Session 05-08 a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at 7:10p.m. on April 20, 2005 by Chair Chesley at the Homer City Hall Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS
CONNOR, KRANICH, PFEIL, CHESLEY, HESS, LEHNER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER FOSTER (excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
ROLL CALL
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
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
HESS/CONNOR MOVED TO MOVE ITEM G TO ITEM B
UNDER COMMISSION BUSINESS.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL OF
APRIL 6, 2005 MINUTES TO THE MAY 4, 2005 MEETING.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
The amended agenda was approved by consensus
of the Commission.
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A. Approval
of April 6, 2005 Minutes.
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 are approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
Debbie Poore, city resident and
Parks and Recreation Commissioner, read a statement into the record regarding
the Parks and Recreation Meeting of February 17, 2005 in which Chair Chesley of
the Planning Commission provided information to the Parks and Recreation
Commission about rights-of-way (ROW) and easements. She commented that Mr. Chesley spoke on the State ROW property at
the base of the spit and the need for additional parking for the spit trail and
he offered a sample motion regarding the Homer Spit Road ROW. She further commented that Bill Smith also
attended the meeting and spoke against a proposed vacation on the Crittenden
ROW and made suggestions as to how it could be developed to provide public
access to the beach. She stated that
Mr. Chesley gave a fair and unbiased presentation and was professional in his
delivery. Ms. Poore provided a copy of
her statement for the record.
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.
A. Staff
Report PL 05-40 Re: Request For Re-Zone From General Commercial One Zoning District To Rural
Residential Zoning District For Tracts I-1, I-2, I-3 And I-4 Of Tietjen
Subdivision No. 7, 4836 Alder Lane (Tract I-1), And 3 Vacant Lots That Have Not
Had Street Addresses Assigned To Date (Tracts I-2, I-3 And I-4).
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission
that after the application was given to the Planning Department, the applicant
requested that only one lot, lot I-1, be re-zoned to Rural Residential. She pointed out that since they are
decreasing the scope of the properties to be rezoned, not increasing it, it is
acceptable to act on this.
At the request of Chair Chesley, Ms. McKibben
explained the procedure for rezoning.
She cited HCC 21.70.010 Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Amendments which
states that the zoning map amendment may be requested by petition from a
majority of the property owners in the areas concerned and that no changes
shall be considered for an area less than one acre. She stated that the proposed lot is immediately adjacent to a
Rural Residential District and is greater than one acre. There is area proposed to rezone are all
owned by one property owner, so there was no need for the petition in this
case.
Ty Gates, property owner, commented that he had
requested this property be re-zoned several years ago. Looking into it further he realized that a
couple of the pieces need to be excluded from GC1.
Commissioner Hess clarified that only one
property in being requested to be re-zoned.
City Planner McKibben concurred and pointed out the lot on the map.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL
05-40 BY READING OF THE TITLE.
Commissioner Hess asked for clarification of HCC 21.70.010. It states that “b. Any person may
request a zoning ordinance amendment subject to the following conditions:” and
it gives three instances. He questioned if it is subject to all three
conditions or one or the other. City
Planner McKibben replied it is her understanding that it is or.
Chair Chesley asked if property owners with
in 300 feet have to sign the petition.
City Planner McKibben replied that they do not have to sign, but they
are notified of the re-zone.
There was discussion of the lack of clarity
of the Code in dealing with this. It is
a good time to look at the language and add it to the worklist.
City Planner McKibben stated that in the
motion to approve this, the Commission needs to be very clear that they are
only approving one lot for the rezone and that Is Tract I-1.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND THE STAFF REPORT
PL05-40 IN THE SUBJECT LINE TO BE THE REQUEST TO REZONE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL
ONE DISTRICT TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR TRACT I-1 TIETJEN SUBDIVISION
NO. 7 AT 4836 ALDER LANE.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND STAFF REPORT
PL05-40 TO AMEND LOCATION TO TAKE OUT “AND THREE UNADDRESSED VACANT LOTS”,
REMOVE PARCEL ID OF THE LAST THREE AND UNDER SIZE OF LOTS REMOVE 2, 3 AND 4.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
LEHNER/CONNOR CHANGE RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE
FOR TRACT I-1 TEITJEN SUBDIVISION NO. 7
Commissioner Lehner questioned whether the
attachments require amendment. City
Planner McKibben replied that the recommendation is what is most
important. Council will take final
action and they need to get the proper recommendation and she will provide
updated maps.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion): YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried
B. Staff
Report PL 05-41 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City
Code 21.59 Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District (BCWPD).
City Planner McKibben pointed out to the Commission that there is a laydown item from City Attorney Tans regarding the Bridge Creek ordinance. Ms. McKibben that in the proposed ordinance, Mr. Tans recommended that in the formula on line 82 by adding right of way and adding C. Mr. Tans is suggesting either “C” or “Dedication”. Ms. McKibben said she could not remember what the intent of the Commission is.
There were no public comments.
KRANICH/LEHNER
MOVED TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF REPORT PL05-41.
There was discussion whether or not to strike the word dedication or leave it. Chair Chesley requested that Bill Smith be contacted to find out what the proper wording should be. Mr. Smith could not be reached.
LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED THAT STAFF REPORT PL 05-41 BE MOVED TO COMMISSION BUSINESS ITEM C FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
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.
A. Staff
Report PL 05-42 Re: Mattox Subdivision Birch Terrace
Replat Preliminary Plat.
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that the laydown provided by Commissioner Foster was directed to the Virginia Lynn Subdivision not Mattox. She also stated that Fire Chief Painter reviewed the driveway and it has been approved.
Kenton Bloom, surveyor, spoke to the comments
from Public Works regarding the utilities coming to the right of way. The lot line is going to be adjusted so the
sewer line abuts the property line of the parcel. The line that was headed in a northeasterly direction will be
truncated and head back down in a southeasterly direction and leave a ten-foot
area for the sewer line to be on the property to avoid having a sewer in the
easement. Another factor besides mitigating
piping the stream as much as possible, is to keep everything on the downhill
side of the creek on one parcel and everything on the uphill side of the
driveway and creek on the uphill side so when they are landscaping and
developing on the south side it is more cohesive.
Steven Rouse, Executive Director of Kenai
Peninsula Housing Initiatives a non-profit housing development organization
that is the owner of the property and applicant recalled for the Commission
when Lot 19 was donated by the City it was requested that they do everything
possible to mitigate impact on the drainage ditch and he feels everyone would
agree that they did an exemplary job on that.
In this case, rather than have an additional entry point and put in
another twenty-foot culvert and speed the water up, they have done a good job
under Mr. Bloom’s and other peoples direction to provide turbidity ponds and
settling areas. It is the least amount
of impact they can possibly have and still have access to Lot 20. He commented
that this is another demonstration of their commitment to mitigate
drainage. The environmental assessment
is completed and given high marks and praise.
Commissioner Kranich spoke to the comments
from the Public Works that the sewer stub on Lot 19 is located about 15 feet
south of the driveway. Mr. Rouse said
they had measured it at approximately 11 feet and in speaking with Dan Garden
it is agreed that they will take the proposed lot line at about the center of
the existing culvert and turn it perpendicular to the road at that point, so
there is an adequate distance from the lot line to the existing sewer stub.
There was not a copy of the plat with the
updated lot lines available at the meeting.
Mr. Bloom clarified the changes referencing the lot lines on the current
plat. Mr. Bloom commented that
normally, the Borough does not want them the change the plat that the Planning
Commission looked at. The Borough will take that plat and look at the minutes
to make their recommendations. When the
final plat comes to the Borough it is all assimilated.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that he
had seen the plat document and it sounds like things are being handled.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT
PL05-42 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAT INCORPORATING
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS ADJUSTING THE LOT LINE SOUTH TO
INCORPORATE THE SEWER STUB OUT INTO LOT 19.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
VOTE: YES:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL 05-43 Re: Palmer Pines 2005 Replat
Subdivision.
Tim Mullikin, surveyor, stated that he had no
particular comments, but could answer questions.
Commissioner Connor asked Mr. Mullikin about
the letter that was provided from neighboring property owner Mr. Isham,
concerning the ROW narrowing down to a 10-foot easement as it enters Lot
4. Mr. Mullikin replied that he does
not know about the width through Mr. Isham’s parcel, he has only looked at the
ROW up to the subject property. He
commented that a good deal of that road that goes up and continues to the north
has a very narrow easement. There are a
lot of possible of sources for an easement.
10 feet may be his interpretation, many easements like this are ditch to
ditch or what was used.
PFEIL/KRANICH MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL
05-43 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commissioner Kranich commented that it
appears that this plat seems to clear up and establishes ROW where the existing
travel way is. The letter from Mr.
Isham pertains to areas outside the plat.
City Planner McKibben followed up stating
that currently a portion of Tract 1 is in the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection
District and the replat changes it so one lot is entirely inside the District
and one lot outside.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
C. Staff
Report PL 05-35 Re: Eagle View Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary
Plat. Postponed 4-6-05.
Commissioner Lehner excused herself from the
table having declared a Conflict of Interest at the previous meeting.
Roger Imhoff, surveyor, comment that the
applicant has gone the extra mile to get the 3:1 ratio exception recommended
approval from the Planning Commission.
He pointed out that they could have designed the subdivision not to have
to request the exception but it would not have been a good subdivision because
they would have had to incorporate a large portion of the wetlands into one lot
to do that. They recognized that it was
not a good situation. There is always a
trade off. They don’t ask for
exceptions just because they think it is the easy way to go. He hopes the Commission appreciates the fact
that thought did go into this plan. The
proposed lot sizes for this subdivision are all fairly big compared to the
other lots within Eagle View Subdivision.
Eagle View Subdivision has 59 lots and a significant number of those
lots are only one acre. The lot sizes
in the proposed subdivision are 2.7, 2.8 and 1.8 acres. They are not extraordinarily different than
the other lots in Eagle View. Mr.
Imhoff invited the Commission to ask questions about steps that have been taken
or steps they have tried to take.
In reference to the letter dated 4-15-05 from
Mr. Imhoff to City Planner McKibben, he stated that he had spoken with Hans
Klausner of the Soil Conservation Service.
Mr. Klausner stated that they do not have a conservation easement that
they offer for landowners and suggested checking with the Land Trust. Mr. Klausner and Shirley Sholenberger were
warm to the idea that they draft some type of conservation easement of their
own listing the restriction and granting certain uses, which would be a recorded document and would be referenced
on the plat. Mr. Imhoff continued that
he spoke to Mr. Clay, the property owner, and was open to the idea. He spoke to Dan Westerburg, Mr. Clay’s
attorney, who stated that it would be more proper to be able to readily enforce
such a conservation easement to put it as a deed restriction in a warranty. To Mr. Imhoff’s knowledge, Mr. Westerburg is
proceeding in that direction.
City Planner McKibben added that she had
spoken with Mr. Clay and understands that he intends to follow that route as
well.
In response to Mr. Imhoff’s comments, Chair
Chesley said it was not the Commission’s intent to communicate that there was
not a lot of thought put into the project.
It was a different type of 3:1 exemption than has been requested in the
past. Most of them have been over the
bluff where there is a clear delineation where land can’t be developed.
There was discussion as to how this would
follow in writing from approving this preliminary plat to the deed. Mr. Imhoff commented that there are times
when there will be a note on the plat that notifies the public that certain
covenants and restrictions may effect the subdivision so the public record is
check when considering purchasing a lot.
KRANICH MOVED THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ITEM 2 TO PLACE A PLAT NOTE TO REQUIRE A RESTRICTION BE
PLACED ON RESPECTIVE WARRANTY DEEDS PROHIBITING FILL OR DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND
PORTIONS OF LOTS.
City Planner McKibben voiced her concern that
they could not put that language down as a plat note. The plat note should refer people to look for other restrictions
other than those noted on the plat.
Motion failed for lack of second.
KRANICH/CONNOR MOVED THAT STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ITEM 2 TO INCLUDE A PLAT NOTE THAT STATES
THIS SUBDIVISION MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS OR EASEMENTS
THAT MAY NOT BE SHOWN AND PUBLIC SHOULD REFER TO PUBLIC RECORD.
Commissioner Connor questioned what the
recourse if someone builds there. Chair
Chesley responded that issue is out of the Commissions pervue. He pointed out that the owner is going way
beyond what they are required to do by working with the Commission and
stipulating to do that. They are
agreeing to do this in exchange for granting the 3:1 ratio.
Commissioner Kranich asked how this would
show up in a title search and commented that there isn’t a way to guarantee
that it will be added.
City Planner McKibben replied that the owner
has given his good word that this will happen and when a title search is done
it will show a restrictive clause in the warranty deed.
VOTE:
YES: KRANICH, CHESLEY, PFEIL,
HESS, CONNOR
Motion carried.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ADD CONDITION 3 TO STAFF
RECOMMENDATION STATING THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS EXCEPTION TO THE 3:1
RATIO IF PLAT IS SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE WET
PORTIONS OF THE LOTS.
Phil Clay, applicant, questioned that if this
would require a warranty deed goes before the Borough.
City Planner McKibben replied that the
Borough has the exception to 3:1 and the Commission is recommending that the
Borough grant the exception based on the deed restriction.
Mr. Clay wanted to address that they may want
to get water from the lower section which could include ditching to get a water
line and wondered if trails would be considered development. Mr. Clay pointed out that the development
line is basically where the water line is.
There would be water wells above that line.
City Planner McKibben clarified that the lots
are not undevelopable. A person could
apply to the Corp. of Engineers and get permits to fill them and build
there. The idea is that by not building
on them wetland is being preserved, which was the concern. The goal with the deed restriction is to
limit the development and preserve the wetlands. It is her understanding that Mr. Clay would like to continue to
use the well that is there and add trails to connect to the trail system in the
area.
Mr. Imhoff commented that in his letter from
April 8th he thought he was clear that they were proposing to
prohibit placing fill in the wet area, ditching for drainage purposes or
construction of any permanent structure, excepting “well house”
enclosures. He further stated the
easement will allow placement of wells and/or spring boxes from domestic water
supplies and maintenance thereof. It
was their intent from the beginning that the owner did want to use that area
for water.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND HIS AMENDMENT THAT
RECOMMENDATION 3 READ THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS AN EXCEPTION TO THE
3:1 RATIO IF THE PLAT IS SUBJECT TO A DEED RESTRICTION THAT PROTECTS THE
INTEGRITY OF THE WETLANDS.
Commissioner Kranich questioned if the areas
are specified as wetlands. City Planner
McKibben replied that they are outside the City of Homer wetlands general
permit because they are in the annexed area.
There are new wetlands maps for the current City of Homer area and she
is certain that these lots are identified as wetlands.
VOTE:
YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR,
KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
There was discussion to clarify what the
Commission was voting on.
VOTE:
YES: CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY,
KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion): YES: PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS,
KRANICH, CHESLEY
Motion carried.
D. Memorandum
Re: Staff Report PL 04-104 Re: Tsunami View Subdivision Preliminary
Plat – Postponed 12-1-04 & 12-15-04 & 3-16-05 & 4-6-05.
Postponed at the request of the applicant.
E. Staff Report PL 05-36 Re: Virginia
Lynn Subdivision No. 6 Preliminary Plat.
Postponed from 4-6-05.
City Planner McKibben commented on City Attorney Tans’ recommendations. Platting allows less discretion than zoning. The comments and recommendations are based on the Borough and City existing codes. If the Platting Code allows decisions to be made based on public health, safety and welfare, the Commission can do that. The City of Homer Code does not, the Borough Code does. If the Commission chooses to make denial it needs to be cited on specific code sections, either City Code or Borough Code. If the proposal meets the standard for subdivision approval, it is not proper to deny the replat solely because of the subdivision covenants. Covenants are contractual matters between the subdivision owners and not a basis for making re-platting decisions. If the Commission does recommend disapproval, Mr. Tans recommends that written comments be provided to the Borough.
There was discussion clarifying Mr. Tans’
comments.
Steven Rouse, applicant, read his letter, rebutting neighboring property owners comments from the April 6, 2005 meeting, into the record. His key points were:
ü The proposed lower lot is 7500 square feet,
which meets the size requirement. The
driveway access will be off Mattox Road.
ü The proposed upper lot is 8839 square
feet. The site plan does leave healthy
spruce and birch trees on the northern corner of the lot, which he intends to
leave, considering the aesthetics of the neighborhood above maximum land use.
ü Mr. Rouse contracted with Kenton Bloom of
Seabright Surveys to identify the topography and develop an approach to protect
his property from damages caused by drainage from other lots. Their directive and approach is to ensure
that Mr. Rouse’s property drains toward the ditch running parallel to Mattox
road. He does not want development on
upper Lot 4A to adversely impact lower Lot 4B.
ü In December 2004, Mr. Rouse hired a
contractor to implement the plan that included capturing any southern flowing
drainage by constructing an open ditch running the length of the property line
between Lots 4A and 4B and emptying into the drainage ditch parallel to Mattox
Road.
ü Mr. Rouse advised neighboring property owner
Glen Satterfield and advised him of his plans.
They discussed drainage from the beginning and agreed to mutually
construct an open ditch between their lots that would ensure that any site
drainage from Lot 4B would be captured and directed into the drainage ditch
parallel to Mattox and the he could also use for his own property issues to
effect drainage into this ditch and mitigate his current site problems.
ü Photos were provided to show Ms. Shows
residence has a gutter system that takes run-off from her residence and directs
it toward a downspout on the north side of the residence. Mr. Rouse stated that Ms. Shows lot has
significant drainage away from her residence on the south.
ü Nothing about the proposed development of Lot
4 will adversely impact the drainage away from her home.
ü Lot 1, owned by Lou Marion, is unaffected by
this subdivision or any subsequent development.
ü In creating this subdivision, additional
drainages will have to be built to protect development on the lower lot. The additional drainage will benefit the
neighborhood. There is no threat to the
public health or safety of this subdivision.
ü Two new houses will not lower the property
values in the subdivision.
ü Driveway access and set backs have been
reviewed with the Public Works Department and both proposed lots will submit
application for permits for driveways from Mattox Road.
ü The Commission has no jurisdiction regarding
civil issues, including covenants.
ü Mr. Rouse’s letter states that he has the
best interests of the land and the neighborhood in his thoughts and
actions.
Mr. Rouse thanked the Commission for the
opportunity to present his information.
Glen Satterfield, neighboring property owner,
asked the Commission to recognize that this is a residential and if Mr. Rouse
keeps it to a single house dwelling it won’t effect values and impact
traffic. Mr. Satterfield said he has
never seen any plans on how Mr. Rouse intends to develop the area.
Mr. Rouse gave a copy of his development plan
to Mr. Satterfield.
Lou Marion, neighboring property owner,
stated that when buying property a person looks at the size of the
subdivision. You have a reasonable
aspect of how big it is going to be.
When contractors come in and start subdividing lots from there, and
crowd it up. He asked the Commission to
take that into consideration. People
who live their people had and expectation of how big the subdivision was going
to be.
Mr. Rouse clarified that he never discussed
putting a duplex on the property.
PFEIL/HESS MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT DUE TO THE
CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE SMALL LOT SIZE AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS THE OWNER SHALL SIGN A STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE READ AND WILL CONFORM
TO APPLICABLE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOUND IN
21.45.050.
VOTE:
YES: LEHNER, HESS, CHESLEY,
CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Commissioner Lehner expressed that this is a
difficult conflict to assess in a fair and reasonable way. Ms. Lehner reiterated comments from the
meeting of April 6th. She
commented that she is struggling with the petition from 26 residents who have
subdivision concerns with respect to this replat. She read excerpts from the Alaska Planning Commission handbook
and offered her interpretation that a preliminary plat presents a template for
the development of that area. That
template isn’t approved lightly, a lot of things are considered when approving
a plat map. She is wrestling with the
concept of how change to the original subdivision plat can still stay
appropriate and consistent. She read a
portion regarding maintaining community standards and commented that community
standards include the general welfare standard that she is wrestling with, and
clearly the other folks in the subdivision are concerned about. They are concerned about their general
welfare with respect to changing the template that they think gives them a
consistent expectation of what is going to be happening around them. She read further that “the intent of
subdivision provisions is to assure that newly created lots do not become
problems and create unanticipated costs for their owners, local government, or
the owners of adjacent lots.” She
stated that clearly there are concerns that adjacent owners have as to what
effect this replat will have on their lots either with respect to drainage,
land values, and quality of life.
Lastly she read that “approval of minor plats have to be based on the
same consideration as major plats, which means compliance with design standards
of local regulations, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance
with primary subdivision criteria.” She
feels like there are a lot of people in this neighborhood who have raised the
issue that their welfare, expectation and the consistency of how the
neighborhood is being developed are being threatened. She believes they have legitimate concerns.
She believes Mr. Rouse has legitimate concern too, to develop the property in ways that are consistent with code, and with his desires and is trying to find the best way to balance that. She questioned how much latitude the Commission has to require him to develop a plan that his neighbors can respond to.
Commissioner Lehner does not have this
resolved and voiced her concern that the Commission will continue to get these
replats and is concerned that the general nature of a large area will be
irrevocably altered. Ms. Lehner said
she would like to have more information.
She suggested an expert opinion from someone in the Real Estate
community, for example, whether or not this replat adversely affects the
property values in the neighborhood.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO POSTPONE THE DECISION
ON THIS PLAT UNTIL THE COMMISSION HAS MORE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS REPLAT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON PROPERTY
VALUES OR GENERAL WELFARE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
Commissioner Kranich asked if, based on the
evidence submitted tonight, if this lot was part of the original subdivision.
City Planner McKibben replied that it is her
understanding that it was not and asked to review the information that was
provided to Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen for the record. Ms. McKibben read the information provided
by Mary Ann Rowe from First American Title for the record. Mrs. Rowe’s memorandum regarding Lot 4,
Virginia Lynn Sub. #3 states that there following:
ü There are no Conditions, Covenants or
Restrictions (CCR’s) disclosed under the standard exceptions.
ü Lot 4 was purchased by James Irany in 1977.
ü At the time Bear Fritz Land Company
subdivided the adjoining property, Mr. Irany joined in the plat and became Lot
4 since there was a vacation of a road or alley shown on the plat of the
original Virginia Lynn, which was added on to Mr. Irany’s parcel.
ü Bear Fritz Land created covenants on their
new subdivision lots in Virgina Lynn #3, however Mr. Irany did not join in the
execution of the CCRs so they do not bind his lot.
Commissioner Connor voiced her agreement with
Commissioner Lehner’s comments and concerns about protecting and improve the
health, safety and general welfare of the people. In her opinion the general welfare is being compromised. She stated she is not prepared to support
the plat.
Commissioner Lehner asked if it would be appropriate to hold a public
hearing on this. Chair Chesley advised
her that notice had been sent to property owners within 300 feet, as
required.
Commissioner Hess commented that he realizes the health and welfare
statement is in the Borough Subdivision Code, but heard the applicant address
health and welfare issues.
Commissioner Lehner briefly reiterated her earlier comments and
reaffirmed that she is wrestling with this because she knows this is going to
come up over and over. She doesn’t feel
they have very good guidance right now with respect to specific criteria that
they can use to say whether or not a proposed new subdivision will negatively
impact the larger subdivision as a whole.
Commissioner Kranich stated that the City has an overriding layer to look
at and that is the Zoning Code. The
area is zoned Urban Residential and there are certain criteria that apply to
every parcel of land in the Urban Residential zone. That is the criteria the Commission should look at.
Commissioner Hess agreed and continued that this proposed subdivision
meets all the criteria for the zoning district for lot size and there is
nothing the Code that prevents this subdivision and does not see how they can
turn this down.
Commissioner Pfeil commented that he would like to hear Commissioner
Foster weigh in on this. He further
commented that this is a good argument for revisiting lot sizes.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, PFEIL, LEHNER
NO:
CHESLEY, KRANICH, HESS
Motion fails.
Chair Chesley commented that it can’t be assumed that just because there
are subdivision provision for subdividing in the Code, it isn’t just a slam
dunk that everyone who applies for one will get it approved. There are very valuable overriding community
concerns about density of development.
The items that Ms. Lehner previously reference are the things that are
hard to quantify.
Commissioner Hess pointed out that this is a recommendation that goes
before the Borough and people can make comment there as well.
VOTE: (Main Motion) YES: LEHNER,
KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, PFEIL
ABSTAIN:
CONNOR
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at 9:35 pm. The Meeting resumed at 9:45 pm.
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. Staff
Report PL 05-44 Re: Approval of Mitigation Plan within the
BCWPD for Lot 14, Block 2, Kelley Ranch Subdivision, 1085 Kalalock Court as
requested by Arthur and Tessa Dunn.
PFEIL MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL 05-44 BY READING OF TITLE WITH THE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Arthur Dunn, property owner, stated he had
submitted a mitigation plan previously for a house he built that the Commission
approved. He has monitored it and there
are no erosion issues and the field is working the was it was designed to. He plans on following the same plan for this
development. He pointed out one of the
recommendations that the detached garage have a drain field around it. Mr. Dunn remarked that the drain field
around the home has the sole purpose of keeping water from underneath his
house. The rain gutters from the house
go to the drain field around the house and water away from the home and down
into the holes he will dig and have felt paper and rocks. His concern is that a drain field around the
garage, which is going to be a on a slab, would be a cost to him that is not
necessary. He could run piping from the
gutters off the garage under the ground to the same holes and achieve the same
objective with minimal cost. He agrees
with the ditching recommendation.
City Planner McKibben commented that the goal
is to protect the watershed. With
reference to the recommendation for the garage, the impervious surface created
by the roof does not allow the water to seep into the ground. It creates more force and sometimes nasty
things collect, especially on the driveway.
The purpose of the drain field around the garage was to slow down and
direct the water into the ground. The
proposal to use the down spouts and drain them into the other drain fields that
have been created for the house will work just as well.
Commissioner Pfeil asked what piping Mr. Dunn
would use. Mr. Dunn said yes they would
be using perforated piping.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND RECOMMENDATION 5
TO READ THE GARAGE WILL ALSO HAVE RAIN GUTTERS INSTALLED THAT WILL DRAIN TO THE
PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM FROM THE HOUSE.
VOTE: YES:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion): YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL 05-41 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City
Code 21.59 Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District (BCWPD).
Bill Smith stated that C on line 82 is incorrect. Mr. Smith when to board and reviewed the formula for the Commission and members of the audience.
LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED TO EDIT LINE 82 BY DELETING THE UNDERLINED C.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
VOTE (Main Motion): YES: CONNOR, PFEIL,
CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 05-39 Re: Kenai
Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan Update.
City Planner McKibben stated that the Borough is updating their Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the Borough. At the eleventh and a half hour, they have requested comments from the City of Homer. Several Commissioners attended a presentation from the Borough at the last City Council Committee of the Whole meeting. Included in the packet is a copy of the resolution from the City of Homer to the Borough regarding updates and changes. City Planner McKibben suggested that they look specifically at the Homer issues and the areas on the resolution to make recommendations.
City Planner McKibben pointed out an issue of contention that she has how the Borough Plans relate to the City Plans. The Borough has retained planning authority and delegated zoning authority to the cities. In the Borough Code they have adopted the Kenai Borough Comprehensive Plan, they have gone on and adopted the Comprehensive Plans for Homer, Kenai, Soldotna, Seward and Seldovia. She said the process of how they amend and update the plans is not very clear. Ms. McKibben suggested that it be added to the Borough Code that the cities Comprehensive Plans are adopted as a chapter and additional element in where they conflict, the more current takes precedence. It would be helpful in the Borough’s Comprehensive Plan to talk about the cities Comprehensive Plans.
The Commission reviewed the recommendations from Crista Cady-Hippchen that were provided in the packet in reference to the resolution and discussed at length changes and updates they would like to recommend. The following amendments were discussed:
ü
Page
4 add a fifth bullet that reads: Comprehensive plans of the incorporated
cities.
ü
Page
4 add to the end of Planning Section: Unlike zoning, the Borough has not
delegated planning powers to the incorporated cities. The cities create and adopt individual comprehensive plans, which
set the framework for decisions and policies within the cities. These plans must be adopted by the
Borough. The Cities of Homer, Soldotna,
Seward, Seldovia and Kenai have adopted comprehensive plans. These plans are updated from time to time,
by the individual city. After adoption
by the City they are forwarded to the Borough for adoption by ordinance. After adoption by ordinance they should be
considered as additional elements or chapters to the borough wide plan.
ü
Adding
a bullet under tourism for the Kayak Festival.
ü
Add
more information about the Islands and Ocean Visitor Center under other
attractions, for example that it is the headquarters for the Alaska National
Maritime Wildlife Refuge and its partnership with the National Estuarine
Research Reserve.
ü
Additional
bullets on 3-25 for the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Offices and
Kachemak Bay State Park and State Wilderness Park.
ü
Correcting
that the Homer Ice Skating Rink is completed.
ü
Add
camping, hiking, kayaking and wildlife viewing to popular activities for the
area.
ü
Add
Implementation Item G under goal 6.3 that would address entering into an “Area
of City Impact Agreement”.
City Planner McKibben will prepare a memo for the City Council and will give a copy to Ms. Cady-Hippchen.
Chair Chesley reviewed the list of remaining
items on the agenda.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO POSTPONE THE
REMAINING FIVE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
B. Staff
Report PL 05-45 Re: Proposed Ordinance 04-52 Amending HCC 21.48
Central Business District 21.48.060 (h) Landscaping Requirements, and Section
21.49 General Commercial 1, 21.49.060 (h).
C. Staff
Report PL 05-46 Re:
Proposed Amendment to HCC 21.45.040 (b) Dimensional Requirements (b)
Building Setbacks (1).
D. Staff
Report PL 05-47 Re: Proposed Amendment to HCC 21.60.060 Table 2,
Maximum Total Sign Area Per Zoned Lot by Zoning District.
E. Staff
Report PL 05-38 Re: Proposed Amendment To Homer City Code
Re: More than One Permitted Principle
Use on a Lot.
F. Staff Report PL 05-02 Amended Re: Draft
– 2001 Homer Area Transportation Plan, Updated 2004. Postponed.
H. Staff Report PL 04-109 Re:
Commission Work List – On-going.
REPORTS
A. Borough
Report
There was no Borough Report
B. Kachemak
Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning
Commission Report
PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT
City Planner McKibben reported that she and
City Manager Wrede had lunch with the Board of Realtors today and answered
questions on wetlands mapping, Bridge Creek Watershed amendment, enforcement
and the hospital.
Ms. McKibben commented on the previous discussion on subdividing. As Ms. Lehner had said, the Comprehensive Plan is the overall guiding document and it is important to remember that the subdivision code and zoning code are implementation tools for that. We want to use the subdivision code as a way to guide development but it needs to be consistent and tone needs to set out in the Comprehensive Plan. We need to have a basis in the plan on our vision and lots sizes are real important to the Commission and recommends having a lively discussion about lot sizes, density, water/sewer and those types of things.
The next worksession agenda will have Public Works Director Meyer to discuss subdivision agreements and the Residential Office Sign Code. Commissioner Hess asked that Mr. Meyer address how storm water and development activity plans apply to subdivision agreements.
Chair Chesley asked about the Platting Committee and authority to delegate authority. City Planner McKibben said she didn’t have anything new on the Platting Committee and the she and the City Manager had been working on putting something together on the delegation of authority.
Chair Chesley commented on questions that Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen had posed regarding conflict of interest. He said he had been review that topic and a procedure that is recommended in the Alaska Planning Commissioners Handbook is that if anyone thinks they have a conflict, they should contact the City Planner before the meeting so the attorney can make a determination as to whether or not it constitutes a conflict. That may be something to consider. The codes talk so much about financial, and not about being on a board or a property owner for example. It is not a clear cut and dry thing and need to continue to work on it and perhaps talk to the City Attorney about it.
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. City
Of Homer Board Of Adjustment – Decision On Vann Appeal.
B. Registration
for class: Understanding Deeds & Descriptions/Riparian Boundaries.
Chair
Chesley asked Ms. McKibben if there was funding available to send any of the
Commissioners to the class. She said
she would look into it.
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 Lehner offered kudos to the Commission for dealing with the issue that she was effected by. Wrestling with how a landowner who is willing to do something that is in the community’s best interest and figuring out how to facilitate is a step in the right direction.
Commissioner Hess commented that he is concerned about the workload. Just about every week items get postponed. He feels like they are overwhelmed.
There was discussion about having meeting start at 6:00pm and canceling the worksession from time to time if needed and spending time discussing ideas to streamline the meetings.
Commissioner Connor commented that she had missed the last meeting to attend a three-day conference on mining and sustainable resources. What she walked away with is that this is huge scale development and will impact the villages and life as they know it will cease to exist. She went over with environmental concerns but left feeling very heavy with the burden of how people’s lives will change. She feels that out of respect for people in the propose Pebble Mine region it would be a nice thing for Homer to stop and take a deep breath and let the people in the villages make the decision for themselves.
Chair Chesley commented that he had a good discussion with Commissioner Kranich after last nights meeting and emphasized that they are a team. He recommended that if someone has issue with another that they discuss it with that person to see if it can’t get resolve. If that can’t happen then talk to the Chair or Vice Chair and if it is a staff issue, talk to that person or if needed talk to the department head. He thanked everyone for all the work they do.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work
session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment.”
There being no further business
to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 4, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers. There will
be a worksession at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY
CLERK
Approved: