Session 08-06, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 7:02 p.m. on March 5, 2008 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska

PRESENT: COMMISSIONER FOSTER, HESS, HOWARD, KRANICH, MINSCH, STORM, ZAK

ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HESS (excused)

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

AGENDA APPROVAL

The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

There were no public comments.

RECONSIDERATION

There were no items for reconsideration.

ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA

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

1. Approval of the Minutes of February 13 and February 20, 2008

2. Time Extension Requests

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

4. KPB Coastal Management Program

5. Commissioner Excused Absences

The consent agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

PRESENTATIONS

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

There were no presentations.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster commented that the Plat Committee has 15 plats scheduled at their upcoming meeting. Four of those plats are from the City. He said the Planning Commission only has one Resolution on a Flood Plan for the City of Seward.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no KBPC Report.

C. Planning Director’s Report

1. Staff Report PL 08-34, Planning Director’s Report

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

A. Staff Report PL 08-28, Lot 96A Bayview Subdivision Adair Amended CUP

Commissioner Foster disclosed that he a professional, financial, and personal relationship with a member of Planning staff who has a by line on this staff report. Chair Kranich called for a motion regarding conflict of interest for Commissioner Foster.

MINSCH/ZAK MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER FOSTER HAS A CONFLICT ON STAFF REPORT PL 08-28.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NO: MINSCH, HOWARD, STORM, ZAK, KRANICH

Motion failed.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

Charlie Knoll, applicant’s representative, said initially they were not aware of the Code violation so she thanked staff for the discovery, it might save the previous owner and Broker who sold the property some liability. She said they would like to request a variance on the parking recommendation to vacate the upper parking. Ms. Knoll referenced HCC 7.12.030 (g) and 7.12.150 would allow for a variance. She said their choice would be that instead of the parking backing into Lakeshore Drive, they would like to keep two spaces of parallel parking. She has a site plan that shows removal of the laundry and keeping two spaces that would be converted to parallel parking. She said they would not be adding any additional gravel area nor would they be reducing or increasing what is already there, they would just be changing the direction of how people come in to park. Ms. Knoll said the parallel parking would allow them to continue to allow easy access for guests to the three cabins along Lakeshore Drive, one of which is handicap accessible. She noted that her office faces Lakeshore Drive and she thinks the car count is about 30 cars per day, even on a busy day. Most of the traffic continues east of them due to businesses down there. She also noted that their business is seasonal and parallel parking is allowed for seasonal businesses on the spit. She said the remaining recommendations are acceptable.

Commissioner Foster questioned if there is a drainage along Lakeshore Drive and if there is enough parking there for a larger vehicle. Ms. Knoll responded that there is no drainage there and that they meet their parking requirements without these spaces by using the lower lot. There was discussion of maneuverability regarding the loading zone.

Chair Kranich opened the public hearing.

Jack Cushing, City resident, comment that this land used to be owned by the City before it was put into public ownership and when that happened the public lost an access to Beluga Lake. Right now A Street is the only access to Beluga Lake. Mr. Cushing said he is in favor of granting all the variances that are requested if the applicant were to put in a 10 foot pedestrian easement to allow the public to get down to the lake.

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

MINSCH/HOWARD I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-28 LOT 96A BAYVIEW SUBDIVISION AMENDED CUP WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.

Question was raised regarding parallel parking. City Planner McKibben explained that code allows for parallel parking so a variance is not required. She confirmed that they have the required amount of parking spaces in the lower parking area. It was noted that there was no time limit or sunset clause on the old CUP 98-02.

It was asked whether Douglas Street was ever vacated to Beluga Lake. Ms. Knoll responded that Douglas Place was not shown on their plat. She said they allow people to walk down to the lake, but they do not want to provide a 10 foot pedestrian easement.

When asked about vegetation for the buffer, City Planner McKibben said after some discussion they decided not to be specific in the recommendation as they felt the applicant could probably work better with local growers and figure out what will work best in the area. Staff suggested native vegetation. She clarified that there is perpendicular parking there now that requires backing into the street. They are recommending that the parking are be eliminated, a loading area would be retained and that would be landscaped. Parallel parking would be permitted by the code.

ZAK/STORM I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM 2 THAT THE UPPER PARKING AREA BE CHANGED TO ALLOW TWO PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS.

There was discussion in favor of the parallel parking spaces. It was noted that the staff recommendation two calls for a temporary loading space and the load zone will remain. Commissioner Zak concurred.

VOTE (Primary amendment): YES: HOWARD, KRANICH, STORM, ZAK

NO: MINSCH, FOSTER

Motion carried.

Commissioner Foster commented regarding the benefit of a public easement noting that it doesn’t take away any rights of the property owner, but recognized that it can not be required.

VOTE (Main motion as amended): YES: STORM, HOWARD, MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, FOSTER

Motion carried.

PLAT CONSIDERATION

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

A. Staff Report PL 08-26, Lot 164-A1 and 164-B1 Bayveiw Subdivision No. 7 Preliminary Plat

Commissioner Foster disclosed that he a professional, financial, and personal relationship with a member of Planning staff who has a by line on this staff report. Chair Kranich called for a motion regarding conflict of interest for Commissioner Foster.

ZAK/MINSCH MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER FOSTER HAS A CONFLICT ON STAFF REPORT PL 08-26.

Commissioner Foster clarified that he does not have a conflict with the staff report; he has a relationship with the writer of the staff report.

VOTE: NO: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, STORM HOWARD

Motion failed.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

Gary Nelson, project surveyor, commented that there are 3 known errors on the preliminary plat in the notes section.

· Note 1 is an incorrect note and will be taken off.

· Note 3 regarding no access to state maintained roads unless permitted is probably a true statement and will probably be required by State DOT, but the note will be removed and added if requested by DOT for the final plat.

· Note 4 is an incorrect note and will be removed.

Mr. Nelson expressed his disagreement with staff recommendation 1 to add a plat note indicating that the subdivision may be in flood damage prevention area subject to the City’s flood damage prevention regulation. The problem he has is that the plat is permanent until it gets replatted. A flood zone is not a permanent thing. The FEMA maps and regulations are in flux and he doesn’t think it is good to refer to something on the plat that could change. Mr. Nelson questioned the pertinence of putting on the permanent record item 5 requesting the lower lot is primarily fill per 1988 wetland mapping. He said it is not a code provision and in his discussion with staff, they thought it was conservative to put that note in and he thinks it is conservative not to put the note in. His point of view is that they are going beyond the Code and that is not being conservative. He noted his understanding of Staff’s opinion that they want people to know as much about this land as possible from looking at the plat. Mr. Nelson recognized the merit in that, but there is an awful lot of other information they could put on the plat if they are going to start doing that. Mr. Nelson commented the note 5 on the plat says that the development and building construction on these lots are subject to the City of Homer Municipal Code. He thinks that just the fact that a lot is in the City of Homer sets it under the City’s jurisdiction and he thinks that note is to far, but put people on notice, he thinks that note covers dealing with the flood plain situation as well.

Jack Cushing commented that this is confusing as most people thought they were here regarding the Transportation analysis for this area. He suggested the Commission postpone action on this as it is presently under appeal by one of the neighbors. Regarding the merits of the plat, Mr. Cushing thinks this is a bad idea. There is a 200 foot state right-of-way in front of the development. If we are going to do a roundabout and traffic control that the town has envisioned, now is the time. He pointed out that they are doing an extension of Kachemak Drive by extending it into a 60 foot right-of-way and dumping it into a substandard 50 foot right-of-way, which is Bay Avenue, and into wetlands. The fill done sometime ago was illegally done and reluctantly the Corps of Engineers issued a permit. He hopes it comes back to the Commission from the appeal. He suggests the Commission recommend downscaling the number of units and have it all accessed by the State right-of-way. Mr. Cushing was asked about the alignment with B Street and Kachemak Drive. He responded that this high density development should be left to be accessed by the state highway. He said it is better not to have offset roads, but that doesn’t mean this is a good place to have an intersection at all.

Glenn Seaman, resident on Bay Avenue, recommended that the Commission postpone action until Council hears the appeal on the CUP. With the substance of the plat he urged the Commission to look at the whole project, not just the plat before the whole project and conditional use is approved. The TIA talks about the developer revising his plan for the project. It seems like the Commission should review the TIA before approving the road. The right-of-way stops right at the edge of the wetlands. As it is proposed, B Street would have to be on the wetland. He urged the Commission to wait to look at this and leave flexibility to change the road if needed and perhaps find a way to avoid the wetlands.

Susan Cushing read most of her letter into the record. She stressed the problematic issues of ingress and egress from B Street, D Street and E Street to Ocean Drive and invited the Commission to drive those roads. She noted that Bayveiw Avenue is one of the oldest subdivisions in Homer and all of the rights-of-way are undersized to current standards and there is not room to increase the lanes in the future. The developers are extending Kachemak Drive and dumping it into a residential neighborhood with undersized rights-of-way. The development should be redesigned to need only the services of the State maintained road. The gulley that would be the extension of B Street would require fill into the wetlands. Mrs. Cushing provided a copy of her letter for the record.

Bette Seaman, resident on Bay Avenue, commented that in looking at the lot and overlaying with wetland, part of the road that goes around the corner does go into the wetlands so we do need to look at the fill that is going into the wetlands and how it will affect the shorebirds and nesting birds.

Kim Seymour commented that the corner by Wagon Wheel is a dangerous area. He has been in an accident there. They really need to think about it and get some wisdom on it when deciding what to do.

Gary Nelson commented followed up regarding comments on wetland impact. As far as the Lighthouse Village Drive and B Street construction impact of wetland he said they are contours that are shown. There is a 20 foot contour that runs at about a right angle at the intersection and approximately the wet lands would be at the 19 to 20 foot elevation and the construction would impact it from that point down to about 17 foot contour. He noted the map is a graphic representation of the impact to wetlands.

MINSCH/ZAK I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT PL 08-26 LOTS 164A-1 & 164B-1 BAYVIEW SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

There was discussion on waiting to take action on this until after the presentation on the Traffic Impact Analysis.

MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER ITEM A ON NEW BUSINESS.

There was brief discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL08-31, W.R. Benson Subdivision Sorenson Addition Preliminary Plat

Commissioner Foster disclosed that he a professional, financial, and personal relationship with a member of Planning staff who has a by line on this staff report.

MINSCH/ZAK MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER FOSTER HAS A CONFLICT.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NO: MINSCH, HOWARD, STORM, ZAK, KRANICH

Motion failed.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

Commissioner Minsch stated that she may have a situation of personal interest in this issue.

ZAK/FOSTER MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER MINSCH HAS A SITUATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST REGARDING THIS MATTER.

Commissioner Minsch stated that Mr. Imhoff, the surveyor for this platting action is currently working as her surveyor for a lot line vacation on her that is currently at the Borough. The lot line vacation is on property that she owns.

VOTE: NO: STORM, HOWARD, ZAK, KRANICH, FOSTER

Motion failed.

There were no comments from the applicant or the public.

MINSCH/ZAK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-31 W.R. BENSON SORENSON ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

There was brief discussion.

VOTE: YES: HOWARD, MINSCH, KRANICH, FOSTER, STORM, ZAK

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 08-32, Lakeside Village Part 3-Peek Addition Preliminary Plat

Commissioner Minsch stated that she may have a situation of personal interest regarding the surveyor.

FOSTER/ZAK MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER MINSCH HAS A SITUATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NO: ZAK, KRANICH, STORM, FOSTER, HOWARD

Motion failed.

Commissioner Foster disclosed that he a professional, financial, and personal relationship with a member of Planning staff who has a by line on this staff report.

MINSCH/ZAK MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER FOSTER HAS A SITUATION PERSONAL INTEREST.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NO: ZAK, STORM, MINSCH, HOWARD, KRANICH

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

Roger Imhoff, project surveyor, expressed his frustration that every few months he comes before the Commission with a plat and has to bring up the fact, specific this time to staff report item 6 regarding Homer City Policy that drainage easements are normally 30 feet in width, centered on the drainage. He doesn’t understand why staff keeps putting this in the staff report. There is nothing to back it up in Code and drainage easements are not normally 30 feet in width. He emailed staff that there is nothing in the City Subdivision Code to support drainage easements, no definition any where in Code. There was discussion regarding the 15 foot easement that staff recommended. Mr. Imhoff said the owner has agreed to grant a drainage easement 10 feet in width along the north edge of the upper lot. He recommended that they amend the staff recommendation to read 10 feet. He noted that in his email the property owner has stated that he has cut in a ditch along the north side of his property to collect surface drainage and the existing ditch on the south side of the parent tract to collect run off and keep it from running onto the parking lot, that ditch on the south end is no longer an active ditch but and the water is not running as the surface water has been intercepted on the north edge.

Lawrence Peek, husband of the property owner, commented that the discussion regarding the south edge of the property the neighboring property owner must have dug a ditch across there. He said they intercepted a portion of the water there is drainage off the west side of the property. He said his suggestion to Planning Technician Harness was that they are going to put in a catch basin and run a culvert across to the Ben Walters side to pick up any additional flow and bring the ground up. He doesn’t see where an easement is necessary because it is a private piece of property and they are dealing with the catchment of any drainage and rerouting it in a manner not to affect the adjacent downhill property owners. He is not sure his wife is willing to give an easement anywhere on the property, because he does not see the necessity of it as they are going to deal with the property appropriately and be good neighbors. He thanked the Commission for their time.

There were no further public comments.

MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-32 LAKESIDE VILLAGE PART 3 PEEK ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

There was discussion regarding the drainage. Mr. Imhoff said there is no year round drainage on the property, only the surface runoff. He said there is not natural drainage pattern, the water flows where gravity takes it. He would say the ditches will be running east/west and drain into the ditch along the right-of-way. Concern was noted that there is a lot of water on the lower part of the property and there is water in the ditch. Mr. Imhoff said the question is if they really need an easement. We know the owners and everyone concerned is going to want to control the surface runoff, it is a given. Mr. Imhoff doesn’t believe they need an easement. It is a concern of the private property owners not a subdivision question.

VOTE: YES: FOSTER, ZAK, HOWARD, MINSCH

NO: KRANICH, STORM

Motion carried.

Chair Kranich called for a break at 8:37 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 8:50 p.m.

PENDING BUSINESS

There were no pending business items.

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public. Any items brought before the Commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following introduction of the item. The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant (such as acceptance of a non conformity).

A. Staff Report PL 08-33, Lighthouse Village Traffic Impact Analysis Presentation

Randy Kinney of Kinney Engineering, LLC reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis.

· They looked at four specific intersections, Lake Street and Sterling, Ocean Drive and B Street, Ocean Drive and FAA Road, and Kachemak Drive and the proposed Lighthouse Village Drive.

· The development information used for trip generation which was 21 Condominium/Townhouse Units, each with a garage and there is 6600 square feet of office.

· To determine traffic volumes they used the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, which is normally used in this type of work as it is a national standard.

· Total traffic generated by the site on an average week day would be 330-340 trips per day.

· The peak hour of concern is the evening peak hour. Total outbound is 77 trips and inbound 26 trips.

· Lake/Sterling LOS is B, Ocean/B Street LOS C, Ocean/FAA LOS C, Homer Spit/Kachemak Dr. LOS C

· Levels of service (LOS) are based on the average delay per vehicle. LOS C means about 15-25 seconds of delay.

· The Traffic Study done by ADOT in 2005 found that the Kachemak Drive/Homer Spit intersection will be warranted for a signal or roundabout in the next 5 - 10 years.

· Distribution for the Evening Peak Hour is about 50 trips from the development will pass through Lake Street and Sterling Highway and about 17 trips into the development from Lake Street and Sterling Highway.

· The propose Lighthouse Village Drive would have LOS F. The mitigation recommended would be to extend B Street to distribute traffic or a signal or roundabout, which would not require the B Street extension.

· This information is based on summer conditions.

Mr. Kinney reviewed the traffic flow and volumes of the intersections and said based on the study the recommendations are:

1. Left Turn Pockets about 100 feet long on the approach of Kachemak Drive and the approach of Lighthouse Village Drive.
2. Extension of B Street to distribute the traffic and achieve LOS C

A copy of Mr. Kinney’s report is included in the packet.

Commissioner Minsch asked what the developer would be responsible for. City Planner McKibben responded they would have to do the turning pocket on Kachemak Drive and Light House Village Drive and the B Street extension.

George Meeker, City resident, said he uses B Street to turn onto Ocean Drive at least three times a day and he doesn’t think he waits over 20 seconds to make the turn. He asked what is gained by this outside of putting in a stop light or four way stop at Kachemak Drive. On the Sterling Highway and stop light does a good job to regulate traffic on Ocean Drive. The stop light at Pioneer and Lake Street works fine for traffic flow. He doesn’t have issue with the project and would prefer to see a stop light or stop sign at Kachemak Drive to slow the traffic down.

Jack Cushing encouraged the Commission to look at the roundabout in the traffic study. He uses B Street all the time and thinks it is a deadly intersection for making a left hand turn. With traffic decelerating around Homer Spit Road, you just don’t see until the last minute and when the corner lot gets developed it will only get worse. He asked Mr. Kinney comment further as he sees B Street as being just as bad as Lighthouse Village Drive. He suggested the development be scaled down so Lighthouse Village Drive isn’t an LOS F without the B Street extension and keep the traffic accessing via the Spit Road.

Mr. Kinney commented regarding Mr. Meeker’s testimony that the four way stops considered in the intersection study are a reasonable interim solution but not good for a long term. Regarding Mr. Cushing’s comments, Mr. Kinney said the reason the LOS is F at the Lighthouse Village Drive and not at B Street is due to B Street being a three legged intersection and Lighthouse Village Drive creating a 4 legged intersection, which results in added conflicting traffic stream. Even though they have the same volume the three legged intersection performs better than a four. He said the site distance minimum is 250 feet. The B Street intersection was measured in January and today and it is about 300 feet. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is good, but it meets the minimum requirement.

Kim Seymour referenced the drawing on Mr. Kinney’s presentation and suggested some alternatives that could help alleviate a lot of the problems.

Mary Ann Fell, Bay Avenue resident, commented that she uses B Street about four times per day where she makes the turn to go the airport where she works. Her husband never uses B Street. B Street is the most dangerous intersection in town. The visibility is bad and the road is not very wide. To see it on a map is different than sitting in a lane. She thinks everyone should drive it and see.

Ruth Hall, resident on Bay Avenue, said she agrees with Mr. Cushing’s comments. This is a major development in the general commercial zone that is going to affect the rural residential. It is crazy to think those people will come down B Street to Ocean Drive. Most do not go out that exit because it is dangerous. Adding more people coming through there just isn’t going work as the street isn’t maintained very will and the pavement is already going out. She said the state road should take care of those people. She is in favor of a roundabout in the area. She said she appreciated the courtesy notice that was provided regarding the TIA.

Maurine Hunter said she has issue with the development and the impacts it is going to have. She asked for clarification on the development. The extension at B Street doesn’t address what will happen to Bay Avenue. It is a convoluted short area with traffic merging in and out. There is no place for pedestrians to cross in the area. She disagrees with the LOS for B Street. She thinks they should address the state road before they even look at a B Street extension.

Bette Seaman, resident on Bay Avenue, commented her daughter works across the street at Sourdough and cannot walk across the street without waiting for a break in one lane of traffic and waiting in the middle for a break in the other lane of traffic. If you are in a car it is more than 19 seconds.

Laurie Michaels, resident on Bay Avenue, said they moved there about three years ago because it is a quiet neighborhood. She has children and it has been a disappointment to get them across the road there. To think about traffic being routed to B Street and inevitably down Bay Avenue it is disheartening and she hopes they look at some of the other alternatives.

Glenn Seaman, Bay Avenue resident, asked the Commission to put themselves in the neighborhoods shoes. This is the first time he has heard that traffic may use a road other than B Street. He agrees with the other comments regarding the reality of the intersection. 60 cars is a lot during rush hour. He is struggling with LOS C vs. LOS F with regard to traffic off Kachemak Drive. There are quality of life issues and the proposal will require filling the wetlands. The person most affected is an elderly lady who didn’t have time to get down here and in looking at the intersection and top of the curve in a short distance. He would be fearful if he owned her land. There is going to be a road with a bike path and a huge stabilization project. He encouraged a four way stop as it is a solution staring them right in the face. He thanked the Commissioners for their work.

Mike Brooks, resident on Bay Avenue, said making a left hand turn off B Street is pretty much out of the question. Ocean Drive toward the spit is two lanes up to B Street where you get a turn lane for Wagon Wheel, Homer Saw and FAA Road. Turning out of B Street you have to cross two lanes of traffic and a bike path. He can’t see any up side to adding traffic to B Street.

George Meeker commented that they are assuming there will be more traffic due to the development. He noted the other businesses that have been there and doesn’t see where this will increase traffic any more than the previous developments.

There were no further public comments. He thanked everyone for their comments and noted that staff has asked the Commission for their input but final outcome will be determined by staff and the applicant.

MINSCH/FOSTER I MAKE A MOTION TO DISCUSS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE LIGHTHOUSE VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

Brief discussion ensued with the following comments:

· Code doesn’t outline anything for the Commission to consider on this other than recommend that staff does the best they can with the TIA and move on.

· Wait to discuss this until after the appeal as this will affect the City.

· B Street extension is not required without a stop light.

· This TIA has identified traffic issues and it would be unfair for the developer to have to correct all the traffic sins along the way.

FOSTER/HOWARD I MOVE TO POSTPONE UNTIL BROUGHT BACK BY STAFF WITH FURTHER INFORMATION.

Information requested would be any new information from the applicant or mitigation costs based on tonight’s information.

VOTE: YES: STORM, HOWARD, KRANICH, FOSTER,

NO: MINSCH, ZAK

Motion carried.

FOSTER/STORM I MOVE WE TAKE THE LIGHTHOUSE VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PLAT OFF THE TABLE AND POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 08-35, Ordinance 08-XX, Of the City Council of the City of Homer Alaska, Amending Homer City Code, Chapter 21.32 by Adding a New Section Entitled “Dormitory” and amending Chapter 21.48, Central Business District, Chapter 21.49 General Commercial 1 and Chapter 21.50 General Commercial 2 by adding Dormitory as a Permitted Use.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

FOSTER/STORM MOVED TO DISCUSS.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Commissioner Foster commented that there is a need to have more specific language in the ordinance to help avoid a situation of it turning into a halfway house. He cited a court case in Pennsylvania where residents wanted a definition of dormitory. He noted the definition proposed “A dormitory is a residential facility that are inhabited by teaching faculty, full time student of an accredited college or university, medical training facility, state licensed and approved care and treatment center for children or an accredited public and private primary or secondary school which are owned by such principle use to which the dormitory serves.” Commissioner Foster expressed the need for more specific in the ordinance and suggested a definition that would tie it into academics or employment.

HOWARD/FOSTER MOVED WE CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO MARCH 19 REQUESTING DEFINITION OPTIONS FROM STAFF AND SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 2.

There was brief discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

A. Ordinance 08-05(A), An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer, Alaska, Amending Chapter 21.32 by Adding a New Section Entitled Chapter 21.32 by Adding a new Section Entitled Chapter 21.32.097, “Business, Open Air”.

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

Kim Seymour commented regarding the Gateway Overlay and how it came about. He commented in opposition noting that there are already too many regulations. There was discussion regarding the Scenic Gateway and it was recommended that he attended the next Council meeting to provide his comments and concerns.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Howard said where ever City Planner McKibben will be on the 19^th she enjoys.

Commissioner Storm said it was a great meeting.

Commissioner Zak commented that Mr. Seymour could make comment at the next Council meeting.

Commissioner Minsch commented that the laydowns she provided are about procedures and will probably be touch on when they discuss the policy and procedures manual.

Chair Kranich said it was a good meeting.

ADJOURN

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

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:44 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 19, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There is a worksession at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: