Session 05-14, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:05 p.m. on August 3, 2005 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

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

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON

CITY MANAGER WREDE

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER

A quorum is required to conduct a meeting.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA

All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular agenda and considered in normal sequence.

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

Item D – Staff Report PL 05-75 CIP List Development under COMMISSION BUSINESS was moved to Item G and Items E, F, and G were renamed Items D, E, and F respectively. Additionally Item K – Code Section 21.70 Amendments was added and the former Item K Staff Report PL 04-109 Commission Work List – On-going became Item L. The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

A. Approval of July 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes. Will be a laydown.

The Commission did not receive the unapproved minutes of July 20, 2005 as a laydown item.

LEHNER/KRANICH – MOVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

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.

Brian Bennett, city resident, is involved with the citizens that are concerned about the Quiet Creek Park subdivision. He thanked the Commission for selecting a mediator for tomorrow’s neighborhood meeting. He thanked the Planning Department, City staff and City Clerks for their patience and understanding. From recent discussions he has learned the Planning Commission is an advisory commission for plat reviews. The City Council is also in an advisory role with the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) giving the final approval. A plat could be denied at the Commission and Council level and approved with the KPB. Mr. Bennett believes discussion may need to begin to bring the platting authority back to the City of Homer. It is a significant change that will involve changes in government; reclassifying the City of Homer from first class to home rule. Mr. Bennett said the Commission will find some willing partners in the concerned citizens group to continue discussions to the next level.

Chair Chesley explained Michael Hawfield will act as a moderator for Quiet Creek Park developer Tony Neal’s neighborhood meeting. City Planner McKibben clarified the City has no part in paying Mr. Hawfield for his services as a moderator.

Bob Shavelson, city resident, thanked the Planning Commission for the work they do for the community. Last year Mr. Shavelson had an appeal with the Vann’s property on Bishop’s Beach. There was a successful determination from the Commission and the Board of Adjustment remanded it back to the Planning Department. Mr. Shavelson questioned the status of the appeal.

City Planner McKibben answered that just recently she received correspondence from the Vann’s referencing work completed by an engineer and a revised development and activity plan. Although the plan is a draft Ms. McKibben agreed Mr. Shavelson could obtain a copy of it.

Paul Gavenus, city resident, addressed the Commission stating he provided a letter as a laydown item. The letter explained his calculations on density for surrounding urban residential (UR) subdivisions as compared to the proposed Quiet Creek Park subdivision. He stated the Quiet Creek Park subdivision is not much larger than the Barnett South Slope subdivision surrounding it on three sides, yet the South Slope contains less than one-third the number of lots. Mountain View and Bayview contains 105 lots, with Quiet Creek Park proposing 98 lots. Mountain View and Bayview are larger and would require 34 more lots to equal the density of Quiet Creek Park. He does not think Quiet Creek Park is rural residential (RR).

Gary Thomas, city resident, expressed his appreciation to the Commission for the amount of work they have done and that the issues are being tackled. He thanked Mr. Neal for arranging the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors in the alliance have helped to get a facilitator to make the neighborhood meeting as positive and constructive as possible. Mr. Thomas invited the commissioners to attend, adding there will be a number of issues to wrestle with that will be on the community’s and the Commission’s plate. The neighborhood alliance group has talked about issues that will be the developer’s responsibility and those that will be legislative in nature. He said there will be interesting dialogue in sorting out the issues and whose plate they belong on. He thanked the Commission for their hard work as they move through the issues.

Millie Lewis, city resident, said she has been a long time resident of Homer and has watched it grow. She and many other people are concerned about the Quiet Creek Park and how its growth will impact the neighborhoods. Ms. Lewis resides on Rainbow Court and entering Kachemak Way there is a blind curb both above and below. Many students use the route as they walk down Rainbow to and from the high school. Her concern is that the increased traffic will put the students and her own self at risk. Ms. Lewis said most of the information she has heard is from the newspapers and now she feels the need to be a part of the process. In reviewing the entrance and exit routes to the proposed Quiet Creek Park none of them seem to be real good. Her land borders the proposed Heath Street extension and she wonders how that would affect her financially when the City develops roads adjacent to her property. As the development occurs Ms. Lewis would advocate for larger lot sizes. She said growing up in Homer you did not breathe down your immediate neighbors necks, nor listen to their private conversations. She encouraged the Commission to think about senior citizens. Ms. Lewis’s mother is guarded while driving the local streets and makes a point to schedule her trips when no one will be on the streets. The intersections at Pioneer Avenue and Heath Street and Kachemak Way are dangerous from four directions and hamper the movements of the fire and police departments. Ms. Lewis thanked the Commission for their work.

Ron Keffer, city resident and principal of Homer High School, told the Commission careful consideration should be given to the students’ safety when thinking about the Quiet Creek Park subdivision. It will have an impact on the high school and its surroundings.

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 05-78 Re: Request For A Conditional Use Permit, CUP #05-12, Kazan, For Approval Of An Amendment To Conditional Use Permit, CUP 03-03, Beluga View Condominiums, As Permitted By HCC 21.48.030 (K) Located At 89 Sterling Highway, Lot 2, Glacierview Subdivision Number 18. PULLED FROM THE AGENDA - WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED.

B. Staff Report PL 05-79 Request To Name An Alley Dedicated By Bunnell Subdivision, Located Between 106 West Pioneer Avenue, The Homer Theatre And 126 West Pioneer Avenue, The Hillas Building To Fish Gut Alley.

City Planner McKibben called attention to the two laydowns, one an opposition and the other a request to postpone the action to allow time to find a more appealing name for the alley. Ms. McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations.

There was no public testimony.

LEHNER/PFEIL - MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-79 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY READING OF THE TITLE.

PFEIL/CONNOR - MOVED TO POSTPONE UNTIL HEARING BACK FROM MR. SUTTON.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

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.

There were no plats to consider.

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 05-80 Re: Request for Acceptance of Nonconforming Use on 671 Sterling Highway, Lot 2, Bluff Park No. 4.

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations.

Frank Griswold, city resident, commented that letters indicate fill was brought in and dozed to bring up the level of the property. He stated bringing in fill is not a use, the proof of on-going nonconforming uses is vague, as are the dates. The Commission needs to see documents as back-up. The use must be substantial, serious and ongoing. Since 1982 if the property was converted to a conforming use rights for a nonconforming status would be lost.

Bob Brant owns property within the city of Homer. He appreciates the Commission’s time and integrity and endorses Frank Griswold’s point. He urged the Planning Commission to strictly follow the applicable zoning ordinance for nonconforming use. He has driven by the lot twice a day before the zoning ordinance existed. Mr. Brant stated he was here to testify there has not been continuous equipment and machinery storage on the lot. Should the nonconforming use be granted it would be a welcome to Homer monument; monument to failure. He urged the Commission to uphold the ordinance as put forth by the City Council. He said if granted, it will be an instance where the past and current administration has failed. A piece of equipment and pile of dirt would be the welcome to Homer sign and a monument to the hundreds of people that have served on the Planning Commission. Mr. Brant said it is past time for the administration to enforce existing zoning ordinances including the city’s own properties. There are ways to fund the work and get the work done, but if the administration doesn’t care about the previous work done by volunteers all that effort is a waste. Mr. Brant urged the citizens of Homer to require more of the administration.

Dr. William Marley, city resident, said he has been trying to create a Central Business District (CBD) that complies with the Community Design Manual (CDM) so Homer’s entrance is an attractive and appealing place. He is fearful a situation like this is allowed to occur. Dr. Marley said Mr. Brant spoke very well. As a person who occasionally drives in and out of Homer, Dr. Marley always notices the subject property as it is not pleasant or appealing in development. He concluded it is not appropriate for uses such as this to continue within the city.

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-80 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BY READING OF TITLE.

Commissioner Hess said the site is used for fill rather than a use as indicated in the letter from Larry Herndon. In the 1970’s through 1985 the main use of the lot was for filling which has nothing to do with staging, material storage, or stockpiling. The Code was adopted in 1982 and other uses taking place after that date would have been a violation. Commissioner Lehner said when the credit union site was developed a huge amount of fill was brought in and let to sit to compact. Bringing fill in, letting it sit, and spreading it is not a use in itself as it is preparation for other uses. Mr. Herndon’s letter expressed that fill was brought in to raise the height of the lot.

Commissioner Kranich stated he is not happy with that type of use in that area. He advised the Commission Mr. Herndon has called him in regard to the lot and just this evening informed him he wouldn’t be at tonight’s meeting. Commissioner Kranich said contractors dumping material into the lot have reason to dump, to get rid of something from a construction site so they are allowed to build. The use is not being good to Mr. Hahn and Mr. Jewell. Mr. Kranich has driven by the site several times a day since the early 80’s and cannot document to the month and each year activity has happened. He suggested sending the proposal back to Larry Herndon for more precise dates. Commissioner Foster commented the burden of proof is on Mr. Herndon and he is not sure it has to be sent back to him as the letters provided almost disprove the use.

HESS/LEHNER – MOVED TO NOT APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR NONCONFORMING USE OF MATERIAL FOR STAGING, STORAGE AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.

Mr. Bill Smith suggested the Commission make positive motions rather than negative motions.

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

Motion failed.

City Planner McKibben suggested the Commission make a determination on the nonconformity; whether it exists or not.

HESS/LEHNER – MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES NONCONFORMING USES HAVE NOT OCCURRED CONTINUOUSLY ON THE SITE SINCE 1982.

Commissioner Lehner said bringing fill to a site is not a nonconforming use. The letter dated June 7, 2005 from Larry Herndon states that fill was brought to the site until 1985 and no other nonconforming use was specified.

VOTE: NO. KRANICH

YES. FOSTER, CHESLEY, LEHNER, PFEIL, HESS, CONNOR

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 05-81 Re: Request From Vern & Jane Alberts For Acceptance Of Proposed Mitigation Plan To Allow an Increase in Impervious Coverage As Required By HCC 21.59.070 (A) (2) On Lot 3A, Block 2 of, Kelly Ranch Estates Subdivision Within The Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District.

City Planner McKibben read the staff report, mitigation measures and staff recommendations.

The specific mitigation measures are as follows:

1. Retain existing sediment retention pond at the lowest point of the land where the driveway and Clearwater Drive meet.

2. New driveway and parking pad will be constructed with clean, crushed rock. The engineers report (attached) states that this will result in increased hydraulic conductivity over the natural soil state.

3. Retain existing sediment retention pond at the rear of the property, where the land slopes towards the Reservoir.

4. All structures will have rain gutter downspouts directed to underground drums, perforated and filled with drain rock (See attached sketch).

5. Natural vegetation will be retained as much as possible with minimal lawn area.

There was no public comment.

LEHNER/PFEIL – MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL 05-81 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BY READING OF TITLE.

Commissioner Hess questioned staff’s calculation of the 6.4% impervious coverage to include the two driveways that include mitigation plans. City Planner McKibben said the intent was if the mitigation plan was approved, impervious coverage of up to 6.4% would be allowed. Applicant Mr. Alberts asked for mitigation of the driveway.

Vern Alberts, applicant, said the driveway is a gray area as to what would be allowed for impervious coverage. He stated the driveway would be 130 to 150 ft. long with parking pads.

Commissioner Hess said allowing the driveway to be removed from the impervious coverage calculation would allow almost 2,000 sq. ft. additional impervious coverage. City Planner McKibben said staff does not have the authority to discount a driveway, but it can be discounted with an approved mitigation plan by the Commission.

Commissioner Connor questioned the structure of the old driveway and Mr. Alberts answered it was a conventional gravel driveway built in the early stages of the restrictions to access the lot. He explained there is a natural hollowed out area that is the lowest part of the parcel where water collects. He constructed a little berm to provide a definition from his property to the ditch. The hollow catches any water that comes off the hillside.

Commissioner Kranich commented the watershed would be better off if the increase in the impervious coverage was approved requiring the mitigation action of the extra sedimentation ponds on both the front and back of the property. Chair Chesley said accepting the driveway as mitigated is a package with the mitigation procedures of the hollow and new materials to be used for construction of the driveway extension. City Planner McKibben added if the new driveway is not counted as impervious, but rather as mitigated, it would allow for 3,364 sq. ft. of additional impervious coverage.

HESS/KRANICH - MOVED TO ADD STAFF RECOMMENDATION #4 TO ACCEPT THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AS 100% MITIGATED.

City Planner McKibben said if in the future this was reviewed it may not be clear as to what the mitigation means. She suggested clarifying the motion to indicate the existing and proposed driveway would not be counted in the impervious coverage calculations.

HESS/KRANICH- MOVED FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO ADD: AND NOT COUNTED IN CALCULATING THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OF THE LOT.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

Commissioner Hess commented he would like it clear that by accepting the staff recommendations the Commission is not accepting the increase to 6.4% impervious coverage. Vern Alberts questioned if it means he won’t be allowed the 6.4% calculation at a later date. Chair Chesley explained that Mr. Alberts situation is unique and the Commission came at it from a different angle to accept 100% mitigated status to the new proposed driveway. Because the combined lot sizes are over the threshold the impervious allowance drops down to 4.2%. City Planner McKibben said the 4.2% calculation would allot 4,365 sq. ft. and having the driveways not counted leaves 1,985 sq. ft. Mr. Alberts said it is a fair calculation; he was just looking at the equity of other people coming before the Commission with mitigation plans. He said with the two lots he is held in a different standard. City Planner McKibben asked the Commission if having an approved mitigation plan disallows someone from coming back to request 6.4% impervious coverage. The Commission answered that it would not. City Planner McKibben explained if Mr. Alberts felt the need to expand beyond the 1,985 sq. ft. he could present another mitigation plan for approval.

VOTE: (main motion as amended) NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

Staff Recommendations (as amended):

The Planning Commission should review the plan and approve the mitigation plan with the following conditions:

1. Applicant shall comply with all other applicable federal, state and local regulations as required by 21.42.030 (d).

2. Construction activities shall minimize impact to the site, and natural vegetation shall be retained to the maximum extent possible.

3. Areas disturbed by construction shall be planted or seeded as soon as possible to reduce sedimentation as required by 21.59.080 (6).

4. Accept the existing and proposed driveway as 100% mitigated and not counted in calculating the impervious coverage of the lot.

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

C. Staff Report PL 05-66 Re: An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Homer, Alaska, Amending The Homer City Zoning Map To Rezone Portions Of The Rural Residential Zoning District (RR) And Portions Of The Urban Residential District (UR) Fronting On The Sterling Highway From West Hill Road To The Lot West Of The Best Western Bidarka Inn To Central Business Zoning District (CBD). POSTPONED.

City Planner McKibben explained this item was postponed from the last meeting for the City Attorney’s answers to procedural questions. City Manager Wrede was asked to join the Commission in the discussion.

City Planner McKibben said the Commission has asked for clarification and a legal opinion on the proposed rezone. She read the supplemental staff report that addressed their questions. City Attorney Tans concluded the wording of the letter Dr. Marley wrote to property owners emphasizing tourism should not be considered a significant obstacle. Some property owners were asked about rezoning the area to CBD while others were asked that it be rezoned to CBD with emphasis on tourism. Attorney Tans pointed out that all were asked about rezoning to CBD in one form or other. The petition process is a way to get the Planning Commission/Council legislative process rolling. The attorney’s opinion is that the Commission can make a reasonable recommendation such as (1) no, (2) yes on a modified CBD tourism subzone, (3) yes on CBD with no modifications, or (4) yes on a new district.

Staff Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission not recommend approval of the applicant’s request for a zoning district change (Draft Ordinance 05- ) and adopt findings supporting this. However, should the Commission decide to recommend approval of the proposed rezone findings supporting this are also required.

The letter from Dr. Marley dated July 13, 2005 and a map depicting vacant land over .5 acres in the CBD were acknowledged as laydowns.

There is currently a motion on the floor from the meeting of June 15, 2005 to accept the staff report and recommendations.

Dr. William Marley, applicant, stated he had prepared the letter for the July 20, 2005 packet. He said the Commission may not want to act on the rezone request until his letter is read with the seven to eight good points. Dr. Marley asked that his notes from the June 15^th meeting be read by the Commissioners as well.

Dr. Marley told the Commission when he first moved to Homer the Bypass was not really in anybody’s mind. Increased traffic and activity on the Bypass now makes it difficult to get off Main Street and on to the Bypass. If there had been no planning for the Bypass there would be heavy traffic through Pioneer Avenue. Although he was a bit chastised about taxes by a prior speaker, he doesn’t mind talking about taxes at all. This spring the City of Homer is $1M short of running their budget. The Borough is now talking about increasing sales tax 1%, which could increase the sales tax up to 7.5%.

Chair Chesley explained the comment to Dr. Marley centered around the fact that the Planning Commission cannot take taxing information in consideration of making a land use decision.

Dr. Marley said he supported annexation even though it was apparent businesses had been built out of town. Tax benefits were derived by the City and now sewer, water, fire and police services are provided. The property Dr. Marley owns that is zoned RR is out of sync with the present zoning requirements of RR and UR. There are references to sewer and water not being in the RR areas. The subject land is valuable for commercial uses and there are uses other than for housing. It is hard to imagine that housing would be attractive and pleasing in the area. There are 18 lots 1 acre and more that would be subdivided into smaller lots. The unattractive housing is exemplified by the fact that there is only one house in the entire area he is attempting to rezone.

If the land is not rezoned now, when will it be? How much fill is fill to the existing CBD in Homer? When is it fully filled or should it be filled to zero percent or a given amount? There are seven lots between .5 and one acre and 14 lots one acre and larger. All are lots without structures. Parts of the CBD are clearly residential with small lots making it difficult to operate a business with parking needs. Dr. Marley stated he was impressed by Mr. Herndon’s request to rezone land in the same area. He would be willing to support the CBD. The pressure is on the land in one way or another. Dr. Marley said there are people waiting for the Commission’s decision on the rezone before they make their decisions. As to the bluff and erosion he appreciates the efforts of Dr. Foster and his group to evaluate the land. If people have dollars invested in the land they will be more interested in mitigating processes for the bluff area.

Dr. Marley remarked that the CDM guidelines will ensure the entry into Homer is attractive and appealing. In reference to the Comprehensive Plan, Dr. Marley said in 1999 there was mention of evaluating mixed commercial uses on the Sterling Highway north of the Homer Middle School.

Commissioner Lehner questioned the total acreage of the area. Dr. Marley answered the acreage totals 34 acres, but because of the bluff useable land is 14.5 acres.

City Manager Wrede noted Dr. Marley’s comments that he does not believe the property is appropriate for residential uses and that lots larger than an acre are valuable commercial land that some businesses would need. He asked Dr. Marley to share his thoughts on the two items. City Manager Wrede relayed that the City receives comments that affordable housing and housing within walking distance of downtown are needed.

Dr. Marley explained his vision of the entrance to Homer as an appealing motel/hotel complex with ocean frontage on the bluff. Mr. Beachy’s land on the other side of the highway is appealing with a view. Also just up from the West Hill Road intersection there is a house built right on the highway. It has been on the market for ages as people do not want to live in the close proximity of the highway and its noise. Although sewer, water and the highway has been there for at least 15 years there has been no other residential building along the area. Several subdivisions have been built off the highway and they afford the people walk-ability to the proposed commercial areas.

Emmitt Trimble owns property in the city limits. He referred to the map, stating it was interesting to see the property sizes and what was available. He has supported rezoning the area to CBD for a number of years prior to the changes out East Road. After the annexation one of the first properties to come before the Commission was the area near the Shell station. It was zoned General Commercial and appears to be spot zoning as there were other people there that wanted commercial zoning yet that remained RR. Mr. Trimble said the market knows everything and the market is never wrong. The market has said we will not build houses along the highway. In the thirty years Mr. Trimble has lived here no houses have been built there. One tier off of the highway there is current development with subdivisions Daybreeze Park and Forest Glen being built. Water and sewer services are going in up the hill and properties are selling. Homes are not being built in the proposed rezone area. The highest and best use of the proposed area is to allow expansion of a variety of businesses and residential uses that are allowed in the CBD. Dr. Marley and his partners have wonderful ideas for mixed use that could include residential, but not single family residences. Condos, small professional offices, another title company and central parking are some of the ideas for the properties. It is valuable property that has been inadvertently condemned in its value because of the best use of the land.

There is more development now of residential properties and sales are brisk. Sales are not brisk with commercial properties, partly because of availability. Commercial properties near Save-U-More are listed for $8 and $9 per sq. ft. because of supply and demand. Those parcels are not entirely suitable for types of uses Dr. Marley’s property might enjoy with the view. Mr. Trimble likes the idea of a tourism gateway district. There is already a general agreement by the property owners who pay taxes and water and sewer is already there. The market is crying out for exactly the kind of property that is already there and has remained undeveloped for thirty years. Mr. Trimble concluded that he strongly supports the rezone as it would be wonderful for the community. With guidance from the Planning Commission development could be done tastefully.

Frank Griswold, city resident, questioned why the line was drawn at .5 acre lots He has four vacant lots that total over .5 acre in the CBD and he knows of some lots on Main Street near .5 acre that are not shown. He said it is not an accurate map. Mr. Griswold said there was a comment about it not being appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider fiscal zoning, but it would be for the Council. He disagrees and believes fiscal zoning is not a legitimate zoning objective and it isn’t right that the Council considers it. In 2003 the City Attorney pointed out that the rezone application misses important questions, including to identify what the public benefit and detriment is and how it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He said it is not necessarily true that the Comprehensive Plan does not need to be followed, as failure to comply may be fatal to zoning proposals. He had hoped to hear how the rezone would benefit the public and is only hearing how it would benefit certain property owners. He questioned if there is a community need for hotels and motels bigger than the need for homes. Mr. Griswold doesn’t see how the rezone can comply with the requirement that the CBD be infilled before the district is expanded. He said it has a ways to go. Mr. Griswold concluded that the primary reason for the rezone has to be for the benefit of public, not just the applicants.

The motion to discuss this item remains on the floor from the June 15, 2005 meeting.

HESS/PFEIL - MOVED FOR A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Commissioner Hess stated this action may affect the value of property he owns on the south side of Beluga Lake close to the CBD. He has interest in a subdivision in that area and the financial value of the lots on the market could be affected.

There were no other Commissioners who have property for sale in the CBD but many own properties within the city and they too might benefit from increased property values.

City Manager Wrede reflected on Councilmember Stark’s potential conflict of interest when the box stores were considered. The City Attorney issued a legal opinion stating he did not have a conflict as zoning is a community wide issue and Mr. Stark was not directly affected. Mr. Wrede said the rezone has broad overall implications and the Commission is trying to look at the best interest for the community.

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

Motion failed.

Chair Chesley commented that the proposed rezone is the next biggest issue to the retail/wholesale with its potential impact. Mr. Marley states there has been no residential development in the area due to noise, traffic and congestion. Chair Chesley said if the area is rezoned we do not want to see parking lot, curb cut after another as it would be a congested mess. At the same time the Council is working on the Scenic Gateway overlay and this rezone must ducktail with the effort at the Council level.

Commissioner Lehner commented that is both a terrifying decision and exciting opportunity. We could be doing something proactively right with the huge area of land that could be looked at in the same light as Town Center. Ms. Lehner said the Comprehensive Plan encourages open space with attractive retail development that would encourage pedestrian movement through the CBD area. It could be commercial, retail, residential, pocket parks, promenades with no traffic and spectacular things. It will not happen if approached in a piecemeal way or coordination. She does not believe the area is ready for rezoning to CBD as there is a process needed such as that with Town Square. A plan that lays out a vision for retail areas, affordable housing, walkable areas is needed. A coordinated visionary approach is needed before the land is broken up into little pieces. Ms. Lehner would like to see such a process initiated. The Commission has the leverage to look at the rezone request creatively, proactively and cooperatively to see what opportunities exist and not fail to take advantage of an exciting opportunity.

Commissioner Hess echoed Commissioner Lehner’s comments stating there is an option to create a new type of district. He stated it is a different thought process to come up with new ideas in a zoning district. The area can be something new and exciting and great for the community.

Chair Chesley asked City Manager Wrede how the Commission would dovetail an effort to create a hybrid CBD district consistent with what the Council is picking up on the Scenic Gateway. City Manager Wrede answered it is difficult to know where the Council will go with the gateway. He was encouraged to hear Dr. Marley’s sensitivity to view scapes and the CDM. The last thing the community wants to see is Soldotna type strip development from West Hill Road into town. He said it is right to focus on what is best for the community. There is a need for mixed zoning that Homer doesn’t have right now. Mr. Wrede told the Commission they could launch right into it now and make a recommendation that the area is appropriate for another use, possibly limiting it to tourist types of business. He said planning work sessions to involve the public and land owners to define the characteristics of the new district would be needed. The Commission can decide if the current zoning has hampered development.

Chair Chesley said a blanket CBD rezone may not be in the community’s best interest. He is supportive of another type of zoning and would be most willing to work jointly with the Council to understand their plans on the Scenic Gateway.

City Manager Wrede understands where the property owners are coming from as they made good points and referenced the Comprehensive Plan. He said it is not a clear cut decision as each side has legitimate points. The Comprehensive Plan needs to be used as the guide in addition to the sub plans that are incorporated into the plan.

Commissioner Pfeil has been on the Commission for a number of years and the Commission has always treated the proposed rezone area as a special one. He would like to see it as a Scenic Gateway as it is the first area you see when coming into town.

Commissioner Kranich agreed, stating he would like to see the property rezoned to commercial. He does not believe the straight CBD rezone is the way to go. To get to Commissioner Lehner’s vision there will need to be a lot of Code generated to create the different types of concepts. Mr. Kranich pointed out that the beach side of the highway is the only side that could presently be developed as a portion of the other side is tied up in the Walli subdivision estate. The lots on the beach side are narrow, most are just a lot deep and there is not much way to have anything but strip development. Commissioner Kranich said in reference to the Comprehensive Plan the July 20^th packet included Griswold vs. City of Homer decision from the Supreme Court on Homer’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan divides the city into several zoning areas. It is not intended to set specific standards and boundaries. The standards and boundaries are instead implemented through the City zoning ordinance.

Commissioner Connor agrees with Commissioner Lehner’s vision that it will be necessary to develop new ideas. She is willing to put in the time herself to help in the process.

Commissioner Lehner said the special zoning district specific for this area gives opportunity to be more expeditious as to what happens. There would be a lot of flexibility to define what happens based on conditions of the area within the district. Working actively with land owners about the goals and mechanisms for achieving them can speed the process.

Chair Chesley suggested the best course of action is to deny the request for rezone and then attend the next Council meeting to inform the Council of the request. It would be beneficial to get direction from the Council to work with the Planning Commission on creating a special zoning district for the corridor into town.

City Manager Wrede said although the Scenic Gateway is not on the Council’s work list the members have been talking about the project individually. He said the Commission’s suggested strategy is a good one. He said if the project becomes a large task he would ask what can be stricken from the work list, as the pressure on staff is overwhelming right now. He said the Commission can’t keep adding things or they will sink. Money for an updated Comprehensive Plan and a rewrite of Title 21 may be budgeted this year. Mr. Wrede questioned what is fair to the property owners and how long can they keep waiting.

City Planner McKibben suggested the area for rezone be encompassed in a larger area. The entire area should be addressed so the process will not have to be redone.

Chair Chesley asked Dr. Marley to communicate to the property owners that the Commission feels their pain but do not think a straight CBD zone is what needs to be accomplished. The Commission is committed to moving the rezone as a high priority on their list.

Dr. Marley told the Commission he appreciated their input. In reviewing correspondence he had sent to the Planning Department five years ago in regard to the rezone, he discovered there was no reply. He said it was a matter of getting the bureaucracies in motion so maybe by February we can say we really accomplished something. Dr. Marley doesn’t want to be a deceased grandfather with his grandchildren remembering he had something to do with the gateway area. He would like to see it in his lifetime.

LEHNER/PFEIL – MOVED FOR THE FOLLOWING FINDING: THE PROPOSAL APPEARS TO CONFLICT WITH THE STATED OBJECTIVE IN THE 1999 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, “THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE INFILLING OF THE AREA PLANNED AND ZONED AS CBD PRIOR TO CONTEMPLATING ENLARGING THE ZONING DISTRICT.”

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

NO. KRANICH

Motion carried.

D. Staff Report PL 05-83 Re: Town Center Development Plan

Chair Chesley suggested a worksession with the TCDC at the August 17 meeting and public hearing at the regular meeting. It will then be determined if a second public hearing is needed.

E. Staff Report PL 05-84 Re: Memorandum from the Planning Commission to the City Council on Comprehensive Plan.

Chair Chesley explained a memo from the Commission for the City Council is needed to earmark funds during the budget process for the Comprehensive Plan update. It was the consensus of the Commission to send the memo to the City Manager and City Council.

F. Staff Report PL 05-85 Re: Memorandum from the Planning Commission to the City Council on Title 21 Zoning and Planning.

Chair Chesley stated a memo is needed for updates to Title 21. It was the consensus of the Commission to send a memo to the City Manager and City Council.

G. Staff Report PL 05-75 Re: CIP List Development

Rick Pitta, manager of the ice rink, stated he was here on behalf of the Homer Hockey Association (HHA) and Homer Ice Rink. He requested that the Commission add a multi-use flooring system for the ice rink to their CIP list. Mr. Pitta gave a brief history of the ice rink explaining the original site was too expensive and the secondary site on the Spit was agreed upon. The engineers agreed upon a sand floor because of possible movement. The ice rink was intended to be a multi-use facility to accommodate concerts, conventions and memorial services.

Mr. Pitta explained the preferred flooring would be homosote, a compressed fiber with a life expectancy of 12 to 15 years. It is the same material used in the sports center in Soldotna. The material is made to be cut to fit the rink. Most of the rinks within the state have the homosote floor which allows for seven to eight venues a year. High tech rinks such as the Carlson Center in Fairbanks and Sullivan Arena in Anchorage do not use the material due to high usage of venues. Mr. Pitta explained the homosote is put over the ice structure and it supports the flooring. The cost of the flooring is between $50,000 and $60,000.

City Planner McKibben stated it may not be appropriate to ask for improvements for a private owner. Chair Chesley explained all the equipment in the facility belongs to HHA and the flooring system would be purchased by the City of Homer on behalf of the HHA.

The Commission discussed the CIP list focusing on local roads and trails. The preferred choice of improvement for roads was Town Center Infrastructure. The Commission upon discussion agreed the Senior Access Trail – Separated Pathway was their number one choice in trails improvements.

H. Staff Report PL 05-46 Re: Proposed Amendment to HCC 21.45.040 (b) Dimensional Requirements (b) Building Setbacks (1). Postponed

Chair Chesley explained there are four rights-of-way (ROW) three in the RR and one in the UR leading to a water body. It is not likely the ROWs will be constructed. A parallel amendment is needed to the RR. Commissioner Foster asked that structures be substituted for buildings.

Bill Smith told the Commission under 1(i) water bodies could be substituted to Kachemak Bay. The Commission discussed adding Cook Inlet and Beluga Slough, but decided to change the language to read: those portions of rights of way that lead to Kachemak Bay and that have been determined to be unsuitable for road construction by a Commission resolution, approved by the City Council shall be exempt from the 20 foot setback requirement; and

FOSTER/LEHNER - MOVED TO PUBLIC HEARING.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

Frank Griswold was allowed to make his comments prior to AUDIENCE COMMENTS as he needed to depart early. He said Commissioner Kranich took the Supreme Court decision he referred to out of context. Mr. Griswold stated the Comprehensive Plan does not designate a land use plan. Commissioner Kranich admitted to repeated conversations with Larry Herndon and ex parte contact is not permitted. He should not have been allowed to vote. He added that the first motion was phrased as negative and then the Commission voted negative again. He said it is not illegal to have a negative motion, it is just confusing.

I. Staff Report PL 05-76 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Homer City Code 21.44 Rural Residential, 21.45 Urban Residential, 21.47 Residential Office, Adding Development Activity Plan (DAP) and Storm Water Plan (SWP) Requirements.

City Planner McKibben referred to the correspondence from the City Attorney heard at the Worksession and stated that it belongs to this agenda item. She explained the proposed amendment to the ordinance is a cut and paste of the existing Development Activity Plan. Storm water triggers standards and the Urban Residential and Residential Office refer it back to performance standards.

Paul Gavenus, city resident, said it was a great chance to set standards. As to line 92 a 2-yr. 3 hour duration may need a new date from flood insurance rates. Also under item 16 the same duration was issued on line 161. As to line 193 and 205 the impervious surface coverage should be greater than 60%, as it should have a slope. Mr. Gavenus said side setbacks from RR are too narrow to get the fire ladder up to the second story.

Gary Thomas, city resident, said he has concerns about wastewater. The proposal takes those considerations in and makes it part of the review process.

City Planner McKibben is to work on the definition for land disturbing activity and site development activity. Commissioner Foster is to explore the 2-yr. 3 hour duration storm.

J. Staff Report PL 05-82 Re: Lot sizes within the Rural Residential Zoning District.

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and staff recommendations.

Chair Chesley explained that low density development is the goal of the district. Upon conferring with City Manager Wrede his response was that the Commission has discretion to apply zoning codes to meet the intent of the Code as long as feasible and prudent. The City Attorney has been consulted and he stated it is reasonable for the Commission to require less lots if reason to do so is based upon other sections of the Code including the purposed section.

Commissioner Lehner said small lots in RR zoning are a privilege rather than a right. She explained the Commission is not obligated to allow 10,000 sq. ft. lots to cover a parcel just because water and sewer services are available. Commissioner Pfeil bought two 10,000 sq. ft. lots and vacated the lot line to create one lot. He said a 10,000 sq. ft. lot only allows for a half of a foot of space between the setback and the house. He said it is not low density development.

Chair Chesley explained as the city develops there are two arguments, one that RR land should be used for more dense development within the city and rural type development would take place outside of city limits. The other argument would be for a mix of lot sizes and types of development. City Planner McKibben said RR provides for adequate lot sizes in areas not served by sewer and water. As the water and sewer services expand through the city should the RR lots be larger or be zoned UR and smaller. Commissioner Foster pointed out as long as the City sells water for delivery the smaller lot size kicks in. Chair Chesley believes community wide conversation is needed. This could be part of the Comprehensive Plan update.

The Commission discussed a mix of different zoning districts stating these positive factors:

vAffordable housing

vMixes the community without separating economic levels

vProvides for a closer knit community

vLand suitability – wetter areas could be larger lots

vZoning to accommodate land suitability and capability

vCertain percentage of land area in the subdivision would qualify for smaller lot sizes

Chair Chesley urged the Commission to think about lot sizes and potential developments. What would the Commission be looking for in consideration of those? Is a ratio needed on the size of house per lot size to allow for green space?

Bill Smith commented to keep it simple and get something done. He said whatever the Commission does they want it to fly by the Borough. He said to listen to minimum lot sizes within the zoning code. Mr. Smith said it follows with the purposes stated in RR zoning: 40,000 sq. ft. if no water and sewer; 20,000 sq. ft. if municipal water and sewer; 10,000 sq. ft. if put to the public. It should be simple, concrete and easy to understand. Ten percent of the aggregate areas of the lots could be dedicated to trails and public space.

Gary Thomas, city resident, stated most people came to Alaska to live in a place with wide open spaces, not a dense urban area. The general populous continues to provide as much open space and promote low density in residential areas. A quick and clean proposal is needed.

Paul Gavenus, city resident, said lot sizes could be set up by acreage, 10 lots on a 5-acre parcel, 25 lots on a 10-acre parcel, with small and big lot mixes. Ten percent can be figured for green spaces. Mr. Gavenus agreed that keeping the language simple is better.

This item is to be heard on the next agenda.

K. Code Section 21.70 Amendments

City Planner McKibben stated the comments from the City Attorney should be resurrected if this is discussed by the Commission.

Chair Chesley said he passed out Chapter 21.70 as it exists and the suggested re-write. He asked that Code Section 21.70 Amendments be added to the next meeting agenda.

L. Staff Report PL 04-109 Re: Commission Work List – On-going.

The Commission discussed the list and concurred that residential office zoning district signs can be removed and Comprehensive Plan update was removed from the numbered list.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster said the minutes from the KPB reflect his statements. He received a letter from Mr. Tulin stating that he did not understand the agreement made with the City. Mr. Tulin did not like the words “strong-arm the City”, but those were Carey Meyer’s words. Commissioner Foster is glad there is public outcry with the article in the newspaper. He said it would have been good if the City requested reconsideration. Commissioner Foster recommends working out a process that if the KPB votes something down there is an automatic request for reconsideration. There are 22 plats on next week’s Borough agenda. The Munson subdivision is the only one from Homer and it has been recommended for postponement.

Chair Chesley said the Planning Commission intends to go to Soldotna to support Commissioner Foster at the KPB Planning Commission meeting. It is the intent of the Commission to introduce themselves and provide general comments to the KPB.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

PLANNING DIRECTORS’ REPORT

City Planner McKibben reported Planning Technician Lani Eggertsen-Goff is gone this week and will return for her last week of work next week. The position has been offered to an individual and it is the hope they can spend time with Lani next week. Planning Technician Beverly Guyton’s last day is August 31^st and there are 19 applicants for her position. The job description was downgraded to an administrative position, as over the years it was upgraded to meet the requirements placed on Ms. Guyton. The new person will be able to answer phones, do filing and answer basic questions but will refer the inquiries to someone else.

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. Clerk’s August Calendar.

B. Zoning Violation letter to Eldon & Bernadette Adair dated July 22, 2005 regarding violation of condition #6 of CUP 05-09 no disturbance shall occur within 8 feet of the eastern lot line or within the drip line of trees.

C. Tulin Terrace Subdivision – Notice of Decision KPB Plat committee dated July 21, 2005.

D. Request from Frank Griswold to submit information to the Commission – Conflict of Interest – Relationship of Board of Adjustment Member to Contractor for Zoning Applicant.

E. Ordinance 05-33

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 in attendance at this hour.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Connor said she was glad to be back. She added that there is a lot of work to do.

Commissioner Hess stated he may miss the next meeting as he will be fishing.

Commissioner Foster said he is concerned with mitigation measures for the Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District. It is good advice to owners that they are required to maintain the mitigation measures and recommendations. He said the Commission needs to think about what it will do if the requirements are not maintained. He supports Citizen Smith that the rural residential needs to be real simple. Getting it on the table as 40,000 sq. ft. with ideas heard is important. He said the Commission needs to move quickly.

Commissioner Pfeil stated that Dr. Marley has been facing the rezone proposal for the last six years and the Commission should move on it.

Commissioner Kranich commented the other large parcel owned by Beachy, a large residential builder in the community, has owned the lot for several years. There is not a stake one on the property to subdivide or fill the lot. He said it goes along with what the realtor Mr. Trimble said. Mr. Kranich said Sam Beachy is a smart business person and if he could make money he would build. The market is just not there. The little house already on side of West Hill will have slush all over the side of the house when the snow plow goes by.

Chair Chesley said Mr. Griswold brought up a good point about ex parte contact with Larry Herndon. If there was information Commissioner Kranich based his decision on the Commission should be knowledgeable about it also.

Commissioner Kranich said he should have elaborated more on his conversation with Larry Herndon. Mr. Herndon talked to him about not being at tonight’s meeting and the earlier conversation he told Mr. Kranich he was putting stuff together to bring in. If the documentation was there to justify Mr. Herndon’s position Commissioner Kranich stated he would have to go along with it.

Commissioner Foster stated that Commissioner Kranich’s differing vote may raise questions.

Chair Chesley welcomed Commissioner Connor back and thanked Deputy City Clerk Johnson for the support provided to the Commission.

ADJOURNMENT

Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment.”

There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 11:56 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for August 17, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., in the Cowles Council Chambers. There will be a work session at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.

_________________________________

JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: ________________________