Session 05-24, a Regular meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:05 pm on November 15, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

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

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

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 written by consensus of the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

A. Approval of November 2, 2005 Regular Meeting minutes.

KRANICH/HESS MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 2 MEETING MINUTES TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

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.

David Scheer, City resident, made comment about a study he has been working on. It is based on discussions from the remand and he has done this research because he has major projects in the pipeline over the next few years here in Homer. Mr. Scheer said he is investing in Homer partially due to the lively real estate market in Homer and mostly because he and his partner are excited about some of the progressive planning policies that are being discussed in Homer, like the Town Center Plan and Steam Hill. He commented that the real estate market will eventually take a down turn and those progressive strategies are going to insulate Homer, while short sided communities will feel the brunt of the downturn. He has spoken to developers outside who are interested in Homer because of those progressive strategies but are waiting to see how things are going to shake out. He has done this research because he feels it is important that there be some overall guidelines that can help where projects can take advantage of its affects beyond its boundaries and the whole City can benefit from these all encompassing ideas. The goal of the study is on open space and greenway, and to find out if it is possible to ask developers for open space without effecting their bottom line and find a way to objectively determine how much open space is reasonable to ask for. The conclusions of the study were surprising and he was happy to find that with a strategic pattern and objectively determinable amount of open space, it benefits the developer’s bottom line and adds to the beneficial cost balance of the City budget. This only works if the open space is integrated to a larger system of greenways, possibly trails, drainages and open spaces. Before these types of open space regulations can be put in place, the City needs to be able to offer incentives to developers in cases where open space quantities are potentially a burden. He provided a spreadsheet to the Commission gives an introductory way to possibly calculate this based on improved cost benefit efficiencies for the City budget. He commented that it is necessary to find a simple way to remove the liability of publicly accepted greenways off the developer and clarify the tax benefits. Most importantly the design parameter for the value of adding greenways and open spaces should be defined either in code or parametric guidelines for sizes and forms of the greenway. Mr. Scheer pointed out that a lot of studies have been done throughout the county, those studies have shown a 10 to 35% increase in property values of properties on or near greenways or open space, and the properties appreciate faster than those that are not.

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 05-128 Conditional Use Permit 05-16 for 59° North Co Housing

Tract A, Daybreeze Park Subdivision

HESS/PFEIL MOVED THAT HE HAS AN APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Commissioner Hess explained that he has extensive knowledge about this project, as he and Mr. Laing, one of the partners in the project, are co-workers. Mr. Hess stated that he would not be able to look at this project without bias.

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

Motion carried.

Commissioner Hess left the table.

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission there are several laydown items for the Commission. She advised the Commission that there is a piece of information they should include in a finding, which is that one of the criteria for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is that no more than 40% of the proposed uses can be uses that are not permitted outright within the district. That number was not included in the staff report but staff has done the math and the residential uses within the project are approximately 73% so the requirement has been met. Ms. McKibben summarized the staff report.

Kenton Bloom and Tom Laing, two of the partners in the project addressed the Commission. Mr. Bloom commented that at the last meeting he introduced his partners in the project and tonight wanted to recognize two others who were instrumental in the project, Jack Cushing, the project engineer and Laura Ballock, who prepared the conceptual designs.

Mr. Laing addressed the fire department comments. He said he has not been able to speak directly to Fire Chief Painter regarding the fire department comments and recommendations. He has exchanged emails with Mr. Painter through Ms. McKibben. Mr. Painter’s primary concern has to do with the fact that there is some commercial use on the property. Mr. Laing pointed out on the site and drawing plan that any commercial activity would take place in units L through Q and the Common House Cluster. He explained that those areas may not even be used as commercial space; it is just an option they want to be able to include. Mr. Laing believes that there has been a misunderstanding and Mr. Painter doesn’t realize that the units are residential as his concern is the egress, ingress and an emergency vehicle turnaround area. Mr. Painter’s last email to Mr. Laing stated that he would be willing to compromise on the project (meaning Fairview Street being widened to 20 feet) if they would give a timeline for Fairveiw Improvements. Otherwise Mr. Painter will have to be firm and assess requirement on those buildings, subject to Fire Marshall Review. Mr. Laing believes they have met Mr. Painter’s requirements; they have 20-foot access to the three commercial areas. Until he hears back from Mr. Painter they won’t know for sure.

Kenton Bloom stated that he spoke to Public Works Director Meyer regarding how to address fire access and what Mr. Meyer and Mr. Bloom came up with is for 59° North to develop, within the frame work of City requirements, Fairview Avenue for the length of their frontage along Fairview, which they agreed to. Mr. Bloom said that Mr. Meyer would contact Mr. Painter to see how it fit in to his program. Mr. Bloom advised the Commission that they will be adjusting the woodshop location so that area can be used as a loading zone to accommodate the grader. He stated the staff recommendations are acceptable but for the sake of clarification, staff recommendation 6 states that development of units L through Q will comply with requirements for Residential Office. Because of the way this development is being structured, no one could have any type of “outside of the home” studio or office in the development, so that limits the amount of people who can have commercial activity to residents and with only 21 units, there won’t likely be many. 59° North does have flexibility in the concept that units L through Q provides for those who want to seriously consider commercial activity and the common house cluster provides a venue for the same thing. They want to ensure the common house cluster is included in staff recommendation 6. Mr. Bloom explained to the Commission that the common house cluster is units that are architecturally connected and integrated in terms of uses. It is an association of activities, for example it could be a studio, a dark room, something that is an income producing for the resident and creates a live/work environment for them. There won’t be uses that would increase traffic into the area.

Commissioner Lehner questioned what the rules will be regarding on street parking. Mr. Bloom responded there will be no parking along the lane that is 22 feet wide per code. He referenced the project drawing and stated that the terrace area that the dwellings are on have room to adjust if someone wants to put in an additional parking area. They have attempted to leave an element of people being able to decide, to some extent, what they want to do, but will be subject to approval by the architectural review committee. They would also have to come to the City for a zoning permit.

Mr. Laing explained that all of the residents of the community will form an association and they will approve everything that goes on there, whether it be business or the design of their house and their parking. Mr. Laing added that there are several niches to allow for extra parking of cars or boats that are not designated because right now they don’t know what all of the needs will be.

Commissioner Foster commended 59° North for what they have proposed for their drainage and asked if the development would be willing to incorporate the use of bear proof containers for trash collection. Mr. Bloom responded that they would. He also stated that they fully intend to comply with any wetlands determination process.

Commissioner Connor thanked the group for the work they have put into their plan and asked if they would consider running their public trail along the property line so it could connect to the Wildflower Ranch trail easement. Mr. Laing commented that they have presented the developers in Foothills Subdivision a possible land swap so they could dedicate a trail where it needs to go. If that does not work out, 59° North will make some accommodations because they are in favor of trails.

There were no more public comments. Chair Chesley closed the public hearing.

PFEIL/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-128 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit contingent on the following conditions:

1. The project will meet all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.

2. A development schedule must coordinate the improvements of the common open spaces and trails per HCC 21.61.060 (e)(3)(b). This development schedule will be provided prior to approval of any necessary city permits.

3. The property owners association will provide maintenance of common area per HCC 21.61.060 (e) (3) (c).

4. Homeowners will be required to park inside their double garage/carport or provide two additional parking spaces per dwelling unit meeting HCC 7.12.020 requirements.

5. All home occupations will comply with the requirements of HCC 21.45.020(f).

6. Development of units L-Q will comply with the requirements of HCC 21.47, Residential Office.

7. A parking reduction to a minimum of 22 parking spaces, as allowed by 7.12.240 (K). Garages and carports may be considered parking spaces if they are used by residents for parking personal vehicles and if the Homeowners’ Association Bylaws stipulate that homeowner parking must be in the garage/carport if constructed.

8. The standards identified HCC 21.49.060 will be complied with, including the requirement of a Development Activity Plan and/or Storm Water Plan, if applicable.

9. Development of the planned unit development must begin within one year of approval of the conditional use permit and development plan. If development is not begun within such time, the conditional use permit and development plan approval lapses, and the conditional use permit and development plan must be resubmitted to the Planning Commission for re-approval. After a lapse of one year or more a new conditional use permit application and development plan must be submitted to the Commission for complete reconsideration per HCC 21.61.060(g).

LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED TO ADD TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 6 THE LANGUAGE “AND THE COMMON HOUSE CLUSTER” SO THAT IT READS, “DEVELOPMENT OF UNITS L - Q AND THE COMMON HOUSE CLUSTER WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF HCC 21.47, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE”.

There was no discussion.

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

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben asked to clarify for the record that the code citation in Finding F should be corrected to HCC 21.61.060(d), not HCC 12.61.060(d). She wants to ensure that it is in the record.

There was discussion that having this shown in the record is acceptable in that if this permit were ever challenged the minutes are part of the record would reflect the revision.

Commissioner Lehner pointed out on page four of the staff report under Code Requirements, it addresses HCC 21.61.060 (e) (2) (b) & (c) the last sentence says “The total floor area of the proposed development is approximately two times that of the total open area which exceeds this requirement.” Ms. Lehner stated her understanding that is should be “The total open area of the proposed development is approximately two times that of the total floor area…”. City Planner McKibben concurred with Ms. Lehner’s statement.

Chair Chesley pointed out that staff recommendation five cites HCC 21.45.020(f) and suggested that it be revised to cite the source code, which is HCC 21.44.020(f). He explained that this is an area of code that the Commission often refers to standards set in other districts so as not to duplicate the effort.

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED THAT ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION FIVE, THE REFERENCE TO CODE BE CHANGED FROM HCC 21.45.020(f) TO HCC 21.44.020(f).

There was no discussion.

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

Motion carried.

Commissioner Lehner asked for clarification whether Fairview is a collector or a sub-collector. It is stated as both in the staff report. There was discussion regarding the status of Fairview. The Transportation Plan references this portion of Fairview as a connector to West Hill in the future. It was pointed out that the Transportation Plan refers to Fairview as a local road. City Planner McKibben referenced page I-34 of the Transportation Plan where it talks about new streets or intersections of streets and it states “We chose to model this project instead of a similar connection to Soundview Avenue two blocks south for two reasons. First, Fairview is already acting as a sub-collector, providing access to the ball fields and campground on the west end and connecting several north-south collectors.” Ms. McKibben expressed that it is stated pretty clearly why it is acting as a sub-collector. Chair Chesley pointed out that table I-8 on page 1-25 classifies roads that the City has and the sections Ms. McKibben cited is a discussion of the model, not an evaluation the performance characteristics or traffic counts for the road. He commented that city code cites to an arterial or a collector, which raises the question is a sub-collector a collector. Chair Chesley pointed out that this is another area where the Code isn’t very tight. Commissioners brought up the following points:

ü A platted connection has been created from West Hill to Fairview on the way to Karen Hornaday Hillside Park, the Hospital and etcetera. It is defensible that Fairview will act as a collector.

ü It meets the definition of a collector, now that it is platted all the way through.

City Planner McKibben commented that this is a case where the Planning Commission has some discretion. She pointed out there is a plan that is a little inconsistent and it would be appropriate for the Commission to make a determination thatFairview is a collector with the finding that

ü The Transportation Plan defines what a collector street is and,

ü Based on the connection of Fairview Road from West Hill to the existing Fairview Road in the Harrington Heights subdivision, that road meets the functional definition of a collector and,

ü The Transportation Plan, in its body, already defines it as a sub-collector.

Chair Chesley called for a short recess to review code at 8:01 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:14 pm.

Public Works Director Meyer commented that the Transportation Plan, as it exists right now, suggests and recommends that Fairview be extended to connect on the east to Heath Street and on the west to West Hill. In doing so, it was estimated that the average daily traffic suggests Fairview will be a collector street once it is connected at both ends.

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO ADD CONDITION NUMBER TEN TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. IT WOULD BE THAT NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERMITTED ON SITE AT 59° NORTH UNTIL FAIRVIEW AVENUE HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE CITY OF HOMER AS A COLLECTOR.

Commissioner Lehner offered the explanation that because a PUD that includes commercial or industrial uses must connect to a collector, commercial activities would be in violation of code, until this PUD connects to a collector.

Commissioner Foster pointed out that when the Commission was dealing with the annexed areas they discussed the term cottage industry. Everything they have described here is a cottage industry, which they have all over town that aren’t anywhere near collector streets. He stated he is not going to be supporting this.

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

NO: FOSTER

Motion carried.

Commissioner Kranich questioned the definition for home occupations. He cited HCC 21.32.240 Home Occupations, pointing out that it states they are entirely done in the dwelling with no outside storage of materials and equipment and no commodities sold on the premises. He asked how this will fit in with the proposed commercial operations in the common house as well as studios in the homes. Chair Chesley responded that it is inconsistent and commented that in looking at the citation that they corrected earlier, 21.44.020(f) the definition of home occupations. City Planner McKibben summarized the definition of Home Occupation in that section of code. She explained that there are the home occupations in the 21 dwelling units, then there are the separate units, L through Q, and potentially the Common House cluster that will have uses that comply with the requirements of HCC 21.47, Residential Office, which allow for the sale of some retail goods. If there was not the desire to use units L through Q units and the Common House as uses allowed in the Residential Office district, there wouldn’t be the need for the PUD.

Commissioner Kranich brought up that if there is going to be commercial use, it brings up a parking issue. There was extensive discussion that even with the residential units, there is a minimum of 44 parking spaces required. If there is combined use with commercial, the commercial spaces need to be added on top of that. Chair Chesley responded that HCC 7.12.020, the Planning Commission can set the requirements. City Planner McKibben added that on page three of the staff report there is a more in depth discussion regarding parking. It states that there are 22 parking spaces shown, with an additional potential of 14 two-car units. Mr. Kranich commented that if that’s the case, then staff recommendation seven needs to be clarified. Ms. McKibben stated that HCC Title 7 requires at least two parking spaces per residential unit, in this case it would be a maximum of 42. Professional Offices require one space per 300 square feet but no less than four spaces. She explained that staff is looking to the Commission to determine that the 28 spaces provided by the garages or car spaces was sufficient for the residential units and the additional 22 would be sufficient for the professional office type uses. Commissioner Kranich asked if it would qualify enough parking for the Common House. He read in the comments about artists coming in and having exhibits and selling things and to him that doesn’t mean residents, it is a full blown commercial use. City Planner McKibben offered information from the staff report regarding the reduced number of parking spaces and reminded the Commission that they can allow for a reduced number of parking spaces for mixed uses. Part of staff’s rational for proposing the number of space identified by the applicant might be sufficient is the “live-work” concept where generally the applicants have a reduced number of vehicles and the mixed use nature of the development. If the Commission feels they need to require more, they have the authority to do that. City Planner McKibben reviewed the building sizes.

Chair Chesley commented that because of the nature of the development staff has identified that the Commission can make a determination. In response to a question from Commissioner Kranich, Chair Chesley doesn’t believe this will become a spit parking situation. This is a development that is governed by a homeowners association and there are control mechanisms to ensure there won’t be any unintended impacts that would need to be mitigated.

Commissioner Kranich expressed that he has strong feelings about the parking and would like to spend some time with staff reviewing it.

KRANICH MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING.

The motion died for lack of second.

Chair Chesley read HCC 7.12.020 (a) 20. Mixed uses: The total requirement shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately, except as otherwise approved by the Planning Commission.

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO CHANGE THE CITATION ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION SEVEN TO 7.12.020 (a) (20).

There was no discussion.

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

Motion carried.

KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER SEVEN TO READ “THE PARKING REDUCTION TO A MINIMUM OF 22 PARKING SPACES IN ADDITION TO PARKING GARAGES AND CARPORTS.”

Commissioner Kranich explained that will allow spaces in addition to garages and carports and presumes that the way it is indicated that the residents will primarily be parking in the garages, that should leave extra parking spaces outside the units.

Commission Lehner agreed and City Planner McKibben commented that Commissioner Kranich’s amendment clarifies the recommendation.

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

Commissioner Kranich commented that the finding under C has wording that may need to be revised. The sentence reads, “HCC 21.44.020 (f ) allows for home occupations provided that they are carried out entirely with the dwelling, by full-time occupants of the dwelling…residential in nature, quiet, minimal parking, and delivery, unlit signs not exceeding 4 square feet.” He explained that “residential in nature” leads him to believe that the business must be residential in nature. He believes is it should be restated with the complete phrase from the code.

KRANICH/FOSTER MOVED THAT FINDING C READ: HCC 21.44.020 (f ) allows for home occupations provided that they are carried out entirely with the dwelling, by full-time occupants of the dwelling…~~residential in nature~~ CLEARLY SUBORDINATE TO THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE PREMISES, quiet, minimal parking, and delivery, unlit signs not exceeding 4 square feet.

There was no further discussion.

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

Motion carried.

Commission Kranich pointed out that finding F has a place where the word “the” is repeated and asked that staff correct that.

There was no further discussion.

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

Motion carried.

Commissioner Hess returned to the table.

PLAT CONSIDERATION

The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public.

A. Staff Report PL 05-131 Barnett South Slope Subdivision, Quiet Creek Park

Preliminary Plat.

City Planner McKibben directed the Commission to the laydowns provided regarding Quiet Creek. One was a letter from Scott Thomas from State of Alaska DOT clarifying the connection of Heath Street to South Slope on the map and the second was an email to Ms. McKibben from City Attorney Tans regarding HCC 11.04.090 and the discussion the Commission had at the previous meeting regarding centerlines.

Ms. McKibben summarized the staff report.

Public Works Director Meyer reported that the City Manager, staff from Public Works and the Planning Department sat down this afternoon and tried to weigh all the public concern involved in this process so far, as it relates to Quiet Creek. They considered the concerns of the Planning Commission, based of staff comments that have been made so far, and there is still a gap between the concerns and the developers proposal. Staff brainstormed and came up with two additional conditional conditions the Commission may want to consider to help mitigate the parties that have been involved. The additional conditions are as follows:

The Applicant, (unless a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared and paid for by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission proves that vehicular traffic generated by the Quiet Creek Subdivision does not increase traffic in adjacent local residential streets beyond the traffic volumes that define then as local streets), shall not:

1. Construct West Aurora Avenue street improvements (from South Slope Road to Anderson Street) until Heath Street is extended from Pioneer Avenue north to the Anderson Street/Mountain View Drive intersection.

2. Construct a street connection from West Aurora Avenue to South Slope Road until Shellfish Avenue from East Hill road west to the Anderson Street/Mountain View Drive intersection has been constructed.

Mr. Meyer explained that they chose those because there are concerns about the neighborhoods to the west, to the east as well as Quiet Creek Subdivision itself. The Transportation Plan suggest Shellfish and Heath Street be connected and serve as a residential collector for this area. Once the connection is made, it could adversely affect traffic flows in all three neighborhoods. What staff is suggesting in the first condition is that there should be no connection to Heath from Quiet Creek until the safety valve down to Heath Street has been constructed. Once that is constructed, they feel that there is far less potential for traffic from Quiet Creek going into the adjacent neighborhood to the west. By suggesting West Aurora not be constructed until that is available it will keep the entire subdivision from accessing through Nelson/Ronda. Mr. Meyer stated that this does two things it basically says this part of the subdivision immediately adjacent to Heath Street shouldn’t be built until Heath Street is extended north to Anderson, so there is a way for people to get out without going to the neighborhood to the west, it also limits the development of the subdivision so the traffic isn’t piled on to the east, down Nelson/Ronda. Mr. Meyer continued that the second condition is there to protect Quiet Creek Subdivision from the same type of thing. He explained that if Heath Street is connected north to Anderson but Shellfish is not constructed, and as part of Quiet Creek we connect a road from the bottom of South Slope over to Anderson Street, that is an invitation for collector type traffic to be moving through residential neighborhoods. If there is going to be traffic that comes off East Hill and goes through these neighborhoods, then both Heath Street and Shellfish need to be constructed.

At the request of Commissioner Lehner, Public Works Director Meyer commented about connecting East Aurora to Kallman. He explained that there are differing opinions at this point. The first thought was that as many direct connections to Heath Street, Anderson and East End Road, the better. But in mulling over the idea of protecting all of the neighborhoods from collector type traffic going through residential neighborhoods, there is concern that Kallman could entice people to leave East Hill, go down South Slope and shortcut down Kallman to East End. Mr. Meyer commented that stop signs and other traffic calming methods could be added to make it a longer trip. He finds it to be more important that there are east/west connections rather than multiple north/south connections.

Chair Chesley called for a break at 9:01 pm to allow the public to get review the copy of Mr. Meyer’s recommended conditions prior to public comment. The meeting resumed at 9:17 pm.

Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, recognized the fact that it may be recommended that the subdivision be redesigned and pointed out that Public Works did not comment on the length of Sophie Court in the staff report. Mr. Imhoff explained Sophie Court is about 700 feet long, which is 100 feet over City Code, and it was not brought to their attention that it was an apparent Code violation. Since Borough Code maximum length is 1000 feet and they are only 100 feet over the City, Mr. Imhoff feels it is more worthwhile, for the design of the subdivision to let that stand rather than possibly moving the intersection to a worse location and creating a bunch of panhandle lots at the end of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Imhoff stated he and the developer believe this is an acceptable design and asked Public Works Director Meyer that Public Works concur.

Public Works Director Meyer pointed out that earlier as staff comments were developed for this, they focused more on the Design Criteria Manual, which says cul-de-sac’s should be no longer than 600 feet, but it does provide the ability for the Public Works Director to make some decisions. He explained that they measured it at about 660 feet and in his mind, it met the intent of the code. The problem is that City Code states 600 feet with not provision for waiving that. Mr. Meyer agreed with Mr. Imhoff’s statement that what could happen is that if the cul-de-sac is shortened it could result in having flag lots off Sophie Court. Mr. Meyer felt there was a balance there but authority to waive it doesn’t appear to be specifically provided for by code.

Commissioner Foster questioned the reasoning behind shorter roads for cul-de-sacs. Public Works Director Meyer explained that you don’t want roads thousands of feet long with only one outlet for all of the homes that are built on it. As wells as traffic volume issues, there are also drainage issues, typically with the rainfall tendencies in Alaska, about 600 feet of curb can be drained into a catch basin, so it reduces the amount of infrastructure that sometimes has to be constructed to build storm drains back into a cul-de-sac.

Chair Chesley suggested to Mr. Meyer and the developer that the Commission follow the Design Criteria Manual section 1.07, Waivers. It states, “The City Public Works Engineer may waive specified design criteria on a case-by-case basis. Requests for waiver shall be in writing and shall include a comprehensive analysis and justification of the proposed design by the professional design engineer for review and subsequent approval or denial by the City Public Works Engineer.” He suggested that this provision would allow Mr. Meyer to negotiate the cul-de-sac length in the subdivision agreement with the developer, if the applicant makes a formal request in compliance with this section and lays out their rationale for it. Public Works Director Meyer commented that it would be good if the developer submitted the comprehensive analysis because one of the main concerns at Public Works is being consistent and when something is waived, they want to have findings about why it was done in this instance and why it is not done in another instance.

Linda Browning, resident on Elderberry Drive, commented that she had prepared a statement but she will not be reading it. She thinks the new conditions that have been proposed are an excellent solution to a difficult problem. As a citizen of Homer, she feels like the Commission, Public Works and Mr. Neal have heard her. The only suggestion she has to help divvy up the traffic flow a little more is to go to the original Plat A where West Aurora went between Mountain View and Elderberry. She pointed out from last meetings minutes that Mr. Meyer stated he is not uncomfortable with the 150 to 160 feet separation in the Quiet Creek Park Subdivision because it keeps from lining those streets up and encouraging traffic calming. She feels they have done an excellent job in reaching some resolution to a very difficult problem.

Syd Huffnagle expressed his concern that it seems that the determination of where Shellfish will come out is still up in the air. It remains a smoking gun pointed at his neighborhood’s head unless it does go on down to Heath Street. He commented that presumably a lot of the western part of Mr. Neal’s subdivision is wetlands. Mr. Neal thinks it is okay to build but he will still have to hear from the Corp before he can build. If it is viable to build on that area it would seem that what he has to propose is just as viable and would alleviate the biggest part of the impact on their neighborhood. Mr. Huffnagle pointed out on the map that West Aurora could end in a cul-de-sac short of exiting on to Anderson. He pointed out that there are two twenty-foot driveway easements into lot 83 and 84. The park, which appears to be lot 81, goes down through there along a wetland drainage. If the developer were to shift lot 82 west into the driveway easements, it would give 40 feet without going into the park strip. Another 20 feet would give the 60 feet that corresponds to West Aurora Drive and it could come down beside lot 83 with more land taken off the lower end of lot 83 and applied to lot 83. A street could come down adjacent to Calhoun’s property and angling down to the DOT corridor that has been considered. It could eventually tie into Heath Street. There would be a very negligible impact to Mr. Neal’s lots in that area. The crown of the cul-de-sac could access lots 89 and 88. It seems to give Mr. Neal what he needs. Since there are cul-de-sacs all around the existing area, Mr. Huffnagle questioned what difference one more would make, as long as it makes a viable straight, through down to the Heath Street extension. Mr. Huffnagle said that he could not hear all the discussion regarding Fairview, but Fairview intersects the Heath Street extension and it could be tied in at some point. He would appreciate if the Commission would consider it.

Bill Abbott expressed his agreement with Mr. Huffnagle and Mrs. Browning’s comments. He expressed his concern that this process started over a year ago with his neighborhoods concern with the new east/west corridor in the draft Transportation Plan, before Mr. Neal’s preliminary plat. Even with the solutions that have been presented, he still sees a problem with Mountain View becoming part of the east/west corridor when Shellfish is built over to Anderson and down to Mountain View. He believes that a lot of people will tend to turn and utilize Mountain View to connect with Main Street on down Pioneer. He still sees it as a problem because it has the potential of introducing a lot of traffic into a safe residential neighborhood where they want to keep the traffic out because it will change the neighborhood. He believes that part of the solution needs to be that traffic calming methods need to be part of this for the extension of Heath to Anderson where they connect to Mountain View.

Katherine George provided a large color aerial photo that she received from Mike Gratz,of the Corp of Engineers, that shows the wetlands that overlap in the Quiet Creek Park Subdivision. She also provided a color aerial photo to show the extent of the drainages above and below Quiet Creek Park Subdivision. She pointed out wetland and drainage areas, emphasizing that it is a large area that goes past the High School. She made reference to a letter submitted by Roger Imhoff which said the furthest most drainage doesn’t exist and she begs to differ because she lives right there and believes that it does exist. Mrs. George stated that she has problems with additional pedestrian access, which are not really trails, they all dump out onto a street, and she would like to see a continuous trail through the subdivision. Mrs. George said that, like Mr. Abbott, she feels a sense of de ja vu, in that this is where they started a year ago. The residents have been told all along that the Transportation Plan doesn’t lay out a specific route, it shows areas where action is needed. Her argument was that if it is on the map, it is what is going to become, and in fact is what his happening. Now Heath Street becomes the street that comes past Mountain View and connects with Shellfish and that is what they mean by the Heath Street extension. She recognized Mr. Huffnagle’s proposal and made one of her own. Mrs. George proposed that it is possible to take the property that’s along Anderson and convert it to a permanent paved pedestrian way and make the ends of Mountain View and Elderberry hammerhead turns. That would allow emergency vehicles to turn around there and protect the neighborhood. David Scheer presented a map in his packet of information that provides yet another alternative. She pointed out that Plan B hasn’t really been part of the discussion. Mrs. George expressed her frustration that there was a meeting this afternoon, but she knows there was not a community representative at the meeting, yet supposedly all of their testimony was taken into consideration, but she doesn’t know of anyone who testified to those ideas. She still believes there is a way to develop this property that allows the developer to make a reasonable profit and protect their neighborhoods. It would be a smaller development and gives up the connectivity idea, it would protect the drainages, and keep the trees to mitigate impervious surfaces. There is a way to do it, they haven’t seen it quite yet, but it is there.

Carol Hamik, resident on Kachemak Way, expressed her appreciation for the Commission’s time and efforts. She explained that many years ago the residents on Kachemak Way paid for the cost of paving the neighborhood streets as an LID and at the present it could be used heavily if the development goes in above them. Lower Kachemak Way is sparse on the streetlights, curvy, icy in the long winters with already increased traffic scaring pedestrians, bicyclists and other motorists. She questioned if the developer and new subdivision homeowners contribute to the additional cost of addressing these safety concerns. She echo’s the previous speakers comments regarding traffic calming techniques. She appreciates all of the work Mrs. George has done. Mrs. Hamik encouraged moving forward with the Non Motorized Transportation and Trails Plan (NMTTP).

Marianne Schlegelmilch, resident on Kachemak Way, read her and her husband’s statement into the record.

ü After receiving a copy of the revised plat, they remain opposed to the approval of this plat.

ü The modifications are directly oppositional to nearly all citizen testimony on public record for consideration of this plat.

ü Public testimony that has occurred for approximately the last year clearly voices the publics concern about this subdivision.

ü They refer the Commission to their testimony regarding the original plat and add that the current proposed plat for Quiet Creek reinforces their belief that density and traffic flow will negatively impact the integrity, property values, lifestyle and safety of their property.

ü They are concerned about environmental and economical impact on the area of the proposed plat and adjacent areas.

ü They are concerned about water, sewer and wetland stressors.

ü They firmly object to the approval of this plat.

A copy of the Schlegelmilch’s letter was provided for the record.

Ginny Espenschade, resident on Rainbow Court, expressed her appreciation for the new plan and welcomes the change in the discussion. She explained that she is a volunteer, user and parent of Homer High School and recognized that the Commission may not know where these trails are that the School and Cross Country coach is concerned about. They are on Borough property so they don’t show on the trails plan. She pointed them out using Mrs. George’s maps. She explained that it is a heavily used trail by many different individuals. She pointed out the routes that go along the north/south corridor. The trail is so close to the new subdivision she can see the orange flagging when she walks it. It would be wonderful if their trail design can connect to the existing trails. Ms. Espenschade explained that during the floods several years ago part of the cross-country trail was washed out, the sediment blocked the drainage and there was silt on the football field, it is a huge drainage system. Ms. Espenschade commented in staff recommendation three there is an and/or. After attending the wetlands meeting today she would like to see it spelled out when the wetlands delineation should be provided so that it is clear and there is no confusion.

Francie Roberts, resident on Mountain View Drive stated that she feels like she is repeating herself. She has testified to the Commission many times and doesn’t know that she has been heard all the time or that the process is working well. She is concerned that the Rural Residential issue has disappeared. She doesn’t feel any of these lots exemplify Rural Residential. She wonders if the Transportation Plan is being looked at clearly. There is a lot of information there she has testified about that affects this subdivision. The NMTTP has walkways and trails going through the neighboring streets that they are talking about adding more traffic to. She is concerned about the wetlands. Ms. Roberts doesn’t see a lot happing with wetland concerns, and believes those are big issues. She wonders about the requirements that were put on the Cabanas subdivision since they are close to the schools, if those same requirements will be added here since Quiet Creek Park Subdivision is close to the high school. Ms. Roberts pointed out she has never testified that Shellfish is a good option and doesn’t believe it is the best option. Mr. Huffnagle proposed a viable solution to address some of Public Work’s concerns and to satisfy the neighborhood. Ms. Roberts mentioned that the State has money available for the State Revolving Fund and they have an ability to loan money for swales, ponds and culverts. This property has a lot of wetlands and the City should be looking into these kinds of things.

Paul Gavenus, resident on Rainbow Court, doesn’t like the Heath Street Extension. It is too close to the school and the safety factor outweighs any benefits to the City. He pointed out in reference to the letter from the State there may be an issue with the radius curve that may need to be considered by Public Works. Mr. Gavenus expressed his agreement with Mr. Huffnagle’s proposed option. He would like the Commission to consider the option of connecting Sophie Court. Lastly, Mr. Gavenus pointed out they have been fighting the low-density issue and four more were added with the last plat the Commission approved. He felt insulted at that.

Gary Thomas, City resident, expressed his appreciation for all parties that have been involved in this process over the time they have been working through this. A number of the issues they have dealt with are larger issues that deal with subdivision development in the City. He appreciates the work that staff put in to put together the conditions that Public Works Director Meyer read earlier. In the same spirit as the two propose conditions, Mr. Thomas suggested a third condition that the applicant shall not, “Construct Kallman Street within the Quiet Creek Subdivision until such time as Kallman Street is fully constructed from Quiet Creek Subdivision south to East Road.” Mr. Thomas explained that it leaves the right-of-way in place but there has been discussion that it isn’t a good idea to build that paved road down into that quagmire.

Diana Sedor, resident on Kramer Lane, questioned why this new plat doesn’t have the City of Homer dates stamp on it like the others do, she feels it is important that if have the “received” stamp on it. She questioned what the difference is between a new plat and a revised plat. Chair Chesley responded that she can discuss that with the Planning Department. She strongly believes that plats this big should be advertised in the newspaper so the community can see what is happening as well as inform neighbors who don’t get the City’s mailings. Ms. Sedor commented that she too had to change her comments tonight after hearing the recommendations this evening and still has basically one problem. She asked what do Quiet Creek Park and George W. Bush have in common? Density. Why do blondes think Quiet Creek Park is developed just for them? Density. She said she is making jokes because at this point she doesn’t know what else to do. Ms. Sedor cited HCC 21.44.010. She explained that we are back to density, where it all started. That hideous Foothills Subdivision is at least being developed in a part of town that is newer with other new subdivisions around it. Quiet Creek Park is right in the middle of town, intruding on established neighborhoods with grandfathered in lifestyles, next to a school that serves not only its students, but also as a community center. Ms. Sedor stated that this land has remained undeveloped for a reason. Other developers have looked at it and rejected it because it is so incredibly problematic.

Tony Neal, the applicant, reaffirmed his statement that Quiet Creek Park is a good subdivision and there is no reason to turn it down. It has six parks, while other subdivisions recently approved have none. It has thousands of feet of trails, none of which are required by the City. Kids can walk to school from the trails. The plat legalizes the cross-country trail, the north south trail that Ms. Espenschade testified is so packed down. He stated that it is an old logging trail. He continued that one could say it legalizes all the trespass that has happened on that property through the years. He supports trails and greenbelts. He also supports connectivity. The lots are well above the minimum requirement, so for all those who quote the beginning of the citation of rural residential need to read the next part where the City defines the density required for rural residential. He has curvy streets and staggered lot lines for pleasant neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are part of the plan. There will be a village association to maintain the common interest. He understands the City Council passed a resolution to support the Heath Street extension, which will alleviate the traffic concern. He commented that he is happy with the first plat, it has a T that makes everyone stop at a stop sign and decide to turn left or right and not go straight through. He did not submit the second plat as a preferred alternative. Mr. Neal commented that Code incorporates the Design Manual by reference. Mr. Neal commented that connectivity east to west, in Homer is inevitable. He has always said that. He isn’t the one pushing it; it is inevitable in a town that is growing like Homer with only one way to get from east to west on East End road. The City wants a water loop and needs connectivity of the water for pressure. Connectivity is inevitable, the City Council knows that, he feels somewhat victimized that by having a subdivision that borders the connectivity battle, which is a battle in itself. His subdivision meets all the law and he is stuck in the planning battle over Shellfish versus Heath. He asked the Commission for their approval. His subdivision meets the legal objectives of the City and Borough and meets the reasonable objectives for the safety and welfare of all the citizens of Homer. Mr. Neal commented that after developing the Nelson/Ronda alternative he has no interest in Kallman. The only reason it is there is because Public Works required him to do so. If the Commission votes Kallman out, he recommends voting in a trail.

City Planner McKibben commented that Borough Code requires connections of rights-of-way with existing platted rights-of-way and adjacent acreages so she does not believe the connection can be removed and still comply with the Borough.

Commissioner Foster asked if Mr. Neal had met with the COE. Mr. Neal replied that he has not for a couple reasons. First, he doesn’t have a plat to meet for. Second, there is still ambiguity about what the real law is. He knows that before he can build he has to get a wetlands determination and he fully intends to do so. Commissioner Foster commented that it was explained at the meeting with the COE earlier in the day that it would save time and money if they came prior to the preliminary plat and laid out the lots so there is no chance that the lines won’t get moved again. Ms. McKibben explained that staff did not have that information when Mr. Neal first approached the City with his concept.

Commissioner Hess asked for Mr. Neal’s reaction to the proposed conditions Mr. Meyer presented. Mr. Neal responded that he appreciates the attempt to make a reasonable solution. In general it makes sense. To him it is a restriction on his subdivision application, but not a terrible one. Mr. Neal commented Commissioner Kranich had asked during a break if he had considered phasing. Mr. Neal said he didn’t intend to do phases because the water line has to be connected at Elderberry and go across the subdivision at one time and it would minimize the construction impact on people. In phasing, building would have to start at Ronda and work so that the west end would be last anyway. If the restriction is placed on him he will have to do two phases.

Commissioner Kranich questioned the trail easements on the plat dated November 4. If they agree on plat A, he asked if Mr. Neal would be willing to include those new easements. Mr. Neal agreed that he would. Mr. Neal said that if they go to Plat A, he would like to transfer the drainage easement and the greenbelt that goes down the drainage easement. He would also like the four lots back on what is now lot 7 across Shellfish. His original plat had it as four lots.

There was brief discussion identifying the trail easements and drainages that were just referenced.

HESS/LEHNER MOVED THAT BARNETT SOUTH SLOPE SUBDIVISION QUIET CREEK REVISED PLAT A OF 11/04/05 PRELIMINARY PLAT BE APPROVED.

Commissioner Hess commented that this is the kind of thing where they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. It is a tough one. Mr. Hess commented that pedestrian ways have been provided that go beyond the minimum and appealed to Mr. Neal to go a little further. Mr. Hess read points from the NMTTP that emphasize the need for safe and alternative routes for children to get to school and establish that providing those routes should be a priority. Mr. Hess commented that it would truly strengthen the community and meet goals in the NMTTP. He encouraged Mr. Neal to follow the example for the narrower roadbed and separated pathways as were agreed to for the Foothills Subdivision.

Commissioner Connor said her grave concerns about this subdivision fall into three categories. The first one is the unresolved traffic issues, including the pedestrian ways. Second, is in regard to density, she reads the code differently than Mr. Neal and doesn’t believe that this subdivision complies with the purpose of Rural Residential. Third, is the environment. In the Comprehensive Plan there is a table I-5, Development Suitability. It shows that much of the proposed subdivision is in a category that is severe to moderate soils and it should only have limited development due to its soil types and slopes. Further, the Comprehensive Plan states, under land use policy 1.3 that rural residential districts shall provide a low-density residential and limited agricultural environment while protecting ground water and other natural resources. She is not convinced the proposed development protects water quality and the removal of such large quantities of vegetation won’t impact surrounding property. Ms. Connor asked that the wetlands, slope and drainage be clearly marked on the preliminary plat and stated that the Commission has the authority to make that request.

Commissioner Kranich commented that he would like to adopt the street layout on the Plat A of September 16, 2005 in working toward getting staff and public work recommendation for the street development.

KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND BASED ON CRITERIA CONTAINED IN HCC 11.04.090 (g). THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY ADOPTS THE STREET LAYOUT FOR PLAT A DATED 9/16/05.

There was brief discussion that the Commission needs to make a determination under 11.04.090(g) that the Commission exercises their authority to waive intersection spacing intervals before a specific recommendation for a road alignment on a map.

Commissioner Kranich withdrew his motion.

KRANICH/PFEIL MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER HCC 11.04.090(G) TO SPECIFY SEPARATION INTERVALS BETWEEN LOCAL STREET INTERSECTIONS.

Chair Chesley suggested the following findings in support:

ü The Design Criteria Manual article 5.10 Intersection Design, section A. Intersection Locations, Item 1. Local Streets states it is undesirable to encourage through traffic movement on local streets. Having those intersections lined up would not meet that goal.

ü The Homer 2005 Transportation Plan under 4.2 Goals number 5 states the expansion of the transportation should minimize impacts to residential areas and parks. By exercising the authority to realign, the Commission is trying to minimize impacts to residential area.

ü Further, under 4.3 Objectives Number 8, This plan will recommend network links that local streets are not used as thoroughfares and congestion delays on collectors and arterials are avoided. New connections through residential areas should include traffic calming techniques and pedestrian amenities.

The Commission expressed no opposition to Chair Chesley’s recommendations.

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

Motion carried.

KRANICH/HESS MOVED AMEND TO ADOPT THE STREET ALIGNMENT AS EXHIBITED ON PLAT A DATED 9/16/05.

Commissioner Kranich commented that he is opposed to the plat dated November 4 that has a four-way intersection with Elderberry. The T intersection from the 9/16/05 plat encourages traffic calming.

Commissioner Foster commented that on behalf of those who have found discomfort that option B has not been discussed in the last two sessions, asked for Commissioner Kranich’s opinion, as maker of the motion, of Plat B. Mr. Kranich responded that in Plat B if West Aurora ends in a cul-de-sac it would permanently, forever block access from the streets in the subdivision to a north/south collector. He feels the need to keep the connectivity.

Chair Chesley added, that in his comparisons of Plat A and B and looking at the density level we have now, the traffic there has to be some sort of western outlet to the subdivision. Dumping all the traffic onto the road segment between East Hill, East End and Lake Street, it will cause problems, especially at peak hours. Commissioner Kranich and Pfeil were in agreement.

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

Motion carried.

Chair Chesley called for a break at 10:55 pm to confer with staff. The meeting resumed at 11:02 pm.

Chair Chesley explained that during the break he, City Planner McKibben and Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen had discussed how to proceed. The Commission has two an items they must to take up under Commission Business. It was determined they could meet the advertising requirements based on code to hold a special meeting to discuss the appeals ordinance and make their recommendations to Council and would continue on with Quiet Creek.

KRANICH/HESS MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT TRAIL EASEMENTS, DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND GREENBELT EASEMENTS AND LOT CONFIGURATION FOR LOT 7 TO BE DIVIDED INTO LOTS A, B, C AND D BASED ON THE QUIET CREEK PLAT DATED 11/04/05, INCLUDING SIZES IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

There was discussion confirming the greenbelt between lots A through D and it was determined that the greenbelt is there.

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

Motion carried.

HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ADD A SECOND SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAFF TO INCLUDE THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AS FOLLOWS:

3. Construct Kallman within the Quiet Creek Subdivision until such time the Kallman Street is fully constructed from Quiet Creek Subdivision from south to East End Road.

There was no further discussion.

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

Motion carried.

HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 THROUGH 7.

City Planner McKibben said that the previous recommendations have been incorporated into the Plat. She asked if there are amendments to any of the recommendations.

Commissioner Foster stated he appreciates the number of plats that have come back the Commission reflecting the changes that addressed the public. It bothers him that the Borough code has a clear requirement the natural features such as streams and wetlands be identified. He spoke of COE and EPA guidelines that encourage perspective subdivision applicant’s participation with the Alaska district one of many reasons being so that unworkable lot configurations caused by poor planning and design won’t occur.

FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3 TO SUBMIT A WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FROM THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE WETLANDS DELINEATION AND PERMIT ARE REQUIRED, THESE WILL ALSO BE SUBMITTED.

Dr. Foster is concerned that as the body has heard several months of testimony from the community regarding wetlands. If this goes to the Corp and lot lines get moved around because of the impacts to the wetlands, this will never come back to the community. Borough Code 20.12.060 is the citation supporting his motion.

There was discussion that if the jurisdiction causes significant deviation from the plat that it has to come back before the City. City Planner McKibben reminded the Commission that the staff did not know of this process to inform the subdividers that they had the opportunity to work with the COE early on in their planning process. They will certainly share the information in the future, but with the recent subdivisions, staff didn’t know that information. Dr. Foster reiterated his concern that if the plat is reconfigured that it should come back to the City for public input. There was further discussion regarding making a recommendation on the limit of deviation. They agreed that if the number of lots were reduced it would not need to come back, but if the roads were realigned, that would be the significant change.

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

Motion failed.

FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION THREE TO ELIMINATE “OR”.

There was no discussion.

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

HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO ADD TO THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ITEM 4 THAT STATES “CAUSE STREET CAPACITIES IN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS TO EXCEED CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL.”

3. Construct Kallman within the Quiet Creek Subdivision until such time the Kallman Street is fully constructed from Quiet Creek Subdivision from south to East End Road.

4. Cause street capacities in adjacent neighborhoods to exceed criteria set forth in the Design Criteria Manual.

Commissioner Hess clarified that in the beginning of those recommendations start off “shall not”. He wants to further the concerns of the adjacent neighborhood concerns regarding traffic. If there is a trigger that takes a local street to another level, like a collector, this amendment says this development should not cause that to happen, if it does it’s an issue for the City Administration to enforce.

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

Motion carried.

There was discussion clarifying the Mr. Hess’s motion and the levels of street classification.

LEHNER/PFEIL Moved to add a recommendation that post development surface runoff and mariner creek discharge patterns, i.e. flow timing, volumes and velocities, shall not differ from pre-development patterns.

Commissioner Lehner commented her concern to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people. The change in flood flow attenuations with the added impervious coverage from development could be an issue. She pointed out that there are ways to mitigate that by maintaining mature trees, swales and permeable driveways.

There was brief discussion regarding the ability to comprise data to monitor these requirements and if zero tolerance is appropriate.

It was clarified that it would be staff recommendation 8.

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

Motion carried.

Chair Chesley stated he has one short amendment to recommend on the waiver for Sophie Court. He suggested the language for staff recommendation 4 to read “Adjust the length of Sophie Court to meet HCC 11.04.060(e) or comply with Design Criteria Manual section 1.07 Waivers.

LEHNER/FOSTER SO MOVED.

There was no further discussion.

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

Motion carried.

It was clarified that Heath and Anderson are currently identified as local streets. The Transportation Plan future plan is to make them a collector. There was discussion that Commissioner Hess’s amendment four for the subdivision agreement may cause conflict when Heath and Anderson are improved.

KRANICH/HESS MOVED TO AMEND NUMBER FOUR FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT TO EXCLUDE HEATH AND ANDERSON.

3. Construct Kallman within the Quiet Creek Subdivision until such time the Kallman Street is fully constructed from Quiet Creek Subdivision from south to East End Road.

4. Cause street capacities in adjacent neighborhoods, excluding Heath and Anderson, to exceed criteria set forth in the Design Criteria Manual.

There was no further discussion.

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

Motion carried.

CONNOR/FOSTER MOVED TO POSTPONE FURTHER ACTION ON QUIET CREEK SUBDIVISION UNTIL A WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PER 20.12.060 (D) AND (H).

Commissioner Foster spoke in support of the amendment. If this happened so many problems can be alleviated. The COE can’t require it; it has to come from the City’s and Borough.

At the request of the Chair, Commissioner Connor repeated the code citation as Borough Code 20.12.060(h) and (d). She agreed that the wetlands are a prominent natural feature.

Chair Chesley clarified that if the Commission approves this they are saying that everything is ready to go on the subdivision and this is the last piece of information that is required.

There was discussion whether a determination is appropriate. Chair Chesley reminded the Commission to stay within the parameters of the code requirement.

VOTE: YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, FOSTER

NO: KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, PFEIL

Motion failed.

KRANICH/FOSTER MOVED THAT IF THE WETLAND DELINEATION AND PERMIT REQUIRE REALIGNMENT OF THE ROADS THE PLAT SHALL COME BACK TO THE CITY OF HOMER PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

There was no further discussion.

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

Motion carried.

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

VOTE: YES: HESS, KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER

NO: PFEIL, CONNOR, FOSTER

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 05-112 Dedication of Nelson Avenue and Ronda Street Right-of-Way Preliminary Plat.

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.

Gary Thomas commented that this is a good thing and asked the Commission to please pass it.

Tony Neal stated that he prefers the separated sidewalk method, if that makes a difference to the Commission.

HESS/LEHNER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE DEDICATION OF NELSON AVENUE AND RONDA STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.

There was discussion of appropriate wording for an amendment.

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO RECOMMEND 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.

There was no further discussion.

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

Motion carried.

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

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

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 05-123 Preliminary Plat submittal of GLO Lots 21 and 22, Shifting of Common Lot Lines.

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.

Carlos Freeman, project surveyor explained the configuration of the lots and advised the Commission that the parcel with Mud Bay Towing has their shop just across the property line at the front of the lot and reconfiguring the lot line will shift it so that Mr. Alred’s will be wider at the front and the property that the Bay Club property owner lose will be made up by gaining more property toward the back of the lot.

HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GLO LOT 21 AND 22 REPLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Commissioner Foster commented about setback requiring a year for every foot of property on the bluff and it would behoove the City to consider those rates. There was discussion regarding erosion rates for the bluff. Although the bluff in that area is relatively stable, erosion is still a concern.

There was brief discussion regarding the 100-foot right-of-way and City Planner McKibben explained that is the right-of-way width on Kachemak Drive.

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

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. Staff Report PL 05-129 Hohe Street Utilities HCC 22

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report. She read a letter of support for the appeal of the underground utilities on Hohe Street from Dr. Bill Marley. Dr. Marley had been in the audience earlier but had to leave. In his letter he made the following points:

ü The fact that the City of Homer failed to enact to it’s own ordinance is not criteria for the Planning and Zoning Commission not to allow the appeal process to occur.

ü HCC 22.10.005 applies not only to new construction, but also reconstruction and the utilities should be placed underground. He expressed his belief that the City would expect a private owner to place all relocated utilities underground.

ü AS 35.30.020 Compliance with Municipal Ordinances states 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 landowners.

ü The new power poles, in some cases, are in the middle of a very shallow ditch, increasing the possibility of flooding land and structures.

ü It appears that in this particular aspect, the road was not built to the design criteria.

Larry Sloan spoke in support of the Hohe appeal. He commented that the appeal would resolve making a finding whether the meaning of HCC 22.10 applies only to new subdivisions or both new and existing subdivisions.

LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION SCHEDULE AN APPEAL ON THIS MATTER.

The Commission discussed that they would not select a specific date tonight.

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

Motion carried.

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.

The Commission discussed which day to schedule a special meeting to discuss proposed ordinance 05-17.

LEHNER/HESS MOVED TO POSTPONE DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 05-17 AT A SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 21, 2005 AT 5:50 PM.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

The Commission briefly discussed that the Commission Business items will be the topic of their special meeting scheduled for November 29, 2005.

LEHNER/HESS MOVED TO POSTPONE THE REMAINING COMMISSION BUSINESS ITEMS TO THE SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 30, 2005.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 05-124 Vacation of a Section Line Easement on Lot 20

Mattox Subdivision.

D. Staff Report PL 05-130 Ordinance 05-63 of the City Council of Homer

Alaska Amending Homer City Code Sub Section 21.42.030(a), under

Zoning Permit Issuance and Denial to Eliminate Permits as a Condition

For Issuing a Zoning Permit.

E. Staff Report PL 05-109 Re: Proposed Amendment to HCC 21.45.040(b)

Dimensional Requirements (b) Building Setbacks (1).

F. 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 and October 5, 2005 Homer

Advisory Planning Commission Meeting.

G. Staff Report PL 05-82 Re: Lot Sizes Within the Rural Residential Zoning

District. Continued from August 17, September 7 and October 7, 2005

Homer Advisory Planning Commission Meeting.

H. Staff Report PL 05-98 Re: Amending Homer City Code 21.70 Amendment

Procedures. Continued from August 17 and September 7, 2005 Homer

Advisory Planning Commission Meeting.

I. Staff Report PL 05-117 Time Limited Moratorium for Large Scale

Subdivisions.

J. Staff Report PL 04-109 Re: Commission Work List, On-Going.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

No time was allowed for the Borough Report.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

The Planning Director gave no report.

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 from Councilmember Mike Heimbuch dated October 21, 2005

Regarding Rationale for Workshop and Public Hearing on the City Process

For Land/Zoning Issues.

B. Memo to the HAPC from Julie Engebretsen, Planning Technician, dated

November 8, 2005 regarding Easements.

C. Letter to Beth McKibben, City Planner, from Cook Inlet Alliance dated

November 1, 2005 regarding Open Pit Mining presentation.

D. Violation Complaint Log prepared by Dotti Harness.

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

Ginny Espenshade commented that there are too many strings attached to Commissioner Lehner’s zero remediation amendment. She questioned if there was predevelopment data available, because it is already post development as clearing has already been done. She further commented that she would like the City to add to their applications the requirement for the wetlands information from the COE.

Bill Smith commented that it would save the Commission some time if they write out their information they want to present during the meeting ahead of time. He offered his opinion that Commissioner Lehner’s amendment for water flow was a bad one. It doesn’t give the developer the option to decrease water flow in an engineered fashion. It is unreasonable and there was not enough time give for consideration.

Paul Gavenus commented that the Homer City Code states a purpose and the Commission shouldn’t have to interpret it. He questioned if there was any discussion with the Calhoun’s or the school regarding access. There should have been discussion regarding taking over to Anderson. He commented that the Commission keeps talking about ensuring it pencils out for the developer. The Commission’s job is to do what is best for the Community and let the developer worry about what will pencil out. He thanked the Commission for their work and conceded that this plan and their amendments came out better than the original plan. He expressed his appreciation for the meeting the Realtor’s held earlier in the day regarding wetlands, he learned a lot from it.

Katherine George pointed out that on page two of the staff report PL 05-131 it states notice was sent out to 204 property owners and just a paragraph down it states that notice was sent to 169 owners of 218 parcels. She expressed her wonderment as to how many other errors there are in the staff report.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

There were no comments of the Commission.

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 December 7, 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. A Special Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday November 30, 2005 at 6:00 pm.

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: