Session 06-07, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:07 p.m. on March 15, 2006 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

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

ABSENT: PFEIL (excused)

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON

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

The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

A. Approval of March 1, 2006 regular meeting minutes.

The Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2006 were amended and approved by consensus of the Commission.

PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS

The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations are approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

There was no public comment.

RECONSIDERATION

None.

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.

There were no public hearings.

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.

There were no plat considerations.

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 06-10, Request for Acceptance of Nonconforming Use and Structure at Safeway, 90 Sterling Highway, Glacierview No. 20, Lot 7A, RE: Interpretation of Zoning Code Provisions Applicable to Addition of Exterior Architectural Features to Nonconforming Structures.

City Planner McKibben explained the agenda was prepared while she was on vacation and Item A should be two separate business items: Item A as nonconforming use and structure and Item B as interpretation of zoning code provisions.

HESS/CONNOR – MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO AMEND THE AGENDA.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

HESS/LEHNER - MOVED TO AMEND THE AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO CREATE TWO ITEMS FROM ITEM A: 1. REQUEST FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF NONCONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURE; AND 2. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ADDITION OF EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. MOVED TO MOVE EXISTING ITEM B TO ITEM C.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

A. Staff Report PL 06-10, Request for Acceptance of Nonconforming Use and Structure at Safeway, 90 Sterling Highway, Glacierview No. 20, Lot 7A.

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendation.

HESS/LEHNER - MOVED TO ACCEPT NONCONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURE AT SAFEWAY, 90 STERLING HIGHWAY, GLACIERVIEW NO. 20, LOT 7A.

Commissioner Lehner said Safeway has been a continual retail business since she has been here.

Commissioner Hess illustrated an existing structure with a 5 ft. setback when built. The new code requires a 10 ft. setback. The nonconforming ordinance will not allow the addition of a new structure with only a 5 ft. setback as you must now have a 10 ft. setback. Nonconforming status cannot be given to the new addition. The structure existed prior to a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) being required for a structure over 8,000 sq. ft. He asked if any work Safeway does on the structure now would not require a CUP.

City Planner McKibben said the Commission made that determination when it was before them a year ago. Chair Chesley disagreed. City Planner McKibben said the Commission decided Safeway did not need to go through the large retail standards. Chair Chesley said the Commission decided if the only work Safeway did was in the existing footprint they didn’t have to go through the CUP. Ms. McKibben said the interpretation (of zoning code provisions applicable with addition of exterior architectural features to nonconforming structures) is separate from the nonconforming use.

City Planner McKibben illustrated the Safeway building at 30,000 sq. ft., stating it has always been more than 8,000 sq. ft. She said the Commission is being asked to accept the structure as nonconforming. Per HCC 21.64 the building was permitted with a zoning permit as a CUP was not required for buildings over 8,000 sq. ft. then. Today it would need a CUP. Retail spaces of more than 15,000 sq. ft. have to go through separate regulations. Safeway has always been a retail space of more than 15,000 sq. ft. and last February the Commission decided if they stay inside the existing footprint they would not have to go through the CUP. But, the Commission did not formally accept Safeway as nonconforming; now the Commission needs to accept Safeway as nonconforming.

The Commission asked if all the large nonconforming buildings should be accepted as a blanket nonconforming group or will they be handled as they come before the Commission. City Planner McKibben answered it has been done on a project by project basis. She cited Boyd Walker as an example. She said Safeway is simply nonconforming as it is a building over 8,000 sq. ft. and a retail space of over 15,000 sq. ft. which both require a CUP today. The applicant has come forward to request acceptance of the nonconforming status.

Chair Chesley said the building met all of city code that it needed at that time and there is no reason to give it a nonconforming use. He referenced a property that was part of the annexation, Lloyd Moore, zoned as rural residential with commercial activities. He applied for a nonconforming use, as the use existing prior to annexation was no longer consistent with the zone.

City Planner McKibben read HCC 21.64.010 regarding nonconforming uses. Chair Chesley asked how Safeway did not meet that. Commissioner Hess asked what a permitting requirement has to do with the structure itself, as the structure is the physical building, not the permitting process. A use is an activity taking place in a building.

City Planner McKibben asked what the Commission wanted to do with it (the request for nonconforming use) and Chair Chesley said the finding does not support granting the nonconforming use. He said the City Planner is applying a permit standard and it is not addressing a use or structure. Adoption of the 8,000 sq. ft. standard did not make the structure nonconforming; it sets a new standard that any development over 8,000 sq. ft. must go through the CUP process.

City Planner McKibben said she is not following the logic and how the Commission has applied it in the last year. Chair Chesley said past nonconforming uses have had something existing that needed the nonconformity addressed, such as a setback issue.

City Planner McKibben read the definitions of nonconforming in HCC 21.32.345 and 346. She asked if the Commission would like to postpone and get a legal opinion, as she disagrees. The Commission discussed nonconforming and Ms. McKibben explained when looking at a nonconforming you look if it was legal when permitted in the first place. With a new application would it be legal today as it was permitted then or would it have to do something different? In Safeway’s case it would have to do something different and that is why it is nonconforming.

Chair Chesley disagreed, stating that anytime there is an administrative change nonconforming status would need to be granted to each structure in the city. Commissioner Hess said the Commission is charged with making determinations on nonconforming status, so why would they want to make it a complicated scenario. Commissioner Foster said there could be a 30 ft. tall building in a 25 ft. zone and a future expansion would need to meet the current code.

City Planner McKibben said our code allows nonconforming uses to expand when they are accepted as nonconforming by the Commission. She referenced Frank Griswold’s nonconforming auto repair business. Commissioner Hess said Mr. Griswold has the nonconforming garage and the Commission has determined it is a nonconforming use. When he requests expansion he has to meet every criterion of the new regulations in the code. The new standards would apply to the addition, not the existing portion of the building that is nonconforming. You only get the nonconformity on the existing portion.

Chair Chesley said the Commission has always granted nonconformity as there is a changed use or standard in the district. In Safeway’s case the use or structure did not become nonconforming. The new standard will make the addition require a CUP. Commissioner Hess asked why you would make a ton of buildings nonconforming. Chair Chesley said the planning process takes place over time. When an upgrade to a building standard is made you do not want to create an unnecessary burden on business owners to keep up with the latest change; then you have nonconforming. Over time you create a mechanism to allow or not to allow businesses to continue. Triggers apply that bring change. From here forward developments over 8,000 sq. ft. have to have a CUP. That applies to buildings that go through a change or new buildings.

Commissioner Kranich said the definitions in HCC 21.32.345 say any enlargements in the footprint of a building require a CUP. From the instant the nonconforming status is granted the new zoning ordinances will apply to the nonconforming building. Chair Chesley said the building would no longer conform to the district because of the application of a subsequent zoning ordinance. If the building was legal at 30 ft. when it was built and there was a subsequent ordinance stating 25 ft. it would make the building nonconforming.

Chair Chesley said the building was lawfully permitted and there is no reason to grant a nonconforming use because there has been a change in the permit procedure. Commissioner Foster recalled there was a short time when there was less than a 30,000 sq. ft. building size in the CBD; then it was nonconforming. Commissioner Lehner believes it could be interpreted either way.

When asked what her determination for nonconforming was, City Planner McKibben answered if a new application came today it would go through a certain process. If it could not be permitted outright or didn’t meet certain requirements, such as parking and landscape in large retail, it would be nonconforming. If it couldn’t be permitted today as it was in the past it would be nonconforming.

The Commission asked for a basis on declaring a nonconforming use. They asked how the court would look at it. An interpretation that stands on firmer legal ground is desired.

Commissioner Kranich asked if a structure is declared a nonconforming structure, does it have to apply with all current code. City Planner McKibben provided the example of the auto repair shop in an annexed area operating for 20 years. They are not permitted in the RR zoning district, and if current laws are applied they will have to disappear. Commissioner Foster said if given the nonconforming status they can continue and expand, never needing a CUP.

HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.

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

Motion carried.

Chair Chesley said he would like the City Attorney to clarify nonconforming as it will have significant implications on the work load. He will support the attorney’s opinion.

HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO REQUEST STAFF TO ASK FOR A LEGAL OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.

Commissioner Hess asked that the Commission have the opportunity to review the question presented to the City Attorney before it is sent. It was decided Vice Chair Hess would be sent the question.

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

Motion carried.

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 8:24 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:36 p.m.

B. Interpretation of Zoning Code Exterior Architectural Features Provisions Applicable to Addition of to Nonconforming Structures.

City Planner McKibben provided a memorandum as a laydown outlining the interpretation of the subject.

Chair Chesley said he had requested that the matter be on the agenda as he had concerns about staff’s interpretation of code and the argument they are making. He asked for a motion to continue as one argument hinges on the nonconforming question that is being sent to the City Attorney.

KRANICH/LEHNER - MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCEPT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ADDITION OF EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AS PROVIDED BY STAFF.

Commissioner Hess agreed with parts of the memorandum and the City Planner’s assertion that the addition of an architectural feature would not affect traffic, parking and community economics. Those situations on an existing large retail would not trigger the requirements of a CUP.

Chair Chesley said the code is clear if the floor area is increased there is not much flexibility outside the conditional use process of the impact. The additions would trigger a conditional use and with the arguments of mitigation there would be no reason to impose conditions in the conditional use for Safeway. They could go through the CUP process and get exactly what they need.

Commissioner Kranich agrees with Chair Chesley and doesn’t want to take action to accept the interpretation tonight before reading it further. He noted the interpretation of the Planning Director that nonconforming uses of structures must obtain permits for expansion when such permits would be required for expansion of similar conforming uses and structures. Any extension of the floor area will require a CUP.

City Planner McKibben said there is the exception of the eight circumstances listed in the memorandum. There is a significant amount of staff time, Commissioner time, advertising and costs to go through the CUP process. She said it seems an unreasonable and unnecessary burden to the applicant, staff and the Commission.

Commissioner Hess said without a conditional use process there is no way to know the impact of the architectural feature. The CUP process happens so the Commission can determine if there is an impact.

City Planner McKibben said when conditions 1-8 apply the applicant does not have to go through a CUP process, as it doesn’t have any impacts to cause worry. Chair Chesley said although the Commission doesn’t have any bearing over costs, if it was felt the impact was minor the City Manager could waive any CUP fees. The definition of a floor area and triggers of the 8,000 sq. ft. does not provide a mechanism to go around it. There is no definition of what an exterior architectural feature is. The code is clear when the floor area is increased you must go through the CUP. The applicant then presents their information, staff does their analysis and finds no impact to require special conditions.

City Planner McKibben noted part of the cost is to pay for staff time, evaluations and public hearings. The work has to be done whether it is paid for or not, so waiving the fee would not benefit the city. She added that is was unreasonable to require a CUP to add a covered entryway that is not adding to the retail space.

Chair Chesley said he understood it may be unreasonable, but there is no mechanism in the code that allows the Commission to circumvent the process. City Planner McKibben said the decision to allow the exterior architectural feature was not done lightly. There was much time, consideration and discussion between the City Attorney, City Manager and herself to arrive at the decision. She believes if it was improper the City Attorney would have advised of that.

Commissioner Foster asked what the change in the use of the total area, floor area and building area was. He thought the code asked for floor area. City Planner McKibben gave definitions for building area, floor area and footprint. She said the building area throws it into the CUP process. The total sq. ft. of floor area for retail and wholesale uses within a single building should not exceed 66,000 sq. ft. and any building with the main use of retail and wholesale shall not exceed 66,000 sq. ft. footprint area. Commissioner Foster said we have all the areas and it would be helpful to have an ordinance that allowed covered porches without an addition of space. It is a good safe thing to do. City Planner McKibben said in the long term scope of things that would be an ideal point. Commissioner Hess said it is a good thing anytime the large retailer comes before the Commission for conditional use. The Commission can then extract concessions that will add to their desirability to be located in Homer. He would like to keep the ability to extract public benefit from the process.

City Planner McKibben said Safeway came to the Commission and their expansion into the rest of the building was considered. The Planning Commission said the building has always been used for retail; the building use has not changed, so the Commission didn’t require them to go through all the things. The potential for the impact has come through the expansion of the grocery store into the rest of the building. If the Commission hadn’t made that decision the CUP process would have started a long time ago. To simply require a CUP process so Safeway can add an architectural feature over a doorway, that feature being a covered entryway that needs to be supported on the ground due to snow load requirements, seems unreasonable. Safeway could extend the eaves as they are not part of the footprint area, and bypass the CUP process. Commissioner Hess commented that Safeway is going to get it; the Commission would just like to see them get it through the conditional use process. He said it is not the only potential process that could happen in this type of scenario. It would be better for Safeway to go through the CUP process as the Commission doesn’t want to expose themselves to other types of this type of action that are not as desirable. City Planner McKibben stated she understood the Commission’s concern, and reiterated the decision to allow the architectural feature was not arrived at lightly.

Chair Chesley asked for the Commission’s decision on the action that would be taken.

KRANICH/LEHNER – MOVED TO POSTPONE TAKING FORMAL ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben said eaves are not counted on a footprint, but they are limited to project into a yard no more than 2 ft. by horizontal plane.

C. Ordinance 06-17, Amending Homer City Code Amending Sub Section 1.76.010(b) Homer Advisory Planning Commission established, To change the No more than one of its members may be from outside the City limits to No more than Three of its Members may be from Outside the City Limits. Shadle. Recommend introduction, Forward to Planning Commission for input, Public Hearing for March 28, 2006 and Second Reading on April 10, 2006. (STAFF REPORT WILL BE A LAYDOWN ITEM FOR THE MARCH 15, 2006 MEETING.)

City Planner McKibben did not have a staff report available. The intent is for Homer business owners living outside the city limits to have an opportunity for more participation. She explained it is for Commission input to the City Council, who in turn will hold the public hearing.

HESS/KRANICH - MOVED TO BRING TO THE FLOOR ORDINANCE 06-17 FOR DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben asked if other cities on the peninsula have non-resident planning commissioners. Audience member Tom Clark answered they do not. Chair Chesley asked why the ordinance was limited to the Planning Commission and did not include the Port and Harbor Commission or Library Advisory Board. City Planner McKibben answered there was an ordinance for Port and Harbor also. Commissioners questioned how far outside of city limits would be considered for a non-resident commissioner and if the non-resident would own property or a business within the city limits.

City Planner McKibben answered that the whereas clauses in the ordinance may be helpful. She is not aware of any other city that allows a non-resident to sit as a Commission member. Chair Chesley referred to the Planning Commissioner’s Handbook and the establishment of a Planning Commission consisting of five residents, unless the ordinance establishing the Commission requires a greater number of members. The Commission asked if the ordinance had gone before the City Attorney and Deputy City Clerk Johnson answered it had not. The Commission said it may be useless to have a public hearing when the ordinance could be thrown out.

Commissioner Kranich disagrees with the proposed ordinance, stating city planning business should be conducted by city residents. If non-city residents have input there is opportunity for public input at all phases of decision making. Both residents and non-residents can give public input, be it a political activist or whomever. That is where non-city residents have their input. To increase the percentage of non-city residents on Commissions is wrong.

Chair Chesley supports Commissioner Kranich’s comments and asked the Commission for their thoughts.

Commissioner Connor has mixed feelings, as she likes an inclusive Commission. To limit the Commission to city residents limits the point of view. She said all Commissions should have the same ratio of non-residents. She supports Commissioner Kranich’s comments in general.

Commissioner Foster, Hess and Lehner support Commissioner Kranich’s comments. Commissioner Lehner said there is an unusual class of non-residents that are dependent on the city for water. They are sort of partial residents as they have a vested interest in what happens in the city. She wishes the annexation covered a larger area and hates the fact that they broke water sheds. You don’t have a decision about water shed made by two different groups of people. She said there may be manipulation of the process that may not be in the best interest of the city. The city residents would then have to live with the decisions, whereas the non-residents would not, creating a potential for strange disconnects with respect to consequences.

Commissioner Hess said city residents pay a premium for the privilege to live in the city. He said it is a privilege to serve on the Commission.

Commissioner Connor asked why there should be more non-resident seats on the Planning Commission than any other Commission. Commissioner Foster said city residents don’t get a discount for keeping their boat in the harbor and an outsider on the Port and Harbor Commission may make sense.

City Planner McKibben explained the Planning Commission differs from other Commissions as they make quasi-judicial decisions, including those on conditional uses, variances and land use decisions for properties within the city. The Planning Commission provides a different level of service beyond being advisory to the City Council as the other boards and Commissions.

It worries Commissioner Lehner that non-residents could make decisions and others will bear the burden, with the makers bearing no burden at all. Chair Chesley said a geographical extension could include the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District (BCWPD) residents as city ordinances apply to those properties. They would have a vested interest in the city. As time goes on the extraterritorial boundaries could increase.

Although the Commission is opposed to adding non-residents to the Planning Commission they made the following recommendations:

Bringing nonresidents in from extraterritorial jurisdictions.

Strike whereas lines 33 through 38 as they do not support the rational.

Add to line 52 “and the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District”.

Delete last two whereas clauses.

Seeing a list of other cities where nonresident Commissioners are allowed and the criteria for membership.

Restrict an additional nonresident to one of the extraterritorial jurisdictions.

Restrict the at-large resident to a stakeholder within the city.

Commissioner Lehner illustrated adding two Commissioners to the Planning Commission would allow rotation of attendance (with seven Commissioners attending and the other two allowed excusal). She said it would create continuity and new perspectives at each meeting. The Commission discussed the idea and noted the drawback would be two steps forward and one step back with the lack of consistency.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster introduced Tom Clark, Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commissioner from Anchor Point. Mr. Clark has been on the KPB Planning Commission since 2001 and is presently the Co-Chair with his territory covering 90 Mile North to Ninilchik River.

Chair Chesley thanked Mr. Clark for his service on the KPB Planning Commission.

Commissioner Foster reported KPB Planner Max Best offered an invitation to cover all Borough Commissioner’s expenses for the upcoming road science workshop April 5^th and 6^th in Homer.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

None.

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

A. End of the Year Report/Statistics

City Planner McKibben reported 2005 was a big year for regular business. She asked Commissioners for their expense reports from the Anchorage trip.

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units.

A. Letter dated March 6, 2006 regarding the “Scenic Gateway” to Property Owners along the Sterling Highway.

B. Letter dated January 31, 2006 to Ed Adair from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding A Fisherman’s Resort project on Ocean Drive.

C. Letter dated February 9, 2006 to Honey Cut Ranch, LLC from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding Binocular Bluff Holiman Addition.

D. Letter dated February 17, 2006 to Ed Adair from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding A Fisherman’s Resort project on Ocean Drive.

E. Letter dated February 22, 2006 to Boyd Walker from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding Lot 1 Yah Sure CUP, Point of View Mall.

F. Letter dated March 1, 2006 to Pam McGinley from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding Lot 1 Latham Estates.

G. Letter dated March 1, 2006 to Shayne and Nikki Baringer or Twin Peaks Construction from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding 671 Sterling Highway.

H. Letter dated March 6, 2006 to Nicholas Kazan from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding Lot 2 Glacier View No. 18 Subdivision.

I. Letter dated March 7, 2006 to Blase Burkhart of Burkhart Croft Architects, LLC from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician regarding GCI Service Center in Homer.

The Commission inquired about GCI’s permit, George Hamm’s lot and Gregoire’s permit. Commissioner Kranich noted the yellow Caterpillar excavator is no longer sitting on the ground on the Latham Estates lot.

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

Chair Chesley invited Tom Clark to tell the Commission what happens at the Borough level, as there is a lot of concern the Borough doesn’t always take into consideration the recommendations the Planning Commission makes.

Tom Clark answered the Borough doesn’t take the recommendations into consideration, as the Borough Code is very simple. The Code was written in 1978 and is applied almost identically in every case throughout the borough, including the applications within the city. It is a simple process, and the City of Homer has a complex process regulated through the installment agreement.

Chair Chesley asked if part of the Borough Comprehensive Plan was that the KPB Planning Commission would act in a manner consistent with the recommendations the municipal planning commissions would be sending for review. Mr. Clark answered the Comprehensive Plan is a plan, it is not codified. Just because it is adopted by ordinance, it is not code. There are lots of recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and it is a broad based goal to work towards. He said the Borough would like to work with the City of Homer, but the code does not permit it. Pedestrian walkways outlined in Homer’s newest subdivisions cannot be required by the Borough. Chair Chesley said the City will be updating the Comprehensive Plan and is looking at ways to align City Code with Borough Code to create more parity between the two. Mr. Clark encouraged the Commission to take platting authority or to be patient while the Borough rewrites the subdivision code within a couple of years. Commissioner Foster said if there were stricter requirements in the city he understood the borough would support those. Mr. Clark answered if it was within city code and met the city standards.

Tom Clark said Ordinance 06-17 is the most ridiculous thing he has ever heard. Including BCWPD residents would be alright, but he advised the Commission to not set it up so a developer can stack three people through an easy mayor or easy council. Homer is ripe for a massive development of resort-like activity and it would be very easy for someone with big money to come in and slide with a Commission like that. As part owner of a dairy farm in Pennsylvania he deals with things through the mail. It is nonsense to think someone from the outside can come in. He thinks the city attorney can do wonders with it. As a developer himself, Mr. Clark said if he was that aggressive and wanted to move into Homer he would take advantage of it in a heartbeat. It would take a couple thousand dollars, some effort, and he would have three of his favorite friends on the committee. The Commission invited him to offer public comments regarding the ordinance at the Council’s March 28^th meeting.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Lehner thanked the city for making it possible to attend the training workshop. She said the sooner the public has information on participation at meetings it will lead to a better informed public that will know how to participate more effectively.

Commissioner Foster said he is glad Tom Clark came. He sits next to him on the KPB Planning Commission and Mr. Clark has an interesting approach and perspective. Many went to the Coastal Erosion and Floodplain Workshop that Kristy Miller talked a lot about the no adverse impact to flood planes. There is a new draft that came out in February implementing no adverse impact concepts in the coastal zone that deals with the coastal bluffs and case studies. Handbooks are available that give examples of what other communities are doing. NOAA and the flood plane managers prepared the handbooks. Commissioner Foster asked that Alaska examples be included in the handbooks and there may still be time to add the shoreline change. Next weekend is the Kachemak Bay Science Conference. There will be lots of good talks and a trip over to Kasitsna Bay. For detailed information visit kachemakbayscience.org. April 5^th and 6^th is the road science conference with lots of good information and April 19^th through 21^st will be conflict management for natural resource professionals by the Coastal Service Center.

Commissioner Hess said it is interesting the borough feels they cannot implement some of the recommendations the city sends to them. It shows how important the subdivision recommendations are. He is curious to know how the Planning Commission’s recommendations for the subdivisions were carried out during the Borough subdivision process. When asked for an update, City Planner McKibben said she was unaware at what stage they are, as most are still working with the Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Hess expressed his concern that the recommendations will have weight or validity down the road. He referenced a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about planning and the new urbanism movement to areas hit by Katrina in Louisiana. There are differing viewpoints about how the areas should be redeveloped. In communities attached by a bridge some want to redevelop in an urban way where others want a high rise casino. Mr. Hess said it is the same old story all over the country.

Commissioner Connor said some of the ordinances introduced at City Council level have the appearance of benefiting individual people or developments. She thinks any change in public policy should benefit the community as a whole, as ordinances that appear to be benefiting certain individuals erode public trust. Commissioner Connor said we should all strive for the highest standards of ethics.

Commissioner Kranich said it was a good meeting tonight with a good working Commission. He thanked City Planner McKibben for allowing the Commissioners to attend the training conference. Mr. Kranich said tonight’s meeting was time well spent. He will not be at the meeting on March 21^st.

Chair Chesley thanked City Planner McKibben for chiming in and pestering John at the American Planning Association, Alaska Chapter to hold a training session. Mr. Chesley was so enthused for the brand new people there, some who had only served one meeting. He enjoyed the public process, part two. Chair Chesley thanked Deputy City Clerk Johnson for her service to the Commission. He said it was a great meeting. The Commission’s job is to grapple and wrestle with issues. He encouraged City Planner McKibben to not take his questions personally and he would expect the same vice versa. The Commission is learning how to apply and understand the code. As Conan the Barbarian said, “That what does not kill us makes us stronger.”

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 10:03 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cowles Council Chambers with a Worksession at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting. There is a Neighborhood Meeting for the Gateway District scheduled for March 21, 2006 between 7:00 and 8:30 p.m. in the Cowles Council Chambers.

____________________________________

JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: _________________________