Session 05-11, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Hess at 7:08 p.m. on June 1, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

PRESENT:       COMMISSIONERS:  HESS, CONNOR, FOSTER, LEHNER, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

ABSENT:        CHESLEY (excused)

 

STAFF:            CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON

                        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

D.    Commissioner Excused Absences

 

The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

 

A.                 Approval of May 18, 2005 regular meeting minutes.

 

The Regular Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2005 were amended and approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

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.

 

There were no public comments.

 

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 05-59   Re:  Vacation of Right-of-Way for a portion of Bartlett Street in conjunction with South Peninsula Hospital Subdivision 2005 Addition.

 

City Planner McKibben said at the prior public hearing on the re-plat of the South Peninsula Hospital site, proper public notice was not given of the vacation of the right-of-way (ROW) at the top of Bartlett Street.

 

FOSTER/LEHNER- MOVED TO GRANT APPROVAL OF STAFF REPORT PL 05-59 TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE NORTH 65.5 FEET OF BARTLETT STREET BETWEEN LOT 1 BLOCK 8 AND LOT 2 BLOCK 7 FAIRVIEW SUBDIVISION.

 

VOTE:  YES.  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS.

 

Motion carried.

 

B.        Staff Report PL 05-60   Re:  Request For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup #05-10 McGreenery For Approval Of A Reduction In The Setback From A Dedicated Right Of Way As Permitted By HCC 21.48.040 (B) (4) At 445 Grubstake Avenue, Lot 2, Block 11, Glacier View Subdivision.

 

A letter from Jay-Brant General Contractors as laydown information was provided to the Commissioners.  City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.   

 

Laura Patty, city resident, opposes the setback stating there was no reason for the variance.  She owns the adjoining lot and will have a 70 foot trailer outsider her window.  Although they are only asking for five extra feet from the variance, once it is in place and a deck built it will be too large of a structure for the existing lot.

 

Vice Chair Hess clarified this was not a variance.  City Planner McKibben explained there is a 20 ft. setback requirement from ROW’s and the applicant is requesting less than a 20 ft. setback.  The Homer City Code (HCC) allows for a reduction of the setback from the ROW. 

 

Katherine George, city resident, said Laura Patty owns a massage studio next to the subject property.  The business is well used by many people and it is a business that requires a quiet setting.  A building 5 ft. closer to her business will result in a decline of her business.

 

Tom McGreenery, applicant, said he was in the process of purchasing the property from Ken Castner.  The 5 ft. of stairs and 4 ft. porch will create no additional noise or disruption.  He asked that the reduction in the setback be granted, as it is allowed in the commercial district.  Mr. McGreenery provided the Commission with photos depicting the front and side view of the porch and stairs.  He explained the trailer is a single wide 14 ft. x 70 ft., the lot is 100 ft. deep, and there is a 10 ft. setback for utility easement and 20 ft. setback from the ROW.  The arctic entry is flush with the front of trailer.  The porch and stairs would go 9 ft. in the 20 ft. setback.  Mr. McGreenery concluded the trailer is attractive, allowed in the district, and staff recommended approval.

 

Ruthe Schoder-Ehri lives across the street and would prefer real houses to pre-fab units.

 

FOSTER/PFEIL – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-60 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.

 

Staff Recommendations and Findings:

Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit.

 

21.61.020  Prior to granting a conditional use permit, it shall be established that the use satisfies the following conditions:

 

A.        The use is consistent with the purpose of Chapters 21.28 through 21.70 and the purpose of the zoning district.

Finding:           The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code as it complies with a conditionally permitted use per HCC 21.48.040 (b) (4).  This is an area of mixed residential and commercial uses.  The addition of the mobile home is consistent with the surrounding land uses in this neighborhood.  HCC 21.48.020 (p) allows mobile homes, subject to the requirements set forth in HCC 21.61.080 (g) (1) and (g) (2).

 

B.        The value of the adjoining property will not be negatively impacted greater than

that anticipated from other permitted uses in this district.

Finding:           The value of surrounding properties will not be negatively impacted with the addition of a mobile home that will be used as a single-family residence.   HCC 21.48.020 (p) permits mobile homes, subject to the requirements set forth in HCC 21.61.080 (g)(1) and (g)(2); within the Central Business District (CBD).  The allowance of an artic entry and staircase extending into the usual 20-foot setback will enhance the site for the future residents of the home the applicant proposes to place on the lot. The requirements for mobile homes in the CBD include: 

1. The mobile home shall contain sleeping accommodations, a flush toilet, a tub or shower and kitchen facilities, with plumbing and electrical connections provided for attachment to outside systems.

2. The mobile home shall be fully skirted and if a single-wide unit, shall be tied down with devices that meet State standards.”

The applicant has stated that he will comply with all the items listed in HCC 21.61.080 g. 1 and 2.  In addition to the stated requirements for sleeping accommodations, sanitary and kitchen facilities, as well as the plumbing and electrical connections and skirting and tie downs he will install the arctic entry and a 16 foot by 14 foot wood deck and a chain link fence as further improvements to the property.

C.        The proposed use is in harmony with the community plan and with surrounding land use.

 

Applicant response:               “Both the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding land uses allow for a single family residence – mobile home.  Numerous other mobile homes exist in Glacierview Subdivision.”

 

Finding:           The Comprehensive Plan Update states “The City shall encourage infilling of the area planned and zoned as CBD prior to contemplating enlarging the zoning district.”  Homer City Code 21.48.010 Purpose states: The district is also intended to accommodate a mixture of residential and commercial uses with conflicts being resolved in favor of business.”  Single family residences, including mobile homes, duplexes and multiple-family dwellings are permitted uses within the Central Business District.  Existing surrounding land uses are made up of single family and multi-family residences, mixed use, residential/commercial business and vacant land.

 

D.        Public services and facilities are adequate to service the proposed use.

 

Finding:           Public services and facilities are adequate to service the proposed residence as city water and sewer are available.  Electricity is available and will be connected to the residence.

 

E.         In evaluating the above-mentioned conditions, consideration was given to the harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density, to the harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character, to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets and roads, and to any other relevant impact of the use.

 

Applicant Response:     no effect

 

Finding:        The proposed addition of a mobile home residence will not add a significant amount of traffic to the neighborhood.  The proposed structure is of a scale in harmony with surrounding uses, and the density of development on the lot is consistent with the requirements of HCC 21.48.

 

F.         Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the Homer Advisory Planning Commission to fulfill the above mentioned conditions shall be met by the applicant.  Such conditions may include but are not limited to, requiring control of ingress/egress, fences, time limitations, etc.

 

Applicant

Response:                     b) fences and walls:  plan to build small rock retaining wall and a 5 foot chain link fence on south lot line

 

                                       c) surfacing of parking area:  gravel

 

                                       k) time period within which the proposed use shall be developed:  1 – 6 months

 

                                       all other items, not applicable

 

Finding:        The above proposed development includes use of some existing materials at the site for a retaining wall and five foot chain link fence along the south lot line.  The retaining wall and fence, as well as the gravel parking area are acceptable site development methods.

 

G.        Buildings shall comply with building codes adopted by the State of Alaska.

 

H.        Building and site development shall conform to the City of Homer Community Design Manual.

 

Finding:           The Design Manual, except for outdoor lighting, does not apply to residential uses of less than twelve residential units.  All outdoor lighting associated with the new residence will comply with the requirements of HCC 21.49.080.

 

Commissioner Foster said the reasoning behind the CUP (conditional use permit) process is to produce a friendly pedestrian environment in the Central Business District, and the walkway in the setback does just that.  City Planner McKibben added that the stairway will be 11 ft. from the ROW and will not intrude in the visibility of passing vehicles.  The 4 ft. porch and 5 ft. stairway are a minor intrusion and mobile homes are allowed in the district.

 

Commissioner Connor commented that the porch could be rearranged and set to the side.  She said the value of the adjoining properties could be negatively impacted.

 

VOTE:  YES.  PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER.

 

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 05-61   Re:  Bidarka Heights Shadley Addition Subdivision Preliminary Plat.

 

LEHNER/KRANICH – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-61 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Staff Recommendations

1.         Dedication of a 30-foot right-of-way creating half the south extension of Highland Drive to         Tract 1B.

2.         Show access to a utility easement per HCC 22.10.051.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendations.

 

Jerry Anderson, representative for the applicant, introduced himself stating he was here to answer questions.  Commissioner Connor noted the 100 ft. easement on each side of the creek and questioned the waste water for the lots.  Mr. Anderson answered that the Borough requires waste water for lots over five acres in size.  He stated the parent plat allows development within the 100 ft. setback with a city permit.

 

Commissioner Foster said the Commission had a prior meeting on subdivision requirements and agreements.  He asked Mr. Anderson to share a grand scale plan of the property.  Mr. Anderson explained the applicant Jonathan McCubbins is cutting off seven acres for his sister.  Although they had talked about creating another lot it was Mr. McCubbins’ intent to keep the parcel in the family.

 

Mr. Anderson said there was a preliminary plat several years ago and it was caught up in the twilight zone of the City passing an ordinance for paved streets.  If anything is done it will probably follow the subdivision as done by Ken Branch.

 

Shaulane Shadley, sister of the plat owner, stated she and her brother have lived in Homer all their life, are starting families and looking for a piece of property to live on close to town.  She does not believe she will see the parcel subdivided in her lifetime.

 

Commissioner Lehner expressed her approval of maintaining the 100 ft. easements on each side of the creek. She said in the Commission’s discussions of the Transportation Plan it was noted that Highland Drive and Rogers Loop are collector[1] streets used for residents to get to their homes.  There is a lot of traffic that goes up Highland to Sprucewood and over Rogers Loop to the dump.  Ms. Lehner made the recommendation for the Transportation Plan that no connection will be developed using a local street if the sole purpose is to provide a thoroughfare between the connector and arterial.  The recommendation was not included in the Plan, as traffic calming on Highland was to meet that goal.  Now that she is seeing half of the ROW included as part of the subdivision she wonders where the traffic goes.  She said an extension from the east to the west side of Highland is not needed yet as it is a local road and we do not want it as a throughway through West Hill and the Sterling Highway.

 

LEHNER/CONNOR – MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DELETE THE 30 FT. RIGHT OF WAY.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES.  CONNOR, LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER

 

NO:  KRANICH, PFEIL

 

During the vote Commissioner Hess declared he may have a conflict of interest as he lives on Highland Drive.  Upon discussion by the Commission it was decided he did not have a financial interest and cast his vote.

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE:  (main motion as amended) YES.  PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, LEHNER

 

Motion carried.

 

B.        Staff Report PL 05-62   Re:  Barnett’s South Slope Subdivision Quiet Creek Park.

 

Vice Chair Hess noted there were several members of the audience wishing to testify and set a three minute time limit for public testimony.

 

CONNOR/KRANICH – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-62 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Staff Recommendations:

 

Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat with the following recommendations:

 

1.         Dedicate water, sewer and access easements across the entire panhandle of each flag lot.

2.         Submission of preliminary engineering on the water/sewer/drainage/road improvements to the Public Works Department.

3.         Show wetlands and identify drainages on the final plat.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendations.  She acknowledged the laydowns provided for the Commission’s review.

 

Tony Neal, applicant for Quiet Creek Park said there is a lot of concern on the planned subdivision, and much of it is valid.  He introduced Chris Moren, Project Manager, and Roger Imhoff, Surveyor.  Mr. Neal told the Commission he is a General Contractor and has lived in Homer for 36 years.  He has constructed many of Homer’s buildings including the South Peninsula Hospital, McNeil Canyon School, Lakeside Professional Center, the Courthouse, Lakeside Mall, the present Library, most of the modern floats in the harbor, and dredged the harbor.  The subdivision on Ben Walters Lane from McDonalds to East Road was developed by his company.  Mr. Neal told the Commission he has done a professional job on each building, with no junk, always keeping Homer in mind.  Quiet Creek Park will be the nicest subdivision Homer will have.  It is well thought out, professionally designed, and the problem areas have been considered.  The proposed subdivision has 94 lots, greenbelt with five parks, and trails that are public, not just for owners.  Almost ten percent of the subdivision is dedicated to public use.  There will be a community association amongst the residents to maintain their covenants and home community.  They are only going to build houses and will not sell lots, creating a slow build out.  Additionally the community will have all the services including paved roads and water and sewer.   

 

Mr. Neal acknowledged the valid concerns from the public and asserted his willingness to work on those to the extent he can.  Quiet Creek Park is located in the middle of town.  Homer is suffering from the prior lack of planning as the neighboring streets are mismatched.  Kallman Road has a 30 ft. path access and Elderberry, Mountain View, Anderson and Heath streets are mismatched.  Although that is out of his control, Mr. Neal would like to work around it.  Access is a concern and he doesn’t want people coming off East Hill Road, zipping down South Slope Road, ripping through his subdivision, connecting with Bartlett Street and driving to Anchorage.  Mr. Neal has no plans to build South Slope unless it is a directive by the City, as he doesn’t want through traffic.  The new subdivision will have to connect to Kallman Road and then to East Road as their primary access for fire and emergency services.  He had planned to use Elderberry Court as another access area instead of Mountain View Drive. 

 

People may complain about the density of the proposed community as it is all woods now and then will be all houses.  Mr. Neal said people are born every second and the planet benefits by people living together closely.  Although everyone would like the dream home with an acre or two, the world would run out of room.  Dense clusters maximize greenspace.  Mr. Neal explained the lots within the subdivision average over 12,000 sq. ft. (the local limit being 10,000 sq. ft.) while Anchorage lots minimum size is 6,000 sq. ft.  The community will be a mixture of fairly dense and not so dense.  The housing development being within 300 yards of East Road has to be dense with people living together.  Mr. Neal asked the Commission to approve the preliminary plat citing he was complying with all laws, is not requesting any variations, it is a good subdivision, well planned and done.   

 

Commissioner Lehner voiced her appreciation to Mr. Neal for being upfront with the overall plan.  She admires Mr. Neal for presenting the whole plan to give the Commission the full illustration of the development.

 

Commissioner Foster questioned why there was no cul de sac if Mr. Neal didn’t want to connect with South Slope Road.  Mr. Neal answered he would be happy to add the cul de sac, but believes the Borough and possibly the City would require access in the future.   

 

Commissioner Kranich questioned if Mr. Neal was referring to the short length of South Slope Road that was in the subdivision or outside it.  Mr. Neal said roads dedicated within a subdivision must be built so he may have to build up to the boundary.  Commissioner Kranich questioned if Nelson Avenue was a dedicated access to property outside the subdivision.  Mr. Neal answered the road is dedicated for access to one lot and there is no reason to make it a 60 ft. wide street to the one property.  Mr. Kranich said between Sophie and West Aurora streets there is a 10 ft. greenbelt easement.  He questioned if he planned such an easement of the double row of lots to the west, specifically upper Lots 98, 95, and 94 and lower Lots 97, 96 and 92.  Mr. Neal said he didn’t give that a thought as greenspace had been dedicated between lots to prevent residents from storing stuff right up to the property line.  Commissioner Kranich questioned if concerns from Public Works as to preliminary design on water and sewer had been resolved.  Mr. Neal said his own engineer had been working with Carey Meyer, Public Works Director and hadn’t received any disagreement from Mr. Meyer.  Commissioner Kranich asked why some lots on the cul de sac have a 30 ft. building setback while others have a 55 ft. building setback.  Mr. Neal referred that question to the surveyor.

 

Roger Imhoff, Surveyor, stated he has been working on the preliminary concept for the property for several months.  A laydown letter suggested looking at access from East End Road to Lot 42.  Mr. Imhoff explained that was the first route that was reviewed as an alternate route and the idea was discarded as the topography is too steep for a good intersection and unable to meet code requirements. There is one large single lot in that vicinity to assure the purchasers can get a good driveway off East Hill Road.  Mr. Imhoff referred to the panhandles, and stated Public Works loathes them and the Commission doesn’t care for them.  They are a good tool to utilize property and allow the lots on the east side to be configured rectangle.  Surveyor Imhoff offered assurance the contractor is willing to work with Public Works for easements for water and sewer stub-outs.  He reiterated the subdivision meets code requirements and they are not asking for any exceptions.  From the topo surveys of proposed ROW’s and road construction within the subdivision no problems are anticipated.  The curves through the subdivision create communities within communities.  Mr. Imhoff hopes the neighbors within the Mountain View and Elderberry Street areas support the construction of Anderson Street to connect with Heath Street.  An arterial is needed to benefit both neighborhoods.  As to the HEA (Homer Electric Association) transmission line in the ROW, HEA gave up the pre-existing easement and are expecting the front 15 ft. of the fronting lots as the overhead utility easement.  As to setbacks on the cul de sac, some lots do not have enough 60 ft. required frontage to meet Code.  Pushing the building setback allows room on the sides and prevents building too close to the street.  On Nelson Avenue the two lots south of the proposed subdivision were created out of a different parcel.  They were sold without a dedicated access.  Mr. Imhoff suggested owner Mike Ronda go to court to settle the easement issue on his lots.  Providing access to Mr. Ronda’s lots is not the builder’s situation to deal with.     

 

Don Ronda stated he has lived here for 48 years and access to the lots is a problem his son is having.  His son owns Lot L8 and when he bought it he was assured he would be allowed access through Mr. Barnett’s property.  Mr. Barnett sold the land to Tony Neal and he has the right to develop a subdivision.  Mr. Ronda remarked that it is a nice subdivision.  There is a panhandle at the curve between Lots 59 and 61.  Lot M/B is owned by a person out of state and they refuse access to his son’s property via Nelson Avenue.  This leaves Mr. Ronda’s son with a lot that is inaccessible.  Mr. Ronda’s suggestion is that a 20 ft. panhandle be deducted from Lot 60 to allow his son access to his property.  Again Mr. Ronda commented of the nice job of the overall development.  He concluded that is not fair to buy property and have it surrounded with all access denied.

 

Commissioner Kranich questioned if Mr. Ronda’s son had purchased the property from Mr. Barnett.  Mr. Ronda answered his son purchased the property from another person but Mr. Barnett told him to could get access, although he didn’t know if that was in writing.

 

Bill Abbott, city resident, voiced his discouragement that he did not receive notice from the City of tonight’s meeting.  His neighbors informed him of the meeting.  He was not sent notice as he lives more than 500 ft. from the proposed subdivision boundary.  Mr. Abbott objects to the notification criteria as the entire neighborhood is affected, not just those living within 500 ft.  He suggested putting the preliminary plat approval on hold to inform the entire surrounding neighborhoods so they may study issues and make comments.  Mr. Abbott said he had spoken several times about the proposed East/West corridor and it is recorded in the minutes.  He suggested a more proactive way to inform citizens as many people are not informed.  His concern with the proposed subdivision is that traffic will more than triple through his neighborhood affecting safety and piece of mind.  The addition of the 94 lot development will put most of the traffic through Mountain View and Main Street.  It would be a much better plan to extend Anderson Street to Heath Street.  Mr. Abbott concluded he would have no problem with the subdivision if traffic is restricted through Mountain View and Elderberry.

 

Brian Bennett, city resident, stated he is one lot removed from receiving notice of tonight’s meeting. He has lived in the area since 1984 and knew there would be a subdivision in time.  He hopes it is done in a responsible way for the community and neighborhood.  His concern about the development is where West Aurora Avenue dead ends into Anderson Street.  The developer of the Anderson Street subdivision was required to put in Mountain View and Elderberry Streets.  Mr. Bennett believes Mr. Neal should be required to extend those streets.  An ambulance coming down East Hill Road will not want to make a right turn to get to the hospital.  Mr. Bennett’s other concern is the small lot size.  The developer is attempting to maximize revenue and profit at the detriment of any sense of community or neighborhood.  Mr. Bennett’s thought is the neighborhood should be renamed Glacierview Subdivision Part II.  He knows people that have made nice homes in Glacierview subdivision and they would have to buy two or three lots for a family and a garden.  Mr. Bennett stated that Tony Neal spoke eloquently about living on small size lots, but find out what size lot Tony lives on. Not a lot of families would be able to afford two or three lots.  Mr. Bennett asserted if you are doing a subdivision, do it right.  He noted in the letter from Tony Neal to Bob Barnett it looks like Tony doesn’t own the land and may be a land speculator.  Mr. Bennett believes the process should wait until it is done right.  Traffic is a major deal for the whole community and needs to be carefully thought out.  There will be a connection between East Hill Road to the Anderson subdivision and the whole part of west Homer.  Mr. Bennett believes notice should be given to the entire community before the Commission votes on it.  There will be a lot more through traffic.  He asked the Commission to handle the process right.  Mr. Bennett concluded by telling the Commission he served on the Parks and Recreation Commission for three years.  He puts his guard up when someone says parks, as they cost a lot of money and the City has a hard time maintaining the parks they have.  He urged the Commission to take a close look at the land Mr. Neal is donating to the City as it looks like he could develop the land.   

 

James Dolma, city resident, lives on Shirley Court.  His concern is the ingress and egress to the subdivision.  The only current access is South Slope Road, which Mr. Neal wishes to discourage.  Mr. Dolma estimates 500 cars per day traveling down Kallman Road to Kramer Lane.  If the City could permanently block off Kramer Lane, Mr. Dolma’s problems would be solved, although it wouldn’t alleviate the problems of those living on Kramer Lane and Kallman Road.  He would rather see traffic travel through Nelson Avenue or through Lot 42.  He believes Lot 42 is a ditch and would cost a fortune to convert to a road.  Kramer Lane is a cul de sac and was never intended to be a through street, although the proposed plan will make it an arterial with 500 cars a day. 

 

Sid Huffnagle, city resident, lives on Mountain View Drive, the second lot off Kachemak Way.  A large portion of Mr. Neal’s lots average within 1,000 sq. ft.  When Mr. Huffnagle built on Mountain View it was a dead end street, now it looks like he will have 500 cars on his street.  He would like to know what is in the works for Anderson Street.  Mr. Huffnagle would prefer to see traffic channeled on West Aurora and onto Heath Street.  There are homeowners here long before Tony Neal showed up and they should have some grandfather rights.  Mr. Huffnagle asked if there was any information available on Anderson Street tying into Heath Street.

 

City Planner McKibben said that route was identified in a draft long range Transportation Plan, although there may be some topography issues.

 

Mr. Huffnagle said the flood that came down the gulley on Anderson Street a few years ago would indicate there is a definite problem with crossing it.  He said before the preliminary plat is approved the Anderson Street/Heath Street route needs clarification.  Mr. Huffnagle believes a big part of the Anderson subdivision residents could go along with the Quiet Creek Park projection if that route was used.  He indicated he had only heard five percent of what was discussed in the last hour and a half.

 

Marianne Schlegelmilch, city resident, lives on the corner of Mountain View and Kachemak Way.  A letter signed by herself and William Schlegelmilch was read into the record.  She has concerns about access to the proposed plat and the congestion it will create on the quiet streets.  Another concern of hers is the timing of the notice as it coincided with the Memorial Day weekend and allows only limited time for those affected to react to the proposal.  Mrs. Schlegelmilch is concerned about the lack of notification to property owners beyond the 500 ft. radius who will be impacted by the development.  Keeping a project of this magnitude from the view of the general public is not keeping good community relations.  Last winter at the transportation hearings the majority of residents in the Anderson subdivision voiced concern for the safety of the residents, children, wildlife and property in their neighborhood.  Those residents still remain firmly opposed to any entry into the Quiet Creek Park subdivision through the Anderson subdivision.  Mrs. Schlegelmilch said access to the undeveloped properties at the expense of the current residents of Anderson subdivision is clearly in conflict with the City of Homer’s Non-Motorized Transportation and Trails Plan (NMTTP).  Her request is that the developer be held to a standard of responsible development to keep with the values as outlined in the Homer City Code (HCC) and the NMTTP.  Mrs. Schlegelmilch said Mr. Neal should not be allowed to proceed in a manner that shows disregard for both property values and quality of life for the Anderson subdivision residents.  She requests that the area be replatted to lessen the potential for negative impact on the Anderson subdivision residents and that traffic flow be diverted in a way not to impact their neighborhood.  Additionally she requests that Mr. Neal demonstrate that the stripping of vegetation in the Quiet Creek Park subdivision will not negatively affect the water runoff and soil stability of properties adjacent to the development.

 

Francie Roberts, city resident, submitted a letter for the record that was read by Marianne Schlegelmilch.  Ms. Roberts lives on Mountain View Drive and is dismayed that a subdivision is planned with small parcels on a rugged piece of land.  The plat shows numerous cul de sac roads within the subdivision, but no true through streets for the 94 new residences.  Ms. Roberts believes when small parcels are developed they must be responsibly developed.  She thinks a northeast/southwest road through the center of the parcel would be a better way to funnel traffic in and out of the subdivision.  Access streets will be at the expense of Anderson subdivision residents to allow the developer to develop more lots.  Residents of Mountain View and Elderberry streets will bear a large burden of the new traffic moving in and around Homer.  Ms. Roberts said the Anderson subdivision is a residential area and not a main thoroughfare, and it is unfair to place the burden on their neighborhood.  It is a direct contrast from the objective of the Transportation Plan that states “local streets are not used as thoroughfares”.  Ms. Roberts testified before the Commission last winter as to the Transportation Plan.  Another concern of hers is the development of Heath Street north of Pioneer Avenue.  It is a creek and development of the road will come at the expense of all Homer citizens to benefit the developer.  She questions if the wetlands regulations will allow a road to come through such a place.  Another concern of Ms. Roberts’ is a road adjacent to the west side of the Homer High School parking lot.  She urges the Commission to require the developer to return to the surveyor to develop a more responsible road system within the proposed subdivision.   

 

Gary Thomas, city resident, said access is the issue.  Tony Neal doesn’t want to build South Slope as he doesn’t want traffic through his subdivision going to other places.  Kallman Road is set up as the main access for the new subdivision.  The problem with Kallman is the 30 ft. ROW rather than 60 ft. ROW from a point down to East End Road.  That makes it a single lane.  The proposed route includes vehicles traveling down Kallman Road to turn onto Kramer Lane.  Mr. Thomas said proposing Kallman as a collector and spilling onto a residential or local road is nuts.  Until the ROW issues are resolved he asks the Commission to consider the egress and access points for the subdivision.

 

Laura Patty, city resident, lives with Gary Thomas on the corner of Kramer Lane and Kallman Road.  She too believes access is the main issue.  Ms. Patty agrees with the previous speakers that more than just the residents within the 500 ft. radius of the subdivision need notification.  The surrounding residents that the preliminary plat affects were not notified.  Ms. Patty stated in the fall she heard about the proposed Quiet Creek Park subdivision and didn’t realize it would affect her neighborhood.  Now it is in her neighborhood.  Kramer Lane is a residential dead end road where kids play in the streets and is not designed for through traffic.  Five hundred cars per day would be an incredible impact.  She believes some day East Hill Road will drain to either Mountain View or Kallman and Kramer roads.  As to the Nelson Avenue route, it would only impact four lots as opposed to the 60 lots off of Kramer.  She would like to look at the Nelson and Ronda streets for access.  East End Road is an arterial and could handle the traffic.  As to the park idea and lot size, they sound nice but will they be actual parks with the congestion?  As a property owner when road construction begins and the gravel trucks are traveling through her neighborhood she may want to sell her parcel.  But she certainly wouldn’t want to buy it.  Ms. Patty concluded there are a lot of questions and she would like to see more people notified and more time spent on the plans before going further.

 

Kathy George, city resident, lives on Mountain View Drive and read a statement written by Margaret Anderson and Maren Bennett.  They ask that the Planning Commission declare a moratorium for all subdivision plans of this scope until a careful review of the following can be made:

 

1.         Population Density.  The population density of a new subdivision should be compatible with       the surrounding neighborhood.  Lot sizes should be increased.

2.         Traffic Patterns.  Significantly changing the City’s traffic patterns should require the developer     to fund and submit a comprehensive traffic study showing the effects of the development.

3.         Habitat Destruction.  What are the consequences of loss of irreplaceable habitat?

4.         Safety.  Children at play, pedestrians, etc. should be considered.

5.         Public Notice.  The entire city should be made aware of a subdivision of this scope, not only      property owners within 500 ft.

 

As for Ms. George’s own things, access, quality of life and the desire for a quiet neighborhood are values that speak to all.  She is hopeful most people can get what they would like to have.  Tony Neal can have a subdivision that will make him some money and the neighborhood can have a traffic flow that won’t disrupt their lives.  She is concerned that the ditches designated as parks.  Ms. George would like to see more greenspaces and just a little less of everything to fit what Homer is about.  Larger lots would bring more money with less impact of traffic and city services.  Ms. George sees it as access and quality of life, but also a conflict of Mr. Neal’s right to develop land as he sees fit.  She concluded that we need to slow down and find a compromise.

 

Paul Gavenus, city resident, resides on Rainbow Court.  He reiterates the prior public comments to slow down on the process.  In regard to the arterial from Heath to Anderson it will be a private road for Mr. Neal’s subdivision.  There are major safety issues for the road running by the school.  Mr. Gavenus stated he was here in the fall to testify on the road as well.   

 

Kathy George, city resident, addressed the Commission again.  She said the piece of Anderson Street is like it is as when they did the subdivision the City required them to dedicate ROW along lots on both sides.  The piece that extends along upper Mountain View to the lower end of Elderberry was named Anderson.  ROW was not dedicated in the non subdivided parcel above or below that section.

 

Tony Neal, applicant, addressed the audience stating that he appreciated all the comments as they are all valid.  There is more public comment than he expected and he realizes what a hornet’s nest the Mountain View access is.  He said it is a Homer problem which makes it his problem.  Mr. Neal said if he doesn’t develop someone else will.  The plat is one big open area in the middle of town where people should live.  The access problem needs to be resolved and Mr. Neal would like to do just that and make everyone happy.  Mr. Neal is hearing a lot of negative comments, but no proposals for alternatives. He is looking for a solution and believes Heath/Anderson is a good solution.  Mrs. Anderson objected, yet the Anderson side didn’t dedicate their half.  Mr. Neal told the residents the City should solve that and the Mountain View people should be hammering the City for that instead of him.  Kallman Road is problematic as well and should be straight and the entire width dedicated.  He has no idea why the City chose to allow 30 ft.  He believes the City should buy 30 ft. of Kallman and make it into a street, possibly a one way street to cut the proposed 500 cars in half.  Another solution would be Nelson Avenue to Ronda Street, although it may only be 30 ft.  Mr. Neal said we are trapped and need a cross-town solution, as Homer can’t be a one road town the rest of our life.  The fire department and emergency vehicles need access.  Mr. Neal told the audience if they lived on Mountain View he was not building there or going through it. 

 

Questions from the audience ensued and Vice Chair Hess stopped the discussion and brought the meeting back to order.

 

Tony Neal related there were 550 people when he came to Homer and they wanted to block it off then.  Now there are 5,500 people and they can’t block it off.  They have to take what is coming and do the best they can.  As to the parks, Mr. Neal defended that some of the park areas are in creeks and it should remain like that as parks do not need to be totally developable.  Lot 17 it is intended for a kiddy park.  Mr. Neal said he would stick up for five parks on 10% of the land.  If the lots were bigger he would make about the same amount of money.  Mr. Neal believes people should be clustered together in towns to allow for more greenspace.  He concluded if you gave everyone one acre that would occupy 94 acres.

 

The Commission asked for Public Works Director Carey Meyer’s comments regarding preliminary data on infrastructure and access ideas.

 

Public Works Director Meyer said the utility layout plan for the subdivision was discussed with the engineer.  There are four areas of modifications the City would like to see including conceptual layout of drainage.  Mr. Meyer judged it as a good utility layout plan and probably the best the City has had for a subdivision in the early stage of the project.  As to access, it is an issue that needs discussion as both current and future residents are affected.  Spreading out access points would be a better situation.  Mr. Meyer related the many public meetings on the value of the Heath Street extension to Anderson Street.  It is the best place to concentrate traffic generated from this and other developable subdivisions.  The master plan looks at the community in its entirety rather than just a piece at a time.  Mr. Meyer concluded that more discussions are needed on access to Quiet Creek Park subdivision.

 

Commissioner Lehner remarked that Tony Neal was receptive to evaluating input, sitting down with Public Works and exploring alternative access points.  She would like Mr. Neal to review the language[2] to keep traffic from East Hill using Mountain View and Elderberry.

 

LEHNER/CONNOR - MOVED TO POSTPONE THE DECISION UNTIL REVIEWED FURTHER BY PUBLIC WORKS AND IN LIGHT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANS ARTICULATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

 

The Commission discussed the traffic access briefly and suggested Mr. Neal could have a community meeting to discuss alternatives.   

 

VOTE:  NO:  KRANICH, FOSTER, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR

 

Motion failed.

 

Discussion ensued as to the preliminary plat.  City Planner McKibben related to the Commission there was no process in the Code for the developer to have a community meeting.  She suggested it be the developer’s decision.  As to public notice of the proposed subdivision, City Planner McKibben explained the Code requires property owners within 500 ft. of the location are noticed by mail.  Additionally, the pending action is advertised in the newspapers.   

 

KRANICH/CONNOR – MOVED TO ADD STAFF RECOMMENDATION #4 TO ADD A 10 FT. GREENBELT EASEMENT TO LOTS 98, 95, 94, 93 AND LOTS 97, 96 AND 92.

 

Commissioner Kranich explained this would be in keeping with the greenbelt easement that is established with the double row of lots east of the above mentioned.  City Planner McKibben said the greenbelt easement is in addition to the setback requirements and adds additional buffer where lots adjoin each other.

 

VOTE:  YES.  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

FOSTER/PFEIL – MOVED TO ADD 10 FT. GREENBELT EASEMENTS BETWEEN LOTS 9, 10, 11, 12 AND 7, 8, 13 AND 14.

 

VOTE:  YES.  PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Connor requested that the significant drainages be added to the plat map and 15 ft. setbacks also be required.    

 

CONNOR/ KRANICH - MOVED TO REQUIRE 15 FT. BUILDING SETBACKS FROM THE TOP OF THE BANK OF ANY DEFINED DRAINAGE CHANNEL OR STREAM.

 

Commissioner Kranich commented that it was prudent land use to require the 15 ft. setbacks from drainage areas in all subdivisions.

 

VOTE:  YES.  PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, LEHNER

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Connor noted the NMTTP shows several ideas for land and dedicated trails.  She would like to see the trails hook up for a continuous trail system.  Ms. Connor would like the developer to refer to the NMTTP to get ideas for the grand plan of linking trails.

 

City Planner McKibben said there were two proposed trails within the preliminary plat.  While the NMTTP does not make specific recommendations for trails, the proposed subdivision provides for connecting trails both inside and outside the plat.  Mr. Neal said he had reviewed the NMTTP and even though the plan was non specific he tried to put trails in the preliminary plat to match up with the plan.   

 

City Planner McKibben explained the parks will be dedicated for public use.  Only one park within the subdivision is to be developed into a formal park.  The others will be left as open space.

 

Tony Neal said there were two choices, those being to not plan to dedicate the parks to the City and continue ownership or to dedicate the public easement where all people have a legal right to walk on it. Easement would have to be accepted by the City.  Lot 17 is to be a park where a swing set can be level.  The other parks within the subdivision are meant to be undeveloped.  There is an existing trail in the subdivision with a long history of usage and although it is in drainage it is easily walkable.

 

Commissioner Kranich said there is the access issue with the property in the middle of the City.  A large portion fronts onto school property, precluding access, and to the east there is already a developed subdivision with one road linking an existing ROW to the east.  On the west side the property fronts undeveloped Anderson ROW and the undeveloped Shellfish ROW to the north.  There are not many possible points of ingress and egress to the property.  Commissioner Kranich referred to City Attorney’s correspondence in the packet regarding authority on exactions.  He suggested the developer, Public Works and the City Planner sit down and work out improvements to access of the subdivision.  It is not a simple process to work something out.  Commissioner Kranich believes it should be sent back to the developer.   

 

City Planner McKibben clarified the City Attorney’s correspondence in the packet referred to another case and specific questions would need to be asked of the City Attorney for clarification of offsite access requirements. 

 

It was the consensus of the commission to obtain attorney clarification.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL - MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN MEET WITH PUBLIC WORKS, OTHER CITY STAFF, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOODS TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ACCESS OPTIONS THAT MINIMIZE ROUTING OF SUBDIVISION AND THROUGH TRAFFIC ON TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL STREETS TO INCORPORATE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT ADDRESS TRAFFIC FLOW ON MOUNTAIN VIEW AND ELDERBERRY DRIVES. 

 

VOTE:  YES.  CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

Vice Chair Hess called for a recess at 10:04 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 10:15 p.m. 

 

C.        Staff Report PL 05-63   Re:  Oscar Munson Subdivision No. 22 Preliminary Plat.

 

CONNOR/PFEIL – MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF STAFF REPORT PL 05-63 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Staff Recommendations:

Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat with the following recommendations:

 

1.         Show access to a utility easement per HCC 22.10.051.

2.         Correct the right-of-way name to Ocean Drive Loop.

3.         Depict approximate locations of areas subject to inundation, flooding or storm water overflow in compliance with KPB 20.12.060 (H).

4.         Depict the location of the existing water main in compliance with KPB 20.12.060 (K).

 

CONNOR/KRANICH – MOVED TO DECLARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

Commissioner Connor stated some of the property she owns is in the LID (Local Improvement District) and the combining of plats could affect her assessment.

 

Public Works Director Meyer said three of the lots will be combined into one which will decrease the LID assessment.  He spoke with Larry Peterson who leads the Cranberry Point LLC.  Mr. Meyer concluded the replat will increase the assessments.

 

VOTE:  YES.  KRANICH, FOSTER, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendations.

 

Lance Peterson represents the property owners in the un-subdividing and restoration of property that belongs together.  As to the LID, testimony was given to the City Council this process was going to take place to make the lots larger.

 

There was no public testimony.

 

Commissioner Kranich requested Public Works Director Meyer’s input about Lot 15A being inaccessible to the sewer line.

 

Public Works Director Meyer explained three lots are being combined into one U-shape lot. All three lots are in the sewer LID and will be combined into one lot.  Lot 14 is being left as it is and it is also in the sewer LID.  Lots 15, 16 and 17 will be combined into 15A.  Lot 15 is in the sewer LID, while Lots 16 and 17 are not.  Cost estimates and sewer alignment would front only Lot 15.  Once Lot 15A is created the sewer line will not front the entire lot, thus it will not have access to the sewer.  To get water or sewer service the main needs to front the entire piece of property.  Public Works is not recommending for or against the plat, just modification of the LID.  Lot 15A could be removed from the LID or the sewer could be extended further to allow frontage across the entire lot.  The implication is properties on the other side of the street will also have frontage and may need to be added to the LID.

 

Mr. Meyer said he and Mr. Peterson are going to find out the interests of the property owner across the street.  If the property owner on the other side of the street is interested in the sewer LID he may join in.  Public Works Director Meyer explained a sewer line had been planned for Victoria Place Lot 9 and the lot with a structure.  In between the combining of the lots and reduction of lots receiving assessments and inclusion of another lot there will be additional costs that will balance close to the original estimate.

 

Commissioner Kranich questioned if the Code requires the water or sewer main to front the entire piece of property.  Mr. Meyer said the City Council approved that as the standard, preventing an unfair extension of one property owner.  Spaghetti lines will not be used, everyone is to extend the main across their property to get service to the main.

 

VOTE:  YES.  LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

COMMISSION BUSINESS

 

The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public.  Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed.  The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public.

 

A.        Staff Report PL 05-54   Re:  Request For A Conditional Use Permit, Cup #05-09 Adair, For A Planned Unit Development, 1302 Ocean Drive, Lots 29, 30, 56 And 57, Bayview Subdivision (Adair Replat In Progress).  Postponed.

 

The motion on the floor from the May 18, 2005 meeting is as follows:

 

KRANICH/FOSTER – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-54 WITH CONDITIONS AND THE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit contingent on the following conditions:

 

  1. The applicant will meet the requirements in HCC 21.49.060 (h) for landscaped buffers of 3 feet minimum width along all lot lines where setbacks permit.
  2. The applicant must begin the project within one year to comply with 21.61.060 (g).
  3. The applicant must submit a parking plan with a zoning permit application that meets the requirements of HCC 7.12.
  4. The project will meet all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.

 

City Planner McKibben referred to the revised site plan in the Commission packet and laydown information from the City Attorney.  The new site plans were read.

 

Eldon Adair, applicant, thanked City Planner McKibben, her staff, and the Commissioners for the hours they have put into this matter.  Mr. Adair stated the 27 ft. parking requirement has been met and a sign erected stating there is no RV access from Ocean Drive and showing RV access on Douglas Street.  Additionally the buildings have been revised to fit the plan and landscaping has been revised to add an additional 2 ft. along the east property line, making it 5 ft. wide.  Mr. Adair said the Corp of Engineers’ verbal opinion is that there are no wetlands on the property and he has requested this in writing.   

 

City Planner McKibben directed the Commission to a laydown showing the site plan with additional landscaping on the eastern lot.

 

Commissioner Foster questioned if there was a way for an RV to pull out from the park onto Ocean Drive.  Mr. Adair answered there was not, as a retaining wall with an 8 ft. vertical elevation prevents access.  Commissioner Foster inquired if Mr. Adair planned to have the same hook-up standards as the new RV park on the Spit.  Mr. Adair affirmed he will have the pedestals with RV hook-ups on the driver’s side rear.  All spaces will be back-in spaces.  Commissioner Foster said there will only be a 3 ft. setback from Douglas Street to the back end where RV’s will be parking.  He noted there is a 20 ft. setback for ROW’s for permanent structures and the Commission wants to ensure the pedestals are sitting 20 ft. from Douglas Street.  City Planner McKibben clarified the 20 ft. setback is from the closest point of the building.    

 

Commissioner Kranich noted the back-in spaces will require more than a 90 degree turn to back in to.  He asked if the park had a two-way street and Mr. Adair affirmed that it could be, as it meets the 30 ft. access requirement.

 

Dave Scheer, adjacent property owner, stated he appreciates the design revisions and work the Commission has done.  He feels like he has been heard and believes the planning process is good.  Mr. Scheer has a few suggestions for the proposed development and has no opposition to the CUP with these items included:

            *          A 5 ft. setback of RV spaces from his property line be formalized.

            *          Clarify what it means to protect the roots of Mr. Scheer’s trees from damage.  He                                 requests no excavation within 8-10 ft. of tree trunks of his property. 

            *          Clarify what the 3 ft. vegetation buffer means.  Does it mean to maintain native                           vegetation or can it be replanted?

 

Commissioner Foster returned to discussion on the pedestals, stating the Commission’s concern of the setback was access to utilities to allow visibility.  City Planner McKibben said the pedestals do not meet the setback code definition for buildings, although it would not be inappropriate for the Commission to set a distance from the roadway.

 

FOSTER/LEHNER- MOVED THAT ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURES, INCLUDING POWER PEDESTALS, ARE SET BACK 20 FT. FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS OF DOUGLAS PLACE AND LAKESHORE DRIVE.

 

VOTE:  YES.  PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

FOSTER/KRANICH – MOVED TO ADD FINDINGS: POWER PEDESTALS FOR RV’S COULD IMPACT ACCESS TO UTILITIES, THEREFORE SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE 20 FT. BUILDING SETBACK TO RIGHTS OF WAY.

 

VOTE:  YES.  PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, LEHNER

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Kranich said the new site plan shows the retaining wall extends into the 20 ft. setback and also slightly into the ROW.  City Planner McKibben noted no structure is permitted in the ROW.  Commissioner Connor said the lot line on the east side has only a 5 ft. setback and she agrees with Mr. Scheer excavating that close to trees can damage the root systems. 

 

CONNOR/LEHNER - MOVED THAT FINDING BE FOUND: AS PER HCC 21.49.060(a) NO DISTURBANCE SHALL OCCUR WITHIN 8 FT. OF THE EASTERN LOT LINE OR WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF TREES ON THE ADJACENT LOT TO PREVENT ROOT DAMAGE, FURTHERMORE PER HCC 21.61.060(f)(5) TO ENSURE PRIVACY OF ADJACENT PROPERTY.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES.  CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL – MOVED THAT DRAINAGE SHALL BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES.  LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Connor stated the retaining wall seems to be at odds with the direction of the drainage.  She questioned the effect on the drainage.  Vice-Chair Hess said it would be addressed through drain holes in the wall.

 

VOTE:  (main motion as amended):  YES.  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, LEHNER, KRANICH,                                                                       HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

B.        Staff Report PL 05-38   Re:   Proposed Amendment To Homer City Code Re:  More than One Permitted Principle Use on a Lot. Postponed

 

LEHNER/KRANICH – MOVED TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

C.        Staff Report PL 05-64   Re:  Nonconforming Impervious Coverage in the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District.

 

FOSTER/LEHNER – MOVED TO DISCUSS.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Father Paul Jaroslaw, Pastor of All Saints of America Antiochian Orthodox Mission on East Skyline, told the Commission he moved to Homer in 1996 with the intention of developing the Orthodox Church. When he bought the two pieces of property one parcel was for the Holy Cross House and the other was for the Orthodox Church.  Due to the lay of the land parking would be on the left hand piece of the property by the large house.  Three to four years ago they started cutting trees before the Bridge Creek Watershed District was formed.  Trees were cut, stumps removed and then the impervious coverage business came through.  Father Jaroslaw said they are now stranded as the Code does not allow them to continue with the parking lot.  There is a cemetery on the grounds and they want to build a social hall.  A modular home on the gravel pad near the parking lot is planned for Joanna Little and her husband who are now staying in a motor home on the property.  Father Jaroslaw said they are now over the percentages of impervious coverage allowed and can’t add more parking. 

 

Commissioner Lehner said it was her understanding that currently impervious coverage created on the parcels is balanced by pervious coverage for a one for one exchange.  Father Jaroslaw said he would be glad to re-vegetate areas if needed to increase the pervious coverage percent.  He doesn’t understand how erosion will get to Bridge Creek.  Commissioner Foster explained maintaining the natural vegetation is preferred.  Water will flow down the roads, although there is a good distance to the creek.

 

Commissioner Connor asked for clarification on the considerations requested and City Planner McKibben read the staff requests:

 

Commissioner Foster questioned if the driveway leading to the property would need improvements.  He said any crossing of Bridge Creek should be a bridge rather than a culvert as it is much sounder for the creek and watershed.  Commissioner Kranich pointed out digging the culvert and adding gravel to the driveway would not be necessary until the culvert needed replacement. 

 

Commissioner Connor questioned if the Commission had the authority to approve further non-conformities.  In HCC 21.59.135(b) nonconformities may not increased beyond the non-conformity existing.  City Planner McKibben said the applicant’s proposal is to accept the pre-existing clearing as pre-existing impervious coverage and the applicant be allowed to finish developing it.  An exchange of impervious coverage for the social hall would be re-vegetating an area so there would be no increase in impervious coverage. 

 

Commission Kranich asked what the maximum population of the cemetery would be.  Father Jaroslaw said he foresees it being there for a long time, although there is just one person buried there at this time. 

 

LEHNER/KRANICH – STAFF REQUEST #1 - MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE CLEARED AREA ON LOT 3B-1A IS CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE THAT CAN BE FURTHER DEVELOPED INTO A GRAVEL PARKING PAD AND AREA FOR SMALL PARKING PAD FOR THE RV REFERENCED IN ATTACHED LETTER.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/KRANICH – STAFF REQUEST #2 - MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE RE-VEGETATION OF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON LOT 4C WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE WHEN THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOCIAL HALL OCCURS.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Connor said she would like the assurance that the re-vegetated state will absorb water as studies have shown that lawns are not necessarily pervious. 

 

CONNOR/PFEIL – MOVED TO AMEND STAFF REQUEST #2 TO ADD THE AREA WILL BE RE-VEGETATED WITH NATIVE PLANTS.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

PFEIL/LEHNER – STAFF REQUEST #3 – APPROVE THE OTHER EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, STRUCTURES, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS AND PATHWAYS AS NONCONFORMING.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/KRANICH – STAFF REQUEST #4 – APPROVE THE EXISTING CEMETERY ON LOT 4C.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

D.        Staff Report PL 04-109   Re: Commission Work List – On-going.

 

Commissioner Foster requested that the Commission review and amend the mobile home and mobile home park regulations.

 

REPORTS

 

A.                 Borough Report

 

Commissioner Foster reported they are still working on the Comprehensive Plan.  There will be another discussion at the next meeting to provide a solid document prior to going to the assembly.  Mr. Foster advised he was still on the Plat Committee.

 

            B.        Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT

 

City Planner McKibben questioned the Commission’s intent on the amended mitigation plans for driveways.  She noted Joel Cooper’s concerns that were relayed to the City Council.  Ms. McKibben said the Code as amended appears that any lot in Bridge Creek Watershed District may apply for a mitigation plan for a driveway.  Only lots 2.5 acres and smaller may apply for a mitigation plan.  Ms. McKibben questioned if the Commission’s intent was that all lots may apply for a mitigation plan for a driveway or just those on 2.5 acres and less.  Commissioner Foster answered some driveways are a mile long and it is a significant impact if they are crossing the creek.  The Commission wanted to address mitigation plans for any type of impervious coverage.  The ultimate goal is that any development in the Bridge Creek Watershed have some type of mitigation measures to make it better.  City Planner McKibben said right now the Code is open ended and a mile long driveway could be considered 100% impervious.  The Commission agreed mitigation plans would be for parcels 2.5 acres and less.

 

City Planner McKibben said the Planning Department is expecting a request for a nonconformity for the next meeting.

 

Vice Chair Hess questioned the status of the lot on the corner of Rogers Loop and Sprucewood.  City Planner McKibben answered there was no violation.  A notice was sent and the alteration of a lot does not require a zoning permit or a development activity plan in a residential district.  The lot owner is aware of the wetlands in the forest jurisdiction.  The last time Ms. McKibben looked he was still quite a distance from the wetlands.

 

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

 

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

 

A.        Zoning Violation letter dated May 13, 2005 to Bjorn Larson and Sasha Raupp re:  Lot 167 W R Benson Subdivision Amended – Zoning Permit, Flood Hazard Area Development Permit, Driveway Permits needed.

 

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

 

There were no comments.

 

Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject.  The Chair may prescribe time limits.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

 

Commissioner Connor said it was a good meeting.

 

Commissioner Kranich said the Commission dealt with critical issues and there was positive action by the Commission.  He said it was a good meeting.

 

Commissioner Foster said he appreciates the work of the Commission, especially Vice Chair Hess who handled a difficult meeting this evening very well.  June 16, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. there is a Groundwater Development and Coastal Erosion presentation at Islands and Oceans Visitors Center.  The ground water study on Kachemak Drive and groundwater erosion using the lidar map will be discussed.

 

Commissioner Pfeil thanked the Commission for their hard work and apologized for his absence at the last meeting.  He explained he was out of state and called the Chair to inform him, only to realize he had left a message on a wrong number.

 

Commissioner Lehner said pizzazz to all.

 

Vice Chair Hess said he will be happy Chair Chesley will be back for the next meeting.

 

The Town Center Development Committee Open House is June 9th between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Council Chambers to present the public review draft plan.  Public comments will be taken before it is presented to the Planning Commission.

 

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

 

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 12:00 p.m.  The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., in the Cowles Council Chambers.  There will be a work session at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.

 

________________________________

JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

 

Approved: _______________________



[1] At the June 15, 2005 meeting Ms. Lehner clarified this as “local streets”.

[2] At the June 15, 2005 meeting Ms. Lehner clarified this was language in the Draft Transportation Plan.