store that was here in Homer. He stated that they obviously don’t have much zoning in Seward because the store was just a box. The store was 39,000 + sf. Seward is basically the same size community as Homer. There was everything in the store - a bakery, a liquor store, a deli and “the whole nine yards” in it. He commented that it was interesting where the size came in saying that he thought that 35-40,000 sf would work fine.
There was a brief discussion on the comparison of Homer and Seward populations.
Commissioner Celentano commented that she shared the same appreciation to Deputy City Clerk Benson and City Planner McKibben. She congratulated Vice Chair Hess and Chair Chesley in their new positions and stated she though they would both do a great job. Ms. Celentano lauded the job Vice Chair Chesley did for the meeting. (Commissioner Hess interjected his agreement). She thanked Dr. Foster for his travels and extra time spent. She reiterated prior comments that she was still learning so much and expressed her appreciation for everyone.
Chair Chesley expressed his appreciation for Commissioner Hess stepping up to be Vice Chair.
He thanked Commissioner Pfeil for agreeing to be on the Road Standards Committee. He thanked Bill Smith - absentia - for the continuing with the TCDC. He welcomed Ms. McKibben back and for responding to his late night emails of questions and research. He thanked Commission Celentano for making the effort to attend this meeting - as there was an applicant worried that there wasn’t going to be enough Commissioners for the CUP vote. He thanked Deputy City Clerk Benson for her astounding level of professionalism saying it would serve her well in her career wherever she goes and wished her luck in her endeavors.
Ms. McKibben announced that the next work session was on trails planning. The Commission discussed a time for the work session and all agreed on 6 p.m. prior to the May 19th regularly scheduled meeting.
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 10:04 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 19, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. There will be a worksession on May 19, 2004, at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
__________________________________________
DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK, CMC
Approved: _________________________________