Session 06-10, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:06 pm on April 19, 2006 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

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

 

ABSENT:        COMMISSIONERS HESS (Excused)

 

STAFF:            CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND 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 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 Programs Report

            D.        Commission Excused Absences

 

The agenda was approved as presented.

                       

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.

 

            A.        Approval of April 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes

 

The minutes were approved as amended. 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATION

The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda.  The Chair may prescribe time limits.  Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission.  Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission.  A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

 

There were no comments or presentations.

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items.  The Commission may question  the public.

 

A.        SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, Staff Report PL 06-31 Ordinance 06-20(A) An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer, Alaska, Amending the Homer City Zoning Map to Rezone to a Gateway Business District (A SUB DISTRICT OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) Portions of Rural Residential (RR) and Portions of Urban Residential (UR) Zoning Districts Fronting on the Sterling Highway West Hill area to the South West Boundary of the Central Business District.

 

City Planner McKibben commented that there is a supplemental staff report with information about existing vacant land in the Central Business District (CBD).  She read the supplemental staff report.

 

Dr. Bill Marley, City resident and property owner in the area proposed for rezone, read his letter into the record and it consisted of the following points:

·        The lots in the proposed area have City water/sewer but have not been developed as residential because of their proximity to the highway.

·        Most lots are an acre or larger and are suitable for commercial structures and most remaining CBD lots are City house sized lots ranging from .5 to 1 acre.

·        Much of the land in the proposed area is view and ocean front property that could be developed by tourism, lodging/restaurant industry, senior housing/assisted living facilities.  It could also provide for a Convention Center.

·        It could provide employment as it is appropriate that land use and development consider the heath of Homer’s economy.

·        Commercial view property is in short supply, and view parcels of size are nearly non existent.

·        Traffic flow would be spread out, rather than concentrated from Lake Street to the bypass and on the spit.

·        Commercial properties contribute more to the tax base than rural or urban residential. 

·        The spit is a great tourism focus, but only three months of the year.  A second area would provide opportunity for year round tourism in Homer.

·        A secondary area would provide resiliency for the well being of the economy, should there be another event like the ’64 earthquake or a tsunami.

·        About ½ of the properties proposed to be rezoned have road and beach access and are high enough to be out of the tsunami zone. 

·        This would be an extension of the Sterling Highway CBD.  Businesses would be on visible, accessible roadways.

·        A highly desirable and esthetic CBD will encourage existing CBD to be motivated to have esthetic and pleasing businesses.

 

Dr. Marley provided a copy of his letter for the record.

 

Commissioner Foster asked Dr. Marley if he would be supportive of restricting subdivision of the larger parcels not being resubdivided into numerous small lots, due to highly erosive soils in that area.  Dr. Marley said he would be very supportive of that concept.  Commissioner Foster asked how this area would link to the current CBD with regard to walkability.  Dr. Marley assumes that trails will extend into the area.  He pointed out that in the winter this area would be more accessible than the spit and better for downtown business in the winter.

 

Commissioner Kranich suggested that with the larger parcels fronting the highway, there may need to be some type of frontage road to better distribute traffic within the parcels of property rather than having several driveways onto the highway.  Dr. Marley agreed and explained that when the highway was put in, three access points were put in on his property.

 

Gary Hinkle, property owner in the area, commented that he thinks the two CBD districts will work together very well.  He views them as contiguous with the school in between.  There are trail concepts or trails to be built in place.  He sees the two business districts with a different nature.  One area is suitable for retail or professional businesses that require minimal parking.  The other land with larger parcels would be suitable for more open type construction like a convention center or gathering places that are easy to walk between.  He pointed out the area will easily connect with the marine life center[1].  He added that that there is an extreme difference between the spit in the summer and winter, another reason these districts will complement each other.  Mr. Hinkle commented that the amount of land available in the CBD is an inappropriate issue for the zoning of his land.  He politely pointed out that it is not the role of Planning and Zoning to allow specific amounts of land be developed at a time.  He said the responsibility is to appropriately zone all of the land under the City’s jurisdiction.  He added that his land is under the dilemma of not being able to be developed.  He explained that he acquired the land in a complex real estate exchange in the 70’s.  He came down to look at it and met Lillian Walli, who lived on the neighboring property.  They discussed the issue of the traffic and at shortly there after requested a zoning change.  That was in 1979.  He pointed out that his land can not reasonably be developed residential.  For that reason he believes that the amount of CBD property available isn’t an issue to the appropriate zoning of his land. He said he wanted to make that point as politely as he could.  Mr. Hinkle read a letter he prepared for the next City Council meeting which supports the rezone.  A copy of his letter was provided for the record. 

 

Commissioner Foster commented that the Comprehensive Plan directs the decisions the Commission makes, as well as the code.  It is clearly stated in the Comprehensive Plan that the existing CBD should be built out prior to any further zoning of the CBD.  Counting the lots to see what is available was pertinent to see if is proper to extend the CBD at this point.

 

Mr. Hinkle pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan also recommends a long term commercial zoning for the property in question.  He continued that the issue isn’t the direction of the Comprehensive Plan, the issue is the law. 

 

There was no more public comment and Chair Chesley closed the Public Hearing. 

 

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL06-31 WITH RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 2, AND 4.

 

Chair Chesley pointed out for the record that the recommendations in the staff report were not number and assigned numbers to the recommendations as follows:

 

Recommendation:

  1. Staff recommends that the Commission consider public comments, staff recommendations and make a recommendation to the Council.
  2. Staff recommends amending the boundaries to include the Woodside are as identified in Exhibit C.
  3. Staff further recommends the Planning Commission not recommend approval of the proposed ordinance and adopt findings supporting this.
  4. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend that further consideration of this ordinance be deferred until work is completed on the Scenic Gateway.
  5. Should the Commission decide to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance staff recommends that it be with the recommendation to amend the permitted and conditional uses and structures allowed within the proposed sub district as addressed in a separate staff report.  Should the Commission choose to recommend approval of this proposed ordinance the Commission will have to adopt findings in support of this.

 

Commissioner Lehner commented that it is appropriate to look carefully at the changes to this area, and there is a parallel process underway to look at the changes with even more public input than what they have received for this.  She expressed her appreciation with the people who have been coming to their hearings.  She understands there is frustration with people wanting to get it done quickly, but the other process is moving along, it has a time frame and she would like to see the completion of that process before adopting these proposed changes.[2] 

CONNOR/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO INCLUDE RECOMMENDATION 3.

 

Ms. Lehner commented that the public input has been very beneficial.

 

VOTE:  YES:  CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION 5 WITH FURTHER CHANGES THAT IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT IT WOULD BE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES AS WELL AS THE SUBDIVISION CODE TO LIMIT FURTHER SUBDIVISION ALLOWED IN THE PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT AS ADDRESSED IN A SEPARATE STAFF REPORT AND TO INCLUDE LIMITED ACCESS TO THE STERLING HIGHWAY. 

 

City Planner McKibben pointed out that recommendation three and five are in conflict.

 

Commission Foster commented that he realizes they are only recommending but it is important in many of these issues where the Commission hears a lot of testimony that when something comes before a higher body that even if it does get passed, all of the discussion is not lost as far as the recommendation from the Planning Commission. 

 

Chair Chesley called for a short recess at 7:54 pm to work with Commissioner Foster on the wording of his motion.  The meeting resumed at 8:03 pm.

 

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

 

Motion failed.

 

LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED THE COMMISSION INCLUDE AS RECOMMENDATION FIVE THE FOLLOWING:  THAT SHOULD THE COUNCIL DECIDE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT IT BE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO:

  1. AMEND THE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED WITHIN THE PROPOSED SUB DISTRICT (AS ADDRESSED IN A SEPARATE STAFF REPORT);
  2. REVISE THE ZONING CODE TO RESTRICT RE SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING LOTS IN THE SUB DISTRICT, AND
  3. RESTRICT ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO THE STERLING HIGHWAY WITHIN THE SUB DISTRICT.
  4. CREATE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE SUB DISTRICT AND THE EXISTING TOWN CENTER AREA.

 

Commissioner Lehner commented that the amendment was made in an effort to catch the flavor of what people have been saying should the Council adopt the proposed ordinance.

 

Commissioner Foster commented that he supports the idea of a good looking entrance into town as well as maintaining the highway.  That will only happen if there is a concerted effort to control the water that is in the bluff.  He explained that the area of the school and the land above is wetlands that have been gathering the water coming off the hill.  If the area proposed for rezone is broken down into small lots, all is lost to the road and the whole community.  He believes this is a pro active way to look at the larger lot sizes.  Dr. Foster expressed concern with number two in the pending motion in that restricting re-subdivision could prevent adjusting lot lines to make larger lots. 

 

There was discussion of recommending a minimum lot size.  City Planner McKibben when she prepares her memorandum to City Council she will convey some of the discussion that an alternative might be to create a minimum lot size.  She noted that it has been pointed out that that the Commission has supported the process that is going on, and in this process they will have time to work with this. 

 

VOTE:  YES:  CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE:  (Main motion as amended):  YES:  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

PLAT CONSIDERATIONS

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 06-36, Mutch-Gangl 2006 Addition Subdivision Preliminary Plat

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED THAT SHE HAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE SHE OWNS ADJOINING PROPERTY.

There was brief discussion.

 

VOTE: YES:  FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

Commissioner Lehner left the table.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report.  She stated she received an email from Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, in response to some items in the staff report.  Mr. Imhoff’s email mentions

·        Per the plat note, the utility easement runs along the entire frontage of East End road, it is not shown in the panhandle is for clarity, too many lines on the plat are hard to read. 

·        The lots have onsite sewer, waste water certificate to appear on final plat with no additional soils testing required. 

·        The City may have water service line easement with the property owner, but Mr. Imhoff doesn’t have any information other than what is shown on the parent plat.

·        Mr. Imhoff suggests the following plat note: Existing buried water service line is centerline of an easement X feet wide, benefiting what ever entity. 

·        Plat note 3 is the standard utility easement note which appears on all plats within the Borough.

 

Roger Imhoff, project surveyor commented he was available to answer questions.

 

Chair Chesley noted there are two plat notes numbered eight.  Mr. Imhoff clarified the second one should be number nine. 

 

Commissioner Foster questioned the overhead power lines mentioned in item seven and whether they should be underground.  Mr. Imhoff responded that it is an existing power line that is not going to be moved.  He clarified that it is adjacent to the parcels, not on the property.

 

Gloria Corey, City resident and neighboring property owner, pointed out her lots on the aerial photo.  Mrs. Corey explained that she has recorded water rights to the unnamed creek that cuts through her property.  She asked for clarification whether this proposed change will affect her water rights.  Mr. Imhoff explained that this proposed plat only moves common lot line between two lots to accommodate an existing driveway and none of the outside lines with respect to the creek are being changed. 

 

There was no further public comment. 

 

PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL 06-36 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Staff Recommendations:

  1. Create twenty foot wide natural drainage easements centered on the drainages along the eastern edge of the subdivision and the drainage within lot 2.
  2. Continue the 15 ft utility easement across the panhandle of lot 1, adjacent to East End Road.
  3. Work with Public Works to verify there is no water line encroachment on lot 1 from lot 2.  Create a utility easement if an encroachment exists.
  4. Remove the language in note 3, “which would interfere with the ability of a utility to use the easement”.  No permanent structures shall be placed in the utility easement.
  5. Meet the requirements of question 11 above, show the general location of existing water and sewer utilities, and the intent and methods of the subdivision to utilize and access such utilities.

 

PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND TO INCLUDE RECOMMENDATION SIX THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTE EIGHT BE CHANGED TO NOTE NINE.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES:  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Kranich questioned if staff recommendation one should be the western boundary rather than the eastern boundary.  City Planner McKibben agreed it was a typo. 

 

KRANICH/CONNOR MOVED TO CORRECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ONE WHERE IT REFERS TO DRAINAGES ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE SUBDIVISION INSTEAD OF THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE SUBDIVISION.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES:  CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, KRANICH, FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Connor commented that requirement six in the staff report says that easements, including drainage easements, existing and proposed should be shown, but they aren’t shown. City Planner McKibben pointed out that was noted in the staff recommendation one.

 

Commissioner Kranich noted a discrepancy as the staff report notes that drainage easements are normally 30 feet and staff recommends twenty feet.  Mr. Imhoff commented his understanding that there is already a 20 foot drainage easement from previous platting actions and twenty feet seems reasonable.  Mr. Kranich further noted that staff recommendation is to create the easement, indicating that it is not there.  Chair Chesley stated that the overriding point is that they want a drainage easement and the owner and applicant have agreed that they would provide a twenty foot drainage easement. 

 

VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Lehner returned to the table.

 

B.      Staff Report PL 06-35, West Hill Subdivision Lot 5-D Replat Preliminary Plat

 

City Planner McKibben directed the Commission to the laydown items provided with regard to this plat and she read the staff report. 

 

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED THAT SHE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

Commissioner Lehner explained that she owns 12 acres at the end of Eagle View Road and asked that the Commission determine if she has an appearance of a conflict of interest.  Commissioner Pfeil asked if she feels she has a conflict.  Ms. Lehner responded that she doesn’t think that anything that happens on this lot affects her personally.

 

 

VOTE:  NO:  PFEIL, CONNOR, CHESLEY

            YES: KRANICH, FOSTER

 

Motion failed for lack of a majority.

 

Guyline Rogers questioned if Commissioner Lehner’s property is at the back side of Eagle View.  Ms. Lehner concurred.  Mrs. Roger’s stated that because the subject property is at the beginning of Eagle View it will conflict going to Ms. Lehner’s property when the road is flooded. 

 

Gary Nelson, project surveyor, stated that he and the owner are present for questions.  He said they had no comments the staff recommendations and that he did see the lay down items that were provided for the Commission.

 

Jane Swain, City resident, said she is very much concerned with the environmental impact of the fill that has happened on this property.  She noted the plat note regarding waste disposal and questioned if it had been done prior to the fill that has gone in.  Chair Chesley responded that it is beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction to answer.  City Planner McKibben commented that because this is an area that wasn’t mapped in 1986 any permitting would have been done through the Corps of Engineers (COE) office. 

 

Guyline Rogers, City resident at the corner of Jeffrey Avenue and West Hill Road, commented that she has been a resident of Homer for 27 years and lived at this address for 25 years, adding that she has five address changes since she has lived at this home.  Her concern is the property is abused because the owner is a construction person and he has been bringing in a lot of fill including roots from other projects that he has been on.  She said she has pictures showing he has been burying things on the property for about four or five years.  She has contacted the City and the engineers, but they are too busy and won’t come.  She knows Mr. Super has received a quota for fill and trees he can cut down on his property.  She questioned that if he divides the land, can he bring in more fill to fill in the area and will the COE allow that.  She explained that previously when he filled his property, the swamp came to her area.  She said Mr. Super has asked what he can do and she explained to the Commission that she wants him to hire an engineer to come in and correct the flooding on Eagle View, her land and West Hill.  She doesn’t mind if he brings in fill as long as is clean and rock and dirt are put on top. 

 

Chair Chesley thanked Mrs. Rogers for her comments.  He explained that the Commission has to focus on the issues of the platting action, as that is what is before them.  Several of the concerns that were raised are zoning issues, which are handled differently.  He advised her that she could contact the Planning staff regarding the drainage issue as code is very clear that a use on one lot can not cause drainage and flooding problems on another lot.

 

Joe Super, applicant, commented that he is in the process of applying to have his property divided into two parcels.  He said he has contacted the COE, received a permit for fill and that is included in the side he is dividing off.  He said a copy has been provided to the City.  

 

Commissioner Foster noted that on the plat the waste water disposal description says the soil is suitable for an on site conventional waste water system.  He asked how the water flows off of Mr. Super’s land.  Mr. Nelson apologized; he normally does not put waste water disposal notes on a preliminary plat.  He said typically they wait until the engineer reviews it and they put the correct note on according to what the engineer recommends and the code requires.

 

Mr. Nelson stated that he takes issue with the staff report saying dedicating the return radius is required.  He said they are not going to contest it, but it is his understanding that code does not require it.  City Planner McKibben commented that she believes it is in the design criteria, which is referenced by code.

 

CONNOR/FOSTER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 06-35 THE WEST HILL SUBDIVISION REPLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:  

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

 

  1. 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).
  2. Depict a 15 feet utility easement along West Hill Road.
  3. Dedicate the required radius at the intersection of West Hill and Eagle View.

 

FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED THAT THE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL COMMENT ON THE PLAT BE REMOVED.

 

Commissioner Kranich referenced the plat note on the previous plat, which states that all wastewater disposal systems shall comply with existing applicable laws at the time of construction.  He suggests that plat note be on this one. 

 

Commissioner Connor countered that she would not want a very minor note put on in place of a more comprehensive note. 

 

Chair Chesley commented that normally the engineering is done and presented for the final plat.  The note is not required for approval of a preliminary plat. 

 

VOTE:  YES:  FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH, LEHNER

 

Motion carried.  

 

There was brief comment made regarding wetland issues and the COE permits.  Comment was also made regarding mitigation.  Both of these issues, while important, are outside of the platting action.  Chair Chesley cited HCC 21.44.050(c) (1) which will relate to the use of the property versus the plat.  The code states:

c. Landscaping Requirements. All development on lands in this zoning district shall conform to the following:

1. Development activities shall not adversely impact other properties by causing damaging alteration of surface water drainage, surface water ponding, slope failure, erosion, situation[3], intentional or inadvertent fill or root damage to neighboring trees, or other physical impacts. The property owner and developer shall take such steps, including installation of culverts or buffers, or other methods, as necessary to comply with this requirement.

 

Commissioner Connor commented to her frustration that they keep bumping up against this issue of subdivision, when it is known that there is a problem in an area but the Commission has to approve a plat anyway.

 

Commissioner Kranich questioned staff recommendation two, Depict a 15 feet utility easement along West Hill Road.  He asked why that is necessary since it is a 100 foot right-of-way.  City Planner McKibben responded that it was a recommendation from Public Works and she doesn’t have the specific reason why.  Chair Chesley pointed out that the applicant doesn’t take issue to the requirement.   

 

Chair Chesley commented that there is a comment on the staff report that states Outside the plat issue is the need for the applicant to provide documentation for establishing Non-Conforming status of the shop,  but that is something staff will have to look at in their analysis of any zoning implications that are up there.   

 

VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY,    FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

C.        Staff Report PL 06-37, James Waddell Survey, Petska Addition Preliminary Plat

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report.  She stated she received an email from Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, in response to some items in the staff report.  Mr. Imhoff’s email states the following

·        They have final Borough Approval of the Nelson-Ronda right-of-way dedication.  As soon as the property taxes have been paid the plat will be recorded. 

·        There is no subdivision agreement required on the plat, based on what the surveyor reports from Public Works. 

·        Nelson engineering is in the process of designing the street improvements of Nelson and Ronda as part of the Quiet Creek Project. 

·        Barnett South Slope Quiet Creek Addition is ready to go for final review as soon as Mr. Neal gives the word. 

·        The plat does not affect the Petska’s in term of legal access.  Tract 4C3 is the only lot fronting exclusively on Nelson, even if Nelson-Ronda right-of-way is not recorded, that lot still fronts on the 25 foot wide right-of-way previously dedicated. 

·        Both water and sewer mains are within the right-of-way of East Hill Road

·        Tracts 4C2 and 4C3 are large enough for on-site services although it is likely that water and sewer mains will be installed with in the rights-of-way of Nelson and Ronda.

·        Plat Note 3 is the standard utility easement plat note in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 

·        Mr. Imhoff does not believe there are any easements other than the front 15 feet referenced by the plat note.

 

Staff recommendations are as follows:

 

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

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

 

  1. 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).
  2. If Nelson Avenue is not already fully dedicated and recorded by the time this plat reaches final platting, Nelson Avenue will be dedicated.
  3. If a subdivision development agreement has not already been executed by final platting, such an agreement shall be required for the construction of Nelson Avenue.
  4. Create a plat note referring to the recognized non-conforming structure on lot 4-C-1.
  5. Depict easements referred to in plat note 3.
  6. Remove the language in note 3, "which would interfere with the ability of a utility to use the easement".  No permanent structures shall be placed, period.
  7. Meet the requirements of question 11 above, show the general location of existing water and sewer utilities, and the intent and methods of the subdivision to utilize and access such utilities.

 

Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, commented that he and Mr. Petska were in attendance to answer questions.  Mr. Imhoff stated they agree with staff’s recommendations with exception of recommendations three as they have been notified by Public Works that no improvement agreement is required.  Mr. Imhoff said Mr. Neal has asked him to proceed as fast as possible with getting the Nelson-Ronda right-of-way recorded, so it is likely that it will be recorded before the Petska’s plat.  Mr. Imhoff pointed out that the section line easement vacation that was approved at the April 5th meeting will not have been recorded before the Petska’s plat, so the full 33 foot section line easement for lots 4C1 and 4C2 will be shown.

 

Commissioner Kranich pointed out a plat note stating that this is a right-of-way vacation plat. Mr. Imhoff responded that he would delete the note. 

 

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 06-37 THE JAMES WADDELL SURVEY, PETSKA ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 AND 2, DELETE 3 AND RENUMBER 4,5 6,7 AS 3,4,5,6 AND ADD NUMBER 7 “DELETE PLAT NOTE 5”

 

Commissioner Foster commented that it is disappointing that the preliminary plat is to the Commission before going to the COE when it has been identified as a discharge slope wetland which is an area concern especially in protecting East End Road from the upper slope. 

 

VOTE:  YES:  KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, CONNOR

 

Motion carried.

 

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 9:12 pm.  The meeting resumed at 9:21 pm

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

            A.        Staff Report PL 06-29 Vacation of Sunnyside Drive

 

Commissioner Lehner excused herself from the table based on determination of her conflict of interest at the April 5th meeting. 

 

City Planner McKibben read the supplemental staff report.

 

Steven Howell, City resident and applicant, commented regarding the three primary issues that came up at the April 5th meeting.  One was the Kachemak Heritage Land Trust (KHLT) position, specifically whether any access could be granted across the KHLT property.  He pointed out that Barbara Seaman, Executive Director of KHLT, provided a laydown item for the Commission that states very clearly that there is no possibility for access from the end of Sunnyside Drive across their property, not even for their own purposes.  The second item of issue was regarding the Mountain View Home Owner’s Association (HOA) land on the east and west of Sunnyside Drive and whether it could or would be subdivided in the future and changed into private lots. He recognized that there is an officer of the HOA in attendance to speak tonight, but it should be noted that the active covenants state that the properties cannot be subdivided.  Mr. Howell said the properties are privately held and they are accessible from Highland Drive.  The third point of issue was whether Sunnyside Drive could provide access to the Henwood’s property.  He said that the letter from Ms. Seaman clarified that access could not be provided. 

 

Mr. Howell noted that the letter from Roberta Highland that City Planner McKibben said was a lay down, was actually submitted at the same time as the original petition.  Mr. Howell said it should be noted that the only three land owners who could be serviced by Sunnyside Drive either now or in the future are all signers on the petition to vacate Sunnyside Drive.  Mr. Howell countered some of the issues raised in the Henwood’s letter regarding:

·        Item 1 - Argues that it would close off the rest of the park land, but Highland Drive provides access to park land and is private park land for the HOA.

·        Item 2 - Argues they cannot determine any harm leaving the road as it is, but the Borough stipulations for what a road should and should not be for the public good and this right-of-way provides none of those uses. 

·        Item 3 - Regards the 1977 preliminary plat the Henwood’s did, but it is Mr. Howell’s understanding that the Henwood’s never recorded the plat, so it can’t be considered.  It also depends on access that cannot be achieved through the adjoining parcels.  The lay down items from Ms. Seaman and Mr. Cutting, who donated the property to KHLT, adequately and sufficiently address the needs of the Henwood’s for accessing their water.

·        Item 6 - Regarding the access being to steep is a 26 year old argument and nothing done here, denying or granting this application will do anything to resurrect the issue. 

·        The last two items regard access to the water system, but access to the system is not obtained through Sunnyside Drive.

 

Mr. Howell stated he feels there is sufficient information available in favor of vacating Sunnyside Drive. 

 

Commissioner Kranich asked how many people are in the HOA.  Roberta Highland responded that there are 19. 

 

Bruce Turkington, City resident, spoke on behalf of Walter Henwood.  Mr. Henwood was present in the audience.  Mr. Turkington commented that this has been a shell game since 1977.  He was able to get some information from Mary Toll, Kenai Peninsula Borough Platting Officer, which included some letters and minutes.  It appears there are some things that were supposed to happen, but didn’t.  He explained that Jerry Anderson was the surveyor at the time and was working both for the Henwoods and the Mountain Park, doing preliminary plats.  They felt at that point that it was prudent to look at planning an upper access.  Mr. Anderson indicated there was legal access to it, but the Mountain Park Subdivision was creating a new and better access for the lower bench, because of both City and Borough requirements.  Sunnyside Drive was required by the Borough, as indicated by minutes, so as to serve access.  Mr. Turkington continued that in 1977, the preliminary plat was done, but there was no need to develop the access at that point, they wanted to know down the road how they would do it.  Mr. Anderson was working for both clients and unfortunately he left a few things out and did not do a few things on behalf of both clients.  He did have a financial interest in Mountain Park. 

 

Mr. Turkington explained they were able to get a timeline of information regarding what happened and there are legal issues regarding this proposed vacation.  He provided a copy of a letter from the developer of the subdivision, General Partner Sam Miller, which went to the Borough, that indicates the vacation of the section line easement, which was a legal access that went through the property that is now owned by George Cutting, was alternate access, was developed and would be given to all adjoining property owners affected by vacation of this right-of-way.  Mr. Turkington pointed out the Cutting’s property on the aerial photo and pointed out where the section line easement would have been.   He said the plat approved by the Borough still shows it in existence.  Ms. Toll informed him that at that time, the State had to approve vacation of the section line easement and the Borough would take action and it did go to the State level.  Mr. Turkington explained that the problem was that Sam Miller provided the letter for the petition for vacation to proceed and he was willing and would give complete[4] access.  The State saw it and objected to the vacation saying that equal alternate access does not appear to have been provided, further down in the letter it talks about this property and the section line.  Jerry Anderson and Sam Miller provided information back to the State showing they had created some access, made a commitment to do the access and the State of Alaska agreed, based on that information, that alternate access had been provide and recommended that the Borough go ahead and vacate, which happened.  What didn’t happened, according to Platting Officer Toll, is that no one went in an verified that the 33 feet of access to the Henwood’s had been done, which it hadn’t.  Mr. Turkington said that Mr. Miller was in violation of his own subdivision development, but that was before there were any property owners up there to know about the problem.  Now we are all here, aware that Mr. Anderson should have brought the issue up, but didn’t.  They did not do what they were supposed to and the Borough didn’t do the checks and balance to make sure the right-of-way was actually platted.  According to past minutes the Borough had concern about the vacation and it was approved based only on alternate access being provided.  Platting Officer Toll informed him that there are ways to acquire that access, even though they say it is not legal, but needs and necessity of right-of-way can be accomplished by way of the City, Borough and State. Regarding access to the water system, Mr. Turkington stated that the Cutting’s have allowed people to cross their property to gain access to the water supply, but added that those agreements can go away when property changes owners.  He urged the Commission not to approve the vacation at this time and let the landowners work it out.  Mr. Turkington provided copies of the letters from Sam Miller, the State of Alaska and the Department of Natural Resources regarding the section line vacation. 

 

Commissioner Foster questioned if Sam Miller’s letter had been recorded with the State.  Mr. Turkington responded that there was correspondence going back a forth between the State and Borough.  The sketchy paper work is hard to put together, but according to Platting Officer Toll, the intent was there but was not followed through. Mr. Anderson did not go back and replat the access, which should have been done.

 

Commissioner Pfeil questioned Mr. Turkington’s comment regarding Mr. Anderson’s interest. Mr. Turkington responded that he spoke with Mr. Anderson who said he did some trade out of land for the survey work he was doing and he was the one who proceeded with the right-of-way vacation assistance to the state level for Mr. Miller. 

 

Roberta Highland, President of the Mountain Park HOA, commented that she was surprised to hear Mr. Turkington’s information tonight.  Her comments tonight are based on the original information and she stated that she does not know where this will lead or if there are statutes of limitation.  She read a letter on behalf of the HOA in support of the vacation of Sunnyside Drive, stating the following reasons:

·        The 30 acres at the end of Sunnyside Drive, owned by KHLT, has a stipulation that there be no development and that no roads for vehicular travel can be built.

·        The section line on the north side of the 30 acres has been vacated and thus Sunnyside Drive is a dead end.

·        Sunnyside Drive, where it is platted, goes through an important area of wetlands.

·        Parklands are owned and managed by the HOA and will not be subdivided because the covenants do not allow it.

·        The HOA supports the fact that the 30 acres of KHLT property and the Mountain Park are dedicated parklands to create almost 50 acres of wildlife preserve and protected wetlands, which is something they support for the future.

 

Mrs. Highland commented that they have an interesting time coming up in the future.  She said the HOA has supported the vacation for years. 

 

Barbara McBride, City resident and property owner in the area, commented that she and her husband support the vacation of Sunnyside Drive.  She was unaware of the information Mr. Turkington presented tonight and would like to have copies of the documents he presented.  Her comments are based on the old information.  She said they originally purchased their property in 1990 and built their home; they own four lots and are members of the Mountain Park HOA, she is treasurer.  The subdivision was developed by partners of Mountain Park Limited with the intention of making the land in the borders of the subdivision a unique place to live.  Park lands were scattered throughout to preserve green space and wildlife.  She said they bought their properties based on these concepts and because of the covenants that would maintain the integrity of the area.  In 1998 Mountain Park HOA was legally incorporated and in 1999 the parklands were deeded to the HOA to maintain for owners in the subdivision.  The properties are not public parklands.  To her knowledge, Sunnyside Drive was never intended to be a through street since it didn’t extend to the eastern or southeastern boundary of the subdivision.  It does provide access as a walking trail to one of the parklands for the property owner.  As Mr. Howell pointed out, access is available from Highland.  Sunnyside Drive ends at the property owned by KHLT.  She questions why Sunnyside Drive was platted to run through designated wetland. The covenants prohibit property owners from subdividing property and mandates that they keep the parklands in their natural state as much as possible.  Mrs. McBride said she does not know that they could legally put in a road or, as mentioned in the staff report, an alley.  She said they want to be good neighbors to the Henwoods and they grant access to their property to access the water source.  There has never been a problem in that regard.  They would like to see another solution found to their situation that would not adversely effect the parkland.  All bordering owners of Sunnyside drive have given their approval for the vacation and the McBride’s request the Commission grant approval of the vacation to the applicants.

 

Mr. Turkington commented that he had received the information from the Borough in the mail over the weekend and there wasn’t time to get it all together and copies to everyone prior to the meeting.

 

At the request of Commissioner Pfeil, Mrs. McBride pointed out her properties on the map.

 

Chair Chesley asked if the parklands were two parcels or one parcel separated by the right-of-way.  Mrs. McBride responded that it is her understanding that they are two separate parcels and Mr. Turkington provided tax parcel information, but it was not confirmed.

 

Mr. Howell commented that he appreciates Mr. Turkington’s information, but doesn’t know that it is relevant to this decision.  He explained that there are three landowners adjacent to Sunnyside Drive and the decision needs to be made for them.  Mountain Park HOA and the KHLT have stated that they cannot grant an easement through their property.  There is nothing subverted in vacating Sunnyside Drive, in any negation with the Henwoods and others abutting the property adjacent to the Henwoods.  They are free to negotiate another access, but where Sunnyside Drive dead ends, it is not an access that will ever serve that purpose.  He feels it is very clear that the three petitioners want it to be vacated. 

 

Commissioner Pfeil asked how vacating the right-of-way would benefit the community.  Mr. Howell responded that personally, he feels that holding onto roads that will never be developed is bad practice as it doesn’t meet the public good.  Mr. Howell brought up the point of liability of public access in private parkland that cannot be accessed by the public.  Highland suffices as access in so far as the public could access the land.

 

Chair Chesley read a statement regarding vacations from the Planning Commissioner’s Handbook,

Typically a vacation requires concurrence and signature of the land adjoining the proposed vacation.  The applicant for the vacation must also demonstrate that the area proposed for vacation is no longer practical for the uses or purposes authorized or that other provisions are made which are more beneficial to the public.

 

He explained that is the basis for Mr. Pfeil’s question.

 

Mr. Howell responded that it is relevant if it is something that allows access to the public if it is something the public needs access to.  In this case, it provides access to lands the public is not permitted to access.  It is access to no where.

 

Mr. Turkington made final comment that the Borough and several surveyors, including Mr. Anderson have said that there are other actions that can be taken to gain access through other properties.  It is preferred that they work with the other landowners in the area to come to a resolution.  Doing away with the access now will complicate things more down the road.  Mr. Turkington stated that there is a financial gain for one particular person who is asking for the vacation.  Mr. Turkington said as he understands from a legal point, when vacations take place typically 33 feet from the centerline is given back to the property owners on each side of the centerline.  The property owner on the uphill side would gain 33 feet of new property all the way down his access, making his property bigger and more valuable.  There is a direct financial conflict on that party for the vacation.  Mr. Turkington asked that in the event the Commission approves the vacation, that the entire area that is vacated be added to the parkland. 

 

There being no further public comment, Chair Chesley asked if there is a motion on the floor.  Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen read the pending motion.

 

CONNOR/PFEIL MOVED TO ADOPT SUNNYSIDE DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, STAFF REPORT PL06-29, WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission recommend denial of the right of way vacation with the following findings:

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

·         Planning Commission recommend denial of the right of way vacation with the following findings:

1. Vacating the right of way is contrary to the stated purpose of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code, Purpose, to  promote an adequate and efficient street and road system.

2. Vacating the ROW is contrary to 20.28.150. Vehicular access provision. Equal or superior access is not being provided.

·         Planning Commission recommend a public access easement be granted or a reduced right of way of a 20 foot alley be dedicated through the park lot in a general north south direction from Highland Drive.

 

City Planner McKibben repeated the original staff recommendations for the Commission.  She added that the supplemental staff report recommends denial to provide time for the various property owners and interest to come up with something that satisfies all of them, and they can bring it back at a future date. 

 

Commissioner Kranich asked if the dash marks shown on the 1977 preliminary plat indicate utility easements.

 

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 10:10 pm to review the information.  The meeting resumed at 10:14 pm.

 

Chair Chesley stated that his concern is that the Commission needs to be clear on the status of the lots that are parkland property.  If they are two separate parcels and they grant the vacation, they would create a parcel of property that no longer had access to a dedicated right-of-way.  He commented that the Planning Commission does not enforce covenants, so at any time these properties could be subdivided.  Chair Chesley said he does not disagree with their merits of protecting the property, but the Commission needs the issues clarified.  He would also like to allow staff an opportunity to review the information that Mr. Turkington presented. 

 

Commissioner Foster commented that he wished more of the Commission could have attended the roads conference that took place a few weeks ago.  One of the presentation entailed taking a map of all of the platted roads in the Borough and adding an overlay of the streams and wetlands to show a potential problem within the Borough and relating that to the public good of vacating a road that goes into a wetland. 

 

PFEIL/CONNOR MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION.

 

There was brief discussion clarifying that the action is postponed to allow staff time to determine the status of the two lots and review the new information.  Commissioner Foster said he is interested in knowing if Mr. Miller’s letter was recorded with the State Recorder.  Ms. McKibben added that she would like to allow time for the property owners to meet and come back when they are ready to meet again with the Commission. 

 

VOTE:  YES:  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

There was brief discussion that the property owners need to contact staff when they are ready to meet with the Commission again.  Chair Chesley explained if the property owners are interested in any of the information that staff is researching, they need to contact staff to get the information.

 

Commissioner Lehner returned to the table. 

 

B.         Staff Report PL 06-23 Request for a Variance from the 20’ Right-of-way Setback at 5660 Katie Jean Circle, Lot 10-A Tulin East Highlands Resub.

 

City Planner McKibben commented that there is no supplemental staff report and recommendations have not changed since the last meeting.  She explained that at the last meeting, the Commission had requested an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the variance.  City Attorney Tans agreed that staff’s recommends would be the legally proper course of action.  She said an alternative course of action for the applicant to pursue would be a partial right-of-way vacation.  She pointed out that right-of-way vacations are weighed very heavily.  She has been made aware that there may be other encroachment issues in the subdivision, but she has not been able to investigate if there is a larger blanket approach to dealing with this.  She has some suggestions for findings when the Commission gets to that point. 

 

Charlie Stewart presented photos to the Commission.  He reviewed each photo, pointing out where his house is located in proximity with the right-of-way, in an effort to establish that there are no sight issues with his house in its current location and to show what is remaining of the ravine that had to be filled to put in the foundation. 

 

Chair Chesley asked if Mr. Stewart had received a copy of City Attorney Tans’ opinion.  Mr. Stewart responded that he had and said that while Mr. Tans’ comments make sense legally, Mr. Stewart doesn’t feel that they take into consideration what is best for the land.  Mr. Stewart pointed out that they are talking about seven feet, and in looking at the photos he doesn’t see how the seven feet are usable to the City because it is a ravine on either side of the house.  Mr. Stewart said he doesn’t understand why it is so important to have the setback on his side of the road, when the other side is flat.  He doesn’t see public good in moving his house, or public harm by being in the setback. 

 

In response to questions from Commissioner Foster, Mr. Stewart commented that the ravine on his property does flow into the Bridge Creek Watershed and he believes the road is 25 feet wide.

 

Chair Chesley asked what motion is pending.

 

FOSTER/KRANICH MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT 06-23 WITHOUT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 

 

Chair Chesley noted the asbuilt survey was done by Ability Surveys.  Mr. Nelson explained that he, himself, did not do the asbuilt.  Mr. Nelson explained that historically setbacks were established primarily for safety and sight distance.  More recently, the 10 feet closest to the right-of-way has been dedicated as a utility easement also.  In Mr. Stewart’s case it is not in the utility easement it is only in the setback for sight safety.  Mr. Nelson commented that in his experience, the City of Homer has been very anal in not granting these in the past, however the Borough regularly grants them.  Mr. Nelson said that from what he has seen, he would support the variance.  The action was not done by Mr. Stewart, the foundation was in when he bought the place and there are some geographic restraints that limit it very much.  He feels the Planning Commission’s responsibility is to look out for the health, safety and welfare of the public and doesn’t feel it would be detrimental to grant the variance.

 

Chair Chesley asked about the other issues Ms. McKibben had mentioned previously.  She responded she has heard rumors that some of the other buildings may encroach into the setback, but she doesn’t have any documentation to confirm it. 

 

Chair Chesley explained that this is encroachment is pretty substantial, and why in the real estate process asbuilt surveys are done.  Chair Chesley commented that he feels staff and the City Attorney are correct in that the Commission doesn’t have a basis to grant the variance.  The variance standards are very stringent in what the Commission can and cannot grant.  He pointed out that something they have discussed before, regarding decreasing the amount of impervious coverage in the Bridge Creek Watershed District, is to decrease the size of the road bed in the area.  He suggested that is something the Commission could discuss and could benefit other property owner in this area who may have issues similar to Mr. Stewarts. 

 

Commissioner Lehner read an excerpt from the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance for Puget Sound from January 2005:

Road Width: Residential road widths and associated impervious surface have, for various reasons, increased by over 50 percent since the mid 1900’s.  Road geometry, including road widths, are derived primarily from two sources, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and ITE.  A standardized guideline for residential roads that responds to general safety, traffic flow, emergency access and parking needs is often adopted from these sources to fit various developments scenarios.  For example, AASHTO recommends 26 foot pavement widths and 50 right-of-way for residential roads across various density and traffic load demands.  Additionally, many communities continue to equate wider streets with better and safer streets.  Studies indicate, however, that residential accidents may increase exponentially as the street gets wider and narrower roads that reduce traffic speeds are safer. 

 

Total and effective impervious area can be significantly reduced by determining specific traffic, parking and emergency vehicle access needs and designing for the narrowest width capable of meeting those requirements.  Examples of narrow street widths tailored to traffic need from different US locations and from the Urban Land Institute are provided in the following table.  Reducing the street width from 26 to 20 feet reduces total impervious area by 30%... and so forth.

 

Ms. Lehner said she feels they need to look at this issue particularly with respect to areas where the City is concerned with impervious coverage and the effects on drainage.  Since Mr. Stewart’s street is a dead end and accommodates a small amount of traffic, perhaps it would be appropriate to do research on the traffic this road serves and safety considerations, like fire vehicle access.  It may be appropriate to narrow the road right-of-way in this instance.

 

Commissioner Connor commented that it serves the public good to let things lie as they are.  She feels that making someone move their house in this sensitive area is just going to disturb more land and will not be a benefit to the City’s water quality.  Additionally, she feels staff did a great job of supporting the variance.  If the Commission is willing to go in that direction, she has information to add to make the support stronger. 

 

Commissioner Kranich agrees with what has been said, but in reading the variance code, he doesn’t see how they can grant it, as it doesn’t meet all three criteria that it has to and that is the law they are under.  If a request for reducing the right of way width came in, he would not have a problem supporting it as long as the utility easement width was the same all the way along the right-of-way.  That would ensure the City wouldn’t have a problem with coming in to a narrow spot when installing utilities in the future.  

 

There was brief discussion regarding required action if the variance was denied.  Comment was made that enforcement would be a low priority if the Commission is going to look at dealing with the size of the road bed in the future. 

 

Commissioner Connor argued that there is a basis to grant a variance and that all three of the variance requirements are supported in the staff report.  If the variance is not granted, Mr. Stewart cannot put in a new foundation because of impervious surface requirements then he is not being allowed the same chance of developing his property as others.  She based her statement on the fact that this is in the Bridge Creek Watershed district.  She feels the district is a special condition, which meets requirement two. Because the error was not his fault, condition three applies as well. 

 

Commissioner Kranich pointed out that Mr. Stewart bought the property, thereby accepting the improvements that are on the property, and continued on with them.  For that reason, he feels number three does not apply.

 

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND TO ADOPT PL 06-23 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMISSION NOT GRANT THE VARIANCE AND WITH STAFF FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THAT RECOMMENDATION.

 

VOTE:  YES: CHESLEY, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH

            NO:  PFEIL, FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE:  (Main motion as amended):  YES: KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER

            NO:  PFEIL, CONNOR, FOSTER

 

Motion failed for lack of a majority.

 

There was brief discussion regarding the motion failing and it was noted that although the action to deny the variance failed, it is not the same as a motion to grant a variance.

 

C.        Staff Report PL 06-38, Supplemental to Staff Report PL 06-28 Forest Glen Subdivision, Ingle Replat Preliminary Plat

 

There was discussion prior to the reading of the staff report regarding whether the Commission has to make findings whether they approve, conditionally approve or deny the preliminary plat.  It was clarified that they do not, but the City Attorney has recommended that the Commission make findings when denying a preliminary plat.

 

Commissioner Lehner pointed out that the staff report states that no one testified about the drainage having to do with the area above West Homer Elementary during the Cabana hearings.  She pointed out that Jack Cushing had testified the first time Foothills Subdivision came before the Commission and there was testimony on the drainage concerns of West Homer by Mr. Cushing who was the engineer for the school.  City Planner McKibben responded, for the record, the staff reviewed the minutes from the meetings and would not have reviewed the minutes for the Quiet Creek proceedings.  She knows the minutes were reviewed before the statement was put into the staff report, so if the comments were made by Mr. Cushing, they didn’t make it into the record. 

 

City Planner McKibben read the supplemental staff report into the record.  Staff recommendations are as follows:

 

Lot 11 Analysis

Staff is comfortable with this lot configuration and the number of lots being created. Lot 11A will have a longer than average driveway, but otherwise the proposed lot is not unusual.  Due to the location of the existing house, staff prefers the flag lot over the alternative of creating a long narrow lot. The lots directly across the street are 93 feet wide. Lot 11A, if so configured, would have to be even more narrow, and because of the existing house and outbuilding. Staff recommends approving the subdivision of lot 11A with the comments listed below.

 

Recommend approval the subdivision of lot 11 with the following comments:

 

1.       Widen the panhandle for Lot 11A to thirty feet.

2.       Under KPB 20.20.180, the lot must be 60 feet wide at the building setback line. Show the building setback line on lot 11A.                      

3.       Water and sewer stub-outs to be installed by the owner/s prior to recording the plat, or the owner will execute a Construction Agreement with the City of Homer prior to recording.  The agreement will have a work schedule and a bond equal to the estimated costs of the work plus 10%. A full subdivision development agreement will not be required if the construction agreement is carried out.

4.       Ten foot pedestrian easement from Forest Glen Drive to the school along the lot line between the proposed Lot 11B and Lot 10A.

5.       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).

 

 

Lot 10 Analysis

Staff has reviewed the HAPC meeting minutes from April 5th.  The concern over more development in a potential wetland was clear. Staff’s only comment is that if the lot configuration was changed, perhaps there would be less impact on drainage. For example, the current plat shows two very long panhandles on opposite sides on the parent lot. Staff suggests redesigning this lot so there is a shared driveway, thus reducing the impervious surface and the amount of fill needed (and the potential cost of development for future landowners). An example of an alternate design could be the mirror image of the lot directly to the south of the subdivision (see vicinity map). They have a shared driveway.

 

Recommend conditional approval of the subdivision of lot 10 with a request to redesign the parcel configuration with the following comments:

 

  1. Two long panhandle lots will lead to two long driveways and excessive impervious coverage of a potentially wet area. A different lot configuration would more appropriate.
  2. Show a ten foot utility easement on the portion of Lot 10B that abuts to the panhandle of Lot 10A and Lot 10C. 
  3. Water and sewer stub-outs to be installed by the owner/s prior to recording the plat, or the owner will execute a Construction Agreement with the City of Homer prior to recording.  The agreement will have a work schedule and a bond equal to the estimated costs of the work plus 10%.
  4. Note placed on plat prohibiting structures within the panhandle portions of Lot 10-A and Lot 10-C.
  5. Ten foot pedestrian easement from Forest Glen Drive to the school along lot line between the proposed Lot 11B and Lot 10A.
  6. 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).

 

Gary Nelson, project surveyor, said he hates to make mountains out of mole hills, but he is a man of principles and there are some principles he needs to discuss tonight.  He is tired and it is late, but he has a lot to say.  He believes the item on the agenda is out of order.  He believes it should have been tabled for a later date at the last meeting, but it was not.  Therefore, he submitted the plat and minutes from the last meeting to the Borough.  Another issue is that the supplemental staff report, under drainage concerns, the staff clarified that concerns were stated in relation to the high school and Quiet Creek Park, but not West Homer Elementary and the Foothills Cabana Plat.  A clarification was done tonight that there was testimony from Mr. Cushing, but Mr. Nelson doesn’t know what that testimony was.  Mr. Nelson pointed out a statement in the dialog from the last meeting regarding Forest Glen, Ingle Replat, which states: 

Commissioner Foster made comment that when other subdivisions north of the school came before them, concern was raised by a number of neighbors, including the principal of the school, that there was a significant amount of flooding that came from the subdivision potentially from those lots.  He asked Mr. Nelson if he is aware of the problem there. 

Mr. Nelson wonders if that should be stricken from the notes because that was in a totally misleading light because it has nothing to do with this particular land, it was relating to the high school. 

 

There was discussion in an effort to clarify the confusion as to which principal of which school testified regarding which subdivision.  There was agreement among some of the Commissioners that Mr. Walsworth, principal of West Homer Elementary did not testify regarding the Foothills Subdivision.  Commissioner Foster stated that Mr. Walsworth spoke to him directly. 

 

Chair Chesley agreed that Mr. Nelson has a good point for the most part.  Chair Chesley commented that the staff report has inaccuracies and it has been confirmed that Mr. Walsworth did not testify to the Commission. 

 

Mr. Nelson voiced his agreement with the recommendation in the supplemental staff report for lot 10C as it will save 10 to 15 percent in the driveway construction regarding impervious coverage, but isn’t sure the small percentage is worth doing a complete redesign.  Mr. Nelson advised the Commission that the property owner, who is currently in Arizona, said he had some other ideas for another layout.  Mr. Nelson offered two of his own additional proposals for the subdivision and said the may be similar to what the owner has in mind, but does not know for sure.

 

Chair Chesley asked for clarification of the drainage flow for the lots in question.  Mr. Nelson pointed it out on the aerial photo.  It primarily flows to the south and there may be a slight tendency for some of the flow drift off a little bit westerly.  He explained that in his previous testimony he had said that this area is very flat at about a 3% grade, and the drainage is primarily sheet run off.  Mr. Nelson explained that the problem with requiring a drainage easement where there isn’t already a channel is that you start to funnel your waters onto another property.  Drainage easements should be in areas where there are ditches or channels so the drainage can be maintained and kept open in the future. 

 

There was discussion regarding the staff recommendation 1 under the lot 10 analysis and rewording of the recommendation. 

 

City Planner McKibben recommended the following language as an amendment to staff recommendation 1 on the Lot 10 analysis, “Eliminating two long panhandle lots will reduce impervious coverage of a potentially wet area by reducing the number of driveways.  A different lot configuration would be more appropriate.”

 

PFEIL/LEHNER SO MOVED TO AMEND.

 

There was brief discussion of the wording.

 

VOTE:  YES:  CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

There was brief discussion for a recommendation regarding drainage.

 

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED FOR A NEW RECOMMENDATION 2 WHICH IS THAT DRAINAGES FROM THESE LOTS NOT IMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES.[5] 

 

It was clarified that making this item two will cause the other recommendations to be renumbered.

City Planner McKibben pointed out that development on this site will require COE permitting, and they do look at the driveway, building pad and drainage patterns and impact and they do address those in the permitting process.

 

There was brief discussion that this is to help emphasize the importance of addressing the drainage concern.

 

VOTE:  YES:  LEHNER, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

There was brief discussion that the purpose of the ten foot pedestrian easement between lot 11B and 10A is to provide access to the school property.  It was pointed out that it may be better in another area. 

 

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED THAT NEW NUMBER 6 FOR LOT 10 NOW READ TEN FOOT PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT FROM FOREST GLEN DRIVE TO THE SCHOOL BE PROVIDED.

 

There was no further discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES:  KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, CONNOR

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED THAT NUMBER 4 UNDER LOT 11 BE AMENDED TO READ TEN FOOT PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT FROM FOREST GLEN DRIVE TO THE SCHOOL BE PROVIDED.

 

There was no further discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES:  FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED THAT LOT 11 RECOMMENDATION 2 BE DELETED.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  YES:  CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, FOSTER

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO INCLUDE RECOMMENDATION 5 FOR LOT 11 THAT DRAINAGE NOT IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

 

VOTE:  YES:  PFEIL, CONNOR, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER

 

Motion carried.

 

Commission Connor commented to be consistent with the goal of reducing impervious coverage in the area, the recommendation for a wider panhandle wouldn’t be necessary and could be left as a 20 foot width with a 10 foot easement. 

 

CONNOR/KRANICH MOVED TO STRIKE RECOMMENDATION 1 FOR LOT 11.

 

There was discussion that the wider panhandle is necessary to accommodate the fire hydrant in the panhandle.

 

VOTE:  YES:  CONNOR

            NO:  LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion failed.

 

When Chair Chesley mentioned the vote on the main motion as amended, Mr. Nelson questioned if there is a main motion.

 

Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen explained to Mr. Nelson that after he made his comments during audience comments, Dr. Foster, who voted on the prevailing side called for reconsideration of the decision of the Forest Glen Ingle Replat, during Commission Comments.  That put the main motion back on the floor.  After discussion, the Commission voted to postpone action. 

 

Commissioner Foster asked if Mr. Nelson had been advised of the reconsideration the day after the meeting.  Mr. Nelson responded that he had not been notified; he received a letter in the mail. 

There was discussion clarifying the amendment to lot 10 recommendation 1 and that it still leaves the opportunity for design of another lot configuration.  Chair Chesley stated that the Commission has tried to respect what Mr. Nelson was asking for, which was for him to have the flexibility to come up with a different configuration that he felt would be more appropriate.  The guidance from staff was that he could go with what was presented or what he had proposed.

 

Commissioner Foster noted for the record that his comments in the April 5th minutes didn’t say there was testimony from the principal.  When people know what is coming before the Commission they will talk about concerns.  Mr. Walsworth spoke to Dr. Foster about the flooding issues.  Mr. Walsworth gave him the name of two maintenance people who dealt with the flooding.  Dr. Foster wanted to clarify that is what he was referring to. 

 

VOTE (Main motion as amended):  YES:  LEHNER, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO POSTPONE THE REST OF THE AGENDA TO THE NEXT MEETING.

 

There was discussion that they would postpone item D and New Business A.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

            D.        Worklist

 

NEW BUSINESS

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

 

A.        Staff Report PL 06-40, Itinerant Merchant Licensing Procedure and Mobile Food Service Licensing Procedure

 

REPORTS

 

            A.        Borough Report 

 

Commissioner Foster stated that the Borough Planning Commission would be meeting in Homer for their April 24th meeting. 

 

            B.         Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

City Planner McKibben commented that they need to schedule a special meeting for a conditional use permit for the Methodist Church.  They have a construction crew scheduled to come in and were unaware of this issue.  The Commission agreed to meet on May 11th.  Ms. McKibben asked if they would add two public hearings.  They will be for the Animal Shelter and Chamber of Commerce signs.  The Commission agreed to include them.

 

She advised the Commission that they need to set a date for the appeal by GCI.  There was brief discussion about the decision to accept the appeal and schedule the hearing.  They agreed to discuss a date at the May 3rd meeting.  She told them that the Comprehensive Plan Committee would be meeting April 26th.  The Commission noted May 9 or 16 for a joint work session with Council.

 

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 April 4, 2006 to Chris and Tiffany Story from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

B.         Letter dated April 10, 2006 to Larry Herndon and Michael Bartholomew from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician       

            C.        Letter dated April 7, 2006 to Ms. Diana Conway from Walt Wrede, City Manager regarding Donation of Lots 1 – 5 Scenic View Subdivision No. 6

            D.        Letter dated April 10, 2006 to Mayor Jim Hornaday from Lindsay Winkler regarding the Coalition for Homer Open Space and Trails.

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

Commissioners my comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused absence.

 

Commissioner Kranich commented that he would be absent on May 3rd.

 

ADJOURNMENT

Notice of the next regular or special meeting will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.

 

There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 11:57 pm.  The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 3rd, 2006 at 7:00 pm in the Cowles Council Chambers with a Worksession at 6:00 pm prior to the meeting. 

 

 

                                                                                   

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved:                                                                   


[1] Islands and Ocean Visitor Center

[2] Commissioner Lehner is referring to Council’s direction in Resolution 06-19 to write an ordinance creating a new zoning district defining commercial and residential use along the Sterling highway from the Baycrest Hill city limits to the Bidarka Inn, to be henceforth called the Gateway Zoning District.

[3] Commissioner Lehner made comment that this should be “siltation”.

[4] During approval of minutes 5/3/06, Commissioner Lehner asked that it be clarified that Mr. Turkington was referring to equal and alternate access.

[5] This is regarding recommendations under the Lot 10 analysis.