PLANNING COMMISSION

Session 03-18 Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Commission was called to order by Chair Smith at 7:08 p.m. at Homer City Hall, Council Chambers, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603.

PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: CELENTANO, FOSTER, PFEIL, SMITH,

BARTLETT, HESS, CHESLEY

STAFF: BETH MCKIBBEN, CITY PLANNER

DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

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 and consent agenda was approved by consensus.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes, with any amendments.

A. Approval of November 05, 2003 meeting minutes - laydown

The minutes were approved with one amendment by consensus of the commission.

PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS

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

Arn Johnson, addressed action taken by the commission at the November 5 meeting regarding Hillside Acres Subdivision 2003 Preliminary Plat condition to dedicate a 20’ easement along the north boundary. Mr. Johnson is the property owner and applicant and wasn’t able to attend the meeting because he was at work on the slope. He asked the commission to reconsider the 20’ easement on the north boundary as a stipulation to approval of the plat. Mr. Johnson explained that there were a number of reasons why didn’t think this was fair and was asking for reconsideration:

Ø He is in negotiations with the City for that easement over an LID issue

Ø This is the only leverage he has for some things the City is doing

Ø He uses this area as a buffer from West Hill for noise and dust

Ø The trees/bushes provide protection to his yard from the cars that go off the road

Ø There are already two easements on the east side of the property - HEA and Sewer/Water

He explained that between all of the easements, it takes up a huge portion of his property and makes it unusable for anything but yard, and now the City wants more easement dedication.

Ø The assessment methodology for the sewer/water project coming up (LID) is unreasonable

He has written letters to the City Council and to the City with his views and has not received any response back. This is part of the negotiations he is working through. He’s been talking with the Public Works Director Meyer regarding this issue. Mr. Johnson alleged that the City is using the plat as leverage to get the easement property for nothing. He reiterated that this is why he is asking for reconsideration on the easement as a stipulation for the plat approval. He added that something could be worked out in the future, however he didn’t think it was fair to include this stipulation as part of the plat approval.

Chair Smith explained the reconsideration process noting that there is only a window of 48 hours after making a Planning Commission decision to reconsider. He suggested options such as reapplying for the plat and talking with the borough platting authority to make a case. He added that the borough may or may not accept the city’s advise as the borough is the platting authority, not the city. City Planner McKibben advised that appeals would have to go through the borough. Chair Smith advised Mr. Johnson that the assessment issue is something he would need to address with the Council. He explained that this is a typical request by Public Works and that the Public Works Director testified about this particular easement in which he made a couple of points. One was that the easement was in the road right-of-way setback therefore no buildings could be built there. The other was it was a critical easement.

There was discussion and disagreement regarding the width of the right of way and the setbacks required. It was concluded that West Hill has a 60’ right of way and the City of Homer requires a 20’ setback from the edge of the road right of way.

Chair Smith advised that the mechanisms the Planning Commission has to change this decision this is limited. He advised Mr. Johnson to check with the City Planner to research options.

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 03-101 Re: Request For A Conditional Use Permit 03-07/Bloom For More Than One Building Containing A Permitted Principal Use On A Lot Located At 1044 East End Road, Lot 4A-1 Of A.A. Mattox Addition No. 5 Subdivision (Not Finalized).

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report, the findings of fact and staff recommendations:

Findings of Fact: 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code as it complies with a conditionally permitted use per HCC 21.47.030 (h) More than one building containing a permitted principal use on a lot. 2. HCC 21.61 states in part, “It is the intent of this chapter to provide the flexibility necessary to allow by permit a use within a district under conditions which are specified in addition to regulations applying to other uses permitted outright within the district.” Both buildings contain existing commercial uses, both have sufficient parking area and both are permitted uses under the Residential Office District. 3. The value of surrounding properties will not be negatively impacted by the approval of a conditional use permit as both buildings have been on the property for some years. The continued uses will not generate any more traffic than in previous years. 4. The development is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in that Policy 1.4 states, “Areas planned or zoned Residential Office shall provide the flexibility necessary to accommodate the mixed uses of low to medium density residential use with business offices compatible to the residential neighborhood. 5. Public services and facilities are adequate to service the proposed use.

Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit (03-07/Bloom) contingent on the following conditions: 1. The project meets all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.

Kenton Bloom, addressed the commission regarding this application stating he is trying to clean up the mess that was started back in the 1950’s. There has been an ongoing effort to restore and reintegrate old buildings into some semblance of a whole in that area, which would produce a finished integrated office area with the art barn. There would probably be a celebration after completion as Mr. Bloom has been involved in this project for 14 years since the purchase of what was the Footloose Shoe store- that still has a CUP for retail. Although there is no interest in providing a retail venue there, it is probably the only lot approved on East Road for retail. He advised that he is looking forward to making a contribution to the restoration and integrating of older buildings into the long-term fabric of the community, especially in that area. He noted that across the road is a development that is more ramshackle. He gave some history saying that one of the buildings was a feed/grain/supply store with a storage shed, which was built in the 1940’s. The building “Marty” was building was moved there from elsewhere about that time. Another building Mr. Bloom put there 12 years ago. The storage shed has been boat storage, an exercise studio and an office.

PFEIL/HESS - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL03-101 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

Commissioner Hess stated that although he is not against this application he wanted to make a point. He read from the code...”the intent of this chapter is to provide the flexibility necessary to allow by permit a use within a district under conditions which are specified in addition to the regulations applying to other uses permitted outright within the district”. He pointed out that the “addition” is the part he has a problem with. He stated that the “addition” needs to be removed or the commission needs to put additional regulations when people are applying for more than one building on a property.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON OBJECTION.

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 03-102 Re: Resolution 03- Of the City Council of Homer, Alaska, Renaming Hopkins Way to Jakes Little Fireweed Lane. The change will match the street name as declared by the Kenai Peninsula Borough in 1997.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations:

Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the Homer Advisory Planning Commission approve the resolution renaming Hopkins Way to Jake’s Little Fireweed Lane.

There was no public testimony.

CHESLEY/PFEIL - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL03-102 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

There was no discussion.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON OBJECTION.

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 03-103 Re: Request for a Conditional Use Permit 03-08/Prevost For More Than One Building Containing A Permitted Principal Use on a Lot Located at 4602 Alm Lane on Lot 2 of Alm Subdivision Amended.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report, the findings of fact and staff recommendations:

Findings of Fact 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code as it complies with a conditionally permitted use per HCC 21.44.030 (q) More than one building containing a permitted principal use on a lot. 2. HCC 21.61 states in part, “It is the intent of this chapter to provide the flexibility necessary to allow by permit a use within a district under conditions which are specified in addition to regulations applying to other uses permitted outright within the district.” A second residence on the property will permit another family member to be close at hand for the elderly person. The second residence is an allowed conditional use and services are sufficient to serve the proposed use, and more than enough area is available to met the required parking needs. 3. The value of surrounding properties will not be negatively impacted by the addition of a second residence on the property. The mobile home will be placed further away from the property line than the current residence. The mobile home will utilize city water and sewer. 4. The development is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in that Objective 2 states, “Protect the integrity and attractiveness of the residential neighborhood.” The addition of a second home will not impact the surrounding neighbors in that the property is very large and the placement of the mobile home will preclude it from being seen by the majority of the neighbors. 5. Public services and facilities are adequate to service the proposed use.

Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit (03-08/Prevost) contingent on the following conditions: 1. The project meets all other applicable local, state and federal requirements.

There were no public comments.

HESS/FOSTER - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL03-103 WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

The commission discussed the location of the house and trailer in reference to the boundaries of the lot. It was noted that the second mobile home would be used for housing family members that needed assistance. There was concern expressed regarding the location of the wetlands and the issue of meeting the comprehensive plan’s requirement regarding protecting the “integrity of the attractiveness of the residential neighborhood”. One comment was made that mobile homes are not attractive and a suggestion was made that buffers be required. Other comments included the fact that the commission has recently allowed a second mobile home on a lot however one commissioner found it difficult to keep approving such applications. In reference to earlier comments by Commissioner Hess, Commissioner Bartlett concurred that there needs to be a change in the language or policy that allows this.

The commission discussed HCC 21.61 that allows the commission to add conditions and concluded with clarification by Chair Smith on how to interpret the meaning of the reference to the conditions. Commissioner Chesley asked for clarification on HCC 21.44.020(a) single family dwelling, a detached dwelling unit. This was discussed to see if it would apply to the application before the commission. City Planner McKibben referred to HCC 21.61.080(g)1 & 2 regarding mobile homes which says “1. the mobile home shall contain sleeping accommodations, a tub, a shower and kitchen facilities with plumbing and electrical connections provided for attachment to outside systems and 2. the mobile home shall be fully skirted and if a single wide unit shall be tied down with the devices that meet state standards.

Commissioner Chesley expressed his opinion that he was not supportive of the restrictions suggested. He explained that mobile homes are affordable living structures and the City does not have architectural standards for residential developments at this point. Further, he didn’t see a problem with this structure remaining in place after the intended use goes away.

Commissioner Hess pointed out that all of the conditions have been met. Further discussion included whether or not to add conditions to protect the integrity and attractiveness of the area. Commission Chesley pointed out on the map that there are neighboring lots that have mobile homes on them. There was a brief discussion on the possible future plans for the lot and the fact that who uses the structure is not an issue. The commission was looking at a land use and if the proposed use was acceptable, it wouldn’t matter who lived there.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON OBJECTION.

Motion carried.

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 03-104 Re: Tract A Scenic View No. 6 Subdivision Preliminary Plat and Vacation of Tilly Court right-of-way.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations.

Staff recommendation: Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission grant an exemption to the subdivision improvement requirements as permitted by Homer City Code 22.10.040 a., in that the subdivision does not exceed three lots and there is no new dedication of right-of-way.

The applicant advised he was available for questions.

FOSTER/PFEIL - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 03-104 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Commissioner Foster commented that he would like to quote Commissioner Pfeil saying he would like to see lots get bigger.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON OBJECTION

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 03-105 Re: Keta Cliffs No. 4 Subdivision Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations.

There was no public testimony.

HESS/PFEIL - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL03-105 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

Commissioner Chesley noted that the lot line being vacated has an easement for utilities. He asked if there were existing utilities. Roger Imhoff said he didn’t know, however, the applicant was not proposing to vacate the easement.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON OBJECTION.

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 03-106 Re: Forest Glen No. 9 Subdivision Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations.

There was no one to testify.

PFEIL/CHESLEY - MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL03-106 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Commissioner Pfeil commented that he had no problem with this plat.

Chair Smith noted that a name on the plat map- West Hill Elementary - should be West Homer Elementary.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NO OBJECTION.

Motion carried.

D. Staff Report PL 03-107 Re: Bayview Subdivision 2003 Addition Preliminary Plat and Vacation of Alley Easement.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations.

Staff recommendations: Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission grant an exemption to the subdivision improvement requirements as permitted by Homer City Code 22.10.040 a., in that the subdivision does not exceed three lots and there is no new dedication of right-of-way.

Roger Imhoff testified for Sam Beachy. When turning in the preliminary plat he wasn’t sure if the vacation of the alley way easement was going to have to be brought forth as a petition to vacate the right of way or if it was a simple vacation of a utility easement. The alley way had been encroached upon almost from one end to the other and was not being used by any utility companies or by city water and sewer, therefore it seemed appropriate to vacate it. Regarding the wetlands, Mr. Imhoff indicated that the maps are not accurate. 180 degrees from what the map says, the soil in this area is dry loaming soil. He offered this as a reason why the 1984 wetlands designations should not be shown on the maps. He said he thought the local staff should make their own decision regarding wetlands.

Chair Smith commented that he had heard discussion/speculation regarding moving a pathway into that easement which would keep from having to acquire additional right of way along Ocean Drive. He expressed his concern that if this vacation were granted the pathway could not happen. He wanted to have public works and others look at vacating the alleyway prior to making his decision.

There was discussion regarding postponing this plat until the next meeting. Mr. Imhoff expressed concern in delaying as he is under contract to perform this replat by a certain date. He was concerned that if it were postponed he wouldn’t get the plat to the borough meeting in time to meet his deadline. During discussion he advised that the warehouse on the property is being leased from Mr. Beachy by Fish and Wildlife; he didn’t know specifically what an “alley easement” meant and advised it was created by Henning Johnson, an old time Homer surveyor, with the original Bayview Subdivision 30-40 years ago and probably seemed like a good modern appropriate thing to do at that time. The location of the electric utilities was discussed. Mr. Imhoff stated that he didn’t know the plans for the future and didn’t know what the impact would be if the easement were not vacated. Again, Chair Smith stated he would like time to check with the trails committee regarding trails in this area. Trails along Ocean Drive was discussed. Lack of right of way on Ocean Drive was noted.

Mr. Imhoff agreed to a postponement when the recording clerk offered to do an excerpt of the minutes within a couple of days of the meeting so he could make the deadline for the borough meeting in December.

CHESLEY/PFEIL - MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT REGULAR MEETING.

Mr. Imhoff advised this would give him time to get with the owners and get some feedback. Commissioner Chesley commented that this would give staff time to check with the borough and see if the vacation has to be done by separate action.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON OBJECTION.

Motion carried.

Chair Smith called for a recess at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at the meeting at 8:35 p.m.

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 03-86 Re: Resolution renaming Forrest Glenn Street to Glenwood Road due to similarity of street names within the Emergency Service Number area in the City of Homer, Alaska. POSTPONED FROM 10-1-03 HAPC MEETING

Amended Motion on the floor-

CHESLEY/HESS – MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 03-86 AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommendation was amended to read “…renaming Forrest Glen Street to Glenwood Road.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Homer Advisory Planning Commission approve the resolution renaming Forrest Glenn Street to Glenwood Road.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON OBJECTION.

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 03-108 Re: Acceptance Of Non-Conforming Uses, General Commercial 1 In A Rural Residential District, At 56165 Spencer Drive, Lot 42, Scenic View Subdivision.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report and staff recommendations.

Staff recommendation: The Homer Advisory Commission should review the request and accept the property as having the following nonconforming uses: 1. Vehicle and boat repair; 2. Welding, woodworking; 3. Outside storage of commercial materials & vehicles; 4. Wholesale business; 5. Boat storage.

Randy Yount advised that he was available for questions. He commented that he was confused by the lack of retail as a nonconforming use. He is currently selling mostly wholesale and does some retail in a very small quantity. He is looking at buying a boat motor graveyard so he will be selling those and may eventually have a retail store.

HESS/CHESLEY - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL03-108 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

There was discussion by the commission regarding adding retail sales to the nonconforming use list. Three commissioners voiced support for adding retail sales. Increased traffic was expressed as a concern for retail. Parking requirements were commented on. HCC 21.64.035, Proof of Non conforming Use was discussed regarding what types of documents or testimony is accepted as proof. Chair Smith noted independent testimony by a neighbor as verification at a prior meeting regarding another matter that these uses were occurring here. Without documents, Chair Smith used an example to make the point that it is within the commission’s purview to recognize testimony as evidence. Commissioner Bartlett added that at this time it is the right thing to do to add whatever Mr. Yount was doing prior to annexation.

BARTLETT/ HESS - MOTION TO AMEND TO ADD ITEM #6 THAT RETAIL BE ON THE LIST OF NONCONFORMING USES ON THIS APPLICATION.

There was no discussion.

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

Motion carried.

The commission discussed a “grandfathered” use noting that a change in use extinguishes the nonconforming use. The uses go with the property. If a new owner took over the same uses, it would continue.

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

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 03-78 Re: Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Adding Chapter 21. Large Retail And Wholesale Structure Development, Impact Statement And Standards. POSTPONED.

Bob and Judy Cousins came forward to testify. Bob Cousins testified he didn’t bring on the problem he was about to address. All he did was make the mistake of buying a piece of property on the Spit and then began thinking out of the “box”. Maybe this relates to box stores, therefore he will testify at this time (tongue in cheek). He said he has a hard time with things that happen due to his proximity. Currently he is having problems with berms being eliminated that used to protect his property from a tsunami. His living quarters/boat has been relocated about 150 feet west of its previous location. There are some issues he tried to put on the shelf and not make a problem but they come to him. He listed some of the problems:

· Bike paths built on his property

· Berms built where there should be accesses to beaches

· Misidentification of prior State owned land

Mr. Cousins explained that beaches have been isolated by the berm that he got a Corp permit for to protect his property. He lets people walk on his property to the beach. He does not like eliminating access to the beach. Mr. Cousins referred to paperwork he held putting things in writing documents he had presented to the Beach Policy Task Force and he indicated that they made motions with their hands in circles on either side of their head at him[1]. He advised that he did not appreciate personal attacks just for trying to defend his property. He stated that this is not city property - this is property he purchased and pays taxes on. Specifically, he said his concern was he didn’t understand how a Planning Commission could let some people violate rules and turn around and make an owner of a $350,000 house cut 7 feet off of it cause it went over a line. Mr. Cousins stated he loved the English Bay Corporation because every time they try to hurt him, they help him. They put in a big berm- that helped him. Mr. Cousins referred to the Corp permit and read the excerpt regarding creating a road, parking and beach access in the easement. He advised that not only was a road not created, a berm was placed there. He can’t get the borough planning office to come out and check it out. Mr. Cousins then referred to a survey shown to him by Steven Smith of the Planning Commission, which took a 50 foot easement off two sides of his property. He stated he is talking about the filling of land on the Spit without a Corp permit and now there is an RV park and two buildings for which there is no Corp permit. He stated that he argued with the Planning Department who said there was a Corp permit. He asked how they could have two buildings with 2 different uses without a Conditional Use Permit. He indicated this issue was not resolved. Mr. Cousins referred to his berm saying he had a Corp permit and he didn’t need to have rip rap on his side and “they” came in an eliminated it because they changed the survey on it. He explained that “they” is the City. He indicated he held a letter saying the City was going to accept it and turn it over to the Land Trust. Mr. Cousins commented on the cement plant sitting on the spit and asked the commission what part of marine this refers to. He added that he knew it was for the dock job, however that job has been done for a year and the plant is still there. Mr. Cousins referred to what he called “funny business” on his property explaining that surveys get changed and markers move around. At one point there was a marker 13 feet from his toadstools then one day the marker was gone. His property has taken big waves because of these changes and although this may seem like small changes, over all they have a large impact on his property. He asked that the Planning Authority entertain a legalistic, realistic what-is-going-on-here plan. He alleged favoritism saying others were given permission and he was not. Although he stated the constitution is “gone”, he cited this as a 14^th Amendment issue, and predicted that it will be back. H express his opinion that any government entity needs to deal with reality. Mr. Cousins referred to a 50’ right of way that he filled. He stated that the City is going to build a parking lot on his 50’ easement. He expressed concern about the City bulldozing away the access to the outside beach. He stated he loves the berm that was placed there instead of a road and parking. It now blocks the oil from coming into his lagoon from next door. He advised that “they haven’t recently” dumped highly chlorinated water into his lagoon adding that “they” eroded his parking lot when they did that and the erosion still shows. He said that seems to be okay - everything seems to be okay when it’s the good ole boys in this town. He added that the law is on his side - he just can’t get hurt. He advised that he does not own the access to the beach, he just got the City’s permission to fill it and use it. He lets the public use it and he has improved it. He stated that one of the reasons why the tsunami broke through his berm is because they took away the access to the beach. He commented that there are some who think the beach shouldn’t be driven on. He stated that he is not taking sides on this issue. He advised that he has witnessed old men cry because they couldn’t drive to the beach to get their winter’s supply of fish. Additionally, he has witnessed state troopers in the company of Jack Cushing, the engineer, escort old native men and women off of the property. He stated that he believes the law says if a property was once covered with water, public access cannot be restricted to that property. Mr. Cousins stated he thought the Planning Commission should be apprized of this problem. He suggested the possibility that the City would do the good ole boy thing and let the cement plant stay and let them fill the property and say it was waves from Fox River.

Chair Smith interjected that the Planning Commission’s scope of responsibility is limited to platting and zoning regulations. Therefore, he stated the observations of Mr. Cousins with regard to the potential zoning violations are interesting and he offered to follow up on them. He advised that the Corp permit issues are completely outside the commission’s purview. He added that the City neither issues nor enforces those permits.

Chair Smith and Mr. Cousins discussed the process of obtaining a Corp permit and the city’s relationship with the Corp. Mr. Cousins alleged that the City has a “Special Area Permit” that allows them to “do whatever they want”. Chair Smith explained that the permit has to do with the City’s ability in low value wetlands to issue a development permit. In high value wetlands or in tidal areas the City does not have that authority and the permit from the Corp of Engineers was used to help expedite development on the low value wetlands. Further, the Corp is currently re-evaluating the whole permit that has been re-issued on a temporary basis in a more limited form for a 2 year period that expires next year. Mr. Cousins stated that this allows the City to go to Mariner Park and excavate. Chair Smith advised that it does not - that is not a low value wetland. It is tideland and requires a Corp of Engineer’s permit to excavate, period - regardless of who you are. Mr. Cousins stated that this really is not the issue. Chair Smith asked to keep the focus on issues the Planning Commission has authority to deal with.

Mr. Cousins offered that he wanted to go up the chain of command with his problem. He didn’t think Jack Cushing would want to hear him talk about this. He commented that he was leaving this in the commission’s hand to do with whatever they want. Mr. Cousins stated that what really bothers him is that the City doesn’t come to him to talk. He sees his name in the minutes of meetings and he shows up at the meetings. He said he thought it would be common courtesy that when the City is taking someone’s property to use it in a different way than the Corp permit allows that they contact the owner.

Chair Smith explained that the reason Mr. Cousins’ name appeared in the minutes is because of the reference to the proximity of his property. It would be a misprint to say that anything was happening on the Cousin’s property. There was no intention of anything to happen on the Cousin’s property. It was simply a marker that identified the area being discussed, which was the Louie’s Lagoon area.

Judy Cousin commented that is was scary to her to read the minutes and then be told that’s not really what it means. She asked if she has to read between the lines.

Mr. Cousins asked if the commission was talking about his property and when Chair Smith clarified that he was talking about using the right-of-way where Mr. Cousins placed his driveway, Mr. Cousins was adamant that this was his property. He explained that the DOT right-of-way is permitted as a driveway for him and that makes it his property. He reiterated that this was his property. He advised the commission that he is headed to court to deal with this issue. He had come to see what the attitude of the commission was and try to find out why the City had not come to talk with him before they decided to take his driveway from him. He offered to let the commission continue on with their business.

The commission took up the issue of wholesale/retail standards where they left off during the worksession.

Issues discussed were:

- not using the sizes to make more progress faster – leave the numbers blank

- support connected large building versus one large building

- need city attorney opinion on definition of “individual business”

- public testimony that building size wasn’t the issue

- want to pick up other types of buildings in the standards

- vacation of lots lines to make large lots

- lighting issues

- building code standards

The commission discussed doing a worksession prior to the next meeting.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT

No report.

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.

There were none.

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

There were no comments.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Chelsey thanked everyone for all of their hard work and thoughts and commitment to the process saying that it’s amazing what volunteer people are trying to pull off. He also acknowledged the same for staff.

Commissioner Bartlett agreed with Commissioner Chesley adding that there was a good spirited debate on the issues. He said he thought that helped everyone think and decide for themselves on the issues. He added that there are a couple of big issues yet to be decided. He commented that he felt like he wanted a little enlightenment on Mr. Cousin’s situation. He advised that Mr. Cousins had told him his complaints, however, he wasn’t clear on what Mr. Cousins wanted.

Chair Smith commented that he felt the commission should take a look at the issues Mr. Cousins brought up regarding zoning regulations.

Commissioner Foster expressed his appreciation and thanked staff and commissioners for all the work they’ve done. He commented on the clearing of the trees next to the cemetery, which caused the debris to come onto the road. He asked that when the commission is looking at the storm water requirement in terms of a development they take a look at vehicles allowed to drive in the mud and then accessing the road. He added that it is important to keep the land on the land and not allow the runoff to occur. Commissioner Foster commented on his observations regarding people driving on the beach in the area below the airport. There are numerous vehicle tracks over the berm and past the sign prohibiting vehicular traffic. He suggested that the verbiage on the signs was not adequate for the type of people who are driving there. He advised that this beach is getting back to the way it was.

Commissioner Hess stated the would like to go over the conditional use process sometime regarding more than one building on a parcel. He was not clear on it 100%. Commissioner Bartlett agreed with Commissioner Hess. Commissioner Foster advised that some people were concerned about it being such an open slate.

The commission briefly discussed their authority to apply conditions and what conditions can be applied.

Commissioner Hess stated that regarding the area the commission was talking about adding the code requirements for - he’d like staff to look into if they are actually requiring those items that’s in the code because it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put it in there if the items were not going to be required. If it’s in there, he said he felt the commission should start requiring the as-builts and things like that.

Commission Celentano expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to continue learning.

Chair Smith commented on the issue of mobile home parks. Code says that if there is more than one mobile home on a lot, it’s a mobile home park with extra conditions. He pointed out what happened recently with the sale of a mobile home park. He explained that a mobile home park is usually a holding device for the property owner until they have a use that can make them a lot of money. Then, the people who have located their homes there are displaced and there is no safety net for them. He suggested that maybe the city didn’t need mobile home parks in the City of Homer and that the lot should be owned by the same person who owns the mobile home. He added that when a mobile home park exists it is guaranteed at some point to create a humanitarian crisis just by the fact that mobile home parks are allowed.

City Planner McKibben shared an example of the situation addressed in Chair Smith’s comments. She explained that the owner, the county and the city worked together in another town when this situation happened. They maintained it as a mobile home park and created a low-income housing requirement for that park. Therefore, owners can definitely continue to have their mobile homes there. Chair Smith reiterated that if the lots were owned by the same people who owned the mobile home they would be secure and not be displaced by some title wave. City Planner McKibben explained that in this case, the title wave came but was deflected by the residents of the community and a lot of work and added that she didn’t think this was very common.

The commission discussed scheduling their next meeting. Commissioner Chesley advised he would not be at the December 3 meeting. The conclusion was to have a worksession from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.

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 was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for December 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. There will be a work session at 4:30 p.m. prior to the Regular meeting.

__________________________________________

DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: _________________________________