Session 05-19 a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. on October 5, 2005 by Chair Chesley at the Homer City Hall Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS LEHNER, HESS, CHESLEY, PFEIL,
FOSTER, KRANICH, CONNOR
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HESS
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
ROLL CALL
A quorum is required to conduct a meeting.
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
agenda 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
Commissioner Kranich requested that the Commission hear plat considerations in reverse order, Item D. to Item A. , Item C to Item B, Item B to Item C. and Item A to Item D.
City Planner McKibben noted the duplication
of the Commission Worklist as Item B and Item H. Chair Chesley requested Item B be changed to discuss his memo to
the Council regarding Offsite Improvements.
The amended agenda was approved by consensus
of the Commission.
Commission approves minutes with any amendments.
A. Approval of September 21, 2005
regular meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved as amended by
consensus of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations are approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
Barbara Buzzelli-Ault spoke to the Commission regarding the Hohe reconstruction. She stated there have been City Codes implemented and she has not been able to get them adhered to by the State or the City. She would like someone to pay attention to it. Ms. Buzzelli-Ault referred to HCC 22.10.055 which applies to subdivisions in the area and reconstruction of subdivisions in the area and it says if power poles are addressed in any manner whatsoever or moved, they need to be put underground and no one has adhered to that. She said with the current construction they are moving the poles across the street and they need to be moved underground according to the Code. She brought it up to the City and the State and she would like some support.
Chair Chesley responded that the Code she cited is the subdivision agreement, which specifically applies to new subdivisions being created in the City and the utilities have to be placed underground. He advised her that this section of code does not apply to existing utilities during street upgrades and reconstruction. She disagreed and reiterated that she believes what she has read in the code states that the utilities have to be put underground.
Chair Chesley thanked Ms. Buzzelli-Ault for bringing this to the Commission’s attention and commented that there are Councilmembers in the audience who she could talk to during a break.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Chair may prescribe time limits. The Commission may question the public.
A. Variance
2005-02/Wiard. Request for a Variance from the 20 foot building Setback
Requirement at 5201 Spencer Drive, Lot 43 Scenic View Subdivision.
WITHDRAWN.
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 PL05-114 Emerald Highland Estates Subdivision Unit 7 Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
Kenton Bloom, surveyor, commented that this is a consolidation/lot line adjustment to create more buildable space. He had no comment to the staff recommendation.
FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL05-114 AND RECOMMEND THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
There was brief discussion clarifying the location of former Lot 11.
Chair Chesley asked if they needed to adopt findings. It was agreed that it is only necessary to adopt findings if they recommend denial of the plat.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, FOSTER
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL 05-113 Binocular Bluff “Holiman Addition” Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben directed the Commission to three laydown items that relate to the application, a letter from Tom Young and Sonya Martin-Young, the proposed plat overlay of the 2000 Borough satellite photo and a black and white photo using the City’s LIDAR data.
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and read the following comments from Public Works and Staff Recommendations:
The Public Works Department had the following comments:
· A Subdivision Development Agreement will be required to install water and sewer infrastructure to the proposed subdivision.
· The Right of Way radius return should be dedicated on the plat at the intersection of Saltwater and the Sterling Highway for the proposed lot 1A per 11.04.090b.
Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
1. A Subdivision Development Agreement is required.
2. A plat note be added establishing a 12-foot setback from the current edge of the bluff.
3. Dedicate the radius return per Public Works’ recommendation.
Ms. McKibben directed the Commission to a map with the bluff erosion rates that Commissioner Foster asked the Planning Department to prepare. She pointed out that the Coastal Erosion Study identifies the erosion starting with 1951 through the projection to 2054. She pointed to an area on the map where a 1996 aerial photograph showed a projection of land that is not there on this aerial photo and reminded them of the 25 foot drop of land in 2001. Using the measuring tool the average rate of erosion shown is approximately a foot per year from 1951. Ms. McKibben identified drainages that are not shown on the plat that need to be considered.
Jacqueline Eisenberg, property owner on Saltwater Drive voiced her concerns with what has been proposed. Her lot is across the street from the lot to be subdivided. She noted that the staff report states the property owner wants to subdivide into three lots, two of which are just over an acre and one smaller, but the land that is actually there, Lot 1C and 1B are roughly 18,000 square feet 1A is roughly 15,000 square feet. She explained that currently there is no City water and sewer to the property and stated as per HCC 21.44.040 the size of a lot not served by water and sewer has to be 40,000 square feet or more. There was talk about the possibility of running a spaghetti line, but that still has the requirement of 20,000 square feet and the lots are too small for septics. She advised the Commission that Lots 1C and 1B are almost all drainage and pointed out the culvert and the open drainage ditch on the map. It floods almost every year, putting dwellings in will interfere with the flow of water. During the big rains a few years ago the road was impassable because water backed up in the ditch that goes along the northern part of Saltwater Drive. Lastly, she pointed out that there would not be room to meet the 15-foot setback from open drainage ditches.
Dr. Bill Marley advised the Commission that he subdivided the land that became Binocular Bluff before the Planning Commission existed. He explained that the protective covenants, which were recorded in 1974 state, regarding resubdivision, that lots shall not be reduced in size. Dr. Marley provided a copy for the record. He stated that this proposed subdivision is not compatible with the rest of the land acreage in size. There is the issue that water and sewer do not exist there and one consideration regarding bluff erosion is septic systems that leach into the land, increasing the rate of erosion. He owns four lots up the road from the proposed subdivision and stated that he cannot support the notion of subdividing the lot.
Chair Chesley read into the record the letter from Tom Young and Sonya Martin-Young opposing the proposed subdivision because of multiple drainage ditches running through it, the instability of the ground, the inability of the lots to have septic, and the protective covenants not allowing it.
CONNOR/PFEIL MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL05-113 BINOCULAR BLUFF SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
City Planner McKibben clarified that in the staff recommendation isn’t specific to say for water and sewer, which was in the Public Works comments. She stated her belief that it would be wise to be more specific in the recommendation #1.
CONNOR/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION #1 TO SAY THAT THE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.
There was no discussion on the amendment.
VOTE: YES: CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
Motion carried.
Commissioner Foster stated his understanding that the City no longer allows spaghetti lines. Public Works Director Meyer agreed with that statement. Mr. Meyer explained that a lot of thought has gone into how water and sewer should be extended into this area. There has been a water/sewer LID that has failed three times, there has been a master plan of this area that came out of the attempts to put water and sewer here. The consensus of opinion has been to run separate water lines along both sides of the Sterling Highway rather than the services run under expensive improvements as an alternative to support these lots. There is a plan, ready for construction, that brings water and sewer along the south side of the Sterling Highway from the bottom of West Hill across the front of these three proposed lots and on down Saltwater Drive.
Commissioner Foster explained that this lot is wet and erosive. He feels it would not be appropriate to recommend the subdivision. The crux of this is if the Borough can recommend an exception to the 3:1 ratio of length to width. He believes it is the duty of the City to recommend to the Borough that the 3:1 exception not be given and maintain what rural residential lots mean regardless if they have sewer and water. Granted that sewer and water can make a difference, there is still the impervious coverage that is there, the drainages are going to be moved around, they will have to take actions to harden the bluff, which will effect properties down to the east and in some cases to the west. It doesn’t seem like a good idea and he can’t support it.
Commissioner Lehner added a finding that one of the responsibilities of the Commission is to promote, for the public, a sense of predictability with respect to what their neighborhoods are going to be like. She believes a very effective tool to do that is protective covenants. She feels that supporting covenants when they exist is appropriate both to support predictability of development and general welfare.
Commissioner Foster read into the record a Homer News article “Sloughing off into Kachemak Bay” which recounts the approximately 25 feet of land that sloughed off underneath Joe Lawler’s residence in one night. The article referenced comments from Mark Kinney of the Homer Soil and Water Conservation District that due to the wet fall and warm winter as prime cause for the severe erosion. Because the ground didn’t freeze yet it acted like a sponge and when soil reaches its liquid limit it begins to ooze.
Dr. Foster applauded staff for looking at the Comprehensive Plan and realizing that there is a recommendation in there that once calculations can be at least estimated, for amount of bluff erosion that a recommendation to allow the predictability of that bluff can be made. The recommendation is for a twelve-foot setback and that is why he asked for a close look at what the subdivider provided as a plat. Dr. Foster stated that in walking the area with the plat in hand, you can see that the bluff line is not accurate, it cuts way in and there are a number of drainages in there. He looked at what other communities that have eroding bluffs use for a setback and found they recommend twenty-five feet and at a maximum seventy-five feet for a setback. When taking into consideration the additional requirement for the drainage setbacks, is it prudent to recommend a subdivision that you can’t build anything on?
Commissioner Kranich agreed with Commissioner Foster’s comments. He added that while the buildable portions of these lots are fairly small and would meet the 3:1 length to width ratio, the legal boundaries do not meet the 3:1. Given the number of drainages that go down there, another recommendation would have to be added of no building within 15 feet of the established drainages. His main opposition is the 3:1.
City Planner reminded the Commission that if they are going to deny the plat they need to make findings based on public health, safety and welfare. Chair Chesley said they would come to the findings after the vote.
VOTE: NO: PFEIL, CONNOR, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion failed.
The Commission agreed on the following findings:
· Special circumstances or conditions affecting the property have not been shown by the application. This lot and other highly erosive and unstable lots are special considerations and require larger lot sizes to handle and mitigate the impermeable coverage’s and adverse impacts to neighboring properties and community infrastructure.
· The exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right and is not the most practical manner for complying with the intent of this title. The subdivision has a covenant limiting further subdivision, the lot is already hazardous, and the lot size is currently appropriate for the rural residential zoning.
· Granting of the exception will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which this said property is located. Further subdivision is not appropriate for the City and the neighbors given the rate of erosion, the drainages and the high water level of the area.
Chair Chesley asked if the Commission would like this to come back before them at the next regular meeting for adoption or for the Chair to work with Staff to review it and sign off so they can send it up to the Borough. The Commissioners agreed that the Chair could work with Staff.
Chair Chesley called for a break at 8:00 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:12 pm.
C. Staff Report PL – 05-116 Barnett South Slope Subdivision Quiet Creek
Park Preliminary Plat.
Commissioner Lehner addressed the Chair and stated that she had previously been deemed to have a conflict of interest with respect to this activity.
LEHNER MOVED THAT SHE MAY HAVE AN APPEARANCE OF BIAS AND WOULD LIKE TO RAISE THAT ISSUE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Chair Chesley asked if Ms. Lehner feels she has a bias in reviewing preliminary plats. Ms. Lehner replied no.
Chair Chesley asked if she could take action fairly on the item. Ms. Lehner responded she feels certain that she can.
Chair Chesley stated that in this particular case he does not think that she has a bias issue and believes she can sit and participate in this matter. Chair Chesley stated that if any Commissioner disagrees they may make a motion to declare that Commissioner Lehner does have bias and it would not be appropriate for her to participate in this.
There was no opposition to Chair Chesley’s ruling and Commissioner Lehner did not step down.
Chair Chesley commented that he has been studying up on platting actions and wants to set a context for this item. He stated that typically the Planning Commission sees two types of plats, minor plats such as the Emerald Highland Estates that was just presented and major plats. Quiet Creek would certainly be considered a major plat. It is “the” major plat that this Commission has looked at, that is why it is taking them time and asked for everyone patience as they work through the issues related to this plat.
City Planner McKibben directed the Commission to a series of laydowns and advised Mr. Neal there were copies on the back table in case he hadn’t gotten copies yet.
City Planner McKibben summarized the changes since the last meeting. What is significantly different from this evaluation is the subdivider provided three plats. Plat A is the developers preferred option, Plat B shows all of the recommendations requested by the Commission last time, the cul-de-sac, larger lot sizes and eliminating through street to Anderson and Kallman, Plat C will be addressed under separate action, the Nelson and Ronda right-of-way. Plat A and B are different from the original proposal in that the number of residential lots has been reduced from 93 to 84, the average lot size is now 14,300 square feet. Lot sizes near Anderson and South Slope Drive have been increased with smaller lots occurring in the center of the subdivision near the high school. Parks space has been increased to roughly ten percent of the development in six parcels. Greenbelt areas and public trails have been increased, both Plats A and B show the extension of East Aurora Avenue as a through street connecting to Nelson Avenue rather than a cul-de-sac. Plat A shows four access points: South Slope, Kallman, Anderson and East Aurora Ave. Plat B shows only two access points; South Slope and East Aurora Avenue. West Aurora would end in a cul-de-sac, and Kallman would terminate in a park and ten-foot trail easement. Staff Mailed out public notices to 204 owners of 266 parcels, which encompassed landowners within 1000 feet of the proposed development. Landowners received three plats, marked Plat A, Plat B, and Plat C. Staff received one phone call supporting Plat B.
Ms. McKibben continued that the staff report evaluations include the Transportation Plan, the Master Streets and Roads Plan, the Non Motorized Trails and Transportation Plan and they did an analysis of the street connections. There are street naming issues that can be worked out. She stated that Public Works included extensive comments, which have to do with what their expectations will be in a subdivision agreement. Public Works preferred alternative is Plat A. The Fire Department comments are fairly extensive, their preferred alternative is Plat A. The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Plat A with the following conditions:
Staff Recommendations:
Planning Commission recommend approval of Plat A with the following
conditions:
The Commission discussed the status of the pending motion on the floor. City Planner McKibben commented she thought the Commission would consider this as a new submittal and it would be appropriate to accept the new staff report. At the request of the Chair, Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen read through the main motion and several of the amendments from the September 7th regular meeting. City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that a lot of the recommendations that were made have been incorporated in the new plat. She suggested voting that one down and re-introduce it with the new staff report and recommendations based on the revised plat.
The Chair called for a roll call vote for the main motion as amended for Staff Report PL05-62.
VOTE: NO: LEHNER, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion failed.
Chair Chesley stated this will clear the way for PL05-16 to come to the Commission by motion after completing the public hearing.
Tony Neal, manager of Quiet Creek Park LLC., stated he has been working on Quiet Creek since March 2003. When he was starting this project a famous architect was in Homer, Vernon Swaback, who apprenticed under Frank Lloyd Wright and continued to work for him for 22 years. Mr. Swaback gave Mr. Neal a copy of his new book The Creative Community, Designing for Life, from which Mr. Neal read the following quote by Tony Morrison:
As you enter positions of trust and power, dream a little before you think.
Mr. Neal continued that during the dreaming stage he read the book from cover to cover. Quiet Creek Park is not a just a chunk of land chopped into lots with a road down the middle. He stated that they worked hard to use the principles of this book. Mr. Neal read the dedication of the book:
Dedicated to all who harbor visions of a better world while working to make incremental improvements in the here and now.
In Mr. Neal’s view, with the spirit of the Creative Community, Quiet Creek Park is an incremental improvement in the here and now.
Mr. Neal discussed changes and research since their last meeting. He stated that they added all the green space that was recommended by Commissioner Kranich, and more. Mr. Neal said it is a good thing; people can’t build on it, put a garage or their trash pile on it. It is a nice amenity for a subdivision. There is over 30,000 square feet of green space reserved. They added more trails; one can walk from north to south and east to west in both directions in trails dedicated to the public. He measured some 3000 feet of trails. Parkland is now 165,000 square feet, almost four acres. Quite Creek Park is surrounded by neighborhoods with no parks at all and as far as he knows, no trails or green space. The parks vary in use, there is flat space for swings, rough terrain allowing animals to pass through and people to walk in the woodsy areas. It’s public land.
With regard to storm water, Mr. Neal said the Public Works wants to have dedication to drainages so they can do what is needed to reduce flooding. As far as they are able, Mr. Neal said they have dedicated all the flooding drainages to the public. He calls them parks, when they aren’t flooding, people can use them, if they do flood and Public Works can use them to protect the public.
With regard to wetlands, Mr. Neal stated that everyone, including himself, is unsettled by wetlands because it is difficult to know what they are. The Corp of Engineers (COE) published a document purporting to show where the wetlands were in the City, but now they have changed it and have a draft document. At Quiet Creek Community they had a lot of wetlands and didn’t permit any of it for use. It was dedicated as a wildlife preserve and that is how it stands. For Quiet Creek Park, they will have to call on the COE to come and designate wetlands, that is a given. Mr. Neal stated they tried to design the subdivision so the wetlands stay untouched. Their record is good and his personal record is good regarding the protection of wetlands.
There are Public Works issues, but Mr. Neal explained that he works with Public Works and has for years. He has met and worked out differences with Public Works on Quiet Creek Park so that all the recommendations in the packet today have been discussed and worked out.
Mr. Neal continued that they have worked within the Homer system all the way through in all respects, including parks, trails, green space, COE, drainage, wetlands and so on. They have met with Public Works, Planning and even the opponent groups. He has worked to revise the plan to their needs to extent that he can. He has worked with the Planning Commission since last May. He hasn’t jumped to the Borough or the City Council.
His subjective opinion regarding density is that Homer does not have enough zoning categories. There is Urban Residential, medium density and Rural Residential is low density, and nothing else. When they do change the laws, there should be more zones. As it stands, HCC 21.45.010 defines medium density and HCC 21.45.040 dimension requirements. Mr. Neal cited HCC 21.44.040 that it states for Rural Residential each lot shall contain a minimum of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit if served by public water and sewer. In Mr. Neal’s view, that is the law. The citizens have the power to change the law and if they want to change the density, that is their prerogative and they will do so, but they have not changed the law. Aside from that, Mr. Neal stated that Quiet Creek had no single lot at the minimum. It isn’t a bunch of 10,000 square foot squares. Their average lot is 50% larger than the minimum requirement. There is a variation in the neighborhood so the smaller lots are in the middle, down by the school, and get larger as they go out. That is a model for subdivision. The area that Quiet Creek Park is located is clearly not rural in nature in that it borders the high school. Their lots are designed for families, where they can walk into Homer, to school, the store etc, in safety on dedicated trails. Mr. Neal expressed his disagreement with Commission Hess that Quiet Creek Park should be rezoned as Urban Residential, as he had commented previously, which would allow 7,500 square foot lots. People would subdivide his lot in half, it would become more dense, and he doesn’t agree with that. Mr. Neal believes Quiet Creek Park is a model of low density for its setting and should be approved.
It is a perfect transition from the less dense and less developed to the more dense and less developed.
With regard to access, Mr. Neal stated that connectivity is essential for community planning and growth. With all due respect to Commissioner Foster for proposing the cul-de-sac on Aurora and to those who voted for it, Mr. Neal believes that is harmful to our community and helpful only to the few people with personal interest. He disagrees that personal interest should take precedence should over community in the community planning process. He does not believe that Quiet Creek Park, Barnett South Slope and the other subdivisions in the area should be denied access to Heath Street when it is extended. Why deny and harm the community to help a few people? He believes if the Planning Commission wants to support the interest of the people on Mountain View and Elderberry then block of their street from Anderson, and they get their way. He requested that they revise the cul-de-sac out of the plat. There is an administrative process if they want to block of Mountain View and Elderberry. Plat A shows Kallman Way in conflict with Commissioner Kranich’s request. That was done because all the advisors of planning say it is best to retain right-of-way for the future. Mr. Neal has no intention of using it. Public Works has a requirement that improvements is subdivisions must be done. They would require them to pave the Kallman piece to the border. As a compromise, Mr. Neal requested the Commission advise Public Works not to require them to pave or build it, but build a trail instead. The right-of-way will exist for what ever needs may justify a change in the future.
Mr. Neal thanked the Commission for the opportunity to make his remarks.
Commissioner Kranich agreed with Mr. Neal’s comments regarding Kallman. Mr. Kranich commented that if the water and sewer mains are run up there, there is a part of that which is still 30 foot right-of-way, it looks like if another 30 feet is dedicated one of the mains will be in the middle of the street.
Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Neal to explain how it is harmful for the community not to have this connectivity and if Kallman is to be a trail now, how people will be able to take Mr. Neal’s vision and maintain it as a trail. Mr. Neal responded that the Nelson access is suitable and the connectivity to Kallman isn’t needed now because that area can be solved through Nelson. He doesn’t know what will happen in 20 years, that is why it is recommended that the right-of-way stay there. Mr. Neal doesn’t want people from Quiet Creek Park driving down Kallman, to Kramer and out that way. At the other end, it is more complex. He believes connectivity is important and that Mountain View and Elderberry should not be blocked off. But if the Commission chooses to protect the interest of the people on Mountain View and Elderberry for a time, then appropriate action should be taken to block of their street. That way Quiet Creek’s street can exist for the future life of Homer when and if the people want to extend Heath Street and use it. He doesn’t believe that the Quiet Creek Park residents should be prevented from driving out Aurora, turning left and continuing down Heath Street and out. The harmfulness its that the residents will be prevented forever from using Heath Street.
Commissioner Connor asked what the provisions for the green belts will be. Mr. Neal said the greenbelt will belong to the lot that it is connected to. It is different from a trail. However, property owners won’t be able back their trailer to the boundary line so the neighbor on the other side has to look at it. He hasn’t pinned down what the restrictions will be regarding vegetation; he would like it to be natural, but can see where people might like to plant things.
Commissioner Kranich commented that Public Works specifying construction of 300 feet along Shellfish Avenue. It appears to him that it is just the 300 feet that butts Lot 7, but the rest of the avenue is not built. Mr. Neal concurred with Mr. Kranich’s observation. Mr. Neal explained that Public Works has a rule that if you build a subdivision than you have to build a subdivision, you have to build the improvements that front it, so he will build that section.
Chair Chesley commented that the DOT traffic study that was done recently proposes connection from South Slope across above the high school and drop to Heath, well below Mountain View and Elderberry. He asked if Mr. Neal had given that type of connection consideration as an alternate access from his subdivision. Mr. Neal replied that he did consider it, he considers it an extension of Heath Street.
Chair Chesley asked if the trails will be available year round for pedestrian access, or will they be unmaintained. Mr. Neal envisions them being available year round. He does not envision the City maintaining the trails but that people using the trails, the foot traffic, will keep them maintained throughout the year.
Commissioner Lehner stated that she has done a cursory examination of the City of Homer soil survey and the predominant soil types in this area are poorly drained. Because the soils are in their native condition and well vegetated they are able to hold more water now than they will when they are cleared and built on. Ms. Lehner continued on about the soils and explained that water, which is handled now by the natural environment, will need to be managed either on site or off site. She questioned Mr. Neal about his plans to deal with the water. Mr. Neal replied that for a good part of that he will need engineering help. He stated he is fully aware of what she is talking about and while he doesn’t agree with everything she said, he spoke of the possibility of using the technique of drywells or retaining ponds, they work in other places and could work here. The terrain of the land doesn’t send all the water to one place. It slopes into the stream that runs down by the high school on one side of the property and the other half goes the other way. There isn’t any one spot concentrates a storm flow, so one technique is to divide the water up so it doesn’t all go to one place; otherwise there needs to be a plan to slow the water down.
Commissioner Lehner continued that in many cases it is required that land be set aside to perform these functions. She stated she has concerns that the drainage plan needs to be considered as he is identifying lot layout and road layout because of those kinds of functional considerations should be made on how to deal with all that water. Mr. Neal stated that he disagrees that it’s “all that water”. He would never let the water run down to the high school, something will have to be done. Chair Chesley interjected that typically that this is where Public Works would work with the developer to identify these things in a subdivision agreement. Chair Chesley reminded Commissioner Lehner that a preliminary plat is a concept, not the final plat. When the preliminary plat comes to the Commission those items aren’t always there because the engineering hasn’t been done. It is not always reasonable to expect the developer to spend a lot of money on engineering for the preliminary plat.
Commissioner Lehner expressed her concern is that the subdivision should take into consideration altering lot boundaries to create some kind of retention areas or swales. You just wonder whether or not those possibilities are inherent in the subdivision layout. She perceives this as a safety issue. She commented that it is hard to say this can be approved and no additional areas need be set aside for the safety of the flood run off.
Chair Chesley proposed a method for the Commission to deal this action that would allow them to approve one of the Plats Mr. Neal submitted but also to create an additional meeting for Mr. Neal to come and participate with the Commission and Public Works in working on the Subdivision Agreement. This would give the Commission the opportunity to make specific recommendations to Public works to consider in the Subdivision Agreement.
Mr. Neal said clearly a storm water plan needs to be done. He agrees that they would never want the extra water to go dumping down on the high school or the neighbors. That has to get designed, but can’t get designed unless you have a plat. Mr. Neal clarified that in the subdivision agreement process the Commission wants to put a tail on the deal to make sure that part of the subdivision agreement approval includes a storm water approval and said he could agree with that.
It was noted that Dr. Marley left the meeting. Mr. Neal asked that Dr. Marley be counted as a supporter.
Roger Imhoff, surveyor, stated that he felt, after reading the minutes from the last meeting, the Commission’s decision to cork off West Aurora flies in the face of all the planning doctrine and procedures that he has had drummed into him in almost 30 years as a surveyor and coming to these types of meetings. Initially the owner of a property of this size wants to block off all the access so they have a “private subdivision”, but it is really in the benefit of the whole community to look at the long-range picture. Mr. Imhoff stated to Chair Chesley and Commissioner Foster that it is harmful, maybe not in the short term but in the long term, because as the subdivision fills up, there will need to be alternate access to the downtown area. It is important for the vitality of this neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhoods that will be developed. It is important for safety. There are two large properties to the southeast of the subdivision, which eventually may be developed in some form at which time additional width will be picked up along Kallman and there will be someone before the Commission wanting the Glacierview Baptist Church to give up some right-of-way because that is going to be an important access to East End Road for this whole area. Mr. Imhoff thanked Don Ronda, Bruce and Marivel Petska, and David Sanders for agreeing to donate land for right-of-way to make the alternate access down Nelson and Ronda possible at this time, it is very community minded of them. Mr. Imhoff reminded the Commission that this access is a very short term thing, being planning type of people, we have to look at the long term and hopes that all of the folks here from the Mountain view and Elderberry Drive areas will talk to the City Council and spend as much effort as they have trying to cork this thing off, as to get Heath Street built. It would benefit everyone if that was to happen.
Commissioner Foster stated his reasoning for the cul-de-sac is that he was trying to take into account what the neighbors were saying. He appreciates Mr. Imhoff’s 30+ years of planning history. Mr. Foster explained that he grew up in Los Angeles and they took that same kind of logic. When you look at the folks who live in the subdivisions that have roads that turn into trails or stop, those people like that. He asked Mr. Imhoff if the logic of the connectivity is good for the community, where does this community live, are they living in those little pieces or are they looking at the big picture and saying that we need to have access going to all these places.
Mr. Imhoff answered that to him it boils down to the spoke and the hub argument. Mr. Imhoff went to the board and drew a diagram. He explained there are little neighborhoods where people live and you have to consider where they work, go to school, location of the hospital and stores. From the hub, or the neighborhood, Mr. Imhoff drew lines, which represented the spokes, out to the other areas (work, school and so forth). Ideally if there is an interconnecting road system it is a lot easier to get around.
Shannon McBride-Morin she is a city resident who has worked for various conservation organizations, including a non-profit in Seattle called “Futurewise” which promotes sustainable development, stopping sprawl and managing growth. She read her letter of support for the record, which is summarized as follows:
Mrs. McBride-Morin encouraged the Commission to support and approve Quiet Creek Park as a quality addition to our growing community where people can walk and experience their sense of place. A complete copy of her letter was provided for the record.
Kenton Bloom stated he is a property owner within the 500-foot range. He commented that in general he is supportive of the notion of the development. He is supportive of the fact that the developer is playing by the rulebook at hand. In looking back, Bear Creek Park is a similarly conceived project on a slope with a lot of drainage and neighborhood issues of access. Mr. Bloom discussed site-based design. He stated that if they could look at a plat like Mr. Neal’s and understand where each lot drains, pad elevations, driveway locations, they would have an informed document and would know is proven to work based on the contouring, the amount of existing vegetation left, it could all be quantified. It is a value added to the developer, while there would be added cost in terms of engineering and so forth. The value to the homebuyer is in the fact that it is a know entity as to where the other houses will be in relation to the buyer. In the light of the development, there are so many large developments being contemplated or proposed he would like to be a proponent that the Commission hold up the moratorium until elements of site based design can be integrated to the overall planning process. Mr. Bloom commented regarding the trail connectivity, in the notion of walking, there are a lot of elements that make walking work. The latest issue of Newsweek, has a section about redefining and redeveloping communities across the United States to be walkable. The failing Mr. Bloom sees with the walkable design of this plat is that it’s an after thought added in to provide some amenity for walking. From his experience, the areas designated for trail corridors are not wide enough and not related to the topography enough to be functional, walkable trail corridors. He asked as part of the later review that another aspect would be to show how the trails work. Mr. Bloom answered a question from the Chair regarding his opinion of the actual usefulness of that trail in terms of being relied on as a primary pedestrian amenity. Mr. Bloom replied that considering the fact that it is next to the high school and there is an existing trail amenity on the high school property, portions of it are entirely not useful because the useful trail is already built. In the area extending farther to the east there are some drainages there that keep it from being functional with out some re-grading and drainage structure. Mr. Neal and his talented crew can make trails that work for people. Mr. Bloom supports the idea that the storm water plan needs to be considered thoroughly now. Chair Chesley asked for Mr. Bloom’s opinion of the usability of the trails year round. Mr. Bloom agreed that they would be usable year round.
Jeff Coble, owner of an office at the start of Kramer, explained that his office and the new medical clinic share the access that is the first turn off. It takes only two cars to block his and the medical clinics parking lots. He understands that DOT has recommended an extension of Heath as a resolution of some of the traffic flow problems to the area. Mr. Coble stated he is more in support of Plat B because Plat A recommends access through the Kramer neighborhood. Mr. Coble stated that he encourages a drainage plan and spoke about developments affecting the properties down grade by taking away the sponge water storage layer and creating higher discharge during flooding, which creates a big mess down grading. The problem gets bigger as the development gets bigger. Commissioner Foster asked that the record show that Mr. Coble is a hydro-geologist.
Linda Browning, a resident on Elderberry, commented that the Planning Department is counting on Heath Street being built to solve the traffic problems that would be incurred by connecting Elderberry and Mountain View with Anderson Street. She is concerned that the development isn’t going to happen in a timely manner. She believes that it is number 30 on the list of priorities of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She recalled when she had her first home on Soundview, in the early 80’s there was discussion about the pedestrian traffic along Bartlett, and it took 20+ years before that upgrade was done. She urged the Commission not to rush into something now in hopes of alleviating an immediate concern that will create further problems down the road. Development of Anderson is a given. It is going to come down Kachemak Way. Routing traffic from the subdivision east of Kachemak Way will only create larger traffic problems later. She urged the Commission to try to find a solution that will solve the problem now and remain viable for the future. She doesn’t think routing all that traffic down Elderberry is a logical solution.
Walt Suomla, owner of property on Linda Court, stated he is one of the property owners that would be adversely affected because of the water issues. If he were forced to approve a plat he would choose Plat B. He appreciates Mr. Neal’s work in trying to adapt, but he is not in favor of having anything approved at this time. He has a strong feeling that there are too many buildable lots in the subdivision. He explained that there is plenty of water coming down that way as it is.
Katherine George, read a letter for the record from Sharon and Marvin Baur who own a home on the corner of Kachemak Way and Bayview and will be relocating here from Arizona. Mrs. Baur states in her letter that she is a licensed Real Estate Broker who has also subdivided and developed vacant land. Her letter is summarized as follows:
Mrs. Baur stressed in her letter how important it is to Homer’s growth to maintains walking trails, low-density subdivisions, large green belts, conservation easements and low impact traffic. She feels that restraint is the best answer.
Katherine George spoke on her own behalf as well. As Mr. Neal spoke about the connectivity of the trails, being able to go from east to west and north to south, in looking at the map she doesn’t see how one can get from north to south on one trail, she doesn’t see how kids are going to walk along a trail and get to school. She doesn’t see sidewalks and still has problems with people on foot moving around. The park on lot 13 is supposed to be a public park but there are no parking spaces, so it becomes a private park for subdivision residents only. She questioned the access to lot 7 since they are only developing the 300 feet in front of it. The talk of the smaller lots on the south, Ms. George realized that is the area where drainage is going to be the biggest problem so that isn’t the place to concentrate residents. She submitted a letter, which expressed her concern for the roads and access. She believes this subdivision does not meet the goals and objectives of the Homer Comprehensive Plan or the Homer Area Transportation Plan.
Bruce Petska, city resident, stated his property borders Mr. Neal’s subdivision. When his family chose to allow his subdivision to access through their front yard, they chose to do it because it would help provide traffic relief to the new subdivision by distributing traffic through more access points. Plan B was not on the table on the table at that point. He commends Mr. Neal for the efforts he has put forward to secure the right-of-ways but if the entirety of the east-west traffic was to come out of the east side only, Mr. Petska as well, would have the attitude of not in my back yard. He encouraged the Commission to work with Mr. Neal and approve Plat A.
Frieda Stout, a 20+year resident of Homer, commented that the lots in her area are smaller that those lots proposed by Mr. Neal. She has grown children and grandchildren and she would like them to stay here and find affordable housing. She would like to see them in a subdivision, close to amenities, close to town and walker friendly. Ms. Stout stated she is an office manager for Neal and Company, but that is not why she is here. She is here because she thinks this is a good plan and will benefit us all.
Gary Thomas, a City resident expressed his appreciation for the incredible time and effort the group puts in on the Planning Commission. Mr. Thomas is a resident in the Kramer/Kallman area and has an special interest in that access corridor. Plat B does not connect roadway to Kallman, which pleases him, but in reference to comments that have been made, he made a brief remark about the Public Works comment and request that Mr. Neal has agreed to, but to pave that little piece of Kallman is a bad idea. If that right-of-way is there and paved it drops of into a mud pit. Mr. Thomas encouraged staff and the Commission to work with Public Works to strike that recommendation.
Jennifer Miller, Project Administrator for Quiet Creek and City resident, addressed the Commission. She has grown children who have gone away to college and hopes they will come back to Homer. She has lived in Alaska since 1970, raised in the Valley, and in Homer since 1997. She commented that opportunities in Homer are going by the wayside. The development that Mr. Neal is proposing fits exactly what Mrs. Baur was talking about in her letter. Mrs. Miller commented that her kids have been riding the bikes from West Hill down to Homer High for 8 years. People say isn’t accessible, but it is accessible year round. Mrs. Miller wants to see the healthy community continue to grow and Mr. Neal’s subdivision does that.
Chris Morin, Project Manager for Quiet Creek Condominiums and Quiet Creek Subdivision, thanked those who came out in support of the subdivision and the Planning Commission for their work and time and stated he was in attendance to support the Quiet Creek subdivision. Mr. Morin told the Commission that he has a civil engineering degree and has been professionally involved in construction for ten years. He has a huge interest in creating a livable, beautiful place in Homer. There has been discussion as to whether Quiet Creek Park is to dense. Some people don’t want large yards; some don’t want any yard, which is their choice. People want different things. Responding to growth is important and development must be feasible, or no one develops. Multiple plats were provided that he thinks will appeal to everyone. Mr. Morin pointed out that Commissioner Lehner has a nice subdivision, it is different; if they were all the same, how do you make a choice. The book they have referred to in their design clearly state they should not be focusing on numbers or statistics on the plat. It states that these statistics and numbers can imprison us. Mr. Morin stated Quiet Creek Park is a fantastic piece of property, he believes the trails going through it are going to work, the way its drawn is two dimensional, but when you get out there the intent is that you can walk clear across the property. Stream Hill Subdivision is a good example of small lots but they adjoin green spaces. That takes a paradigm shift in thinking to not be imprisoned by numbers and statistics. Mr. Morin made reference to the Town Center Plan, which states that in eight years the population in Homer will double. He asked where would people live. The Town Center is planned out nicely for growth and their subdivision fits that vision. Mr. Morin recommends Plat A. He continued that it is the Planning Commission’s job to plan for the future of Homer and Homer Town Center he sees good planning and working on Quiet Creek Park he also sees good planning. To build one without the other will be a serious contradiction in vision. He hopes, at this meeting, the Commission will give their approval so they move forward with this creative community.
Commissioner Lehner asked what the process was that got them here so she can see why this is the best solution to the tremendously complex problem that laying out a subdivision represents. Mr. Morin replied that he came into the design after the initial drawings were done. He explained that Mr. Imhoff has spent a lot of time helping them lay out the subdivision based on the topography. They have relied on him for that. He is sure there will be some minor changes to improve the lay out. Mr. Morin emphasized that they are approachable people. They want to hear comments, which is why they have spent so much time on this and held public meetings. They want to face the public and see this get approved. Ms. Lehner commended them for their work. She asked if more “sponge land” is needed, would they be willing to set more open land aside for that. Mr. Morin responded that they would do what is needed to make it work.
Rick Wise, Pastor of Glacierveiw Baptist Church, expressed his appreciation for what everyone does. He supports Plat B. He stated that traffic flow is a big issue and it makes sense to develop Heath Street. Mr. Wise commended Mr. Neal for the great job and is glad he is willing to go to the gauntlet.
Kevin Miller, City resident, supports Quiet Creek. He works in the mortgage industry and the trend shows that there is not much out there right now for affordable housing. Most available housing is outside the City all the way to Anchor Point. He is in favor of more affordable closer to Homer.
Syd Huffnagle, City resident, stated that three neighbors have commented that they are seriously considering moving before Quiet Creek can do a number on the valuation of their property. He thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak and asked that they inform the Borough of how they feel about it. He asked that they tie in the Heath Street extension well below where it will effect the Mountain View and Elderberry residents.
Karen Berg-Forrester stated she has live in Homer since 1967 and recently sold her home on Kachemak Way and moved into the Quiet Creek Condominiums. She is happy to be a resident there. She has children that live in Homer and is delighted that her granddaughter, who lives on Kramer, will be able to walk to her condo, as well as to school and high school activities. She spoke briefly about green space, mentioning that there are quite a few subdivisions in Homer that have dedicated green space. Most people take care of it because they enjoy it. Parks are there to give the subdivision owners additional places to play. When they did the subdivision behind Lakeside Mall they created a little inner park and you don’t see people travel from afar to visit those parks, but the people in the subdivision enjoy them immensely. She sees it they have met those requirements and it is a good thing. Mrs. Forrester stated that having been a Realtor in Homer for 30 she has been a participant with other clients and customers that have done subdivision developments. She has seen some drawn on paper before there were regulations and now people are vacating lot lines and rearranging to improve their areas. In this case the surveyor has gone in and taken into consideration the topography and all the issues relative to drainage and as long as she has been a Realtor and testified in different areas relative to subdivisions, standardly, when they get to the development agreement, with Public Works, they address all those issues. Sometimes there have to be some minor adjustments to ensure that it is accommodated correctly, but it isn’t generally required that the developer spend vast amounts of money in engineering until they know they have an approved plat. Mrs. Forrester stated that they will find that since Mr. Neal has been very willing and has met the requirements the Commission has asked him to address, they will find that in the subdivision agreement process that it will address the concerns about drainage and other things. She urged the Commission to give Mr. Neal the opportunity to get there. She thanked the Commission.
Commissioner Foster stated he knows it is legal to have flag lots but he remember a discussion he had with Mrs. Forrester about doing away with flag lots and he recalled her saying that they cause problems down the line between homeowners and she thought most of the Realtors would be supportive of not having flag lots in this town. Mrs. Forrester interjected that she didn’t recall having that conversation with Dr. Foster, but she does recall their discussing some flag lots that were made too narrow and made it difficult to bring water and sewer lines without having to purchase easements, she directed her comments toward flag lots that were put in or approved that did not have appropriate drainage. Mrs. Forrester reported that her daughter owns land that abuts Mr. Neal’s property and when she was notified of the subdivision, she talked to Mr. Neal about what he intended to do about drainage, because it affected her lot. They had a good conversation and she went away happy. Mr. Neal has always been open and willing to talk about this.
Brian Bennett, with the Citizens Alliance for Neighborhoods, Inc. (CAN, Inc.) stated the group has a short presentation to read to the Commission. Mr. Bennett read the groups mission statement into the record, the focus of the group in that they hope to provide input into the upcoming revision of the Comprehensive Plan. The group does not believe they have unfairly singled out Mr. Neal’s development. Rosemary Fitzpatrick, Francie Roberts, Leo Vait, Ginny Espenschade, Bill Abbott and John Browning, all residents in the Mountain View and Elderberry area took turns reading a letter to the Commission. It states:
The proposed Quiet Creek Subdivision is located in an unique and complex area because it is a 90-lot subdivision being proposed
Their letter urges the Homer Advisory Planning Commission (HAPC) not to approve the preliminary plat because it would constitute a conversion of the basic definition of Rural Residential zoning classification. This is a high-density development. It further states that people in favor of the subdivision say that people who bought property in this area should have known something like this could happen. CAN Inc. argues that A reasonable person considering the purchase of land or homer near the proposed subdivision would have read HCC 21.44.010 and would never have inferred the potential or legality of a 90- lot subdivision on this parcel.
CAN,Inc. recommends:
· HAPC request an investigation by a qualified engineer into the effect on the City’s water distribution system before the preliminary plat is approved.
· A storm water plan by a qualified engineer must be completed, regarding drainage issues within and outside the boundaries of the subdivision, before the preliminary plat is considered b the City of Homer or the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
· HAPC request an investigation by the COE regarding the wetlands located with in the boundaries of the proposed subdivision before this preliminary plat is approved.
· HAPC needs to request a jurisdictional determination from the COE in order to calculate the area of existing wetlands in the proposed subdivision.
CAN, Inc. states that the cul-de-sac referred to as Sophie Court is in violation of City Code. They further recommend that:
Some of their members are in support of connectivity, but believe the developer and the City have used the concept arbitrarily when it was convenient to further their arguments. For example it is being used as justification to conned Quiet Creek Park to Elderberry, Mountain View and Kallman. CAN, Inc. suggests additional access instead at the following points:
Per HCC 21.28.020, 1.76.030(e), 11.040.060(d) and 21.61.110(a), CAN, Inc. urges the HAPC to require a traffic analysis by a qualified engineer to determine the effect on traffic resulting from this proposed subdivision on all areas of the Homer Community. They look forward to working with the Commission and the Developer to resolve their concerns.
Sean Dunn, resident at 5.5 mile East End Road, lives next to the Neal’s, has for 11 years, and says it a positive experience. He believes that everyone has seen that the integrity of Mr. Neal comes through in a lot of ways. He has been willing make adjustments to his plan and it’s clear that it is coming from a point of caring for the community. The idea of greenbelts and trail access is not a new one, but it seems there are a lot of developers that don’t look at that. The Neal’s put in a dedicated trail easement on his own property thirty years ago. Mr. Dunn pointed out that Mr. Neal didn’t just come in and say “ Let’s develop property and we will slap in a few greenbelts on it to please the public.” He has shown this with his action many years ago. Mr. Dunn continued that the idea of closing off the development with cul-de-sac, we need to remember that just because you can get across Homer in a few minutes now, soon we won’t be able to do that and we need to have as much ability for the traffic to filter through the Community, not just on the main thoroughfares. These little open access points help the congestion on the main thoroughfares and needs as many of them as can be reasonably worked in. Mr. Dunn has pointed out that he has never testified at any of Mr. Neal’s development, nor any with Quiet Creek, but the reason he is here tonight is because he has read the letters and heard people talking about the “evil developer” and such. Mr. Dunn wants to publicly let people know that he has personal experience with what it means to be his neighbor and it is a very positive thing.
Leroy Cabana, who’s subdivision is up for review in a few weeks, spoke about density. He said this is a hot topic and densities need to be looked at on a balanced view. The people who have testified about affordable housing is a real fact. He pointed out that there are a few things to remember about affordable housing,
If it costs 35,000 per lot to develop a road through a subdivision for houses on both sides of the street, it is $70,000 a lot if houses are only on one side. Mr. Cabana explained that he has visited many communities outside and has seen what happens with growth restrictions take place. People are alarmed about the growth, just like in Homer, and their action is to slow the growth down. What needs to happen is that they plan for the growth; the only thing a reaction of slowing the growth down does is it binds up the system and drives lot prices sky high. Many communities in the states share the same example, their kids cannot live in the community, and it is because of restrictions on growth. He hopes that Homer doesn’t turn into Anchorage or LA but for the time being, we have to deal with the reality that there is some growth going on that needs to be dealt with. Supply and demand is something people need to think about. He is one of those guys with a 90-lot subdivision and asked the Commission to think about the affordability part because people are concerned about it. He assured the Commission that the in the “perfect neighborhood” that people talk about, down in the states, the cost of lots start out at $175,000. You aren’t going to get affordable housing like that. Mr. Cabana spoke about drainage. He does developments in Anchorage and Girdwood and he deals with COE and EPA constantly. They have much wetter ground up there and the reason that was pointed out that is because this is a preliminary plat. You cannot have complete storm drainage plans and everything that goes with it, because there will possibly be lot line movements and boundary movements. The COE and EPA are going to tell whoever develops land down here exactly where the drainages are going to go. If the Commission were to tell the developer it is almost for sure that they aren’t going to concur with the COE and EPA and then you will be stuck in gridlock.
Mr. Neal commented about Mrs. Forrester’s comments about the little park behind Lakeside Village. Mr. Neal built that park. He designed the Lakeside Village Subdivision back in the 70’s. He dedicated Ben Walters park and gave it to the City, in fact he had several parks designed up Lakeside Village and the City said no, that they didn’t want the liability nor to maintain them. He had to fight to keep Jeffrey Park there. Regarding Kallman, he agrees with Mr. Thomas, it should never be paved. Regarding the trail along the high school, it is a straight trail; Mr. Neal stated he felt like Chair Chesley served up a soft ball to Mr. Bloom so he could hit over the fence, but he sort of hit a foul ball. Mr. Neal recounted that Chair Chesley had asked about passing over it and Mr. Bloom went into a drainage thing. Mr. Neal stated that the fact is that you can walk in street shoes from the high school, to Kallman, right over that spot, it is a dead straight trail. One of the reasons it is there is because the high school kids run on it every day, its the cross country trail. If they run on his property fine, it’s open to the public, its flat. When you go over the slope there is no drainage up there. A person can walk from Mountain View on all the trails, across the back, out Kallman and to Paul Banks School. That trail is straight across there because people can use it. Mr. Neal would like to build the streets with wide shoulders, not building sidewalk, which are hard to maintain. He has no intention of putting in pavement edge then gravel down to the ditch.
Commission Foster commented that when this started three months ago and the discussion began with the Mountain View and Elderberry folks, Mr. Neal had stated that he had no intention of seeing the Elderberry and Mountain View link, which is why he followed along with the cul-de-sac idea. In looking at lots 89 and 88, the only way to get to them is through Elderberry or Mountain View. It is like it is designed, as how the connection will be. Mr. Neal replied that the group that presented itself, he once called a personal self interest group, and he will stick to that. Every person who spoke as they were interested in Homer is off in the same place and as far as he knows, his is the only subdivision they wham on. If they don’t want people want to drive on their roads, block them off. Lots 88 and 89 could go down Anderson to West Aurora and go that way.
Chair Chesley thanked everyone for their input. He believes that when this comes before the Commission it will take at least an hour, probably more to discuss this so believes when they close the public hearing tonight, this will be the end of the action on this item and will pick a time to continue this too.
Chair Chesley called for a break at 11:05. The meeting resumed at 11:10.
Chair Chesley stated that the Commission will schedule further action on Quiet Creek to a special meeting that will be scheduled as soon as possible.
LEHNER/PFIEL MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS TO A SPECIAL MEETING, HOPEFULLY NEXT WEDNESDAY, BUT WILL WAIT FOR SCHEDULING.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
D. Staff Report PL – 05- 112 Dedication of Nelson Avenue and Ronda Street Right of Way Preliminary Plat.
Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:
Ms. McKibben advised the Commission of a laydown which is correspondence indicating a neighboring property owner is willing to dedicate the additional five feet of right-of-way on the Ronda portion which is the north-south connection, so there would be a full sixty foot right-of-way. Roger Imhoff provided a new preliminary plat with them as a signatory.
Roger Imhoff said it sounds as though there is confusion about whether or not this right-of-way dedication is dependant on Plat A or Plat B, but it is proposed to dedicated and built either way.
Gary Thomas commented that this is a solution that we came up with together and all parties are cooperative, willing and supportive of the plan. He gave a vote of appreciating for all who have stepped up to help find a solution to the problem.
Bruce Petska voiced his concern about access through the bottom of his property if there is no access off of Elderberry, if cul-de-sac plan B goes through. He originally worked with Mr. Neal to do this with the assumption and as he has stated, that the more access points this subdivision has the less impact any one neighborhood will have. All of the impact coming through his front yard is something he hasn’t really discussed with Mr. Neal. He really didn’t think that the cul-de-sac idea was a feasible option, and was stunned when it was brought up, it looked very self-interest oriented for the people in that neighborhood. He stated that his family’s genuine concern when they considered this coming through the bottom of their property, was that it would best distribute traffic throughout the neighborhood. He has built in the Kallman/Heidi Court area, he has built on Pennock Street, Ben Walters area and the Mattox Subdivision, he lives right there and it is a busy area. He thought by funneling some of that traffic a little farther down East Road, it would help keep those areas more accessible, whether it be vehicle or pedestrian traffic. The idea of bringing all the traffic out that access and none of it out to the west causes great concern for him and his family with the amount of traffic in their front yard. Mr. Petska stated he will need to discuss this further with Mr. Neal, but to do Plat B and access through his property is not an option.
Mr. Petska doesn’t believe Plat B is a good plat plan personally and the investment of his property and for the access to the other parts of town, whether it be by a snowplow, ambulance or someone living on the end of the cul-de-sac. He has built for people who want to know what is the access to the hospital. Despite what might be said about the insignificance of Mr. Imhoff’s spoke and hub example, it could be very hazardous to someone who has to go back out, sit at the bottom of East Hill road when school is trying to get out from Paul Banks and go all the way back through town at a busy time of day, to get from that subdivision to the hospital. He urged the Commission to accept plan A, because plan B is an option from his standpoint.
Mr. Petska apologized to Mr. Neal because he believes he has done a great job communicating with the property owners to get this access through, but to have the cul-de-sac thing thrown in to take care of everyone on Mountain View and Elderberry, he can’t accept that.
Chair Chesley closed the public hearing and asked for a motion to continue this item.
LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS TO OUR SPECIAL MEETING.
Commissioner Foster asked for clarification that after they close the public hearing, if they could re-open it. Chair Chesley said yes, as long the Commission approves it.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
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 reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public.
A. Staff Report PL 05-115 Request for Non-conforming use at 966 Hillfair
Court/Lakeside
Village Sub. Hillfair Addn. Lot 25-A
City Planner McKibben read the staff
recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission accept the use of the structure located at Township 6 South, Range 13 West, S20 Lakeside Village Sub. Hillfair Addition Lot 25-A, in the Homer Recording District, commonly known at the Community Mental Health Annex Building, address: 966 Hillfair Court as a nonconforming use per Homer city Code 21.64, as the use legally existed prior to the code amendment enacted with Ordinance 02-11.
Chris Laing stated that the annex is a former
duplex on Hillfair Court that is a part of the Community Mental Health Centers
professional offices. They have owned
it since ’93 and meet with clients in that building. When the Mental Health Center moved into the neighborhood it was
zoned to allow professional mix with residential. When the zoning in that area changed, it eliminated the
professional option. Now that their
deck had rotted and it needs to be replaced, it required them to come to the
Commission for a permit because it is a change and they are non-conforming. Nothing is changing, they just need to
replace the deck.
Ray confirmed that the three lots had been
combined into one. City Planner
McKibben concurred.
Chair Chesley asked if the building has ever
gone under a review by the fire marshal for compliance with codes for
commercial occupancy. Ms. Laing was not
sure.
Commissioner Kranich confirmed that none of
the decks extend into the utility easement.
City Planner McKibben concurred.
Chair Chesley called for a motion to approve
the staff report.
LEHNER/FOSTER MOVED TO ADOPT PL05-115 AND
APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE AT 966
HILLFAIR COURT.
Chair Chesley asked for a Commissioner to
amend the main motion to place a condition on for fire marshal review.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED THAT WE MAKE APPROVAL OF
THIS NON-CONFORMING USE CONDITIONAL ON THE APPLICANT GETTING FIRE MARSHALL
REVIEW.
There was no discussion.
VOTE:
YES: PFEIL, CONNOR, KRANICH,
FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE(main motion as amended): YES: CHESLEY,
PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, FOSTER
Motion carried.
B. Memorandum from Chair Chesley to the City Council Re: Request for
Authority to Require Off-Site Improvements as a Condition to Plat Approval.
Chair Chesley explained that the importance
of this memo is that they are sending a request to the Council to discuss and
determine if it has merit and take action to send it back to the Commission if
they think it has merit. This is
something that Public Works Director Meyer
has brought up to help mitigate the impacts that subdivisions and their
development may have off their actual development site.
Chair Chesley asked for a motion to send this
up to Council.
FOSTER/KRANICH MOVED TO SEND THIS UP TO
COUNCIL.
There was no discussion.
VOTE:
YES:: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
Chair Chesley asked for a motion to suspend
the rest of the agenda and adjourn the meeting.
PFEIL/KRANICH MOVED.
Chair Chesley thanked everyone for a good
night. Chair Chesley asked for comments
of the audience before taking a vote.
There was discussion clarifying the October
12 special meeting.
Ginny Espenschade commented that a lot of
people brought their kids into the discussion.
Her daughter has been in college for six weeks and she’s not homesick,
not family sick, she is place sick. She
is in a beautiful place off the coast of Maine, but can’t wait to get back to
Homer, but when she gets back and sees all the changes on the hill, it will
bring her to tears if it is not consistent with her sense of place. Ms. Espenschade commented that affordable
housing is interconnected with livable wages, which is why our kids don’t get
jobs here; it is not because they can’t build houses. Let’s look at livable wages for young adults. Ms. Espenschade said she would like to see
the existing high school cross-country trail noted on the plat so you can see
where it is going. She pointed out that some municipalities do require the
studies up front, it is not that unusual.
In closing she commented about CAN, Inc. being referred to as a special
interest group. She stated there are so
many interests in the group but they want the quality of life in Homer to
maintain the same, absorbing the growth and planning the growth.
Commissioner Foster asked for clarification
that although there will not be any more public comment regarding the
subdivision they could take written comment that comes in. Chair Chesley explained that they won’t be
soliciting any more comment. They can
open another public hearing, but after this evening he doesn’t know that they
need more testimony.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 05-109 Re: Proposed
Amendment to HCC 21.45.040(b) Dimensional
Requirements (b) Building Setbacks
(1)
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 (DAP0 and Storm Water Plan (SWP) Requirements.
Continued from August 17, 2005 Homer Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
E. Staff Report PL 05-82 Re:
Lot Sizes within the Rural Residential Zoning District. Continued from
August 17 & September 7, 2005 Homer Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
F. Staff Report PL 05-98 Re:
Amending Homer City Code 21.70 Amendment Procedures. Continued from August 17 & September 7,
2005 Homer Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
G. Staff Report PO 05-117 Time Limited Moratorium for Large Scale
Subdivisions
H. Staff Report PL 04-109 Re:
Commission Worklist, On-going.
REPORTS
A. Borough
Report
B. Kachemak
Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
PLANNING DIRECTORS’ 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 Lynn Spence dated September 21, 2005 regarding New Subdivision Proposals
B. HCC 21.68.100 Appeals – Ex parte contacts prohibited
C. Resolution 05-87, with Memo and Minutes, Accepting Intersections Planning Study
D. Ordinance 05-43(A) Amending Homer City Code Chapter 14.04 and 14.08: Sewage - General Provisions
E. Resolution 05-91(A) Requesting City Manager Restructure and Upgrade the Planning Department
F. Violation Complaint Log prepared by Dotti Harness dated 09/28/05
G. Findings and Conclusions of Law, a Planning Commission Seminar dated 03/2000
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on
any subject. The Chair may prescribe
time limits.
Ginny daughter can’t wait to come back. Affordable is interconnected with livable wages. Municipalities do require studies up front.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners may comment on any subject, including
requests to staff and requests for excused absence.
ADJOURNMENT
Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work
session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment.”
There being no further business
to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 11:58 p.m. The next Special
Meeting is scheduled for October 12, 2005 at 6:00 pm and the next Regular
Meeting is scheduled for October 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. There will be a worksession at 6:00 p.m.
prior to Regular the meeting.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY
CLERK
Approved: