Session 07-06, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 7:05 pm on April 18, 2007 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

Prior to roll call Chair Kranich requested the Commissioner’s keep their copies of the filling and grading information to bring back for the next meeting.

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

ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HESS (Excused)

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Agenda was approved 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.

There were no public comments.

RECONSIDERATION

There were no items scheduled 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 April 4, 2007

2. Time Extension Requests

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

4. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

5. 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 scheduled.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster did not have a Borough Report.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no KCAPC report.

C. Planning Director’s Report

City Planner McKibben reminded the Commission about the Community workshop Wednesday the 25^th from 5:00 to 8:30 pm and the Planning Commission meeting with Agnew::Beck on the 26^th. She gave a brief overview of the schedule.

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.

A. Staff Report PL 07-29, Vacation of a 30’ Access Easement for Lot 2, W.R. Benson No. Three Subdivision

Commissioner Scheer stated he has a conflict of interest.

CHESLEY/FOSTER I MOVE THAT COMMISSIONER SCHEER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Commissioner Scheer explained that his company DnA Design is involved in the planning for the site design and would have a financial gain of over $300.

VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH

Motion carried.

Commissioner Scheer left the table.

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.

Kenton Bloom, applicant’s representative, commented that this has been an interesting situation with the easements, parameters, intersections and variables. Hopefully these lots will be served again from behind like they were on North Avenue where it was vacated across the top. In lieu of that for the time being the adjacent lots do have functional access off the highway. This action is basically cleaning up lot two since it is heading to becoming one lot, future lot 1A which will encompass the two lots on the corner.

Clarification was requested that the Hennick’s lot does not have access through on to Main Street with this existing access easement. Mr. Bloom concurred and commented that the problem is that if they were to permit a driveway off lot two, the applicant would probably have trouble getting that permit, even though DOT approved the scheme, because of it’s proximity to the intersection. It is not a favorable location for a driveway ingress and egress. There is an access easement on the current lot two. The Hennick’s could use the access easement to go onto the lot then access off Main Street, like a frontage road. With the right-of-way separation it has a pretty significant negative impact on lot 2, if that is where a frontage type effect would be, in the sense that there would be the highway, then a road that is a shared driveway. Mr. Bloom said they are working on the architectural features for the CUP, but the idea is that there might be some mutual benefit on a looping effect or fire safety by allowing a managed traffic flow, parking lot type of setting.

There was brief discussion clarifying that the drawing included on page 19 of the packet is specific to this action. The vacation will be attached to the replat that has already been approved as one submittal to the Borough.

It was questioned if it correct that there is no North Avenue dedicated on the site to Beluga Place.

Mr. Bloom responded that is correct.

There were no further public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.

CHESLEY/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE STAFF REPORT PL 07-29 AND SEND IT BACK TO STAFF FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS.

Commissioner Chesley commented that after running some numbers on the lots he has long term concern for the City of Homer in that these lots are adjacent to one of the busiest intersections in town. He expressed concern regarding the traffic impact. In taking the area of lots one and two there is a little over 65,000 square feet of area, it could support a retail development of about 30,000 square feet and the parking code addresses a ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet of retail floor space. There could be a development on the lot of 30,000 sf and 100 parking spaces, plus the isle ways to support the parking. In looking at the extent of a development there, he is concerned that the traffic will get funneled over to Main Street and it may not be in the best interest of the Commission to vacate the right-of-way. They may need to think about a scenario where they would be sending traffic in the opposite direction to Beluga Street, which would be one of the main developed accesses to the Town Center development. There is a 50 foot dedicated right-of-way there. He noted a need to have a traffic analysis done to see what the impact will be and intersection spacing.

City Planner McKibben responded that staff has done some traffic numbers based on the preliminary conditional use application that has been submitted. The applicant has been in discussion with DOT traffic engineers about whether they will require a traffic impact analysis. In her discussions with the DOT engineer, it is her understanding that the proposed development for this site can place the drive way on Main Street and meet the separation distances and actually exceed the separation distances. They have not considered a driveway access to Main Street, however, if the funding comes for intersection improvements at Main Street and Sterling Highway, a roundabout or traffic signal, there is potential that they may need to require “right in” and “right out” driveways and a driveway onto the Sterling Highway. This access easement is not a public right-of-way; it is a shared access easement between the three lots, hopefully to combine a driveway. Removing the access easement doesn’t remove the possibility of a driveway onto Main Street from the site, nor does it remove the possibility of a shared driveway with the other two lots at some point in the future if that needs to happen. At this point DOT does not have plans for intersection improvements there and it doesn’t look like they will get funds unless a large development would come in which would require funding for that improvement.

Mr. Chesley added that a worse case scenario could develop because of funneling traffic access from lots three and four across those lots. He would like to see this go to staff for more analysis because of the worse case scenario of density of development not a specific development that is being proposed for these lots. In thinking about the future and our road network that is going to be happening here, the Commission can’t just be thinking about a specific development that is coming in to a site, they have to think about the 25, 50 and 100 year horizon. He is convinced moving traffic eastward toward Beluga Street could be something that needs to be considered as part of this whole action. It seems that it would be a benefit to the City if those access easements were flipped to the north side of the property line instead of down on the Sterling Highway. In looking at development in Homer and traffic congestion, we don’t want any more curb cuts along the Sterling Highway than we have to have. In this situation if we remove the access easement then they can get a driveway permit off lot two onto the Sterling Highway. He understands that they are talking about moving traffic over to Main Street but there would be nothing that he knows of to keep them from applying for a driveway permit on to the Sterling Highway from what is now lot two.

Discussion points included:

· If a driveway was put on lot 2, currently under the plat note, lots 3 and 4 would have to use that driveway as their access. There is one shared access agreement between the three parcels.

· Lot 5, the last lot to the east, owned by CIRI does not have an easement across the front of it. The common easement deadheads against that property and they would have to give an easement to allow traffic to flow through to Beluga Street.

· It may be in the best interest to have the easement on the north side of the lot line rather than the south side.

City Planner McKibben commented her understanding of Mr. Chesley’s comments that if they remove the access easement on lot 2, then the property owner can apply for a driveway permit from the state for the Sterling Highway. Mr. Chesley responded that as he understands the plat note, if they were no longer part of the shared access easement, they would be entitled to apply for the permit. Ms. McKibben asked how this would be different from the GCI site where the City retains final approval of the access plan. Commissioner Chesley responded that this is simply a vacation request and he can’t take into consideration a future development that she is looking at as a CUP to make a decision right now. He has to look at the long range impacts to the community based on what the density of development could be on these lots. Ms. McKibben noted that the Commission has approved the vacation of the lot line, so this is no longer two lots; it is one lot which has access to Main Street. She said it is similar to the GCI site where the City required access only from Greatland Street and not on the Sterling Highway.

Question was raised if a requirement can be added during a vacation action that they don’t access the Sterling Highway. City Planner McKibben responded that she is not sure about a vacation; it would have been more appropriated during approval of the plat. She noted that the zoning code gives the City the authority to approve the access plan. There was brief discussion about access to the Hennick’s property and conditions for the access that are proposed in the preliminary CUP for this property.

Mr. Bloom responded that in looking at the existing driveway, the CUP projects moving it slightly north to increase the distance from the intersection. He referred to the aerial photo and said the building would be right on the setback line on the south side of the property. The parking and through way would be in about through the middle of the pad and through the next parcel, hitting Hennick’s just south of the middle. Mr. Bloom stated that he is not presenting the CUP but generally speaking the numbers are 13,800 feet of proposed improvements and about 55 spaces. The trip generator was under the City’s requirement.

Commission Chesley recognized that it would have been more appropriate to address access during discussion of the preliminary plat, and referenced the Design Criteria Manual, section 109, which says “When a subdivision border contains a street designated an arterial on the master plan map, the Homer Advisory Planning Commission may require shared access or the dedication of a frontage street, alternatively an interior road may be required along the rear lot line abutting the arterial which will serve the access requirement of all the lot fronting the arterial.” This development borders two arterials in the Central Business District, which is the source of his concern for some further analysis before the Commission should agree to the vacation of this right-of-way. Further, when looking at intersection spacing and looking at the volume of traffic coming off this site it is going to serve the function of the traffic capacity level of a City street or collector. In looking at the required intersection spacing for those, Mr. Chesley doesn’t believe we meet the intersection spacing standard that the Design Criteria Manual sets for street spacing. If the entire lots along the development are in some type of cooperative agreement they are looking at over 100,000 square feet of potential development there. In the staff report that he has seen he does not believe there has been enough analysis of potential impacts off these lots and the flow of how the impact could work into the Sterling Highway or Main Street traffic streams.

VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER

NO: ZAK

Motion carried.

Commissioner Scheer returned to the table.

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 07-18, Guy Waddell Subdivision No. 2 Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.

Kenton Bloom, applicant’s representative, commented that this plat represents a two year effort to try and eliminate another intersection on East Road, minimize the development footprint, identify building sites, create pedestrian amenity for the City and eliminate possibility of future development in the long term for the site. In effect they are perpetuating the model of development that is seen in the neighborhood now, adding an additional four homes to the area. Mr. Bloom said the values they are holding up in this development include a preferable intersection scenario off Triton Court, the minimized footprint on steeper slopes, open space areas that will be preserved outside the building envelopes and so forth meet the desires of the community at large from what they have hear expressed at Commission meetings. He said they understand the desire of the adjacent land owner to be provided additional access. In their discussions, one thing they noted that he was the same person who perused the platting of the property adjacent to the west into three or four lots there. Mr. Bloom said a reasonable question would by why weren’t access issues for those parcels addressed more fully at that time.

There was question regarding access to lot 1. Mr. Bloom responded that there is a legal public access dedicated to the north line. It is constructible in the area and connects to the east/west section line easement. There would be no intention for this property to connect to it. Access for lot 1 is a shared driveway. There would be four families off the driveway that would connect to Triton Court. They would all come down the side and they would be improving the existing driveway that is there to be able to sustain fire trucks and additional use. He noted that the slope on the shared driveway does not exceed 12%. Commissioner Chesley noted the 9% grade requirement for NFPA. Chair Kranich referenced the Fire Chief’s comments that the proposed driveway should be sufficient. There was discussion of NFPA standards.

There was question regarding the 20 foot wide trail. It was confirmed that the trail on the west side would be put in to serve private property owners for a private loop and more direct access to the public trail.

Jan Spurkland, family member, commented on behalf of Uminski Properties. He said their goal is to provide a low density development area, considering green space and public access to recreation. This plat is their best scenario of what they can produce. There has been discussion with the neighbor to the west regarding access and they are willing to continue discussion. Mr. Spurkland stated this is the design that they feel is the best. He noted that the extra structures are vacant and would likely be removed with development.

Mike Hough, the neighbor to the west, commented that he has altered his lot line three different times as he has brought three pieces of property together. He referenced the aerial photo to show his properties and explained that he has tried to follow the natural features of the lots so the result all the land being usable so as not to end up in situations where there is usable land on the other side of the canyon that no one can get to. He sold some of his land to Tom Taffe[1] and they have worked together in terms of trails and access roads and development of land with minimal impact. Mr. Hough stated his desire that if he were allowed to use the roadway, which is essentially the flag of lot two in the proposed plat, then he could acquire the 30 feet to the west of the Wise property would give the Hough’s property access to a real road. The end result of not being able to use the flag is that it will just be another spoke of some wheel that will cross some place on the Wise property. He would at least like to be able to tie in to their utilities and he is perfectly willing to share the burden of cost. Mr. Hough noted that would like to continue discussion with Mr. Spurkland to achieve his goal of a City road and City utilities rather than another spoke.

There were no further public comments.

MINSCH/SCHEER I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 07-18 GUY WADDELL SUBDIVISION WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:

Correctly depict and note the 30 ft Right of Way to the north, named of Rosebud Street.
Make the corrections and clarifications requested by the Public Works Department in items 1-8, above.
A Subdivision Development Agreement will be required.
Connect any private driveway easements with Uminski Court.
Create a plat note describing the restrictions on the public and private trail easements.
Add a plat note stating that acceptance of the plat does not constitute acceptance of any nonconformities.

CHESLEY/MINSCH I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE CREATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 7 THAT ALL DRIVEWAYS WILL MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE ALASKA FIRE CODE.

There was discussion regarding the proposed recommendations. Points raised were:

· It seems the Alaska Fire Code is more restrictive on grades than our Borough Road Standards, yet there is still fire service available on roads up to 15%.

· Homer Zoning Code, by reference, adopts the Alaska Building Code which has to comply with the Alaska Fire Code.

· Homer Zoning Code doesn’t adopt the Alaska Building Code it requires proof of compliance with the State of Alaska Building Code for commercial developments or CUP’s.

· It is acceptable to have this as a recommendation rather than a plat note.

· There is potential problem in that the access is a platted driveway and the percentage would have to be within the 10 feet on either side.

· This could be addressed in the subdivision agreement but needs to be addressed prior to final plat approval. Lessening the grade is doable; it is a matter of how to go about making the requirement.

VOTE: (Primary amendment) YES: CHESLEY, FOSTER

NO: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, SCHEER

Motion failed.

Commissioner Zak commented that he likes this shared driveway in that all the owners know about it ahead of time. He added that an interesting thing here is that there aren’t driveways going beyond these lots. If they ever subdivided, there is a clear purpose for this driveway, rather than instances they have seen in the past where the issue gets compounded.

It was questioned whether there could be a plat note which states that the driveway is private and will not be maintained. There was discussion that it seems clear that this is a driveway easement but it could be clarified further by referring to it as a private driveway easement. Regardless, the City doesn’t maintain driveways.

SCHEER/MINSCH MOVED TO ADD A RECOMMENDATION READING THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE VERTICAL ALIGNMENT OF THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LOT ONE TO ENSURE FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESSIBILITY.

Commission Scheer commented that the vertical alignment will show the slope. The width has been addressed and the location is flexible enough to leave to the applicant.

There was discussion of the length of the driveway. Mr. Bloom figured about 500 or 600 feet, including the panhandle.

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

NO: ZAK

Motion carried.

Commissioner Zak noted that there is nothing restricting Mr. Hough from working with the owners to get access off the flag lot. Another advantage that could be achieved would be to widen the driveway and make it a City road.

Commissioner Foster commented that this seems to be the antithesis of what the body was discussing a few weeks ago about the concern of having driveway after driveway hitting multiple lots as a major form of access. He noted there are advantages to shared driveways, but also disadvantages.

Further comments included:

· Upgrading the driveway to a road is more than just drawing lines on a plat, there is a lot involved.

· Typically in a subdivision of this size there is an expectation that the developer will build internal roads to City standards so City equipment can do maintenance.

· This format is a benefit to the developer so they can avoid costs of adding developed roads to City standards.

· There is merit to discussing if this development is in the best interest of the City and subsequent landowners.

· While is in the best interest of the developer, City code allows this.

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

NO: FOSTER

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 07-28 Chamberlain and Watson, Old Town Cottages Addition Preliminary Plat

Commissioner Scheer stated he has a conflict of interest as he was involved in the original CUP.

MINSCH/ZAK I MOVE THAT COMMISSIONER SCHEER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

There was brief discussion.

VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK, MINSCH

Motion carried.

Commissioner Scheer left the table.

Chair Kranich called for a short recess at 8:39 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:50 pm.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

Kurt Marquardt, applicant, commented that last fall the CUP was approved for this development. He said prior to purchasing the lot he had conversation with the neighboring property owners, Andy and Sally Wills. He explained that as the current lot line indicates, the north boundary comes close to the building they occupy and run a business out of. They had expressed that in the event that Mr. Marquardt purchased the property they would be willing to adjust the lot line there to shave off the corner to give them a little breathing room. He explained that the portion of land is slightly less than 2500 square feet and is out of his development area. He stated he has done his wetlands delineation and a member of the ACOE visited the site last week and said it looks good. Mr. Marquardt briefly described his plans for the pedestrian amenity and said the Wills’ are in full support. The overall goal is providing an access between the Chamber of Commerce and Fish and Wildlife. It is dependent on the bank and landowners immediately to the south of the bank signing on and on the Hansen right-of-way across the street. Those are future details that will need to be worked out. At the request of the Commission Mr. Marquardt referenced the aerial photo. He outlined the proposal explaining what will become the property line and what he will be providing as a start for the pedestrian amenity in the area. There was discussion of the drainage and Mr. Marquardt said it is not an active drainage. It is remnant drainage. Old maps depicted it as a wetland area with a stream running through it. He pointed out on the aerial how drainage has been rerouted.

Kenton Bloom, project surveyor, discussed the layout of the lot and expressed the intention to create an easement on the east/west lot line that follows a designed route. Mr. Bloom commented that he is looking at the trail development the same way as road development. They need to get dedications at the time of platting in an effort of fulfilling a long range plan.

Dave Scheer commented that DnA design was involved at the time of the wetlands delineation and can answer questions the Commission may have on that.

MINSCH/FOSTER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 07-28 OLD TOWN COTTAGES WITH STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:

A plat note indicating that this subdivision may contain wetlands. Property owners should contact the Army Corp. of Engineers prior to any on-site development or construction activity to obtain the most current wetlands designation (if any).
A plat note indicating that the pedestrian easement is dedicated to the City of Homer. A signature line should also be included on the plat.
Show the utility easement on the southern boundary of the subdivision as noted on plat 2003-5.
Show the overhead power line, and include a plat note about associated the utility easement.
Carry forward the plat notes from plat 2003-5 which state that access to state rights of way must be approved by AK DOT, and that these lots are subject to the zoning and development regulations of the City of Homer.

There was brief comment in support of the trail in the area.

VOTE: YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH

Motion carried.

Commissioner Scheer returned to the table.

C. Staff Report PL 07-27, Homer Hockey Addition a Replat of Government Lot 1 Preliminary Plat

Commissioner Chesley advised the Commission that he has the appearance of a conflict of interest.

FOSTER/MINSCH MOVED THAT MR. CHESLEY HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THIS PLAT PL 07-27.

Commissioner Chesley clarified that it is an appearance of a conflict and he explained the he has done a fair amount of work with Don Emmil in the past in his employment for Sunland Development. Although he is no longer employed by them, he is in conversation with Mr. Emmil on several projects. He feels it would be best if he sat out on this discussion.

Mr. Chesley was asked if he felt he could effect his decision when voting on this. He responded that it would not. However, in reading the Planning Commissioners manual, Commissioners are held to an accountability level where it could create an appearance of a conflict and he would not want that to come onto this body.

Mr. Chesley was asked if he had conversations regarding this action. He responded that they were very informal when it was preliminary.

VOTE: YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER

NO: SCHEER, ZAK

Motion failed for lack of majority.

Commissioner Chesley disclosed an exparte communication as he has been involved in these discussions for a long time, since the conception of the Homer Hockey Arena and their concern of the tax issue with the Borough. They have been working with the Borough on ways to reduce their tax burden and one way to do that is to have a discrete parcel of land a development was on which could be assessed and the assessor could determine whether or not they could receive any tax relief by virtue of being a non profit.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

Kenton Bloom, applicant’s representative, commented that they have talked extensively that the general notion on the water is to create an easement on the property line between the two buildings that in the future could be extended back to the lot line and provide a water main back to the north east portion of the lot. Mr. Bloom believes that by creation of the access easement to maintain the existing sewer easement to the hockey rink. The building next door, according to Sunland Development is not hooked up to the sewer even though the lines are extended to it. Mr. Bloom noted that on the plat to the left side of the hockey building is the lift station. He said it is designed to handle the whole area for gravity sewer and during discussion; in the long run a lateral behind the hockey rink heading in the southeasterly direction would be the future extension of the main.

There was discussion of the parking. Mr. Bloom commented that there are times when the hockey rink parking lot and the lot next door are completely full for example when there are tournaments with 5 or 6 teams playing.

Commissioner Foster commented to his recollection of when this process started in town and they were unable to build because of the lot and the changes came before them so many times. This was a temporary fix and their whole idea was to be in town again. It surprises him that this seems to be a permanent thing.

Mr. Bloom commented regarding the driveway. He said Jack Cushing, the engineer on the project, felt it was prudent and in the best interest of the City to have it offset so in the future it could be functional for an extended past the hockey rink. The only way the easement would be extinguished would be if the right-of-way is designated in its place.

There was discussion regarding the layout of the parking at the time of the CUP. The proposed easement is on the improved portion on the north side, which is the portion that was built with State funding.

It was clarified that by the Homer Hockey Association having their own fee simple parcel that they are leasing, it creates a separate taxable entity. Presently they are being taxed as an improvement on the overall Government Lot 1.

SCHEER/MINSCH I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL07-27 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:

The surveyor work with KPB staff to determine if any further work is needed to verify if there are section line easements or not on the property.
The developer should be aware that utility services must meet city code.
A driveway easement is needed along the existing driveway to the new Hockey rink lot.

Commissioner Minsch questioned if the public works comments regarding changes to the water and sewer that need to be made as a condition of the plat should be addressed through a staff recommendation. City Planner McKibben felt recommendation 2 is sufficient and suggested the question be deferred to Public Works Director Meyer.

Public Works Director Meyer commented that based on the discussion with the applicant the intention of that statement has been well communicated. Mr. Meyer said one of the concerns with this plat is reflective of the concerns they have when a small piece of property is subdivided out of a larger one. Decisions have to be made that they can live with as the rest of the property expands. Water and sewer is always something they focus on. Based on the way the property lines are set up the sewer service from the hockey rink leaves the property and goes to another one before going out to the main. The City is now strongly encouraging that all property be served by the main that fronts the property as they don’t allow water and sewer to be served to a lot through another lot. Mr. Meyer said they would like to see a master plan of the property to understand some of the implications this action. There is a lift station in the back that was designed for the entire property and the City doesn’t want to see a whole bunch of lots with individual pump stations going to the main. Mr. Meyer said the preference would be a dedicated right-of-way to the property, but would be willing to accept an access easement that would hold that corridor for a future right-of-way dedication if that is what ended up happening as the property develops. Mr. Meyer added the other thought they had is if the easement is going to become a street right-of-way, it should be established at least 20 feet off the north side of the building to meet he required setback, however that starts to get complicated as adjustments in the lot lines would be needed. Mr. Meyer said Public Works is willing to accept the proposal that is encompassed by the recommendations that are on the table. He suggested the access easement be sixty feet wide. It would extend over to where the lift station is and meet the expectation that it is a potential right-of-way corridor and does provide sewer service to the hockey lot. Mr. Meyer noted that the state did pay all the improvements to that. It was a fairly large amount of money that the City could have used in any number of ways. It included not only the improvements in the right-of-way, but those improvements that were required to tie in the existing right-of-way improvements in transition into the lot.

Question was raised regarding the drainage and Commissioner Chesley gave a brief overview of the engineered drainage system that was designed by Mr. Cushing.

Discussion ensued regarding the lift station with regard to a sixty foot easement being created. Commissioner Chesley gave an overview of the lift station explaining that it is designed to serve most of the parcel of land up to and beyond the barge basin.

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that Planning Staff, Public Works and the applicant met and reviewed the Code requirements. There are a variety of different ways to approach the issue, which is outside the platting action and between the applicant and Public Works.

Chair Kranich said he would entertain a motion to amend staff recommendation three that the drive way easement be along the north property line and be 60 to 70 feet wide.

FOSTER/SCHEER SO MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION THREE THAT THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT BE A LONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 1B AND BE 70 FEET WIDE.

It was clarified that it would be the length of lot line of 1B. Mr. Meyer commented that it is his understanding that the developer is committed to providing that access easement all the way to the far end of the building.

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

Motion carried.

SCHEER/CHESLEY I MOVED TO ADD A RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FOUR THAT THE DEVELOPER RECORD AN AGREEMENT FOR A SHARED DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BETWEEN THE NEW PARCEL AND REMAINDER PARCEL.

Commissioner Scheer commented that this is a housekeeping issue. They have a storm water plan on the lot as a whole but they are potentially creating a non conformity if they create this lot without storm water control.

Commissioner Foster recalled discussion during approval of the CUP regarding where busses could circulate. He questioned if the circulation of vehicles on the lot would be affected with this change. City Planner McKibben clarified that the emergency vehicles don’t access the back of the building, only in the front, so there is not a need to drive around the building.

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

NO: ZAK

Motion carried.

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

At the request of Commissioner Chesley, Chair Kranich called for a short recess at 10:14 pm. The meeting resumed at 10:22 pm.

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

The pending motion on the floor is as follows:

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.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the City Attorney’s comments in staff report PL 07-32(S).

Commissioner Chesley expressed his appreciation for the City Attorney’s timely response. Based on the information provided he suggested the Commission adopt the findings he provided at the last meeting and that were submitted to the City Attorney for his review. Mr. Chesley suggested that it would be appropriate for the Commission not to support the adoption of the staff report and adopt the findings from the handout.

Commissioner Zak pointed out the interpretation by staff of the Attorney’s comments state that “if” the average slope is the proper way to measure slope then it is over developed. In looking at the parcel, rather than sending an owner back to find alternate ways, he questioned if there is realistically a place where the owner can develop. He said the “if” on behalf of the land owner, the Commission needs to be careful to take this large piece of property and say that the owner can not subdivide. He agrees about the non conformity not continuing and it clears up a separate issue for the future. On the issue of the slope and the percentage that is covered, he doesn’t know that they have fairly answered the question for a private owner. Mr. Zak added that if there is a storm water drain and it is built to where they are keeping the footprint small, not impacting the environment and replacing vegetation, there is a greater opportunity to work with the property owner now.

Commissioner Chesley thinks that what has been determined from the work that has been done is this configuration that has been presented as a preliminary plat can’t be approved the way they are doing business now. He recognized that the question was raised regarding if there is another way to calculate slope, but that is discussion that has to be taken up in a different forum and doesn’t apply to the development at this point. He feels to benefit the owner, the Commission should vote this down and the owner can work with staff to come up with another idea for the Commission to consider.

SCHEER/CHESLEY I MOVE TO ADD A FINDING THAT UNDER HCC 21.44.050(A)(1) AND OTHER APPLICABLE SECTIONS THAT MEASUREMENT OF SLOPE SHALL BE FROM THE HIGHEST TO THE LOWEST POINT ON THE PROPERTY.

It was noted that it if it passed it would become finding 6.

City Planner McKibben commented that the Commission is discussing a preliminary plat. She feels that this finding is establishing an interpretation policy for staff to use and that would be appropriate as a separate action outside of the preliminary plat.

Commissioner Scheer disagreed, stating that since they are sending recommendations to the Borough and recommendations have to be based on City code, this would establish that they are creating something that is not legal under code. This clarifies that this is the way we are measuring slope and it does create non conformity according to that interpretation of the code.

Commissioner Zak cautioned that in looking at the 3 to 1 and whether it applies to the buildable area, then start applying slope to the entire area, there hasn’t been consistency in dealing with plats in Homer. He feels they are creating precedence here and suggested they work on amending code rather than disapproving this plat.

There was discussion regarding whether the 3 to 1 requirement is a factor in this case. It was argued that it may not be applicable in this case, based on the development and argument was made that when Platting Officer Toll attended their meeting and discussed 3 to 1, there would be special circumstance that it could be applied to the buildable location. Commissioner Zak noted that there is un-buildable steep slope on a lot of properties; he questioned why this property owner is impacted and forced through another hoop.

Chair Kranich commented that irregardless of the method used to determine the percentage of the lot available for development, the main point to take from the Attorney’s response is that if a subdivision takes place, the original legal lot disappears and the new ones do not qualify as non-conforming.

There was brief discussion that the method of determining the slope of the lot is based on the average slope from the highest to lowest point on the lot. It is important to emphasize to the Borough that they are basing their decision on City code and it is part of the evaluation that was done to determine the action on this plat.

Staff and the Commission discussed the order of business in adopting findings before or after taking action on the staff report.

CHESLEY/SCHEER I CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

VOTE: (Calling the question) YES: FOSTER, SCHEER, CHESLEY, KRANICH

NO: MINSCH, ZAK

Motion carried.

Commissioner Zak commented that he has received zoning permits he knows the slope has been calculated on the developed area. He cautioned that what the Commission is about to do really raises a red flag.

VOTE: (Finding 6) YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, SCHEER

NO: ZAK, MINSCH

Motion carried.

VOTE: (Main motion): YES: ZAK

NO: SCHEER, MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY

Motion failed.

CHESLEY/FOSTER I MOVE WE ADOPT THE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION, FINDINGS ONE THROUGH SIX.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: YES: MINSCH, KRANICH, CHESLEY, FOSTER, SCHEER

NO: ZAK

Motion carried.

PENDING BUSINESS

There were no items for pending business.

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).

A. Staff Report PL 07-31, A Resolution of the City Council of Homer, Alaska Creating the City Hall-Town Plaza Review Committee and Authorizing the City Clerk to Advertise for Interested Participants

MINSCH/SCHEER MOVED TO DISCUSS.

There was brief discussion on the motion to discuss.

VOTE: YES: NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

The Commission discussed appointments to the committee and agreed that Commissioners Chesley and Foster would serve as Planning Commissioners appointments to the Committee.

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.

There were no information materials for discussion.

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 Chesley commented on earlier discussion on reference of State of Alaska Code being incorporated by reference, there are several place in code where it actually happens. Mr. Chesley cited sections of Homer City Code Titles 1 and 5 that refer to the State of Alaska Code. He discussed previous actions that have been taken where the reference is to commercial buildings with regard to the fire code.

Commissioner Zak again wanted to caution what the Commission did tonight. The first plat that was approved had steep slope involved and the report even indicated that a lot being created would trigger the slope percentage to come into effect. He has received permits where the calculation has been determined on the developed area. He think it needs to be discussed further in a worksession to find out how to look at it on a broader perspective of all lots. On bluff pieces the measurement would have to go out to the water line and up the bluff. It has to be consistent and he doesn’t believe this is how it has been done in the past. He supports consistency, noting his military background, and commented when he sees something like this, he feels they were unfair to the applicant.

Commissioner Foster commented that the calculation has been used on the beach slopes and things that have come through here. Mr. Foster added that with the CUP for the subdivided lot, he recommended recording CUP’s. He discussed parking and the need to discuss it at another time. Lastly he asked staff to look at HCC 21.59.080 regarding the Bridge Creek Water Shed, regarding the fill and grading section for information.

Commissioner Scheer commented that this Planning Commission is fortunate to have the diverse group of Commissioners. He feels that if they go too far with the Conflict of Interest thing, he would not have been able to talk about anything if he took the safest route tonight. He is working with Kenton on several projects and could have claimed a conflict on every topic that came in front of the Commission. He was really glad Mr. Chesley was involved in the conversation about the Hockey Rink because he was able to answer questions pertinent to the action.

Commissioner Minsch and Chair Kranich had no comment.

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 11:30 pm. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 2, 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] Clerk’s note: Tom Taffe is an owner of the Stream Hill Park Development.