Session 07-06, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Minsch at 7:11 pm on April 4, 2007 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

PRESENT:       COMMISSIONERS CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, MINSCH, SCHEER, ZAK

 

ABSENT:        COMMISSIONER KRANICH

 

STAFF:            CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

 

The agenda was approved as presented by consensus of the Commission.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not scheduled for public hearing.  (3 minute time limit)  Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

 

Bill Kaehr, city resident, addressed the Commission regarding issues with people who are staying at the Ocean Shores Motel and parking on the street along Crittenden.  He commented that there is adequate parking at the hotel but people continuously park along the street and there are many instances when they are loud and intoxicated. He also commented that people bring their dogs and many times the dogs will come into his yard.  He is hoping to find a way to resolve the issue.  He has talked to the Police Department but they say it is probably legal to park there. 

 

The Commission had a brief discussion regarding enforcement for something like this and it was noted that there are nuisance standards.   City Planner McKibben said there have been some instances of noise in the CBD but property owners have been cooperative about dealing with it.  She said he has been working with staff and wanted to bring the issue to the Commission’s attention.

 

Mr. Kaehr also commented that he is hoping the Best Western could change their heating source to propane.  Previously there was a spill and fuel oil went onto his property.  They burn a lot of fuel at the hotel. It is a low lying area and things accumulate down by the bay.  There was question about the drainage along Crittenden and Mr. Kaehr commented that the ditch could be a few feet deeper.  The road is mucky right now and the ditching and culvert need to be dropped lower to help the drainage. 

 

Roger Imhoff, area resident and local surveyor, commented regarding Planning issues.  He commented on the Gateway Business District and urged the Commission to consider a shorter building height than 35 feet.  Some coastal communities in Oregon, Washington and California allow much lower building heights of 20 feet or less within a few hundred feet of the shore line.  He stated that it really irritates him to drive out onto the spit now and see the way the Lands End Condominiums have blocked off what used to be a beautiful bay and mountain view scenic scape.  Especially after Lands End badgered the Commission for about two years to get a permit, which was going to be for two story buildings, then they promptly ignored the permit and put up something really high. He sees it happening on Bunnell with the Compass Rose building and the whole street is going to probably develop into tall buildings if the City lets it happen.  It is going to create a canyon effect down one of our nice areas of town. 

 

Mr. Imhoff commented regarding platted access to lots, noting that his comments are not specifically about Country Club Estates.  He said there is a growing issue of no reasonable platted access to proposed lots.  He sees it a lot in the City and Borough where there are platted rights-of-way proposed that are totally ridiculous and will never be built.  There are panhandles going through gullies and up sides of hills that aren’t going to be built, and it ends up that a driveway easement is platted that may or may not be suitable for fire safety to a residence.  Mr. Imhoff believes that it has been going on too long and something should be done about it.  He said the situation is being created because the developer wants to get as many lots as he can.  The concern is that it seems contrary to good planning to create those kinds of situations when they are unnecessary.  Mr. Imhoff recommended that there should be a mechanism in place to either create private roads that should be built to a standard which might count as legal frontage or something to that effect.

 

Mr. Imhoff commented about cul-de-sacs and access to neighboring lots.  He said cul-de-sacs are popular road rights-of-way to put in subdivisions.  If it weren’t for the Borough Code saying that you have to provide access to your neighbors, every subdivision in Homer and the Borough would end in a cul-de-sac and there would just be a main road running through town.  Mr. Imhoff commented that cul-de-sacs are great but oftentimes, especially in areas where there are going to be larger lots that can be re-subdivided, there is not enough frontage in a cul-de-sac to allow for even a good panhandle.  He suggested staff and the Commission consider this when working with developers or surveyors and try to have the road extend to the property line when plats come before them with larger lots that have the potential for future subdivision.  He said this will encourage good lot configuration for the future or allow the development to be re-designed for future subdivision with out goofy lot shapes.

 

Lastly, Mr. Imhoff commented regarding Borough Code 20.20.060[1] which stipulates that when parcels are being subdivided that consideration should be given to providing access to neighboring lots that aren’t subdivided.  He believes that is an extremely important part of the code.  He thinks adjoining properties that have not been developed need to be treated equally.  He has a particular plat in mind which should be coming before the Commission at the next meeting and he hopes they will consider whether this section of Borough Code will apply to the plat.

 

Mr. Imhoff was asked for his opinion on flag lots.  He responded that they are great as long as the lot it is accessing is not going to be divided further and that the panhandle is located in such a place where it can actually be built.

 

He was asked to further comment regarding the Borough Code.  He elaborated on his comments saying that a lot of the land that is undeveloped in Homer is getting into the steeper areas. A lot of the steeper areas have big gullies running through them and there isn’t the physical room to wind a way up the hill with a road grade that will meet the design requirements of the City.  He believes it is important to realize that neighboring property owners need to start working together better than they have in the past.  He encouraged that when these issues come before the Commission that they do some brainstorming to see what some alternatives might be and find ways to incorporate a road system that will service the neighborhood. 

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

There were no items for Reconsideration.

 

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.   

 

1.   Approval of Minutes of March 21, 2007                                                                      

2.   Time Extension Requests

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

4.   KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

  1. Commissioner Excused Absences

 

The Consent Agenda was adopted by consensus of the Commission. 

 

PRESENTATIONS

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

 

There were no presentations. 

 

REPORTS

 

A.                 Borough Report

 

Commissioner Foster reported that the Country Club Estates Plat Waiver would be before the Borough Planning Commission on Monday and the meeting will be in at Land’s End.  The Plat Committee meets at 5:30 and the Commission meeting is at 7:30.  He advised the Commission that he has been appointed to the Borough Plat Committee.

 

B.         Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

There was no KBAPC Report.

 

C.        Planning Director’s Report

1.         Staff Report PL 07-25, Planning Director’s Report regarding the Sensitive Areas Ordinance     

 

City Planner McKibben commented that the sign code amendment regarding the Gateway Business District was approved by the Council as presented.  The sensitive areas ordinance was not and was remanded to the Planning Commission, which was discussed during the Worksession.  Her recommendation is to put the sensitive areas ordinance back on the worklist and resubmit the concept when the steep slope ordinance is ready to present to council.  She is not sure when the time would be best to present moving the flood hazard ordinance from chapter 12 to chapter 21.  Her concern is that she doesn’t feel prepared or that the Commission has the time right now to dive into the flood hazard ordinance and make amendments.  The current ordinance is very boiler plate and if they want to make amendments she would recommend they get guidance from the state flood program manager. 

 

They agreed to discuss this further during discussion of the worklist.

 

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that the flyers are going out for the community meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan.  She encouraged the Commissioners to hand out fliers as she can make more if they are needed.

           

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items.   (3 minute time limit)  The Commission may question the public.  Once the public hearing is closed the Commission cannot hear additional comments on the topic.

           

There were no public hearings scheduled. 

                                   

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. The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant. 

 

A.        Staff Report PL 07-23(S), Eker Estates Two Preliminary Plat  

 

City Planner McKibben reviewed the supplemental Staff Report.

 

Leah Handley, applicant, advised the Commission she was in attendance to answer questions.  She said she submitted photos to staff that show there is a fair amount of re-vegetation on the parcel and that there are spots that they could add vegetation to as well.  She thanked City Planner McKibben and Planning Technician Harness for making a site visit.  The Commission reviewed the photos in the file. 

 

FOSTER/CHESLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Recommendation

The Commission recommend preliminary approval, with the following recommendations:

1.         A plat note:  Development on steep slopes is regulated per Homer City Code per 21.44.050(a)(1).  As of March 2007 the developed area on Lot 22A and Lot 22B exceeds these standards and future development maybe limited.

 

Commissioner Chesley advised the Commission that he prepared a document with some findings, discussion and argument for not approving this plat.  At the previous meeting he had asked for some legal clarification on the mechanics of a lot that might have a non-conforming use and what happens if the lot no longer exists.  He asked that staff have the City Attorney look over his document.  Mr. Chesley recognized that the action before them is a platting action and non-conformity would have to be determined as a separate action.  He stated his concern that if the lot is given non-conforming status and then subdivided, which would change the lot that was granted non conforming status, it raises the question if the non conformity benefits go away at that point. 

 

CHESLEY/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO PUT A MOTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE MEETING SUBSEQUENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT AND THE ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE PUT FORWARD.

 

There was discussion regarding the time frame to take action on the plat. 

 

Commissioner Chesley expressed his concern for the applicant going to the expense of creating these lots and finding out that because of the extent of development on the existing lots that a home site could not be developed because there wouldn’t be room for amenities to accommodate the home site.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the necessity of the postponement.  Points noted in discussion:

·        Question regarding whether the plat note referenced in the staff recommendation would suffice.

·        The plat note would not suffice because there is still question about what happens regarding subdivision and non conforming status.

·        A goal is not to have so much intense development in the steep slope areas.

 

Vice Chair Minsch called for a recess at 8:00 pm for the applicant and staff to discuss an extension.  City Planner McKibben and Mrs. Handley went to the City Planner’s office.  The meeting resumed at 8:12 pm. 

 

Mrs. Handley advised the Commission that she is willing to extend the timeframe for the Commission review. City Planner McKibben said her goal is to bring it back at the next meeting but not knowing the City Attorneys schedule, she may not be ready then. 

 

There was discussion about the current situation on the lot and depending on the information that comes back from the Attorney, there may be a need to go back and reconfigure the lot design to make a workable situation.  Mrs. Handley noted that there has been so much engineering done on the site that there was minimal sloughing during the heavy rains a few years back.

 

VOTE:  YES:  CHESLEY, SCHEER, MINSCH, ZAK, HESS, FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

B.         Staff Report PL 07-22, Janeview Estates No. 2 Preliminary Plat                                

                                                                                                                         

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report. 

 

There were no comments from the applicant or public.

 

CHESLEY/HESS I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE JANEVIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION NUMBER THREE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Question was raised if the applicant’s representative had any comment regarding the Public Works comment to add a 20 foot utility easement between the two lots.  Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, did not have comments.  City Planner McKibben commented that the Public Works recommendation should be included as a staff recommendation. 

 

HESS/CHESLEY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE TO ADD CONTINUATION OF THE TWENTY FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS. 

 

There was discussion about the possibility of vacating the 10 foot utility easement on the west property line.  It was noted that it would have to be addressed in a separate action.

 

VOTE (Primary amendment): YES:  MINSCH, ZAK, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, SCHEER

 

Motion carried.

 

It was noted that this is just down the road from the subdivision that was discussed previously and clarification was requested regarding the contours of the slope.  Ms. McKibben noted that the calculations have been done and there are no non-conformities on the lot.  Mr. Imhoff stated that the slope on the lower lot is 14%.

 

SCHEER/FOSTER I MOVE TO ADD A RECOMMENDATION THAT, AT THE APPLICANTS OPTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTS A VACATION OF THE NORTH/SOUTH UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTIES.

 

There was question regarding the location of the utility boxes.  Mr. Imhoff stated the existing utilities are along the rights-of-way at the top and bottom of the lots.

 

VOTE (Primary amendment):  YES:  ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, SCHEER

                                                NO:  MINSCH

 

Motion carried.

 

There was no further discussion on the main motion as amended.

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

PENDING BUSINESS

 

A.        Staff Report PL 07-26, 2007 Commission Work Plan

 

CHESLEY/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE BRING FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION STAFF REPORT PL07-25.

 

There was discussion that it should be PL 07-26 as it is the staff report that is scheduled for discussion on the agenda.  Then they could discuss sensitive areas as it is part of the work listed.

 

There was consensus of the Commission.

 

CHESLEY/ZAK I MOVE THAT WE SEND THE ORIGINAL ACTION BACK TO COUNCIL, WHICH THE ORIGINAL ACTION WAS TO MOVE SECTION 12.12 TO TITLE 21 FOR COUNCIL ACTION.

 

City Planner McKibben questioned if the intent is to include the amendments that were presented to Council last week or simply lifting section 12.12 and moving it to title 21 without any amendments to the language. 

 

CHESLEY/HESS I MOVE THAT WE ONLY SEND THE FRONT PORTION, WHICH IS THE ACTUAL ADOPTED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IN 12.12 WITH OUT THE AMENDMENTS.

 

Discussion points included:

·        One of the changes recommended by staff was a purpose statement that seems important to have there.

·        If it is important for the Commission to have the sensitive areas ordinance adopted with the flood hazard ordinance now, it might have a better chance to succeed if it went with out any amendments and they could come back later with the purpose statement.

·        If they follow through on the City Planner’s action to get this into title 21, then the amendment can be picked up when the entire chapter 21 comes before them.

·        The Commission put a lot of effort into some minor, yet important changes in the sensitive areas ordinance.  It is not so important to move this over and give up the work that has been done.

·        Comments from Councilmember Heimbuch during the worksession suggested they should include the amendments and he would explain that these amendments refer to the mapped flood plane areas, not every piece of private property in the area.

 

City Planner McKibben commented that Councilmembers Novak and Roberts had a clear understanding of the purpose of the amendments and explained them very well at the Council meeting, so she is not sure that the Council will support it with the amendments a second time around.

 

VOTE (Primary amendment): YES:  MINSCH, HESS

            NO:  CHESLEY, SCHEER, ZAK, FOSTER

 

Motion failed.

 

It was clarified that the main motion would be sending the ordinance and the proposed changes to Council. 

 

VOTE (Main motion as amended):  YES: FOSTER, SCHEER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HESS

            NO: MINSCH

 

City Planner McKibben asked the Commission for justification resubmitting this back to Council.  It was noted that Councilmember Heimbuch’s commented that Council was confused about the purpose of the action and thought the amendments would apply more broadly.  The Commission wants to emphasize that they want Council to reconsider this action again with the understanding that these proposed amendment only effect mapped flood plane areas.  If the Council still does not support the ordinance, then the request is for direction for the Commission of what they want done differently. 

             

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff.  Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed.   The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public. Any items brought before the commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following introduction of the item.  The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant (such as acceptance of a nonconformity). 

 

  1. Discussion:  Driveway Use Pertinent to Country Club Estates and Drive Way Permits in General

 

CHESLEY/ZAK I MOVE THAT WE TAKE UP ITEM A FOR DISCUSSION AND COMMISSION CONSIDERATION.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Foster asked to be recused due to possible conflict in participating at the Borough level.  The Commission concurred and Mr. Foster left the table.

 

Commissioner Zak noted that he had a conflict during the previous action on Country Club estates.  City Planner McKibben commented that this is not a quasi judicial action before them; it is a general discussion of driveways throughout the City and didn’t feel it would be a conflict for Mr. Zak to participate.  The Commission concurred with Ms. McKibben and Commissioner Zak stayed at the table.

 

Commissioner Chesley suggested an ordinance amendment that driveway permits are good for the lots they are issued to.  If a driveway easement is going to be used to extend a driveway permit, that once it goes across the original lot that the permit was granted to, there will be a trigger that if the driveway exceeds as certain number of feet, or goes to two or more lots then it will have to be built to the rural road standards and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards.  They would have to harmonize the code rural road standards with the NFPA standards. 

 

Discussion included:

·        The Commission just approved some shared driveways on the top of the hill that go forever.

·        The Commission has a duty to protect other property owners and there may be issue having this standard on a driveway, but if it is serving two or more lots it should be built to higher standards.

·        If the property owner subdivides and the driveway accesses both properties the City will need to be able to access both properties with emergency vehicles, so there will have to be a road that meets the standard for emergency vehicles.

·        There would have to be an easement agreement between property owners.

·        When the City issues a driveway permit they are only looking at the approach where the driveway touches the right-of-way, culvert sizing and so forth.  If the driveway doesn’t touch the right-of-way, it may not need a permit.

·        As land becomes subdivided this suggested trigger would be the only new chance the City has to apply the standard to those situations through a subdivision agreement.

·        It would be more appropriate to require the developer to build a right-of-way rather than extending an easement.

·        The problem with requiring a right-of-way is that it has to be sixty feet wide.

·        This won’t help with the existing driveway issues, but will help as properties are subdivided in the future.

·        It will help prevent property owners from finding themselves in the situation of not having access to their lots and protects the owner who has the easement from continued traffic across it with out requested access.

·        If the City is going to have additional home sites or structures built that the City shares an obligation to protect with certain provisions, then the City needs to develop an infrastructure so the public services can serve the people of Homer. 

·        If property owners who already have access to the driveway easement don’t want to participate with a property owner who wants to subdivide, then they won’t be able to subdivide.  They will have to find another way to get access to the dedicated right-of-way.

·        This amendment to Code would recognize that we live on a hillside community, we have dedicated rights-of-way that aren’t buildable and we have this network of very substandard roads, which people are using for their access.  In many instances, emergency vehicles can in no way provide service to those lots.  Over time as things develop, this will allow the City a mechanism to deal with the needed upgrades.

·        These private shared easements do not conform to any standards and they do not grant permission for emergency vehicles or anyone else to cross their private property.  In other places it has been imperative to go to a standard of shared driveway easements that the City is included in from the point of access for services rather than it being between property owners.

 

The Commission agreed that it would be a good idea to schedule a worksession in the future with the Fire Chief and Public Works Director to discuss this further.

 

Vice Chair Minsch asked City Planner McKibben if she had any other comments regarding the worklist.  There was discussion of moving the Development Activity Plan up to item 2 on the worklist.  Things are happening in the City now and the DAP needs to be addressed in other areas of the City than just the ones included now.  The Commission briefly discussed some filling that is taking place on a lot near Paul Banks Elementary School and suggestion was made to look into establishing a grading or filling permit.  They agreed to move the grading and filling permit up to priority two or three. 

 

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

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

 

A.        Letter dated March 19, 2007 to Carmen and Jose Ramos from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician                                                                          

B.         Letter dated March 28, 2007 to Dean Jackson from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician           

C.        Ordinance 07-14, An Ordinance of the City Council of Homer, Alaska, Amending Homer City Code 21.60 Supplemental Regulations Sign Code to Include the Gateway Business District

D.        City of Homer, Board of Adjustment, Decision on Appeal on the Matter of W. Garth and Rhonda Bradshaw, Alasko, Inc., DBA Central Charter Booking Agency                                         

Commissioner Chesley commented that he is happy with the result of the Bradshaw appeal as it is an example of how useful the process can be and how some issues were clarified.  He has some proposed amendments for the sign code that will help clarify some of the issues for discussion at a future meeting.  There was brief discussion regarding the result of the appeal. 

 

City Planner McKibben commented regarding a letter she sent to Don Blackwell giving him a deadline of mid-April.  He called and advised her that he will be out of state until May to be with his ailing mother.

                         

AUDIENCE COMMENTS

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

 

There were no audience comments.

 

COMMISSION COMMENTS

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

 

Commissioner Hess commented regarding visiting landscaping in the re-write of title 21.  He thinks that it would be appropriate to come up with a way for a property owner who wants to dedicate a large portion of landscaping on their property to have some relief from requiring the three foot buffer around a property.

 

Commissioner Foster thanked Commissioners Scheer and Chesley for their work outside the meeting. He appreciated the City Planners point that the driveway permit is for the connection where it meets the right-of-way, as stated in the definition.  He appreciates Mr. Imhoff’s input this evening.  He commended Vice Chair Minsch for her work tonight.

 

Commissioner Scheer commented that he is working on a write up for the Economic Development Commission for the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.  He said the CEDS is like a comp plan for economic development for the City.  He said he would like to hear informal individual comments from the Planning Commissioners regarding the planning portion of the CEDS.

 

Commissioner Chesley thanked everyone.

 

Commissioner Zak commented that they made significant progress tonight in areas they have been struggling with for a long time, mainly the grading and filling and driveway.  He referenced the platting action that was postponed this evening and noted something the Commission might want to consider in the future is what is buildable and how it is accessed.  In the Handley’s case they are hampered by the hillside. 

 

Vice Chair Minsch had no comments.

 

ADJOURN

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 9:58 pm. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers.  There will be a Worksession at 5:00 pm prior to the meeting. 

 

 

 

                                                                                   

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

 

Approved:                                                                   

 

 

 

 

 



[1] It was noted later in discussion that the section of Borough Code being referred to here is KPB 20.20.030.