Session 06-06, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:04 p.m. on March 1, 2006 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

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

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

1. Homer Spit Replat 2005

2. H. K. Davis No. 7

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

C. KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

D. Commissioner Excused Absences

The consent agenda was adopted by consensus of the Commission.

City Planner McKibben said Ordinance 06-11 failed and Ordinance 06-13 was postponed by the City Council so there is no need for Commission action. Ordinance 06-12 has an amended time schedule that will be discussed under COMMISSION BUSINESS.

The agenda as amended was adopted by consensus of the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

A. Approval of the February 15, 2006 regular meeting minutes.

The Regular Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2006 were amended and adopted 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.

Chair Chesley displayed a poster of an optical illusion and offered the following: Sometimes planning is not what it appears to be and it may not appear to be what it is.

There were no 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. Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer Amending Homer City Code section 21.44.040, Urban Residential and 21.45.040, Rural Residential concerning dimensional requirements.

City Planner McKibben explained this is the ordinance the Commission has been working on and the resolution was finished at the last meeting. It was recommended another public hearing be held due to the time lapse from the previous public hearing on the matter.

Chair Chesley acknowledged Surveyor Kenton Bloom in the audience and said it may be important for him to take the information back to the surveying community. There are a number of streets platted in the city that lead to Kachemak Bay and are not likely to ever be constructed. The lots adjacent to those streets should be subject to setback relief from right-of-way (ROW). Commissioner Foster said the lots could also be turned into trails.

City Planner McKibben noted the companion resolution is a separate item.

Kenton Bloom, city resident, said the ordinance is a start in reviewing the setback vernacular for the town. A lot of the ROW’s are section line easements. It would be useful in understanding what the fingers to the sea do or do not provide. A long term plan to make feasible, sustainable access to the beach is needed. It will provide a larger picture of the beach interface with pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It supports the private landowner on either side of the ROW. Mr. Bloom is supportive of people having more flexibility of their property, thus encourages rethinking the street setback.

Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Bloom how Anchorage and Juneau are dealing with section line easement. Mr. Bloom answered he is more familiar with Mat-Su. Section line easements are related to the coherence of the system. Can the easement be used for utility? They do not want to have to buy a replacement access later on. Some of the vacation of easements in Homer’s tracts truncated the ability to provide pedestrian access. Commissioner Foster referenced the old government lots where the easements and ROW’s were included. Mr. Bloom said the proposed Coastal Trail has several of the small lots that are being used to route through the area.

Commissioner Foster told Mr. Bloom he appreciates his comments that the setback should be more for the Urban Residential rather than downtown. Mr. Bloom said commercial property is worth a lot more with a building on it. All of the aspects pay back the city with a density of commercial architecture in town. The pay back is for the walk-ability and live-ability in town. Having just returned from Europe, Mr. Bloom observed people making their livelihood in store front shops. He said it is attractive and it also works.

HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION.

Commissioner Kranich asked if the resolution will be attached and City Planner McKibben answered that it will. Commissioner Foster asked what the logic behind the setback was and City Planner McKibben answered it was not known, but the original ordinance may provide insight. Commissioner Foster said in Lake Tahoe the setback was for snow load, to prevent rain from dropping on your next door neighbor.

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

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 – 06-17 W.R. Benson Subdivision 2006 Replat Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and recommendations.

Chair Chesley said the City cannot require a 15 ft. utility easement because it is a subdivision, but the owner could grant the easement to the City.

Kenton Bloom, Surveyor representing applicant Donald Miller, offered response to the staff recommendation. He said Mr. Miller was planning on installing an extension of the sewer line on the east side of the property in the alley down to the beachfront parcel owned by Sundance Construction. Mr. Miller was confused why an easement was needed on the front part of property. Mr. Bloom said he couldn’t give Mr. Miller any clear answers why the easement was recommended as he does not believe the request is justified.

Commissioner Lehner asked if the second building on the south lot was an accessory structure. Mr. Bloom answered Mr. Miller has a shop and apartment on the northerly side and the shop is on the south side.

HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO APPROVE W.R. BENSON SUBDIVISION 2006 REPLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT

Commissioner Hess asked if setbacks had been verified for buildings on the north end. City Planner McKibben answered post construction as-builts for residential structures are not required. The setback information was not on the plat submitted.

Commissioner Kranich noted the staff report indicates city sewer is available. He asked if it is available now or in the future. City Planner McKibben answered it is her understanding city sewer is available now. Commissioner Kranich questioned the need for the 15 ft. utility easement when there is a 60 ft. ROW on Main Street and water will be available in the future. He said if a two-lane street and a water main cannot be put in a 60 ft. ROW we will have to revise our whole thinking city-wide.

Commissioner Hess reflected that Public Works wants a little bit of easement on the property. Chair Chesley said whenever there is a land reorganization action Public Works may request utility easements be granted. In this instance the applicant is un-subdividing and the City cannot require the utility easement. The owner can grant the easement voluntarily. In subdivision actions there is more authority to require utility easements. The 15 ft. easement allows for adequate room for working on the utilities and sufficient room to store spoils on site while working.

Commissioner Kranich said when Public Works requests an easement there is a difference between a utility easement and a utility maintenance easement. A utility easement allows them to place pipes in a piece of property, while a utility maintenance easement allows for work and storage space while working.

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

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 06-08 De Garmo Subdivision No. 2 Replat and Section Line Easement Vacation

City Planner McKibben explained the replat request was continued to allow staff and the applicant to discuss some of the items mentioned previously. There are no changes to the staff report. She called attention to the plat note on the preliminary plat stating soil conditions in the subdivision are unsuitable for conventional onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Plans for an alternate wastewater disposal system are included in the engineer’s subdivision and soils report and available at the Borough. Any alternate type of onsite wastewater treatment and disposal system must be designed by a professional engineer registered to practice in Alaska and the design must be approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The Commission asked the applicant to provide justification for an exception to the 3:1 ratio.

Chair Chesley stated the Commission did grant the section line vacation at the February 1, 2006 meeting. Email correspondence from Fire Chief Painter dated March 1, 2006 regarding fire codes for the subdivision was provided as a laydown.

City Planner McKibben summarized Fire Chief Painter’s email stating the proposed driveways exceed 150 ft. and could be shortened or widened to comply with the fire code.

Mike Yourkowski, applicant, thanked City staff for their work to hopefully get an affirmative vote from the Commission. He said Ann Griffin’s current wastewater system is a holding tank. Mr. Yourkowski is proposing to put holding tanks in until sewer is installed. He said it will eliminate the problem of wastewater and bluff erosion implications. As to the 3:1 width to depth ratio Mr. Yourkowski said the KPB grants exemptions when certain conditions are evident. The plat is constrained by the bluff and Kachemak Drive and to get the full value of the properties the ratio is appropriate. He believes the KPB will grant the exemption.

Commissioner Foster referenced the map provided in the packet showing the rough percentages of developed land of the total usable land above the bluff on the proposed lots. He asked if Mr. Yourkowski was proposing it as a plat note to restrict the amount of developable land on his lots. Mr. Yourkowski responded he had no problem with it, but did not know how Ann Griffin would feel. Surveyor Kenton Bloom said typically restrictions of the amount of developable land on lots is handled in the subdivision agreement with the City or is part of the building permit process or deed restriction. Generally the KPB is not fond of plat notes.

Mr. Yourkowski agreed that part of the rational of granting the exception of the 3:1 ratio was that the applicants would stipulate to not exceeding the percentages. When asked by Chair Chesley if Mr. Bloom was empowered to speak on Ann Griffin’s behalf, Mr. Bloom answered that her parcel is not exceeding the 3:1 ratio, therefore does not require an exception.

Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben if there was a mechanism for holding up the percentages in terms of their development. Ms. McKibben responded a deed restriction would ensure future owners are aware. Kenton Bloom said it would be in the same context as impervious coverage in the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District. Commissioner Foster asked if the percentages were derived from total or buildable property and Mr. Bloom answered from buildable property. Commissioner Foster commented that the figures could change with erosion, but the recorded plat date is the benchmark.

Confusion over the 3:1 ratio prompted Commissioner Foster to ask KPB Platting Officer Mary Toll what technique the Borough uses. On flag lots the flag is considered a driveway. KPB goes to the middle of the entire lot and then to the 3:1. Although the Planning Commission can grant whatever they see fit, the Borough looks at the buildable size of the lot and if it meets the 40,000 sq. ft. requirement the Borough will support it. Commissioner Foster asked if measurements had been done on the middle of the lots. City Planner McKibben said the measurements were provided previously. Mr. Bloom noted the three lots will require an exception from the Borough. On their plat they tried to show the width of the buildable sites compared to the length was 100 sq. ft. to 300 sq. ft.

Commissioner Foster asked for another argument as being able to subdivide because others have done it is not valid. He stated that the restriction from Kachemak Drive to the beach is a strong one. Surveyor Bloom said no one wants to live 20 ft. from Kachemak Drive when 200 ft. behind them they can be living on Kachemak Bay. It is a matter of quality of life and the prima facie site. For a successful project the sites must be located where they are best suited for the available land.

Mr. Yourkowski cited KPB Code 20.24.010 (A)(3) that granting the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which said property is situated.

Commissioner Lehner asked what width of driveway the developed area percentages were based on. Mr. Bloom answered 16 ft. was used to allow two cars to pass. Chair Chesley clarified the clear path must be 20 ft. so that no branches or trees may be up against the emergency vehicles. The Commission discussed the exceptions listed in the International Building, Fire and Mechanical Codes, Section 503, and their applicability to the site.

Commissioner Kranich asked if the plat note regarding the holding tank is legitimate. City Planner McKibben said the plat note was recommended by the engineer and should not be changed. The plat note states a standard septic system will not work on the sites and an alternative system must be provided. Incinerating toilets and bio-cycles are considered acceptable methods of wastewater disposal, although she is not clear on ADEC standards. Mr. Bloom said they are trying to eliminate the wastewater intrusion into the soil. Commissioner Foster asked how the requirement for holding tanks would be followed through. Mr. Yourkowski assured that the holding tanks would be cheaper than an alternative wastewater holding system. Chair Chesley said it used to be when a plat was filed the KPB would review the engineer’s report. Since the KPB no longer has the funds available to do so, the Borough regulation was changed so the engineer’s report has to prove it meets the ADEC code. It is not reviewed unless there is a problem and then the professional engineer’s stamp is at risk to make sure they comply with ADEC requirements for onsite wastewater.

Chair Chesley said public comments were taken at the previous meeting and the matter is now before the Commission for decision. Commissioner Kranich noted under PLAT CONSIDERATION on the agenda it states testimony from applicants and the public will be heard. Chair Chesley said the public testimony requirement had been fulfilled and he did not believe it was appropriate to open public comment again. Chair Chesley deferred the question to Deputy City Clerk Johnson who stated if it was the Chair’s choice to not allow public comment that is his option. Chair Chesley referred it to the Commission for their recommendation.

KRANICH/FOSTER – MOVED TO TAKE FURTHER INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.

Commission Kranich said as long as the written agenda includes public comments under PLAT CONSIDERATION and COMMISSION BUSINESS he thinks the Commission is bound to take public comments. The Commission discussed the public’s interpretation of the agenda as written. Deputy City Clerk Johnson said the gentleman in the audience visited the Clerk’s office and was advised public comments would be allowed.

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

Motion carried.

Colette Ireland, neighbor of Mike Yourkowski, passed out photos and information pertaining to the subject plat. She thanked the Commission for allowing testimony today, stating her work schedule prevented her from hearing about the subdivision earlier. Ms. Ireland is adamantly opposed to the proposed subdivision. The subject property has an 85 ft. bluff. Neighbors have formed a coalition to educate themselves about bluff erosion and have expended over $25,000 by hiring Geoff Coble, a respected licensed geologist and hydrologist. Both Mike Yourkowski and Ann Griffin have been present at the meetings and are well aware of erosion issues on the properties. Kenton Bloom has never attended any meetings. He is a licensed surveyor, not a licensed hydrologist or geologist and is not qualified to give professional opinions on drainage issues.

Included in Ms. Ireland’s written information for the Commission is an email from Mr. Yourkowski sent to Geoff Coble and herself dated January 7, 2003 stating his lack of knowledge of groundwater issues and bluff erosion. Ms. Ireland said now he wants to compound the erosion problem by tripling the water usage and adding two more septic systems with homes close to the bluff. Mike Yourkowski said there have only been six inches of erosion during the 16 years he has lived on Kachemak Drive, which is blatantly untrue. Seven years ago Ms. Ireland and Mr. Yourkowski paid to have beetle kill trees removed. At that time it was safe for the men with their equipment to work in the area. Today it would be insane to approach those stumps due to erosion and undercutting that has occurred over the last seven years. Mr. Yourkowski is giving the Planning Department a misleading impression that Geoff Coble is working with him on the project. Ms. Ireland has talked to Mr. Coble and was assured he is adamantly opposed to subdividing the property. Mr. Yourkowski has been into his office numerous times trying to get him to write a report supporting the project and Mr. Coble has refused.

Colette Ireland said at the February 1, 2006 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Yourkowski addressed Commissioner Kranich’s comment that it hasn’t been long enough to determine if DOT’s work on Kachemak Drive to solve drainage problems was successful. Mr. Yourkowski said he had been assured DOT is taking responsibility to ensure the work is successful. She, nor any coalition members have received that assurance from DOT, although it has been requested. Mr. Coble is concerned whether the DOT drainage culverts will be a long-term fix and how future development of the airport and wetlands on the north side of Kachemak Drive will impact the bluff. Mr. Yourkowski and Ms. Griffin claim they want full use and value of their land like their neighbors have. Both parties have had that privilege, as Ms. Griffin’s family has built a second home, subdivided their parcel and sold the second home. Mr. Yourkowski has received two building permits for a two-story shop and a two-story addition to his house. His expanded house is connected to an illegal, nonconforming, non DEC approved septic system that was designed for a one bedroom cabin. His house, shop and secondary living quarters are equal to and may exceed most of the houses on Kachemak Drive. Ms. Ireland reiterated her concerns with the bluff and erosion issues, stating her opposition to the subdivision.

Michael McCarthy, Kachemak Drive resident, lives on the first lot outside the 500 ft. notification area and was not aware of the replat at the initial hearing. He is a retired registered geologist in Oregon. Mr. McCarthy is one of the initial property owners that formed the coalition. The neighborhood coalition has received support for DOT to address the damage they partially caused. It took contact with Representative Young to get that action. Mr. McCarthy stated the area along Kachemak Drive is extremely fragile. When groundwater, driveway or roof runoff is introduced to the slope the face along the bluff will begin to ooze. PND Engineers viewed his lot and said the slope along the bluff is super underrated. When the bluff is dry it is like concrete; when wet it is like concrete slurry. Due to the peat and impervious clay layer, the water undercuts, oozes down and washes out the toe. To work on the problem, the toe has to be dried out first. That cannot be done with a development like this. DOT’s work in 2005 cost the State in excess of $500,000. Time is needed for the bluff to express the results of the ¾ mile DOT work. The project engineer said DOT may have to return to do additional work. Per HCC 21.28.020 it would be a violation to have the development take place as it does not enhance the public health, safety and general welfare because an increased water load to the bluff face would most certainly expedite bluff slope failure. Per HCC 21.44.050 development activities shall not adversely impact other properties by causing damaging alteration of surface water drainage, surface water ponding, slope failure, erosion, etc. Recently Mr. McCarthy walked the beach and saw fresh mud oozing, particularly just below Mr. Yourkowski’s lot. It is all along the bluff in the area DOT worked in.

Mr. McCarthy said four years ago ACS trenched a line and the water runs like a conduit from the airport past Cronin’s property. Granting the exception per HCC 20.24.010(3) will not be detrimental to the welfare or injurious to other property in the area. Because of the ACS intrusion on his property Mr. McCarthy put in a 600 ft. curtain drain, 10 ft. deep at the bluff side and tapering to 6 ft. on the inland side shaped like a J-hook. He fought with ACS and received a settlement to restore part of the damage they had done. Mr. McCarthy is fully experienced in the issue of the slope. On the plat survey provided by Seabright Surveying Mr. McCarthy’s engineer scale does not match the distances noted on several lines of the drawings. The drawings give the appearance of more spacial distance than exists on the ground, which would be in violation to provide minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats. Additionally there is an eagle nest midway between Mr. Yourkowski and Ann Griffin’s property that has been occupied for the last two years.

Commissioner Foster said the applicants were mitigating with the holding tank and by limiting the size of the development. He asked if those two measures would mitigate the type of impact. Mr. McCarthy answered that they would not as time is needed to prove up the DOT work that has been done. It will take more than a few months; at the very least it will take one full season. Commissioner Foster asked if he was aware of any methods for mitigating the concerns of impervious coverage. Mr. McCarthy said a more extensive curtain ring system or drilling a line and pushing a pipe through the face of the bluff at the airport end and to carry the water along the road would be options. DOT did not want to spend that much money.

John Mouw, neighboring property owner, presented pictures to the Commission. He said both the Borough and City codes protect the public safety and welfare. Mr. Mouw explained each of the pictures that showed oozing of the bluff and erosion after the DOT work. There was an overhang of trees that are now leaning towards the bay and water pooled due to frozen culverts that are not able to handle the overflow. Mr. Mouw said none of the lots meet the 3:1 ratio according to his calculations. After hearing about the fire regulations he wonders what a cul de sac would do to the proposed developed areas.

Commissioner Foster asked when his lot was subdivided and Mr. Mouw answered in the early 1980’s. He said the three lots that are referenced as violators in the neighborhood are all larger than the proposed lots.

Rika Mouw, neighboring property owner, read a letter from Shirley and Wayne Grossman expressing their opposition to the subdivision due to the erosion and fragile nature of the bluff.

Mrs. Mouw said Mr. Bloom’s map of the lots depicts her own driveway as wide as Kachemak Drive. The blacked out areas are very misleading. She does not see how holding tanks could be mitigation, as there is nothing there now; it would mean status quo. There would be more loss of vegetation and more non-permeable surfaces. The building sites would destroy the largest last remaining spruces. They are seeing some flooding now, so the DOT situation is not completely solved.

Mike Yourkowski said the conversations with Geoff Coble were characterized inaccurately. His earlier conversations with Mr. Coble were regarding conventional or tweaked wastewater systems. He was inquiring if some wastewater system could be built that would not increase the ground water. Mr. Coble said any new wastewater would not be good for the bluff. He said it would be good to drain the area near Kachemak Drive to get it to flow west. He recommended Ms. Ireland tie into the system as well. As to the bluff erosion issue with the overhanging trees, they have been overhanging for 30 years. The person Ms. Ireland bought her house from said she didn’t see any changes in the 27 years she lived there. As to Mr. Bloom’s percentages, on the Mouw’s driveway it does look wide, but their house was not included in the percentage. Mr. Yourkowski agreed there are some inaccuracies in the map, but the object of the map is to show the house is not out of line with the rest of the neighborhood.

Chair Chesley asked if the holding tank will take the gray and brown water waste from the residences and will be pumped on a service contract similar to that of Kachemak City. Mr. Yourkowski answered that was the intent.

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 8:47 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:56 p.m.

Upon discussing the replat, Commissioner Hess said it is a tough issue, similar to limited impervious coverage in the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District, but the restrictions are not in place on Kachemak Drive. He has a hard time supporting the development, as without a mitigation of impervious coverage there is not enough information to allow it to go forward. Additionally there is a health, safety and welfare issue. Mr. Hess expressed his sympathy for the property owners wanting to develop their property.

Commissioner Pfeil commented seeing the land developed, with the width of the lots and small amount of buildable property he has a hard time accepting the replat.

Commissioner Foster appreciates the neighbors’ interest. He knows how sincere Mr. Yourkowski has been in making concessions by trying to mitigate or alleviate some of the concerns. Commissioner Foster has talked with folks from DOT and has learned there are viewing stations to test the drainage. The concern is there hasn’t been enough time to assure that the drainage corrections are working. Mr. Foster is not convinced granting the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties in the area.

Commissioner Kranich has grave concerns about DOT’s groundwater program after seeing the pictures showing the water level on the bluff. He does not see any evidence the system is working and is hesitant to add more impervious surface in the area.

Commissioner Lehner said there is no dispute it is a complex system that has been perturbed. Measures were taken to address what had happened as a result of the perturbations caused by the road. It is premature to allow further perturbations of the system. The health, safety and general welfare need to be considered and there is insufficient justification to grant the exception to the 3:1 ratio due to the unknown issues.

Chair Chesley expressed concern with what is happening on Kachemak Drive. This summer there was a presentation at Islands and Ocean Visitor’s Center by Geoff Coble in conjunction with the outreach arm of the Kachemak Bay Research Reserve. David Nofziger, a well published soil physicist from Oklahoma was there. He is Mr. Chesley’s brother-in-law. Dr. Nofziger is skeptical that the DOT measures taken on Kachemak Drive will not have a significant impact. He discussed a grant proposal with Dr. Rick Foster of long-term monitoring to assess the area. Mr. Chesley said it is unfortunate one property owner will bear the brunt, and it is unfair to Mike Yourkowski or any other property owner. There were legitimate issues about adding additional groundwater to the system and Mr. Yourkowski offered to install holding tanks that will not introduce any additional septic groundwater to the area. There are additional concerns about more runoff from further impervious surface, but those issues could be mitigated. The Commission is on shaky ground denying the plat, as on appeal it will not hold up.

Commissioner Foster commented it has been made very clear you do not have to get an exception. Often the Planning Department at the Borough level does not recommend an exception and the exception is not given, but the preliminary plat is approved. It must fit the 3:1 width to depth ratio to be approved.

LEHNER/HESS – MOVED TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION TO THE 3:1 RATIO.

The Commission discussed the exception to the 3:1 width to depth ratio and offered the following points against it.

Neighboring properties could be injured.

Significant removal of large spruce tree vegetation.

Increase in impervious surfaces.

Lots with a portion over the bluff (although still a legal part of the lot)

Commissioner Foster said the exceptions to the regulations shall present substantial evidence justifying the waiver or exception. He sees one finding that it would be desirable to have homes off the road. He noted that DOT doesn’t spend that much money if there is not a substantial concern about public welfare and injury to other property in the area. Kachemak Drive has been identified as a hazardous area and Commissioner Foster questioned if it is proper to make the situation worse.

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

VOTE: YES. CHESLEY

Motion failed.

LEHNER/PFEIL – MOVED TO APPROVE THE DE GARMO REPLAT.

Commissioner Hess asked if the motion for the exception to the 3:1 ratio should be after the main motion. It was decided the 3:1 ratio motion was very clear.

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

VOTE: YES. FOSTER, CHESLEY

Motion failed.

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 06-18 Amending Staff Report PL 06-02, Request For Re-Zone From Urban Residential to Residential Office for a portion of Lots 1, 37-A, And 12-A in A. A. Mattox Subdivision.

The motion on the floor:

PFEIL/LEHNER - MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 06-02 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.

There were no public comments.

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

Motion failed.

HESS/PFEIL – MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO EXTEND RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TO INCLUDE THE REPLATTED PORTIONS AS STATED IN STAFF REPORT PL 06-18.

Commissioner Connor stated although she has no philosophical problem with the rezone, she disagrees with the interpretation of the City Attorney regarding HCC 21.70.010(3)(i). She believes a petition is in order from the majority of property owners in the area as stated in the code. Commissioner Foster agreed with Commissioner Connor. Referencing Frank Griswold’s letter regarding spot zoning[1], he asked City Planner McKibben to explain how it is not spot zoning.

City Planner McKibben said spot zoning is typically an enclave, a small area surrounded by something entirely different. This is an expansion of an already existing district.

Commissioner Hess is struggling with the proper reasons to allow for the rezoning. He believes the Commission needs more education before a decision is made. Commissioner Lehner stated it is a public need, as one parcel in two zoning districts is problematic. Commissioner Kranich said not having the petition processed may be a valid concern, yet during the previous proceedings the adjoining property owners had no adverse comments. Chair Chesley agreed the aforementioned code does need change as the impact can go beyond the single lot being rezoned.

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

VOTE: NO. CONNOR, HESS

Motion carried.

B. Resolution 06- , A Resolution of the Homer City Council Identifying Rights-of-Way Within the Rural Residential and Urban Residential Zoning Districts That Access Kachemak Bay Determined to be Unsuitable for Road Construction.

City Planner McKibben said the resolution was addressed at the previous meeting and is now being listed as an agenda item to allow public comment. It is the resolution that goes with the ordinance.

FOSTER/KRANICH - MOVED TO SUPPORT A RESOLUTION OF THE HOMER CITY COUNCIL IDENTIFYING RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITHIN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ACCESS KACHEMAK BAY DETERMINED TO BE UNSUITABLE FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION.

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

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 06-19, Ordinance 06-11, Of the City Council of the City of Homer, Alaska Amending Homer City Zoning Map to Rezone to Central Business District (CBD), Portions of Rural Residential (RR) and Portions of Urban Residential (UR) Zoning Districts fronting on the Sterling Highway West Hill Area to the South West Boundary of the Central Business District (CBD). Shadle. Recommend introduction, forward to Planning Commission for public hearing and comment, conduct Council’s public hearing on March 13, 2006, Second Reading on March 27, 2006.

Ordinance 06-11 failed at City Council level, therefore was pulled from the agenda.

D. Staff Report PL 06-20, Ordinance 06-12, Of the City Council of the City of Homer, Alaska Amending Homer City Code 21.48, Central Business District (CBD) by Deleting Some Allowed Uses. Stark. Recommend introduction, forward to Planning Commission for public hearing and comment, conduct Council’s public hearing on March 13, 2006, Second Reading on March 27, 2006.

City Planner McKibben explained Ordinance 06-12 was introduced at Council level with public hearings scheduled for March 13 and 28, 2006 and Second Reading on April 10, 2006. The Council extended the schedule to allow feedback from a meeting with the Gateway property owners. City Planner McKibben said a public hearing could be scheduled on March 15 or April 5 with the Commission.

LEHNER/PFEIL – MOVED TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 06-12 ON MARCH 15, 2006.

Commissioner Hess said Ordinance 06-12 follows Ordinance 06-11 that was defeated at the Council level. It followed the westerly boundary of Homer Middle School and is talking about amending the CBD where the CBD doesn’t exist. City Planner McKibben said the intent of the ordinance is to expand the CBD and in the expanded district not to allow mobile homes or mobile home storage.

Chair Chesley noted both technical and procedural issues recommended by administration to Council and the Commission regarding updates to Title 21 and the Comprehensive Plan. He recommended the Commission defeat the motion to hold a public hearing and affirm the process laid out by administration. That process is that there should be no modifications to districts in Title 21 until the Comprehensive Plan update has been done, other than the housekeeping amendments staff identified in their first phase of Title 21 development. Chair Chesley asked for City Planner McKibben’s input and she was agreeable to his recommendations.

Commissioner Foster said when looking at the Gateway overlay there are three uses that should be addressed (mobile homes, ministorage and mobile home parks). The temporary storage of equipment being used in conjunction with construction projects should be reviewed.

Chair Chesley asked City Planner McKibben to write a memo to summarize Commission action, affirming they understood the intention, but because of the mechanics of the ordinance and administration’s plan they would like to see the Council follow up with the process.

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

Motion failed.

E. Staff Report PL 06-21, Ordinance 06-13, Of the City Council of the City of Homer, Alaska Amending Homer City Zoning Map to Rezone to General Commercial One (GC1) Portions of Rural Residential (RR), Urban Residential (UR) and Residential Office (RO) Zoning Districts fronting East End Road in the East Hill Area. Shadle. Recommend introduction, forward to Planning Commission for public hearing and comment, conduct Council’s public hearing on March 13, 2006, Second Reading on March 27, 2006.

This was postponed until a later date when the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan is underway. It will first go to City Council .

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster reported at the last KPB Planning Commission meeting Mrs. Heimbuch, Planning Commissioner, was going to make a statement and was about ready to recuse herself since she had heard the matter at the city level. The chair said she didn’t have to recuse herself. Dr. Foster became uneasy hearing this and waited until commission comments to inquire further. He learned the Borough attorney is to appear before the KPB Planning Commission to explain the opinion[2], but the Borough Planning Commission will function in the previous manner until then, being able to hear and comment on all applications.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

None.

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Chair Chesley asked if the Fire Chief could be invited to a Commission worksession to answer questions on single family residence recommendations. City Planner McKibben will schedule a visit from Fire Chief Painter.

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 February 9, 2006 to Richard Gregoire from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician.

B. Letter dated February 9, 2006 to Craig Thompson, Dykeman Architects from Beth McKibben, City Planner regarding Land Use Regulations for the Safeway Store.

C. February 7, 2006 Meeting Minutes of the Homer Road Standards Committee regarding Homer Boulevards

D. Letter dated February 9, 2006 to Richard Gregoire from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

E. Letter dated February 22, 2006 to Ed Adair from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

F. Letter dated February 23, 2006 to Blase Burkhart, Burkhart Croft Architects, LLC from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

G. Violation Complaint Log prepared February 22, 2006 by Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

Commissioner Hess questioned the letter to Craig Thompson. City Planner McKibben explained the Commission decided the expansion of the Safeway store was already retail and there was no need for a traffic analysis. Safeway’s revised plans include an architectural feature, bringing the building more in compliance with the Community Design Manual (CDM). After discussions with the City Manager and City Attorney, Ms. McKibben said it seems unreasonable to require a business to go through the entire large retail standards and address traffic, the CDM, community economic impacts, etc. The same is true with the covered walkway at City Hall. If the code were applied it would go through the CUP process with the expansion of the building to add the covered walkway over the stairway. It is a literal interpretation of the law, but is not a reasonable application and bogs down staff time as well as the Planning Commission’s time. The letter is written to say when these things exist a CUP will not be required when expanding the building. The addition of the architectural feature shouldn’t make it go through the CUP process. The impacts are coming from the expansion of retail space within the building. The alternative is that Safeway wouldn’t add the feature. There was time and thought put into it.

Chair Chesley said the interpretation is not consistent at what was done at Boyd Walker’s. When the exception was granted not to have to apply the large retail standards, they continued an already existing roof line. They didn’t add a new feature to the building. City Planner McKibben explained Boyd Walker went through the CUP as he expanded the area of the store, adding storage area, to a building over 8,000 sq. ft. Because his plans did not change the front of the building, it was unreasonable for him to comply with the CDM. Chair Chesley questioned how it was different from Safeway. City Planner McKibben said Safeway is adding architectural features that are consistent with the CDM. Chair Chesley said when Safeway met with the Commission they brought plans to cover the entire walkway in front. The Commission related to them if they expanded the exterior one foot that would trigger the need for a CUP. They were told they could do whatever they wanted in the interior because the code didn’t address remodels.

City Planner McKibben said at the time the code required zoning permits for interior remodels. The Commission decided if the expansion of the store required a Traffic Impact Analysis or Community Economic Impact Analysis because the retail area of the grocery store was expanding into the rest of the store. The footprint has grown. City Planner McKibben’s interpretation was the expansion of the store within the building should go through the CUP as it was larger than 15, 000 sq. ft. The Planning Commission said the store has been used as retail space all along so they didn’t require the CUP. Ms. McKibben said the addition of the architectural feature will not change the traffic, or the economic impact.

Chair Chesely asked where the basis was in the code to deny architectural features? He said increasing the footprint of the building triggers the CUP process and that process was waived based on Ms. McKibben’s interpretation of the code. He does not believe that can be done.

Commission Hess suggested a code amendment to cover the architectural features. City Planner McKibben said Alaska USA, the KPB College expansion, and Homer Library’s covered porches were not counted in the calculation of the footprint. Neither the drive-thru’s or the large covered canopy were counted in the Alaska USA square footage. While professional architects designed all the buildings, it is a disconnect between what the code says and the interpretation. Commissioner Hess said there still should be a process where they present what they are doing.

Commissioner Pfeil applauded Safeway for doing the architectural feature, stating it is a lot more expensive than just building a box. It conforms to the CDM and he is glad the City found a way to allow it. He does also appreciate Chair Chesley’s point, stating the Commission needs to find a way to make it work legally.

Commissioner Kranich said he will study the Safeway letter in detail to provide comments at the next meeting.

CONNNOR/PFEIL - MOVED TO ADD INTERPRETATION OF ZONING CODE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ADDITION OF EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES TO COMMISSION BUSINESS FOR THE NEXT MEETING

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

Chair Chesley questioned the letter to GCI on access. He worked on proposing a development in the same subdivision and found the traffic flow may require a curb cut. He asked how traffic would be routed. City Planner McKibben answered the curb cut will be on Sterling Highway for service vehicles and the public parking will be accessed off of Greatland. Commissioner Foster said he has concerns that as GCI develops they may not want to stay on the main drag. The building could be sold and used as a retail business with a curb cut. He said it could be a mini mall and asked how the Commission should address it. City Planner McKibben said Public Works was asked to review the curb cut, although their comments have not been returned. DOT already approved the curb cut, although it is contradictory to the Master Roads and Street Plan. The City suggested they move the building to the south and have driveway access through the north side and they had reasons why the topography was not appropriate to do so.

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

There was no audience.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Hess agrees with the reasoning about the architectural feature and wants to make sure everything is comfortable with it.

Commissioner Foster said he is concerned about the denial of the plat, although it can always be appealed at the Borough level. The exception does not have to be given, and cannot be appealed. Exceptions are granted when there are solid findings. He has seen one overturned at Moose River with a long and skinny lot, but still 40,000 sq. ft. He said you never know the right way to go.

Commissioner Lehner commented the Planning Commission is under no obligation to enable a landowner to make the maximum profit from their piece of land if it is not in the public interest.

Commissioner Kranich said the Commission has run into whether something is on the floor or not. In his prior experience with Robert’s Rules of Order for something to be discussed there has to be motion to have it on the floor. He asked if it may be different in the Commission bylaws. He said in the Council’s process an item is not discussed until a motion is made to discuss it. Mr. Kranich said it would clarify items that had been continued. For any action before the Planning Commission the public hearing would be opened and then there would be a motion to take action. He said presently if an item is under COMMISSION BUSINESS it may be discussed for an hour without a motion being made.

Chair Chesley asked Deputy City Clerk Johnson to research the matter, especially the continued items, to see if it was in the Commission Bylaws or Operating Manual.

Commissioner Connor said she was looking forward to seeing the Commissioners at the training session in Anchorage.

Chair Chesley commented that planning is fun. He thanked City Planner McKibben and Deputy City Clerk Johnson.

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 10:30 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 15, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., in the Cowles Council Chambers with a Worksession at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.

____________________________________

JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved:__________________________

---

[1] Letter from Frank Griswold dated January 21, 2006 re: Split Lot Rezones as provided in the Commission’s packet.

[2] See Homer Advisory Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2006 for Commissioner Foster’s remarks under REPORTS – Borough Report.