Session 06-11, a Regular Meeting
of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order on
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER HESS, PFEIL, FOSTER, LEHNER, CONNOR
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY, KRANICH (Both excused)
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
CITY MANAGER WREDE
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER
All items on the consent agenda are considered routine
and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in one
motion. There w
A. Time Extension Requests
B. Approval of City of
C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
The agenda was approved as presented by consensus of the Commission.
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A. Approval of
The
B. Approval of
The
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 w
There were no Public Comments or Presentations.
RECONSIDERATION
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. Staff
Report PL 06-43 Vacation of Ingress-Egress Easements on Bunnell Subdivision
Replat of Lots 27 and 28, Lots 27-A and 28-A.
City Planner McKibben read
the staff report.
Ben Laughlin, applicant
and previous owner of the subject property, commented that he and his wife
Lillian still own the two parcels behind the subject property. He said that while he and his wife were
outside two years ago the City enacted an ordinance that forbade them from
getting water and sewer to his two lots.
Mr. Laughlin stated that at that time they did not know there was a 20
foot utility easement that went through the parking lot, which would have been
good access for getting water and sewer if it had been allowed. Because spaghetti lines are no longer
allowed, the only way for them to get the utilities to their lots is for a main
to come up
City Planner McKibben
clarified that the purpose of this action is to vacate the ingress and egress
easements on the subject lots. She
reviewed the map with Mr. Laughlin and pointed out specifically what was going
to be vacated and clarified that the driveway easement that was done as a
document easement was not changing. The
25 feet they are vacating won’t affect the Laughlin’s property at all and it
won’t change the public utilities easement.
There were no more public
comments and Vice Chair Hess closed the Public Hearing.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO
APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL06-43 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE VACATION OF
INGRESS-EGRESS EASEMENTS ON BUNNELL SUBDIVISION NO. 17.
STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission recommend approval of the
ingress-egress easement vacations as presented.
At the request of
Commissioner Lehner, City Planner McKibben pointed out on the large aerial map
the locations of the ingress and egress easements and the document easement
that was done for the driveway.
There was brief discussion
regarding Mr. Laughlin’s need for getting water and sewer to his property, but
it was clarified that that issue is not relevant to this action.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, LEHNER, HESS
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben
summarized the staff report.
Brad Rinkey, Platting
Manager with Lounsbury & Associates, the applicant, advised the Commission
that he is available if there are any questions.
Commissioner Foster
questioned if they had looked at the topography. Mr. Rinkey responded that they had and noted
that there is a “big bump” where the new access is planned. Mr. Rinkey said there w
There was no further
comment and Vice Chair Hess closed the Public Hearing.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO
APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL06-44 AND APPROVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF
Commissioner Foster
commented that he understands that staff has been working a lot with this plan
to make sure it is right. He questioned
if there has been a continued back and forth regarding the location of the new
road or if it is a set location.
City Planner McKibben
responded that there is an item later on the agenda for a platting action that
would create new rights-of-way in the Town Center Area. She said when the Town Center Plan was
developed, Alternatives A and B were drawn up by a consultant that was
hired. The consultant is a landscape
architect and based the information on site visits and collection of other
information, including topography, soils, wetlands and so forth. The rights-of-way were drawn with some
relationship to what is there and were considered to be appropriate. Ms. McKibben added that another consideration
in the south access is the way the road lines up with other development on the
Commissioner Connor
expressed some concern and suggested that the vacation should come after
consideration of the platting action.
City Planner McKibben explained that
CONNOR/LEHNER MOVED TO ADD
THE CONDITION THAT APPROVAL OF THE VACATION WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON THE APPROVAL
OF THE DEDICATION OF
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
There was no further
discussion on the main motion.
VOTE: YES:
PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
PLAT CONSIDERATION
The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public.
A. Staff
Report PL 06-27 Bunnell’s Subdivision Fortin Replat Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben
summarized the staff report.
There was no comment from
the applicant or the public.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO
ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL06-27 WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BUNNELL SUBDIVISION,
FORTIN REPLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT.
Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary
plat with the following comments:
1. Create a
fifteen foot utility easement along
2.
Staff recommends the surveyor straighten the southern lot line of lot
27-C1 if the eaves can meet the requirements of 21.60.220.
3. Identify areas in excess of 20% grade if
necessary.
Commissioner Connor
commented that the staff report references a drainage on the east side of the
subdivision, but she does not see it on the map. City Planner McKibben suggested that it may
not exist on the lot, which may be why it is not shown.
CONNOR/LEHNER MOVED TO ADD
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 4 TO IDENTIFY AND LOCATE THE DRAINAGES ON THE PLAT MAP ON
IF NECESSARY.
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Connor asked
if now would be a good time to address the neighboring property owners concerns
regarding water and sewer.
Vice Chair Hess asked
Public Works Director Meyer if he could speak to the Commission regarding
utilities on
Public Works Director
Meyer explained that the City’s current policy is that water and sewer are not
served to a property unless there is main fronting the property, generally in a
street right-of-way immediately adjacent to the lot. Based on this policy, the Laughlin’s lots
would be served with road access and water/sewer from
Vice Chair Hess commented
that approving this preliminary plat w
VOTE (Main motion as
amended): YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion carried.
B.
Staff
City Planner McKibben
summarized the staff report. She stated
that the date in staff recommendation four, regarding the Commissions
specifying requirements for water, wastewater, drainage, lighting, landscaping,
on street parking, street and sidewalk construction, and paving needs to be
amended from August 16th to July 19th.
Brad Rinkey thanked the Planning
Staff for their assistance with this application and their thorough
review. He said he would like to discuss
briefly a few conditions the applicant disagrees on. He said they w
Commissioner Foster
questioned the grade where the lot drops down to the
City Manager Wrede pointed
out the proposed public use easement that is shown is on City land. He said that he briefed City Council at their
last meeting and he has a memorandum prepared for their next meeting which says
that if the Planning Commission approves the preliminary plat and road lay out,
that the City recommends that this area be dedicated for a right-of-way. He said even though the plat shows it as a
public use easement, his recommendation would be that the City either deed some
type of easement as a right-of-way, or work with CIRI and their surveyor to
dedicate this right-of-way as part of the plat.
He said working with CIRI is the more straight forward option. Mr. Wrede clarified that the City could work
with CIRI to replat Tract 38-A at the same time and dedicate a right-of-way
through there. He believes it would be
in the City’s best interest to have constructed access to the property. Mr. Wrede added that the City could write a
deed in the interim to dedicate the parcel as a right-of-way and come back
later with a platting action later to replat the upper section of
Commissioner Lehner pointed
out as stated in the staff report “Since
there is a substantial amount of thought and possible research to do on these
topics, staff recommends at this point that the Planning Commission give
conceptual approval to the plat configuration”, she asked if it is
necessary for the corner of the City land to become part of the road or if
there is a way for the road to drop down and avoid this City lot and border the
City land to the south to give access.
City Manager Wrede responded that would be better asked of the
applicant.
Mr. Rinkey responded that
would probably be a question better suited for Fred Meyer, but said he believes
that moving the road in the manner pointed out by Commissioner Lehner would
greatly impact the Fred Meyer site by eliminating some of the parking and other
elements of their design. He doesn’t
think it would be possible. He said they
could certainly look at it and discuss it with staff. Regarding dedication of the piece of land
from the City, he felt CIRI would be w
PFEIL/LEHNER MOVED TO
ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL06-42 WITH STAFF 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. Number the
large parcel with a lot number. (
3. Rename the
northern section of
4. A Subdivision
development Agreement is required. Improvements to be constructed by the
applicant include water, wastewater, drainage, lighting, landscaping, on street
parking, street and sidewalk construction, and paving. The Homer Advisory Planning Commission w
5. Create a
north-south route to connect
6. Resolve
utility easement issues with Public Works.
Commissioner Foster
commented that he takes issue with the conceptual approach. He commended Fred Meyer and the applicant
with staying to the conceptual plan. Dr.
Foster said he has spent a lot of time walking in this area and says there is
the potential of needing a stoplight there if the accesses are going to be
across from each other. The steepness
there is a concern.
FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED TO
INCLUDE RECOMMENDATION SEVEN TO CONSIDER MOVING THE SOUTH SECTION OF
Commissioner Foster
recalled Councilmember Stark pointing out his opinion of the best place to
enter and it was an area that was much flatter and would be less steep and a
less obtrusive entrance to the
There was discussion
regarding the motion. It was asked
whether it would be better to move it to the west, but comment was made that it
is steeper to the west. A point was brought
up that the Community Design Manual recommends designing for the site rather
than for the development.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, LEHNER
NO: PFEIL, HESS
Motion failed for lack of
a majority.
LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED TO ADD
RECOMMENDATION 7 TO EVALUATE THE OPTION OF MOVING THE STRETCH OF
Commissioner Lehner
commented that if there is no particular reason to use the area, it seems like this
would be a better idea. She explained
two issues in regard to hooking into Hazel, one being that if you have off set
intersections, it slows traffic that would other wise cruise across the cross
street. The other is that a curve could
be put into
VOTE: YES:
PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
There was discussion
whether this should be recommendation 8.
It was clarified that Commissioner Foster’s previous motion failed for
lack of a majority, since a majority of the Commission is four.
City Planner McKibben
reminded the Commission of the applicants request regarding recommendation
five. She said that Planning staff does
not have a problem with their suggested amendment.
PFEIL/LEHNER MOVED TO
CHANGE THE WORDING OF NUMBER 5 TO SAY RESOLVE THE CREATION OF
Commissioner Connor asked
for clarification. City Planner McKibben
explained that the north/south connection is outside the plat that has been
presented. Staff suggested that since we
are making connections, now is the time to do it. The applicant is not comfortable with it and
Ms. McKibben is comfortable modifying the recommendation because she knows that
CIRI and the City are working together to deal with the issue and being
consistent with the direction of the Town Center Plan.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster asked
that those who voted against his earlier motion, which failed, to suggest a
remedy for a more gentle approach for
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED ADD
RECOMMENDATION 8 TO EVALUATE THE OPTION OF MOVING THE INTERSECTION OF COMMUNITY
DRIVE AND THE STERLING HIGHWAY TO THE EAST TO MINIMIZE THE ROAD GRADE TO LESS
THAN 10%.
Commissioner Lehner
commented this is to encourage that the road design lay on the land as lightly
as possible.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben
asked the Commission to formally recognize the change in recommendation four
from August 16 to July 19.
LEHNER/PFEIL SO MOVED.
Commissioner Foster asked
for an explanation. City Planner
McKibben explained that they the applicant was uncomfortable with the August 16
date and the compromise they reached was July 19. When asked if Public Works was agreeable to
the change, City Planner McKibben explained that they haven’t institutionalized
the process yet. Public Works Director
Meyer was looking of direction and suggested it come from the Planning
Commission tonight and this approach was suggested in recognizing the
uniqueness of
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
PFEIL/FOSTER MOVED TO
STRIKE RECOMMENDATION 3.
Commissioner Pfeil said
that with respect to Hazel Heath, the name of the road should remain the
same. It is more civic minded.
City Planner McKibben
stated her understanding that the recommendation is based on existing code
language for street naming.
Commissioner Connor
commented she feels it is awkward to have
Commissioner Pfeil asked
if Public Works Director Meyer had any input on the matter on street naming in
this particular case.
Public Works Director
Meyer commented that he would like to see a nice “Homer” name for the road but
his understanding is that it is only confusing from a 911 perspective to have a
road changes names as it crosses an intersection.
The Commission was
discussing taking up the issue of the road name at a later date and Mr. Meyer interjected
that he would like to take the opportunity to point out that in the staff
report Public Works had made the comment that the road layout doesn’t meet the
Transportation Plan. Mr. Meyer said one
of his personal issues here is that as the Transportation Plan was put
together, the need for another east/west corridor was discussed and a few
different alignments were discussed. The
way the roads are laid out now eliminates any possibility for the
corridor. Mr. Meyer recognized there is
conflict between what is good for Fred Meyer and the development of their
property and what is in the best interest of the community. He would like to see some continued
discussion of whether an east/west corridor from
City Planner McKibben
commented that the design does not conflict with the Transportation Plan, the Transportation
Plan conflicts within itself. The document doesn’t really speak to addressing
alignments within
Lastly, Mr. Meyer added
comments he made previously with Quiet Creek and Footh
Discussion ensued on
amending recommendation four and the Commission was reminded that there was
motion pending.
VOTE: YES:
FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, LEHNER, HESS
Motion carried.
As a result of the
discussion prior to the vote, City Planner McKibben suggested a new recommendation
three to work with Public Works in providing preliminary engineering on
water/sewer and road drainage as needed.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED FOR A
NEW RECOMMENDATION THREE TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ON THE
WATER/SEWER/ROAD DRAINAGE AS NEEDED.
Commissioner Lehner
commented that her experience is that you cannot get this information too soon.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Connor
pointed out that
Commissioner Connor asked
about the drainage that goes through
Commissioner Foster
pointed out on the map on the page 87 and 74 across from the
City Planner McKibben
clarified for Commissioner Connor that if this preliminary plat is approved the
applicant can begin the process with the Borough; however, they can’t get final
approval from the Borough until they reach a subdivision agreement with Public
Works.
VOTE (Main motion as
amended) : YES: FOSTER, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR
Motion carried.
Vice Chair called for a
recess at
City Manager Wrede and
Public Works Director left during the break.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
Commission Work
List, Ongoing
There was brief discussion
of the work list, but no changes were made.
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.
The Commission briefly discussed
City Planner McKibben’s draft memorandum to the Mayor, City Council and City
Manager. It was suggested that a bullet
be added to review locations and traffic considerations when permitting as
there could be instances where having a vendor with a permit in some locations
could cause some traffic issues. They
agreed to forward the memorandum to Council.
City Planner McKibben read
the staff report.
Joe Super, property owner,
commented that when his property was annexed into the City, he was at a
Planning Commission meeting and they said there would be no restrictions that
would infringe on him if he were annexed.
The Commission agreed that he would not be obligated any differently
than prior to annexation. He sees now
that there are several thing that if he does, his non conformity w
Commissioner Foster
responded with an example that if a person had a 40 acre parcel with a non
conforming use on one corner, then they subdivided the 40 acres into smaller
lots, the non conforming use would not be spread out over all of the smaller
parcels and be allowed to continue the use.
Mr. Super commented that
he is not sure he is going to continue with the subdivision because if he does,
he w
City Planner McKibben
responded that the staff report is accurate and she doesn’t know what Mr. Super
was told before, but the section of the code regarding non conformity has not
changed. She commented that his
assessment is accurate and he is the only one who can decide what is best whether
or not to subdivide his property.
Mr. Super asked if he is
correct in his thinking that if he subdivides and builds a house on the new
parcel that he won’t be able to park a truck on it.
City Planner McKibben
responded that there are certain home occupations that are permitted, but in
Mr. Super’s case, he would have because of the continued use on the other lot,
it would be difficult to differentiate the activity between the new lot and the
non conforming lot.
Mr. Super commented that
he already has a conflict because he has neighbors that don’t want him
there. If they have any kind of an
excuse, they are going to complain. He
wants to cooperate, but when the neighbors get unreasonable and go the Corps before
talking to him, what is he supposed to do.
Mr. Super explained to the Commission how he has tried to work with
neighboring property owner Guyline Rogers with regard to the water on her
property, but she started turning him into the Corps of Engineers.
Vice Chair Hess suggested
Mr. Super may want to look at a conditional use permit. City Planner McKibben responded that she
would have to do some research this because in this case, the use is pre
exiting but is not consistent with the district. She could look into it, but it is separate
from the non conformity.
Mr. Super commented that
he has been working with modular housing in the past and at times there may be
a house on the lot because they are waiting for the foundation to be ready for
it to go on. He would like for it to be
added that along with the machinery that he does construction with, that
sometimes there may be other items that he has to store here.
City Planner McKibben said
the information wasn’t provided for the staff report and she would need to know
if this is something that has been on going prior to 2003. It would be a decision for the Planning
Commission.
It was noted that he can
come back to the Commission to add that.
Mr. Super responded that every time he is to come before the Commission
and the neighbors find out, they give him grief.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED TO
ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL06-45 AND ACCEPT THE NON CONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURE AT
There was brief discussion
regarding the need for a zoning permit for a Quonset hut.
VOTE: YES:
PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS, FOSTER, LEHNER
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben read
the staff report.
Dan Lush, pastor at the
Glenn Green made brief
comment that the Church has existed since 1959 and he is happy to answer any
questions the Commission may have.
LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED TO
ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL06-42 AND ACCEPT NON CONFORMING USE OF THE
There was discussion
regarding whether the outbuilding meet the setback requirements. City Planner McKibben responded that if the
CUP is granted at the special meeting, once the work is finished and an asbuilt
survey is completed, they w
VOTE: YES:
CONNOR, LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion carried.
The Commission discussed
their meeting schedule. They agreed on
E.
Staff
City Planner McKibben explained
that there is no action required tonight.
This is on the agenda in case the Commission wanted to continue
discussion from the work session.
Commissioner Foster handed
out three papers to the Commission regarding coastal erosion and building setbacks. Dr. Foster said the paperwork includes
information regarding costal erosion and setbacks and what can be done through
an ordinance to protect the public lands.
One of the papers was “Rising
Seas, Coastal Erosion and the Takings Clause” by James Titus and it looks at
land use planning options. Another one
was “A Sea Grant spotlight on Solutions:
Coastal Erosion & Building Setbacks”.
The overview is that engineering solutions such as shoreline hardening,
use of seawalls and sand traps can protect coastal property, but usually at
high cost, like loss of recreational beaches and accelerated erosion of
adjoining property. The paper suggests
an approach of using setbacks and basing them on long term erosion rates. The
last one was the “
REPORTS
A. Borough
Report
Commissioner Foster
reported that he recused himself from a vote at the Borough Planning
Meeting. He explained there was a
recommendation from the Borough Attorney regarding the perceived conflict of
coming into the situation as biased. Originally the action was the realigning
of lot line over where the Bay Club is, which seemed non-controversial, but
there was one letter in opposition to it, so he chose to recuse himself. He said it is a difficult situation when the
City’s concerns and interests are there.
Dr. Foster said he
attended the Anchor Point Advisory Planning Commission meeting, as a member of
the Borough Planning Commission. He
commended Julie Engebretsen[1]
for the wonderful job she does there. He
said it was a very civil meeting with good discussion on the gravel
ordinance.
Lastly he commented that
there was one preliminary plat that came in that clearly did not have all of
the roads on it nor did it have the lake and other drainages that were on the
aerial photograph. The Borough Planning
Commission recommended postponement rather than denial because it was
incomplete. He said they were thanked by
the Borough Planner for taking that action.
Dr. Foster commented that they really need to buckle down on making sure
the plats are complete.
B.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S
REPORT
City Planner McKibben
clarified that Mrs. Engebretsen is a resident of the Community and a member of
the Anchor Point Planning Commission.
She is not there in a City capacity.
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
to Joe Super from
B. Letter
to Renn Tolman from
C. Letter
to Rick and Connie Vann from
D. Memorandum
to the HAPC from
E. Ordinance
06-22, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
There were no audience
comments.
COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Lehner
advised the Commission that she doesn’t think she will be asking for
reappointment to the Commission. She
explained that the subdivision development she and her partner are working on
is taking up a lot of her time and wants to keep her focus on that as she is
really enjoying it. She said after it is
completed, she may consider reapplying.
Commissioner Foster
thanked City Planner McKibben for attending the workshop on conflict
resolution. He stated that since the
erosion workshop, he has received a lot of calls from residents along
Commissioner Connor
commented about an informational letter in the last packet regarding Dianna
Conway and Judith Miller donating land to the City and she wanted to publicly
thank them for that. Ms. Connor said it
was a generous gift and she appreciates it.
She said she is intending to submit her name for reappointment and she
will miss Commissioner Lehner. Lastly
she said she would miss the May 11th Special Meeting.
There was discussion that
if Ms. Connor could attend it would be beneficial. The special meeting includes taking action on
a CUP, which requires five votes to pass.
City Planner McKibben said it is her understanding that Chair Chesley
will still be out of town, so that would leave only five Commissioners. Ms. Connor said she would try to be here.
Vice Chair Hess commented
that House Bill 415 looks like it is dead for the year. He said Senator Wagner[2]
wouldn’t say why he wasn’t moving it out of Committee.
The Commission expressed
their disappointment with the news.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special meeting w
There being no further
business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: