Session 04-25 a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order at7:10 p.m. on December 1, 2004 by Chair Chesley at the Homer City Hall Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

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

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS BARTLETT, PFEIL (both excused)

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

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.

CONNOR/HESS MOVED THAT STAFF REPORT PL 04-105, THE AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

A. Time Extension Requests

i. Bowers Subdivision Kachemak View Addition No. 2 KBP File 2003-237

B. Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.

C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

D. Commissioner Excused Absences

i. Tom Bartlett

E. Commission Business Item A. Staff Report PL 04-105 Re: Proposed Resolution Amending the homer Advisory Planning Commission Bylaws and Procedures Manual.

HESS/CONNOR MOVED THAT ITEM D UNDER COMMISSION BUSINESS BE MOVED TO ITEM A.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

The amended agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.

A. Approval of the Regular Meeting of November 17, 2004 meeting minutes.

The Minutes from the Regular Meeting of November 17, 2004 were not provided to the Commission as a lay down.

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 must be approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

No Presentations or Public Comments

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 04-102 Re: An Ordinance of the City Council Amending The Homer City Zoning Map, HCC 21.63, Rezoning from Central Business District and Marine Industrial District to Conservation District, Certain Properties Already Encumbered by Conservation Easements.

City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-102 into record.

Barb Seaman, director of Kachemak Heritage Land Trust, commended the Commission for enacting this Conservation District and suggested adding land that is not included currently. She believes that it would be a great start and it would be great see the district expanded to take in more lands that have no prospects of being purchased or protected. She said hopefully the lands along Mud Bay, beyond what is designated, the Beluga Slough area and potentially the lots owned by Dr. Bell could be included.

FOSTER/LEHNER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-102 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HOMER CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE AMENDED ZONING MAP.

Commissioner Hess asked how this would affect the possibility of getting a round about at the corner of the Sterling Highway and Lake Street and what impact it would have if this property does become a conservation district. Public Works Director Meyer said that disturbance of the property in the Conservation Zoned area will not be allowed. If a round about were to be put in that area, it would have to be shifted around and he pointed out that there are other options for traffic flow besides a round about.

VOTE: YES: CONNOR, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 04-84 Re: Resolution 04-68 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Homer, Accepting and Acknowledging the 2004 Homer Area Transportation Plan.

City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-84 into record.

Paula Setterquist, a city resident on Mountain View Drive, had a letter that the Anderson Family, another resident it the area, had submitted to the Commission. She did not read the letter into the record but agreed with their points that it is a quiet neighborhood and there are lots of pedestrians but no sidewalks. She also commented that it won’t help property values.

Suzanne Haines, a city resident on Larkspur, said she walks East Hill as often as six times a week and said she has noticed increased traffic due to population increase in that area. She said she would hate to see the traffic re-route through that area and that it will not be safe unless there are a lot of sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians. Ms. Haines voiced her concerns about speeders on the straight stretches in that area, and that in the summer traffic doubles and there is increased noise. She is also concerned that the proposed straight stretch of the Heath Street Extension crosses moose habitat in that area. She said that is the last area in the City limits with a wildlife corridor, which goes all the way up to Skyline Drive. She fears that not only will it affect the moose calving there, but it will also increase moose/vehicle collisions. Ms. Haines also pointed out that turning left or right off of South Slope is a bad blind corner and increased traffic will make it a fatality spot. Another construction area should be seriously considered

Becky Paul told the Commission she had been a resident on Diamond Ridge Road for 26 years and made the decision to move to City limits. She said her family relocated to Mountain View Drive because it is a peaceful neighborhood. Ms. Paul read her letter to the Commission into the record and said the area should be maintained as a residential area and a safe place for children. She said that moving into town was a huge transition for her family and wants to maintain the quality of her neighborhood.

Ray Kranich, a city resident on West Hill, said that alternate routes through town are needed as well as a way to disperse traffic away from the Sterling Highway, Pioneer Avenue, and East Road. The traffic plan says that Pioneer Avenue is reaching its saturation point in the summer, based on 5-year-old numbers. Mr. Kranich brought up a point made by Public Works Director Meyer that the residential neighborhoods wouldn’t have to be connected to the arterials that are proposed, thus maintaining the quiet status of the neighborhoods. He also commented that it would be far cheaper to build streets that are to be used as arterials based on a plan to build them that way rather than coming back years later to rebuild them to accommodate heavier traffic. Mr. Kranich said the traffic definitely needs to be dispersed from existing arterials before the City is strangled with traffic, because the City is going to continue to grow.

Peggy Moore, a city resident on Tasmania Court, said that East Hill Road is a very busy street and diverting traffic to Lake Street would be better because Heath Street is already congested. She is not in favor of the Heath Street extension. She is concerned about Shellfish coming through. The blind corner when turning off South Slope with traffic funneling down that corner, coming around to the straight stretch is a dangerous place. She doesn’t know what the timesavings would be for this, but doesn’t believe it is worth the risk. Ms. Moore commended the City for the good job they do maintaining the road, but said now the road is torn up from the construction that is going on at the top of South Slope and wonders what will happen to the rest of the road with the increased traffic and questions if that is what the City really wants to do with their current funding.

Paul Gavenus voiced his objection of the Heath Street Extension. He feels it goes against the goals of the plan and suggested a second entrance to Paul Banks and a right turn land for traffic off East Hill.

Katherine George, a city resident on Mountain View Drive, said that the City does not own all of the right-of-way to build Shellfish so it would have to be purchased which would be expensive. She further commented that the landowners don’t want to sell so the City would have to use eminent domain. Ms. George read two statements of opposition from neighbors who could not attend the Public Hearing and told the Commission she has a petition that has been signed by many neighbors to present to them at then next meeting.

Rosemary Fitzpatrick asked the Commission if they remembered the flood of 2002 that came through the area and washed out where the proposed Heath Street extension is. She stated that putting a road there would be an interesting feat. She also questioned that if the Heath Street extension goes through, what will happen to the traffic funneling through when all the kids are coming out of the high school. Ms. Fitzpatrick said she understands the City is growing, but the Heath Street extension is not the best answer.

Darlene Walkden, a city resident, said her driveway fronts on Kachemak Way right at the bad curve and every winter helps pull people out of the ditch on the other side of the road when they come around too fast and slide off. She said that it is a very dangerous curve and not a good place to put more traffic.

Carol Hamik, a City resident on Kachemak Way, said she has signed Ms. George’s petition because she is hoping to develop safe neighborhoods and hopes the City can find a better alternative.

Chair Chesley told the group that there will be a second Public Hearing scheduled for the January 5, 2005 Regular Meeting. He explained that after that Public Hearing the Commission will be ready to make recommendations to pass on to the City Council.

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 04-103 Re: H.K. Davis Subdivision No. 6 Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben read Staff Report PL 04-103 into the record.

LEHNER/HESS MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-103 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Chair Chesley asked Public Works Director Meyer to speak on this Staff Report. Mr. Meyer said that this property does front on the East End Road project and an LID that is being formulated at this time. Making this one lot will increase the assessments marginally, but it appears to be a fairly routine plat. Commissioner Hess asked Mr. Meyer in regard to the LID process, how he felt the Commission should look at situations where there is an LID and people are coming to the Commission and combining lots, possibly to lower the assessment. Mr. Meyer said he didn’t think it was an issue the Commission needed to take into account.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

A. Staff Report PL 04-104 Re: Tsunami View Subdivision Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben said there were two letters that were provided as lay downs regarding this preliminary plat and read Staff Report PL 04-104 into the record.

FOSTER/HESS MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 04-104 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Commissioner Foster said that this is an area the can have an effect on a critical area, that being the Hospital. Development at this sight could make it susceptible to landslides and. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Commissioner Hess asked how subdividing the lots would increase erosion. Commissioner Foster said the road going up the edge of the creek to flag lot will be a problem as well as doubling the amount of change to the landscape. He said they could require all kinds of terracing to mitigate the potential of erosion and landslide, but feels that it is a bad situation. Commissioner Hess agreed that this is a sensitive area to develop, but to keep in mind that people own these properties and potentially not allowing development could have implications. It would be helpful to come up with restrictions for development to help mitigate these problems.

HESS/LEHNER MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION UNTIL A TIME THAT STAFF CAN PRESENT MATERIAL TO THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT CAN PRESENT A MITIGATION PLAN.

VOTE: YES: CHESLEY, LEHNER, HESS

NO: FOSTER, CONNOR

Motion carried.

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:37 p.m.

Chair Chesley thanked the members of the press, Randi Somers from the Homer Tribune and Chris Eschelman from the Homer News, for attending the Commissions meetings and their efforts of reporting to the work of the Commission to the community.

COMMISSION BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public.

A. Staff Report PL 04-56 Re: Review of HCC 21.42 Zoning Permit- Continuing

City planner McKibben summarized the revisions. Chair Chesley recognized Councilmember Novak in the audience and gave him a brief explanation of the process that the Commission has been going through with the revisions.

In reference to page 243 in the packet, HCC 21.42.010 changes, Bill Smith asked about the logic behind the change to section c. 2 regarding fences. City Planner McKibben said there is language in the code that restricts the height of fences so it seems logical to require a permit. Mr. Smith suggested the following language for section c. 2., Fences or walls used as fences, provided such wall or fence is not otherwise regulated by Homer City Code. Mr. Smith suggested under section a.2. adding Storm Water Plan after Development Activity Plan. He also suggested under section a.3. adding the word type so it would read, A change of type of use of any building, structure or parcel. He thought type of use would be clearer. Mr. Smith also asked the Commission to consider under section c.1., increasing the building footprint of an accessory buildings to 240 square feet.

Commissioner Foster said he liked the work that Commissioner Hess and City Planner McKibben did on the revisions and thanked them. He also said he liked the information that was provided about the City of Bellevue and their requirement of removing trees and requiring a permit if someone is clearing more than 1000 square feet of canopy area. Commissioner Foster said some type of permit requirement would be appropriate if there is some sort of concern such as retaining natural vegetation in a steep slope area or an extreme zone as well as a permit requirement for bringing in anything other than organic fill to a property. Commissioner Hess said he did not think this section is the appropriate place to add it to because they would have to list all of the regulations. Commissioner Lehner said she liked what Commissioner Foster was suggesting but that the language right now is clear and it would be better to address those issues when dealing the sensitive areas. Commissioner Connor said she feels there is a hole in the Code when it comes to clear cutting and likes the idea of needing a permit for it and would like to address it sooner than later.

Commissioner Hess had another suggested change for section a.3. to read A change or expansion of use of any building, structure or parcel, adding the word expansion.

City Planner McKibben said there was a change that City Attorney Tans had recommended that had been missed on section a.1. to add the word moving so it would read Erection, construction, expansion or moving of any building or structure.

The Commission discussed the possible implications of adding the word expansion to the code language. City Planner McKibben offered and example of expansion in a building that has multiple tenants, all but one tenant goes away and the existing tenant expands their use within that structure, you would want that to go through the zoning permit process to review traffic impacts or any other requirements and adding expansion is a tool to help the Planning Department look at the expanded uses.

Chair Chesley recounted the proposed changes. After discussion the Commission agreed upon the following changes:

Changing section a.3. to read A change or expansion of use of any building, structure or parcel, adding the word expansion

Changing section a.3. to read A change of type of use of any building, structure or parcel

Changing section a.1. to read Erection, construction, expansion or moving of any building or structure

Changing section c.1., increasing the building footprint of an accessory buildings to 200 square feet

Changing section c.2., to read Fences or walls used as fences, provided such wall or fence is not otherwise regulated by Homer City Code

LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED TO ACCEPT THE EDITS AS PROPOSED.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 04-105 Re: Proposed Resolution Amending the homer Advisory Planning Commission Bylaws and Procedures Manual.

Staff Report PL 04-105 was moved to Consent Agenda during agenda approval

C. Staff Report PL 04-106 Re: Request for a determination from the Planning Commission from Safeway

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that Safeway had submitted a letter with four different development scenarios and asked Staff what the permitting requirements were. Staff advised them of the requirements and they sent another letter asking to give a presentation to the Commission.

Chair Chesley explained that one of the changes that the Commission has been considering for the zoning permit section would have a positive impact to a property owner like Safeway. Safeway has proposed is remodeling the existing grocery store with no expansion into the rest of the structure as one of their scenarios and the Commission has determined the intent would be that Safeway would not have to come in for a permit and no other sections of the code would kick in, like the Community Design Manual (CDM) for example. There were other proposals made by Safeway and City Planner McKibben has outlined to them the different steps that would have to be taken.

The Commission discussed expansion with regard to types of use. An example that was used is if Safeway did a remodel and changed their deli to 50% of their store so it was basically a sit down restaurant, that would be a change of use. They discussed Safeway expanding into the existing building, requiring a permit, there is no use in the rest of the building now, however another building that has tenants in each unit, one tenant leaves and the current tenant expands into that vacant space may not trigger a permit requirement since the impacts are already there.

Councilmember Novak address the fact that when they went through the process of the zoning permit and the CDM, the mental intent was that if Safeway ever does redesign or remodel they will have to follow the CDM, even if they stay within the parameters of the existing store. He commented that if a building is over 8000 square feet or over $5000 in expense it will trigger the CDM standards to come into effect. Chair Chesley replied that that if Safeway puts a coat of paint on the exterior or does remodel/maintenance type work to the outside of the building and it is over $5000 it is not the intent of the Code for the Traffic Analysis and CDM kick in, however a more extensive remodel with structural changes, new signage etc., would trigger the CDM. Councilmember Novak said for Safeway to go in and totally remodel and upgrade the inside of their building and not do any landscaping is just not the intent or the direction the City is trying to go. Commissioner Hess said he thought it was acceptable not to make them go through all of the hoops if they are not going to expand their use or square footage. Councilmember Novak asked if Safeway was going to totally remodel the inside than does it seem reasonable to let them do nothing to the outside. Chair Chesley said it is plausible that someone could remodel the interior and not do anything to the exterior and as long as they are not changing or expanding the uses, then it is a case where they would not want a building owner to have to come to the Planning Department for a permit. Councilmember Novak replied that here we are again where the inside looks great and the outside stays the same and the property owner gets out of all of the landscaping. There has to be a point where the City should say that we have a vision of what we want to see in Homer and when are we going to trigger what we want our vision to be. Commissioner Lehner pointed out that in their letter Safeway says there will be an effort by the design team to update the exterior and enhance the site and that could be a trigger for the CDM to kick in.

Bill Smith said he doesn’t see where remodeling the exterior of the store will trigger a permit requirement and thinks that with large projects, such as this, the community has certain standards they would like to see met. Mr. Smith believes that there does need to be a trigger when the activity reaches a certain level because it is a community standard. He suggested that an amount of floor space that is going to be remodeled may be a reasonable trigger. Commissioner Hess responded that if that were the case, then an owner could go through and remodel small sections at a time, but there is no doubt that an expansion will trigger the need for the CDM. Mr. Hess said it is easier not to have the requirements in the case of a remodel and it is not ideal, but eventually they will expand. Mr. Smith suggested requiring more than 15000 square feet of structure or structure related alteration or remodel of a building in one calendar year could be a trigger. He questioned that if you modify the aspect of an existing building or require a Conditional Use Permit in a new building, will it be fair to for one building not to have to conform when another one does.

City Planner asked how often a situation like this comes up and said that to model the code to fit one issue is not really the best solution. She recommended hearing what Safeway has to say at the public meeting.

The Commission continued to discuss what could be used to determine when a remodel of the interior or exterior should trigger the CDM to come into effect. City Planner McKibben suggested that the Commission consider saying that retail / wholesale uses 15000 square feet or larger who remodel a certain percentage of the area or a certain percent of the exterior, has to comply with the CDM or the standard of the large retail / wholesale. Commissioner Hess said he liked this because it would pick up any requirements in the future. City Planner McKibben said this would take the onus off the other businesses since the focus is on large retail or wholesale, but wanted to know if the Commission would want the property owners of the large retail or wholesale to have to comply with the Conditional Use Standards which would require a traffic impact analysis or if they would just have to comply with CDM. She said she was not sure how this would fit in; this is just an idea that is formulating.

Councilmember Novak added that basically the larger corporations want to know what we want and they will do what they have to what they have to do, we just have to be clear in what we want.

Chair Chesley thanked everyone for their comments and said it is good that they grapple with these things. He recounted that the Commission wants to go in the direction that if there is a remodel to the exterior of a building, not just simple maintenance, that would trigger the CDM and if they are over 8000 square feet then a conditional use permit would be needed. City Planner McKibben asked how they apply the CDM to exterior remodels. She said it is clear for Conditional Uses with in the Central Business District since they are under Standards for Conditional Uses. Mr. Smith said if they have to get a permit if it is over 8000 square feet, then it is a conditional use. Ms. McKibben clarified that the Commission doesn’t care if it is an exterior remodel of a building that is less than 8000 square feet. Chair Chesley said not at this point. City Planner McKibben asked if there are two buildings on one lot that are 4500 square feet apiece and one wants to remodel, will they have to comply with the CDM since the total square footage on the lot is more than 8000 square feet. Chair Chesley said that they would not have to get a conditional use at that point in time so and since the CDM is a trigger of the conditional use process then the answer would be that they wouldn’t have to comply with the CDM if they were that size of a building.

Councilmember Novak said that this conversation brings up a point that they were trying to get the CDM to apply to businesses under 8000 square feet and that when talking about a trigger on exterior design that 4000 or 5000 square feet may be a number to consider as a trigger for the exterior design in an effort to reach down into smaller sizes in the future to get a better handle on improving the looks of the community and this is a way to possibly do that.

Chair Chesley asked Mr. Smith, while he was Chair of the Planning Commission, when they were working on the phased implementation concept of the CDM what his recollection was of how he would lead the Commission when they would expand beyond the Central Business district or bring it to smaller building sizes. Mr. Smith said he thought they needed some soak time on the CDM and some various applications over a period of time so they would have a better understanding of what the impacts were and what happens when someone tries to meet the standards. Chair Chesley pointed out that Mr. Novak is suggesting they bring the square footage down and Ms. McKibben is looking to the Commission for guidance as to where to set the triggers. He wonders if their soak time has been long enough. Ms. McKibben said they have only had to apply the CDM in just a few instances and thinks it hasn’t soaked enough. Chair Chesley recommended leaving it at 8000 square feet for now, City Planner McKibben agreed.

The Commission agreed that the developers should come and make their presentation to the Commission and they would discuss this further in the near future.

D. Staff Report PL 04-72 Re: Commission Work List - Continuing

City Planner McKibben said the Commission can take Conservation Zoning for City Properties (EVOS) off the work list. She also reminded the Commission about the letter from Northern Enterprises discussing zoning that was included in the informational items.

Commissioner Connor said she is concerned about the gap in the code allowing a property owner to start site development without a permit. City Planner McKibben commented that there are landscaping requirements that talk about natural vegetation and steep slope requirements for natural vegetation and suggested prohibiting a certain percentage of vegetation with out a development plan in every zoning district. There was brief discussion about adding this to the work list.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster said that at the last meeting there was a presentation made by Gabrielle LaRoche who is re-writing the Borough’s Coastal Management Program Guidelines based on the new State requirements. Mr. Foster said it was pointed out that the State is identifying a lot more of the structure of the regulations and that they can’t be duplicated at the districts, and can’t be a higher standard at the specific districts. He said there are a few areas that there is still a lot of power in the districts and that one in particular is in the hazard areas. If you can identify specific natural hazard areas that you would like to see more regulation on like steep slope, eroding bluff or flooding areas for example, they have to be identified scientifically and then the Borough and City can have stricter regulations on those once they are identified. Commissioner Foster said at the research center they have a slide show that identifies erosion rates and one can identify a requirement to have an assessment if you are in a certain eroding bluff area.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

City Planner McKibben said she had brought up the idea of a Platting Committee and said they should be able to make it happen. She reminded the Commission that the Appeal Hearing is set for December 8^th at 6:00 p.m. She asked the Commission if they wanted City Attorney Tans to be at the hearing or if it would be acceptable to send him minutes, tapes and evidence. Chair Chesley said he thought it would be helpful if he could be here to help ensure proper format.

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.

Commissioner Hess said that he would like to have the spreadsheet on all of the zoning violation so they can keep up on the status of what is happening. He said he would like it to have grid lines because it makes the spreadsheet easier to read. Commissioner Foster said that he would like to have a map with the zoning violation letters so he can see easier where they are. Chair Chesley said that in an effort to save trees, he recommended a phone call or email to the Planning Department or the maps could be looked up on the Borough website.

A. HAPC 2005 Meeting Schedule & Cut-Off Dates.

B. Zoning Violation letter dated 11/16/04 to Jeffrey T. Sinn Re: 4049 El Sarino Court-Zoning Permit Needed.

C. Zoning Violation letter dated11/16/04 to Uminski Properties, LLC Re: 3953 Main Street-Zoning Permit Needed.

D. Proposed Ordinance Amending HCC 21.48.060 (9.)(h) Landscaping and 21.61.105(l)(7) Landscaping.

E. Letter dated 11/23/04 to Alfonso E. Lamendola Re: Lots 29,30, 56 & 57 of Bayveiw Subdivision Located on Ocean Drive and Lakeshore Avenue.

F. Letter from Northern Enterprises regarding Zoning. Lay Down.

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

Bill Smith offered his comments on the Transportation Plan. He believes that the City needs to put in place a transportation network for the community that is sufficient and convenient and when considering the community in talking about the efficiency and convenience of the transportation network the neighborhoods need to be considered as well. When we reach a specified level of service on Pioneer Avenue, if the City is going to put obligations on developers, then the City needs to look at the community too. When Pioneer Avenue exceeds the desired level of service, that is the time the City needs to move forward with developing additional roads to supplement that transportation corridor. If that requires developing other transportation corridors and the neighbors come in to voice their concerns, keep in mind one of the burdens we all have to bear is having a road going by our house that other people can use. One of the questions for them would be if we can’t build here, what is the best alternative.

With regard to the change of use that the Commission was discussing earlier Mr. Smith suggested a sentence that read a change of type of use or an increase of floor area by a use with an existing permit under chapter 21 of the Homer City Code. If they are split apart, they may be clearer.

He said he hoped there would be some amendment to the bylaws regarding the order of the meeting. He feels it needs to be separated out to give people the ability to comment, for instance on the minutes before the Commission adopts them. That was a suggestion that Mr. Griswold had and that is the way the council does it. He also commented how convenient it would be to have the staff reports on the internet for review.

Councilmember Novak said it was a good meeting and there was good discussion and dialog on steep slope ideas and thoughts on building standards.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Connor said she is a real advocate for allowing the public to have input and it is clear to her that the idea of the Heath Street coming down through the neighborhood is a bad idea. She said she found many things in the Transportation Plan that contradict that idea that have to due with level of service and the objectives. She said she doesn’t agree with Public Works Director Meyer and she is not going to give up on that.

Commissioner Foster thanked Councilmember Novak for being at the meeting. He said he will miss the next meeting but will make some notes for the Transportation Plan. He to is concerned about it and liked the comments Susan Smith made about the triggers. He is not real concerned about getting traffic off the highway and into the neighborhoods and would like to see the Poopdeck Trail remain and be struck from the Transportation Plan. He was disappointed in the packet; he didn’t see the need to have a copy of the Transportation Plan included. He would like to see the GIS generated color maps included.

Commissioner Hess reiterated the concerns about the staff reports online and would like to see the goal set for it to be done no later than the first quarter of the New Year. He said the community should have access to the information. He asked if anything had been done about the issue on the spit that he had brought up last week. City Planner McKibben said she would have to check into it.

Commissioner Lehner asked if the large color photos could be available for platting issues. She likes to be able to look at them while they are being discussed. She said it would be good for everyone to have a copy of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Ms. Lehner had a copy of a book of Conservation Designs for Subdivisions that she had lent to Roger Imhoff. She was pleased that he was interested in looking at the information and offered to let the other Commissioners review it.

Chair Chesley thanked all of the people for being at the meeting and asked the council for support for getting the planning efforts on line. He also mentioned to Councilmember Novak that a Planning Commissioner that may be going off and will be looking for a replacement and if he knows of anyone who may be interested he could nominate them.

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 11:00 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for December 15, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. There will be a Special Meeting on December 8, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: