Session 05-16, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:02 p.m. on September 7, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

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

 

STAFF:            CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

                        DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON

                        PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER

 

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 Pfeil requested that Item D – Town Center Development Plan under PUBLIC HEARINGS be moved as Item A with Items A, B and C renamed as Items B. C and D respectively.  City Planner McKibben stated Item B – Vacation of Portion of ROW on Victoria Place has been withdrawn.  Item A – Reconsideration of Approval of July 20, 2005 Minutes will be heard as Item A under COMMISSION BUSINESS.  Items A, B, C, D and E will be renamed as Items B, C, D, E and F respectively.  Commissioner Hess requested that Item E – Lot Sizes Within the Rural Residential Zoning District be moved as Item C with renamed Items C and D to be renamed as Items D and E.

 

The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

 

A.                 Approval of August 17, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes.

 

LEHNER/HESS – MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES UNTIL THE MOTION ON PAGE 6 IS CONFIRMED.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

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.

 

Katherine George requested that the Commissioners use their microphones so the audience could hear.

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

A.     Reconsideration Of Approval Of July 20, 2005 Homer Advisory Planning Commission Minutes.

 

CHESLEY/HESS – MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE JULY 20, 2005 MINUTES.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

This item was moved to Item A under COMMISSION BUSINESS under approval of the agenda.

 

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.        Staff Report PL 05-83   Re:  Town Center Development Plan An Update to the Homer Comprehensive Plan.

 

Barb Seaman, Vice Chair of the Town Center Development Committee (TCDC) stated that she attended a portion of the Worksession the TCDC had with the Commission and now has more concerns.  The TCDC has been stressing that the plans are conceptual; the tools used to create them are flexible and can be used beyond what is drawn in the two alternative plans.  Comments made by the Commission indicated they might not pick a plan, because they are conceptual.  Ms. Seaman, addressing the Commission as an individual, asked them to select one of the alternatives.  She stated it would be better to chose one of the plans and modify it to fit the needs of the City.  She explained if one of the two plans is not selected it may go back to ground zero.  Ms. Seaman is concerned the plan will sit on a shelf and the work already done will have to be duplicated.  She suggested that the Commission keep it at the top of their list to prevent it from dropping off.  She hopes the Commission recommends an addition to one of the plans the City takes initiative to by either designating a City Hall site, a road site, or something on the ground that is an action item to inspire people.  Ms. Seaman thanked the Commission for the work they do.

 

City Planner McKibben explained the TCDC had their first meeting October 2003.  At the open house over 78 people signed in and offered comments to the plan.  The plan was well received by the community and during the three-hour open house staff and committee members were busy talking to folks and answering questions.  Ms. McKibben said the plan is a nice piece of work the City can be proud of.

 

Richard “Bumppo” Bremicker, Homer resident, provided the Commission with a letter and map addressed to the TCDC.  He has been interested in the project for over a year and has attended some of the meetings.  Mr. Bremicker likes the design of Option A.  Currently the main idea is quite a bit of park or open green space that is broken up.  He believes it would be nicer to have a larger green space all in the center.  It would give the development a viewscape and add to the value of the development around it.  He is not opposed to development in the area.  The topography of the area would provide a nice view of the bay for City Hall.  The plan shows a road cutting down through the bluff which seems like a poor way of doing things; a road down next to Petro Marine would give a nicer flow.  A pond in the middle would allow for kids to fish or ice skate.  The pond would have natural drainage.  Mr. Bremicker said if the City makes this happen he asks that the residential areas be worked on first.  Having people move into the central part of the City would help the town grow and prosper.

 

Commissioner Foster questioned the use of the two rectangles Mr. Bremicker had outlined on the map.  Mr. Bremicker answered they could be businesses or residential with a nice view.  He said leaving the bluff, removing the road and placing buildings in the area would be nice.      

 

HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO BRING THE TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE COMMISSION.

 

Chair Chesley said because it was Ms. Seaman’s personal opinion that the Commission select one of the plans it was his request that the Commission stick with what they were tasked with by the TCDC.  Chair Chesley explained the TCDC asked the Planning Commission to move the whole plan forward as a group rather than selecting plan A or B.  Both plans A and B were based on a set of assumptions that were placed in a jar.  By removing one or two of them a development could look very different from plan A or B.  City Planner McKibben concurred with Chair Chesley and stated there are good reasons behind Ms. Seaman’s recommendations in selecting a plan.  In the systems approach there are differences between plan A and B including types of streets and view shed vs. view corridor.  They are the primary differences that are policy decisions rather than circumstances that happen at the time.

 

Commissioner Foster said his personal preference was the view shed, but he supports the view corridors as it supports the majority.

 

Commissioner Connor liked the idea Mr. Bremicker had about open space, which was a common desire of most people that responded.  She likes the idea of nixing the road that comes out in the middle of the project and placing it near Petro Marine.  Commissioner Connor said a large retail store with a large parking lot around it is not a great idea for a town anchor or pedestrian friendly Town Square. 

 

Commissioner Kranich remarked that the flow of plan A would be better, as plan B is more broken up.  If the road that interconnects on Sterling Highway curved to the west it would be coming down to the west of the bluff and it wouldn’t require much contouring of the bluff.  It would allow for a free flow of traffic from north to south.  It would give the feeling of a large green area.

 

Commissioner Pfeil prefers plan A over B and would like to see City Hall started tomorrow right in the middle of Town Center.

 

Commissioner Hess questioned moving the road and its impact of coming out so close to another road on the Sterling Highway.  He is beginning to change his opinion about large retail, stating an anchor is a good thing and would add a lot of vitality to the Town Center.  Commissioner Hess said locating some of the parking as offsite parking would require patrons to walk to retail establishments and would increase business for all merchants.  The anchor concept is used in malls and works well for town planning.

 

Commissioner Lehner would like to see as much consolidated green space as possible where people can come together for recreational purposes.  She is more interested in getting community input and basing her decision on that.

 

CONNOR/PFEIL – MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND OPTION A AS THE PREFERRED OPTION.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

FOSTER/LEHNER – MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE:  (main motion) YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

B.     Staff Report 05-101 Re:  Request for a Conditional Use Permit 05-15/Straka for ground disturbance over 6,000 sq. ft. at Jonan Circle as required by HCC 21.59.080, Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District

 

City Planner McKibben read a portion of the staff report and staff recommendations.

 

Stephen Straka, applicant, said he was available to answer questions. There was no public comment or questions from the Commission.

 

HESS/LEHNER – MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CUP 05-101 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.

 

Commissioner Kranich pointed out any runoff would be in the Bridge Creek Reservoir or any associated stream or other watercourse.  He questioned how there could be any runoff without it affecting the reservoir.  Chair Chesley remarked that it refers to untreated runoff.  City Planner McKibben said there will be no impervious surfaces that will be created.  They are simply taking out vegetation and clearing a pathway and will reseed.  There is no need to create a drainage system as the area being disturbed is temporary.

 

Commissioner Foster remarked if there is a runoff from the top of the road because of trail compaction it will need to be directed to the settling pond.

 

City Planner McKibben said the aerial photo shows a stream a significant distance away.  Commissioner Kranich questioned if the reseeding would be done yet this fall.  City Planner McKibben said the next available growing season would be the reasonable way to apply it.  Commissioner Connor said the language was contradictory in that it stated runoff shall be directed into an engineered drainage system or into a natural drainage.  City Planner McKibben said the language came from the Code.  Chair Chesley explained the purpose of an engineered drainage system is to reduce sediments and a natural drainage system slows the flow of water to allow sediments to trap out.  He said the natural system on site that does the filtration on site would make it appropriate to use that feature.  Commissioner Connor referred to Mark Kinney’s report suggesting that runoffs be directed from established drainages.  Commissioner Hess said it may be a smart move to follow some of Mark Kinney’s recommendations.  City Planner McKibben explained this is the first CUP for ground disturbance and the Code was evaluated for the best approach.  The Erosion Sediment Control Plan must meet the requirements and be followed.  Commissioner Foster said he appreciates the work of the staff and applicant.  Maintaining the trail is a good combination. 

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

 

Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions:

 

1.         A drainage system shall be provided to direct all runoff from impervious coverage or the disturbed site either into an engineered drainage system or into a natural drainage, but no runoff shall be discharged untreated directly into the Bridge Creek Reservoir, or any associated stream, or other watercourse.

2.         Where open-ditch construction is used to handle drainage within the tract, a minimum of thirty feet shall be provided between any structures and the top of the bank of the defined channel.

3.         When a closed system is used to handle drainage within the tract, all structures shall be a minimum of ten feet from the closed system.

4.         Natural vegetation shall remain undisturbed except as necessary to construct improvements and to eliminate hazardous conditions, in which case it must be replanted with approved materials including ground cover, shrubs and trees. Native materials are preferred for replanting operations, and will be used where practicable.

5.         Grading must not alter the natural contours of the terrain except as necessary for building sites or to correct unsafe conditions. The locations of buildings, roads and rights of way must be planned to follow and conform to existing contours as nearly as possible.             

6.         Upon completion of earthwork, all exposed slopes, and all cleared, filled, and disturbed soils shall immediately be given sufficient protection by appropriate means, such as landscaping, planting, and maintenance of vegetative cover, or temporary protective measures to prevent erosion.

7.         All exposed, cleared, filled and disturbed soils shall be revegetated within the next available growing season, unless required to be revegetated sooner by other provisions of this code or other law.

8.         Drainage, erosion, siltation, slope failure and other adverse effects may be prevented or controlled by means other than vegetation, if approved by the Planning Commission.

9.         Development activities shall not adversely impact other properties or watershed water quality by causing adverse alteration of surface water drainage, increased turbidity above natural conditions, surface water ponding, slope failure, erosion, siltation, intentional or inadvertent fill, root damage to neighboring trees, or other adverse physical impacts. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address this requirement, and the property owner and developer shall take such steps, including installation of culverts or buffers, or other methods, as necessary to comply with this requirement.

 

C.        Staff Report PL 05-87   Re:  Request For Vacation Of Portion Of A Right-Of-Way, Victoria Place, Within Oscar Munson Subdivision.

 

This agenda item was withdrawn.

 

D.        Staff Report PL 05-88S   Re:  Proposed Amendment to HCC 21.45.040 (b) Dimensional Requirements (b) Building Setbacks (1).

 

City Planner McKibben said the supplemental staff report is the proposed amendment by the City Attorney.  She suggested it be incorporated into the ordinance before being forwarded to the City Council for action.

 

There was no public comment.

 

HESS/KRANICH - MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO HCC 21.44.040 AND HCC 21.45.040 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING SETBACKS.

 

Commissioner Lehner noted discrepancies in the proposed ordinance and City Planner McKibben agreed that a section had been omitted.   

 

LEHNER/CONNOR – MOVED TO CONTINUE TO LAY OUT THE ITEM FOR COUNCIL.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

E.         Staff Report PL 05-102 Re:  Request for a Variance from the 20 foot Setback Requirement at 3141 Lake Street, Lot 93 Oscar Munson Subdivision/Mack.

 

Commissioner Connor stated she had a conflict of interest as she is employed by the Mack’s.

 

CONNOR/HESS – MOVED TO DECLARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

City Planner McKibben read the partial staff report and staff recommendations.

 

Donna Mack, stated her husband and her are the owners of Lot 93 in the Oscar Munson subdivision.  She stated she enjoyed seeing human faces and that the letter of the law does not necessarily go with the intention of the spirit of the law.  Mrs. Mack asked the Commission to understand that they had no intention of building in the setback when the cabin was constructed in 1986.  They do not believe the builder intentionally deceived them or the City.  In 1986 Mrs. Mack and her husband were working in a different part of the state and it didn’t occur to them to question the procedure of the builder or the issuance of the City permit. 

 

Mrs. Mack stated the purpose for setbacks is for public utilities and fire or emergency vehicles.  Reasons for objection of a building in the setback might be if the building is offensive to neighbors or within roadwork.  The property is between Ocean View and the bluff.  It is property the City Planner has identified as rural residential.  You cannot see the street from the structure as it is a steep upslope covered with vegetation and trees.  Public utilities are in.  She has never known anyone to object to the appearance of the cabin.  The fire chief has no issues with it.  The secondary road to the bluff is not something that the City would want to improve.  Mrs. Mack said it would not be beneficial for anyone to argue that the setback is necessary for public use.

 

Mrs. Mack pointed out in the City Planner’s report that no other nonconforming situation can be applied to this case.  Mr. and Mrs. Mack love the neighborhood as it is rural residential and there is an obligation to keep the natural vegetation of trees and native plants.  The neighborhood has a horse barn, chicken coop, duplex, and prefab home.  It is not the residential neighborhood that would come to mind.  She disagrees with the City Planner’s statement that the variance is sought solely for financial hardship or inconvenience.  She said they are applying for the variance due to the threat of depravation of use to their real property.  She said a corner of the cabin, 35 sq. ft. is protruding into the setback. 

 

Mrs. Mack said they had discussed with the builder they would like to stay in a natural vegetated and lay of the land state.  There was a drainage concern for the neighboring lot to the west and in the past five years that property has been filled.  She said the mistake was made years ago, and mistakes can have bad consequences.  She asked the Commission to be reasonable and use common sense.

 

Commissioner Foster questioned if Mrs. Mack got a CUP for two houses on the property in 2004 when she got the building permit.  Mrs. Mack answered when she got the building permit it was on the condition that she obtain a variance for the cabin or move it.  Commissioner Kranich asked what type of foundation was under the building and Mrs. Mack answered the cabin was built into the hill and is on skids.  It could not easily be moved.  They have explored the idea of selling it or giving it away, but people cannot get it out of its natural environment. 

 

Commissioner Lehner asked Mrs. Mack to explain the structure built into the hill.  Mrs. Mack said the back corner is built into the hill and it could be removed.  If the structure is moved there will be a five ft. cut bank in back of it.  

 

Dave Scheer has known Mrs. Mack for a while and knows the building.  The way the building is constructed it is appropriate to look into a variance.  The change to the site may be a disservice to the area.  The solution may be worse than the problem.  There is a mechanism in place in the Central Business District (CBD) in granting variances to the front setback through the CUP process.  It will go out to the neighborhood for comments, to the Department of Public Works and Fire Chief.  If the variance cannot be granted on the testimony tonight that might be a way to find out if there is a problem with the building being in the setback.  Otherwise the Commission is just following the letter of the law.

 

Commissioner Hess clarified the setback relief in the CBD is not a variance.  

 

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE 2005-01/MACK.

 

Commissioner Lehner questioned if the Commission could find out if the remedy was worse than the disease.  She asked why a CUP was not appropriate.  Chair Chesley explained the mechanism in the CBD for setback relief is linked to the Comprehensive Plan and how the plan sets out development of the Pioneer Avenue shopping corridor to make it more pedestrian friendly.  By amending the Code to grant an exception to the setback, businesses could front closer to Pioneer Avenue and put their parking on the side or behind the building.  It was specifically intended for Pioneer Avenue but because it is in the CBD it applies to all areas within that specific district.  Planning Attorney Lee Sharp and City Attorney Gordon Tans have said for a variance you must be denied the entire part of the property.

 

Commissioner Foster said when he initially looked at the structure he believed he could support the variance as all the conditions were there.  It wasn’t in the line of sight, was built in 1986 and didn’t intrude that much.  Upon looking at the plan he noted the new house was built without a CUP for two principle use structures.  It didn’t have a CUP because the intent was to remove the subject structure.  Commissioner Foster noted that a variance had not been requested prior to building the new house.  Additionally, the new house is not built next to the building as a duplex, it is totally separate and not connected.  He cannot see how the Commission can approve the variance.

 

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

 

Motion failed.

 

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 8:33 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:43 p.m.

PLAT CONSIDERATION

 

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

 

A.                     Staff Report PL 05-62S  Re: Barnett's South Slope Subdivision Quiet Creek Park Preliminary Plat.

 

LEHNER/KRANICH – MOVED FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

Commissioner Lehner stated at the next Planning Commission meeting she will be bringing forth her own subdivision development less than a mile further down East Road.  It is 100 acres with 80 residential lots ranging from ¼ to ½ acre in size.  It is much like Barnett South Slope, although it differs, as half of the 100 acres will be left as open space with most lots adjoining open space.  Ms. Lehner’s concern is the perception of a conflict of interest, as she will be competing in the market with Barnett South Slope. 

 

The Commission discussed the potential financial conflict.  Commissioner Lehner said although the lot sizes of her subdivision and Mr. Neal’s are comparable they will not be competing for quite the same market with her green space development.

 

Commissioner Kranich said at this moment there is no perception of a conflict of interest.  However, if Commissioner Lehner’s preliminary plat is addressed at the next meeting a perception of conflict will be in the forefront.  It will be after the fact when her plat is presented and someone could ask why she voted the way she did at the last meeting.  Commissioners Connor and Foster agreed it could be an appearance of a conflict of interest. 

 

City Planner McKibben said although there does not appear to be a direct financial interest, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

Chair Chesley read from the Alaska Planning Commissioner’s Handbook that the appearance of an unfairness must be avoided and can require abstention even when there is no financial interest at all.

 

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

 

VOTE:  NO.  PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

Commission Lehner was excused from the proceedings and took a seat as a member of the audience.

 

City Planner McKibben read a portion of the supplemental staff report, staff recommendations and the options available to the Commission.  City Planner McKibben said although the developer has not submitted a revised plat, revisions to the plat have been identified to include:

            Access:  The extension of Nelson/Ronda to East Hill Road[1] as a primary access            to the subdivision.

            Lot Size:  Increasing the lot size on the north sides of Sabina and East Aurora    and north of West Aurora.

 

OPTIONS:

It appears the Planning Commission has several options for action on the preliminary plat.

1.                  Postpone action on the preliminary plat.

2.                  Discuss revisions proposed by the applicant, make recommendations to the applicant for revisions to the preliminary plat based information provided by the applicant and other relevant testimony.  Request the developer to submit a revised preliminary plat for complete review by Department of Public Works, the Fire Chief, and Planning, an additional public notice and hearing, and action by the Commission.

3.                  Approve the preliminary plat as presented.

4.                  Approved the preliminary plat with required revisions.

5.                  Deny the preliminary plat as presented.  Staff recommends findings to support such denial.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff recommends item 2 above.  This appears to be the most prudent course of action.  It isn’t feasible for planning staff to do a thorough analysis of the proposed revisions at this point. Additionally, neither the Public Works Department nor Fire Chief will have had the opportunity to consider the revisions.

 

Tony Neal, developer of Quiet Creek Park, asked the Commission for approval of the plat tonight.  It is a model of good planning, meets the needs of orderly growth within the City and meets every law within the City Code.  Mr. Neal said he was not asking for any variation.  The plat meets the goals of the Transportation Plan, the Non Motorized Transportation and Trails Plan and according to the City Planner is ahead of what the City has the ability to require.  Mr. Neal said he was asked to meet with the neighbors and did so twice, both times on his own initiative.  He rented the City Council Chambers, hired a facilitator, and with the City’s assistance sent public invitations.  People asked questions and he answered them.  It was a reasonable, polite and useful meeting.  Last week he met with some of the same group more informally with a cordial meeting. 

 

Mr. Neal said access points were made into an issue. Legal access points to the property were provided to Mr. Neal by the City Planning Commission in years past for the specific purpose of providing access to the property.  Anderson Street and the extension of Elderberry and Mountain View were dedicated for the specific purpose of accessing the property.  The Barnett family dedicated South Slope and Mr. Neal believes Kallman Street was dedicated by Mr. Kallman in 1958.  The staff report says the plat provides good connectivity and good emergency access.  He wants to use the legal access points as his right as a property owner. 

 

Mr. Neal said the lot size in Rural Residential (RR) zoning has been an issue for some people.  The average lot size in Quiet Creek Park is 12,800 sq. ft., or over ¼ acre.  Over 145,000 sq. ft. has been dedicated to public land use, or 1,600 sq. ft. additionally allocated back to each lot.  The City chose to zone the property RR.  How rural is it to border on the Homer High School?  Is it rural to get a season ticket to all the football games and track meets?  Mr. Neal’s property borders the AA Mattox subdivision where the lots are 8,000 sq. ft.  On the west side the Anderson subdivision is bordered to Kapingen and then a mile of lot after lot.  It is an urban setting.  You can walk to the police station within two minutes.  Mr. Neal said he has met every law regarding RR zoning as it stands.  The subdivision has affordable urban lots in a pleasant setting for working families to have homes.  The town needs affordable homes. 

 

Mr. Neal disagrees that a revised plat is needed, had he understood one was needed he would have provided one.  The plat change is so simple that further debate wastes the public process time in his view.  Mr. Neal drew up the plat change and provided the Commission with copies.  He stated that he has all the legal access points that are needed.  Through the Planning Commission’s promotion he met with the neighbors and as a result of their input negotiated new access through the further dedication of Nelson to Ronda Street and out.  He can eliminate traffic totally through the Kramer/Kallman neighborhood.  The new access goes through undeveloped property and will not cost the developer a lot more money.  Mr. Neal does not agree another preliminary plat is needed for the new access point.  Public Works and the Fire Chief had an opportunity to say they needed to study it too, although there is no mention of that.  It doesn’t change the utilities, it merely provides another access.  He concluded by asking the Commission to approve the plat tonight. 

 

Commissioner Kranich noted Mr. Neal’s letter said lot numbers could be reduced and lot sizes could be increased on the north side of Sabina and East Aurora and north of West Aurora.  He questioned if Mr. Neal had considered that.  Mr. Neal responded there are lots that could be larger and five lots could be reduced within the subdivision.  He said that is his business decision and should not necessarily drive plat approval.  He said he could and would reduce the number of lots if required to do so.  Mr. Neal said with plat approval he still may reduce the number of lots, but doesn’t want to make it as a condition or a promise.  Mr. Kranich asked if there was the possibility of a 10 ft. green space easement in a couple areas within the subdivision for singular lots backing into each other.  Mr. Neal said at the prior meeting a motion was made to do so and he has complied.

 

Commissioner Foster said he noticed Mr. Neal’s letter stated the Quiet Creek Park would add $24M to the Homer tax base, or $375,000 to Homer’s budget.  He explained the Commission is not able to take the financial consideration into their decision.  Commissioner Foster noticed all the letters of support referenced that the taxes would offset costs of public infrastructure and contribute to less tax for all residents of Homer.  He asked what the cost of the public infrastructure would be as a result of the subdivision.  Mr. Neal answered the developer pays for all costs of infrastructure within the subdivision, so that would be zero cost.  The question would be how it would impact the production of the water or sewage treatment plant, or require another policeman.  He said it is a debatable question, as it would affect infrastructure costs somewhat.  The subdivision will also generate money in excess to pay for the services.  Mr. Neal referenced the argument in the annexation issue was that there would be more people in the city to pay taxes to support infrastructure.

 

Chair Chesley explained to the Commission he had stopped the circulation of Mr. Neal’s plat change provided tonight as Mr. Neal had not requested that plat to be approved and it is not part of the public record.  It was not part of the packet for review, nor part of the public notice.  Chair Chesley asked the public to limit their testimony to three minutes due to the number of participants within the audience.   

 

Brian Bennett, city resident, residing on Kachemak Way has the following concerns with the Quiet Creek Park subdivision pertaining to the City of Homer and the Kenai Peninsula Borough:

*        Increased traffic on neighborhood roads

*        Access roads needed to go into the subdivision

*        Drainage issues and the need for a storm water plan

*        Population density

*        Wetlands

*        The City’s wastewater treatment plant

*        The City’s EPA discharge permit

*        Safety for the students at Homer High School

 

Mr. Bennett said they are on the way of a good beginning.  He appreciates Tony Neal’s willingness to meet with the concerned citizens.  There are forty to fifty members of the Citizens Alliance for Neighborhoods and they are connected with the Homer Community Advisory Planning Committee.  To date they have had three cross meetings and will go beyond the resolution of Quiet Creek and on to the issues on Ocean Drive.  They hope to continue their partnership with the Planning Department and Planning Commission and move forward with some positive development.  Mr. Bennett said including a member of the City, such as the Public Works Director, to sit in on the meetings with Tony Neal would be beneficial to have all the members of the issues at the table.  He agrees with the City Planner to postpone review of the preliminary plat until the revised preliminary plat is submitted for review by Public Works, the Fire Chief and other concerned citizens.

 

John Browning, city resident and concerned citizen, stated he is a member of the concerned citizens group which makes him a special interest person.  He resides on Kachemak Way and Elderberry Drive.  He thanked the Commission and Mr. Neal for listening to the concerns and he believes there will be acceptable solutions if they all continue to work together.  Mr. Browning’s main concern is traffic flow and the negative impact it can and will have if access is via Elderberry Drive.  Anderson subdivision at the top of Kachemak Way will be developed and that traffic will come down Kachemak Way impacting the surrounding streets.  That traffic rightfully should travel down Kachemak Way as there is no other place for it to go.  Mr. Browning urged the Planning Commission to consider that in their deliberations of traffic flow within the proposed Quiet Creek Park subdivision.  Routing large amounts of traffic through Elderberry from a subdivision east of it does not make sense to him, knowing that future traffic from Anderson subdivision will use the same street.  A workable solution may be to move Quiet Creek traffic south rather than west, or other routes that will minimize the negative effects on established neighbors.  Mr. Browning said his concern is not so much with the developer, as he has made proposed changes to his subdivision access that negates Mr. Browning’s concern of Elderberry being used.  The City needs to take a serious look at how and where access points to new subdivisions are implemented to minimize the impact to already established neighborhoods.  Mr. Browning has been a resident of Homer for 56 years and appreciates seeing Homer grow along with the wonderful things growth brings.  He said he is pro-development and has watched Homer progress from an infant community to its present day struggle to keep up with its growth.  He welcomes it and at the same time the citizens of Homer deserve to have their quality of life and property maintained to the highest degree possible.

 

Tim Moore, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak and thanked Tony Neal for his openness in setting up the meetings with citizens.  Although Mr. Moore was absent from the community for the meetings, his wife was able to attend.  His residence on Tasmania Court will adjoin the subdivision on the northeast corner.  Mr. Moore has read Tony Neal’s information and the letters from the neighbors.  He is concerned about the traffic and the population density and how it will impact the city.  His lot is 32,000 sq. ft. and the lots within the proposed subdivision do not fit in with the rest of the lots in the area.  He asked the Commission to carefully consider the plat.  His hope is that there will be more chances to talk and work through this.

 

Karen R. Berg-Forrester, city resident and realtor, has resided in Homer for 35 years.  She has lived on many streets, both paved and unpaved, and in several neighborhoods.  Currently she resides on Kachemak Way, which has a strong traffic flow pattern.  She has heard a lot of testimony on this subdivision, more than she heard over the years she sat on the Planning Commission.  It has been studied, submitted, and has met all the rules and regulations.  The concerns she has heard are focused on what might happen on individual streets.  As a realtor she is aware of the high demand for affordable lot sizes and building lots for the average working people in the community.  Homer is quickly evolving into a quasi-retirement community where people may have larger dollars to expend into larger properties.  City water and sewer is not extended everywhere in the city yet.  Ms. Berg-Forrester believes this development will respond to a new need that is already here for affordable building lots within the city.  Living on Kachemak Way, Ms. Berg-Forrester said it already is a corridor for Bartlett and Main Street to and from the hospital and for other vehicles that choose not to travel on Pioneer Avenue.  She said there is more noise from the school’s recreational functions and that is enjoyable to hear kids.  She believes it is a safe neighborhood for children to grow up in.  It has easy access to the high school, grade school and is within walking distance to city services.  Ms. Berg-Forrester believes there is a need for more of these types of neighborhoods; she disagrees that it is negative situation.  It was not the intent of the Andersons, Kallmans, or Barnetts to leave 38 acres landlocked as rights-of-way were given for the property to be developed.  Property costs are high and development costs are higher yet.  The lack of affordable housing close to schools and city facilities will drive children and grandchildren out of Homer.  Mr. Neal’s proposed subdivision has been studied and meets all the requirements and Ms. Berg-Forrester asked for the Commission’s approval.

 

Kathy Smith, city resident, lives on Kachemak Way and was concerned for a while about traffic patterns.  Ms. Smith said Karen Berg-Forrester is the realtor representing Tony Neal’s lots and has a vested interest in this.  Ms. Smith pointed out Ms. Berg-Forrester is selling her house on Kachemak Way and she does not think she has a vested interest in the neighborhood as much as she does in the houses in Tony Neal’s subdivision.

 

Bruce Petska, city resident, borders Tony Neal’s proposed subdivision and feels he is impacted as much as anyone.  The talk of access of Nelson and Ronda would make him give up a substantial part of his property.  Mr. Petska said Tony Neal is a local businessman trying to develop his property responsibly within the set standards.  One access is not sufficient for safety or traffic flow and everyone should quit thinking in terms of “not down my street” and start cooperating on several access points.  He is concerned with lot sizes as well, but the lot size reflects the price, and these may be affordable for young families.  They are the same size as the lots he has built on in the past ten years in Homer.  Mr. Petska concluded that this project is being funded privately and tax payers are not being asked to foot the project as it will stand on its own two feet.

 

Carol Hamik, city resident, lives on Kachemak Way.  Her husband submitted a letter as a laydown.  She said it will impact her so much and she cannot imagine having the street any busier.  Mrs. Hamik hopes there will be pedestrian walkways, crosswalks, trails and that the speed limits will be enforced.  Land developers and builders should have safety as their first consideration.  OSHA ensures there are safety measures on the job and it is the job of the Planning Commission and City Council to keep the residents safe from what they are building.  Mrs. Hamik asked if the Comprehensive Plan addressed such issues and a RR zoning code for the area.  She asked if Tony Neal can’t be stopped with the rules on the books who is going to say no to his next request or no to the next irresponsible builder?  

 

City Planner McKibben answered Mrs. Hamik that the Comprehensive Plan spells everything out and Mr. Neal’s proposal meets the requirements of the RR zoning district with lot size requirements.

 

Carol Hamik added that she appreciates Tony Neal coming to the meetings and stated it was great he was listening to people and trying to do something.

 

Chris Morin, city resident, thanked the Homer residents for supporting the Quiet Creek Park and also those that oppose, stating it was a democratic society and building should be to suit the community as a whole.  He thanked the Planning Commission for their work for the plat approval. Mr. Morin has been visiting Homer since 1994 as an engineering intern and moved here with his family permanently last year to become a part of the community.  His wife was born and raised and married in China Poot Bay.  Mr. Morin is the Project Manager for Neal and Company on the Quiet Creek condo project and will be working on the vision and execution of the Quiet Creek Park subdivision.  He takes pride in providing a quality project consistent with Tony Neal’s vision that will benefit the community in many ways.  The project will increase the tax base for the city with new jobs and city sewer and water service will be expanded.  Neighborhoods will benefit with connecting trails and green space making Homer a more pedestrian friendly town.  It works well with the Town Center plan.  The planning, despite some opposition, is creative, responsible, and well thought out.  Mr. Morin said they are working to improve the access options.  Homer is a desirable place to live with the small town, friendly people, world class fishing, glaciers and mountains, weather, view and a nice assortment of junk cars.  The development is exactly what is needed for the city and its residents to respond to the growth Homer is experiencing.  Mr. Morin asked for the Commission’s approval of the subdivision.

 

Sid Huffnagle, city resident, said he is concerned about the water.  Homer is right on the border of being maxed out in supplying water and in another year or two something radical will have to take place.  Water pressure on Mountain View Drive is low.  Mr. Huffnagle has been trying to start some new grass and there is barely enough pressure to dampen the lawn.  He hopes the Commission takes a long hard look at the amount of water available for subdivisions like Mr. Neal’s.  Until the Heath Street extension is a done deal, Mr. Huffnagle asked to please not send any more traffic down their streets as they don’t need it or want it.

 

Francie Roberts, city resident, lives on Mountain View Drive.  She is in agreement with many of the previous speakers’ concerns.  She doesn’t believe the Commission should approve the plat tonight.  It is her opinion that the subdivision does not meet the goals and objectives of the Transportation Plan.  The Transportation Plan reads if the Heath Street extension is developed, Mountain View Drive and Elderberry Court should be converted to one-way or dead end streets, “the goal being to maintain the area quiet, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood discouraging or not allowing through traffic”.  The Transportation Plan also says “wherever a proposed connection of this type elicits concerns from potentially affected residents, the City will initiate a neighborhood driven design process to evaluate the proposal.  All decisions concerning this proposed connection will be made through this process.”  The Planning Department’s comments of June 1, 2005 state the Public Works Department requested preliminary engineering on the water, sewer and road improvements.  There were questions relating to the design that may require alternating road and property layout.  Ms. Roberts asked if this had been done, and if so where is the information to substantiate it.  The packet does not include the proposed revisions to the plat.  Ms. Roberts asked how the plat could be adopted when the public couldn’t see the revisions to comment.  In closing Ms. Roberts asked if the builder had to follow the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code since they apply to subdivisions in Homer.  She believes parts of the Borough Code, Section 20-12-060(H) and (i) have been overlooked and encouraged the Commission to review those sections.

 

Walt Suomela, Alaska resident since 1979, recently moved to Homer and was unable to attend the community meetings on Quiet Creek Park this summer.   He owns lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on Linda Court.  He is opposed to the plat approval due to the high density impact even though it does meet current regulations.  Another concern of Mr. Suomela’s is the water run-off.  His lots have been affected over the years.  People have said after the high school was built water run-off is a serious issue.  Adding a large number of houses in a small amount of land is not in the best interests.  If the numbers are reduced he is not opposed to the subdivision.  A large amount of traffic routing through Kramer will have a severe impact on Linda Court and other lots in the area.  The new tribal clinic will also be affected in supplying their emergencies and receiving supply shipments.  The impact of the run-off to the south needs to be addressed.  Mr. Suomela appealed to the Commission to hold off on passage of Quiet Creek Park subdivision under further issues can be explored.  Green space is important to Mr. Suomela and he refuses to build on one of his own lots just to maintain the space.  He sees mistakes Anchorage has made without protecting green space.  At this time people are crossing his property and littering it to get to the playing field.  He suggested we can do better.

 

Ron Keffer, city resident and principal of Homer High School, said it is not an easy thing to find a proper relationship between development and the overall welfare of the community.  He asked that the Commission consider that the high school sits in the middle of the whole issue and traffic patterns should be addressed consciously to keep it safe for the kids.

 

Ginny Espenshade, lives on Rainbow Court west of Homer High School, is a high school parent and a user of their facilities.  She thanked the Commission, staff and Public Works for the work put into the complex and important project.  Ms. Espenshade agrees with the staff option #2, stating it can be a win/win situation.  Homer can have the benefits of a quality new subdivision that may offer affordable housing, while still addressing the concerns of the neighbors.  The second option allows the parties to get to the win/win situation. There is a lot of good faith on both sides and she hopes that continues.

 

Katherine George, lives on Mountain View Drive.  She said the Quiet Creek plat does not comply with HCC 21.44.10.  With 98 lots the subdivision is not low density.  She asked the Commission to deny the preliminary plat for Quiet Creek Park.  Ms. George read a letter from Sharon and Marvin Baur who live on Kachemak Way and were not able to attend tonight.  Mr. and Mrs. Baur believe that the subdivision would have an adverse affect on the long term quality of life and growth for Homer.  Growth can be combined with the natural surrounding, lower density subdivisions, and architecture that blends into the surroundings and a naturally preserved landscape.  When considering the Quiet Creek Park plat approval the Baur’s ask if it can truly qualify for “THE BEAUTY OF RESTRAINT.”

 

Paul Gavenus contends that the Quiet Creek Park subdivision does not conform to City Code as it is not low density.  He said Mr. Neal would like you to compare a RR district subdivision with neighborhoods in the Urban Residential (UR) district.  HCC 21.45.010 states the UR district promotes medium density.  Quiet Creek subdivision should only be compared to neighboring RR subdivisions.  Mr. Gavenus said the preliminary plat should be sent back to the applicant with the recommendation that density be decreased substantially.  He concluded that the plat should not go through by default judgment.

 

Dianna Sedor, city resident, sent the Commission a letter that stated everything she wanted to say.  She said in the last week we have seen what can happen in a city that is poorly planned, namely New Orleans.  It behooves all to take the time to resolve the remaining issues, especially regarding fire and emergency vehicle access.

 

Brian Bennett was allowed to offer the following rebuttal:  The concerned citizens would be happy with going up to .5 acres per lot, a shift in the lot size.  He disagrees with City Planner McKibben’s analysis of RR zoning, stating the number one reason for RR zoning is low density housing.  Mr. Bennett said it seems like Tony Neal and others are pretending that sentence is not even there.  He does not believe it is low density housing for Homer, Alaska.  This is not UR, it is RR.  Mr. Petska said there were no tax dollars involved, although Tony Neal has asked the concerned citizens group to support his need to help build Heath Street.  There are tax considerations, it is not just zero.

 

Gary Thomas, city resident, thanked the Commission for their time and volunteer effort in the incredible amount of work they are faced with.  He thanked Tony Neal for meeting with the neighborhood groups.  Mr. Thomas said there are other developers that would come in with their own agenda and just do it.  The neighborhood meetings have been a productive process in dealing with traffic.  There are a number of other options in working between the developer and neighborhoods.  He hopes discussions will continue in finding solutions and answers.  If the subdivision is approved and built he hopes the group managing the subdivision continues to meet with neighbors to help the community work together.  When the revised plat comes back to the Commission there will be changes to act on.  Mr. Thomas said if there was a means for the dialogue to happen between all neighbors and developers promoting subdivisions it would be a great thing with ideas that will make the community a better place.

 

Linda Browning, city resident, submitted a letter.  She appreciates Tony Neal meeting with the concerned neighbors.  She said it was unclear what the City would approve and it would be good to have representatives of the City present at the neighborhood meetings to answer questions. 

 

Karen Berg-Forrester was allowed the following rebuttal:  Her home on Kachemak Way is for sale and she hopes to sell it to move around the corner into Quiet Creek Community Condominium Development.  She is not leaving Homer and has a vested interest in the community she hopes to have for many years to come.

 

Tony Neal offered the following rebuttal:  He stated that most folks’ problem is not with the subdivision, but they are using this as a mechanism to complain about traffic planning through their neighborhood.  It is a concern of the residents, but Mr. Neal does not believe he should be used as a victim for that issue.  Mr. Moore compared his lot of 32,000 sq. ft. which borders north of South Slope.  Mr. Neal said there is no sewage on those lots and they are dumping sewage on the ground and then it ends up in streams and creeks.  The lots are 32,000 sq. ft. as they don’t have sewer according to Public Works.  Public Works Director Meyer said as soon as everyone gets sewer they subdivide in half.  The lots like Mr. Moore’s are not up there for the wonderful open space, they have to be that large to get approval for on site sewer, which in his opinion does not work.

 

Mr. Neal reminded the community this is the City of Homer.  We all came to Alaska but we’re living here in the city.  The Commission is for the City of Homer, not rural countryside.  If people want acreage they can choose to live outside the city.  There are thousands of people that choose to live in the city, many live on lots 8,000 sq. ft.  Half the people that spoke against the subdivision live on lots smaller than the proposed ones.  Cities define low density and RR districts; he nor other people defined it.  Mr. Neal’s property borders both the high school and 8,000 and 11,000 sq. ft. lots in Anderson subdivision.  As to Mr. Huffnagle’s complaint about water pressure, Mr. Neal said if people don’t live in his subdivision they will live somewhere else and use the same water.  When Quiet Creek Park subdivision is completed the cross connection of water increases water pressure so he will be able to water the grass.  Brian Bennett commented if the lots were increased from .3 to .5 acre they would be better.  Mr. Neal said .3 is larger than City Code requirement of .22 acre lots.  Mr. Neal said the rebuttal could go on and on.  He met with the concerned citizens and everyone said there are so many lots.  There are 93 lots in Quiet Creek Park, while there are hundreds of lots in Homer.  The folks in the neighborhood groups don’t want the subdivision in their back yard.  They are not opposing other subdivisions at Planning Commission meetings, just the one in their own neighborhood.  They are a local, special interest group opposing Quiet Creek park subdivision because they don’t want people to drive through their property.  Mr. Neal said those people bought their property on a street that was dedicated for access to the subdivision, and when they bought their house if they had looked at the plat map they would have known that when they bought it.

 

Chair Chesley asked if Mr. Neal was interested in staff’s recommendation Option #2.  Mr. Neal said the Commission could approve the plat tonight and the ongoing process wastes the public process.  He does not believe the changes are significant to cause a replat, but if so he will be back with a replat.  He does not believe the Commission can beat it to death. 

 

Commissioner Hess asked Mr. Neal his definition of low density.  Mr. Neal answered RR defines low density and the City of Homer defines RR and low density with the Code.  He said low density states the lots shall be 10,000 sq. ft. when they are connected to water and sewer.  Mr. Neal said his property and lots of 12,800 sq. ft. is low density.

 

A procedural question was posed by the City Planner to Deputy City Clerk Johnson regarding the motion to accept the staff report that was made at the June 1, 2005 meeting.  Chair Chesley called for a recess at 10:05 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 10:16 p.m. 

 

The Quiet Creek Park preliminary plat was addressed at the June 1, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.  At that meeting there was a motion made with several amendments that still remain on the floor.  City Planner McKibben said the preliminary plat action was postponed by the Planning Commission as the developer agreed to extend the time line to have the neighborhood meeting.  City Planner McKibben read the pending motion and amendments:

 

CONNOR/KRANICH – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-62 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Staff Recommendations:

 

Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat with the following recommendations:

 

1.         Dedicate water, sewer and access easements across the entire panhandle of each flag lot.

2.         Submission of preliminary engineering on the water/sewer/drainage/road improvements to the Public Works Department.

3.         Show wetlands and identify drainages on the final plat.

 

The amendments on June 1, 2005 were:

 

LEHNER/CONNOR - MOVED TO POSTPONE THE DECISION UNTIL REVIEWED FURTHER BY PUBLIC WORKS AND IN LIGHT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANS ARTICULATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

 

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

 

Motion failed.

 

KRANICH/CONNOR – MOVED TO ADD STAFF RECOMMENDATION #4 TO ADD A 10 FT. GREENBELT EASEMENT TO LOTS 98, 95, 94, 93 AND LOTS 97, 96 AND 92.

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

FOSTER/PFEIL – MOVED TO ADD 10 FT. GREENBELT EASEMENTS BETWEEN LOTS 9, 10, 11, 12 AND 7, 8, 13 AND 14.

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

CONNOR/ KRANICH - MOVED TO REQUIRE 15 FT. BUILDING SETBACKS FROM THE TOP OF THE BANK OF ANY DEFINED DRAINAGE CHANNEL OR STREAM.

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL - MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN MEET WITH PUBLIC WORKS, OTHER CITY STAFF, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOODS TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ACCESS OPTIONS THAT MINIMIZE ROUTING OF SUBDIVISION AND THROUGH TRAFFIC ON TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL STREETS TO INCORPORATE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT ADDRESS TRAFFIC FLOW ON MOUNTAIN VIEW AND ELDERBERRY DRIVES. 

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Hess said since the original plat was presented there has been more time to look at the Code.  Low density is subjective and lot sizes in RR cannot correlate low density with lot sizes allowed in the RR district.  Commissioner Hess said he struggles if the lot sizes will meet low density requirements.

 

Commissioner Pfeil said he has struggled with the same thing.  The development is not low density.  Mr. Neal has a responsible, well developed plan that meets City Code right across the board.  He has done everything he has been asked to do.  Mr. Pfeil would like to see a revised plat with people’s suggestions and input on other accesses discussed and possibly fewer lots before making a decision.

 

Commissioner Foster stated he was impressed with Mr. Neal’s willingness to work with the community.  Other developers have come before the Commission with an attitude that they don’t need to work with the City of Homer, they will just get it passed at the Borough.  He also appreciates Mr. Neal’s willingness to make some allowances and doesn’t want to pressure him due to his willingness to work with the Commission.  Commissioner Foster said Quiet Creek Park is one of the finest subdivisions to come before the Commission, as it is well thought out.  Commissioner Foster, too, is concerned with low density.  The 10,000 sq. ft. is not the absolute, but rather the minimum taking into account low density.  Mr. Neal is attempting to do that with some of the green space and trails.  He would like to see the provisions Mr. Neal agreed to in writing.

 

Commissioner Kranich thanked Tony Neal for working with the community and the City of Homer, rather than packing up his briefcase and heading to the Borough.  When a developer subdivides he has to justify a reasonable price for property and then put in the infrastructure that the city and customers require, i.e.utilities and roads.  All the figures need to pencil in to make a profit, as Mr. Neal is in business to make money.  To have the utilities to put in there has to be sufficient density to pay for the utilities, otherwise there would be an extension of utilities that are a millstone around the enterprise fund and they would cost all of the other users of utilities money.  Everything has to be balanced.  Is it low or high density?  Commissioner Kranich said we could argue for months as to that definition.  Mr. Neal has worked hard on dedicating property for green space.  It is true some of the property is down in the canyons and lower areas, but within the next twenty years someone will build a house there if it was up for sale.  Commissioner Kranich and others have said the hillsides are too steep to build on, now he wishes he had bought some for $100 an acre.  The dedicated green space will provide places for wildlife and areas for kids to play.  Commissioner Kranich said Tony Neal has done a good job.  He would like to see a revised plat to indicate access from Nelson and Ronda and an increase on lot sizes on the north side of Sabina and East and West Aurora.  On Kallman he would like to see access eliminated unless there is a 60 ft. ROW obtained to provide for full amenities on the street.  With multiple access points to the subdivision less traffic will be crowded into one or two.  Commissioner Kranich stated he appreciates working with Mr. Neal.

 

Commissioner Connor thanked all the members of the public for coming out with their concerns, good points, doing their homework and citing City Codes.  She appreciates the dialogue Mr. Neal is willing to conduct with the community.  There are the code restrictions and human elements.  She would like to see the human element continue.  Commissioner Connor disagrees with staff that the preliminary plat meets the goals of the Transportation Plan.  In review of the Transportation Plan she found several places where the proposed plat does not meet the goals.  Additionally the Quiet Creek Park subdivision is not in compliance with some of the references in the Comprehensive Plan about neighborhoods.  The Code clearly states the purpose in RR zoning is for low density development.  Commissioner Connor said this subdivision is not low density by her and most reasonable people’s definition.  It will take time to come to a reasonable definition and she believes there needs to be further discussion. 

 

Commissioner Hess said if it was a UR district there would be no issue.

 

Chair Chesley said he has been on the Planning Commission for nearly three years and has had serious debate on big issues in town.  The finest people in the community are here.  Chair Chesley knows Tony Neal personally and professionally and as a quality developer.  He has raised his family here and made commitments to the community.  He is respectful of other people.  Additionally Chair Chesley knows many other people providing testimony against the Quiet Creek Park development.  Those people too are some of the finest people in the community.  In the past Chair Chesley has seen where those opposing are labeled as the vocal minority.  Many are leaders and pillars of the community and Mr. Neal should feel fortunate he has these types of people to work with in facing the challenges of developing the subdivision.  The Code is not perfect.  It has areas that need improvement and areas that are not clear.  There is the question of low density, a debate the Commission wants to take on with vigor.  Commissioner Hess has been working hard on mechanisms to define low density and how creative planning tools can be used.  Mr. Neal suggested RR is not appropriate within city limits.  A healthy community has different classifications of property with different lot sizes and forms of density to make a healthy community.  Chair Chesley does not agree every lot should be reduced to the smallest possible lot.  The community needs debate if we want larger tracts of land available in the city.  Chair Chesley does not agree that the subdivision meets all requirements of the City Code.  In a meeting with the City Planner and City Manager the City Attorney interpreted a section of RR.  You have to look at lot sizes as the stated purpose for the district; it is not a blanket agreement that every lot can be reduced to 10,000 sq. ft.  Chair Chesley hears that the public wants the continued opportunity to work with the developer.  Chair Chesley supports the amendment to the motions as amended on the floor to continue to allow the developer to work with staff and the community to bring back a revised plat for the Commission’s consideration.  If the developer is not willing to do that Mr. Chesley is prepared to vote no on the subdivision tonight.

 

KRANICH/FOSTER – MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF OPTION #2 AND SUBMIT IT TO THE DEVELOPER WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

 

1.         Provide access via Nelson/Ronda

2.         Eliminate access via Kallman, unless a 60 ft. right-of-way is provided.

3.         Increase lot size on the north side of Sabina and East and West Aurora and submit a revised      plat including these provisions as well as other provisions.

 

OPTION #2 states:

Discuss revisions proposed by the applicant, make recommendations to the applicant for revisions to the preliminary plat based (on) information provided by the applicant and other relevant testimony.  Request the developer to submit a revised preliminary plat for complete review by Department of Public Works, the Fire Chief, and Planning, an additional public notice and hearing, and action by the Commission.

 

Commissioner Kranich stated he wants the Commission to continue working with the developer and the items are those he stated he would consider doing.  A revised plat will allow the Commission and the public to see the revisions.

 

Commissioner Connor asked if other creative ideas could be included and it was suggested a motion to include “as a minimum” could be added.

 

CONNOR/FOSTER - MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE WORDS “AS A MINIMUM” PRIOR TO THE LIST OF THE THREE ITEMS.

 

There was no discussion.

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

FOSTER/KRANICH – MOVED TO ADD PROVISION #4 THAT A CUL DE SAC BE PLACED ON THE WEST END OF WEST AURORA.

 

Commissioner Foster said this provision may be nixed by the Borough, but to demonstrate Mr. Neal’s statement he has no interest in punching West Aurora through and to take into account the special interest group.

 

Although Commissioner Kranich understands the intent of Commissioner Foster’s motion it would be eliminating one of the important accesses to the subdivision for emergency vehicles.  He is doubtful the Fire Chief or Borough would agree with the cul de sac requirement.  

 

VOTE:  YES.  CHESLEY, PFEIL, CONNOR, FOSTER

 

VOTE:  NO.  KRANICH, HESS

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Connor would like to amend Plat Note #7 that reads Portions of this subdivision may contain wetlands.  She said it would be prudent to change may to do.  Chair Chesley said the Commission did not have the authority to make that decision.  Staff works with the Corps of Engineers for a wetlands determination and it will be in their venue.  Ms. Connor said flood areas and slopes over 20% should be shown on the preliminary plat map.    

 

CONNOR/PFEIL – MOVED TO ADD ITEM #5: AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO HAVE FLOODED HISTORICALLY BE IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAT AND A PLAT NOTE IDENTIFYING THEM WILL BE ADDED.

 

There was no discussion.

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

City Planner McKibben said slopes over 20% are typically shown as topo lines on the preliminary plat.  She explained there was one case where 30% slopes were identified and they were shown in a different format.

 

VOTE:  (motion as amended four times) YES.  CONNOR, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER, PFEIL

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Hess said it may be appropriate to look at rezoning the area for future actions.  The area may not be Rural Residential and may be more appropriate for Urban Residential. 

 

KRANICH/PFEIL - MOVED TO CONTINUE DECISIONS ON QUIET CREEK SUBDIVSION PLAT UNTIL A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED. 

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 10:56 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 11:04 p.m.

 

B.                     Staff Report PL 05-104   Re: Bayview Gardens Subdivision Addition No. 10 Preliminary Plat.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendation.

HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-104 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

There was no discussion.

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat with the following recommendation:

            1.  Abandon one of the existing water services as required buy the Public Works Department.

 

C.                 Staff Report PL 05-105  Re: Commerce Park Subdivision 2005 Addition Preliminary Plat.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendation:

 

PFEIL/FOSTER –MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-105 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

 

Commissioner Foster questioned the existing businesses and setbacks and how they fit into the Code.  He would like the assurance the subdivision will not have nonconforming uses in it.  He looked at the subdivision today and wondered if parking spaces for existing businesses would be taken into account and wondered if there was a setback requirement for the oil tanks from the lot line.  City Planner McKibben answered that parking was not evaluated.  She added that there should not be setback issues or the department would not be recommending approval, but rather would recommend the lot lines be adjusted to accommodate the setbacks.  Chair Chesley asked if the uses in the building and required parking had been reviewed.  He said without checking the parking, a lot that was too small could be approved.  Commissioner Foster said the side is too narrow for parking and would need to be driveway.  The driveway was presumably grandfathered in without a record and he questioned if a driveway permit was needed now.     

 

HESS/CONNOR - MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMERCE PARK 2005 ADDITION UNTIL STAFF CAN REVIEW THERE ARE NO COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS WITH OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CODE.

 

Commissioner Kranich said the fuel tanks mentioned are regulated, above ground tanks and the State Fire Marshall may need to review the setback from property lines.  There is a specific criteria for approval of the fuel tanks.  Commissioner Foster commented that the staff reports were very thorough this week.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  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.

 

Chair Chesley asked to move Item A as Item C as there were members in the audience waiting for Item B.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL – MOVED TO MOVE RECONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES TO ITEM C. 

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

                A.        Reconsideration Of Approval Of July 20, 2005 Homer Advisory Planning                                   Commission Minutes.

 

Item A to be heard as Item C.

 

B.        Staff Report PL 05-103   Re:  Request By Wiard For Acceptance Of A Nonconforming Structure Within The Twenty-foot Setback From A Dedicated Right-of-Way Located at 5201 Spencer Drive, Scenic View Subdivision Lot 43.

 

LEHNER/KRANICH – MOVED TO ACCEPT THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ON 5201 SPENCER DRIVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDING.

 

Commissioner Hess said we need verifiable evidence to show when the building was built.  Robert Wiard, applicant, told the Commission the original builder of the shop Mr. Roger’s wife said the shop was built in 1974. 

 

Commissioner Hess asked about the burden of proof in nonconformity uses.  City Planner McKibben said testimony can be presented and a letter from the original property owner could have been submitted.  Commissioners Lehner, Connor, Kranich, Pfeil, and Foster accepted the assertion that the shop was built in 1974.  Commissioner Hess wants to make sure the same standards are applied to everyone.  The Commissioners reminded Commissioner Hess without evidence to show any other way and no contrary testimony, it has been acceptable before.        

 

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

 

Motion carried.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Staff recommends the Commission accept the shed located in the 20-foot setback from Flynn Street as a nonconforming structure at 5201 Spencer Drive, Lot 43 Scenic View Subdivision per Homer City Code 21.64. Further, staff recommends the Commission adopt the finding as submitted by staff.

 

      C.        Staff Report Pl 05-106  Re:  Request for Zoning Permit Extension for Zoning Permit  0803-069, 775 Rosebud Court, Morris.

 

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendation.

 

There was no public comment.

 

LEHNER/HESS – MOVED TO EXTEND ZONING PERMIT 0803-069.

 

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

 

            Motion failed.

 

Chair Chesley said staff is willing work with the applicants for a new zoning permit once they complete work with an architect.

 

Chair Chesley suggested that the rest of Commission Business be continued to the next regular meeting.

 

LEHNER/PFEIL – MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REST OF THE COMMISSION BUSINESS TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.

 

VOTE:  YES.  NON OBJECTION.  UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

      C.        Reconsideration of Minutes of August 17, 2005.

 

      D.        Staff Report PL 05-93  Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code 21.48 Site Development Requirements and Homer City Code 21.44 Rural Residential, 21.45 Urban Residential, 21.47 Residential Office, Adding Development Activity Plan (DAP) and Storm Water Plan (SWP) Requirements.   Continued from August 17 HAPC mtg.

 

            E.         Staff Report PL 05-82   Re:   Lot sizes within the Rural Residential Zoning District.  Continued from August 17 HAPC mtg.

 

F.         Staff Report PL 05-98   Re:  Amending Homer City Code 21.70  Amendment Procedures.   Continued from August 17 HAPC mtg.

 

REPORTS

 

A.                 Borough Report

Commissioner Foster remarked that the Homer Planning Commission’s recommendation on Staff Report PL 05-92 Foothills Subdivision Sunset View Estates Addition No. 1 Preliminary Plat was that staff work with the applicant to identify any drainages in the dedicated setback.  He asked City Planner McKibben if any drainages were found.  City Planner McKibben said another staff member may have talked with the applicant, but she did not have that information available.  The plat will be addressed at the next Borough meeting in Moose Pass.  He questioned if the Commission would support the identification of any drainages as a condition and they answered affirmatively. 

 

            B.        Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

City Planner McKibben said the Board of Adjustment (BOA) decisions on the Adair and McGreenery appeal are complete.  The BOA asked for another public hearing by the Planning Commission on the Adair appeal.  One of the appellants asked that a special meeting be scheduled with only that topic on the agenda.  The BOA upheld the Planning Commission’s decisions across the board on the McGreenery appeal.  A vast majority of the points of appeal were upheld on the Adiar appeal, but the BOA did ask for another public hearing with specific things heard.  Chair Chesley asked if City Planner McKibben had looked into scheduling two special meetings before the end of the year to follow up on some cleanup.  City Planner McKibben apologized that she did not follow up on that and would have to choose dates and it shouldn’t be a problem.  She suggested the Commission could hold a worksession and work on the items without taking action.  A special meeting for the Adair appeal was scheduled for September 22, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

 

Commissioner Foster questioned the status of the nonconforming use on the Sterling Highway.  He is confused about the different activities that are occurring on the corner lot on Main Street and Sterling Highway.  City Planner said there is an itinerant merchant’s permit for Try My Thai and open air markets are permitted in the CBD.  

 

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.        Clerk’s September Calendar.

B.        Informational Memorandum regarding the Homer Planning Commission attendance at the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m. and Platting Committee meeting at 5:30 p.m. on September 12, 2005.

           

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

 

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

 

Ginny Espenshade asked the Commission if the consideration of the plat (Quiet Creek Park) is continued but without the consent of the applicant is the clock running?  She asked the Commission if they had to make a decision within a time frame or did they make a decision by sending it back?  City Planner McKibben answered the Policies and Procedures Manual says there is a 49-day clock once the preliminary plat has been submitted.  The applicant agreed to extend in writing the 49-days.  The Commission asked for a revised preliminary plat.  Ms. McKibben said she would research the regulations and communicate the timeline to Chair Chesley.

 

Katherine George told the Commission she is confused as when the Quiet Creek Park preliminary plat came before the Commission there was the time to meet with the developer.  She specifically asked the City Planner if the plat would be put on hold or withdrawn.  She is confused to hear tonight that the plat was put on hold.  Ms. George said she is unsure if it makes a difference, but it seems significant.  There was talk about making fewer lots on the north end of the subdivision.  She believes the south end needs fewer lots as it is steeper, treed and has a greater impact with impervious surfaces for runoff to the high school and the Kramer area residents whom are already having problems.

  .

Paul Gavenus thanked the Commission.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

 

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

 

Commissioner Connor said in reading through the staff report for the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District matter on the agenda fertilizers were recommended.  She thought that was interesting fertilizers were recommended in the watershed district.

 

Commissioner Hess stated it is tough when you are in the position of a Commissioner as you can get people upset pretty easily.  He said it is not the Commission’s intention and he doesn’t know what to do to prevent people from getting upset from decisions and comments of the Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Pfeil said you can’t make everyone happy all the time.  The Commission is doing what they think is the right thing for the community.

 

Commissioner Lehner said as a member of the audience she was proud of the Commission.  She said it was being forced to listen and watch the Commission dealing with complicated issues.  She thought the Commission did a great job.

 

Commissioner Kranich said when he served as a Councilmember items in the packet such as memorandums, resolutions and ordinances they always had the author or sponsor.  In the Planning Commission packet for this meeting he couldn’t distinguish where correspondence came from other than the different font than the City’s.  Mr. Kranich would appreciate if the sponsor is listed.  If a code section is cut and pasted from another city’s code it would be nice to have the reference where it was from and the code section.  It would save time for research.   

 

Commissioner Foster said he appreciates the quality of the staff reports this week.  He asked that maps are marked as to the subject area.  He commented it was nice to have Commissioner Kranich’s help on nonconforming uses with his history as a life long Homer resident.  He reminded everyone about the talk on Sunday at Islands and Ocean by renowned fisheries and biologist Dr. Milton Love. 

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 11:53 p.m.  The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for September 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., in the Cowles Council Chambers.  There will be a Worksession at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.  A Special Meeting is scheduled for September 22, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

 

 

 

_________________________________

JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: ________________________


[1] Correct road is East End Road.