Session 05-21 a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:10 pm on October 19, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS CONNOR, KRANICH, FOSTER, PFEIL, CHESLEY, HESS, LEHNER
STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular and considered in normal sequence.
A. Time Extension Requests
B. Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.
C. KPB Coast Management Program Reports
D. Commissioner Excused Absences
Commissioner Foster requested that Enforcement, Bridge Creek and other Sensitive Areas be added as item A under Commission Business.
Commissioner Hess requested that what is now item C and D be switched.
The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.
A. Approval of the Special Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2005
The amended minutes were approved by consensus of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS
The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.
Rob Lund, resident at 4178 Hohe Street, spoke to the Commission about the reconstruction project on Hohe. Mr. Lund stated that the State still owns the road, they have been improving it to turn over to the City and the job is just about complete. Mr. Lund explained that this spring the State discovered the street was in the wrong place. In the process of moving the street to the west, the drainage ditch had to move as well. When the drainage ditch moved the line of utility poles on the west side of Hohe Street coincided with the center of the drainage ditch. HEA is in the process of moving the utility poles, but the he and virtually all of the residents on Hohe feel that HEA is in error. They believe that the Homer City Code compels them to put the utilities under ground. Mr. Lund passed out information to the Commission and provided a copy for the record. He explained that he and other residents of the area banded together and contacted the City Manager, Department of Transportation (DOT), Representative Seaton and Senator Gary Stevens. The City Manager had told them that it was required the utilities go underground if there was major modification of the location, which would seem to be the case here. Mr. Lund continued that later on the City changed its mind and he was told that the law only applies to new subdivisions. Mr. Lund stated that as far as he can determine, it says no such thing. Mr. Lund made the following points:
ü HCC 22.10.020 states it covers all subdivisions in the City of Homer.
ü HCC 21.10.040 states it shall apply to all subdivisions in Homer.
ü Hohe Street is in the middle of Fairview Subdivision and there is evidence that the subdivision and utilities have been in place for a long time.
ü HCC 22.10.055 covers underground utilities. Subsection a. requires that all new subdivisions put utilities under ground. Subsection b. covers all existing overhead utility cable facilities. It is interesting that the subsection does not mention existing subdivisions just existing utilities.
Mr. Lund believes that the section of the Code is easy to understand. There are only three places utilities can exist. In new subdivisions the cables have to go underground, in existing subdivisions or an unsubsidized parcel can have above ground. Chapter 22 covers subdivisions so it is not dealing with unsubdivided land. In his opinion, the only way this can be read is that all existing overhead utility cables facilities have to be in existing subdivisions in the City. The reconstruction of Hohe has required the relocation of the utility poles from the west side to the east side. He pointed out that subsection b states that overhead cable facilities which shall be relocated and/or which receive major modifications be placed underground unless the utility obtains an exception pursuant to the provisions of subparagraphs d. and e. of this section. Mr. Lund explained that there is no evidence that an exception was ever granted. He believes that HEA erred by not putting the lines underground and by failing to ask for an exception.
Mr. Lund explained that he and the other property owners have made efforts to have someone hear their complaints and this is the first time anyone has actually listened and thanked the Commission. He advised the Commission that the property owners had filed a notice of appeal to the Commission and a letter to City Manager Wrede asking for an explanation why the City is allowing HEA to make these violations of the law. In Mr. Lund’s opinion, City Manager Wrede did not give a satisfactory response. He made the following point’s regarding City Manager Wrede’s response:
ü Mr. Wrede says the City agrees that the wording in 22.10.055 is a little confusing. Mr. Lund disagrees and thinks it is clear.
ü The City believes that this is in fact implied. [1] Mr. Lund believes subsection b is very explicit.
ü Mr. Wrede is saying that subsection b means something that isn’t in print.
ü Mr. Wrede implies that the City and HEA have had an understanding to do this for a long time. Mr. Lund responded that the fact they have been violating the provisions of the Code for many years doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be stopped as soon as possible.
Mr. Lund provided photos that he took of views of the drainage on the east side. He explained that is shows where they are locating a utility pole in the drainage on the east side, after moving it from the drainage on the west side. Copies of the photos were provided for the record.
Commissioner Hess asked what HEA’s comments had been. Mr. Lund replied that HEA told him they were going to move above ground poles on Hohe.
Dr. Jay Marley, property owner on the east and west side of Hohe Street, voiced his agreement with Mr. Lund. Dr. Marley said he has spoken with Representative Seaton’s office, HEA, City Manager Wrede and Public Works. It is hard to understand who is responsible for what is going on up there because they keep getting directed to someone else. Dr. Marley it was explained to him that the difference is between roughly $45,000 to bury the lines versus stringing the lines on the other side of the road. He continued that the City has a vision for the heart of homer, referring to the town center information on the wall, and the Code says that new utilities have to be placed underground. This is a perfect opportunity to do this. Dr. Marley asked the Commission and the City of Homer to review the information Mr. Lund has provided and reconsider the possibility of having the lines placed underground.
Dr. Bill Marley stated that Mr. Lund was correct in that the utility poles have been there since before 1967. He voiced his agreement with Mr. Lund. Dr. Marley stated that it is difficult to him to read the rules and regulations and not think that if any individual went to the City, other than a governmental agency, they would be required to follow the rules. In this case the Government is usurping their own law. He expressed that he has a problem with that because the City is lacking in terms of leadership and being deserving of the respect that governmental authorities should be. The City is not leading by example, in Dr. Marley’s observation. Dr. Marley stated that the poles are in place, but not wired yet so with regard to the appeal, something would have to be done tonight.
Chair Chesley queried City Planner McKibben regarding the appeal. Ms. McKibben explained that the group has appealed the City Manager’s determination to the Planning Commission. It has not been scheduled because the proper processes have not been cleared up. If it is deemed appropriate that the Planning Commission hear the appeal, then it will come to the Commission for determination. Chair Chesley asked if they are supposed to wait for the determination. He stated that the Commission has broad authority to look at any matter that relates to City planning. Ms. McKibben responded that she is unsure how to advise the Commission. She explained that there has been an appeal filed, she is not sure if it has been accepted yet, she knows that it has not been scheduled. It may be determined that it is not appropriate to send it to the Planning Commission, in which case they would not hear it. She expressed her belief that any recommendation the Commission would make tonight it would probably negate any decision they could make on the appeal. Chair Chesley suggested that the Commission could schedule it for an item on Commission Business so the City Administration could come and talk to the Commission. Commissioner Pfeil stated that this is a time sensitive issue as HEA has already started to re-locate the poles. He asked if the Commission could recommend a stop work order. Chair Chesley responded that it is early in the agenda and he and Vice Chair Hess would confer with City Planner McKibben and consider taking it up later in the agenda.
Syd Huffnagle, City resident, asked for clarification on what he thought he heard at the last meeting. He thought Chair Chesley had asked Mr. Neal if it was possible for DOT to dedicate a corridor along the backside of his property and if that would meet Mr. Neal’s approval. He got the idea that Mr. Neal didn’t wholeheartedly approve of that. Mr. Huffnagle thinks that if that corridor is possible, his neighbors would probably approve of it. He doesn’t know how they go about pursuing it. There would need to be an extension of time to discuss with Mr. Neal, the points of making it a fact of life. He asked if there was any State money that will assist in bringing in the Heath Street extension.
Chair Chesley stated that the City is working with the DOT intersection study that shows how Homer is going to be able to handle it’s traffic flow over the next twenty years. One component of the study addresses the movement of traffic from growth areas to the core of town. The part of the study Chair Chesley had asked Mr. Neal about showed a proposed road connection to allow Ohlson Mountain, Skyline Drive, East Hill Road expansion traffic over the next twenty years to flow off East Hill Road onto to Barnett Place and eventually sweep across the proposed development, parallel the upper boundary and connect to the Heath Street extension to Pioneer Avenue. Chair Chesley continued to explain the plan for the one way couplet and expansion in that small area to deal with the traffic flow. The final report from DOT has not been issued yet, but he brought it up to Mr. Neal because it is important that significant proposed development be consistent with the transportation plans that are going on. Chair Chesley does not know about State funding, it depends on what the City Council does in regard to ranking their projects that they want to have approved. He explained that those projects go on a State Transportation Improvement List for the City to seek State funding to develop those kinds of roads.
Tom Beck, a 22-year resident of Homer, stated he is a property owner on the corner of Hohe and Cityview with about 160 feet of frontage on Hohe. He stated that he is a geologist, working for an engineering company in Anchorage as a construction manager and senior project manager. He hoped to offer some insight, having worked on DOT projects before.
The City is planning to take possession of Hohe from the State. The property owners had taken this up with DOT and the response was that their charter does not allow them to do utility upgrades unless the design of their project conflicts with existing utilities. Their position so far is that their design does not conflict with existing utilities and therefore DOT funding for placing the utilities under the ground is not appropriate. Mr. Beck disagrees with that and expressed his thought that maybe it takes another governmental body to talk to DOT to convey that message. Mr. Beck offered more specific conflicts with the existing utilities and how it has changed during the course of the project.
ü DOT held a public meeting to take input last spring. The public input stage is fairly late in the design process; it has already gone through all the required reviews from various agencies.
ü The original plan called for moving the ditch to the west to coincide with existing utility alignment.
ü The design on the east side called for replacement of the culvert under Cityview, under the driveway to his property, which is accessed from Hohe Street.
ü Last week, they had paved the access to his property with out replacing the culvert.
ü They took out the culvert under the intersection on the east side of Cityview and the culvert under his driveway and did not replace them.
Mr. Beck stated that he flew in from Anchorage to attend the public meeting that was scheduled from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, but they had already left, so he spoke to the project manager on site and discussed what the plans were. The design drawings showed they would include the items mentioned above and the notes said something to the effect of “Grade to match existing elevations of the existing ditch on the east side of Hohe Street”. Mr. Beck believes the result of finding the need to relocate the power lines to the east side of Hohe, is that the only space for them is between the sidewalk and his and some other folks property line. There was no room other than to put the poles back in the ditch on the east side. Mr. Beck expressed his concern that they are trying to make that ditch go away on the east side. In the early discussion with the project manager about the drainage he said they would put the ditch back and may line it with rock and in a later discussion said they would probably line it with rock. Now, he has found that not replacing the culverts has minimized the effectiveness of the ditch. He pointed out, as noted in last weeks Homer News, that somehow the elevation of the sidewalk was raised a little and now the ditch is now just a gentle swale along the edge of the sidewalk and it is in the bottom of that swale where the power poles are being placed. Mr. Beck stated that the City should lead by example and expressed his agreement with Dr. Bill Marley’s comments. He is concerned about the effect of filling in the ditch and losing the culverts. He feels that based on what is out there now, they can unequivocally say that DOT’s design has impacted existing utilities and we should present a united front and look to DOT to follow their own charter and fund the placement of the utilities under ground.
Commissioner Lehner asked if any drainage accommodations had been made. Mr. Beck replied that there is a storm water drain collection adjacent from Dr. Marley’s office that collects water from uphill of Cityview. Any storm water runoff from Dr. Marley’s property downhill including the road and sidewalks now does not have a ditch to drain into and the slope of the land drains it into Mr. Beck’s property, which he says is a different issue. He stated that sheet flow and run off from the road draining across the driveway into the parking area on his property. He is afraid his basement is going to become the drainage for that portion of Hohe.
Merlin Cordes spoke about the issue of safety of trying to evacuate people from Quiet Creek. He reminded the Commission of recent issues, in August and September, that some very large cities in the lower 48 have had in trying to evacuate. They have major highways where people couldn’t get out and around when things got pretty serious. If the City had to move a lot of people fast, the only way out is down to Pioneer Avenue and it is difficult to get there from some of the intersections. Mr. Cordes stated it would behoove planning to figure out and additional road from East Hill to West Hill and even beyond out to the highway. If nothing else, Homeland Security should be able to produce funds for that.
With regard to Hohe, Mr. Cordes commented that if it is $45,000 more to put it underground, once they get it all up and then figure out they should have put it underground, it will cost twice as much. It takes so much more money and time to fix it. The money that could have been save if people had just thought ahead of time and done it right the first time. Mr. Cordes commented that Planning needs to have more push to help get some of these things through.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission conducts Public hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Commission may question the public.
There were now public hearings.
PLAT CONSIDERATIONS
The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public.
A. Staff Report PL 05-118 Bayview Subdivision No. 6, Vacation of Interior Lot Line, Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
Gary Nelson, project surveyor, didn’t have any comments, but was in attendance for questions.
HESS/ PFEIL MOVED TO APPROVE BAYVEIW SUBDIVISION NUMBER SIX PRELIMINARY PLAT.
There was discussion regarding the location of the car rental office and the uses on the lot. City Planner McKibben stated her belief that the building straddles the lot line and the building serves as the office for all uses on the site.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
B. Staff Report PL 05-119 Bayview Gardens Subdivision No. 13, Vacation of Interior Lot Line, Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.
Gary Nelson, project surveyor, didn’t have any comments, but was in attendance for questions.
HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE BAYVEIW GARDEN SUBDIVISION NUMBER THIRTEEN PRELIMINARY PLAT.
It was clarified that the slopes greater than 20% would be on the final plat, rather than the preliminary plat. Ms. McKibben stated that it is a borough requirement and there are slopes that are greater than 20%.
LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO AMEND TO INCLUDE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat.
1. Per KPB code 20.12.060 M., surveyor should show areas of greater than 20% slope on the plat.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried
VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER
Chair Chesley called for a break at 8:20 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:25 pm.
C. Staff Report PL 05-108 Re: Foothills Subdivision Sunset View Estates, Addition No. 2, Preliminary Plat
City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that there is a supplemental staff report as well as the original staff report in the packet. She summarized the supplemental staff report and reviewed the additions that were recommended.
Public Works Director Meyer stated that Public Works comments are in the staff report.
Leroy Cabana, representative for Sunset View, LLC, stated that the master plan is to subdivide 41.5 acres into 92 residential lots with a long term to occur in four phases.
Phase One:
ü Comprised of 31 lots and shares the property line with West Homer Elementary. The average lot size for this phase is 15,192 square feet and includes 1,173 lineal feet of greenbelt.
ü There is a 10-foot greenbelt on each lot. Then lots that have lot lines that adjoin each other on the back have a combined 20-foot greenbelt easement. The lots that adjoin the school have the 10 feet.
ü There are two pedestrian pathways located between lot lines and the entire western boundary has a pedestrian path to allow off road access to the elementary school. Their plan is to try to get pedestrian access to the school property.
ü There is a six-foot paved pedestrian walkway on all streets within the subdivision. They are still working with Public Works to come to an agreement on which side the path way will be, their feeling is to keep them on the uphill side of the street, to help ensure visual contact between pedestrians and motorists.
ü Currently their plan is to build homes on the lots, the do not plan to sell vacant lots.
ü They intend to build approximately four to eight homes per year, with three to four homes the first year.
ü Phase one is estimated at five years to build out.
Mr. Cabana commented that in their subdivision in Girdwood, after phase one was complete they stopped selling vacant lots and sell finished houses with lawns and driveways already in.
ü All subdivision developments have geographic, demographic and economic considerations that must be included in the primary planning stages.
ü Their plan revolves around the close proximity of the schools.
ü Their focus is to build homes that are attractive and affordable to families.
ü They do not expect all homebuyers to fit this profile, but that is where they see the best use of this land and expect the market to be strong for this type of home.
ü Paved pedestrian walkways, pathways along lot lines to allow short cuts will create added value to this development.
Phase Two:
ü Comprised of 23 lots and includes lots on both sides of Sunset View Lane, from Soundview to Eric Avenue.
ü The average lot size is 15, 137 square feet.
ü 1,000 to 1,200 lineal feet of greenbelt.
ü Pedestrian pathway from lots at Sunrise Court down to Cabana Court.
Mr. Cabana commented that they are planning to have the six-foot pedestrian lane throughout and are working with Public Works and considering a rumble lane between the driving lane and the pedestrian walkway.
ü Phase two should take approximately three years to build out. All timetables are subject to permits and market conditions.
Phase Three:
ü Comprised of 25 lots on both sides of Eric Avenue and border Sunrise Court.
ü Average lot size is 14,573 square feet.
ü 547 lineal feet of greenbelt.
ü Build out time expected to be four years.
Phase Four:
ü Comprised of 13 lots on both sides of Lingstrong Way.
ü Average lot size is 16, 028 square feet.
ü Adjacent to the northwest corner of this phase the City has a dedicated park.
ü Build out time expected to be two years.
Commissioner Kranich stated that he did have an ex-parte communication with Leroy and Larry Cabana. He met and spoke to them about their subdivision. Mr. Kranich said the same information was shared at their meeting was explained this evening by Mr. Cabana.
City Planner McKibben suggested Leroy Cabana address the panhandle lots. Mr. Cabana referred the question to Roger Imhoff, project Surveyor. Mr. Imhoff stated that he and the Cabana’s haven’t had any recent discussion regarding the Public Works comments on the panhandles. Mr. Imhoff stated it was his feeling on Lot 41, which access Cabana Court, that it does not cause an issue of congestion, as you would be accessing off a cul-de-sac. Lot 56 the 20-foot panhandle at the top, accessing the lot, was designed that way because people are likely to build at the top of the lot and thought that would be an easier access point. If the owners want to move it to the south, it will need more driveway. The advantage is that at least the sewer easement would be within the panhandle portion if it were to the south.
Commissioner Foster asked if the area was subject to flooding. Mr. Imhoff replied that he is not aware of any flooding on the property. He explained that he was surveying at a rainy time and when they were surveying the Soundview right-of-way. There was only one drainage approximately between Lots 45 and 46, where there is enough of a watercourse there where a cut in the ground can be seen. Mr. Imhoff continued that its flat enough there that after the water drops off the hillside to the halfway point of the subdivision then the slopes even out pretty drastically. City Planner McKibben pointed out that there is no drainage easement shown between Lots 45 and 46. She asked if the applicant would consider adding one. Mr. Imhoff answered that he believes Bill Nelson, the engineer for the project, will be working with the DEC to formulate the drainage plan. Leroy Cabana added that between the DEC, COE and EPA there will be conditions placed for them to follow and there could also be lot line changes or even lot consolidation.
Commissioner Foster followed up stating the Borough Subdivision Code which says that the preliminary plat issued to the City must comply with the requirements of 20.12.060, one of those requirements being the locations of areas subject to inundation, flooding or storm water overflow and identify the wetlands. Dr. Foster commented that he hears them saying it will be dealt with somewhere down the line and he asked why it is not dealt with on the preliminary plat. Mr. Imhoff responded that there is no area that he would say is subject to flooding on the property, that is why it isn’t shown. Leroy Cabana added that the property is shown in FEMA’s flood plain study as not being subject to wetland. He advised the Commission that they are presently working with the COE for their wetland determination and once they have plat approval, they can take all the COE information and work it all in. It has been classified as a non-flooding property.
Commissioner Foster recalled that directly below the area a number of people expressing concern about flooding and the West Homer Elementary School had to be designed for the concerns of the flooding. He pointed out again that it isn’t identified on the preliminary plat.
Mr. Imhoff stated he did not remember the testimony being the way Commissioner Foster recalled. Mr. Imhoff recalled that Engineer Cushing had stated that there were wetlands concerns when he was engineer for the Elementary School project and they had actually moved the school to the south to in an effort to alleviate those concerns. Mr. Imhoff recalled that Mr. Williams, property owner to the south, who was concerned that had enough water supply maintained, but did not recall the word “flooding” used in previous testimony.
There was discussion of some confusion in the amount of greenbelt stated and what was shown on the map the Commission had in their packet. It was clarified that the greenbelt is to be as Mr. Cabana stated previously in the meeting. City Planner McKibben stated that she had received a corrected copy from the engineer. Leroy Cabana reported that his plan is to keep the greenbelt areas undisturbed. Some replanting of natural vegetation may be needed after construction, but the greenbelt area will be off limits to development, including structures, lawns and fences. There is to be no tree removal unless they are deemed to be a risk. It was clarified that “Greenbelt Easement” is not an official term.
Commissioner Lehner commented that she sees an opportunity that she would like to promote. She pointed out trails she believes exist in the area. She asked about a trail that would connect all of those and creating a trial down to the high school, so the kids don’t have to walk on the roads. Leroy Cabana conferred with Mr. Imhoff regarding a trail system located near the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Imhoff went to the map and pointed out a location of a 10-foot trail right-of-way and a noted a gulley that is on the plat of Wildflower Ranch Subdivision has a trail running up it. Mr. Imhoff stated that the existing trails are not covered by a trail easement. Ms. Lehner and Mr. Imhoff had a brief discussion of trails. Mr. Cabana stated that he understands the need for trails and peoples desires for alternate modes of transportation than an automobile. He feels they have gone to great lengths to accomplish that and pointed out he is not familiar with a single subdivision in Homer that has pedestrian pathways or greenbelts. He clarified the areas for pedestrian rights-of-way and stated that the greenbelts are not for public use. They are private property ownership and there will be rooms on houses built relatively close to those areas and are expecting that there will be some appreciation of privacy not to have people walking down every property line. They have 26 feet of paved road with six feet of pedestrian walkway. He feels that they have done their share.
Commissioner Hess questioned an area that was marked for pedestrian easement that appears to be out of the subdivision. Mr. Cabana clarified that he was in error marking that spot as a pedestrian easement. Commissioner Hess expressed his appreciation for the Cabana’s taking their comments into consideration and including walkways. He asked how the walkways are going to be separated from traffic. Mr. Cabana replied that originally they had discussed a white fog line but in recent discussions with public works, they have discussed a rumble lane. Mr. Cabana stated it is something they will work out with Ppublic Works. Ms. McKibben clarified that the paved strip of road is wider but the driving lanes are narrower. Mr. Cabana added that the typical roadbed is 24 feet and a typical travel lane is 12 feet. There is encouragement in the comprehensive roadway plan to create narrower roads to slow down traffic in subdivisions. It was an easy step to narrow 12-foot lanes to 10-foot, which gives them an extra four feet, then adding two feet of pavement leaves a six foot pedestrian way. Mr. Cabana pointed out that a typical sidewalk is only four to five feet, using Bartlett Street as an example.
Commissioner Hess suggested since the pedestrian ways by Lot 61 that run down to Cabana Court, are off the road bed and the Cabanas should ensure that they are going to be accepted by the City. That relieves the developer of the liability of that easement. Mr. Cabana responded that he expects the City would let him know if they don’t want them. He continued that City Planner McKibben and Public Works Director Meyer have both seen the plan and expects they would have said something if they didn’t want them. Mr. Imhoff stated that on past subdivision plats that have been recorded there has been a general note that the City Manager signs accepting the pedestrian easement on behalf of the City of Homer. He explained that the developers have felt comfortable with that simple certificate and the City likes it because it doesn’t commit them to spend funds to build the trail.
Commissioner Lehner pointed out that the lots don’t permit them to come straight into the back of the school, they have to go along the roadway. It was pointed out that the schoolyard is fenced off. Mr. Cabana commented that there is an existing trail system that is used in that area.
Commissioner Connor expressed her appreciation for the narrower roads, but has a hard time with the pathway being right next to the roadway. She asked if there was another way to do a separated path that wouldn’t cost a lot of money. Mr. Cabana said they have discussed a couple different ways. One problem with it being off the roadbed is that a lot of the traffic along the pathway is expected to occur during the winter and the City does not have a viable way of clearing a separated pathway. The way it is now, the City can plow and sand it.
Chair Chesley concurred with Mr. Cabana. He said he has looked into it and as a winter community, there is the issue of how do you keep the paths clear. Walking on them, in part, is a way, but there is a time of the year where they become very icy and slick. Right now the best chance, in a winter community, to have a plowed, maintained surface is adjacent to the roadway.
There was discussion that there are communities that have equipment to take care of trails off the main road. If the City is going to have trails, they need to look at these issues and see that there are other ways to do it, not that the Cabanas have to deal with that, but the City needs to look at that in the City’s future.
Mr. Cabana commented that it is worthy to note that paved surfaces in Urban Residential Zoning are only required to be 22 feet, so they are constructing another four feet of pavement. Commission Kranich pointed out that the Cabanas are in Rural Residential and aren’t required to pave at all. Mr. Cabana stated that they are not developers, they are builders and they are taking on this large endeavor to have a steady supply of land to build houses on for a long time. He reminded the Commission that this is a twenty year project, not 60 or 70 houses squirting out of the ground in one or two years. That is their concept and why they went the trouble of adding amenities that aren’t called for, but are beneficial.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that the department struggles with the pedestrian access issue as well. Mr. Meyer made the following points:
ü When Public Works makes their suggestions, they are trying not to put too much of a financial burden on the developer.
ü Having the Elementary School there begs for pedestrian access.
ü Public Works would love to have the people, equipment and power to handle off road trails, but when City Council can’t come up with money to replace the equipment they have, it is difficult to suggest to the Planning Commission or the Developer that they build a lot of trails.
ü There are a few trails they do maintain, like the spit trail, but resources are slim.
ü The City is working to come up with ways to provide pedestrian access, for example, by widening streets when they are repaved as Mr. Cabana is doing his.
ü It provides an economical way for the City to keep it plowed and sanded with the equipment and manpower that they have now.
ü It is a compromise, but they are trying to find a way to have some pedestrian access in a cost effective manner.
With regard to the ten-foot pedestrian access easements that the developer has shown, Mr. Meyer commented that he understands the developer is trying to minimize cost and encumbrances, but Public Works probably will not build a trail in a ten-foot wide easement. The standard width for a pedestrian access easement is twenty feet. He pointed out that if it is to be a green easement, developing and maintaining the trail would remove all the vegetation.
There was discussion about towns with sidewalks that are separated from the streets and when the City didn’t maintain them, the kids trudged through the snow, but they were safe. Pedestrian access on the roadway seems dangerous. Mr. Meyer didn’t disagree, but cost needs to be brought into the equation, including the cost of right-of-way and they are doing the best they can. This is the first subdivision with trails and it is a stepping-stone to where the City wants to be. There was discussion that in some areas the property owners are responsible for maintaining their portion of sidewalk, but in Homer, the City is expected to do it. The people who live in the subdivisions need to have responsibility too. Commissioner Lehner added that if they designate the trails, people will use them.
Paul Gavenus, City resident, suggested that the Commission deny the preliminary plat with Mr. Hess’s letter from the minutes on page 38 of the packet attached when it goes up to the Borough. Short of denial, until the Code is revised, the City needs to require 600 feet of sidewalk to the school to be put in by the developer, a green area or neighborhood park be included, and the density be decreased.
Larry Cabana, commented that the last time he came before the Commission he got beat up pretty bad, but he is glad they had discussions with City Planner McKibben and Public Works Director Meyer, a lot of good came out of the meeting. He hopes the Commission takes into consideration that with the paving they are doing, they are trying to make a user-friendly neighborhood. He pointed out the things they are working on now are not required by Code, but they are looking down the road twenty years from now to have a nice neighborhood ten to fifteen years from now, not just today. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Mr. Imhoff commented he thinks everyone in the Community wants to see the older and newer neighborhoods develop in a nice rural/urban setting with parks, trails and so on. To the extent that the improvements are developed it boils down to if the developer can make it work and come out on the plus side of the profit scale. Mr. Imhoff suggested that since the community sentiment is pro along the lines of these types of improvements, the Planning Commission, City Council and community should propose something in the way of giving the developers a financial break to promote these, rather than having these head butting situations that we keep running into. Other communities seem to have grappled with this and they have beautiful pocket parks in big cities, sidewalks separated from the streets, thirty foot trails that are beautiful pedestrian ways with landscaping. These cities have found ways to make it profitable for the developers and he doesn’t see why the City can’t do the same things through tax credits or other means to make it work.
Leroy Cabana agreed with Mr. Imhoff’s comments. Mr. Cabana understands the questions and concerns, but the best use of the property has to be considered. Commissioner Lehner’s project down the road has different demographic and geographic conditions. With Mr. Cabana’s project, the school has to be taken into consideration and the best use of the land is to build homes that people with school age children can afford. The developer has to be able to balance the project with the amenities people would like.
Chair Chesley closed the public comment portion and asked for a motion from the Commission.
PFEIL/KRANICH MOVED TO ACCEPT
FOOT HILL SUBDIVISION SUNSET VIEW ESTATES NUMBER TWO PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat with the following recommendations:
1. Construct roads and pedestrian ways per the recommendations of Public Works listed above.
2. Submit a wetlands jurisdictional determination from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to the execution of the Subdivision Development Agreement. If a wetlands delineation and or permit are required, these also shall be submitted.
3. Recommend moving the panhandle of lot 56 to the south of lot 55 to give greater allowance for gravity sewer for lot 56.
4. Recommend relocating the proposed panhandle of lot 41 from Cabana Court to Sunset Lane, possibly through lot 48. This would better allow for gravity sewer and also minimize the driveway approach congestion that so often occurs in cul-de-sacs with only twenty feet of road frontage.
5. Twenty-foot wide drainage maintenance easements should be platted along existing and proposed drainage ways. An easement may be needed along the lot line between lots 63 and 64 to provide for drainage from the Sunrise Court cul-de-sac.
6. Work with Planning staff on street naming issues.
Commissioner Pfeil stated that he appreciates the developers doing what they have for easements, trails and walkways. He said they are trying to work with the developers, they encourage development, and they just want it done right for future generations. Mr. Pfeil agrees that there is a need for denser development close to town so people can afford to live here.
Commissioner Kranich agrees with Mr. Pfeil’s comments and fully supports the subdivision the way it has been presented. He brought up a point that came up while he was talking with the Cabana’s. With their subdivision being set in between a couple of previously platted subdivisions, they are a little bit out of the parameters that Commissioner Lehner spoke of previously, normally considering 10% of the land area for rights-of-way. The information he was given shows they have 9 acres of right-of-way, out of 40 acres, from that they would subtract easements, greenbelt areas and so forth. They have had a tremendous deduction from their gross acreage to fit with the previous ones.
Commissioner Kranich further commented that he understands where the market has gone and it has somewhat dictated that the Rural Residential subdivision will pave even though it is not in the Code. There have been three subdivisions that the Commission has been working on and with the paving they are working outside the parameters of the Code. Mr. Kranich reviewed the Public Works requirements between the three subdivisions:
ü On September 21st, Streamhill Park’s Public Works comments stated that if pedestrian access is provided along road alignment, it is recommended that a 26 foot paved roadway surface provide for a four foot walking lane. It is further stated that the developer has the option of building the road width per the recommendations of Public Works.
ü On October 5, Quiet Creek’s Public Works comments the roads were being constructed per the typical rural roadway section standard, with no mention of width or walkways in Public Works recommendations. In the design manual, the typical roadway standard does not have a walking lane on it. The staff recommendation was that the developer shall meet the requirements of Public Works.
ü Foothills Subdivision’s staff recommendation is to build the roads and pedestrian ways per the recommendation of Public Works.
Commissioner Lehner spoke in defense of Streamhill Park that they had the option to do four-foot walkways on the road but chose to do an off road pedestrian trail system.
City Planner McKibben commented that the first recommendation for Foothills Subdivision had the same recommendations, but after meeting with the Cabanas the recommendation was changed because they had no objection to the additional six feet on the road.
Lengthy discussion ensued and several points were brought up or discussed.
ü Several Commissioners expressed their appreciation for the developer’s changes.
ü The subdivision needs open space for children to play and to decrease the density.
ü The need for drainages, and wetlands to be identified on the plat.
ü The original staff report for this subdivision made reference to parcels on the north part of the subdivision may be subject to slope development and that needs to be taken into account in the beginning so property owners know the limitations of building on those lots.
ü Previous plats from this surveyor have included language that references areas with known flooding.
ü No information has been received that this area has flooded in the past.
ü No one from the school has contacted staff with concerns.
ü The Planning Commission handbook, which is only a guidance document, recommends identifying location and type drainage ditches, open spaces on plats.
ü Borough Code 20.12.060(D) states D. A vicinity map, drawn to scale showing location of proposed subdivision, north arrow if different from plat orientation, township and range, section lines, roads, political boundaries and prominent natural and manmade features, such as shorelines or streams.
ü Comment was made that streams are drainages.
ü Typically staff uses the term drainage in their recommendations when they know there is one to be shown.
ü Drainage systems need to be specified to know where appropriate places to subdivide and build are. Standing water, as was discovered between Lots 45 and 46, is inundation so it should be noted.
ü A better review of the natural features could have been done to incorporate a lot of open space and still had a large amount of lots.
ü The pedestrian walkway on the roadbed is unsafe, regardless of the six feet of space or the rumble strip.
ü The developer will be building the homes so they can quality control it every step.
ü If Sunset didn’t connect all the way through and cul-de-sacs were put in it may afford an opportunity to add open space, incorporate more pedestrian movement, and not cut down on the number of lots. Maintaining the wooded area would offer privacy.
Chair Chesley thanked the Cabanas for their work and commented that they are setting the bar higher than they have seen in other plats. He commented that Public Works stated they would need 20-feet to have a meaningful pedestrian easement to construct and maintain down the road. He asked Mr. Cabana if the easement between Lots 61 and 62 and Lots 29 and 28 if he would do that. Mr. Cabana responded that mobile homes are not allowed and with the greenbelts, pedestrian easements and setbacks lots are getting narrower. Mr. Cabana stated he is willing to look at it but was not going to agree to it at this point.
Mr. Cabana responded to the discussion of pedestrian easement. The reason the Cabana’s designed it as they have is because they have been assured by Public Works that this is the method they are going to employ on city streets as they conduct their own improvements. Although they are out in front of everyone with this, someone had better tell Public Works to reverse their course or this will be the standard. Mr. Cabana said they share the concerns that were brought up tonight but were unable to find an easy solution. Mr. Cabana suggested they be allowed to develop their project with the six foot pedestrian way, and when the City gets their big budget, they can come in and put in their curb and five-foot sidewalk. Mr. Cabana said he is willing to look at things that were brought up tonight, but needs to talk with his surveyor, his engineer and his brothers.
Chair Chesley called for a break at 10:15 pm. The meeting resumed at 10:21 pm.
Chair Chesley recapped and addressed concerns from the Commissioners.
ü The guidance the Commission has in the code which helps define density in Rural Residential Zoning is the current standards of the dimensional requirements that the density is driven by the availability of sewer and water. Minimum lot size is 10,000 if water and sewer are available.
ü This subdivision has 20-foot greenbelt easements for the first time. It may not be a pocket park, but there is no clear basis in the code to require either.
ü At a previous meeting there was discussion about what to do regarding the trail activity in the northeast corner and whether it should come through Eric Avenue and Fairveiw. But they are not in a position to require trail amenities and easements.
ü The developer is willing to look at 20-foot pedestrian easements versus 10-foot easements.
ü Drainages are identified with the exception of the one Mr. Imhoff mention and was discussed tonight.
ü The pedestrian easement in the roadbed may not be ideal, but it is far safer than most other areas. Daybreeze Park, for example, has no pedestrian amenities.
Chair Chesley commented that looking at things in a continuum, this is a big step and not one to be taken lightly. Asphalt is expensive and he understands the need for balance in what can be brought to the table. There is not one subdivision template that fits every subdivision in the City.
LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED THAT THE GREENBELT EASEMENTS BE DESIGNATED FOR PEDESTRIAN USE.
Commissioner Lehner cited safety, health and general welfare regarding the safety of children. It will provide an off road travel corridor for the safety of pedestrians moving across the corridor.
Commissioner Kranich commented that if it is for pedestrian use, it would have to be a pedestrian easement. If the greenbelt is private property, property owners are not going to want people walking through it because they will be liable.
There was discussion that it would have to be some type of easement to transfer to the City to assume responsibility.
Before calling for the vote Chair Chesley stated that while the motion has merit, he doesn’t see how it can be required.
VOTE: YES: LEHNER
NO: HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, CONNOR, PFEIL, KRANICH
Motion failed.
There was discussion regarding handling of the motion from the September 21regular meeting that was postponed. City Planner McKibben commented that the recommendations from the last staff report have been amended. Chair Chesley pointed out that the policy and procedures manual states the Commission is to approve or deny the preliminary plat. Ms. McKibben stated the pending main motion.
HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO MAKE
WRITTEN COMMENTS ON FOOTHILLS SUBDIVISION SUNSET VIEW ESTATES NO. 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
There was brief discussion for the wording of the motion.
KRANICH/ MOVED TO AMEND TO APPROVE FOOTHILLS SUBDIVISION SUNSET VIEW ESTATES NUMBER TWO PRELIMINARY PLAT INCLUDING FORWARDING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF REPORT PL05-108 SUPPLEMENTAL.
Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat with the following recommendations:
1. Construct roads and pedestrian ways per the recommendations of Public Works listed above.
2. Submit a wetlands jurisdictional determination from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to the execution of the Subdivision Development Agreement. If a wetlands delineation and or permit are required, these also shall be submitted.
3. Recommend moving the panhandle of lot 56 to the south of lot 55 to give greater allowance for gravity sewer for lot 56.
4. Recommend relocating the proposed panhandle of lot 41 from Cabana Court to Sunset Lane, possibly through lot 48. This would better allow for gravity sewer and also minimize the driveway approach congestion that so often occurs in cul-de-sacs with only twenty feet of road frontage.
5. Twenty-foot wide drainage maintenance easements should be platted along existing and proposed drainage ways. An easement may be needed along the lot line between lots 63 and 64 to provide for drainage from the Sunrise Court cul-de-sac.
6. Work with Planning staff on street naming issues.
VOTE (Motion to Amend): KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR.
FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO IDENTIFY ALL DRAINAGES WITH A TWENTY-FOOT SETBACK FROM ALL DRAINAGE BANKS CITING 20.12.050(B), 20.12.060(D), 20.12.060(H).
Commissioner Foster commented that it is important to identify the natural drainages and expressed concern when the engineer doesn’t have connecting ones. They need to be identified in a critical area like this.
Commissioner Kranich questioned what happens when the engineer identifies them, draws up the easements on them then DEC, the COE or EPA comes along and says that isn’t where it is going to be and it has to be changed. Chair Chesley pointed out that the benefit is that it is a requirement for them to show the drainage on the preliminary plat. When the subdivision agreement comes about, they are already noted for their review.
VOTE: YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, PFEIL, CHESLEY, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
There was brief discussion regarding the panhandle requirement. It was understood that the developer would work with Public Works, it was also pointed out that the developer has a plan for dealing with the sewer on Lot 56. Mr. Cabana stated he would work with Public Works on that item.
CONNOR/KRANICH MOVED TO INCREASE THE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS TO 20-FOOT WIDE WHICH IS THE STANDARD EXCEPT FOR THE ONE ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY.
There was discussion that Public Works had requested it, but it is not a written recommendation. The point was brought up that widening would not necessarily protect the vegetation along both sides. City Planner McKibben said she is not aware of anything in the Code that addresses trails and pedestrian ways. The Non Motorized Trails and Transportation Plan may, but can’t recall what it says.
CONNOR/PFEIL MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE IT BE A RECOMMENDATION.
VOTE: YES: PFEIL, CONNOR, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER
Motion carried.
VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, LEHNER, HESS, FOSTER
NO: KRANICH
HESS/PFEIL MOVED TO CHANGE WORDING FROM PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT TO PEDESTRIAN WAY EASEMENT.
It was clarified that Commissioner Hess was referring to the wording on the plat.
Reference was made to HCC
21.32. City Planner McKibben read the
definition as:
"Pedestrian ways" means a maintained walkway path, no less than four (4) feet wide, that connects focal points of pedestrian activity such as, but not limited, to other pedestrian ways, trails, transit stops, street or parking area crossings, or building entry points. Sidewalks are accepted as pedestrian ways. She recommended against it because they are applying a definition that was created for the purpose of large retail and they are trying to apply it to a different purpose. She recommended using language in the Non Motorized Trails and Transportation Plan. There was also discussion that the definition says, “maintained” and the Commission had been advocating self maintained through use.
VOTE: NO: CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
YES: HESS
Chair Chesley asked that it be confirmed with the City Attorney to ensure they correctly referring to the term, so they are consistent.
VOTE: (Main Motion as Amended): YES: LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL
NO: CONNOR
Motion carried.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for consideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask question s of staff, applicants, and the public.
A. Bridge Creek Water Shed Protection District Enforcement Information
Commissioner Foster stated his concern is not only with Bridge Creek but any area that has a sensitive resource that can be disrupted by illegal or non-permitted activity. Dr. Foster recounted that in the case of Bridge Creek the Commission postponed action until the packet was complete on a mitigation plan. Following that action the property owner proceeded to start building without any type of protection for the soils. He appears to be building beyond the allowable limits and is moving a lot of dirt. The Planning Department a week ago and he is still building. He asked what the standard operating procedure is.
City Planner McKibben responded that after the Commission addressed the particular mitigation plan the applicant came in and clarified that if he modified his plan and stayed within the allowable coverage he would not have to come back before the Commission. Ms. McKibben responded that he could bring in a new site plan and get a zoning permit. She explained that if he is going to come back for a mitigation plan he should document what he does and take photographs of the work to show what he has done. It came to staff’s attention that he had started building with out bringing in his new site plan for approval. He has been contacted and he brought back a site plan and he was just over the 4.2% and staff is addressing that right now.
There was discussion regarding issuing stop work orders and the concern of dealing with deterrence to ensure these things don’t continue to happen, especially in the critical area of our water supply.
B. Homer Comprehensive Plan Update – Request by the HAPC to place
the Homer Comprehensive Plan on the City of Homer website for public
access.
Chair Chesley briefly explained the
purpose of his memo is to make the Comprehensive Plan available electronically
while work is being done to update it.
FOSTER/PFEIL MOVED TO PUT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THE CITY OF HOMER WEBSITE AND SUPPORT THE MEMO.
There was discussion that the plan is not
in an electronic format and would have to be scanned.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 05-120 Re: Ordinance
05-17, Amending HCC 21.68, Of the City Council
Amending Homer City Code Chapter 21.68, Concerning Appeals Under the Homer
Zoning Code and Enacting Section 21.30.030 to Authorize Setting Zoning Fees by
Resolution.
City Planner McKibben summarized
the staff report. She advised them that
City Council has scheduled a public hearing for November 14 with a second
reading November 28. The earliest the
Commission could hold a public hearing is November 2. She directed the Commission to a laydown from
Frank Griswold regarding the ordinance.
Bill Smith expressed the
community’s appreciation for the Commissions willingness to listen to the
public and take the time to hear their details. There are bodies that are not very approachable by the
public. Mr. Smith wanted to offer some
information for the Commission to consider on a philosophical basis. There are separate parties that are
protected, the City staff, the City as an organization and the City as a community. He believes some are intact to protect the
bureaucracy and the community is largely left out of the action. Mr. Smith expressed his disagreement with
the ordinance an advised the Commission that he would bring in a more detailed
analysis for their review.
Dave Scheer commented that he
read the ordinance when it came up for the first reading for the City
Council. He requested that the
Commission look at it carefully and listen to the public testimony. It is the scariest ordinances he has ever seen. The City Council has started to institute
fees and now they are trying to cut off appeals.
Chair Chesley asked if he could
have a motion to move this to public hearing for November 2nd.
FOSTER/PFEIL SO MOVED.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
D.
Staff Report PL 05-109 Re: Proposed Amendment to HCC 21.45.040 (b)
Dimensional
Requirements (b) Building Setbacks (1).
City
Planner McKibben reminded the Commission that they held a public hearing on
back in August.
PFEIL/FOSTER
MOVED TO MOVE ITEMS D THROUGH G TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
There
was no discussion.
VOTE: YES:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion
carried.
E.
Staff Report PL 05-93 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code
21.48 Site Development Requirements and Homer City Code 21.44 Rural
Residential, 21.45 Urban Residential, 21.47 Residential Office, Adding
Development Activity Plan (DAP) and Storm Water Plan (SWP)
Requirements. Continued from August 17 & October 5, 2005
Homer Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
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.
G.
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.
H. Staff Report PL 05-117 Time Limited Moratorium for Large Scale
Subdivisions.
Chair Chesley commented that there has
been a lot of concern and question in the community as to whether the
Commission is going to do this.
Commissioner Hess stated that he does not
want to see any more large scale subdivisions come before them before the are
done with their work. Commissioner
Connor agreed.
HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO POSTPONE ITEM H TO
THEIR NEXT MEETING.
There was no discussion.
VOTE:
YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
I.
Staff Report PL 04-109 Re: Commission Work List, On-going.
There was no discussion.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster reported that they have had very light Borough meetings. Commissioner Lehner’s subdivision is coming before them at the next meeting. Nothing has come from the denial the Commission had two weeks ago.
B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
City Planner McKibben reported that she went to a meeting in Anchorage that was hosted by Northern Dynasty on the Pebble Mine. She has a notebook with information if anyone would like to see it. She reminded the Commission that there is a calendar in their materials for scheduling additional meetings and work sessions.
They agreed to schedule a special meeting for November 30 at 6:00 pm but did not specify a topic.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units.
A. Memorandum 05-140 Re:
Homer Intersections
B. Resolution 05-85(A) Re: The Community and Economic Impact Standards Task Force
C. Correspondence dated October 10, 2005 from Robin Lund
There was discussion about the spreadsheet with the status of the zoning violations being included.
Commissioner Foster stated he is unclear about the itinerant merchant permit and questioned what was happening on Councilmember Shadle’s lot at the corner of Main and the Sterling Highway.
City Planner McKibben said that until the sign was there it was considered an accessory building and didn’t require a permit. When the sign was put up the business owner came in and they are working toward a plan. Chair Chesley reminded them that if it is to be a commercial structure, it has to have Fire Marshall review. There is an itinerant merchant for Try My Thai. She was unsure of the time period for the permit.
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address the Commission on any subject. The Chair may prescribe time limits.
Paul Gavenus thanked the Commission for all their work and he thinks Commissioner Foster is on to something good. They need all the information they can get on natural drainages, slopes and contour lines before the preliminary plat is approved. It will help them make the best decisions for the City.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners my comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused absence.
Commissioner Pfeil thanked the group for their work. He made comment to the power pole situation, that it is an important issue they need to discuss. He recommended that the Commission ask the City to put a stop work order on the work on Hohe until this is addressed. From what he has heard in testimony, it is not right what the City is doing.
PFEIL/KRANICH MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT WE AS A COMMISSION ASK THE CITY TO PUT A STOP WORK ORDER ON THE WORK ON HOHE UNTIL THIS IS ADDRESSED.
Commissioner Foster commented that if there was a 20-acre parcel that has power lines going over it and then someone subdivided the 20 acres, that is the only way that the part b makes sense, he does not see it designed that way.
Chair Chesley commented that he agrees in principal that they need clarification on interpreting the code for this matter so the Commission has guidance from here forward on how to interpret the Code. Mr. Chesley explained that the Public Works Director told him during a break that there is a lot of City horsepower being expended on this and it is being reviewed at higher levels. He questioned whether they want to take any action on this tonight.
Commissioner Kranich said he understands where the property owners are coming from and can see both sides of the coin.
There was more discussion that the work is already being done and whether it would be prudent to stop work while there is a means for power in place while they are moving the poles. It is just going to get more expensive the further along they get.
Commissioner Hess commented that if we are going after this aspect of the City, why don’t we just go after all the things they are in violation of. He can list fifty things they could talk about that they aren’t doing to code.
Chair Chesley made comment with reference to the chain of command. When zoning issues come before the Commission, the staff is empowered to make interpretations and work with the Code. If they need clarification on an issue or interpretation, the Planning Commission is empowered to make an interpretation of the Code. If the Commission does not agree with staff’s interpretation they have the authority to determine the course of action that is to be taken. The Commission is responsible to the City Council ultimately, so the Council can say whether the Commission has interpreted it correctly, the Council has the ultimate say. He suggested they could hold a special public hearing. Commissioner Pfeil argued that the poles will be up by then. Chair Chesley responded that there is nothing else to do unless Mr. Pfeil is saying he wants to make a motion tonight and if so asked what it would be.
Commissioner Pfeil said he would recommend to the City to put a stop work order on this project until this is clarified.
Deputy City Clerk advised the Commission that it is inappropriate to take action on an item that has not been advertised on their agenda. She stated she did not know if it would be appropriate to put it in a memorandum to send it up the chain of command to bring it to everyone’s attention that the Commission has been hearing about this and is a situation that needs to be addressed, but unless it is advertised, the Commission can’t take action on it.
Chair Chesley clarified that Mr. Pfeil has made a motion that a stop work order be issued pending a resolution of the Code. City Planner McKibben asked for it to be repeated.
PFEIL/KRANICH AMENDED IT TO THE FOLLOWING: Make a recommendation via memorandum from the Commission to the Council, City Manager and City Planner for a stop work order on the Hohe electrical utilities until a resolution of the appeal.
There was discussion that the copy of the appeal is not date stamped and it was pointed out that the copy they have was from Mr. Lund. The City’s copy should have a date stamp.
Chair Chesley called for a vote.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Commissioner Connor advised the Commission that there will be a forum presenting a different perspective on the Pebble Mine proposal on November 17 hosted by the Cook Inlet Alliance. She will let them know where and what time.
Commissioner Foster mention there is a small group of folks who have shown interest in the concept of the gateway community. There is a program that is supported by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife. A short film will be presented Tuesday from 5:00 to 6:30 at Islands and Ocean. The group may look at doing a daylong workshop.
Commissioner Hess asked about the laydown resolution. City Planner McKibben explained that Council approved their amendments to the policy and procedures manual and she will be getting them revised copies.
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 11:59pm. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for November 2, 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: