Homer Comprehensive Plan Update Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting #2

Thursday, April 26, 2007; 12-2 p.m.

Cowles Council Chambers

Meeting Notes

Eight of the thirteen committee members were present at the meeting held at the Cowles City Council Chambers. The meeting was facilitated by Tanya Iden and Ellen Campfield Nelson of Agnew::Beck Consulting.

Attendance:

Committee Members

Allegra Bukojemsky

Marianne Schlegelmilch

Bill Smith

Christopher Story - ABSENT

Hannah Bradley - ABSENT

Anne Marie Holen

Tina Day – ABSENT

Ethan Martin - ABSENT

Michael McCarthy

Val McLay

Jim Henkelman

Bob Howard - ABSENT

Barb Seaman

Interested Community Members

n/a

Staff

Beth McKibben, Homer Planning Dept.

Tanya Iden, Agnew::Beck Consulting

Ellen Campfield Nelson, Agnew::Beck

Tamas Deak, KPB

Tom Brigham, HDR

Steve Colt, ISER

Public Workshop Attendance

The CAC was asked whether they thought the Community Workshop was representative of the Homer Community in general. Many CAC members expressed that the community members who attended the Workshop were in large part the same group of people who come to all the meetings in town. The group then discussed how they might better reach portions of the community who do not seem to be participating in the Comp Plan process.

Publicity/Outreach for the Comp Plan Process and CAC

The CAC reached consensus around the fact that they would like to spend more time and effort reaching out to the community/community groups to involve them in the Comp Plan process. Word of mouth is very effective in Homer. The following outreach methods were brainstormed:

• Develop a letter to the editor from the CAC Chair (Val McLay) identifying CAC members and describing how to be involved in the planning process.
• List CAC members on the website – www.homercompplan.com.
• Contact Homer Tribune and other papers to ask if they will list CAC members.
• Use the newsletters and publications of existing groups to insert “blurb” about the Comp Plan Process, How to be involved, the CAC, and list CAC members. For instance:
• Kachemak Bay Land Trust Spring newsletter – Barb Seaman
• Chamber of Commerce newsletter – Tina Day
• Other groups CAC members participate in?
• Post flyers around town reminding community about the website.
• Planning Dept. and CAC present at monthly meetings of existing groups/organizations in order to spread the word about the Comp Plan and get a variety of people involved. It was determined that Barb Seaman would help Beth McKibben develop an “Outreach List.” A couple of groups were mentioned - Board of Realtors, Rotary, and theChamber of Commerce.
• Widely distribute the comment form.

Workshop Debrief

Some new/good ideas that came out:

• What responsibility do I as an individual have to make Comp Plan happen? Put something in the plan about taking individual responsibility.
• Look at the downside of every implementation idea (i.e., strict regulation of growth impacts land prices.)
• Focus on partnership, non-City entities that would be candidates for implementing different aspects of the plan (e.g., winter trail grooming done by nonprofit group; child care services provided by a for-profit entity).
• Importance of enforcement and sticking to the Plan

The group moved into a discussion of each of the workshop “breakout sessions.” The summary points from each of the Public Workshop breakout sessions are summarized in the Workshop Synopsis (attached). The discussion at this CAC meeting focused on Land Use & Housing and Economic Development.

LAND USE + HOUSING

The CAC discussed several points and themes that were explored at the Public Workshop which add depth to the issues described in the Issues & Goals Report.

• Future Growth and Extension of Services

o Long term growth projections important,

o Try to anticipate where growth will occur, notably where annexation might happen next and how to work with people through the process.

o All land owners should be given a copy of the Comp Plan or a summary, like a small brochure explaining where the future is heading. Especially to help people prepare for the potential for LID (Limited Improvement Districts) and annexation.

o Recurring theme was the increase in growth around the periphery of the city and how to deal with extending services to these people. The relationship between Homer and Kachemak City was specifically mentioned and how can Kachemak City access to certain types federal funding that could help subsidize Homer projects.

o Suggestion that subdivision developers should be required to pay for the infrastructure needed for their Project.

• Affordable Housing

o Concern that the lifestyle in Homer will be forced to change due to housing prices, etc.

o Strong desire to help low to moderate income people in Homer have a place to live. Dilemma of Homer becoming more attractive and consequently housing prices rising.

o Want to include images of different types of affordable housing, open space housing, etc. in the Plan.

• Regulatory/Zoning Issues

o Current zoning and enforcement needs to be addressed

o May need to add zoning districts, specifically more residential types. Rural residential allows for lots as small as 15,000sf. Some people don’t perceive this to be “rural” residential.

o Final platting authority is needed for the city (Borough has it currently) – what additional resources would the city need to take this on: staff, GIS capabilities, etc.

o Plan should explain mixed-use development more clearly. Specific idea was artist lofts over commercial areas to encourage art development and walkability.

§ Parking surfaced many times as a big issue.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

§ In the Comp Plan the intent of economic growth needs to be clear, a laundry list of specific examples is too limiting. For instance: Timber harvesting was a high priority proscribed in the 1989 plan; rather than proscribing specific “shall” uses, be a little more general about the goals.

§ Need to accommodate both recreation and industrial uses on the Spit – important to the economy.

§ Homer as recreational location could be capitalized upon for economic development. Specific recreational opportunities discussed: Bay Crest Ski Hill, Olsen Mountain. Camping – is more needed?

§ Focus on more passive/eco-tourism. Comp plan support quiet recreation. Tidal pool exploration, bird watching, wildlife viewing, etc.

§ Scenic Byways promotion of Homer to Cooper Landing (with big chunk taken out of the middle)

§ Two layers of tourism – across the bay and within Homer – promote more of a diversity of options on “this side.” Not only a gateway to Kachemak Bay State Park but also a destination in its own right.

§ Are there more benefits to recreational development than there are downsides? What about “Aspenification?”

ENVIRONMENT + OPEN SPACE

• See workshop synopsis for major points developed by the Community

TRANSPORTATION

• See workshop synopsis for major points developed by the Community

PUBLIC SERVICES + FACILITIES

• See workshop synopsis for major points developed by the Community

GENERAL

There was consensus around the fact that the Plan needs to be broad and outline the “intention” of the City. “Clarity of intent would allow latitude for implementation.”

Next Meeting:

June 18, 2007, 6-8pm in City Council Chambers

Purpose will be to review portions of the draft Plan