Session 06-18, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Chesley at 7:05 p.m. on July 19, 2006 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHESLEY, FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH, ZAK

ABSENT: PFEIL (excused)

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOHNSON

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MEYER

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

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING OF STAFF REPORT PL 06-71 VACATION OF A PORTION OF SPRUCE LANE.

The City Attorney is to provide comments and the applicant had to leave town unexpectedly.

It was noted the staff report number was incorrect and should read PL 06-71.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

HESS/MINSCH – MOVED TO CONTINUE PLAT CONSIDERATION ITEM D COOPER SUBDIVISION NO. 9.

Staff requested a continuance and noted the staff report number was incorrect.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

KRANICH/HESS – MOVED TO RENUMBER NEW BUSINESS ITEMS WITH PL 06-79 AS ITEM A, PL 06-82 AS ITEM B AND PL 06-80 AS ITEM C.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

The amended agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

A. Approval of May 11, 2006 special meeting minutes

B. Approval of May 17, 2006 regular meeting minutes

C. Approval of May 31, 2006 special meeting minutes

D. Approval of June 7, 2006 regular meeting minutes

E. Approval of June 14, 2006 special meeting minutes

F. Approval of June 21, 2006 regular meeting minutes

It was noted the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2006 were previously approved.

KRANICH/FOSTER – MOVED TO CONTINUE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 11 AND 31 AND JUNE 7 AND 14 TO THE NEXT MEETING.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

The Regular Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006 were amended and adopted by consensus of the Commission.

Laydown information included:

Comments on the Gateway and Gateway Overlay District by Annie Whitney, Tommy Crangle, Dr. Paul Sayer, Dick Sanders and Merlin Cordes.

The Scenic Gateway Corridor Overlay Zone Draft Ordinance with the City Attorney’s comments.

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.

Valerie Connor, city resident, asked to speak about the Fred Meyer Conditional Use Permit (CUP), adding that she would rather comment at a public hearing. Chair Chesley replied the City Attorney provided information which the Commission discussed at the worksession. A second public hearing is scheduled for the August 2, 2006 regular meeting.

Bob Shavelson, city resident, thanked the volunteer Commission for doing a good job and for holding a second public hearing on Fred Meyer. It is an important issue and the hearing in the middle of the summer deterred a lot of people as well as Planning Commissioners. Over two years ago a project started on Bishop’s Beach on the Vann property with building onto the lower beach. Mr. Shavelson appealed the project as it was setting a precedent to build over the bluff and onto the beach. With intensified pressure on the beach and continued erosion it was an important issue. Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment upheld the appeal. Since that time the issue has languished. He is disappointed in the response received from the Planning Department. The past week the City Planner told him more phone calls would be made and additional information gathered. Mr. Shavelson believes that is an inadequate response after two years.

City Planner McKibben responded she has been gathering more information, revising the DAP (Development Activity Plan) and looking at other projects permitted and their adverse impact. She is still collecting adequate information before acting on the zoning permit. Today she met with the City Engineer and City Manager and another request for information will be sent, this one with a deadline of a couple of weeks. She will go from there depending on what is received.

Mr. Shavelson responded that although it is difficult engineering work, it cannot be an open-ended process; there needs to be a deadline at some point. If the applicant cannot comply, the permit should be denied.

RECONSIDERATION

A. Staff Report PL 06-81 Bidarka Heights Unit 3 Subdivision Letzring Addition Preliminary Plat

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO RECONSIDER LETZRING ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT 06-81.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: YES. HESS, CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH

VOTE: NO. ZAK, FOSTER

Motion carried.

There was discussion as to when the Letzring preliminary plat would be heard within the meeting and it was decided it would be heard forthwith.

Commissioner Hess explained that Highland Drive extension is part of the Master Streets and Roads Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. He moved to reconsider the preliminary plat to assure the Commission acted correctly by not requiring the road dedication. City Planner McKibben agreed the Master Streets and Roads Plan, the 2005 Transportation Plan and Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) Code state a reasonable extension of right-of-way (ROW) must be provided to large vacant tracts of property. It is important the Commission adhere to the adopted policies and acquire ROW’s when there is the opportunity.

FOSTER/ - MOVED TO POSTPONE TO THE END OF THE MEETING.

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 7:32 p.m. to verify procedures and resumed the meeting at 7:37 p.m.

Commissioner Foster rescinded his motion to postpone.

The applicant had no comments at this time.

Public Works Director Meyer said he feels strongly the ROW should be dedicated as the Transportation Plan provides the road be transferred to Highland. It would be required of any other development within the city. The KPB Code states ROW’s be provided through properties to provide access to the road system beyond that. The developer should be liable to build the road. The applicant subdivided the property for profit and the City has to determine the best interest of the community. It is in the City’s best interest to have the developer dedicate the ROW and build the road.

Commissioner Hess questioned the drastic offset of the east/west connections of Highland Drive. Public Works Director Meyer said it is an ongoing effort to formally classify the roads. The radius of curves for streets is based on classification. Highland Drive is a residential collector. Residential collectors have between 150 and 300 ft. radius on the curve. The shortest radius curve platted on Highland Drive is 300 ft. A plat alignment at the eastern boundary is required and a 300 ft. reverse curve with an adequate transition in between is possible. There is a significant ravine that runs along the eastern side of the property. The proposal from the original developer calls for the road to swing up to the north where the ravine is almost nonexistent and then swing south to make the connection. It is possible without pressing the standards to make the connection.

Commissioner Foster asked if the alignment skirted the critical wetlands. Public Works Director Meyer answered there would be impact to the wetlands, but it would be lessened by the alignment.

Commissioner Hess asked what the City has gained by constructing the road up to City standards if the developer is unable to do the project. Public Works Director Meyer said if decisions were made on the best interest of the developer, Homer would look different. There are standards within the Homer City Code (HCC). It is not the purpose of the subdivision ordinance or HCC to require extreme provisions that stop development. If the plat is approved without a street dedication and the connection is needed later the community will have to purchase the ROW. If the ROW is required to be dedicated, but the road not constructed, the community ends up building the road.

Commissioner Hess commented that further public process is needed when there are roads on a platting action. The public did not pay enough attention when the road plan was implemented as part of the Comprehensive Plan. More public process at this time would be beneficial to the community.

City Planner McKibben read KPB Code 20.20.030 regarding proposed street layouts:

The streets provided on the plat must provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of all streets and surrounding areas and provide reasonable means of ingress for surrounding acreage tracts.

Commissioner Kranich drove the trail to the subject property and agrees the road can be built. He believes it is in the best interest of the community to go ahead with the dedication.

Matt Letzring, applicant, said the road can easily be made going along the spot. Per City standards it requires higher density, meaning a road to the end. That is another 20-acre piece of property that the owner has no intention of subdividing. It creates the bridge to nowhere mentality. Dedicating it or creating the density; it is simple math. The high density may not be as easily obtained with the topography. It is not the City’s position that it needs to pencil out for the developer. No one will pay for a road at a loss. One day the City may purchase land to connect the two points of Highland. He is not sure what the great advantage of connecting Highland is, but realizes people have put thought into it. Mr. Letzring may opt for less density, dedicating the ROW all the way through, and not creating the standards all the way through. If it makes sense to create a road to standards all the way through someone may cut up the parcel to make the numbers work. He has no problem dedicating the ROW all the way through, but will have to create higher density if making the road all the way through.

Recommendations from the June 21, 2006 meeting were read:

1. A PLAT NOTE INDICATING THAT THIS SUBDIVISION MAY CONTAIN WETLANDS. PROPERTY OWNERS HSOULD CONTACT THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PRIOR TO ANY ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO OBTAIN THE MOST CURRENT WETLANDS DESIGNATION (IF ANY).

2. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER PERMITS SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT.

3. DEPICT AND NOTE THE 100 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT CENTERED ON THE CREEK DEDICATED BY THE PARENT PLAT.

4. HIGHLAND DRIVE BE DEDICATED TO PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE ON LOT 2B AS REFERENCED BY THE LAYDOWN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

5. A PLAT NOTE BE ADDED THAT NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION WILL BE ALLOWED.

6. THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT ENSURE THAT THE ROAD BE ENGINEERED TO ALLOW CROSS FLOW BENEATH THE ROAD PRISM.

HESS/MINSCH – MOVED TO AMEND RECOMMENDATION #4 THAT THE FULL 60 FT. DEDICATION BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT PROVIDED WITH THE STAFF REPORT.

Public Works Director Meyer said if the Commission wants to limit lot sizes to five acres plus, road would have to be created with 300 ft. to 500 ft. road frontage. It will be difficult for a developer to make pencil. He echoed the applicant’s thoughts, that roads, water and sewer cost money. Density is required to support the infrastructure. Limiting lot sizes to five acres is a tough hurdle for the developer to make it pencil.

The Commission discussed ROW’s and their lack of inclusion in the Master Roads and Streets Plan.

VOTE: YES. MINSCH, CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS

VOTE: NO. FOSTER

Motion carried.

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO STRIKE RECOMMENDATION #5.

Commissioner Foster asked if the applicant had requested the recommendation, and it was confirmed he had.

VOTE: YES. CHESLEY, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS

VOTE: NO. FOSTER

Motion carried.

VOTE: (main motion) YES. MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK

Motion carried.

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 06-73 CUP 06-09 3725 East End Road

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and read the recommendations. The applicant was not present and there were no public comments.

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO APPROVE CUP 06-09 WITH FINDINGS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Questions relating to landscaping and compliance with permits for the water station were discussed.

FOSTER/HESS – MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLIES WITH ALL OF HCC 14.08.

VOTE: YES. ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH

Motion carried.

VOTE: (main motion) YES. MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER

Motion carried.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff recommends approval and adoption of findings with the following conditions.

1. The facility to be operated in compliance with local, state or federal requirements for bulk water stations. All DEC certificates will be kept current.

2. By fall of 2006, applicant is to install a 30’ x 50’ landscaped area along the rear lot line, and two landscaped areas of a minimum of fifty square feet each between East End Road and the two buildings. The two landscaped areas fronting East End Road will consist of low lying vegetation in order to preserve visibility for vehicles.

3. All new exterior lighting to meet lighting standards per HCC 21.49.080. As existing lighting is replaced, it is also to meet HCC 21.49.080.

4. A Storm Water Plan inclusive of the future addition, to be completed by September 15, 2006. Any storm water measures to be constructed prior to, or in conjunction with the landscaping. Areas used for storm water measures may be included in the landscaped area and counted towards the required landscaping if approved by the Planning Department.

5. Applicant will work with staff to obtain a sign permit for new and existing signs on the property.

6. Zoning permit for the future addition to be obtained by August 2011. If not, a new CUP will be required.

7. Compliance with federal, state and local regulations.

B. Staff Report PL 06-74 CUP 06-11 2443 Kachemak Drive

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and read the recommendations.

Richard Baker, applicant, told the Commission the 50 ft. x 80 ft. building is a residence and the State does not require a fire permit. It would tack on $30,000 to get the permit. He does have a fire marshall permit for the 50 ft. x 208 ft. commercial building. The owner has taken care to remove unknown substances, trucks, drums, junk, vehicles and batteries. Mr. Baker was hired to clean the property and put the buildings up. He met with the City when he first took on the project and there was nothing mentioned. The Bay Club owner thanked him this week for cleaning up the site. The property did not require a fence when it was a junk yard. The existing building was painted and trimmed, has a new roof and new T1-11 siding. It is a sharp looking building. Mr. Baker has a building permit for the 50 ft. x 80 ft. structure. A temporary building located towards the bluff will be moved up and used as an office. The owner has no intention of living on the premises until there is city water and sewer service. There is no well or septic on the property; it is tied into the Bay Club.

Mr. Baker doesn’t know how the owner will feel about a fence, as he’s spent more money than anticipated cleaning up the place. Everything had to be hauled off, including tanker trucks full of diesel. The owner is concerned as part of a building is built on the Bay Club’s property. The building was going to be disposed of until the Bay Club said they would not like to see access to the beach. The properties were replatted so the Bay Club has more beach front property and the subject property has more road front. The buildings are now fancy steel with grey roofs and white trim. The natural foliage was not disturbed.

The Commission told Mr. Baker they appreciate the careful clean-up efforts. When asked if there were any plans for the junk that had dropped down on the beach, Mr. Baker responded that too was being cleaned up.

City Planner McKibben noted that residences are not permitted in the GC2 District. They are allowed as an accessory use to a primary use. It is being permitted as a storage building, so the residence upstairs must be considered as an accessory use. The Fire Marshall approval is required due to the recommendations for commercial activity.

The public hearing was closed.

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO ACCEPT CUP 06-11 WITH STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

The as-built was questioned, why there would be one required in 2006 when there would be another one in 2007. City Planner McKibben answered the plat required parking spaces and setbacks. The as-built will provide more than a site plan.

VOTE: YES. KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HESS, MINSCH

Motion carried.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission approved CUP 06-10 with the following conditions:

1. Fire marshal certification required for the 50’ x 80’ steel building by Sept.15, 2006.

2. An SWP will be submitted to the Planning Department for approval by September 15, 2006 for the whole site. The applicant to include all future development plans so that another SWP will not be needed for the 50’ X 204’ boat storage building scheduled for construction in 2007.

3. Applicant to submit a certified as-built survey by September 1, 2006 which illustrates the requirements set forth in HCC 21.50.050.

4. Provide site screening foliage or 6’ high wooden fence along the west lot line. The foliage and/or fence along the west lot line are to be in place by October 1, 2006. If foliage is the only site screening provided, initial tree planting height to be 5’ or greater, with 50% to be evergreen.

5. No overnight occupancy is permitted in the new buildings until they are connected to public water and sewer OR have installed a DEC water and waste water system.

C. Staff Report PL 06-71 Vacation of a portion of Spruce Lane

This item was continued.

D. Staff Report PL 06-76 Ordinance 06-20(A), Of the City Council of the City of Homer, Alaska Amending Homer Zoning Map to Rezone a Gateway Business District (a Subdistrict of the Central Business District) Portions of Rural Residential (RR) and Portions of Urban Residential (UR) Zoning Districts Fronting on the Sterling Highway West Hill area to the South West Boundary of the Central Business District.

City Planner McKibben clarified the proposed Gateway Business District is not a Subdistrict of the Central Business District (CBD). The draft ordinance includes comments from the City Attorney. The purpose is to provide an alternative to expanding the CBD. Property owners in both the Gateway Business District and Gateway Overlay District were notified. Ms. McKibben spoke at the Board of Realtors luncheon today about both gateway districts.

Mike Haines, city resident, is one of the 300 people in the overlay district. He congratulated the Commission and City Planner McKibben for a great job in putting stuff together, as it is not an easy task. His experience is that planning and zoning relates to economic development, and an economic development plan is missing. You cannot have one without the other. The economic development plan would include:

· strong private partnership

· educated work force and strong school system to support

· culture that encourages and promotes entrepreneurship

· quality of life

They all go together to make a great economy for a community like Homer. All four of the items are not mutually compatible; there may be conflicts. Retail does not drive economic development. Non retail business and commerce create high paying jobs for community individuals. Retail will follow the people by the wealth created by business and commerce.

Mr. Haines identified the following problems and suggestions for the Gateway Overlay District:

· speed and noise of traffic

· lots 40,000 sq. ft. or less should have 35% open space

· lots larger than 40,000 sq. ft. should have 45% open space

· trails – property owners should dedicate part of property close to bluff

· large tall antennas

· private sector should contribute 1% of valuation of property to art

· parking should be blacktopped due to dust

· height restrictions for signs

· art could be integrated

· bear-proof garbage cans

As to the Gateway Business District, Mr. Haines’ concern is that drinking establishments near the church community may create a problem.

Paul Roarke, city resident, lives within 600 ft. of the Overlay District. He has concerns with the map, as it appears it was altered since the previous planning meeting. As to Carriage Court, it started off as a poor idea. A subdivision was allowed with tiny lots on the highway. Secondly they were built upon. Now there will be a third bad idea; changing what the City approved as residential to allow commercial. It is spot zoning. It was to end at West Hill and now is sneaking in a few more lots to support a bad idea that happened years ago. Mr. Roarke is opposed to the expansion of the CBD. If he wanted to live in Soldotna or Wasilla that is where he would be. He would appreciate if the line is stopped at West Hill to allow people to keep their residences.

Lloyd Moore, city resident, lives on the top line of the Sterling Hwy. He is grandfathered in and is doing everything the proposed Gateway District says he can’t do. He is trying to hide behind dirt piles, porta-potties and dead tanks. He is trying to hide some of the other stuff and apologized, but only has so much space to do what he does. When zoning was done from Baycrest Hill to the city limits towards Anchor Point major mistakes were made on the outside lots. There is the State maintenance yard, the Shell station and a few rural residential lots on the north side of the highway. Most of the stuff on the lots works. There is no problem with a car lot there; there is nothing wrong with looking at new cars. A lot of things are banned that will work in the area. He can’t speak after topping Baycrest Hill as he’s so busy his head is down and he doesn’t see it. Some of the stuff will work and some of it is ridiculous. He told City Planner McKibben he would create greenspace, but when someone tells him he has to he will put gravel on it. He doesn’t like being told what he has to do with his property. Mr. Moore concluded that an overlay does not fit.

Christopher Story, city resident, said no thank you in reference to the two proposed ordinances. He is pleased with Ordinance 06-20(A) as written and approved by City Council and soon to be implemented September 15, 2006. It meets the best needs of the district in the area and will be suitable. There is concern with box stores and larger parcels being subdivided into smaller lots. In the current CBD no lot shall contain more than 8,000 sq. ft. building area or 30% building area of the lot. That would require a CUP which would adhere the developer to the Community Design Manual. We don’t need to delineate and dedicate trails or equestrian ROW at this point. It could be done during the CUP process if someone wishes to develop something in excess of 8,000 sq. ft. If CBD is not right at the Gateway, why is it right at the core of Homer? Grubstake, Klondike, Bonanza, Lucky Shot, Greatland and Old Town are places cherished. Why are we allowing them in a substandard district? The focus should be on fixing the CBD. As to the property on the Sterling Hwy. at West Hill, Mr. Story said one day the neighborhood will thank him and his wife for fixing up the property they took on. After two years of marketing it looked abandoned and landscaping had not been completed. About $10,000 was put into it, sod is arriving soon and it is getting greener. It is looking better as a result of quasi commercial tenant. It doesn’t make sense to have a retail shop in area. He also owns Lot 2 there and wouldn’t put in a business that required any more than incidental retail sales. Two years on the market says it will not work as a residence. Mr. Story concluded we need to focus on fixing the CBD.

Ed Bond lives up Saltwater Drive. He comes into the middle of the process and although he doesn’t know much about West Hill to the CBD he appreciates the comments about drinking. There are two schools in the area and kids coming out every day walking in front of drinking establishments. He questioned regulations on his own residence including parking an RV in the driveway and prohibiting welding and repairs on vehicles. The Commission clarified those do not apply to residential, only commercial.

Mr. Bond said the Goofy Moose is residential property right above his. Rural Residential allows multi dwelling occupancy. There are two separate buildings connected with a phony roof to tie the buildings together to comply with regulations. Other concerns include:

· height of trees

· snow storage

· burn barrels

He is worried about exceptions, as one mistake happens and turns into another mistake. Mr. Bond bought the property in rural residential and hates rules changing in the middle of the game. It is a beautiful view coming down on Baycrest Hill and would be beneficial to have nice businesses to make it aesthetically pleasing. He would like to see it stay rural residential and doesn’t think anyone else wants business next to their property. He appreciates the work and time the Commission is taking on the Gateway District.

City Planner McKibben said the Overlay doesn’t change the residential zoning, it is additional rules on top of what is there. The Overlay District covers GC1, CBD and UR.

Mr. Bond said the Goofy Moose is a full time commercial business, it is a vacation rental property, a business property in full and it has been allowed. Although it may be a mistake things happen and snowball.

Bill Smith, citizen, referred to permitted uses in the Overlay District. He asked the following be implemented:

· Planned Unit Developments be eliminated

· view protection – difficult to enforce fairly by staff

· underground utilities

· open space preservation – different percentage than in RR

· height restriction limited to center line of road instead of finished grade

· apply CDM to Gateway including residences

· ground signs – limit sizes 30 sq. ft.; 6 ft. height; 10 ft. width

· 50% reduction of signs in business district

· internally lighted signs

· require enclosures or screening

As to the Gateway Business District Mr. Smith said including the two small lots on West Hill Rd. is not a logical extension as they are internal to a subdivision. The logical zoning for them would be Residential Office.

Emmitt Trimble, Homer taxpayer, participated in most of the meetings regarding the CBD expansion. His concern is that he spent three hours with the Planning Commission in their worksession discussing the Gateway. The maximum lot size recommended was 20,000 sq. ft. He is surprised to learn it changed to five acres as it is a radical change. The five acre lot size is ludicrous and he would like to know how it happened and who supported the change. The two lots at West Hill have been referred to a mistake; they were developed as a residential subdivision as that is the way they were zoned. Commercial development was not allowed. The Commission approved the subdivision and he represented the house on the corner for a year (as a realtor). Many people loved the house but didn’t want to be on the road. To add it in now is problematic, but there are not a lot of property owners in the subdivision complaining. He doesn’t agree with protecting the public that is driving down from Baycrest Hill as they should be looking at the road with the glaciers as their view. Someone who doesn’t own property doesn’t have more right to the view than the property owners who have paid taxes for many years. There is a wonderful turnout at the top of the hill taking pictures. If there is not enough space at the top of the hill, the community could buy the balance of property and create a larger park. The property has not developed in thirty years as it was not zoned properly; not it is. His concern is with the process. Things have changed since the worksession without people knowing about it. Restricting lot sizes to large lots is not a reason to rezone. If minimum lot sizes are 40,000 sq. ft. purchasers are limited. At $8 or $9 a sq. ft. only large corporations would be able to buy the property. It defeats the stated purpose. He agrees with Mr. Story. If something is wrong with the CBD it should be addressed in the rest of the community. Doing the overlay in one place is discriminatory for the viewscape and he doesn’t know if it is appropriate.

Patty Boily, city resident, concurs with Paul Roarke. She has been a resident for 29 years and doesn’t like seeing the business district sprawl. Something is missing when you take the CBD and expand it. The bypass is no longer a bypass. She loves downtown Homer developing and getting clustered together. Wasilla, Soldotna and Kenai have the sprawl. Homer is missing something if it has big car lots and mini malls. One needs to consider the price of gas.

Chair Chesley called for a recess at 9:33 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

Jacqueline B. (name inaudible and signature illegible) said some clauses and proposed regulations in the Gateway districts are conflicting for commercial development. Potential businesses are zoned out, as small pieces of land are restricted with setbacks, landscape restrictions and aesthetics. She loves aesthetic culture with visions of art and beauty, but as a developer she doesn’t understand what visual monotony means. It is too ambiguous. She wonders how the proposed regulations will fuse together what kind of business are allowed. Automotive businesses and alcohol will be out. Building materials like bricks and stone are expensive. With the new zoning regulation no one can afford to develop. There are too many restrictions on small pieces of land. People that are serious about working with the Council to keep the city beautiful will be confused and be defeated. There are service oriented businesses allowed, but not direct wholesale or retail. The intent is unclear as visual preservation is desired, but new business must enhance what is there. It seems anti competitive why a new business would want to enhance another person’s business.

Chair Chesley said public testimony was taken on both the Gateway Business and Overlay Districts. He advised the audience to speak with Councilmember Matt Shadle, proponent for the Gateway District or at the City Council level.

Gary C. Hinkle, Soldotna resident, addressed the Commission, stating he was not looking for a fight. He has owned land in the proposed Gateway District for 29 years and it has been a longstanding problem. He first requested a rezone in 1979 and has had a moratorium on his land preventing him from building since then. After reading the ordinances he still will have a moratorium. He has a greater underlying issue—the documents are blatantly unconstitutional. He had a potential buyer for his property who decided it was not possible. Mr. Hinkle’s concern is someone will be frustrated enough to challenge the obvious unconstitutional issues and tie the matter up for some time. It will not be good for the property owners and the community. His genuine concern is for the City of Homer. The following points were offered:

Architectural design is arbitrary and capricious and set in a manner that any plan could be denied.

* anti competition and trade restrictions

* no wholesale/no retail

* land restrictions

* trade regulations shift an onerous and unconstitutional burden on the landowner.

Mr. Hinkle stated he sought legal counsel on the proposals and urged the Commission to not pass them as written. He would like to see it all put to an end to protect the City of Homer.

Commissioner Foster asked if the Comprehensive Plan was provided to the attorneys. Mr. Hinkle stated it was not, but if the Comprehensive Plan supports violating the law it has no merit. Commissioner Minsch asked what type of development Mr. Hinkle would like to see in the area. Mr. Hinkle said he was approached by a group wanting to build a factory built home as a display. It would have a beautiful décor, landscaping and trees, but is in the list of things that are not allowed. Five people have approached him unsolicited asking if he will sell his property, for the purpose of a medical building and a building firm.

The public hearing was closed.

KRANICH/FOSTER – MOVED TO CONTINUE TO A SPECIAL WORKSESSION.

VOTE: YES. FOSTER, MINSCH, CHESLEY, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS

Motion carried.

E. Staff Report PL 06-77 – Gateway Overlay District - Ordinance 06-XX

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and noted that the City Attorney’s comments were received today. It was recommended public comments be taken, but that the Commission take no action due to the late receipt of the attorney’s comments.

Christohper Story, city resident, said the five acre restriction stated by Public Works is not feasible for public development. If they can get past the motel with the Coca Cola machine outside, the dump, and the DOT maintenance facility they are still coming down the hill. Nothing will lend itself to anything other than the residential nature. He does not see the necessity for the overlay, as the CBD can be amended if needed. Matt Shadle was not the author of the ordinances; Ms. McKibben has written the two ordinances. Ordinance 06-20(A) was at the Council level, not the Gateway Business District or the Gateway Overlay District. City Planner McKibben was asked today at the Board of Realtor’s meeting what the city has done since the 1999 Comprehensive Plan to encourage the infilling of the current business district. Nothing has encouraged infilling. With the creation of the Poopdeck Trail we have corked the ingress and egress areas at Grubstake and Klondike streets.

The public hearing was closed.

KRANICH/HESS – MOVED TO CONTINUE THE GATEWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT STAFF REPORT PL 06-77 TO A SPECIAL WORKSESSION WITH A TIME TO BE DETERMINED.

VOTE: CHESLEY, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER

Motion carried.

PLAT CONSIDERATION

The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public.

A. Staff Report PL 06-68 Forest Glen Subdivision No. 10 Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and recommendations.

There were no comments from the applicants or the public.

HESS/MINSCH – MOVED TO APPROVE FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION NO. 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

The 3:1 ratio for the lot length requirement for the Borough was discussed.

FOSTER/MINSCH – MOVED TO ADD STAFF RECOMMENDATION #6 IF THE LOTS DO NOT MEET THE 3:1 RATIO REQUIREMENT THE HOMER ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE BOROUGH NOT GRANT AN EXCEPTION.

Commissioner Foster commented there is little understanding where the 3:1 ratio came in the Borough ordinances. The ratio is supported when they are on steep slopes and ocean bluffs. There could be concern with long narrow lots, septic systems and when the lots are in wetlands. If exceptions to the ratios are not provided, applicants find ways to reconfigure the lots.

VOTE: (amendment) YES. MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER

Motion carried.

The Commission discussed assessments and fees, stating they do not belong in the recommendations.

KRANICH/HESS – MOVED TO DELETE RECOMMENDATIONS #2 AND #5.

VOTE: YES. ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH

Motion carried.

Utility easements were discussed and Public Works desire to increase them to 15 ft. to allow for electricity, telephone, cable and the prospect of natural gas. Public Works Director Meyer said there is language in the HCC that all lots must access through a 15 ft. utility easement. Surveyors may not like the interpretation and agree for the need, thus it is not listed on the plats.

VOTE: (main motion) YES. MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK

Motion carried.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:

1. A plat note indicating that this subdivision may contain wetlands. Property owners should contact the Army Corp. of Engineers prior to any on-site development or construction activity to obtain the most current wetlands designation (if any).

2. The land owner should note that additional Local Improvement District Assessment may be levied as part of the Subdivision.

3. The utility easement adjacent to the ROW should be 15 feet in width and depicted.

4. An Installation Agreement will be required if the water and sewer stub outs are not installed by the owner prior to recording the plat.

5. Additional assessments will be due on the two new lots.

B. Staff Report PL 06-69 Oscar Munson Subdivision No. 24 Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and read the recommendations.

There were no comments from the applicant or the public.

HESS/MINSCH – MOVED TO APPROVE OSCAR MUNSON SUBDIVISION NO. 24 PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Commission had the following concerns about the plat:

· Encroachment into ROW

· Wetlands should be added

· Size of the existing lots

Public Works Director Meyer commented that water and sewer was provided to the two new lots. At the end of the LID (Local Improvement District) process the owners became involved. Every lot is to be assessed with the LID. Mr. Meyer said there was another plat approved to the north of the area that required 15 ft. utility easements. At the end of the road 15 ft. easements will be required.

There was concern of vacating lot lines to allow two residences on one lot for the benefit of the LID assessment.

VOTE: YES. KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, HESS

VOTE: NO. ZAK, MINSCH

Motion carried.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:

1. A plat note indicating that this subdivision may contain wetlands and tidal areas. Property owners should contact the Army Corp. of Engineers prior to any on-site development or construction activity to obtain the most current wetlands designation (if any), and for regulations on development within tidal areas.
2. Dedicate a fifteen foot utility easement along the Ocean Drive Loop Rights of Way.
3. Depict the 20 ft building setback.
4. The applicant should be aware a conditional use permit may be needed. This permit is independent of the plat process.
5. Any encroachments will be solved independent of the platting action.

C. Staff Report PL 06-70 Wintergreen Subdivision 2006 Replat Preliminary

Plat

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and read the recommendations.

There were no comments from the applicant or the public.

HESS/ZAK – MOVED TO APPROVE WINTERGREEN SUBDIVISION 2006 REPLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Commission discussed the utility easements and commented that the soils report does not look good for septic systems. Lot 6B will have a 15 ft. utility easement on three sides, with no ROW on the south end of the lot. If the utility easement is already in effect and lots are served by utility easement, there is no reason to require additional utility easement. It was suggested the plat be sent back to staff to work with the surveyor to clarify the utility easement.

KRANICH/ HESS - MOVED TO SEND BACK TO STAFF FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: YES. CHESLEY, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER

Motion carried.

D. Staff Report PL 06-72 Cooper Subdivision No. 9 Preliminary Plat

This item was continued.

E. Staff Report PL 06-75 Cooper Subdivision Clay Addition No. 2 Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report and read the recommendations. Applicant Phil Clay was not able to attend the meeting, but has no problems with the staff recommendations.

Patty Boily, city resident, recommended not approving the plat. Two years ago when Phil Clay made the first proposal to subdivide the Clover Lane lot she sent a letter to the Commission. Tonight she has heard rules changing in the middle of the game. Mrs. Boily and her family have lived in the Cooper subdivision for 30 years and appreciate the quiet neighborhood and low volume of traffic. They bought rural residential for the large lots, as that was what they were told they would have. At the time there was no city sewer. Those who live on Clover Lane invested their time, energy and emotions and raised their families there. Mr. Clay wants one lot to be 20,000 sq. ft. so he can put in a multi unit. The one lot for one family became three lots for three families; now it could be four. Clover Lane is a lane, not a boulevard. Adding more lots is degrading the neighborhood by multiplying families with kids, dogs and cars. If there is planning and zoning, what does planning mean? The lot has already been subdivided once, so Mr. Clay’s need must be for a multiple unit. When requirements are made for roads, nobody is enforcing the rules and regulations. When Chris Newby subdivided Spruce Lane he was told he had to put in a city maintained road. He has built a house, but has not built the road. The house was finished a year ago and the city has not enforced the need for the road. Phil Clay should not have been allowed to subdivide in the first place. The Planning Commission should not be aiding and abetting him to further degrade the quality of life on Clover Lane. Mrs. Boily concluded life is beautiful on Clover Lane and she loves it.

Chair Chesley responded that in the rural residential district the density of lot sizes is determined by the availability of sewer and water. The Planning Commission has little flexibility in platting actions unless there is some other hazard. During the approval of Quiet Creek subdivision the Commission dealt with the appropriateness of having rural residential large lot sizes within city limits. In Homer there are only two types of residential districts, urban and rural. A citizen’s group interested in building density within city limits could provide input to the Commission.

HESS/KRANICH – MOVED TO APPROVE COOPER SUBDIVISION CLAY ADDITION NO. 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Commission noted there was nothing the Borough could do about the small lot sizes either.

VOTE: NO. MINSCH, FOSTER

VOTE: YES. ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY

Motion carried.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following comments:

1. Depict the existing water and sewer easements

2. Access to lot 9A-3A shall be a fire department accessible driveway.

OLD BUSINESS

A. Staff Report PL 06-60 Vacation of a portion of Kallman Road Right of Way

City Planner McKibben reported a public hearing was held June 21, 2006. The Commission deliberated and postponed action until brought back by staff. Glacierview Baptist Church submitted a proposal for a pedestrian easement in lieu of the ROW as an alternative. Staff continues to recommend the ROW vacation not be approved.

Pastor Rick Wise and Nathan Wise appeared before the Commission. The church would like to have resolution, as the ROW is hanging out there. The church owns the subject property and the surrounding owners do not want the street developed. Possibilities are: a developer could buy the ROW and develop it themselves; the City could purchase the ROW and built the road themselves; or the property could be sold. Pastor Wise would like to utilize the property. Currently there is ROW across Nelson down to Ronda Street. On the Uminski property the road could be accessed north to south and line up with Mattox Street with multiple entrances and exits. No one would suffer hardship.

Nathan Wise said if ROW is developed it creates an issue with people. He goes to the church building multiple times through the week and the facility is being used more frequently. As time goes on the issue will grow. They love the location, but the road through the middle makes it difficult to expand much.

Pastor Wise said there was no objection from the public. Mrs. Newell testified at the public hearing and called Mr. Wise the next day. Her concerns were only the additional traffic on Kramer Lane. Neighbors provided signatures of approval and there was one person who opposed the vacation of the ROW if it meant more traffic. The developer to the north is opposed as it is a direct route from his subdivision. Gary Thomas was at the meeting earlier to speak favorably, but needed to leave.

The Commission asked if there was a plan to eliminate lot lines. Pastor Wise answered if the vacation of the ROW was approved there would be a request to vacate lot lines. There is a year to submit the final plat in which the lot lines will be adjusted. If it is not done within a year, the ROW is not vacated. Commissioner Hess noted the Borough does not allow block lanes less than 800 ft. onto arterial roads. It was suggested additional ROW may be needed by the City to make a hammerhead turn. Public Works Director Meyer commented the plows turn radiuses frequently and a hammerhead may not be needed.

Commissioner Kranich pointed out when a portion of East Hill Road was vacated the recipient paid fair market value. It would not apply in this situation, as it is not in HCC. The Commission needs to encourage Council to adopt such an ordinance.

Pastor Wise said the State has purchased ditch easement on either side that will need to remain. The Pastor said Kenton Bloom suggested each party sharing 10 ft. easements to line up with the sidewalk to allow pedestrians to go straight across the street rather than zigzagging. Pastor Wise confirmed his proposal of a 20 ft. easement for a pedestrian trail in lieu of the ROW vacation as an alternative.

A question of the assurance the City would receive that the easement was followed through was raised. City Planner McKibben said outside documentation would need to be provided as it would not be covered under the ROW vacation.

The Commission asked Public Works Director Meyer for his opinion of the vacation and 800 ft. lot line vacation on arterials. He responded that Pennock, Kallman and various other intersections in Homer are not ideal. The 800 ft. lot line vacation on arterials may stop new platting of roads. Public Works cannot support the 800 ft. lot line vacation on arterials due to multiple access points for utilities and road access. On the subject plat there are special issues besides the intersection and road that need to be taken into account. It may be possible to vacate the ROW and turn it into a pedestrian easement that can be relocated by a future plat. Vehicular access to the corridor could be vacated to solve the church’s concern for safety.

City Planner McKibben said the plat could be submitted as a companion and the vacation could be postponed. If you do not replat and provide an acceptable pedestrian access the approval to vacate is null and void. The 800 ft. lot line code does not speak to intersections, but rather block length. Without an interpretation from the Borough it is unclear if intersections cannot be closer than 800 sq. ft.

Commissioner Minsch had questions on the ROW that Chair Chesley deferred to Pastor Wise. Pastor Wise explained Kallman was not placed in the ROW. He told the State Kallman was not built in the right place and he wanted it built in the right place. The response from the State was they would not move it. Pastor Wise told them if they didn’t move the street they would need to build a new street as it was in the wrong place. Glacierview Baptist gave them property on Lot 1 to align the street over and they gave the church property in exchange to properly align the street. The State purchased the ditch easements that bring the drainage down, allowing them access.

City Planner McKibben added that there is no process requiring applicants to purchase ROW. Earlier, Commissioner Kranich pointed out the State requires people to pay fair market value for the property they gain when vacating a ROW or portion thereof. The City does not have a similar process. Public Works Director Meyer added that the State generally purchases corridors to begin with and expect money back. Within the City every road is given to the City by the property owner, when the City does not need it anymore it reverts back to the original owner, which is the adjacent property owner.

The Commission acknowledged the letter from Tony Neal and his question of where the traffic would go. The traffic from the Quiet Creek subdivision was to flow from Kallman to Kramer to an established and controlled intersection. Mr. Neal’s letter indicated he was opposed to the process of notification of surrounding property owners rather than the vacation. City Planner McKibben disagreed with Mr. Neal’s interpretation on the 300 ft. notice.

Motion on the floor from the June 21, 2006 meeting:

CONNOR/KRANICH - MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 06-60 THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF KALLMAN ROAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION:

Planning Commission recommend the vacation of the Kallman Street not be approved and findings adopted supporting this.

ZAK/HESS – MOVED TO AMEND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ROW VACATION.

VOTE: (amendment) YES. ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH

Motion carried.

VOTE: (main motion) YES. KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, ZAK, HESS

VOTE: NO. MINSCH

Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff, testimony from applicants and the public. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public.

A. Staff Report PL 06-79 Town Center Task Force

City Planner McKibben read the staff report and recommendation. She noted Bruce Creager commented as a planner rather than a representative of Fred Meyer. He considers angle parking obsolete. Greg Jones would like to share recommendations with the Commission.

Public Works Director Meyer stated there were several comments made that few people would parallel park on the street and shop at Fred Meyer.

Greg Jones, CIRI representative, stated he was on the Town Center Task Force and was unable to attend the last two meetings. He apologized to members of the committee as he was not able to be as active with his travel schedule. He has reviewed the recommendations and questioned where they go from here.

Chair Chesley answered that the Planning Commission reviews the recommendations and forwards them to the Public Works Director in guidance for forming a subdivision agreement with Fred Meyer. It is separate from the Commission process. The 1% arts program goes to the City Council for consideration.

Mr. Jones said Mr. Meyer is the Public Works Director today, but CIRI is the main property owner within the Town Center and will be involved for some time. There is ambiguity, contradiction and discretion associated with the recommendations. Design standards for the Town Center is a good idea, however there are a number of the recommendations that won’t work. Angle parking does not work in northern climates, as the lines disappear in the winter. There are many words within the recommendations such as consider adding, strongly recommend, explore the possibility, explore the use, encourage and could and should. Those words allow the City a tremendous amount of discretion of what develops on the site. There is a lack of consistency and predictability, making it scary for anyone moving into the subdivision. He is not predicting Public Works Director Meyer will be hard to deal with, but Mr. Meyer may not be there forever. It is unsure how Public Works Director Meyer will interpret the recommendations. The Town Center has been in the works for nine years and was finally, with much arm twisting, adopted by the Council. Now we are adding a significant amount of acreage to encourage commercial development along the Sterling Hwy., and then putting this type of cost and ambiguity on the Town Center. He asked why we don’t take the Town Center plan and toss it in the trash without adopting it because it is not going to be competitive nor will it be implemented. Mr. Jones said we need to focus on making Town Center work rather than making it hard to deal with.

City Planner McKibben said the committee made recommendations but were not encouraged to get into the fine details. Details and design were left up to the engineers who have the knowledge to figure such things. The recommendations are for the subdivision development agreement for the Fred Meyer plat that includes the infrastructure of the roads, not for the development of the lot itself.

Mr. Jones asked about the planters and street furniture, if they would be maintained and insured by the City. Ms. McKibben said some of the things are outside the subdivision development agreement. No one intended that street furniture be provided at the corners. Mr. Jones said it only adds to the ambiguity of the plan. When one walks into the City with a proposed development they are not sure what their responsibility is.

City Planner McKibben said she could sift through the things applicable to the subdivision development agreement and put them in one category. The recommendations for development of Town Center could be put in another category.

Mr. Jones commented he was not aware of the gateway project until tonight. There has been so much energy put into Town Center to focus commercial development in a walkable, easily accessible and multi-use area. The Gateway District would quadruple the acres and set development on the highway, taking away the competitiveness of the Town Center. He would be opposed to the Town Center if the Gateway District is approved.

City Planner McKibben said the Council passed an ordinance that becomes effective September 15^th that expands the CBD out to the Gateway District. The Gateway Business District is the Commission’s suggestion to the Council instead of expanding the CBD.

KRANICH/HESS - MOVED TO CONTINUE STAFF REPORT PL 06-79 TO THE NEXT MEETING.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 06-82 Capital Improvement Plan/Legislative Request

HESS/FOSTER – MOVED TO POSTPONE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO THE NEXT MEETING.

VOTE: YES. NON OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

HESS/ZAK - MOVED TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM PLAT CONSIDERATION PL 06-69 OSCAR MUNSON SUBDIVISION NO. 24 PRELIMINARY PLAT.

VOTE: YES. MINSCH, ZAK ,KRANICH, HESS, CHESLEY, FOSTER

Motion carried.

Reconsideration is requested because since Oscar Munson is a subdivision dedication of a utility easement cannot be required. Removing lot lines it is not an act of subdivisions and the subdivision code does not apply. The City Attorney made an interpretation to that effect.

HESS/ZAK – MOVED TO REMOVE RECOMMENDATION #2 TO DEDICATE 15 FT. UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG OCEAN DRIVE LOOP ROW’S.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: (amendment) YES. ZAK, HESS, FOSTER, CHESLEY, MINSCH, KRANICH

Motion carried.

VOTE: (main motion as amended) YES. KRANICH, FOSTER, CHESLEY, HESS, MINSCH

VOTE: NO. ZAK

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 06-80 Bridge Creek Watershed Protection District Mitigation Pamphlet

This item was continued.

REPORTS

B. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster reported he will not recuse himself as the Borough Attorney recommended, as the applicant asked him to present himself also. Both Fred Meyer and Cups passed; Cups unanimously without the ROW dedication. There are a lot of the same types of issues with the disjointed streets and angles. A property owner along Cook Inlet was interested in an area where land was increasing and is asking to have the lot line adjusted. The State is saying no, it is not his land, it is State land. A lawyer and surveyors said the line is at mean high water regardless of where it is platted. The Borough is taxing the property owner whether he can build on the parcel or not. The State is arguing the accreted or eroded land is theirs. The problem is they wanted to straighten the lines so it is lined up with the inlet as it is now.

City Planner McKibben said it is her understanding when the land accretes it belongs to the property owner, but they have to apply for quiet title through the State. When the land erodes it belongs to the State but they do not have to apply for anything. She said it may be the opportunity for the court to weigh in.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no report.

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

City Planner McKibben commented that more than an hour is needed for a special worksession on the Gateway ordinances. The Gateway Business District is based on the CBD and the Overlay is based on a couple different districts.

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

Items listed under this agenda item can be HCC meeting minutes, copies of zoning violation letters, reports and information from other government units.

A. Letter dated June 15, 2006 to Richard Baker from Dotti Harness, Planning

Technician

B. Letter dated June 22, 2006 to Paul Roderick from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

C. Letter dated June 26, 2006 to Jose Ramos from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

D. Letter dated June 29, 2006 to Tom and Charlie Knoll from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

E. Letter dated July 5, 2006 to Rhonda and Garth Bradshaw from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

F. Letter dated July 13, 2006 to John and Margaret Chapple from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

There were no comments from the audience.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Minsch had no comments.

Commissioner Zak referred to the map that did not show Spruce Lane improved. Three lots were created without Spruce Lane being approved. City Planner McKibben clarified those lots were not heard this evening.

Commissioner Hess asked Ms. McKibben to find out about the 800 ft. separation from the Borough for the next meeting.

Commissioner Foster said he appreciated nobody pointing fingers when asked who made a decision. He was hoping it would instill discussion on the access of the road to the Sterling Hwy. and concerns people had originally.

Chair Chesley welcomed Commissioners Zak and Minsch to the Commission, stating it was his first meeting with them. He looks forward to their indentured servitude, helping the Commission through an exhausting work load. Mr. Chesley congratulated City Planner McKibben for her third year anniversary with the City. He thanked Deputy City Clerk Johnson for enduring and keeping the Commission on track. He will miss the next two meetings.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 12:46 a.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for August 2, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. with a Worksession at 6:00 p.m. prior to the meeting. A Special Meeting is scheduled for July 26, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. Meetings will be held in the Cowles Council Chambers.

_____________________________

JO JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: ___________________