Session 05-25, a Special Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at pm on November 30, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY, KRANICH, CONNOR, HESS, LEHNER,
FOSTER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER PFEIL
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
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
City Planner McKibben stated she would like to ask the Commission for a determination.
LEHNER/HESS MOVED TO INSERT UNDER COMMISSION BUSINESS A NEW ITEM B, CITY PLANNER REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
HESS/CONNOR MOVED TO ADD NEW ITEM D THE ORDINANCE 05-17.
Commissioner Hess explained that final action was postponed by the City Council.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.
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 05-124
Vacation of a Section Line Easement on Lot 20, AA Mattox Subdivision.
HESS/KRANICH MOVED THAT HE
HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON ITEM A.
Chair Chesley explained
that the Commission had previously acknowledged that Commissioner Hess has a
conflict on this item at the November 2nd meeting.
VOTE: YES:
CONNOR, KRANICH, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hess left the
table.
Chair Chesley clarified
that this item had been postponed from the November 2nd
meeting. The Commission has had public
comment and comment from the Applicant and this is before them for action. The reason for continuing it from the
previous meeting is because the status of whether the other segments of the
section line easement continue up to East End Road. The Commission had asked staff to look at the information to see
what could be determined.
City Planner McKibben
reported that staff has not been able to determine anything thus far. They were unable to find any evidence that
the section line easement was vacated.
There are a few plats that have been passed since the original one was
done in the 1950’s, that don’t show the section line easement, but they can’t
find any evidence of its vacation. She
explained that the Borough has contracted out to do a complete inventory of
section line easement throughout the Borough.
She reported that Borough Platting Officer Toll is hoping to have that
by the end of the year. Until that is done,
there are limited resources for the City to find the information. Ms. McKibben reiterated that the Borough
“hopes” to have the information by the end of the year. This is a project that has been on going for
some time and it is likely that it may not be completed by then.
Commissioner Connor
commented that with out knowing whether the easement continues to East End
Road, she suggested an alternative would be to allow for a partial vacation and
still allow for a pedestrian easement.
That would allow the developer to go ahead with his plans while
maintaining the possibility of having a trail there in the future. She feels it would be beneficial to the
residents in the area, but once it is vacated, it is gone forever.
Commissioner Connor
clarified that she is suggesting a partial vacation and allowing for pedestrian
easement along the entire easement that the vacation request applies to.
Chair Chesley stated that
the question, in part, is how is the community as a whole being served by the
vacation. In looking at different
classifications in the Borough code, it appears to be clear that the easement
no longer needs to be maintained at its current width, because it isn’t likely
that there will be vehicular access.
The lots in that area are served by a better-dedicated right-of-way.
City Planner McKibben
commented that in the most recent plats, the pedestrian easements have been 10
feet.
Commissioner Foster
arrived at 7:15 pm.
Chair Chesley cited the
following excerpts from Borough code:
ü
20.28.140, Partial
Vacations Allowed. Where the Planning Commission finds that a right-of-way must
be preserved for ultimate use but determines there is excessive width for all
intended accommodations in the right-of-way.
Such vacation shall conform to this title for the class of right-of-way
involved except where the right-of-way is not intended to be used for vehicular
purposes.
ü 20.28.160. Other access provisions. 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.
ü 20.28.190. Other public areas. Dedications of land for use other than rights-of-way, which are considered for vacation, shall be approved only when it is in the public interest. The commission shall consider the intended purpose of the area, and any future uses of the area when making a decision. When a legitimate public purpose is or would be served by use of the area proposed for vacation, the commission shall not approve the vacation, unless the ownership of the land by the city or borough in a form other than dedicated would adequately serve the intended use.
Chair Chesley stated the
Commissions options are to deny the vacation, grant the request, modify the
request or postpone until the Borough report is in and the status of the other
properties are.
Commissioner Kranich
commented that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should have land
status plats that show the section line easements as they exist today. He suggested requesting information from DNR
regarding the easement.
Commissioner Foster
confirmed that there has been no opposition from the public.
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen
stated the motion on the floor that was postponed from the November 2nd
meeting.
LEHNER/PFEIL MOVED TO
APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL 05-124 AND VACATE A SECTION LINE EASEMENT ON LOT 20
MATTOX SUBDIVISION.
Commissioner Connor
reiterated her earlier points. She made
reference to comment from the previous meeting that presently the neighboring
property owners don’t want to participate in a pedestrian way, but that could
change in the future. Maybe maintaining
part of the easement isn’t practical right now, but that doesn’t mean it won’t
ever be.
CONNOR/KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO REDUCE THE
33-FOOT SECTION LINE EASEMENT TO A 10-FOOT PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT.
It was clarified that the
10-foot easement would be along the outer edge of the property and that it
applies to the north/south and the east/west sections.
There was brief discussion
regarding pedestrian use on Kenai Peninsula Housing Initiative’s (KPHI) other
property. Steven Rouse clarified on the
map where it is. He also pointed out
areas that are drainage.
Commissioner Kranich
commented if the pedestrian access is being provided on the lot above, that
would have the access from Mattox to the north/south section line, as well as
the potential to go on across to the west.
It appears that would take the place of leaving the section line
easement there.
Chair Chesley responded
that is not in the same domain. When it
is dedicated as a section line easement and then it is reduced, it is there
forever and enjoys a different status then if there is a working pedestrian
access that is being accommodated above.
He explained that the Commission has to be careful because when they waive
the land classifications it is important because once it is gone it’s gone
forever. They have to consider if there
is some benefit in the future that the community will need that space for and
that is why those were established.
Commissioner Foster commented
that minimizing the easement to 10 feet will put it on top of the drainage
channel and won’t be usable as a pedestrian easement. It is an essential drainage as it takes water from the property
and keeps it off the road. He suggested
other Commissioners go and take a look at it.
He is not opposed to the vacation, but is opposed to minimizing it. Adding structure to accommodate pedestrians
would minimize the ability of the channel to function as a creek.
There was brief discussion
regarding setback requirements. City
Planner McKibben reminded the Commission that the building still has to meet
the setback requirement if the vacation is granted.
VOTE: YES:
CONNOR, CHESLEY
NO: LEHNER,
KRANICH, FOSTER
Motion failed.
Commissioner Connor stated
she is back at the original question how this vacation serves the public
interest.
City Planner McKibben
responded that her staff report doesn’t speak to public purpose, but more to
the position that it doesn’t appear to be serving any particular public
interest.
Commissioner Foster
commented that on some of the subdivisions, there has been discussion of
drainage easements; he asked if the easement is serving that type of public
purpose.
City Planner McKibben
responded that it is clear that there is a drainage there. She pointed out that the Commission approved
a CUP for the lot in question and one of the conditions was for an improved
drainage plan, she doesn’t know that the drainage has to be within the confines
of an easement in order to serve this particular lot since the drainage plan is
a condition.
Commissioner Foster
commented that he noticed there has been a lot of concern about development to
the south of this regarding flooding and drainage.
Chair Chesley commented
that he is not supportive of this action until the status of the lot line above
it can be determined, particularly on the westerly portion of the lot.
LEHNER/ KRANICH MOVED TO
POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL THEY CAN GET CONFIRMATION AS TO THE STATUS OF THE
SECTION LINE EASEMENT NORTHWARD OF THIS LOT UP TO EAST END ROAD.
There was discussion as to
how long it would take to accomplish this.
It was suggested that the property owner could take part in the task or
they could wait for the results from the Borough inventory.
VOTE: YES:
LEHNER, CHESLEY
NO: FOSTER,
CONNOR, KRANICH
Motion failed.
Chair Chesley asked if any
Commissioners would consider a motion to do a vacation on the southerly line,
which would address the most immediate need of the applicant, but would still
preserve the decision on the westerly line until clarification can be made on
the status of the easements.
There was discussion
regarding the appropriate wording of a motion.
Chair Chesley called for a
recess at 7:45 pm. The meeting resumed
at 7:53 pm.
LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED AMEND
THE MAIN MOTION TO VACATE THE SECTION LINE EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LOT
LINE TO THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE EXISTING 33 FEET NORTH/SOUTH SECTION LINE
EASEMENT.
Commissioner Kranich
commented that since the southern section line easement appears to have a
significant drainage and there appears to be significant elevation differences
on the north/south section line easement, he believes it might be better to
work with the applicant and formalize a pedestrian access east and west on the
northern lot line rather than the southerly lot line, which was the intent of
an agreement with the City Council, when the lot was donated, merely as an act
of formalizing it. It would provide the
access needed in a usable manner.
KRANICH/FOSTER MOVED TO
POSTPONE ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
Commissioner Kranich
commented that during the time before the next meeting, staff will have time to
contact the applicant to see if they will be willing to formalize an east/west
pedestrian access on the common lot line between lot 19 and lot 20.
City Planner McKibben
advised the Commission that there is another platting action scheduled for this
parcel at the next regular Planning Commission meeting. The action requested is a minor lot line
adjustment between neighboring parcel.
She thinks it would be possible for the Commission to require a
pedestrian easement on the north side of the lot on the upcoming platting
action, just as easily as continuing this one.
She explained, in looking at it from the applicant’s standpoint, the
vacation of the easement has to go before the state before it can be finalized,
so there is a longer time period.
There was brief discussion
regarding the drainage. The points were
reiterated that if the drainage is in the easement it is protected, if the
easement is taken away, the drainage is not, regardless of the drainage plan
required from the CUP at the previous meeting.
VOTE: YES:
FOSTER, CONNOR, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley called for a
short break at 8:00 pm. The meeting
resumed at 8:07 pm.
B. City
Planner Request for Determination
City Planner McKibben
cited HCC 21.49.060 (d) (2) which
states a Development Activity Plan (DAP) is required when the cumulative
addition of 5000 square feet or greater of impervious surface area from the pre
development. She also cited HCC 21.49.060 (f) which states a Storm Water
Plan (SWP) is required if impervious coverage is greater than 60% of the lot
area.
Ms. McKibben explained
that there is a site that is already fully developed, it was previously filled
years ago and covered 90% with impervious coverage. They want to take down the
old development and build a new one on the existing impervious
surface.
There was discussion
regarding the potential increase of impervious coverage with regard to
rooflines on buildings.
Chair Chesley stated in
his opinion the correct interpretation would be that the developer would be
required to have a SWP. His reasoning
is because the code doesn’t say anything in reference to whether the percentage
is pre or post development, so the strict interpretation would be if there is
an existing development that is going to go through re-development, and
coverage was greater than 60%, they would need to comply with the SWP.
Commissioner Foster
referred back to a similar situation with Safeway. Their area is already paved and they were going to be changing
the building. At the time of that
discussion he felt it was understood that a SWP would be required.
Commissioner Kranich
explained his understanding that code says if the project includes 60%, and
they are already over 60%, they have to submit a SWP.
The Commission was in
agreement.
There was brief
discussion, for informational purposes, as to whether a CUP would be required
if the development is 4950 square feet, but the impervious coverage is greater
than 60%. City Planner McKibben pointed
out that the limit on building area is an excess of 30% of the lot. Building area and impervious surface coverage
are different.
C. Staff Report
PL 05-109 Re: Proposed Amendment to HCC 21.45.040(b) Dimensional Requirements
(b) Setbacks (1).
Chair Chesley summarized
that this amendment stems from the example that came to the Commission from
Crittenden Drive where there are certain dedicated rights-of-way that leading
to beaches that would not be constructible.
The purpose is to provide relief to property owners adjacent to them by
reducing the setback requirement from the rights-of-way. This sets out a provision in Rural
Residential and Urban Residential Districts and would apply to approximately
four or five road segments.
City Planner McKibben
added that the staff report includes recommended language from the City
Attorney.
Chair Chesley clarified
for the press in attendance, in looking at a map of Homer there are certain
road segments which lead to the bay.
When there is a dedicated right-of-way, there is also a 20-foot building
setback from the edge of the right-of-way.
The intent is to preserve these rights-of-way for pedestrian and other
non-motorized access to the water bodies and give relief to the adjacent
property owners in their building setback requirements.
There was discussion
regarding the current motion on the floor.
Deputy City Clerk restated the motion that was postponed from September
7, 2005 as follows:
HESS/KRANICH - MOVED TO
ACCEPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO HCC 21.44.040 AND HCC 21.45.040 DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING SETBACKS.
There was discussion as to
how situations like these would be handled by the Commission and Council. City Planner McKibben suggested a practical
way to handle this would be to do an inventory of the City rights-of-way that
are affected, rather than dealing with them case by case.
Chair Chesley suggested
identifying the road segments soon so it will go to the Council as a
package. The Commission agreed.
VOTE: YES:
CHESLEY, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben
asked the Commission what criteria they will consider when determining if a
right-of-way is unsuitable for road construction. Chair Chesley responded they would look at that with the GIS maps
and the lots with frontage. There was
comment that Beluga Slough is part of Kachemak Bay, because it is directly
connected, but was questionable whether Beluga Lake is.
They agreed to add it to
the January 18, 2006 agenda.
D. 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.
Chair Chesley asked the
Commission for a motion to continue this.
KRANICH/HESS MOVED TO
CONTINUE STAFF REPORT PL 05-93.
City Planner McKibben
asked if the Commission wants this on their first worksession agenda for the
first meeting in January. The
Commission agreed.
VOTE: YES:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
E. Draft Ordinance 05-17
Commissioner Hess
explained that when the City Council discussed the draft ordinance 05-17 at
their November 28 meeting, the Commission’s recommendations were in the form of
a memorandum, which was not adopted.
Commissioner Hess explained that a motion to amend was made by
Councilmember Wythe with regard to their first recommendation that the approval
or denial of a zoning permit is appealable.
Mr. Hess commented that the issuance of a zoning permit is handled at
staff level, so there is no public participation since it doesn’t come before
the Commission.
There was further dialogue
regarding the Council’s discussion of the draft ordinance. It was pointed out that the City Council
postponed action on the ordinance and Chair Chesley requested that Commissioner
Hess draft his points of concern and it could be on the next agenda for
discussion. There would still be time
to make recommendations before Council takes final action. It was suggested that a copy of the City
Council minutes be included in their packet so they can review the Council’s
actions regarding the Ordinance.
City Planner McKibben
reminded the Commission that there is a deadline for adding items to the agenda
and while this item can get in under the wire, she wanted to reinforce that
there is a deadline for agenda items.
F. 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.
Chair Chesley recommended
they wrap up their meeting and continue the remaining items on their
agenda. He explained that he and
Commissioner Kranich still have work do on HCC 21.70 before bringing it back to
the Commission.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO
POSTPONE STAFF REPORTS PL 05-82 AND 05-98 TO A FUTURE MEETING.
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
G. Staff Report
PL 05-98 Re: Amending Homer City Code 21.70 Amendment Procedures. Continued from August 17, September 7 Homer
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting.
H. Staff Report
PO 05-117 Time Limited Moratorium for Large Scale Subdivisions.
Commissioner Hess stated
that he believes it is important to keep this item on the agenda. He explained that he is not trying to stop
future development but in looking back at what they have had to deal with,
there needs to be clarity in the code so the developers know how to proceed. Mr. Hess suggested discussion regarding what
“large scale” means.
Chair Chesley reminded the
Commission that they cannot institute a moratorium; they have to make a
recommendation to the City Council. He
suggested Mr. Hess get recommendations of thresholds for determining what could
be considered large scale. He further
suggested that City Manager Wrede be invited to join them in discussion. He explained that he and Mr. Wrede had
discussed whether to work on a Comprehensive Plan re-write or look at something
different. Mr. Chesley’s suggestion
was, based on the work they experienced with these three large subdivisions,
that they would be better off focusing the funds and energy on working on
Subdivision Code amendments and the Design Criteria Manual.
Commissioner Foster
commented that if they are going to consider a moratorium that a specific
timeline show how they will be addressing the subdivision code to keep from
sending the wrong message.
There was more discussion
supporting future consideration of a moratorium and the need for a well-defined
action plan that the City Manager supports before presenting it to the Council.
HESS/KRANICH MOVED TO
POSTPONE ACTION ON PL 05-117.
There was no further
discussion.
VOTE: YES:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
I. Staff Report PL 04-109 Re:
Commission Worklist.
COMMENTS OF THE
AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Michael Armstrong,
reporter for the Homer News, commented that he is working on continuing the work
that Chris Eschleman was doing regarding wetland information.
COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION
Commissioners my comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused absence.
City Planner McKibben
reported that they had a pre-application meeting with the Fred Meyer folks and
they will likely be scheduling community participation meetings in
January. She also mentioned she has
learned that CIRI has embraced the Town Center Plan and will be conveying that
to City Council.
Commissioner Hess
commented that they need to schedule the appeal for Hohe. There was discussion when to schedule. City Planner McKibben stated she would
schedule it for one of their January meetings.
Mr. Hess suggested requesting the members of the Underground Wiring
Committee testify. After discussion
they reached the conclusion that there would probably only be one past member
to contact.
Commissioner Kranich
commented that it is a good feeling to get through some of this. He commented that looking ahead, when the
Commission hears the Blackwell issue again, it would be beneficial to have the
City Attorney present, in person. The
Commissioners agreed unanimously that Mr. Tans be present.
Commissioner Foster
commented that he will have a Borough Report at the regular meeting. He commented that it would be beneficial to
have staff reports archived on line so they can be accessed for research. He also commented that he received a copy of
the minutes from the City of Seward Planning Meeting and he likes the format
they use, as it is clear and easy to read.
He provided a copy to staff.
Chair Chesley commented
that he would like the Planning staff and the City Clerk’s office to work
together and speak to the Commission at the next meeting regarding the process
on how to declare notice of reconsideration.
He feels like he gets different direction from each office and wants to
be clear on the process.
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 9:00 pm. 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.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: