Session 06-15, a Regular meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Hess at 7:10 pm on June 7, 2006 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

PRESENT: COMMISSIONER CONNOR, FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, LEHNER

ABSENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY, PFEIL (Excused)

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

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 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

The Agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

A. Approval of May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes

Amendments were made and there was discussion regarding the wording of a motion. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen said she would check the wording of the motion with the recording and report back at the next meeting.

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

Dr. Bill Marley commented regarding the Safeway remodel. He is certain that they are doing the remodel is a result of Planning and Zoning dealing with Fred Meyer and the standards Fred Meyer is expected to meet. Dr. Marley expressed his belief that having standards for the new Central Business District (CBD) will carry over to the other businesses in the community and they will feel the pressure to improve their appearance. He commented that the Community Design Manual (CDM) is a desirable document and while he doesn’t agree with everything in it, a vast majority of it is desirable. When it comes to the new CBD, he would like to see the CDM applied as well as some motif of architecture similar to the Alaska USA building, which he feels is a natural complement to the area we live in. He is unaware of any discussion regarding design standards and would like to hear it discussed somewhere along the line.

Dr. Marley also made comment regarding the staff reports. He would like the name of the person who prepares the report to be on the report. There was discussion that staff’s name does appear on the report. City Planner McKibben added that if she does not prepare the report, it comes through her, as noted on the report. She advised Dr. Marley that the reports are available on line and copies are available in the Commission packet on the back table. She told Dr. Marley he is welcome to call the Planning Department if he has any questions regarding staff reports.

Lastly, Dr. Marley commented when driving into Homer and reaching the point of West Hill road, it becomes a different area, scenically at least, and the requirements for the new CBD should not be the same as the requirements for the overlay district as they are two different districts. He commented that the word retail is nebulous and needs to be better defined. He respects the notion for maintaining view for people and it is appropriate but, as he has said before, there were numerous trees up to sixty feet tall, on his property previously. He is not proposing buildings of that height, but that is a matter of consideration. He said they have replanted 1800 to 2000 new trees, and while they won’t all survive, in time the area will become forested again if not developed. He would like the Commission to keep that in consideration.

RECONSIDERATION

There were no reconsiderations.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing items. The Commission may question the public.

A. Staff Report PL 06-57, CUP 06-08 Kachemak Bay Equestrian Association

Commissioner Lehner advised the Commission that she had an ex parte communication on May 23 with Shirley Schollenberg. Ms. Schollenberg gave Ms. Lehner a brief summary of Associations project and it was consistent with the information provided in the packet. Ms. Schollenberg asked if it would be beneficial to have letters and attendees to support their request and Commissioner Lehner said she responded that it would.

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.

Roberta Highland, Vice President of the Kachemak Bay Equestrian Association (KBEA), provided a copy of a petition signed by 80 to 90 supporters. Mrs. Highland read a letter of support from Tara Schmidt and provided a copy for the record. Mrs. Highland added that KBEA is being youth oriented and therapeutic riding are included in their plan along with working with other organizations like CoHOSTs and the Nordic Ski Club.

Commissioner Foster questioned if rodeos would include events with steers and so forth. Mrs. Highland responded that they would not. Rodeos would include barrel racing, pole bending and et cetera, but not cattle.

There was discussion of using the term “gymkhana” in place of rodeo as it is more specific to horse events.

Mrs. Highland said there were no concerns with Staff’s recommendations.

Vice Chair Hess questioned if KBEA had checked with DEC regarding requirements for privies. Mrs. Highland responded that they are working with Jack Cushing and following his recommendations. In the future KBEA will purchase the larger underground tanks that are pumped. City Planner McKibben added she envisions something similar to the facilities at Hornaday Park, which are permitted by DEC if they meet certain criteria. She said she is unsure if there is a requirement for DEC approval for pit privies in that area.

Jeanie Fabich, an assistant 4-H leader in Homer, stressed the value of an arena to our community as it would provide community activities for the youth in Homer. She told the Commission about attending a horse camp in Ninilchik where she saw a core group of high schoolers ages 14 to 18 running the camp with adult supervision, and the youth were responsible for educating the younger attendees ages 5 to 12. She said what draws the kids together and keeps them excited are the horses. It draws the kids in and makes them available for mentoring. She feels it would be a great opportunity for the youth in Homer.

Commissioner Foster questioned if there would be opportunities for young people who don’t own horses. Mrs. Fabich responded there would. She said it is not exclusive to horse owners.

Patricia Mitchell, owner of property adjacent to the proposed facility, voiced her concern with clean up of the area, primarily the odor and flies associated with the manure. She understands that KBEA says they will be responsible, but if they aren’t, she questioned who will enforce it. Mrs. Mitchell also expressed concern regarding the trees on the property and whether they will be removed. She said there is a beautiful cottonwood tree there and this is the first year they have had a bear come by there and spend the day sleeping in the tree. She would hate to lose that. Her primary concern however is who will enforce the clean up.

City Planner McKibben responded that if KBEA does not follow the requirements of their permit it would become an enforcement issue and the Planning Department would contact the applicant.

Mrs. Highland responded that KBEA plans to leave the trees in place for part of the screening and the arena will be below. She said the manure is an issue and part of horse stewardship is keeping it clean. She said a majority of the horse owners are responsible and will clean up after their horses, but recognizes that there may be times when there are some who don’t. She said KBEA will be on it. She said there will be rules in place and one of the top rules is stewardship. Mrs. Highland said Mrs. Mitchell will receive a list of people she can contact if there is a problem. KBEA wants to be a good neighbor.

Renee Eidem, President of KBEA, added that the Association is planning to have committees and one will be a maintenance committee who will be responsible for ensuring the area is clean.

There were no more public comments and Vice Chair Hess closed the Public Hearing.

CONNOR/FOSTER MOVED TO BRING STAFF REPORT PL 06-57 CONDITIONAL USE 06-08 FOR A MULTI USE OUTDOOR EQUESTRIAN ARENA WITH STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Planning Commission grant approval of the Conditional use Permit for an outdoor arena for uses such as: rodeos, horse training-lessons, 4H, Pony Club events, ski-bike events, animal shows such as lama and dog shows, with the following requirements:

1. Sight-obscuring trees will be planted by the fall of 2006 along East End Road and along the upper 200 feet of the east property line.
2. Maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the creek bank located along the lower-eastern portion of the parcel. No improvements, temporary or permanent such as arenas, corrals, pens and/or parking will be located in this 30 foot setback.
3. A wooden privy shed will be build to ‘host’ the self-contained restrooms by the

Spring of 2007.

4. Manure to be removed on a daily basis until a covered manure composting area is constructed.
5. Construct a covered manure composting area by Fall of 2008. The composting area will be at least 150’ from the drainage on the eastern side of the lot. The composting area will be covered by a permanent structure and have an impervious floor, such as concrete.
6. Covered composting area will be maintained to avoid build up, odors and insects.
7. Public speaker announcing system is limited to the hours of 10am to 8pm. Speakers will aim in a direction so as to least impact the neighboring residential area.
8. Temporary animal fencing to be removed during the winter months.
9. No overnight animal storage is permitted.
10. No overnight camping is permitted.
11. Vehicle and trailer storage is limited to a maximum of 3 consecutive days.
12. Ingress and egress access points to Phase 1 and Phase 2 parking areas will meet the requirements of HCC 7.12 and have a minimum 3’ vegetated buffer.
13. Outdoor lighting will comply with the Community Design Manual.
14. Plans for an engineered retention basin or ditch for waste management will be provided to the city by July 15, 2006. The basin or ditch will be designed to filter nutrients and contaminants from the arena and holding pens. This basin or ditch will be installed prior to use of the arena.

Commissioner Connor said she thinks this is a fabulous idea and is in total support of it.

Commissioner Foster commented that he is pleased about the involvement of 4-H. He asked what will happen with the area in the event KBEA disperses. City Planner McKibben said it is not an issue that was addressed in staff’s report, however, improvements to the property appear to be minimal and the property could be returned to its natural state.

LEHNER/CONNOR MOVE TO AMEND FINDING 10 LIMITATION OF TIME FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES TO READ AS FOLLOWS: PERMITTED ACTIVITIES WILL BE LIMITED TO EQUESTRIAN EVENTS SUCH AS HORSE SHOWS, RIDING CLINICS, GYMKHANAS, HORSE TRAINING LESSONS, ET CETERA, AS WELL AS SKI/BIKE EVENTS, ANIMAL SHOWS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

There was discussion of the need of a definition of gymkhana and consider a less sport specific word. It was pointed out that it could be looked up in any dictionary and essentially it is certain equestrian activities that are derived from western riding activities.

Commission Lehner feels this amendment clarifies the use of the arena and that it does not include having a herd of cattle or bull riding events.

Discussion ensued as to whether the arena would be used for showing cattle or livestock. Point was made that the arena could be used for showing cattle or livestock but it would be more along the line of an FFA show or a 4-H show. Those activities center on how the animal was raised and is not the same as roping. It was clarified that there could be dog events that would include herding, however, that is still different than rodeo events that would include bulls.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO ADD REQUIREMENT 15 THE HOMER OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE BE CONTACTED FOR ASSISTANCE IN DESIGNING THE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND RETENTION AREA REFERENCED IN REQUIREMENTS 5 AND 14 ABOVE.

Commissioner Lehner commented that it would be good to have local input. Requirements form other areas may not be as fine tuned to this area. Commissioner Connor countered that may be redundant as requirement 14 already asks for plans for an engineered retention basin. Ms. Lehner responded that the NRCS has special expertise in dealing with livestock issues and waste issues.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

In reference to the privies, City Planner McKibben referenced HCC 21.44 which requires that each lot be served by public or community sewer, approved by the State Department of Environmental Conservation. Her assumption is that pit privies are permitted by DEC within certain parameters; otherwise they wouldn’t have them at Hornaday Park and State Parks. As part of the zoning permit, the applicant can provide documentation from DEC that they would be meeting those requirements.

LEHNER/KRANICH MOVED TO ADD TO CONDITION THREE THAT DOCUMENTATION BE REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT PRIVIES MEET ANY APPLICABLE STATE REGULATIONS.

There was no discussion on the motion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

There was brief discussion that rodeo was listed as the first use under staff recommendations and whether it should be changed to gymkhana.

KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED AMEND THE FIRST USE LISTED UNDER STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGE THE WORD TO GYMKHANA INSTEAD OF RODEO.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

There was no further discussion on the main motion as amended.

VOTE: YES: FOSTER, CONNOR, LEHNER, KRANICH, HESS

Motion carried.

Vice Chair Hess called for a break at 8:17 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:29 pm.

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 06-59 Bidarki Creek No. 3 Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report. She pointed out that the staff report notes that water and sewer are not available but there was a note from the surveyor that the existing structure may be connected to city water and sewer and it may be possible that another assessment may be needed if the subdivision goes through.

Vice Chair Hess commented for the record that there were some letters of support for the previous action for KBEA that he forgot to note earlier.

Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, noted the remaining lot with the residence on it does have on site water and sewer and he does not believe that it is part of the improvement district. It is shown at the bottom of the preliminary plat that there are 10 foot contour intervals. The grade of the existing driveway is 12% and the Public Works Design manual allows up to 15% for distances not exceeding 500 feet. The Borough Subdivision Code allows a 40 foot right-of-way for subdivisions in which there are no more than three lots. The applicant feels a 40 foot right-of-way is adequate for this subdivision. Mr. Imhoff pointed out that the lot to the north, owned by John Fenske, could conceivably be subdivided if he chooses and the right-of-way could be extended and a cul de sac provided on Mr. Fenske’s lot. Mr. Imhoff explained that not all of the lot exceeds 25%. He said there is a flat area on the south side of the lot that fronts Sterling Highway. Mr. Imhoff agrees that the back part of the lot would have a smaller developable area. The applicant agreed to provide a 20 foot easement for protection purposes on the small drainage that runs underneath the 40 foot road. He provided pictures of the drainage for the Commission to review.

Mr. Imhoff said the upper ridge is about 20º, which is about a 35% side slope. If someone were to build up there they could build on pilings or carve out a bench, which is fairly typical in the Homer area. He said it would probably be a 10 or 12 foot cut to provide a 30 foot wide building pad.

Mr. Imhoff asked the Commission for consideration to reduce the building setback on the 40 foot right-of-way to 10 feet. He noted that the standard is 20 feet, but since the right-of-way serves a minimal amount of lots, it would help the future owners of this lot develop a building site with less environmental impact.

Vice Chair Hess asked if Mr. Imhoff had any concerns with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Imhoff responded that he disagrees with Public Works expecting a 60 foot right-of-way through there for maintenance when it is not required.

It was noted that Public Works request was not included in staff’s recommendations to be carried forward. Commissioner Foster commented at the Borough level all staff comments are included together, however the City puts their applicable requirements under staff recommendations.

Commissioner Foster noted there is a canyon down on the east side. He said it also looks like Bidarki Creek makes a big bend where the dividing line between the two lots are. In the past, that is where it washes and floods when it overflows and moves over into the flat area. He asked if there is another spot for a good building site, other than where the road is and this over flooding area.

Mr. Imhoff expressed his disagreement with Commissioner Foster’s statement. Mr. Imhoff and said it appears that the flood area of Bidarki Creek is down at the bottom as there are silty deposits down there. He noted that in the photos he provided there is a picture of the inlet side, going under the Sterling Highway. He said you can see that the area to the right of the photo kind of runs up the hill and there is 15 to 20 feet elevation difference between the bottom of Bidarki Creek. The bench Mr. Imhoff was speaking of was closer to the 40 foot right-of-way. Dr. Foster questioned the location of the right-of-way and whether it was on lot 1A-1 or 1A-2. Mr. Imhoff clarified it is on lot 1A-2.

Commissioner Connor questioned whether there are two creeks that come in to the property and asked for clarification of the 50 foot drainage easement. Mr. Imhoff responded that there is a little swale with minimal drainage in it. In his opinion there shouldn’t have been a 50 foot drainage easement there. It is suitable to have a drainage easement there to protect the area from development, but this is not large enough to warrant a 50 foot easement.

It was clarified that the driveway for lot 1A-2 would be along the 40 foot right-of-way. Mr. Fenske’s driveway is there now. His parcel is land locked and the right-of-way will provide access to his lot, making it legal.

There was discussion regarding the request for a 10 foot setback instead of the standard 20 feet along the 40 foot right-of-way. Mr. Imhoff explained that although the lot is 1 acre, not all of it is suitable for building and they wouldn’t want to shovel dirt into the creeks. He feels it would be appropriate to allow the property owner to build closer to the setback and have less of an impact on the lot. City Planner McKibben commented that even if there were a plat note for a 10 foot setback, Code requires twenty feet and the more restrictive would apply. The idea of an ally was considered briefly, but concluded to be unsuitable. It was determined that a most likely a variance would be required to allow for the reduction.

There was no further public comment.

LEHNER/CONNOR MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT PL06-59 AND APPROVE BIDARKI CREEK SUBDIVISION NUMBER 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.

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.
2. Name the 40 ft right of way.
3. Define the contour intervals.
4. Bidarki Road was vacated and replated by Plat 73-551. Remove the reference to Bidarki Road.
5. Due to steepness of the lot, under current zoning regulations, development may not exceed 25% of the site.
6. Continue the drainage easement from the western boundary to Bidarki Creek with a minimum 20 ft width.

Commissioner Lehner commented that if the drainage issues are addressed she does not have a problem approving the preliminary plat.

Commissioner Connor commented that during the Gateway meetings a lot of the neighbors talked about Bidarki Creek and its importance as a wildlife corridor. She noted the aerial map and said there is a huge canyon that comes down and empties out on that lot. She doesn’t feel a thirty foot drainage easement is sufficient for Bidarki Creek.

CONNOR/KRANICH MOVED TO ADD COMMENT NUMBER SEVEN TO INCREASE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON BIDARKI CREEK TO FIFTY FEET.

There was discussion regarding the drainage easement and how it should be situated as centering it with 25 feet on each side may not be the most effective way. Commissioner Foster pointed out that there is a steep bluff on the east side, but the west side is where it flows out and would benefit from having more of the easement on that side. Mr. Imhoff responded that he does not see a problem adjusting the location of the easement along the creek. He noted that the riparian wetlands shown on the wetlands map isn’t that wide, but what ever the Commission feels is adequate to protect the creek is fine.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

There was further discussion regarding the request for relief from the 20 foot setback. Mr. Imhoff suggested the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Borough Planning Commission that the 10 foot building setback be granted. City Planner McKibben said it wouldn’t make any difference, restating her earlier comment that the more restrictive applies.

Commissioner Connor asked for clarification regarding the lots being serviced by City water and sewer. Commissioner Kranich made comment regarding previous discussions with Public Works Director Meyer where he has stated several times that a lot cannot be serviced unless the main fronts the lot. Mr. Kranich said that the main for Hillside Acres did not cross Bidarki Creek so there is no way to connect to City water and sewer.

Discussion ensued regarding the need for more information regarding septic information on the plat. It was noted that Mr. Imhoff’s notation on the preliminary plat is sufficient for preliminary plat approval. The Borough requires the engineering information for final plat approval and without the information the plat will not be approved. Comment was made that if there is not enough area on the lot for a septic, there are other methods available like approved holding tanks, incinolets and so forth.

VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, LEHNER, HESS, CONNOR

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 06-56 Bouman’s Bluff Subdivision Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben read the staff report.

Sharon Bouman, applicant, commented that Seabright Surveys would make the requested corrections and notations that were recommended for the plat.

There was question regarding a letter in the packet regarding the number of lots. Mrs. Bouman responded that originally they were going to have smaller lots but decided that having one driveway with larger lots would be smarter development in that area.

Commissioner Connor thanked the Boumans for making that change.

Commissioner Kranich questioned if the Boumans were okay with Public Works request to expand the utility easement across the front of the property from 10 to 15 feet. Mrs. Bouman said they were. Mr. Kranich he questions the need for extending the easement on a 200 foot right-of-way.

Emmitt Trimble concurred with Commissioner Kranich’s statement and recommended against increasing the size of the easement. He thanked the applicant for the larger lot size in that area.

Mrs. Bouman asked if there had been approval for the 80 foot antenna on the easement. City Planner McKibben responded that it was recognized as a non conforming use in 2005.

CONNOR/LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL06-56 BOUMAN’S BLUFF SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

1. Show the Homer city limits on the vicinity map.
2. The geo-easement should refer to the plat note. “See plat note 4” or similar language is needed.
3. Depict building setback lines and utility easements.
4. Clarify utility easement language on plat note 3.
5. Delete plat note 6.
6. Add a plat note: This subdivision is subject to the zoning regulations of the City of Homer. Owners should consult with the City of Homer Planning Dept prior to any development activity.
7. Staff has been informed the trailers shown on the plat have been removed. This should be verified by the surveyor and the plat modified accordingly.
8. Note adjacent subdivisions.

Commissioner Connor thanked the Bouman’s again for the increased lot sizes and using shared driveway.

There was brief discussion regarding the approach that is taken by the Borough to review staff and Commission comments.

KRANICH/LEHNER MOVED TO ADD RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 9 THAT THE TEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOULD REMAIN TEN FEET.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

Commissioner Foster commended the applicant for the shared driveway. He walked the area and is impressed with the lots.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS

A. Commission Work List - Ongoing

City Planner McKibben said the work list had been updated since their last discussion. Vice Chair Hess suggested they add looking at underground utilities to the list, the Commission agreed.

Commissioner Foster asked about the sign code. City Planner McKibben said she has not had time to work on it. She is hoping it is something that will be dealt with in the code update that has been budgeted for.

B. Staff Report PL 06-47 Resolution 06-19 Gateway Zoning District

City Planner McKibben commented that the staff report is the same as what they discussed during the worksession. City Planner McKibben suggested they continue working on this. She expressed concern regarding the amount of time they have left to work on it based on the schedule the Commission was given.

Dr. Marley commented that he would appreciate the consideration of separation of the Gateway District from the new CBD District. He expects that with the new CBD District there will be building requirements and other requirements that may not be applicable to the Gateway District. He hopes that will be given consideration.

Emmitt Trimble commented, echoing what Dr. Marley said, they are talking about separate zoning classifications. They are talking about a Gateway District overlay that address the rural residential that goes from West Hill up to the GC1 and from there to the City limits. The new sub-district that they are in favor of seeing those modification to CBD to exclude certain uses in that area. Mr. Trimble feels that would be appropriate, but he does not see that area as being one that is subject to the Gateway District. It is an expansion of CBD but with a modification into a sub-district.

Commissioner Foster commented that in discussion they keep referring to the area as a Gateway because it really is the first entrance people see when they come into town. At one point the Commission had questioned that if this is going to be an expansion of the CBD, are they talking about internal roads with Pioneer Avenue coming all the way out and other streets paralleling the Sterling Highway, or is the area strip, that is still the entrance into town and the current CBD. The intent is still some what confusing.

Mr. Trimble commented that the area is two Gateways. The area with the turn out at the top of the hill and coming down the hill which is primarily residential, and he believes should stay that way. Coming down into the area from West Hill into town the area has not been developed with the exception of the churches and schools. Development in that area needs to be compatible with those existing uses and should be aesthetically pleasing. The first Gateway is the residential area and the second Gateway is the entrance into town, but there won’t be certain development allowed like car lots or mobile homes.

Commissioner Foster commented regarding a list that was being generated of activities that are not allowed in the new CBD as opposed to something suggested by the community which is identifying allowable uses. It is two different ways of looking at the same thing. Mr. Trimble responded that he prefers excluding items that are onerous. He feels that specifying what cannot be done makes it clearer for the potential investor.

Commissioner Kranich clarified that what Mr. Trimble and Dr. Marley are suggesting is that the Gateway overlay would not apply to the new commercial area from West Hill into town. Mr. Trimble concurred and said the area from West Hill to City Limits is residential by nature and there are things that can happen there by conditional use. They are two different areas. Commissioner Kranich commented that he can see where the overlay would apply to all three zones in the area, but there would be different criteria within the overlay. He commented that currently in the GC1 area there can be some obnoxious developments and the overlay wants to address that in an attempt to minimize the objectionability of those permitted uses in that GC1 zone.

Vice Chair Hess commented that Mr. Trimble has commented in previous discussion asking what is wrong with the CBD. Vice Chair Hess said that the CBD was created in 1984 and there has been an extreme amount of new thinking about zoning and commercial districts since the creation of the CBD. He pointed out that part of the Commission’s thinking previously when looking at the area from West Hill into Pioneer Avenue was to have an area that takes in some of the new thinking and incorporating it through the overlay district. Vice Chair Hess used the example that currently CBD doesn’t have open space, which the overlay would include. Commissioner Kranich included he could see increased open space and buffers over and above what is in the rest of the CBD. It is limited currently as the lots are smaller. The lots in the proposed area are larger and utilizing creative architecture could allow for 35% open space on those lots. Mr. Trimble questioned whether it would be appropriate to apply the Gateway District to the rest of the CBD. Vice Chair Hess responded he doesn’t think it is inappropriate to look at the CBD later and update it to some of the more modern concepts of zoning.

Discussion continued reiterating that the goal is to make this new area the best it can be and it should encourage existing property owners to enhance and update their exiting commercial uses.

Commissioner Kranich commented that he has been talking with former Councilmember Rick Ladd, who is on the Planning Commission in Haverhill, New Hampshire. Mr. Ladd had commented that this is Homer’s opportunity to do it right. He has seen other Gateway areas where all you see is concrete buildings. If the Gateway is attractive, it will benefit the volume of business.

City Planner McKibben responded to comment from Dr. Marley regarding building design standards. She clarified that building standards are addressed in the draft ordinance. They are general and apply to all development with the exception residential units of five units or less. She reviewed some of the standards in the draft and pointed out that it prohibits generic franchise design. Ms. McKibben further stated that architecture is art and art is subjective. As they learned when reviewing the library, the style of architecture is not appealing to everyone, but when evaluating it, it met the intent and criteria of the CDM. She commented that the Commission and community need to think about how far they want to go in prescribing architecture.

There was discussion regarding the CDM and the best way to relate it to the commercial portion of the overlay district. The following comments were made:

· The CDM applies to conditional use.

· It would not be a bad idea to apply it to all development.

· There architectural standards in the draft ordinance proposed for the overlay district that are less stringent and more general that what is in the CDM.

· Apply the CDM to the commercial zones in the overlay.

· The CDM is a useful document but if it is required for every structure in the area the level of review and effort by the applicant is significantly higher and it may be required that all zoning permits for that district come to the Commission for review.

· The CDM would need to be changed to allow the Planning Staff to evaluate the permits.

· There have been a few developers who have met the CDM voluntarily.

· The discussion of architecture can get away from being subjective to being consistent. It needs to be discussed whether consistency is the goal.

· The CDM notes that the only time the Planning Commission is involved is when the applicant wants to deviate from the CDM with something that is different but just as good.

· Who determines what is different or just as good. The CDM doesn’t give staff the authority to review it; it would be the Commission’s responsibility.

· Consistency would be more appropriate in the Gateway district.

· Less traditional designs, like Islands and Ocean are beneficial as well.

· The ordinance could be amended to state that the CDM be complied with. Then CDM could be amended via resolution to allow that staffs review of zoning permits.

City Planner McKibben pointed out to the Commission that they adding more things to do to the ordinance. She reminded them they have a very short time and are not making much headway on the part that they have to accomplish.

Vice Chair Hess called for a recess at 9:55pm. The meeting resumed at 10:02 pm.

City Planner McKibben suggested extending worksessions and the possibility of an afternoon meeting. She said she has not incorporated all of their comments into one draft. She suggested the Commission continue to work through them and she will assimilate them into one document. Ms. McKibben suggested that if they voice their specific concerns with any items.

Commissioner Kranich said he would email the Commission his comments. He noted that his comments are in red and Mr. Ladd’s comments are in green and it would give them a clearer view of their discussion. Commissioner Foster asked if Mr. Ladd had any comment regarding minimum lot size for commercial lots in the area. Discussion ensued regarding minimum lot size and whether lots could be further subdivided and wording. Point was made that subdivision includes adjusting of lot lines and they don’t want to outlaw the possibility of increasing a lot size by combining lots. Ms. McKibben said she understands their intent and will work on the wording.

There was discussion regarding the setback for the bluff on Kachemak Bay. Concern was raised that the current 10 times the erosion rate and there is a recommendation to increase it to 50 times. They discussed the possibility of allowing development closer to the bluff if the building is moveable and the plan submitted is stamped by a licensed structural engineer detailing how the development could be moved. City Planner McKibben pointed out that the current setback is based on the Comprehensive Plan and is unsure that the Council and public will accept increasing it to 50 times. She added that the Development Activity Plan and Storm Water Plans suggest a licensed engineer. She further commented that a property owner in the area had said they don’t know what an average erosion rate is. She suggested that in the end, including language that explains what the annual average erosion rate is and how it is established. It was suggested that the erosion rate could be tied to the life of the building. City Planner McKibben noted that for granting purposes the life of the building is considered 20 years.

Brief discussion ensued regarding the setback on the highway. It was discussed that the setback should be reduced, without the need for a conditional use permit, since it is being encouraged that parking not be at the front of the building. Logistically structures will need to be built closer to the setback. Doing away with the setback completely was discouraged as it is desirable to have an area for a bike path or pedestrian way.

City Planner McKibben addressed line 140 in the draft ordinance regarding the 100 year flood plain, she suggested it would be more current to say 1% flood event. She asked the Commission to suggest number of feet from the shoreline. Some suggestions were,

· 10 feet

· Streams and other water bodies including a buffer of at least 20 feet from the top of the bank.

City Planner McKibben said she would look for some consistent language for them to review.

The Commission agreed that cut slopes and drainage conveyances should be addressed separately at a later time.

City Planner McKibben asked if the Commission would come up with a breakdown of open space percentages based on lot size as the recommended 35% of open space may not work on a smaller lot.

City Planner McKibben pointed out that on line 189 where it says “when it abuts a residential district or use” someone had marked out use. She encouraged the Commission to keep it in as there are some cases where there is a residential use and buffering it from an adjacent non residential use doesn’t seem inappropriate. There was discussion of a planted buffer and the size requirement. The discussion continued into buffers that accommodate the view that is already there.

The Commission agreed to schedule their worksession to begin at 5:30 on June 21^st. City Planner McKibben said she will email a suggested date for an afternoon worksession.

NEW BUSINESS

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

There were no items to discuss under new business.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster reported on the following:

· The Bunnell Subdivision replat[1] that was before the Commission in which they didn’t necessarily support the staff report was being sent back to the developer. The Borough agreed with City Staff that there was not enough information on the plat and they want all the information.

· The Adair’s had requested a time extension. They reported there had been no changes to the proposed plan.

· There is a vacation of a utility easement on a lot on Kachemak Drive, which is an action handled at the Borough level that the Commission normally does not see.

He asked the Commission to share any concerns they may have regarding those issues. There was only comment made regarding the Commission not reviewing the vacation of the utility easement. Dr. Foster responded that the Borough will send a utility easement vacation to Public Works for their input. He was unsure regarding their public notice.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no report.

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

City Planner McKibben did not have a report.

Commissioner Foster commented he has noticed that the sign for the Refuge Chapel Bunk House seems to occasionally appear and disappear. He also spoke about the signs in the proposed gateway area and recommended City staff send a letter out to every lot that says if you have a sign, make sure the signs meet the City sign ordinance. He said this would help avoid attempts for existing signs to be grandfathered in after the zoning changes in the area. He noted the banner on the Try My Thai motor home.

Commissioner Foster said that it has been brought to his attention by several property owners their concerns regarding some of the armoring that has been happening on Kachemak Drive. He said he does not know all of what is going on there. City Planner McKibben responded that they need to be advised to call the Planning Department.

City Planner McKibben advised the Commission that when the public contacts them, citing Commissioner Lehner’s ex parte contact as an example, that the most appropriate response would be “If you are submitting a conditional use permit, I can’t talk to you about it. If you have questions about it, please call the City staff.” She said if something is going on the City is unaware of, the City needs to know about it. She stressed the importance that staff is a group of professionals and it is their job to inform people about the City code. The Planning Commission is made up of volunteers and not all Commissioners have the expertise to read and interpret the code.

There was discussion regarding whether strip clubs are addressed in the code. City Planner McKibben commented that it isn’t addressed in code. It was pointed out that at there was a sign outside the Alibi earlier in the week noting such an event.

The Commission continued to discuss City Planner McKibben’s advisement that they direct questions to the Planning Staff. An issue was raised that there could be times when a Commissioner may give someone information and the person may not understand it the way the Commissioner intended it, which could cause problems. Ms. McKibben reminded the Commission that if a person doesn’t agree with staff, there is an appeal process they can follow. She recognized that the Commissioner’s do hear from members of the public, she just reiterated that if it is mentioned that they want to talk about an issue that is coming before the Commission for action, that they not discuss the issue and refer the person to talk to staff if there are questions.

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 to Darrin Williams, Refuge Chapel from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician dated May 12, 2006

B. Letter to Homer Spit Properties and Heritage RV Park from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician dated May 125, 2006

C. Letter to Bob and Judy Cousins from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician dated May 15, 2006

D. Letter to Doug Meeker from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician dated May 16, 2006

E. Letter to Joe Bortle and Molly O’Leary from Dotti Harness, Planning Technician dated May 22, 2006

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

There were no audience comments.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

Commissioners my comment on any subject, including staff reports and requests for excused absence.

Vice Chair Hess complimented staff on the informational material and proactive letters that are being sent out.

Commissioner Connor commented that driving in town today she noticed a new swath going up the hill to the east of the hospital. Commissioner Lehner responded that Public Works has installed a pressure reducing station there on a steep slope. They discussed it briefly.

ADJOURNMENT

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

There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:49 pm. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for June 21, 2006 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There will be a Worksession at 5:30 pm prior to the meeting. A Special Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 14, 2006 at 7:00 pm.

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved:

---

[1] Bunnell’s Subdivision Sutton/Cups Addition Preliminary Plat