Session 09-06, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Minsch at 7:02 p.m. on April 1, 2009 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

PRESENT:      COMMISSIONERS BOS, KRANICH, MINSCH, SINN, STORM

ABSENT:        COMMISSIONERS HAINA, MOORE

STAFF:                          CITY PLANNER ABBOUD

PLANNING TECHNICIAN ENGEBRETSEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

 

AGENDA APPROVAL

 

Commissioner Kranich requested item 5 under the Consent Agenda be moved to New Business for discussion. The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

The Public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not scheduled for public hearing. (3 minute time limit) Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

 

There were no public comments.

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

There were no items for reconsideration.

 

ADOPTION OF THE 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.

 

1.       Approval of Minutes of March 4, 2009

2.       Time Extension Requests

a.       Time Extension Request for Cooper Subdivision Clay Addition No. 4 dated March 10, 2009

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

4.       KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

5.       Approval of Draft Decision and Findings Re: Appeal of fines for violation of stop work order Sunland Development 3670 Lake Street

 

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

 

PRESENTATIONS

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

 

There were no presentations.

 

REPORTS

 

A.       Borough Report

 

There was no Borough Report.

 

B.       Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

There was no KBAPC report.

 

C.       Planning Director’s Report

          1.       Staff Report PL 37, City Planner’s Report

 

City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report. There was discussion regarding a lack of interested participants for the Spit Comprehensive Plan. They addressed that there needs to be representation from the Port and Harbor Advisory Commission. There was also discussion regarding the Council’s amendment of the off site parking in Ordinance 09-12(A). It was requested that staff review it to ensure that the change doesn’t negate the Commission’s work as it is a huge change from the direction they were going. City Planner Abboud noted that has been adopted and that it was clarified that this parking ordinance is a working document.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and the acting on the Public Hearing items. (3 minute time limit) The commission may question the public. Once the public hearing is closed the Commission cannot hear additional comments on the topic.

 

A.       Staff Report PL 09-33, Comprehensive Plan: Forward through Chapter Four

 

Planning Technician Engebretsen reviewed the staff report and gave a brief history of the Comprehensive Plan development process.

 

Chair Minsch opened the public hearing.

 

Dr. Charles Burgess, city resident who resides on Kachemak Drive, expressed his concern about a potential breach of our democracy. He commented that during the process of the Citizens Commission and the number of hearings that took place, a number of citizens from Kachemak Drive provided input and the result of their discussions was provided in the map presented by Agnew:Beck. A number of hardworking people from Kachemak Drive put in for what they thought was a reasonable compromise on a number of issues. He encouraged the Commissioners to look at the Agnew:Beck map and compare it to what is provided in the current draft. He, as well as a number of residents on Kachemak Drive, would like to know why the recommendations that were made by the full time residents on Kachemak Drive aren’t reflected in the current draft. The residents are not there to profit off Kachemak Drive. They have children and families there. They are not there to be developers. He wants to put $200,000 into his house over the next few years but with these changes he might walk away. It has gotten to be outrageous to him how the city operates in a number of ways. He knows a number of citizens are concerned as to what happened from the first zoning recommendations, to the current recommendations. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider what it would be like for them if they lived there and the idea of having an industrial development right across the street from their home, where children play. It will also take away from the moose habitat. The compromise that was arrived at by Agnew:Beck and the citizens of Kachemak Drive appears to have been completely ignored on the final product. He, as well as his fellow citizens on Kachemak Drive, intends to spend money in pursuing this and finding out how the transition occurred and why their voice was not heard, since they are the ones who live there.

 

Roberta Highland, city resident, said she had commented back in June 2007 and wasn’t sure if her comments had been included. She is the President of the Kachemak Bay Conservation Society and one of her main focuses is that anything we do is done with environmentally sound ideas. In looking at page 4-8 #7, management of storm water, slope standards, and on site septic systems are three things that are very important. She doesn’t understand how a group of citizens, without a huge planning staff, can accomplish all that is said in the plan. She knows there are no steep slope standards set yet. There was a big workshop about ten years ago that a private citizen paid for, and it never got done. In her opinion steep slope development is really important. One of her main concerns is the storm water and how it is connected with Kachemak Bay and all the oceans. Our town and all the other towns along Cook Inlet have storm water and it is a pretty big deal. Regarding the on site septic system, they are involved in having some building in her subdivision and she just discovered that outhouses are okay in city limits. Her time ran out so she quickly noted sections 4-10 #1, 4-11 #5 were other items of importance to her.

 

Rika Mouw, city resident, commented that in reading the Comprehensive Plan she feels good about Homer’s direction and that it is a thoughtful guide to shaping the future built environment of Homer. She expressed that she is troubled by the proposed land use plan that was put out by the Commission. It fails to reflect the studies and mapping done to guide the City in land use and planning and it shows that the extensive input by the professionals and volunteers was either not understood or is not being heard by the Commission. Mrs. Mouw pointed out that the GC2 designation is for a heavy commercial area where access to infrastructure is primary. The development standards are minimal, requiring only son site parking, minimal setbacks and voluntary landscape screening. The only GC2 designation is in the middle of the Beluga Wetland Complex, neighbored by critical moose habitat and rural residential neighborhoods on either side. Lampert Lake and expansive water marshes are designated GC2. This area has been mapped and found to be high value wetlands and important green infrastructure, has no current road access to much of the land, and no utility infrastructure. The development suitability map included in the plan shows development in the wetlands is prohibitively expensive. Professionals recommend the Beluga Wetland Complex be preserved since it has equal green infrastructure value as the Bridge Creek Watershed, both of which we rely on at minimal cost and offer obvious assets. She said the renewed GC2 designation smacks of special interests and does not reflect what has been recommended or is best for the community. Homer is not an industrial community and maybe more GC2 is not appropriate for Homer. Mrs. Mouw also commented that the rural residential designation along the bluff on Kachemak Drive is the maximum capacity the fragile area can accommodate. She said encouraging a higher density along the bluff is foolhardy and it wrongly presumes that the majority of the property owners are willing to have utilities installed before they are assured that the natural green infrastructure of the wetlands is preserved and the storm drain is taken care of first. She sees no storm drainage plan for Homer and lest of all for the functioning wetlands which the Commission has been proposed to be allowed to be filled in.  Mrs. Mouw’s time ran out before she could finish reading her letter and a copy was provided for the record.

 

Val McLay, city resident and Chair of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, said it is disheartening to him that the Committee and the Contractor was hired spent over a year on this plan and dealt with the public repeatedly, presented the plan to the Planning Commission over a year ago, is just now getting it to come before the public. It is disheartening that we continue to drag our feet on a plan that he feels there was a lot of public input on to present the plan as they did. He said the longer it takes to implement the plan, the more changes are going to take place in the plan because things are changing on us all the time and people are changing. Every time you get new people, you get new ideas. They don’t like the changes we came up with last year so now we have to make another change. If this is the case, then the plan will never be implemented. We need to implement a plan and proceed with it, and not keep making changes. Most of the people on the Commission were not Commissioners when the plan was first presented. There are only two Councilmembers remaining at the table when the CAC put this plan together. As a result if we continue to drag our feet on this we will have more and more new people sitting at the table to make a decision on what kind of a bad decision we made. He thinks we need to move forward with this plan.

 

Bill Smith agreed that we need to move forward but suggested they consider extending another date to allow people to make comments on more parts of the plan. As they have heard, three minutes isn’t enough for some people to testify about the first four chapters. He commented that when looking at the map he sees that it says the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations, the one that was submitted from the Committee said proposed on it. He thinks that is an important designation because this one says this is the Comprehensive Plan designation, which is where we will go. He doesn’t think it is appropriate and that it should say this is a suggestion and we will work on it neighborhood by neighborhood. In looking at the purpose of the plan it says it is to promote a type of development both built and natural that a community desires. In other words, it isn’t up to the few people sitting here. When he was on the Planning Commission he felt it was the community’s desires that had to be imbedded as code, not what he felt. He thinks they need to have that perspective.

 

Jan Needham, city resident on Kachemak Drive, said she has talked to various committees over the years about the creeping commercialism that has been pushing its way along as people tried to develop areas out there. She is in the middle of Kachemak Drive and now across the street from her is East End Mixed Use, when there are homes in there. This is one of the criminal things to do in any planning and zoning to take one side of the street with residential and the other side of the street has something that forces people to have to put up with commercial enterprises. You can see the effect of it as you drive from the airport terminal along Kachemak Drive where various places have developed. She thinks something has gone amiss to schedule East End Mixed Use right in the middle of people’s homes. She agrees with Mr. Smith and hopes they will have more meetings for this.

 

John Mouw, city resident, said he agrees with all that has been said. He commented regarding commercial zoning in the Beluga wetland system, and the change in zoning along Kachemak Drive from Rural Residential to Transitional Residential. He thinks it is essential the Beluga wetlands be seen as a vital part of Homer’s infrastructure that is performing critical storm drainage functions that would cost the City millions of dollars to replicate. Mr. Mouw explained that the increase in impervious surfaces due to development results in flooding with a greater volume of water arriving down slope in a shorter period of time. When the water flowing from above reaches the wetlands, it is slowed down, absorbed, and filtered as the natural systems are able to accommodate much of the run off. Even partial development of the wetlands will reduce their ability to perform their important function, as seen with the increased flooding at the east end of Kachemak Drive where there has been significant infilling and development. He noted that ADOT has been unable to keep up with the increasing flow of storm water in that area and even their 8 foot culvert placed under Kachemak Drive is not always up to task. The tax revenues generated by the few commercial enterprises created would not be enough to pay for the millions of dollars in infrastructure needed to replace the functioning wetlands. He questioned why we would want to damage such a perfect arrangement of a vital functioning natural system in the exact place it is needed, especially when it only benefits a few property owners in Homer. The information in the Comprehensive Plan indicates that commercial zoning in the wetlands in inappropriate. Conservation zoning of the entire wetland complex makes economic and ecological sense for Homer. Mr. Mouw further commented that the rural residential zoning along Kachemak Drive is appropriate and should not be changed as there are drainage issues there and concerns about increased development in the area. These are reasons why a majority of the property owners there voted against the water and sewer LID’s, not because the services aren’t wanted. Most favor it if the development concerns were addressed first.  While the Phase II LID passed, it was only because the vote was based on property values and a few properties with higher than average values voted for it, skewing the vote. Phase III has never been approved with the development concerns being a major factor. Mr. Mouw said this leads him to believe that the majority of property owners affected by this zoning change would be opposed to it, for very good reasons. Mr. Mouw provided a copy of his statement for the record.

 

Lynn Whitmore, not a City Resident, is the President of the Board of Directors of a non profit corporation that acquires wildlife habit, particularly moose habitat as a result of mitigation funds that came from the Bradley Lake hydro project. Their mandate is to off set the loss of wildlife in the Bradley area in the Homer area. Fish and Game asked them to target the Beluga wetlands area. One of the two other Boardmembers he serves with is a property manager for the State of Alaska for Fish and Game and the other is an engineer with the Alaska Energy Authority. They have been spending a lot of time and money trying to acquire properties around Beluga because Fish and Game tells them that once we lose that complex for wildlife habitat, we will lose the Homer bench moose herd. That is one of the reasons we live here, so rather than tell the Commission all the things they are doing wrong, he asked that they keep in mind that is the corporation’s target and that is something to consider when making decisions on what goes on around that lake. Of all the places in the area, the corporation targets that as the number one spot.

 

Robert Archibald, city resident, agreed with what the others have said about Kachemak Drive. He said that if we went to the soils and waters and got maps of the wetlands they are very much in that area. We may be jumping to conclusions about turning that into a commercial area and back filling some of it. It’s not a good idea. In looking at the Implementation Actions on Objective B on 4-11 which says develop standards in every one of these. He knows we need to develop standards for things like steep slope, wetlands, and hillside. The last one is to create an option for specialized review process for hillside and other sensitive areas, allowing development in steep slopes with extensive site analysis and engineering reports. To him that is something where if someone has the money they can come along and develop on the slope, there may be a mechanism to do that. It seems totally counter productive to him and counter to what they are trying to do here. He thinks if they develop a plan and solidify that plan, it should make it difficult for someone to try to go around and develop something counter productive or counter to what the citizenry wants. He thinks we need to implement this plan, we have been working on it since 2007, we have got three different copies and if you keep going on and on and rewriting it, something like this steep slope and wetlands is going to be a non issue if you don’t put it into law.

 

There were no further public comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.

 

There were no further staff comments.

 

STORM/BOS MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION ON STAFF REPORT PL 09-33 FEELING THAT WE NEED TO REVISIT THE LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP.

 

There was discussion that the first meeting in May would be open for further discussion.

 

Commissioner Storm commented that as a Commission they need to further discuss the land use designation.

 

Commissioner Kranich agreed that it needs to come back on their agenda to discuss, based on public input, and then have another public hearing.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

STORM/KRANICH MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ADDRESS THE AUDIENCE.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: STORM, KRANICH, SINN, BOS

          NO: MINSCH

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Storm said she wanted to let the people who were at the meeting to testify about Kachemak Drive know that the Commission deliberation of the land use designation map was a very contentious issue. She wanted to address specifically that there was no special interest in their deliberation on how to re-designate that map. She wanted to assure that they heard their testimony tonight and that is why she recommended it come back to the Commission for further review.

 

The Commission took a short recess at 7:47 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:49 p.m.

 

B.       Staff Report PL 09-34, CUP 09-02, 1002 Ocean Drive Loop, for more than one building containing a permitted principal use on a lot per HCC 21.12.030(n).

 

City Planner Abboud and Planning Technician Engebretsen reviewed the staff report and the amended staff report.

 

Susan DiFrancia, applicant, commented that she has been a property owner there since 1992. She fully renovated her house at 3119 Lake Street and sold it in 2004 and she finished a small custom studio on the next door property. She wanted to further develop the property and is now ready to fulfill a passion driven vision to create sanctuary and accommodate visitors to Homer. Her plan is to build a maximum of 3 small, high quality cabins connected to City water and sewer in undeveloped portion of the lot. She explained that flower gardens are a major design component of the overall plan. As with everything she has done in the last 18 years as a Homer resident, the development will be respectful to environment and have no impact on nearby properties. Her development will enhance the neighborhood. The area along bluff has a natural beauty conducive to a retreat like atmosphere. She intends to draw upon a specific clientele looking for a peaceful sanctuary with respect to the residential neighborhood. Ms. DiFrancia noted that several Bed and Breakfast establishments already operate in the area without issue. Three high quality rental cabins with beautiful gardens pose no adverse impact. Ms. DiFrancia reviewed a drawing that outlined her overall vision for the development. She thanked the Commission and hopes they will support her vision.

 

Robert Dewees, city resident, explained that he purchased the home that Ms. DiFrancia sold in 2004 and said several of his concerns are laid out in the letter included in the packet, including increased traffic, higher population density, and changing the community from residential to commercial. He said that it will be right next to them and in the summer there will be a lot of additional traffic, people out at all hours of the night, and he feels it will impact them a lot. He said they are only 15 feet from her property line so they will be close to the development. In addition Mr. Dewees noted that Ms. DiFrancia’s built a greenhouse that is right on their property line, which looks like it might be a violation of the current zoning. They have suffered some light pollution from that when she runs the greenhouse at night and as a result have abandoned the bedroom that they were using. Another issue is there are some areas of wetlands on the property and some of that area has been developed. They have wetlands on their property as well and the additional development has caused more water to show up on the back of their property. Mr. Dewees said he understands that people want to develop things, but thinks that there is enough of that type of development in the area and more development outside of the zoning will adversely impact the property values.

 

Bob Brant stated that he is the property owner on the other side of Ms. DiFrancia. He and his wife provided as a laydown item tonight that deals with a couple of technical concerns about the application. He added that their primary concerns are the number of units being considered and the enforcement procedures that may become a part of the conditions the Commission deem appropriate. The Brant’s ask the Commission for consideration on their concerns and remember that their incremental decisions in a neighborhood affect the direction of the neighborhood for many years to come. This neighborhood is primarily single family residents and they have concern that the incremental growth of B&B’s and vacation cabins are going to find their neighborhood more commercial 10 years from now than what they enjoy at this time.  He hopes they are thoughtful with their considerations about the number of units that might be allowed.

 

There were no further public comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.

 

Ms. DiFrancia rebutted that there are several other cabins and B&B’s on the street. She understands negative development but it is her intent to beautify the neighborhood. This is a popular part of Homer, the City owns the two lots across the street and many times people will picnic or take pictures. She thinks it is wonderful that Homer offers that to visitors and that is why she wants to develop her property and give people a chance to stay in Homer. She wants to offer a weekend oasis for visitors to come relax and appreciate the beauty of Homer. She is not going to promote one night stays or people partying and making a lot of noise. She lives on the property and she wouldn’t want to affect the quality of her life, so she will be careful who her guests are. She thinks it will be a positive thing.

 

Mike Anderson, Ms. DiFrancia’s husband, commented regarding the concern from the neighbor about the cabins being close to his property. He said that as you can see on the plan, her studio is on the other side and she does have a permit from the Corps of Engineers to move the cabin on the wetland if she wants to so it could be moved further from their property. He commented that the neighbor’s property is not adversely affected what so ever. They only have small windows facing her property.  Mr. Anderson said he has never heard of such a thing as greenhouse light hurting a person’s eyes. He thinks that the project does fit in with their parameters regardless of the pros and cons from the audience.

 

Staff had no further comment.

 

STORM/BOS MOVED TO POSTPONE DELIBRATION ON STAFF REPORT PL 09-34 UNTIL AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ITEM C OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

C.       Staff Report PL 09-35, Request for a Rezone from Urban Residential (UR) to Residential Office (RO) for Lot 19, AA Mattox Subdivision 1958 Excluding the DOT ROW, Lots 3 through 21, Block 2 Lakeside Village Subdivision Amended, Lot 3, Block 5, Lakeside Village Subdivision Amended, Lot 11, Block 3 Lakeside Village Subdivision Amended, Lots 2-B, 2-C, 2-D, Block 5 Lakeside Village Subdivision Unit #3, Lot 12B, Block 3 Lakeside Village Subdivision No. 7, Lot 25A Lakeside Village Hillfair Addition, and Tract A Forest View Subdivision along Ben Walters Lane and Nielson Circle.

 

City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report.

 

Tarri Thurman, Vice President of the Board of Directors for Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic, commented the reason they applied is the adjoining property behind the clinic became available and rather than expand the existing clinic and accommodate parking spaces it seemed like a no brainer to relocate offices adjoining the clinic. She hopes the Commission will see the benefit to the Community.

 

Chair Minsch opened the public hearing.

 

Carla Meitler, finance officer for South Peninsula Behavioral Health Services, said their property is across the street on Ben Walters. She spoke in favor of the rezone expressing interest in being included because their facilities are of an office nature and they want to keep the use as offices in order to provide important services to the community. They have another vacant property to the east of their main building that will be used in the future as an additional site for their facility. If the area is zoned to residential office, it will ease the transition. She pointed out the location of the properties on the aerial map.

 

There were no further public comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.

 

Staff had no further comment.

 

STORM/BOS MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 09-35 RECOMMENDING THE REZONE OF THIRTY PARCELS FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND FORWARDING IT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

STORM/BOS MOVED TO RECESS TO DELIBERATE ON STAFF REPORT PL 09-34.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

The Commission recessed at 8:23 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:03 p.m.

 

STORM/BOS MOVED TO DENY THE CUP BASED ON FINDING 6, 9, 18, AND 19 IN THE AMENDED STAFF REPORT PL 09-34 AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS BASED ON INADEQUATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THAT THE CABINS DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A ROOMING HOUSE.

 

Commissioner Kranich commented that the parking spaces provided don’t meet the dimensional requirements in code.

 

VOTE: YES: KRANICH, BOS, STORM, SINN, MINSCH

 

Motion carried.

 

City Planner Abboud explained to the applicant that once the decisions and findings are approved the decision can be appealed. He said to contact the planning office for further discussion.

 

PLAT CONSIDERATION

The Commission hears a staff report, testimony from applicants and the public, The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public, The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant.

 

A.       Staff Report PL 09-36, KPB-Cabana Replat Preliminary Plat

 

Planning Technician Engebretsen commented that the surveyor on this project requested that the plat be postponed based on communication with their client. Generally, once something has been noticed it is appropriate to allow the public the opportunity to comment.

 

There were no public comments regarding the plat.

 

STORM/BOS MOVED TO POSTPONE DECISION ON STAFF REPORT PL 09-36 UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff. 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. Any items brought before the Commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following introduction of the item. The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant (such as acceptance of a non conformity).

 

A.           Approval of Draft Decision and Findings Re: Appeal of fines for violation of stop work order Sunland Development 3670 Lake Street

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO ADOPT THE DECISIONS AND FINDING REGARDING APPEAL OF FINES FOR VIOLATION FO STOP WORK ORDER SUNLAND DEVELOPMENT.

 

Commissioner Kranich suggested an amendment to the second page as he thought it would be appropriate to include additional text. It reads that the appellant was aware of the requirement for a storm water plan, and suggested they include, “when a lot contained 60% impervious coverage” and construction activity prior to a valid zoning permit was unlawful.

 

There was discussion that the additional language may not be necessary, but would not be harmful.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO AMEND THE SECOND FINDING ON PAGE 12 AFTER THE TERM SWP, ADD LANGUAGE THAT STATES “WHEN A LOT CONTAINS MORE THAN 60% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE”.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Kranich suggested amending to the final finding, the installation of the storm water plan is irrelevant to the requirement of obtaining a zoning permit prior to commencement of construction activity. He suggested adding after irrelevant to the requirement, insert “of having an improved storm water plan and”. The applicant’s point of appeal was that he should be allowed 2 years to complete the installation.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO AMEND THE LAST FINDING ON PAGE 12 OF OUR PACKET TO INSERT AFTER IRRELEVANT TO THE REQUIREMENT INSERT “OF HAVING AN APPROVED STORM WATER PLAN AND”.

 

There was no further discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

VOTE (Main Motion as Amended): YES: STORM, MINSCH, KRANICH, SINN, BOS

 

Motion carried.

 

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

 

A.       The Open Meetings Act at a Glance information from Holly Souza, City Attorney

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

Members of the Audience may address the Commission on any subject.

 

There were no audience comments.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

 

Commissioner Bos thought it was a little frustrating tonight. He was glad about audience attendance and he hopes there is an emotional group like this for the rest of the Comp Plan. It seemed as though things were very one dimensional, it would be nice to add at least three minutes to the amount of time they have to speak. He said he enjoyed it.

 

Commissioner Sinn commented that it was good to see the people who came and hear what they had to say. We have more work ahead of us.  

 

Commissioner Storm commented that her worst fear was realized and that was that we undid the work of the CAC and went against the desires of the citizens who had their input encapsulated by Agnew:Beck. She hopes they can keep that in mind as they re-visit the land use designation.

 

Commissioner Kranich commented that he was glad for the audience. He agreed that it was very one dimensional, a one facetted view point, and a very narrow viewpoint that was expressed by most of the people. It was very self-centered. He doesn’t think that any thing the Commission has done to help develop this plan has been that way.  

 

Chair Minsch commented that she is willing to look at anything the Commission wants to look at. She thinks they have done good work and all of their decisions have been based on the needs of what is best for the entire community of Homer and that good work has been done.  We will have to decide what we want to do with it.

 

ADJOURN

Meetings adjourn promptly at 10 p.m. An extension is allowed by a vote of the Commission. 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 9:22 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 15, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There is a work session at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.

 

 

                                                         

MELISSA JACOBSEN, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: