Session 08-02, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Acting Chair Foster at 7:00 p.m. on January 16, 2008 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska

PRESENT: COMMISSIONER FOSTER, HOWARD, MCNARY, ZAK

ABSENT: COMMISSIONER KRANICH, MINSCH, HESS

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

AGENDA APPROVAL

ZAK/HOWARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

Commissioner Zak requested the minutes be postponed to the next meeting since there is not a quorum of those who were present at those meetings. There was no objection.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

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.

Frank Griswold, city resident, commented regarding having a full Commission for conditional use permit applications. He said he wrote the Commission a letter that was only half in jest, but if it is their policy on important matters coming before the Commission to have a full Commission, there are several very important things coming before the Commission tonight and they should be consistent. If that is the policy they should postpone all important matters on tonight’s agenda until they have a full Commission.

Mr. Griswold requested the Commission suspend the rules of order to allow him to speak for more than three minutes regarding amendments to the minutes that were scheduled on the agenda. There was discussion between Mr. Griswold and the Commission. There was consensus of the Commission to allow him additional time under audience comments to provide comment regarding the minutes.

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 the Minutes of November 7, 2007, December 5 and December 20, 2007

2. Time Extension Requests

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

4. KPB Coastal Management Program

5. Commissioner Excused Absences

a. Kranich

b. Minsch

c. Hess

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

Acting Chair Foster advised the Commission that Assemblyperson Smith attended the Borough Planning Commission meeting and is now one of the two liaisons between the Assembly and the Borough Planning Commission. He further commented that the road bill has been brought back with some minor changes.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no KBAPC report.

C. Planning Director’s Report

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report that was included in the packet.

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 08-06, Scenic Gateway Overlay

B. Staff Report PL 08-11, Community Design Manual

Acting Chair Foster commented that since there are two public hearings scheduled, one for the scenic gateway overlay and the other for the community design manual, which would directly affect the scenic gateway, in the interest of time the public would be allowed to comment on either one. He stated that there will be another public hearing at their next meeting on February 6^th.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff reports for both public hearing items.

Frank Griswold read his letter dated January 14, 2007 regarding conflict of interest for Commissioner Zak. He said in making a determination as to whether Commissioner Zak has a disqualifying conflict of interest in the Gateway Overlay District, it is irrelevant that he may have transferred ownership of his property to his sister as their blood relationship falls within the second degree of consanguinity. He referenced Carney v. State Board of Fisheries and suggested it be reviewed when the Commission considers where to draw the line, noting the decision that fishermen who sat on the Board of Fisheries could vote on matters affecting the fishing industry as a whole, but were disqualified from voting on regulations which affected the area in which they actively fished. Mr. Griswold also referenced Griswold v. City of Homer regarding Councilmember Sweiven participating in Ordinance 92-18, rezoning Main Street for Guy Rosi, where the City asserted that Mr. Sweiven’s interests were too remote and speculative to disqualify him, but the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Sweiven did have a disqualifying conflict of interest. Mr. Griswold further referenced a statement in a letter dated November 5, 1997 to City Council from City Attorney Tans regarding Councilmember Waddell that said “In analyzing whether a conflict of interest exists, one should ask whether the councilmember has any business, financial, or family interests, or fiduciary or legal obligations that put him or her in the position of having to choose between the City’s interests and conflicting non-city interests.” A copy of Mr. Griswold’s letter that includes the materials he referenced was provided for the record.

Dr. Bill Marley commented that he is a one third owner of land that is across from the Lutheran Church. It is about 36 acres total with 14 acres of usable land. He is in agreement with the scenic gateway corridor proposal. He thinks it has the potential to lend itself well to making the entry into Homer an acceptable, pleasant and beautiful experience. Things he would like to see from the City is that the overhead wires be put underground and hydro seeding and wildflowers on bluff coming into town. He would like to see duplexes and single family units incorporated in the plan as well. He believes that they should be responsible for maintaining the entry of Homer along with everyone else. Regarding trees, he doesn’t know how anyone is going to be able to control that.

Mitchell Hrachiar, Borough resident, thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak tonight. He commented regarding concerns with lighting standards. He supports the Community Design Manual (CDM) being incorporated. He lives just below Belnap and light encroaches from many sources over there. He would like to see consideration that lighting standards from the CDM be incorporated in rural residential lots. He noted that the zoning code addresses bright lights but does not indicate what the restrictions are on bright lights. He appreciates the block lighting.

Sharon Bouman, City resident, said when they came to Homer ten years ago she fell in love with this great little hamlet. She was strongly opposed to government overstepping their bounds and telling her what she could and couldn’t do with her land. That was a tremendous influence in her moving here. Since then she has opened a business in the tourist industry and much of Homer is supported financially by a growing tourist industry. She said she is tired of having so many tourists come into her office complaining about the trash and unkempt areas they see. It obstructs their view of the beauty when there are dead cars and such. It’s embarrassing and humiliating. She is ready for change and if that means the government must impose understandable restrictions on property owners, she is willing to accept that. She has had to apply for non conforming status and has had a good number of dealings with Planning and Zoning, all have been very pleasant and reasonable. She expressed her appreciation for the help in getting through the processes.

Commissioner McNary asked Mr. Hrachiar to elaborate on his concerns regarding the lighting standards. Mr. Hrachiar noted that the CDM refers to box lighting, field lighting, and downward lighting. There are lights going up and he doesn’t understand why people are lighting up the sky. His property looks out over the DOT yard and it is awfully bright. The rural residential code references bright lighting, but it doesn’t have any definition on that.

Francine Sayer, City resident, requested clarification whether the Scenic Gateway Corridor will effect businesses that are in effect now, such as the Bay Crest Fuel. City Planner McKibben responded that the existing businesses would be eligible for non conformity. There is no language in the Code that would make the non conformity automatic. If the ordinance passes Ms. McKibben recommended that they should have the non conformity formally accepted.

Doris Cabana explained to the Commission that she requested rezoning of her property to commercial after annexation. She and her husband have owned the property since 1973. She and Lloyd Moore put in letters regarding rezoning, Lloyd got his changed but nothing was done with hers. She wants hers to be zoned commercial because she may want to sell it but questions who will want to buy it in rural residential with all the commercial people around. If her property had been rezoned commercial, like she asked back in annexation, it wouldn’t be such a problem. She sold the piece next to them about 2 or 3 years ago and got almost nothing out of it because it is rural residential and right between businesses. She is really upset over the gateway corridor. It is so restrictive as far as she is concerned. She has read some of the letters and most people don’t want it. She wants her property to be commercial, she wants non conformity on it and she doesn’t want to see all these restrictions put into effect on the scenic gateway. Furthermore, that scenic gateway got the name from her during annexation.

Lloyd Moore, City resident, said he has heard the comments tonight and some of it probably points toward some of the stuff on his property. He said that his direct neighbors have no complaints about his lighting or his yard. He explained that his property is a commercial, heavy industrial yard. He has four businesses that run 24 hours a day, servicing Kasilof to end of East End Road. When he asked to be zoned commercial, they were spot zoned rural residential on the corner of what is commercial. Mr. Moore said it is not the same land that you see when you drop over the top of Baycrest Hill; you aren’t looking over the top of his property to see the mountains. He is grandfathered in on everything he does and his property is all gravel or shop, it’s not for trees. There are trees left there to help block road noise. The property is designed around his business and if he sells it, it all goes. This ordinance is too restrictive; a lot of things that have happened in Homer have gotten too restrictive. Some of the restrictions imposed could cause people not to build businesses that want to be here and we need an economy in Homer. If it wasn’t for the work he is doing north of here most of his companies would be in the red as January, February and March are a tough time for everyone in Homer. He thinks they try to do a good job of keeping things on the property clean and tidy, there are 100 porta-potties in his yard, but you can’t see them when you drive by. Homer needs economy, we need to be able to grow, we need to invite people in and get them to build. This ordinance isn’t right for the person who comes in a builds next to him. It affects people who want to come in and compete against him or do the same thing down the street. He invites competition and people who want to be in Homer. The City is trying to apply a gateway overlay district to everything, when it doesn’t apply to everything; there are different areas of the Sterling Highway and Baycrest Hill. He thanked the Commission for their time.

Acting Chair Foster asked if Mr. Moore would be supportive of this if it started at Baycrest and went into town. Mr. Moore responded that as a citizen he feels most of this is way too restrictive everywhere. Mr. Moore commented that he has spoken to others who wouldn’t build under these restrictions, including his dad who would not build his boat yard now, which employees a lot of people here. He said he recently drove to Kenai to get a snow machine part since we lost the Yamaha dealership here. While he was there he spent $7000 on different stuff he needed for his companies and saved 25% by shopping up there. We need to keep businesses here because once you get a guy up the road; he is going to spend money at other places.

There were no further comments. Acting Chair Foster closed the public hearing and advised the audience that there will be another hearing at the February 6^th meeting for both items.

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.

There were no plat considerations.

PENDING BUSINESS

A. Staff Report PL 08-12(S), Supplemental to SR PL 08-02, Town Center Zone.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report. It was noted that the Commission discussed this at their worksession and there is no action required by the Commission tonight.

Acting Chair Foster asked if there were any members of the public who would like to speak to the Commission regarding the Town Center Zoning District concept.

Frank Griswold said he is confused because he does not see on the agenda where the public is allowed to speak. Under pending business it doesn’t say anything. He wants to know if it is appropriate to take public comment under pending business and if it is why isn’t public notified of that so they can be prepared to speak. It is either allowed or its not and the Commission should be consistent with their policies.

There was discussion to clarify that comments on pending business should be taken up under public comments at the beginning of the meeting.

B. Staff Report PL 08-13, 2008 Planning Commission Work Plan - Updated January 2008

City Planner McKibben reviewed the revised work plan.

Commissioner Howard suggested a comprehensive plan for the spit be in the top 10 items of the work list. There was discussion of using some of the funding from the present comprehensive plan that is in process now. City Planner McKibben said it is a suggestion that could be sent up to the Council for consideration.

Commissioner Howard requested staff prepare a report on where we are in the technical rewrite and re-codification and what role is the codifier, the clerk’s office and attorney playing in all this and when the first draft is expected. City Planner McKibben responded that the attorney has been working on the rewrite and sent a draft to the Planning office, which Planning staff reviewed and provided comments back to the attorney. She did not have any information regarding the clerk or codifiers role.

Acting Chair Foster hates to see the grading and filling permits drop out of the top 10. City Planner McKibben responded that it hasn’t dropped out but reformatted and she expects to get feedback at the up coming public meeting that will be helpful.

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. Staff Report PL 08-05, Conditional Fence Permit Request for 4632 Kachemak Drive.

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that the applicants have asked that it be postponed until April because of weather conditions. They would like to be here when it is discussed by the Commission.

MCNARY/HOWARD MOVED THAT THE MATTER BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE APPLICANTS CAN BE PRESENT AT SOMETIME BETWEEN NOW AND THE REGULAR MEETING ON MARCH 5^TH.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

A. Letter dated January 3, 2008 to Planning and Zoning Staff and HAPC from Marie Bader, KSMA

B. Letter dated January 10, 2008 to Frank Griswold from Beth McKibben, City Planner

C. Letter dated January 10, 2008 to Beth McKibben, City Planner from Frank Griswold

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

Frank Griswold commented that there needs to be a definition of drive through and drive in because he doesn’t see the distinction. As he recalls the drive in carwash was approved as a CUP because of the similarity of language to drive in restaurants. He suggested while they are doing definitions they may also want to include definitions for affected, concerned, and involved, as far as rezone applications. He noticed on the recent rezone application for the conservation district that the City Manager signed the petition as the owner of the land for the City of Homer. Mr. Griswold thinks it would have been more appropriate for the City Council to have brought that forward. He doesn’t think it was right not to involve the property owners that were notified who would be affected and concerned about that issue. Mr. Griswold said he was at the worksession several months ago between the Planning Commission and City Council on the Gateway Overlay District and was very disappointed to see that the purpose of the worksession seemed to be for the Planning Commission, who is advisory to the Council, to find out what Council wanted to hear so they didn’t make any waves. They don’t want to come out with a recommendation that Council won’t approve. Mr. Griswold said the Commission is the advisory body and the Commission is not supposed to give them what they want to hear. Everyone basically agreed that the restrictions are superficial and thirty years down the road these vast tracts will have been subdivided and new people are going to come in and it’s hopeless, and these measures that the Commission is considering are just window dressing and aren’t going to do what a lot of people think its going to do to protect the entrance to Homer. Mr. Griswold’s main point is that the Commission was swayed in the way this was presented because they don’t want to create controversy and want to tell the City Council exactly what they want to hear. There was a comment regarding mandating the buildings be built closer to the roads and the City Planner said by default one must locate parking elsewhere on a lot. He said if you don’t like parking in front of a building you should put restrictions on the parking, you shouldn’t go and put unreasonable restrictions on where you can put a building. If you put the building close to the road, then in order to provide parking you have to provide a driveway and maneuvering room, which eats up more of the lot. He thinks the whole purpose of this is to encourage parking on the streets and that is not the purpose of the CBD. There is supposed to be ample and convenient parking off the street. He referenced the bookstore on Main Street, noting that it is a very nice structure with ample parking in front. An ugly parking lot is better than no parking lot. A lot of the art galleries that are touted as the goal have customers who park in other peoples parking lots or right on the road. A myth that has been stated over and over is how wonderful it is to have buildings close to the street.

Mr. Griswold pointed out typographical errors in the November 7, December 20 and January 2 minutes. He said that there needs to be consistency in the content of public testimony. He also noted there are times when it needs to be clearer what the votes are for. Comments regarding specific changes included:

December 20:

Minutes are deficient in that

· They do not include the testimony given by the applicants or by the public, only that who testified.

· Chair Kranich’s discussion regarding residency does not include his discussion on his years in Tutka Bay, it doesn’t say what the allegations are or what the response is. It is important because it goes to credibility.

· Under audience comments he believes he said the Planning Commission should not have focused on just parking, they should have discussed the other staff findings. If it is on the recording, he would like to have it in the minutes.

November 7:

· The vote needs to be recorded under the first motion.

· In his testimony under public hearing he recalls saying “Increasing the tax base per se, is not a legitimate zoning objective.” He would like that substituted.

· Commissioner Foster commented on trouble with serial zoning, not spot zoning.

Dennis Novak, city resident and Councilmember, commented regarding the commercial district at the top of the hill. He spoke a couple years ago that we need another commercial district in this town. He was trying to see where within the City they could find another commercial area that could potentially be developed, that isn’t in the middle of town, for things that we probably wouldn’t want in the middle of town. He referenced Gig Harbor where they have an area on the edge of City limits that has large commercial tracts of land. It would be counter productive to attempt to have commercial in the wetlands on Kachemak Drive. Out East End Road is GC1, and it is mixed residential and commercial. The area up by the DOT yard has been suggested as commercial. There wasn’t much interest in another commercial area at the time, but there are people up there doing commercial business. The concern of the Council at the time was they didn’t want to have the entrance into Homer be a commercial yard. His point is that the area up there, he thinks, should be looked at as another potential commercial area. It should be off the highway. There is some logic and need to have a third commercial district in the town and the area up there is already somewhat commercial. Mr. Novak further commented that he thinks people want the same thing, that the gateway to the community sets the tone for the town. To have an unregulated area that you had to drive through to get here would be counter productive to us trying to do something nice on Baycrest Hill. That isn’t to say there couldn’t be a commercial area up there, set back from the highway.

Mitch Hrachiar commented that commercial development is always touchy and Mr. Novak had some good points. If commercial district would be in his view shed, it would be covered by lighting standards in the commercial district. There are speed issues coming into town and DOT has installed lights and he is working with DOT to see if there can be some better shielding. He would wish that the neighborhood across Diamond Creek could be notified if there is a rezoning with that also.

Mr. Novak commented for the record that he owns property that is used commercially just after you come over the top of the hill. He is not trying to toot his own horn; it is obvious to him when you come over the hill that you are in another space. When people go into the scenic overlook and look at the view, there is a whole new mindset.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Howard welcomed Commissioner Zak back and said she will be absent from the February 6^th meeting.

Commissioner McNary wanted to mention that he has issues with the boundaries on the overlay district, including where they are and how they were arrived at. The things he heard during public testimony reinforced a lot of his concern and he thinks there is a way to come to a meeting of the minds. You can’t make everyone happy, but there are some practical aspects of amending these boundaries that are going to help a lot of people not feel so restricted. He agreed with Councils intent with the ordinance, the preservation of scenic vistas, enhancing compatibility of development, minimizing future traffic and so forth; and the intent of the district, protection for panoramic views. Views seem to keep jumping out as the main issue as the intent of this scenic gateway overlay. While one person’s idea of a view is subjective, the area at the top of the hill from the Shell station north is different. He can understand the intent of trying to preserve that. He would like to revisit the boundaries next time around and maybe come to a closer meeting of the mind as to what is really necessary in the intent and purpose of the Scenic Gateway Overlay District.

Commissioner Zak commented regarding the Commission’s policy and procedures for running the meeting. It seems that tonight the three minute time limit was not addressed and he appreciates input on the minutes, but agrees that they need to be submitted in writing. He appreciates hearing if there is something major that needs to be changed, but we have to run an effective meeting. He said Acting Chair Foster did a great job, but we got a little out of control tonight where comments should have been heard at the appropriate time and more effectively.

Acting Chair Foster commented on the record that the issue of the Gateway District came from Council to the Commission. There were two large public meetings held for brainstorming. There was a lot of talk about having the entrance to town give a welcome feeling, not a meretricious, gaudy, flashy entrance. The overlay would somehow tone that down. It did have to do with views too. If that area went to commercial and was pulled out of the gateway it would not have the protection that some folks wanted originally. He felt at the end they needed to override the three minute limit. He thought there were good comments from Mr. Griswold on the minutes.

Acting Chair Foster called for a motion to adjourn.

MCNARY MOVED TO ADJOURN.

There was no discussion and no objection.

Motion carried.

ADJOURN

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 8:45 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for January 16, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There is a worksession at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: