Session 06-13, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order on May 17, 2006 at 7:02 pm by Vice Chair Hess at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

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

 

ABSENT:        COMMISSIONER CHESLEY (Excused)

 

STAFF:            CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

                        PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA

All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular and considered in normal sequence.

 

            A.        Time Extension Requests

            B.         Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030(g)

            C.        KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

            D.        Commissioner Excused Absences

 

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

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

 

A.                 Approval of May 3, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes

 

The May 3, 2006 minutes were approved as amended by consensus of the Commission.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT AND PRESENTATIONS

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

 

There were no public comments or presentations.

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

There were no items for 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.        Staff Report PL 06-46, Conditional Use Permit 06-05, The Salvation Army Church

 

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.

 

Mark Thielenhaus, applicant and Captain of the Salvation Army Church, commented that he was available to answer questions from the Commission. 

 

Commissioner Foster asked if there have ever been problems with congestion on the Sterling Highway as a result of church services or large events.  Captain Thielenhaus responded that he has only noticed an issue when people come to pick up food on commodity days. Commodity days are twice a month and the problem is due to the current layout of the church’s parking lot.   The only other issue is the truck that delivers the commodities sometimes has a hard time pulling in and out of the lot.  Those issues will be resolved with the new project.

 

Vice Chair Hess asked Captain Thielenhaus for his opinion of the parking requirement for churches, which is one parking space for every five seats.  Captain Thielenhaus commented that he thinks it is a low estimate as most attendees don’t carpool.

 

Jerry Anderson, non resident surveyor, commented to his opinion that the 1 to 5 parking ratio is too high, when taking into consideration larger families with kids.  He doesn’t think there is a one size fits all solution. If there is a problem with parking overflow or congestion, there are already laws in place to prohibit that and deal with those types of situations.  Mr. Anderson discussed the reason behind the parking ordinance making reference to earlier situations with parking from Alice’s overflowing into Milt Turkinton’s property across the street.

 

Douglas Derby commented that just about everyday he drives down Baycrest Hill and sees the church there.  He loves the church, it is beautiful inside but it is ugly on the outside.  He said that if the City is looking for an example of growth and stability, this is a great deal because everyone is going to see the brand new church when they come down the hill.  If they want a sense of solidity in a building, the church will be solid.  It won’t be an anchor store, but it was built on a rock and everyone coming down the hill will see that Homer is growing. 

 

Frank Vondersaar, resident on Saltwater Drive and part time employee at the Salvation Army store, commented that they are good people, they do good work and increase the property values in the area.  He suggested approval of the conditional use permit. 

 

There were no more public comments and Vice Chair Hess closed the public hearing.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 06-46 AND APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SALVATION ARMY WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 

 

 

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Staff recommends approval and adoption of findings with the following conditions.

 

  1. The project will meet all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.
  2. The project will meet lighting standards set forth in the City’s Community Design Manual.
  3. The applicant’s will submit a site specific drainage plan that meets HCC 21.44.050 (a)(5) and HCC 21.44.050 (b) and (c). 
  4. Prior to excavation activity, applicants will install erosion and sediment control measures.
  5. Applicant will obtain a sign permit by July 31, 2006.
  6. Applicant will obtain required permits for water and sewer installation.

 

Commissioner Lehner commented that she feels a new building there would be an attraction.

 

Commissioner Foster commended the applicants for meeting the Community Design Manual in areas where they are not required to and for their storm water plan.  He wished all the applicants would keep these things in mind. 

 

Commissioner Kranich made the following comments with regard to content of the staff report:

 

·        Staff Report page 2 “Drainage” Due to the slope of the parcel, recent water and sewer stub-out excavation, DOT culvert installation, impervious coverage and construction excavation work.  The applicant is consulting an engineer for site specific drainage requirements that meet HCC 21.44.050 (a)(5) and HCC 21.44.050 (b) and (c). 

 

It was agreed that there should be a comma after the “work.”

 

·        Staff Report page 4 Finding g, he questioned if the Fire Marshal gives a permit for a foundation.

 

It was agreed that the wording should be revised to read “ The applicant will submit a Fire Marshal’s certificate with the zoning permit application.

 

·        Staff Report page 4 Finding d (under Conditional Use Permit Standards), states “Landscaping. All areas not devoted to buildings, parking walkways or driveways shall be covered one or more of the following: lawn grass, natural or ornamental shrubbery, or trees.”  Should native grass be excluded from items used to cover?

 

City Planner McKibben pointed out that this excerpt is taken directly from code and she feels there is some flexibility.  She believe that native grass could be used as the intent is that it be landscaped with vegetation.    

 

·        Staff Report page 5 Finding e discusses the required lot size for the church but does it include the church and parking.

 

City Planner McKibben stated that the code doesn’t specify, but it says the minimum lot size for the church, so it would include the parking.

 

·        Staff Report page 5, Public Works comment “Permits will need to be obtained for recently installed water and sewer permits.”

 

City Planner McKibben reviewed the information provided by Public Works and confirmed that it should say “Permits will need to be obtained for recently installed water and sewer stub outs. 

 

She recommended the Commission amend staff recommendation 6 to read “The applicant will obtain water and sewer permits and connect to the recently installed stub outs provided in the Hillside Acres Water and Sewer LID.”

 

KRANICH/LEHNER SO MOVED.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.    

 

City Planner McKibben commented that Commissioner Kranich’s other edits were minor enough that having them noted in the record was sufficient. 

 

Ray Steiner, commented that it is possible to get a preliminary foundation approval from the  Fire Marshal to proceed while they are continuing to review the final project.  He said Peter Flowers is the architect and Mike Tauriainen is the structural engineer and they are pursuing it so they can start the project as they have an extensive foundation to put in.  He clarified that is why the staff comment was written that way.   

 

Commissioner Foster questioned the location of the overhead power line.  Mr. Steiner said the existing line is overhead but will be underground in about the same location with the new project. 

 

Commissioner Connor commented that this is a great plan but it is missing a barrier between the lot and highway, which is something that is addressed by the Community Design Manual.

 

CONNOR/PFEIL MOVED TO ADD CONDITION SEVEN THAT THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO SHIELD THE PARKING AREA FROM THE STERLING HIGHWAY, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMUNITY DESIGN MANUAL.

 

City Planner McKibben pointed out that the only section of the CDM that applies to this development is the lighting section. 

 

Commissioner Connor commented that the spirit of the Gateway overlay in this area and having parking so close to the highway, it would be a beautification to have a buffer there.  She cited the CDM addressing something at least three feet high and parallel to the right-of-way to soften the visual impact from the street.  She thinks it would be nice if you couldn’t see the parking lot as you drive down the hill. 

 

Commissioner Foster again expressed his appreciation of the applicant going over and beyond the requirements in their application, but agrees with Commissioner Connor’s added condition.

 

Mr. Steiner agreed that a natural buffer would look really nice.

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

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

 

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

 

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 06-51 Bunnell’s Subdivision Sutton/Cups Addition Preliminary Plat

 

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report. 

 

Jerry Anderson, project surveyor, passed out information that shows where the HEA boxes are on the plat and he pointed out that they are not on the easement.  He pointed out on the aerial photo that there is a nice stand of spruce trees where the City wants Swatzell Street to extend.  Mr. Anderson said he started Swatzell Street 30 years ago because they were splitting long lots in that area and the street was being dedicated because access was needed.  He pointed out that only portions of it are dedicated.  Mr. Anderson said that a lot of the comments on the staff report and provisions within the platting ordinance deal with creation of lots by subdivision.  Mr. Anderson explained that they are not creating lots, they are eliminating a lot.  Currently the only access the upper lot has is a 30 foot half right-of-way that doesn’t go anywhere or come from anywhere.  This action will combine the Café Cups lot, improve the parking situation, provide additional utility easements where the utilities are, and provide a flag lot.  Mr. Anderson discussed issues he has with the staff report.  His comments are in bold and underlined as follows:

 

11.        The general location of existing water and sewer utilities, and the intent and methods of the subdivision to utilize and access such utilities.

Staff Response: The plat does not meet these requirements.

 

The plat submittal letter dealt with water and sewer.  These lots are currently served or capable of being served by existing sewer & water mains.

 

12.        Provide a contour map of the subdivision and road profiles if road grades exceed 6% on arterial and 10% on other streets.

Staff Response: The plat meets these requirements. No Right of Way are to shown to be dedicated by this action.  However, this may need to be shown should Swatzell Street have road grades exceeding 10%.

 

This plat does not contemplate dedication of Swatzell street.  The grade of the intersection would likely exceed 8%, with the overall grade exceeding 10%

 

PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:

 

The Public Works Department had the following comments:

 

·         Borough code Title 20.12.060 Form and contents required,  states that the preliminary plat should depict, among other items, "..name of existing or platted streets and public ways...easements, existing and proposed...location of known existing municipal sewers, water mains, and other utilities within the subdivision and immediately abutting thereto..."  Swatzell right-of-way is not identified, existing utility and sidewalk easements are not shown, and the existing utilities are not depicted (of particular interest is the water & sewer locations).

 

Public works as-built documents normally provide the locations of existing utilities.  The submittal letter Specified that existing easements would be depicted when the Title Report is received.  This is normal for easements that do not show on any recorded plats.  See DPW comments under “Title 20.20.100” where they detail the water & Sewer locations.

 

·         Borough code Title 20.20.030 Proposed street layout - Requirements, states, "The streets provided on the plat must provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of all streets in surrounding areas and provide reasonable means of ingress for surrounding acreage tracts".  The east portion of Swatzell Street R/W should be dedicated within this plat action.  In addition to this code, the Homer Transportation Plan calls for the construction of Swatzell to Pioneer Ave.

 

Swatzell Street is listed as “Non-functional” on the 1986 Master Streets Plan for a reason – No part of the street has been constructed, nor is the street likely to be constructed or necessary for many years to come.  For the City to require an outright gift of over $65,000 worth of commercial property and encumbrance of building and use restrictions on an additional $41,000 worth is nothing more than rank extortion.

 

(Local Realtors have estimated the value of Pioneer Avenue Property at $7.00±)[1]

 

The dedication might be appropriate if additional lots were being created.  In fact, a lot is being eliminated.  The only lot that would gain access by this dedication is the one being combined with a portion of former lot 52A, and it has access on Pioneer Avenue.

 

·         Title 20.20.100 Half Streets, speaks to half street dedications.

 

·         The 1970 sewer collection as-builts and the 1985 Pioneer Reconstruction as-builts correctly, or incorrectly, depict Swatzell connecting to Pioneer Avenue.  An 8" water main extension was constructed from Pioneer Avenue north into the future Swatzell intersection with the assumption that Swatzell would be extended.  Additionally, recorded electric easements for lot 38 depict the connection of Swatzell to Pioneer on the easement exhibit.  Whether there actually exists documentation for the dedication is not known at this point, but the connection of Pioneer to Swatzell has been assumed for decades, and platting action to the immediate north of this proposed plat has dedicated Swatzell.  So, it is this department's recommendation that the east half of Swatzell be dedicated with the proposed plat.

 

The status of the dedication on Lot 38 is unclear.  The City seems to be relying on an easement sketch by HEA for their claim to the R/W.  There is a very nice buffer of mature spruce between the Art Gallery and Cups Café.  Does the City really think those trees need to go, just to build a street that no one presently needs?

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:

 

·         Fire Chief Painter commented that access to lot 53A1 is more than 150 feet from the roadway (Pioneer Ave) and will require a fire department road o access it. As the “staff” of the flag is only 20’ and the access road must be 20’ it may not be sufficient to accommodate a 20’ fire department access road required to be 20’ in width.

 

So what provisions does the Chief have for access to lot 53A as it currently exists?  This plat improves the current situation.

 

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

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

 

The east half of Swatzell Street be dedicated.

 

So the City wants the donation of over $100,000 worth of property value, and then expects the property owner to further construct a street that has NEVER been used, and to further extend water & sewer mains, install underground power, streetlights and sidewalks?  Even Tony Soprano isn’t that bold with criminal extortion plans.

 

Show existing utility and sidewalk easements and the existing utilities.

 

Certainly – when the Title report is received.  It has not yet been ordered, pending resolution of the irrational requirement to dedicate Swatzell Street for the “privilege” of creating fewer lots.

 

Provide a contour map as needed.

 

The City has 2’ contours of the entire city, provided by City taxpayers – isn’t that sufficient? Does the City Staff not have access to that data?

 

Mr. Anderson reiterated some of his previous points and added that his client would agree to an expanded setback, so if Swatzell is to be developed in the future, the City would only need to purchase the area of the setback.  He felt that would be fair. 

 

Commissioner Foster said he hears Mr. Anderson’s point regarding the lot line adjustment but the Commission is held by the subdivision ordinance and the Borough and their requirements for what information needs to be on a plat.  To make the statement that the City already has the information is not sufficient when it is stated that there are items that are necessary for submittal of a preliminary plat.   Mr. Anderson responded that if he were subdividing and proposing to dedicate any streets then a center line profile or topography map would be essential.  With regard to water and sewer, it is available to one lot and the other has stub outs along the side. He said the problem is that they are trying to apply subdivision requirements to elimination of lot lines. 

 

Commissioner Connor questioned the size of the expanded setback.  Mr. Anderson recommended a minimum of forty feet.  He agreed that they would be willing to take it all the way to the top along lot 53-A1 as well.

 

Annie Whitney, Associate Broker with Alderfer Group Realtors, commented that Jen and Dave Olsen are clients of hers.  She is here tonight to make some points on their behalf based on the recommendations from the Planning Department regarding this plat.  Ms. Whitney explained that the way the lot runs in relation to the building is not straight on, but more perpendicular.  She explained that the lot 51-A1 sits up above where the parking lot is now.  They would like to sell that parcel and to do that, it makes sense to get rid of lot line that separates the lot they purchased for their parking and the lot the restaurant is on and giving the “pole” of the flag lot to the person who wants to purchase the upper lot.  Ms. Whitney explained that she understands the City’s desire to obtain land to develop roads in the future.  She stated, however, that it is punitive for the City to ask private property owners to give up a large portion of their land for a road that isn’t going to be developed or need to be developed because there is access to the properties above it from Bartlett Street and Main Street.  She pointed out that you don’t get to the internal properties until you get to the Fairview end of the platted Swatzell Street.  She feels it is unfair to take property so that there is an eventuality that some day this “mystery street” that still doesn’t exist in the middle between Fairview and Pioneer and it might never exist.  She asked the Commission, on behalf of the Olsen’s, to rethink this request.  She asked the Commission, as individuals, how they would feel if the City was making this request of them. 

 

Ms. Whitney pointed out on the aerial photo where Swatzell is dedicated and where it is not, Mr. Anderson joined in and there was discussion reiterating previous points.  City Planner McKibben explained that the lots in the middle were allowed to subdivide previously because they have legal access fronting a legal right-of-way, which is Swatzell Street.  They briefly discussed the lots above the subject lot and what may need to be done to accommodate them in the future, should the opportunity arise. 

 

Ruby Haigh, City resident and owner of a parcel that fronts Swatzell just above the area proposed for replat, spoke in favor of the dedicated right-of-way.  She said they have been waiting for Swatzell to be built so they could get sewer to their property. She would like to see Swatzell opened up so the parcels can be developed.      

 

Karin Marks, City resident and owner of property adjacent to the Olsen’s commented that she was here to be a good neighbor to help the Olsen’s clean up their situation, but now she is hearing about land being taken for the road right-of-way.  She stated she is very concerned because if they are taking a swathe of land from the Cups property, the City will be picking off a swathe of her land too.  It raises a lot of questions for her.  Mrs. Marks said she feels it is very inappropriate to deal with the vacation of a lot line at the same time as the lot line adjustment.  She feels if they are going to take her land, which will take away the parking on her property, then the City needs to take it from everyone and run the road all the way up. She explained that HEA has a box where the proposed right-of-way is and they keep putting more and more stuff in it.  She said they wouldn’t move it to put a drive way in and doesn’t believe they will move it for the right-of-way.  Mrs. Marks said that if the City is going to propose this road that comes out onto Pioneer, then the road had better have an outlet at the top to avoid the issue that they have on East End, where people are building and don’t want to come down Mountain View.  Mrs. Marks said another upsetting issue to her regarding potential subdivisions is the City should wait until someone comes to them and says what they really want to do before the City starts presenting all kinds of things to have to happen for people who already own land and bought it under the assumption of what is there.[2]

 

Public Works Director Meyer spoke in defense of the Public Works comments.  Mr. Meyer said it is not the purpose of Public Works, the Planning Department or the Planning Commission to make the surveyor’s life easier or base decisions on the best interest of a single property owner.  It is their responsibility make decisions based on the best interest of the community.  The applicant, through their agent, has suggested that they would place some setback requirements that would turn the 30 foot strip into an unbuildable area, it would have no value to the property.  By arguing that they are losing something, what they are gaining is access to the back lot.  If this is approved without the right-of-way, lot 53-A1 will be given legal access to a street right-of-way.  If the thirty feet were dedicated, it would have legal access.  Mr. Meyer commented that if he were the property owner here, he would likely make the same argument, but Public Works and the Planning Department have to consider the Transportation Plan and other documents that have been approved by the City Council that indicate what is in the best interest of the community.  He reminded the Commission that at their last meeting there was a plat before them for property just north of this and one of the property owners asked how he would get water and sewer to his property that sits off Bartlett Street and fronts on what is expected, someday, to be Swatzell.  The answer was that Swatzell Street will be created at some time in the future.  He pointed out that the right-of-way is not just for street access; in this case it is needed for sewer because gravity sewer runs down hill.  Water could be provided from the top but the sewer is provided from the bottom.  Mr. Meyer explained that there is a major electrical transmission main that comes down the right-of-way and already has an encumbrance in the thirty foot strip of property they are talking about.   He pointed out that this is the reason the Borough suggests and the City ask that existing utilities be shown.  In conclusion, Mr. Meyer stated that Public Works is making its comments based on the direction they have been given to make comments based on the public’s best interest.  When a property owner comes in and wants to replat a piece of property, they put it out into the public arena.  To get approval for what they want to do on their property, sometimes they have to sacrifice things in the best interest of the community.  Public Works and Borough Code gives the Planning Commission authority to request the right-of-way.  Many times there are instances where a right-of-way is shown in the Transportation Plan, the Homer Non Motorized Transportation and Trails Plan or the Water/Sewer master plan, and the City needs to take it into account when approving plats.

 

Commissioner Lehner questioned the advantages of Swatzell being developed as a connector to Pioneer in relation to its proximity to the other intersections.  She commented that it may have advantages if it comes down part of the way and connects laterally.  City Planner McKibben noted that the 2005 Transportation Plan identifies Swatzell as a local street and not a collector.  Mr. Meyer added that it won’t have the same traffic as Bartlett and Main because it does not continue north.  Commissioner Lehner commented that her understanding is Swatzell’s connection to Pioneer isn’t critical to its function as a local access.  Mr. Meyer responded he thought he would agree with her statement. 

 

Commissioner Foster asked if sewer could go in without road dedication.  Mr. Meyer responded that they can do front sewer in easements and if sewer were the only utility needed there, it could be an option.  He reminded the Commission of the major electrical transmission main that has a corridor encumbered along this alignment.  Mr. Meyer commented that this is why they want to see plats show utilities.  He commented that he does have the information on water sewer service locations, topography but it is not the community’s responsibility to spend the time to overlay all of the information.  As properties want to plat, they should present the information needed to make a good decision.  Mr. Meyer commented that approving this plat without dedicating the right-of-way is easier to do if you don’t see all the existing utility lines, the existing easements or what has been suggested in the Transportation Plan for the City.  If they are shown on the plats it makes it easier for the Commission to make an informed decision.  Mr. Meyer stated that Swatzell going through is the best decision for the Community. 

 

Commissioner Kranich said he had a question for Mr. Meyer but first wanted to clarify that he had received a call from David Olsen and during the discussion Mr. Olsen said this is near property that Mr. Kranich owned.  Mr. Kranich stated that he was half owner of a parcel that abuts Main Street.  He and his brother inherited the property and about four years ago they separated their inheritance and his brother owns the lot.  Mr. Kranich stated he has no interest, what so ever, in the property and can make a fair decision.  He stated he and his brother have not discussed this issue. 

 

There was discussion regarding whether it was appropriate to move for a conflict of interest during the public comment portion.  Vice Chair Hess called for a short recess at 8:40 pm.  The meeting resumed at 8:43.

 

FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER KRANICH HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 

 

There was brief discussion and Mr. Kranich stated that he does not feel that he has a conflict.

 

VOTE:  YES:  LEHNER

            NO:  CONNOR, HESS, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion failed.

 

Commissioner Lehner commented that she had an ex parte conversation.  She said that she happened to have lunch at Café Cups today and the Olsen’s told her that they were very upset about the possibility of Swatzell coming through their land. She said she has no other information other than their personal reactions to it. 

 

Commissioner Kranich commented that in the communication he had with Mr. Olsen, Mr. Olsen only commented on his opposition to Swatzell.  Mr. Olsen had said that he would not be at the meeting tonight and Ms. Whitney would be attending on the Olsen’s behalf.

 

Commissioner Kranich said he can see the potential for a sewer main running north and south to provide service for the half lots up above the subject lots in the future and Mr. Anderson had alluded to the fact that the owners would be willing to provide an expanded setback on the west side of the lots.  He asked Public Works Director Meyer if it would be sufficient at this time to underlay the flag and the ten feet to the east of it with a utility easement that would extend then on north to the north property line to where there would be a thirty foot utility along the westerly side of the two lots.

 

Mr. Meyer responded that it is a partial solution.  If the Commission felt the expanded setback was a fair and proper encumbrance to place on the lot in exchange for the replatting that needs to be done and in the best interest of the community, they could do that.  He made reference to the Water/Sewer Master Plan which suggests there should be a water and sewer line along the corridor; the decision would not speak to the Transportation Plan, which suggests that a street should be constructed there.  He reiterated his earlier statement that proposing a replat puts a property owner in the public arena and dedicating sewer easements or street rights-of-way that are in the public’s best interest.

 

Commissioner Pfeil asked Mr. Meyer if the expanded set back could be used in the future for a road.  Mr. Meyer responded that it could.  The worst case would be that the City would have to build in the corridor and have to buy the land and the building.  Having the setback in place would at least keep the City from having to purchase the entire lot and building; they would only have to purchase the land in the setback.  Mr. Meyer said it is helpful, but questioned if it is in the best interest of the Community. 

 

Vice Chair Hess asked if Mr. Meyer could recall an instance where the City has required a dedication of a street right-of-way in similar circumstances before and what the outcome  was. Mr. Meyer spoke of a plat that Mr. Anderson presented previously on Roger’s Loop.  The transportation plan had called for a road and to gain approval of the plat, the applicant had to dedicate half of a street right-of-way along the alignment because it was shown on the Transportation Plan and was determined by Council to be in the best public interest. 

 

Vice Chair Hess commented in regard to Commissioner Kranich’s earlier comments that a thirty foot utility easement could satisfy the utility requirements and he understands the roads plan calls for Swatzell to run all the way to Pioneer.  Mr. Hess said those aren’t set in stone situations, they are conceptual and there are other scenarios that may work out better in some situations.  Mr. Hess mentioned the examples that Swatzell could come down to a cul-de-sac or go east/west to Bartlett and Main. 

 

Mr. Meyer responded that turning Swatzell Street into a cul-de-sac is not an option because Homer City Code says that they can not be longer than 600 feet.  There is a possibility that Swatzell could be stopped at some point and right-of-way could be dedicated east and west, but there would be the same arguments from those property owners.

 

Vice Chair Hess asked if the City has the ability to require a dedication when an applicant is not willing to give the property.  Public Works Director Meyer said he believes that the City does and the Borough supports it as well.  He noted that the Public Works comments in the staff report reference Borough Code and it doesn’t say when you subdivide, it says when you plat you are required to provide street rights-of-way. Mr. Hess commented that code is very clear regarding utility easements, but not as clear regarding rights-of-way. 

 

Commissioner Lehner questioned if this were a twenty foot alley, would the 600 foot restriction on a road with a cul-de-sac still apply.  Mr. Meyer responded that he is not aware of any alleys that are dead ends, alleys normally go all the way through. 

 

Mr. Anderson pointed out for the Commission that it is 1320 feet from Fairview to the back of the movie theater, so it would be double what a cul-de-sac could do.  To avoid issue with intersections to close, Swatzell would have to go either east or west to Bartlett or Main.  Mr. Anderson clarified that when the plat that was done on Rogers Loop, he had requested that the City require him to dedicate that, because it needed to be dedicated because he was creating another lot and there had to be access. 

 

Commissioner Foster asked if a non road egress/ingress access to the lots would be acceptable.  Mr. Anderson asked where the trail would go and said he didn’t think he could present that to his client with a straight face.  He feels the expanded setback and 30 foot utility easement are the most reasonable solutions.  He added that if he’s not mistaken, the dedication off Fairview exists and comes down part way. 

 

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 06-51 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS NUMBER TWO AND THREE.

 

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

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

 

  1. The east half of Swatzell Street be dedicated.
  2. Show existing utility and sidewalk easements and the existing utilities.
  3. Provide a contour map as needed.

 

Commissioner Lehner commented her belief that the dedication does not appear to be the best way to go in terms of balancing the issues here.

 

Commissioner Kranich expressed his agreement. 

 

FOSTER/CONNOR MOVED TO RECOMMEND A NEW RECOMMENDATION THREE, OR ONE, THAT THE EAST HALF OF SWATZELL STREET BE DEDICATED ALONG THE WEST LOT LINE AS A  30 FOOT BUILDING SET BACK AND UTILITY EASEMENT.[3]

 

Commissioner Foster feels this is a good compromise.  Dr. Foster made comments regarding previous action when Kachemak Drive was built and the State built a road that the whole community uses.  He also said that with right-of-way law if the rest of Swatzell Street was built and given because of dividing of lots however the law allows, that the City could take it through eminent domain. He recognizes the need for the right-of-way, but also recognizes there are issues.  Dr. Foster added that when there is a lot line adjustment, the Borough does make sure that the road connects and take rights-of-way.   

 

Commissioner Kranich questioned that since there is code language that states a person cannot build in a utility easement, would it be clearer to take out the language in the previous motion regarding the setback. 

 

KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND TO DELETE THE LANGUAGE “A BUILDING SETBACK” FROM THE PREVIOUS MOTION. 

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried. 

 

There was no further discussion regarding the primary amendment.

 

VOTE (Primary Amendment):  YES:  KRANICH, FOSTER, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR

 

Motion carried.

 

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

 

VOTE (Main Motion as amended):  YES:  LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH

 

Motion carried.

 

Vice Chair Hess called for a recess at 9:08 pm.  The meeting resumed at 9:16 pm.

 

Public Works Director Meyer left during the recess.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

A.                 Commission Work List, Ongoing

 

City Planner McKibben commented that the Commission had requested public signs be added to the worklist in relation to the requirement of three hundred feet between public signs.  She pointed out that the meeting packet had already been prepared when the request was made and would be sure to add it for the next packet.

 

Commissioner Connor expressed her concern that with the rapid development and the spruce bark beetle, she feels the trees are not being protected and are disappearing pretty fast.  She stated that she would like to see more ordinances surrounding trees and protecting them.  She said there are publications available that contain model ordinances.  She would like to see it be a regulation, but also an incentive to get people to keep their trees.  Everything she has read includes the obvious benefits of trees, but there are also economic benefits to having trees on your property.   Commissioner Pfeil concurred with her comments.

 

Commissioner Foster commented regarding numbers of cabins that are being built and their signage.  He asked where they would fall in the code, whether they would fall under bed and breakfast or cottages.  He said he was speaking of the four or five coming into town.

 

City Planner McKibben commented that one she can think of she recalls that the permit issued was a zoning permit for a duplex.  Rooming houses are permitted out right, which is five guest rooms or less.  She commented the sign on the one permitted as a duplex is probably okay, but the sign out by the right-of-way is something she has asked that a letter be written for, but staff hasn’t gotten around to it yet.  She said it may be faster to call DOT since it is probably in the right-of-way. 

 

B.                 Staff Report PL 06-47, Resolution 06-19 Gateway Zoning District

 

City Planner McKibben recommended postponing this discussion to the end of the agenda.

 

FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO POSTPONE IT. 

 

There was brief discussion to talk about this after new business.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

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 06-54 Lot 17 Block 3, Kelly Ranch Estates Mitigation Plan

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report. 

 

Jeremy Young, applicant, said he was available to answer questions.

 

Commissioner Foster questioned 18 feet of what he thought could be the drain field.  Mr. Young responded that the 18 feet is the distance to the lot 18 next door.  He referred to another page in the packet where he provided approximate sizes for each drain field for gutter and footer drain. 

 

There was discussion of the septic and City Planner McKibben clarified that the drain field for the gutter and footer drain is in reference to the foundation not the septic.  The location may have to move depending on where the septic has to be located. 

 

Mr. Young commented again regarding his drainage and reviewed the measurements and information he provided in the meeting packet.  Mr. Young stated that the soil in the area is about 7 feet of a sandy type material before you hit a hard pan, the ground is very permeable.

 

Commissioner Connor questioned the site plan in relation to the aerial photo.  She questioned the amount of trees that would need to be removed for the septic location.  Mr. Young discussed the location of the septic and drain field in relation to the well located on the adjacent lot and the distances that have to be maintained between each.  He commented that other site plans he considered would have caused him to remove more trees.

 

Commissioner Connor commented to his site plan and the aerial photo and that there are a lot of trees along the southern and eastern property lines.  She asked how many trees he is going to cut down to accommodate the septic. 

 

Mr. Young replied that the drain system could be as small as two 75 foot runs and explained that the drain field on a system engineered by Jack Cushing on a neighboring property was 400 feet long and almost 100 feet wide.  He said the drain system really depends on the perk test and the engineer and the perc testing has not been done yet.

 

Ms. Connor commented that she is concerned about the amount of disturbance to the land and it would be nice to keep the trees there as they are essential in keeping the soil in place.

 

Mr. Young expressed his understanding of Commissioner Connor’s concerns, but he explained that location of the well on the adjacent property is right on the property line across from the house.  He explained that he has to have at least a 100 foot separation from their well to his septic system.  Because he has to maintain this separation he has to keep his septic in the area of the trees.  His goal is to save as many trees as possible because it adds to the privacy and cover of the lot. 

 

City Planner McKibben commented that another option to the site plan would be to relocate the house on the south side so the drain field would be on the north side, but that would entail taking trees out to put the house in.  If Mr. Young keeps the house on the north side, it will likely result in taking out fewer trees.  Mr. Young went to the aerial photo and pointed out the location for the house and potentially the septic and drain field to show that he is trying to take out as few trees as possible.    

 

There was discussion regarding the origin of the names of the streets in the subdivision.

 

CONNOR/KRANICH MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 06-54 MITIGATION PLAN FOR LOT 17 KELLY RANCH ESTATES WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Commissioner Connor stated that her concern is all the measurements are unknown and in her opinion maintaining the trees is part of the mitigation.  That is how she sees the trade for more impervious coverage.  It is important for her to know how many trees are going to be able to stay there before she would approve the increase in impervious coverage. 

 

Commissioner Foster commented that he supports an applicant coming before the Commission to bring forth a mitigation plan and offering so much effort in their endeavor.  He says he supports it but has a logistical issue, which is that they have had more and more mitigation plans come before the Commission and the plan are being done in a variety of  ways from engineered plans to plans drawn on the back of an envelope.  He read that the purpose of a mitigation plan is that it must be designed to mitigate the effect of the impervious coverage on water flow and the effect of loss of vegetation created by the impervious coverage.  Dr. Foster said at first blush it looks like it does, but having been a part of the body that established the language for the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District, they were hoping that it would be an engineered mitigation plan that would take the amount of coverage a person had and do it with a calculation that shows how much of a collection pond would be needed. 

 

City Planner McKibben stated that there is nothing in the code which states that a mitigation plan be engineered.  There has been discussion of putting together a mitigation handbook, however there have been more pressing issues to deal with so it has not been completed.  Her understanding regarding mitigation plans is that the mitigation could be any variety of different tools and techniques.  In reviewing different types of mitigation plans in other communities, the plans are usually pretty informal and sometimes discuss soils or allow dry wells or bio swales.  Homer City Code does not call for that.  Ms. McKibben said that Mr. Young’s mitigation plan is not unlike others that have been approved by the Planning Commission.  In the City’s work on its wetlands plan, it has been discovered that the lands in the Bridge Creek Watershed are better for development than lands in the heart of Homer.  Ms. McKibben commented she feels Mr. Young’s plan does a good job of slowing down the water coming off the impervious surfaces, which is what she understands as the goal of the mitigation plan. 

 

Commissioner Foster responded in agreement with Ms. McKibben’s comments.  He continued that maybe it will take having the Best Management Plan handbook where an applicant can provide information such as lot size, angle and etcetera to calculate what will be sufficient with the soil type.  Since they don’t have the information and if the Commission was a group that wasn’t as savvy about drainage and impervious coverage as the current Commission, it is something that could come back and bite them.  Ms. McKibben commented that the Planning Department has been acquiring more information like engineered storm water plans and engineering that talks about specific rain events in Homer, but the City doesn’t have all the information needed yet to calculate the information in the method Dr. Foster described.

 

 

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

            NO:  CONNOR

 

Motion carried.

 

 

B.         Staff Report PL 06-52 Ordinance 2006-  To Implement the Homer Non Motorized Transportation and Trails Plan

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report.

 

Commissioner Pfeil reported that the Transportation Advisory Committee reviewed the draft ordinance at their meeting the night before.  He said that over all they liked it but felt that the draft needs some more review, for example section 8 line 136 says “shall have sidewalks, bicycle paths, or other non-motorized transportation facilities” and line 141 says “may, at the developers option, have sidewalks, bicycle paths, or other non-motorized transportation facilities”. He stated the Committee did not make any formal recommendations.

 

The Commission and City Planner McKibben discussed the draft ordinance with the following comments:

·        Line 141 “may” is the current code language and with the amendments would still be the case for sidewalks, trails and bicycle paths that are not identified in the Homer Non Motorized Transportation and Trails Plan (HNMTTP) and not in a public access corridor.  Any shown in the HNMTTP have to be constructed

·        Title 22 is in addition to the Borough Code, so if the City has requirements above and beyond Borough Code, title 22 is where they would go. 

·        Add to language to line 105 “access to contiguous public lands or connections with existing or proposed non motorized corridors.”

 

City Planner McKibben commented that she thinks there was a reason they did not include that language.

 

·        It was clarified regarding the last bullet under title 11 in the staff report regarding non motorized transportation facilities being built to code, that trails can be built with other materials than paving material. 

·        City code does not require the trails be paved, but that they are developed in accordance with City standards.  Example was given that trails have been constructed in the past by volunteers, but the City didn’t want to take over maintaining them because they weren’t constructed properly.

·        In the first Whereas starting on line 33 reverse number 6 and 7 for a more likely flow of events.

·        Concern was raised as to who would maintain the increased number of public access trails if it is not going to increase City debt, as noted on line 38.

·        Lines 65-71 it seems that bullets three and four could be combined.

·        Line 83-86 it seems that bullets three and four could be combined.

 

City Planner McKibben noted that in both instances, it is current code language with language added to both number fours.  They are trying to incorporate the changes without stirring up the existing code.

 

·        Lines 114-116 changing the end “or non motorized means” to something else or change it to “or other non motorized means”

 

It was questioned if there are rights-of-way that are not necessarily dedicated as public use.  City Planner McKibben said she would look into it.

 

 

C.        Staff Report PL 06-55, Town Center Development Task Force to Address Subdivision Agreement and Infrastructure Development

 

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.  She recounted that staff had suggested creating a very short term, special task force to assist the Planning Commission in giving guidance to the Public Works Director on the infrastructure in Town Center.  She said now is the only opportunity to do it right.  She said that the Design Criteria Manual doesn’t give a lot of guidance in this instance and there may be things needed above and beyond what is specified.  The Town Center Plan was a twenty year long range vision and it didn’t get down to the specifics like lighting and ratios like width of road to building height to create the human scale.  She said the Mayor will be appointing the Task Force at the May 22nd Council meeting and staff recommended that Commissioner Conner be the Commission’s representative for the Task Force. 

 

Commissioner Connor stated she would be honored to serve on the task force.

 

Commissioner Foster raised an issue that was discussed at the May 3rd meeting during the Fred Meyer replat.  He commented that he spoke to some members of the Town Center Development Committee who reinforced that the roads located in Town Center were approved as a concept and vision and as north/south and east/west corridors and the siting of such roads should take into account the topography, hydrology and traffic issues.  Dr. Foster reminded them that the Fred Meyer representative[4] pointed out at their last meeting the area for the north/south location may not be the best location, and where he pointed it out and referred to it as a hump, that on the south side it is clearly a topographic rise on two low ends and is clearly not the best place for a road.  Dr. Foster commented that if the location for the road does not get changed at the Borough level, he hopes this Task Force can address this situation. 

 

City Planner McKibben commented that the intent is that the Task Force will meet a couple of times to discuss widths of roads, sidewalks, Public Works recommendation for the 15 foot utility easement and issues of that nature.  They aren’t going to sit down and reevaluate the Town Center Plan.  

 

Commissioner Foster argued that this group could have as much impact on establishing a better location for the north/south corridor as any.  He referenced the issue of the road coming out directly across the street from an access for Islands and Ocean. 

 

Vice Chair Hess cited Borough Code 20.20.050 Lots on major streets--Access Requirements.

Lots fronting on arterial streets with less than 200 feet of right-of-way as identified in the arterial road plan adopted by the borough or, until such plan is adopted, lots fronting on state maintained roads with less than 200 feet of right-of-way may be required to be provided interior or frontage road access upon a definite finding by the commission that due to size, topography, physical characteristics, or an unusually heavy traffic flow, that a serious hazard to the safe utilization of the highway would result from direct access thereto.

 

Commissioner Kranich commented that after reading the May 3rd meeting minutes he has taken notice as he passed the area.  He has seen the bump there, which is steep fronting the highway, but the land behind it is not steep.  Commissioner Foster interjected that the road could come around the high area, so as not to have to cut into it and create a blind spot on the left and right and not have it come out across from the other access which could create a need for a stop light there. 

 

FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO BRING STAFF REPORT PL 06-52 AND ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE FLOOR.

 

There was no discussion on the motion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED THAT THIS GROUP[5] ADDRESS THE NORTH/SOUTH, EAST/WEST SITING OF THE ROADS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TOPOGRAPHY, HYDROLOGY AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS. 

 

Commissioner Foster expressed his desire for the Task Force to review this issue. 

 

Commissioner Lehner made reference to a software program that is used to show proposed road elevations three dimensionally by providing elevations and it shows very quickly what road cuts will look like.

 

City Planner McKibben responded that the City does not do this work for the applicant and is outside the scope of this task force.  She reminded the Commission that one of the conditions from the last meeting was for the applicant to bring engineering information to Public Works to develop the subdivision agreement.

 

Commissioner Foster commented that his motion does not bind anyone to anything, it is just a recommendation.

 

VOTE:  NON OBJECTION:  UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Connor asked if the Commission had any other specific items for the Task Force to review.  Commissioner Lehner suggested looking at the May 3rd meeting minutes where the preliminary plat was approved, the Commission identified items for the Task Force to evaluate. 

 

There was discussion regarding the building height to road width ratio.  City Planner McKibben stated that staff has been looking at this situation and have plenty of information to bring to the Task Force for review and discussion. 

 

Old Business Item B.  Staff Report PL 06-47, Resolution 06-19 Gateway Zoning District

 

There was brief discussion regarding getting the Commission’s comments or changes to City Planner McKibben on the draft ordinance.

 

REPORTS

 

            A.        Kenai Peninsula Borough Report

 

Commission Foster mention that the Forest Glen replat[6] is on the Borough Planning Commissions next agenda and the Borough makes a recommendation regarding the trail the Commission recommended that there is a provision by the City for taking ownership of it.

 

City Planner McKibben commented that the Borough doesn’t like to take ownership of trails and in the past the City hasn’t taken ownership either.  She noted that the current administration has accepted trails and if adopted the code amendments in the HNMTTP would make it not only policy, but code that the City accept the trails.  She said she would ask City Manager Wrede if he wants to submit something to the Borough showing the City’s support.

 

            B.         Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report.

 

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

City Planner McKibben expressed her disappointment that the Commission did not accept the right-of-way in the Sutton/Cups replat earlier this evening.  She feels they need to accept rights-of-way when they have the opportunity to do so.  She realizes they were trying to reach a compromise, but..  Commissioner Lehner interjected that she doesn’t think Swatzell should come through to Pioneer.  City Planner McKibben stated that it has been in information from Public Works since the 1970’s and is in all of the City’s accepted planning documents, and she feels their action was inappropriate. 

 

Commissioner Connor commented regarding the requirement in the large/wholesale retail that the applicant do the citizen participation meetings and from those meetings there is supposed to come information summarizing what the concerns were and what the applicant plans to do to attempt to address those concerns.  Ms. Connor asked if that has been turned into the City. She feels it would be a good tool to look at before making any more decisions.  City Planner McKibben responded that it is part of the CUP application.  She said she understands Ms. Connor’s point but needs to give it some consideration. 

 

There was discussion regarding the itinerant merchant permit and the sign permit.  The barbeque stand and sign located on the corner of Main and the Sterling Highway was discussed.  It was questioned how the City addresses signage and location for itinerant merchants.  City Planner McKibben commented regarding their discussion with Police Chief Robl during one of their worksessions.  There is an issue of when the Police Department stops monitoring itinerant merchants and if Planning needs to spend their time dealing with someone working out of a truck that can turn a key and leave.  There was discussion that a ninety day time limit for itinerant merchants is too long.  Another point of concern was raised that it is inappropriate for an itinerant business to come in to a location and offer a service that is the same as a business that is permanently located in the same specific area.  They agreed there are issues to be dealt with and the Commission’s memorandum with recommendations has gone to Council for review. 

 

Vice Chair Hess asked about Informational Item C recommendation regarding the Public Arts Committee.  City Planner McKibben said the memo has gone to 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 May 3, 2006 to Dennis and Annette Koth from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding Govt. Lot 30, Zoning Permit

B.         Letter dated May 5, 2006 to Peter Fefelov from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

C.        Memorandum 06-   , Resolution of the City of Homer’s Public Arts Committee Requesting that the Planning Commission and Staff consult with the Public Arts Committee Before any Permits are Issued and Construction Commences for Projects in the Town Center Area.

D.        Memorandum 06-  , Itinerant Merchant Licensing Procedure and Mobile Food Service Licensing Procedure

 

 

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

 

Commissioner Pfeil said “Thank you everybody”.

 

Commissioner Foster commented that he spoke to Jack Cushing who is busy working with property owners along the bluff on Kachemak Drive.  Dr. Foster said when property owners are going to harden and fortify their bluff property there is a need for them to work with neighboring property owners so that it gets done at the same time.  He said they talked a little bit about working with the Research Reserve and the City’s GPS unit to try to ground truth the LIDAR data.  Dr. Foster said he has next month off so he is going to work with Mr. Cushing and hopefully include Mitch Hrachiar, Engineering Technician with the City, to try to get some baseline data.  He recognized that it is not a City function and would have to seek permission. 

 

Commissioners Conner, Hess, Kranich and Lehner had no comment.

 

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 10:46 pm.  The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for June 7, 2006 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers.  There will be a Worksession at 6:00 pm prior to the meeting.  A Special Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday May 31, 2005 at 7:00 pm. 

 

 

 

                                                                                   

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

 

Approved:                                                                   

 

 


[1] During approval of the minutes on 6/7/06, Commissioner Lehner asked to clarify $7.00 + per square foot. 

[2] Mrs. Marks is referring to having to give up the portion of her property she uses for parking for right-of-way.

[3] After discussion during minutes approval the Commission agreed that reference to a street right-of-way should not have been in the motion and the amended main motion should have been that a 30 foot utility easement be dedicated along the west lot line.  See minutes of June 21, 2006. 

 

[4] Commissioner Foster is referring to Brad Rinkey, Platting Manager with Lounsbury & Associates

[5] The Town Center Development Task Force

[6] Forest Glen Subdivision, Ingle Replat Preliminary Plat