Session 05-22 a Regular Meeting of the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:07 p.m.
on November 2, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E.
Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER
CONNOR, KRANICH, FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, HESS, LEHNER
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 Coast Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
Chair Chesley clarified that there was a time
extension request from the Borough regarding Bowers Subdivision Kachemak View
Addition No 2 KPB File 2003-237 on the Consent agenda.
Commissioner Hess requested the agenda be amended to
add City Manager Wrede as Item B. under Public Comments and Presentations
The amended consent agenda and regular agenda were
approved by consensus of the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2005
B. Approval of the Special Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2005
The meeting minutes of October 19 and October 12 were both approved as amended by consensus of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT, 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.
A. 59 Degrees North Co-Housing Presentation
City Planner McKibben explained that is a
pre-application presentation to introduce the co-housing concept before
applying for the conditional use permit.
Kenton
Bloom, City resident, licensed surveyor and a partner of 59° North Co-Housing,
introduced the rest of his partners, Susan Arndt, Tom and Chris Laing and his
assistant Lindsey Winkler. Mr. Bloom
commented that they have been interacting with staff since June, which has been
helpful. He commented that when
Planning deals with something like this, there is a notion when approving a
design that there is a public contract built around code which includes fire
regulations, Public Works amenities and other different elements come into the
contract with the City to gain approval.
Mr. Bloom feels 59°North are solidly working at that level and want to
hold up the notion of a social contract that is with the community at large. In looking at this project he hopes the
community will see the aspects and depths 59°North is trying to integrate with
the community. Mr. Bloom explained that
there are four major elements, shared and private space working together, open
space and drainages, and pathways and connectivity. He noted that they held a neighborhood meeting, invited 60 people
from the surrounding neighborhood by mail and had about ten people attend
including one person from City staff.
He expressed that they felt good about the response from the meeting and
noted that it was a good chance to meet their new neighbors.
Chris
Laing commented to the Commission that she and her husband have looked into
places to retire and agree that Homer is where they want to be. In the last four years they have established
the basic tenets that led them to learn about co-housing, which she clarified
is not communal housing. Their mission
is:
We are a group seeking to establish a creative
residential community that by its nature will enrich our quality of life
through the cooperative spirit of its members and the thoughtful design of the
Community. We plan to:
üDesign our Community to
foster interpersonal interactions.
üCluster the housing and
create usable shared indoor and outdoor space.
üBalance our needs for
individual privacy and our desire for cooperative living.
üValue diversity in the
members of the Community.
üManage the business of the
Community through consensus of decision-making.
üEmploy energy saving and
environmentally friendly methods of building.
üCreate and explore
opportunities to share resources and energy.
üCreate an environment that
creates health in the individual, the family and community.
üWe value integrity,
generosity and respect for other people in the Community and we intend to
constrain our project development, construction by our own financial resources
and protect our investment through good management.
Mrs.
Laing pointed out that their values dovetail with things that have been part of
the communities contract in terms of trails, dealing with drainage issues
through the design, taking original design of the plot of land and instead of
mimicking surrounding neighborhood, have pulled in a close system to allow open
space for people to share in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Laing also explained that co-housing allows them to have private
area within their homes but also within the neighborhood. It also encourages interaction through the
nature of the site design and the architecture when it is designed. Mrs. Laing explained that they have put a
lot of thought into this design and even discussed it with the students who
were here from the University of Washington to help Homer as a community. She added that one of the students used this
project for their master’s thesis.
Tom
Laing explained to the Commission that this includes 7.9 acres above Daybreeze
Park and next to the proposed Foothills Subdivision. The development consists of 21 living units, detached garages and
a common house. It will be set up as a
condominium ownership where everyone will own their own building but the open
property and common house will be owned and maintained in common. They clustered all the housing and left a
lot of open space. The biggest element
that makes this different from a condominium is the Common House, which is used
for things like sharing meals, classes, playing music and other uses people may
not have in their private residence. It
allows people to build a smaller house.
He explained that a woodshop and greenhouse have also been incorporated
into the plan. Mr. Laing added that
they have tried to minimize the impact of traffic and maximize foot traffic
with pathways. He commented that this
concept was started in Denmark in the 50’s and is now used worldwide. He too emphasized that it is not a commune.
In
closing, Kenton Bloom stated that the breakdown of the development is about two
units per acre and 56% of the land is open space. The reason they need a PUD is to allow for the common house and
the potential for offices or studios.
He pointed out on a map where the trail is to be dedicated, the top of
the bank where there is an open drainage.
It is 30 to 40 feet wide to the top of the bank of the drainage and it
is at least 50% of the way to Fairview, which does connect to Wildflower Ranch. He noted that the trails in the community might
have signs that say “Private, Visitors Welcome”.
B. City Managers Report
City Manager Wrede stated that he did not have a
presentation planned, but was available to answer questions from the Commission
regarding the Hohe project. He
explained his understanding that the Planning Commission got involved with it
at their last meeting and that it is a complicated topic.
Chair Chesley commented about a memorandum from the
City Manager to Mr. Chesley and City Planner McKibben that outlined the
question of whether or not the Commission should make a decision as to whether
or not they want to hear an appeal.
Mr. Wrede stated that he feels the Commission should
address the matter in one way or another.
Mr. Wrede explained that the City had reached a determination that HCC
Title 22 did not apply in this case. He
personally spent a great amount of time to try to get the lines
underground. Representative Seaton and
Senator Stevens did as well. Mr. Wrede
added that if the City thought there was any way Title 22 was applicable, they
would have used it, but instead reached the conclusion that it would be a case
of stretching the law too far to meet an objective that the administration
had. Since the City reached the conclusion
that Title 22, has to do with subdivision and subdivision improvements and the
requirements of developers and subdividers to put improvements it, it really
didn’t apply to a DOT project on a State Highway. If it didn’t apply, it followed that it was not appeallable under
Title 22 because no action or determination was taken under that title. He explained that the City had reached that
conclusion and were going to advise the property owners along Hohe as such and
then notify the Commission. Now that
the Commission has already weighed in on the matter and taken some testimony,
taken action and asked City Manager Wrede to issue a stop work order, Mr. Wrede
feels it is important to hear the appeal in some way or another. The Commission has shown it has some
opinions on the matter and may not agree with the City administration. There is an expectation of the property
owners that there will be a hearing. He
recommended that the Commission at least discuss whether they feel it is
appeallable under Title 22. If the
Commission believes it is, then they should schedule a hearing and the City
will cooperate fully if the Commission decides to hold the hearing.
There was brief discussion and it was determined
that the Commission would discuss whether or not to schedule an appeal during
Commission Business at their next meeting.
Chair Chesley explained to Mr. Wrede that the packet
of information Mr. Lund brought to the last meeting included the notice of
appeal. Chair Chesley continued that
the Commission saw the notice of appeal and thought that if there was going to
be an appeal, maybe it would be a good idea if things slowed down a little
until the appeal was worked through.
The Commission was a little behind the information curve.
City Manager Wrede answered that they did not
respond to the appeal notice as quickly as may be desired, but the City was
waiting for a response from Mr. Lund as to whether he still wanted to appeal
after reading the response from the City to his questions. The day after the Commission’s meeting, at which Mr. Lund spoke at, he advised the
City he wanted to continue with the appeal.
Chair Chesley said that it was not the intent of the
Commission to try to run around the administration, nor to try to communicate
to the Hohe residents that somehow they have made a predetermination that their
claim has merit. The Commission wants
to remain neutral until they decide whether to have the appeal.
Commissioner Lehner asked from whom City Manager
Wrede got the legal interpretation whether the ordinance applied and if the
Commission could see a copy. City
Manager Wrede replied that he had several conversations with City Attorney Tans
as well as two Attorney Generals. There
were also conversations with members of the City staff who have been around for
a while who said this is not the first time this has come up and it has been
pretty well established that this applies to new subdivisions. Mr. Wrede said they did do a records search
for section 22.10.055 (b) and it was passed in 1987, based on recommendations
from the Underground Utility Task Force, but there are no minutes or written
information from the Task Force. Mr.
Wrede continued that they looked at the minutes from the City Council when the
ordinance passed to get a sense of what people were talking about and the
context. In talking with people and
looking at the minutes, there was nothing that contradicted the notion that the
intent was for this to apply to new subdivisions that were developed after the
ordinance passed in 1987. The written
history is sketchy to support the intent.
Mr. Wrede commented that he misread the code when he first looked at it,
but reading the context and the information around it, including the purpose
section, which says it is to supplement the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code, and
it talks about what subdividers are required to do in new subdivisions. In stepping back and looking at the big
picture of what the whole chapter and title is about, the only reasonable
conclusion they could come to is that it’s about new residential subdivisions
that were developed after 1987.
Commissioner Hess commented that he would like to
find out who was on the Underground Utilities Task Force in an effort to get
more information regarding their intent.
Larry Sloan, City resident, expressed his opinion that
this section of code is very ambiguous and can be interpreted either way. He said that he spoke to four people who
were Councilmembers in 1987 and to paraphrase, their comments were, and “We
were not trying to remake the world but intended to direct the future growth of
the City”. Mr. Sloan commented that
there is so much room to interpret this that there is ample reason, for basic
fairness, for the opportunity to hold a hearing. They need to find out the intent of the ordinance and that is why
it should be revisited.
Rob Lund, City resident, commented that it is worth
pointing out that Chapter 22.10 refers to all subdivisions in the City and he
requested that the Commission hold the hearing. Mr. Lund said he recently discovered that State law says that a
department shall comply with local planning and zoning ordinances and other
regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as other land owners,
meaning that when the State does a project like Hohe Street they have to comply
with City ordinances. If the argument
does require that the utilities be underground, then it seems to him that City
will be obligated to pay the bill.
Dr. Bill Marley, City resident, concurred with Mr.
Lund’s comments and asked the Commission to allow the appeal process to
ensue. If not, they would be embracing
the City’s opinion that they can ignore the ordinance or deny it and deny the
citizens the opportunity to appeal.
RECONSIDERATION
A. Reconsideration on the motion for staff Report PL 05-108 Re: Foothills Subdivision Sunset View Estates Addition No. 2 Preliminary Plat.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL OF FOOTHILLS SUBDIVISION SUNSET VIEW ADDITION NO. 2.
VOTE:
YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL,
CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
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 05-126 Griswold/Harness-Foster: Notice of Appeal Hearing of an
Administrative Determination regarding a second story cantilever.
WITHDRAWN.
B. Staff Report PL 05-120 Proposed Ordinance 05-17 of the City Council of the City of Homer, Alaska Amending Homer City Code Chapter 21.68, Concerning Appeals under the Homer Zoning Code and Enacting Section 21.30.030 to Authorize Setting Zoning Fees by Resolution.
City Planner McKibben read
staff report PL 05-120. She directed
the Commission to a laydown item from Bill Smith.
Bob Shavelson, Executive Director
of the Cook Inlet Keeper and City resident, spoke to the Commission regarding
his concerns with the draft ordinance.
He spoke about the definition 21.68.020(c) regarding the person
aggrieved. This ordinance substantially
changes the standing provision to who can appeal zoning and other decisions
that come before the Planning Director.
It limits the right of aggrieved citizens to see redress from their
government. He commented that this is
a trend he is seeing at the Federal level denying States rights and offered an
example that at the outer Continental Shelf there is an encroachment where
States don’t have much say of what happens off their shorelines, at the State
level there is a similar thing where local control is being stripped away and now
here at the local level. This is a
disenfranchisement that needs to be seriously considered. He expressed his concern that it is
discriminatory in that only property owners would be able to seek redress from
a Planning Directors decision, someone who pays sales tax or rents would not
have standing. Mr. Shavelson reminded
the Commission of his appeal of a decision on Bishops Beach on the basis that
he uses and enjoys the public property, including the tidal area and parking
lot that are owned by the City. The
City has a public trust function and they represent him as a citizen of the
City. When there is harm to that
resource as a result of development or a planning decision, he should have the
right to appeal that and it would be denied under the current proposal. Mr. Shavelson pointed out that in the fifth
“Whereas” clause it notes that there has been some confusion, but to him there
hasn’t been a lot of confusion, he believes the Planning Commission has been
fairly clear in it’s decisions. The disagreement
has been that the City Attorney didn’t like what the Planning Commission
decided. He thought it was
inappropriate, in the case he just mentioned, that the City paid their attorney
to argue a position contrary to that which was decided by the Planning
Commission. He commented it was a
similar situation on Hohe, where the City Attorney was creating hurdles for the
landowners to have their rights enforced.
Mr. Shavelson feels the Commission has the expertise to determine
whether someone is adversely affected or aggrieved and thinks the Commission
should be empowered with that and not have their hands tied by a lawyer
drafting something because he does not want to see citizens have these rights.
Commissioner Foster
commented on the case Sierra Club vs. Mineral King, the Sierra Club argued they
have standing because they speak for the trees. He asked Mr. Shavelson how could something be in the ordinance so
that someone, who is not truly an aggrieved person, is not appealing every
action that the Commission makes, but there is still the ability for someone to
speak for the resources or a collective user of the community so all interests
can be covered.
Mr. Shavelson stated that it
is important to recognize that the early part of the countries history only
economic harm was recognized for standing.
That changed in ‘69 with the case Dr. Foster mentioned and since then
has allowed access to our courts for people who are “adversely affected or
aggrieved”. Mr. Shavelson stated his
understanding that the City Attorney could do that, but believes that there is
ideological slant that the City Attorney is pursuing that is contrary to the
interest of the City.
Bill Smith, City resident,
addressed his changes that were provided in his laydown item. Mr. Smith made the following points:
ü Lines 22&23: The
Judicial Review section of the State Code is where it refers to persons
aggrieved. There is no requirement in
the State Code that a person be aggrieved in order to file an appeal from an
administrative decision. The City can
create the requirement, but it isn’t required by the State, as it was implied
in this section.
ü Lines 27-30: He does not know that the City has
experienced dire consequences to date by the existing rule of standing so
doesn’t know if they are overly expansive in that respect.
ü Lines 87-93: The list of what may be appealed does not
meet the requirements of AS 29.40.050, Appeals from Administrative
Decisions. The City Ordinance does not
allow for appeals of permit that has been issued by the administration as
required by that section of State Code.
ü Line 129: Appeal right are limited to subject property
owner, any government official or an aggrieved property owner. It should be amended to specify which
government officials can file an appeal.
In reference to limiting appeals to aggrieved property owners,
citizenship, holding public office, voting and paying taxes are not limited to
property owners. The current
recognition of property owners entitled to notice by mail have appeal rights was
put into place to make clear and simple the limits of automatic standing as
affected parties. The standing of other
parties was left open so standing could be considered on a case-by-case basis.
ü Line 142 forward: Appeals to
the Board of Adjustments, it seems appropriate to tighten the appeal
requirements after the first appeal. It
may be more appropriate to consider allowing appeals by both those who
participated in the proceeding before the Commission and adversely affected
landowners.
ü Line 171: The current code limit of 30 days was a hard
fought compromise. When holidays and
weekends are considered, 14 days can be unreasonably short. The 14-day limit can be particularly onerous
for out of town property owners or people who work out of town.
ü Lines 207-209: This will make the City Clerk responsible
for determining who is aggrieved. This
is not an appropriate responsibility to place on the Clerk’s Office. A public body should make this type of
decision where the appellant and other parties may rebut claims of
aggrievement.
Mr. Smith recommended that
this be returned to the City Council with the recommendations that it be
re-written by staff and the City Attorney to reflect the principles selected by
the Commission and the Council. The
intent here is to provide for a stable investment environment for developers
and for the community to be assured that community standards are being
met. State law must be observed. He recommended that the section of what may
be appealed conform with State Statutes; he proposed a three step system for
appeal from and administrative decisions including:
ü Type of Issue.
ü Type of Standing.
ü Standing of the Appellant.
He further recommended:
ü Appeals from a Commission
decision are limited to permit applicant, administration and appropriate other
officials, those who participated and those adversely affected.
ü There is no good need for
the amendment regarding conflict of interest.
It means there is little or no incentive for an appeal body to establish
if there is a conflict, because there is little or no consequence for conflict
participation.
ü Fees assessed should be
affordable and not used to eliminate or severely limit appeals. An appellant who correctly identifies and
error by the City or permit applicant should have all or a portion of their
appeal fees refunded.
ü The appeal system within the
City should be an efficient and expedited mechanism to resolve conflicts within
the community. The City should maintain
a system whereby these issues can be settled quickly and inexpensively and not
become a community where a lawsuit is the standard.
ü A standard protocol should
be developed which allows the City Attorney to participate in both staff and
Commission decision.
Mr. Smith stated his
agreement with Mr. Shavelson’s comment that the City Attorney has any standing
to be debating Commission decisions before the Board of Appeals.
Commissioner Hess commented
that there have been instances where a concerned citizen, who is outside the
neighborhood, has brought an appeal and it came back that the citizen was
correct. Mr. Hess expressed his concern
with limiting the scope of property owners with standing to 300 feet; he feels
others should be allowed to argue their point.
Mr. Smith replied that with land use, it is public limiting the uses of
private property. A strong
consideration is what constraints are we going to put on private property and
how far do we go with it. If an issue
doesn’t affect anyone in the City except potentially some of the neighbors,
then maybe everyone else needs to butt out and the developer needs to go on
with his business. He understands that
a decision can be made improperly, but there are other avenues that can be
taken, like asking for an interpretation of the code, an amendment to the code,
and talk to City Council about those issues.
There is a balance of private property rights and public participation
in development.
Chair Chesley closed the Public Hearing on draft Ordinance 05-17 and called for a break at 8:30 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:43 pm.
C. Staff Report PL 05-124 Vacation of a Section Line Easement on lot 20, Mattox Subdivision.
City Planner McKibben read
staff report PL 05-124.
Steven Rouse, Executive
Director of the Kenai Peninsula Housing Initiative (KPHI), stated that there is
no dispute between the person who has been using the section line
vacation. She is in support of it
because with the successful vacation they have agreed to sell her a portion of
that property so she may continue to use it legally as a personal use area. The previous lot owners intention was to
keep the section line easement and put in a 40 foot, 48 inch culvert and build
a road through that section line to access two, eight-plexes they wanted to
build on the property. When KPHI
purchased the property, pursuant to the Commission and City Council’s
recommendation, they developed a site plan that minimized the impact on the
drainage and were able to use, through the replat of Lot 19, a common driveway
area. This vacation not only reduces
the impact to the neighborhood and eliminates any need, in KPHI’s view, to have
any public use easement in the area because Beluga Street and Mattox Road
adequately provide for the area. The
purpose of this is to allow KPHI to build a four-plex of one and two bedroom
apartments that are 100% handicapped accessible and equipped units, which a
market study has shown this community needs desperately. In order to have an adequate buffer and do a
quality job of site planning, they want to adjust the building site to the
north and south rather than east and west.
Mr. Rouse referenced his laydown item for the Commission and stated he
wanted to address the drainage, which is very important to KPHI. He said they have taken storm water and run
off drainage very seriously in all of their development in that area. They have met with residents in the area to
hear their concerns and alleviated their misconceptions about what can
transpire and adequately prepared for any drainage issues and fully intend to
exceed any requirements with vegetation and buffer planning.
HESS/KRANICH MOVED THE HE
HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THIS ISSUE.
HE CURRENTLY HAS A WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH KPHI WORKING ON THE
FIVE-PLEX APARTMENT FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT, HIS COMPANY IS PRESENTLY WORKING
THERE AND HE HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE PROJECT.
Mr. Rouse stated for the
record that Mr. Hess’ company works for the General Contractor, he does not
work directly for KPHI.
VOTE: YES:
CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, FOSTER
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess left the
table.
Commissioner Connor
questioned whether the section line easement goes all the way to East
Road. There was discussion regarding
the section line easements in that area, it was not concluded whether it did or
not.
Chair Chesley closed the
Public Hearing and called for a motion to bring it before the Commission.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO
APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL 05-124 AND VACATE A SECTION LINE EASEMENT ON LOT 20
MATTOX SUBDIVISION.
Commission Foster questioned
staff on a point of clarification regarding the wetlands. The wetland status in the staff report
indicates a drainage and possible wetlands on-site. On the next staff report, which is a separate action on the same
lot, the wetland status states that the 2005 wetland map shows 95% of the lot
in wetlands.
City Planner McKibben stated
that the new mapping, which is not site specific, does show a large portion of
the property in wetlands, however KPHI already has their Corp determination for
the entire parcel.
Commissioner Connor asked if
the vacation is in the public’s interest.
She takes issue with reasonable justification of the vacation; it is an
open space and buffer between this project and residential uses and could be serving
drainage needs. She believes the easement
is serving a purpose. Chair Chesley
responded that a purpose it serves is if the owner of the parcel wanted to
break it up in to 7500 square-foot lots, the section line easement would be
intended for access the lots in the rear portion. Ms. Connor asked if it is standard procedure to vacate easements
for the express purpose putting in a building.
City Planner McKibben replied that as a general principle it is not a
good idea to have a blanket policy for vacating rights-of-way or section line
easements. In this case, since so much
of the adjacent section line easement has been vacated, it is not going to be
developed as a right-of-way access.
Section line easements are not typically thought of as a way of
maintaining open space or buffers; their primary purpose is to provide access
to lots. Staff approached this vacation
in that manner, and pointed out that it won’t be developed as an access because
the other half of the easement adjacent to this property has previously been
vacated.
There was discussion that it
is clear in code that any action the Commission takes does not create a
precedence or obligation in the future.
They are supposed to review each application on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Connor
commented that although she likes the idea of the low cost housing, and would
like to support it, she questions if vacating the easement is still in the
public’s best interest.
Commissioner Kranich asked
for clarification regarding the extent of the section line easement and if it goes
to East Road. Kenton Bloom, project
surveyor, stated that their research is based on lot 20 only. Mr. Kranich commented that if only half of
the easement exists for the lot and it is not a legal right-of-way, he doesn’t
see any reason to retain it.
Commissioner Connor cited
KPB code 20.28.160 “Rights-of-way which provide or could provide access for
pedestrians, off-road vehicles, aircraft and similar modes of transport shall
be considered when evaluating a vacation request. When such uses exist or could exist within rights-of-way which
are not suited for general road use, the commission shall not approve the
vacation request, unless it can be demonstrated that equal or superior access
is or will be available”, as a reason to deny the request. City Planner McKibben pointed out that if
the Commission is to consider this that there is not enough information to know
if other uses exist or could exist that are not suited for general road
use. She feels this is an important
part of the consideration. She offered
the example that if a section line easement is being used as an airstrip, you
wouldn’t vacate a portion of the section line, as there is probably not another
public land for use in that capacity.
She pointed out that the section 20.28.140 allows for partial vacations.
Chair Chesley suggested
postponing action until it extent of section line vacation on other lots can be
determined.
CONNOR/LEHNER MOVED TO
POSTPONE ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
VOTE: YES:
CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion carried.
D. Staff Report PL 05-125 CUP 05-18 KPHI, Request for Approval of More Than One Building Containing a Permitted Principle Use on a Lot as Permitted by HCC 21.45.030 (N) Located at 4103 Mattox Road, Lot 20, Mattox Subdivision.
Commissioner Hess returned to the table.
HESS/KRANICH MOVED THAT HE HAS A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST BASED ON THE SAME REASON AS THE PREVIOUS ONE.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES:
LEHNER, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess left the table.
City Planner McKibben summarized staff report PL
05-125
Steven Rouse commented that he concurs with the
staff report requirements. He asked
that the Conditional Use Permit be allowed to move forward regardless of the
result of the vacation of the section line easement, although not having the
vacation will result in not having sufficient handicap access, but KPHI will do
their best. He stated that the site
plan does allow for Fire Marshal regulations.
He thanked Kenton Bloom of Seabright Surveying and added that they are
going to provide green space and a play area in between the two buildings.
Commissioner Kranich clarified that there is a
five-plex currently under construction and asked if a section line easement is
considered a right-of-way. Chair
Chesley recognized the two surveyors in the audience, Kenton Bloom and Roger
Imhoff, shaking their heads no. City
Planner concurred that it called an easement versus a right-of-way. Mr. Rouse commented that the research has
been done and the existing building does meet the required setbacks.
There was discussion regarding the person using the
easement for personal use. Mr. Rouse
reiterated his comments from the previous discussion regarding the section line
easement.
Commissioner Foster questioned the amount of fill on
the property. Mr. Rouse clarified that
most of the dirt that was excavated from the foundation was left there. 75% to 80% of what Commissioner Foster
termed “fill” is actually material that was endemic to the property that was
replaced in another portion of the property.
There was the requirement in the foundation and the topping of the
driveway to bring in adequate material that met standards for drainage and
traversing. Dr. Foster stated that when
driving on the parking area for the project and looking over where the proposed
building is, it is filled in. Mr. Rouse
assured the Commission that it was not filled in, it was simply leveled. They only filled up to the area that is
currently covered with D1. Mr. Rouse
explained his point referencing the map hanging for review. Mr. Rouse also clarified for the Commission
where the children’s play area is in reference to the turn around space as
requested by Commissioner Pfeil.
Kenton Bloom, project surveyor, explained that the
Code requirement they are dealing with for the Fire Department comments is that
the Fire Department wants to ensure they can get with in 150 feet of any
dwelling. He referenced the circular
drive for Brookside, which provides all of the functional egress and ingress
the Fire Department would ever need. He
explained that looking at this site in conjunction with the other it is helpful
in terms of the overall picture of what KPHI is doing. There is a broader perspective to keep in
mind in terms of the whole context of the development.
Commissioner Foster commented that there should be
an area where the volume and velocity of water can be mitigated because there
is a significant problem downstream. He
asked if the park area could function in that capacity as well. Mr. Bloom stated that functionally speaking,
the lateral ditch that is an interceptor ditch going east and west along the
south line in the section line easement has grades that are flat enough that,
in the long run, having enough set back from the other building, north of the
33 foot easement has a retention swale.
It is not illustrated but could easily be a condition to add to the CUP.
Commissioner Foster asked if there is access for the
residents to access the Community Mental Health offices to the west, rather
than up to East End Road and back. Mr.
Bloom said a pedestrian amenity was in the Brookside site design, but some of
the neighboring property owners were not in support of the plan.
Chris Laing commented that when Brookside was
developed, there was extensive research done in dealing with the drainage. They have a settling pond that is intended
to mitigate all of the drainage that comes into that area and funnels it
through there. It really helps this
property because it is just to the south of it. Mrs. Laing stated that she has been a long standing proponent of
affordable housing developments in Homer and when Brookside was developed,
there were many who are mobility impaired and were very interested, but didn’t
meet the criteria for which that facility was built. That is one of the reason that this four-plex is being
designed.
Chair Chesley closed the Public Hearing and asked
for a motion to bring it before the Commission.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL 05-125
AND APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR CUP 05-18 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.
Staff Recommendations:
1.
The
applicant will submit a drainage plan for review and approval by City of Homer
prior to approval of the zoning permit.
2.
Proof
of approval of the section line vacation by the Kenai Peninsula Borough shall
provide prior to approval of the zoning permit.
3.
All
outdoor lighting will down lighting and will not create light trespass off the
site.
4.
The
project will meet all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.
5.
State
Fire Marshal’s Plan Review prior to any work being done (including foundation
work).
FOSTER/KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1
TO READ “THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT A DRAINAGE PLAN TO MITIGATE FOR WATER VOLUME
AND VELOCITY RUN OFF FROM THE LOT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF HOMER
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A ZONING PERMIT.”
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES:
FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
There was brief discussion to whether or not to
delete staff recommendation two.
PFEIL/LEHNER MOVED TO STRIKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION 2.
There was no discussion.
VOTE:
YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR,
LEHNER, FOSTER
NO: KRANICH
Motion carried.
There was brief discussion regarding whether or not
Commissioner Foster wanted to recommend a vegetated swale but Dr. Foster felt
his previous motion was adequate.
VOTE: (Main
motion as amended): YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, CONNOR
Motion
carried.
Chair Chesley thanked Mr. Rouse for his service to
the community.
Commissioner Hess returned to the table.
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. Reconsideration of Staff Report PL 05-108 Foothills Subdivision Sunset View
Estates No. 2 Preliminary Plat
The main motion back on the floor after
reconsideration was approved is as follows:
PFEIL/KRANICH
MOVED TO ACCEPT FOOT HILL SUBDIVISION SUNSET VIEW ESTATES NUMBER TWO
PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Planning Commission grant
approval of the preliminary plat with the following recommendations:
1. Construct roads and
pedestrian ways per the recommendations of Public Works listed above.
2. Submit a wetlands
jurisdictional determination from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to the
execution of the Subdivision Development Agreement. If a wetlands delineation and or permit are required, these also
shall be submitted.
3. Recommend moving the
panhandle of lot 56 to the south of lot 55 to give greater allowance for
gravity sewer for lot 56.
4. Recommend relocating the
proposed panhandle of lot 41 from Cabana Court to Sunset Lane, possibly through
lot 48. This would better allow for gravity sewer and also minimize the
driveway approach congestion that so often occurs in cul-de-sacs with only
twenty feet of road frontage.
5. Twenty-foot wide drainage
maintenance easements should be platted along existing and proposed drainage
ways. An easement may be needed along the lot line between lots 63 and 64
to provide for drainage from the Sunrise Court cul-de-sac.
6. Work with Planning staff on
street naming issues.
Amendment
1
FOSTER/LEHNER
MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO IDENTIFY ALL DRAINAGES WITH A TWENTY-FOOT
SETBACK FROM ALL DRAINAGE BANKS CITING 20.12.050(B), 20.12.060(D),
20.12.060(H).
Amendment
2 (as amended)
CONNOR/KRANICH
MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS BE INCREASED TO 20-FOOT WIDE
WHICH IS THE STANDARD EXCEPT FOR THE ONE ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY.
Commissioner
Hess explained that he moved for reconsideration because after doing further
research he discovered an issue that was not considered. He cited Borough Code 20.21.070 Pedestrian
ways required when. Which states,
“Pedestrian ways not less than 8 feet wide shall be required in blocks longer
than 600 feet where reasonably deemed necessary to provide circulation or access
to schools, playgrounds, shopping centers, transportation or other community
facilities.”
Commissioner Hess commended the applicants for going
to the lengths they have to accommodate pedestrian ways in the development,
however it is part of the Commission’s responsibility to ensure the plat meets
the Borough requirements. Mr. Hess
further explained that the goal of the Non Motorized Transportation and Trail
Plan (NMTTP) is to provide a separated pathway along Soundview. Commissioner Hess continued with the
following points:
ü Although it is not a
requirement of the subdivision ordinance it is a goal of the communities trail
plan.
ü The applicant has proposed
to provide pedestrian ways with widened roadbeds and there was discussion that
this is the preferred method by Public Works.
Commissioner Hess advised the Commission that he and
a few members of the public met with Public Works Director Meyer after the last
meeting to discuss the widened roadbed issue.
He commented that:
ü Although the widened roadbed
method does provide the City a way to keep the pedestrian way clear, it is not
necessarily the preferred method of pedestrian ways the City would like to see
in new subdivisions.
ü Separated gravel pedestrian
ways could be deemed better for a number of reasons.
ü A grader wing blade could
still clear the separated pathway if no utility or other obstacles are in the
way
ü It is safer for pedestrians
to be off the roadbed.
Commissioner Hess explained that he had received a
cost comparison of providing a paved 26 foot widened roadbed versus a 20 foot
wide paved roadbed with a 10 foot wide separated pedestrian way with a six foot
gravel top. He concluded that the costs
were comparable. He recommended that
the Commission recommend that the developer not be required to meet Borough
Code 20.20.170 if the developer would be willing to go along with the separated
pathway. There was further
justification by Mr. Hess reiterating several of the points already made. Mr. Hess asked that Public Works Director
Meyer discuss what method the City prefers.
He also suggested amending Public Works comments to say that a 20 foot
paved roadbed with a 10-foot wide pedestrian way with a 6-foot gravel top would
be provided along Soundview Avenue, also along Shelly Avenue, Sunset Lane, Eric
Avenue and Linstrang Way. He further
suggested that a note be added for the Borough that it is the opinion of the
Homer Advisory Planning Commission that a separated pedestrian way proposed
with the separated pathways would meet the intention of Borough Code 20.20.170. It would meet the requirement of the NMTTP,
provide safety and add little or no financial burden for the developer.
Commissioner Lehner commented that reducing the
width of the roadbed reduces the amount of impervious surface in a subdivision
that already has drainage issues. She
agreed with Commissioner Hess’s comments and suggested that if possible the
pathways be designed with a semi-permeable or pervious surface.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that he
doesn’t know that he is qualified to speak for the City. He explained that the reason they
incorporated the widened road section into Public Works Recommendations is that
it is one of the methods shown in the NMTTP to provide for pedestrian access
and it is a concept approved by the City Council on the re-paving of six roads
within the City. He is unsure that
there is a consensus of opinion to what option is the best for the
community. With regard to whether
Borough Code 20.20.170 is applicable in this instance, Mr. Meyer commented that
this is the first time it has been brought to his attentions and does not know
how it has been applied in the past.
City Planner McKibben commented that 20.20.170 says,
“Where reasonably deemed” so the Commission should decide if these are deemed
necessary in this area and make a recommendation.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION[1]
THAT THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH CODE 20.20.170 IS
APPLICABLE FOR THIS SUBDIVISION.
There was discussion that the intent of the Borough
Code is for safety for the children because of the close proximity of the
school and park.
Commissioner Kranich commented that based on the
diagrams that Mr. Hess provided the Commission, he does not believe the wing of
the grader will reach far enough to clean the separated pathways. Mr. Kranich stated that with this type of
change, he would like to hear from the applicant.
Chair Chesley commented that based on previous
discussions, this would have to be brought back to the Commission for public
hearing before testimony could be taken.
City Planner McKibben pointed out that this is a plat consideration, not
a public hearing item. Deputy City
Clerk Jacobsen concurred, adding that the reconsideration was advertised.
Larry Cabana, representative for Foothills
Subdivision, expressed his frustration with this situation. They have worked with Public Works Director
Meyer and have met with the Planning Staff to find out what will make the
Commission happy. Staff says one thing,
the Commission says another, personally he would like to see staff and the
Commission get together and if they have strong recommendations, put them
together, send them to the Council and find out if the Commission has the right
to ask people to do what they recommend.
Mr. Cabana said he and his brothers don’t care if the trail is on the
roadbed or off, but they need to get all the plans in line so every subdivision
is not different. There needs to be a
streamline policy program so if someone wants to develop a subdivision, they
know what to look forward to. He
pointed out that Public Works Director Meyer did not answer the question of
whether Borough Code 20.20.170 is applicable or not. The school has no trail, the subdivision next to the school has
no trail, the subdivision put in at Daybreeze Park has no trail, but the
Commission wants the Cabanas to put in a trail right in the middle of
everything. They are trying to meet the
Commission wherever they want to go. He
asked the Commission to make up their minds and let them know.
Chair Chesley apologized on behalf of the staff and
Commission, and explained there are times when they miss things. It is unfortunate when it happens, but it
does happen.
Mr. Cabana pointed out that Mr. Hess’s
interpretation is that is viable, and Mr. Cabana’s is that it is not. He asked if City Planner McKibben had talked
about this issue with Borough Platting Officer Toll. City Planner McKibben commented that she had emailed Ms. Toll,
but didn’t have a copy with her and deferred to Commissioner Hess, who she had
forwarded the email to. Mr. Hess
explained the question asked of the Borough was whether the requirement of
20.20.170 required the pedestrian way to go with the street or if it meant to
bi-sect the blocks and the interpretation of the Borough was that the intention
is that it intersect the blocks. Ms.
McKibben added “in areas in City’s where you needed viable pedestrian
access.” Mr. Cabana pointed out that is
what was addressed when they were talking about going down from one street to
another, not bordering a street. Ms.
McKibben concurred. Mr. Cabana stated
that they are talking about two separate issues and trying to put it into a
different issue.
Commissioner Hess explained that Borough Code would
require more pedestrian way than what is shown on the Foothill’s plat and he
does not feel it is a reasonable thing to ask the developer to do. Mr. Hess is proposing they trade that
requirement for having the separated pathway, which would require less paving
and provide a pedestrian way. Mr. Hess
reiterated his points for the separated pathway method and Mr. Cabana
reiterated the need for consistency.
Commissioner Kranich commented that they are a City
Commission, not a Borough Commission.
If they want to make a recommendation for staff to send to the Borough
for them to comply with 20.20.170, then do so and let the Borough work with the
developer to have it done. Chair
Chesley explained that the City has to meet the Borough Code and the Borough
has to meet City Code. Commissioner
Hess added that he wants to make his recommendation to the Borough so the
developer won’t have to redo his subdivision.
Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, commented that Mr.
Cabana is correct. Commissioner Hess is
taking one part of the Borough Code and trying to apply it to something
else. Mr. Imhoff suggested a good
solution is to give his clients the same opportunity the Commission gave
Streamhill Park, which was to do what they want. They had the choice of providing pedestrian ways along the street
or they could provide a trail type of pedestrian way. He asked the Commission to give his clients the opportunity to
work out a good safe solution with Public Works, they want the trails to be
safe, they want the kids to be safe and they deserve to get a fair shake.
Chair Chesley read the code citation referenced in
the pending motion. There was
discussion that after action on the current motion that determines that
20.20.170 is applicable, the Commission would have to take another action to
make a recommendation to the Borough that there is another way to meet the
requirement.
Commissioner Foster commented, based on the
applicant’s comments, that as much as they would like to have a cookie cutter
requirement, every parcel is different.
In this case there was a lot of testimony given regarding connectivity
from the park at the top to the school at the bottom. He feels this is applicable.
VOTE:
YES: PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS,
FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
NO: KRANICH
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley questioned whether the Commission
should move forward on a recommendation to the Borough or allow the applicant
to meet with Public Works to review Mr. Hess’s design or give the applicant the
choice to meet the other standard.
Chair Chesley reminded the Commission that they do not have the
authority to require pedestrian ways as part of plat approvals. He believes Mr. Imhoff made a good point to
the Commission that if they extend liberty to one developer to make a
determination on how to meet the request, then they should make the same opportunity
available to another development. Chair
Chesley suggested the solution may be a combination of the options
discussed.
Commissioner Hess expressed his understanding that
the City is not recommending a widened roadbed as the only alternative. Mr. Hess stated the last time they went
through this it was indicated that the widened roadbed was the preferred method
of the City and that if you talk to Public Works Director Meyer but that is not
the case. Chair Chesley pointed out
that the applicants have stated Mr. Meyer told them that the widened roadbed is
the preferred solution, and that is what they have proposed. Mr. Hess asked if Mr. Meyer could clarify
that there is more than one way to meet the intention here.
Public Works Director Meyer responded that he is
continually uncomfortable being asked to speak for what the City wants. He does not have the authority to speak for
the City. He can work out something with
the developer, but cannot make the developer do anything. The Homer City Code does not require the
developer to provide any kind of pedestrian access. Public Works recommendation, not that they were speaking for the
City or trying to speak for the Planning Commission, was to recommend that the
developer widen the roadbed to provide for some additional access because that
is what the City Council had suggested we do, the NMTTP suggested we do, Dan
Burden, the walk-ability guy suggested we do, and at every meeting that he has
been to where this is discussed, this is the general consensus of opinion of a
reasonable approach to providing pedestrian access to residential
subdivisions. Mr. Meyer continued that
this drops back to another point that we all have been trying to work on and
that is that the developers deserve to know what improvements they are going to
be required to make and not wait for the Public Works Director to dream up a
solution to a problem after the subdivision is approved. The developer deserves to know what is to be
expected up front and Public Works provided what they thought was a reasonable
way and the Planning Commission really isn’t in the position to decide
specifically what the developer is required to do. Mr. Meyer suggested that now is time to define what they expect
from the developer and he will take on the obligation of working with
them. Unless the Commission recommends
something specific in their approval, Mr. Meyer doesn’t have anything to fall
back on to say it was a condition to the approval of the plat. Mr. Meyer commented that he has expressed
some concern about the City’s ability to maintain separated trails, but that is
a separate issue. Mr. Meyer commented
that if the Commission wants separated trails he hopes they go to the next City
Council budget session and support the idea of having Public Works put the
manpower and equipment to do that. Mr.
Meyer commented that there is nothing real specific on the intent of
20.20.170. He could make an
interpretation and work with the developer, but unless the Commission makes a
specific decision in writing, in the future it may not get enforced.
Chair Chesley pointed out that most of the
subdivisions that come before the Commission are not in close proximity to the
schools. He apologized that this
particular aspect isn’t something staff was looking for and the Commission
hadn’t thought about it either. Chair
Chesley said the Commission is trying to find a reasonable and economical way
to meet the requirement of the Borough Code.
Commissioner Hess explained that the Commission gave
Streamhill the option because they were being channeled into the widened
roadbeds where they wanted the separate path.
Commission Lehner added that Streamhill has more drainage protecting and
functional open space; and impervious surfaces on slopes above a school are a
safety issue.
Commissioner Connor supports the idea of a separated
walkway. It is safe and
economical. Commissioner Lehner added
that the developer could have shorter trail segments through the subdivision
than if they ran them along the road. Commissioner
Hess agreed.
There was discussion regarding what recommendation
the Commission should make.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND PUBLIC WORKS
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REFLECT THAT A 20 FOOT WIDE PAVED ROAD BED WITH A SEPARATED
10 FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN WAY WITH A SIX FOOT GRAVEL TOP WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG
SOUNDVIEW AVENUE, SHELLY AVENUE, SUNSET LANE, ERIC AVENUE AND LINSTRANG
WAY.
LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION AND ADD
THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT OF 20.20.170 BY RUNNING AN 8 FOOT
TRAIL THROUGH THE BLOCKS IF THAT IS PREFERABLE.
Chair Chesley asked for clarification on the
motion. Ms. Lehner responded that her
intent is anything short of a widened roadway to get kids safely through the
subdivision that meets the intent of 20.20.170. Chair Chesley clarified that Ms. Lehner is suggesting amending
Mr. Hess’s motion that other design options that meet the intent of 20.20.170
would be considered.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN EMPLOY
OTHER OPTIONS TO MEET THE INTENT OF 20.20.170.
Commissioner Foster clarified that because Ms.
Lehner is talking about meeting the spirit or intent that it includes that it
would be a separated walkway.
Commissioner Lehner concurred and reiterated that a widened road meets
the intent.
VOTE:
YES: LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER,
CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
VOTE:
YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, HESS,
CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
NO: KRANICH
Motion carried.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED THAT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR A 26
FOOT WIDE ROADBED DOES NOT MEET THE INTENTION OF 20.20.170.
VOTE:
YES: FOSTER, LEHNER, HESS,
CONNOR
NO: KRANICH, CHESLEY, PFEIL
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster apologized to the developer for
this, and while he is not going to make another amendment, a few issues that
came up in public testimony, and two things that came to his attention one
being a laydown item from property owners to the east about a significant
drainage problem they have and a discussion he had with the Principal of West
Homer Elementary about their drainage problem with a culvert from up
above. Since Dr. Foster never got a
drainage map, even though it was required for the preliminary plat, he has no
way of know what is going on there. He
appealed to the developer, there is a property owner down below that wants to
maintain the water level but there are a number of drainage concerns with a
critical site. He asked that the
drainage plan meet the needs of controlling and mitigating the volume and
velocity of water coming down there and if it means a vegetated swale between
the bottom of the subdivision and the elementary school, he asked that they do
that.
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES:
FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
NO:
CONNOR
Motion carried.
KRANICH/FOSTER MOVED FOR RECONSIDERATION.
Commissioner Kranich stated that he would like to
reconsider his vote so they can put it to bed once and for all.
It was clarified that by doing this it can’t come up
again.
VOTE:
CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley called for a recess at 11:05 pm. The meeting resumed at 11:20 pm.
C. Staff Report PL 05-122 H Latham Subdivision Moss Addition Preliminary Plat, vacation of common lot line.
City Planner McKibben read
the staff report.
There were no comments from
the applicant, their representative or the public.
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO APPROVE
H LATHAM SUBDIVISION MOSS PRELIMINARY PLAT.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES:
LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion carried.
D. Staff Report PL – 05-116 Barnett South Slope Subdivision Quiet Creek Park Preliminary Plat.
Chair Chesley explained that
at the last meeting the public comment portion was closed and the Commission
postponed it to this meeting, so this will be the first point where the
Commission will take up discussion of the three proposed plats, Preliminary
Plats A, B and C.
City Planner McKibben
explained that there is no supplement to the Staff Report. She reported that it has recently come to
staff’s attention that the intersection of West Aurora and Anderson does not
comply with HCC 11.04.090(d) Centerline
Separation. Which states, “ The distance between street
intersection centerlines shall be not less than two hundred feet, measured
along the centerline of the intersected street. Street intersections created by
new subdivisions shall be spaced at intervals of not less than six hundred feet
on major arterials, three hundred feet on minor arterials, and two hundred feet
on collectors.”
Ms.
McKibben pointed out that HCC 11.04.090(g) New Subdivisions, states, ‘For new
subdivisions, the Homer Advisory Planning Commission may specify separation
intervals between driveway and/or street intersections on arterial and
collector streets, not to exceed the street intersection interval specified in
this section.” Ms. McKibben added that
Public Works Director Meyer had spoke with the City Attorney. It appears that this section might give the
Commission flexibility in addressing the centerline separation.
Chair
Chesley explained that some members of the Planning Commission, City Council
and Staff have spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out how to work
with the developer to get this plat to an approval point, particularly
addressing western access to the subdivision.
Through that work, the section in the Code that Ms. McKibben read
establishes minimum separation distances between intersections was
recognized. He would like to take this
up first. Chair Chesley pointed out
that the problem is that there is not 200 feet from centerline to
centerline.
Public
Works Director Meyer explained that it came to their attention the 200 feet
intersection separation is not just discussed in the Design Criteria Manual; it
is also in Homer City Code. He made the
following points:
ü
The language in the Design Manual
is a much more flexible language, using terms like “It is desirable” and
“Things may be required”, giving them flexibility to balance the potential
negative implications of a slightly less separation distance on
intersections.
ü
If the intersections are lined up
or close to being lined up, that would encourage people to cut through the
adjacent neighborhood. An example would
be if West Aurora lines up with Mountain View, there is much more potential for
cars coming out of Quiet Creek to do what the neighborhood has been complaining
about.
ü
Based on the flexibility of the
language in the Design Manual, it appeared to be a reasonable trade off. Establishing a separation distance of 150 to
160 feet makes it more difficult for cars to try to use the neighborhood to the
west as a shortcut.
ü
This is a moot point now because HCC 11.04.090(d) says the distance between street intersections
shall not be less than 200 feet.
Mr. Meyer
stated he did look at the language around this to ensure they are not taking
something out of context; the intention of this section is to provide for
safety and the best interest of the Community.
Mr. Meyer cited paragraph (g), which says, “The Planning Commission may specify separation intervals between
driveway and/or street intersections on arterial and collector streets, not to
exceed the street intersection interval specified in this section.” Mr. Meyer stated that he does not understand
what that means. He spoke to the City
Attorney who was unable to clarify it for him.
Mr. Meyer commented that because no one can agree on what it says, it
gives the Commission some flexibility, if they choose to, to specify separation
distances that may be different than what is specified elsewhere in the
section.
Public
Works Director Meyer pointed out that under Plan A there will either be a road
tied into Anderson Street that is offset from the existing intersection and
doesn’t encourage traffic to make a B-line through the subdivision or there
will be a road connecting into Anderson that lines up perfectly with those
intersections and, in his mind, encourages people to drive straight on through. That is the balance they are looking at with
the traffic calming and the good of the adjacent neighborhood overriding a
somewhat subjective 200-foot separation distance.
Mr. Meyer
explained the 200-foot separation is an attempt to limit the number of
intersections, particularly on arterials, because the main focus is moving
traffic. Mr. Meyer said he is not
uncomfortable with a 150 to 160 foot separation in the Quiet Creek Park
Subdivision because it keeps them from lining up those streets and encourages
traffic calming. Requiring the
developer to meet the requirement will result will be bringing a road right
into the intersection, which is probably and ideal situation, but will
encourage people to drive across Anderson Street to the west.
Chair Chesley commented that
item g specifically states arterial
and collector streets but does not give the Commission the
provision to waive minimum requirements for local streets. Chair Chesley expressed that he had hoped to
have this resolved before the surveyor and applicant had to sit through the
meeting, but that didn’t happen. He
explained that he believes that this has to go back to Public Works, the City
Attorney and the Administration to look at this to make sure the Commission has
the authority to waive the minimum requirements on local streets.
Commissioner Lehner
suggested placing a lockable bollard on Mountain View to resolve the separation
worries. If you can’t drive through it,
you don’t have an intersection. The
only time people could get through is in an emergency.
City Planner McKibben
commented on the arterial and collector street concern. She understands that although the Master
Streets and Roads plan calls Anderson Street a local road, in looking at
Anderson and Heath Street, it is really a collector, collecting the local roads
of the surrounding subdivisions to take them to an arterial, which would be
East End Road or Pioneer Avenue. Chair
Chesley interjected that Anderson is not a collector until its traffic volume
classifies it as such. Ms. McKibben
responded that the definition of a collector road does talk about volume, but
it also talks about function.
Chair Chesley stated that
there is sufficient ambiguity here for the Commission not to take this up
tonight, but to wait and find out what the Commission can do in this case. He believes that if local streets were
listed under 11.04.090(g), they would have more to stand on. He asked if the City Manager wanted to weigh
in.
City Manager Wrede commented
that he was not involved in the discussion with the City Attorney, but based on
Public Works Director Meyer’s comments on his discussion with City Attorney
Tans, there is sufficient expression there for the Planning Commission to make
an interpretation. He added that if the
Commission doesn’t want to do that, that is a reasonable decision.
Chair Chesley restated his
belief that this needs to be ironed out before the Commission acts on it. He called for a motion to postpone, asking
staff to work with the developer and the Code and come back with a written
recommendation of a reasonable solution to the code ambiguity.
It was suggested that they
vote on Plat B, but Public Works Director Meyer explained that there are just
as many code problems with Plat B.
Commissioner Lehner
suggested lockable bollards again and Chair Chesley explained that while it may
be part of the solution, they can’t just vote on them tonight, there have to be
findings to support their decisions.
Chair Chesley asked if there
is a motion to continue this item to allow Public Works, the developer and the
administration to work on resolving the street separation issues.
PFEIL/CONNOR SO MOVED.
Commissioner Kranich
commented that HCC 11.04.010 states The
intent of this chapter is to:
a. Promote the safety,
convenience, comfort, and common welfare of the public by providing for minimum
standards to regulate design and construction of public streets, roads, and
highways within the City.
b.
Minimize public liability for publicly and privately developed improvements by
ensuring that roads and streets will be built to City standards.
He agrees that waiving the
minimum standard here is not consistent with the intent of the section, until
they can find out what section g means.
City Manager Wrede commented
that after giving it a little more thought and talking with Citizen Smith, that
in a case like this where you have a code that can be interpreted in a couple
ways, the Planning Commission does have discretion to interpret the Code. That is one of the functions of the
Commission, but the Commission has to be able to clearly state why they did
what they did.
The Commission and staff
continued to discuss reasons in support of and against the Commission making a
determination in this case.
VOTE: YES:
FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR
NO: KRANICH
Motion carried.
D. Staff Report PL – 05-112 Dedication of Nelson Avenue and Ronda Street Right of Way Preliminary Plat.
KRANICH/PFEIL MOVED TO
POSTPONE ACTION ON STAFF REPORT PL 05-112 DEDICATION AF NELSON AVENUE AND RONDA
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT BARNETT SOUTH SLOPE IS BACK ON THE
AGENDA.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER,
KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
COMMISSION 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.
HAPC 2006
Regular Meeting Schedule to be Presented and Adopted at the Homer
City Council’s December 12, 2005 regular meeting.
The Commission
discussed the Calendar and decided by consensus to cancel their meetings
scheduled for July 5 and December 20, 2006.
Chair Chesley asked if
there is a motion from the Commission to postpone the remaining Commission
Business items.
FOSTER/PFEIL SO MOVED.
City Planner McKibben
reminded the Commission that the Appeal ordinance will be on the next agenda
under Commission business.
VOTE: YES:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
B.
Staff
Report PL 05-109 Re: Proposed Amendment to HCC 21.45.040 (b)
Dimensional Requirements (b) Building Setbacks (1).
C.Staff Report PL 05-93 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code 21.48 Site Development Requirements and Homer City Code 21.44 Rural Residential, 21.45 Urban Residential, 21.47 Residential Office, Adding Development Activity Plan (DAP) and Storm Water Plan (SWP) Requirements. Continued from August 17 & October 5, 2005 Homer Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
D.Staff Report PL 05-82 Re: Lot sizes within the Rural Residential Zoning District. Continued from August 17, September 7, and October 5, 2005 Homer Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
E.
Staff
Report PL 05-98 Re: Amending Homer City Code 21.70 Amendment
Procedures. Continued from August 17 & September 7, 2005 Homer
Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
F.
Staff
Report PL 05-117 Time Limited Moratorium for Large Scale Subdivisions.
G.
Staff
Report PL 04-109 Re: Commission Work List, On-going.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
City Planner McKibben commented that a meeting they had previously received a flyer on has been cancelled. Commissioner Foster added that they are hoping to do it at a later date.
Commissioner Foster expressed his appreciation for
the letter City Planner McKibben provided to the Borough regarding Binocular
Bluff Holiman Addition.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
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 Mary Toll, KPD
Platting Officer from Beth McKibben dated October 12, 20o regarding PL 05-113
Binocular Bluff “Holiman Addition”
B. Memo to Mayor and City Council
from Beth McKibben dated October 20, 2005 regarding Hohe Street Power Pole
Placement
C. Letter from Mike Heimbuch,
Homer City Councilmember dated October 20, 2005 regarding the Fred Meyer
Project.
D. Letter to Darren Williams and
Jim Pastro, Refuge Chapel from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician dated October
11, 2005.
E. New List of Cut Off dates for
Agenda Items as Amended through Resolution 05-96.
F. Letter to Marty and Joni Wise
dated October 24, 2005 from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician.
G. Letter dated October 23, 2005
to Frank Griswold fro Beth McKibben, City Planner, regarding 459 Klondike
Avenue setback questions.
H. Correspondence from Beth
McKibben to Frank Griswold dated October 25 and 26, 2005.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Syd Huffnagle, City resident, shared his concerns
with the Commission about Mountain View and Elderberry being made into through
streets. He said he would like a
determination on whether they would have a portion of their road assessments
refunded. Mr. Huffnagle expressed his
frustration at not being able to hear what happened at the meeting and his
understanding that Mr. Neal was given carte blanche to do whatever he
wants.
Chair Chesley explained to Mr. Huffnagle that the
Commission is unable to give him information on assessments. He also explained that Mr. Neal’s
preliminary plat has not been approved yet and he has not been given carte
blanche to do anything.
Bill Abbott, City resident, spoke in support of Mr.
Huffnagle’s comments about the City refunding a portion of assessments. Chair Chesley commented he thought it had
been done before and Mr. Abbott concurred, saying one of the neighbor’s had
commented to him that when Mountain View was constructed, come of the neighbors
on the side streets received refunds.
Mr. Abbott further commented that it seems strange that when projects
come to the Planning Commission, all of the research is not done before the
public hearing. They keep finding new
things that could require a new public hearing. He pointed out that it is not the job of the citizens to research
the code; it is the job of staff and the Commission. He pointed out that there was no notice given that there were new
requirements that were not alluded to in prior documentations, so they had no
opportunity to testify about it. Mr.
Abbott reiterated what the Citizens Alliance for Neighborhoods (CAN) has said
in prior testimony that this has been moving too fast, the proper research has
not been done and there may still be other applicable Borough and City Codes
that have been overlooked. Mr. Abbott
urged the Commission to pass the moratorium on large subdivision preliminary
plat approval, including the ones already proposed. He commented that the events this evening illustrate the need for
the City to retain some experienced legal people to read City code, detect
these conflicts and bring the to the City Council to iron out.
Mr. Abbott mentioned that there are not many safe
neighborhoods in Homer for kids to trick or treat safely. Their area is, but having another large
neighborhood feed into their neighborhood will take that away. He encouraged the Planning Commission to
recommend to the City Council to use HARP funds to extend Heath Street to
connect with Anderson, adding that it would be a worthwhile use of those funds.
Katherine George, City resident, participated in the
viewing of the video The Dollars and Cents of Protecting Community Character
that was facilitated by the Kachemak Bay Research Reserve. It was a short video that talked about the
economic benefits to a community from protecting their sense of their identity. She appreciated that there were a lot of the
Commissioners there and hopes the others can see it as well as the City
Council. She did more research and
looked at the Smart Growth website. She
recommended that the Homer Zoning Code be augmented with the Smart Growth code
to include things like mixed land uses, contact building design, a range of
housing opportunities, walkable neighborhoods and preservation of open spaces
with lots of community input.
Mrs. George asked for clarification regarding a
procedure that came up. At the last
meeting, public testimony was closed and no oral testimony was allowed,
speaking about the Adair issue. She
questioned why, after testimony was closed, Mr. Cabana was allowed to speak,
but there was not comparable public testimony allowed.
Chair Chesley explained that the last meeting was a
remand from the Board of Adjustment and there are specific procedures, in the
case of Mr. Cabana’s situation being reconsideration, there is a different
standard. It is two different
actions. Mrs. George commented that her
frustration is that the City can go to the City Attorney and get a ruling, but
the general public is left out there without information, she questioned how
they can have input with out knowing what is going on.
Larry Sloan, City resident, reiterated his comments
regarding Hohe Street. He commented to
Mr. Wrede’s comments in which he agreed that the Commission has the authority
to make a ruling and in his memo from October 31st in his memo that
the City will fully cooperate in any appeal and that the public deserves to
hear all sides of this issue. He
believes it is time for everyone to come to the table and see who has the
strongest hand. Regarding staff report
PL 05-124, Mr. Sloan commended Commissioner Hess for his integrity and
acknowledging that he has a conflict of interest and the Commission for
supporting it. He commended
Commissioner Connor for her necessary questions about the property and her
willingness to ask those questions. He
commended Public Works Director Meyer for knowing his place within the
hierarchy of the City power structure and his willingness to live within those
limits. Lastly, he commended Chair
Chesley for handling the meeting in a balanced manner.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners
may comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused
absence.
Commissioner Kranich commented that the City Clerk
has copies of information regarding the allowed uses for HARP funds that were
used during the election that established the HARP fund. It is quite specific that that money is to
be used for reconstruction of existing roads and a map and list of roads it is
to be used for. Mr. Kranich also
commented that the Commission is a group of volunteers and while he is not a
real fast reader, he reads for detail and sometimes he likes to read other
things than the City Code. In the time
he has been on the Commission he has done a fair share of code reading. He believes that all Planning Commissions
from here on out will continue to be learning codes and doesn’t believe any of
them will be expected to know all of the provisions of all of the Codes, but
they do a good job and should be commended for that and not be given the
dickens because they didn’t know some quirk in the code. Lastly, he commented that Homer’s
subdivisions on the bench started developing from Bartlett Street and slowly
progressed to the east. He is sure that
when Main Street was added and Bayview and Mountain View were built, property
owners weren’t really happy with the traffic that came with it. When Kachemak way was built there was more
traffic. As subdivisions are developed to the east, those to the west are going
to be impacted.
Commissioner Foster commented that Friday the
Borough Planning Commission is having a joint session with the Assembly about
gravel extraction, primarily bringing in folks from the agencies to discuss
what kind of oversight they do and also some hydrologists. He commented to what Commissioner Kranich said
that this may be the progression, but more progressive communities go about and
put in blockades to limit the straight access and make a more walkable
community. He would like to think
ahead. He commented that the Commission
didn’t discuss the Plat B for Quiet Creek Park and perhaps it did seem that
they were trying to push the Plan A by not discussing the other plats.
Commissioner Hess commented about what Mr. Kranich
said about knowing the codes. Mr. Hess
suggested his comments could be extended to staff as well. It probably isn’t easy for them to pick up
on every nuance of the code either.
Commissioner Hess further commented that last week at the end of the
meeting during the discussion about Hohe, he mentioned something about the City
consistently violating their own rules; it was one of those “open mouth insert
foot” situations. Even though there are
some instances where the City may have violated the Code, it is definitely not
the policy of the City to do so. This
administration and this staff have done a great job about those kinds of
issues. He just wanted to clarify his
position.
Commissioner Lehner handed out some information that
she has gathered regarding open space rural residential. On the last page she has a list of things
they can work on when considering preliminary plats. It is information they can request and could be added to a
specific list staff can give the developer, then everyone can feel better about
being on the same page. All of the
information is readily available. She
recommended the Commission visit the Center for Watershed Protection web site;
there is a lot of information there.
Chair Chesley commented briefly to Commissioner
Foster’s comments about the Quiet Creek Park Subdivision plats. Had it been earlier in the evening, he would
have extended the time for them work on it.
He feels the intersection issues are so pivotal in terms of the layout
and discussion that is going on about accommodating a western access to the
subdivision. Chair Chesley asked Deputy
City Clerk Jacobsen, based on information from CAN members, if the Commission
makes an action to do a waiver or grant an exception to intersection spacing
will a new public hearing be required.
Ms. Jacobsen replied that she would check on that. City Planner McKibben responded that a waiver
would be approving what they have seen on the plat. They have published notice every time the plat has changed
significantly. Chair Chesley responded
that no one has known that it didn’t meet minimum standards, so he thinks it
may meet the burden of an additional public hearing.
Chair Chesley thanked everyone.
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 12:45 am. The next Regular Meeting
is scheduled for November 16, 2005 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Cowles Council
Chambers. There will be a Worksession
at 6:00 pm prior to the meeting.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved:
[1] During minutes approval Ms. Lehner recommended the motion read “MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION SO AS TO CONFIRM THAT THE COMMISSION….”