Session 06-27, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 7:10 pm on October 26, 2006 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

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

ABSENT: COMMISSIONER CHESLEY, PFEIL (Both 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 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

1. Fred Pfeil

The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Commission approves minutes with any amendments.

A. Approval of October 4, 2006 regular meeting minutes.

Chair Kranich said he had some grammatical changes and he would give them to the clerk.

MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESENTATIONS

The public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not on the agenda. The Chair may prescribe time limits. Public comment on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is considered by the Commission. Presentations are approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

A. Rick Foster, Coastal Training Program Coordinator: Erosion Responses for Property Owners

Commissioner Foster, Coastal Training Program Coordinator for the Kachemak Bay Research Reserve, reviewed the report on the Erosion Responses for Property Owners Workshop, field trip and meeting that was held on August 1, 2006. The written report was provided in the packet.

RECONSIDERATION

A. Staff Report PL 06-104, Canyon Trails Subdivision Preliminary Plat (Commissioner Foster Reconsideration of Staff Report PL 06-104: If Reconsideration is Approved the Plat will be back before the Commission under Old Business.)

MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE CONTINUATION OF THE DECISION OF CANYON TRAILS PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE DECEMBER 6 MEETING.

Commissioner Foster commented that he asked for reconsideration because he felt that additional information could have been included that they could have addressed sooner.

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

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 06-111 Marine Commercial District

City Planner McKibben passed out a revised copy of the draft ordinance and noted that the copy provided does not include the City Attorney’s editing. She read the staff report.

Donald Fell spoke on behalf of the Kachemak Shellfish Growers and said they support the ordinance as the changes will make parcels easier to develop and uses more consistent. He thanked the Commission for their work on this.

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

FOSTER/HESS MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 06-111 AND ORDINANCE 06- AND RECOMMEND SENDING IT TO COUNCIL.

City Planner McKibben recommended the following amendment:

· Lines 45 and 46 amended to read, “Subsection H - J of Homer City Code 21.52.020 are hereby amended to read as follows:”

HESS/MINSCH MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO LINE 45 AND 46.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben recommended the following amendment:

· Add a sentence at line 53 "All other portions of section 21.52.020 are not affected by this amendment."

HESS/MINSCH MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE ADDITION OF THE ITEM ON LINE 55.

It was clarified that a sentence is being added between lines 52 and 55 as suggested by the City Attorney.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben recommended the following amendment referencing the laydown item page 3 of 4:

· Line 77 letter P should be letter O.

HESS/MINSCH MOVED WE AMEND LINE ITEM 77 OF THE LAYDOWN CHANGING P TO O.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben recommended the following amendment:

· Item P would be amended to read “Other similar uses, as determined by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to those uses authorized in the Marine Industrial District under section 21.53.020 and 21.53.030 provided the use meets the following standards”

It was clarified this incorporates the City Attorney’s suggestion in reference to page 97 of the packet.

HESS/MINSCH MOVED THAT WE INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE STARTING ON LINE 79 IN OUR PACKET ON PAGE 97 AND AMEND THE LANGUAGE ON ITEM P.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben suggested the following amendment:

· Line 83 in the packet or line 81 on the laydown, Item 1 would be amended to read “Proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the Marine Commercial District,”

HESS/MINSCH MOVED THAT WE ADOPT THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY STARTING ON LINE 83 AND 84 INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET ON PAGE 97.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben recommended the following amendment:

· Item 3 Under item O, Public Facilities and services are adequate to serve the proposed use and add the word “and” at the end of the sentence.

HESS/ MINSCH MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE ADDED LANGUAGE ON LINE 88 OF OUR PACKET ON PAGE 97 WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WORD “AND”.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben recommended the following amendment:

· Line 89 in the packet and line 85 on the laydown, Item 4 would be amended to read as follows, “On City owned land that the City of Homer Port and Harbor Commission, after a Public Hearing, makes a written recommendation to the Homer Advisory Planning Commission concerning the proposed use including specifically whether conditions 1-3 of the subsection are met by the proposed use.”

HESS/MINSCH MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE ATTORNEYS CHANGE OF LANGUAGE STARTING ON LINE 89 ON PAGE 97 OF OUR PACKET THROUGH LINE 93.

There was no further discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

City Planner McKibben suggested the following amendment:

· Renumber, beginning on line 88 of the laydown, sections 2, 3 and 4 to 3, 4 and 5.

HESS/MINSCH MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE CHANGE IN NUMBERING STARTING ON LINE 88 OF THE LAYDOWN.

It was noted the change is for line 88 through 93 of the laydown.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

There was brief discussion for clarification regarding the main motion.

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

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.

B. Staff Report PL 06-110, Paradise Heights Subdivision, Cobb Replat Preliminary Plat

City Planner McKibben read the staff report.

Commissioner Zak stated he has a conflict of interest as he may be representing the applicant in a real estate transaction regarding this property.

HESS/MINSCH MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER ZAK HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Mr. Zak restated his reason for declaring a conflict of interest.

VOTE: YES: KRANICH, FOSTER, HESS, MINSCH

Motion carried.

Commissioner Zak left the table.

There were no comments from the applicant or from the public.

HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT PARADISE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION LOT 16 BLOCK 2 COBB REPLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

FOSTER/MINSCH MOVED TO ADD RECOMMENDATION 7 THAT READS “ENSURE BOTH LOTS MEET THE DEPTH TO WIDTH DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF KPB 20.21.080.

Commissioner Foster commented he thinks this is important in light of the proximity to an increasingly widening canyon in the area.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

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

VOTE: (Main motion as amended): YES: FOSTER, MINSCH, KRANICH, HESS

Motion carried.

Commissioner Zak returned to the table.

OLD BUSINESS

A. Staff Report PL 06-104, Canyon Trails Subdivision Preliminary Plat

Motion on the floor after reconsideration:

CHESLEY/MINSCH MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO OUR DECEMBER 6 MEETING.

There was no further discussion regarding the motion.

VOTE: NO: MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, ZAK

Motion failed.

City Planner McKibben noted that there were additional comments from Public Works that were provided as a lay down item. She noted that two Commissioners had attended a meeting regarding this topic outside of the Planning Commission meeting, and she asked that they discuss that meeting before discussing the plat.

Chair Kranich commented that he was invited to a meeting in which the Mayor of Kachemak City, Phil Morris and one of their Councilmembers were in attendance along with a resident of Kachemak City who was on the telephone. The primary context of the meeting was discussion regarding what, if anything, Kachemak City could do to influence and/or work out some type of road maintenance program on the section of road from Bear Creek Drive to the eastern boundary of this proposed subdivision. He noted there was only one item that was pertaining to inside this subdivision that was discussed at all and that was mention from the gentleman on the telephone that lives adjacent to the subdivision on the east off Golden Plover. He had a concern and commented it is somebody else’s problem that when making a switchback intersection there from the extended Golden Plover to Canyon Trails, it looked to him as though there would be a significant cut for the road and would create a potential for a fair amount of snow to have to be removed from drifting during periods of storms. Virtually everything else discussed there was between these three individuals. Chair Kranich added that he and Commissioner Foster were there primarily to answer questions and they never made any indication that they were there as Planning Commissioners nor did they make any comments as to what they thought they could do for Kachemak City or for the applicant.

City Planner McKibben commented that the City Manager, the Public Works Director and Mayor Morris have had a few meetings. They are working towards an agreement and a draft document.

Commissioner Foster stated that the gentleman on the phone was Kevin Walker and he had provided a letter in the last meeting packet. Mr. Foster noted the only other thing that came up in discussion was that the Mayor Morris noted the sewer contract expires this year.

Public Works Director Meyer commented regarding his email which was provided as a laydown item. He noted that staff had met with the developers and Mayor Morris for a pre-application conference and there has been a lot of discussion regarding the unique features of this subdivision. Mr. Meyer said the concern from Public Works is that the subdivision is accessed through Kachemak City and City equipment would have to pass through Kachemak City to provide normal maintenance. Mr. Meyer said he didn’t feel he could guarantee any of the parties that the City would be able to provide the same level of maintenance in the subdivision, because the road in Kachemak City does not meet the standards from a rural road maintenance facility and in some areas the grade is steeper than 10%. He added that even if those deficiencies were corrected, it is important to let the applicant and the Planning Commission know that maintenance of the road in the subdivision will likely become problematic.

Regarding addressing these issues through a subdivision agreement Mr. Meyer commented that even after the applicant meets the conditions of the subdivision agreement, it takes action from the City Council to place a road on the City’s maintenance map and authorize Public Works to maintain the road. He thinks the City would be able to participate in an inter-governmental agreement and noted that one is being drafted. There has been discussion regarding the conditions that would allow everyone’s concerns to be dealt with. He doesn’t feel having the inter-governmental agreement in place prior to the developing the subdivision agreement is essential to follow through on the conditions. The need for it will be when it goes to the City Council for authority to begin maintenance.

There was brief discussion regarding wording for a motion to incorporate the information provided from Public Works.

Chair Kranich called for a recess at 8:27 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:42 pm.

HESS/MINSCH MOVED TO AMEND RECOMMENDATION 2 FIRST SENTENCE WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. THE SECOND SENTENCE AMENDED TO READ:

ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT MAY INCLUDE BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO:

i. CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER, ROAD, ELECTRICAL AND PHONE LINE

ii. ROADS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE MAINTAINED ONLY WHEN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT CAN REASONABLY, LEGALLY, AND SAFELY GAIN ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISION, AS DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

iii. NO MAINTENANCE WILL OCCUR OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS

iv. AN INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AGREEMENT THAT ADDRESSES SEWER AND ROADS WILL BE IN EFFECT.

City Planner McKibben commented she is not comfortable with the inter-governmental agreement being part of the recommendation.

There was discussion regarding the approval of this preliminary plat and meeting it was noted that

· The Borough recommendations will say the applicant enter into a subdivision development agreement with the City.

· This motion gives the Public Works Director guidance from the Planning Commission on items that are deemed essential to be included in the subdivision agreement.

· An important thing about the subdivision agreement is that the developers and potential buyers of lots in this subdivision need to have an understanding of what will happen with the development and maintenance of the roads.

· The process was outlined that the preliminary plat comes to the City for review and recommendations to the Borough. Once the Borough approves the preliminary plat, the applicant does their engineering, wetlands delineation; meet with Public Works on their subdivision development agreement, begin the infrastructure, in compliance with the subdivision agreement. When the City inspector says the roads, drainages and any other requirements meet City standards and accept those improvements, the plat will go forward for final plat approval.

· Public Works prepares a memo recommending that they do or don’t take over maintenance within the subdivision after all the improvements have been constructed.

· The inter-governmental agreement that has been worked on solves everyone’s problems. None of the concerns of the Kachemak City residents are addressed in the subdivision agreement.

HESS/FOSTER MOVED TO AMEND HIS AMENDMENT. THE SECOND SENTENCE AMENDED TO READ:

ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT MAY INCLUDE BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO:

i. CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER, ROADS, ELECTRICAL AND PHONE LINE

ii. ROADS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE MAINTAINED ONLY WHEN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT CAN REASONABLY, LEGALLY AND SAFELY GAIN ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISION AS DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

iii. NO MAINTENANCE WILL OCCUR OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.

iv. AN INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BE IN PLACE THAT ADDRESSES ROADS, SEWER AND OTHER CONCERNS OF EITHER CITY.

There was brief discussion regarding whether the Public Works Director should be responsible in item ii.

VOTE (Secondary Amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

Discussion continued regarding whether the Public Works Director should be responsible in item ii.

Public Works Director Meyer stated that the City Manager and Mayor of Kachemak City would like to make sure the Commission understands that they believe there is an inter-governmental agreement that can be made to resolve these issues and that it needs to go before Council for a vote. Until that time, there are no guarantees.

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

Motion carried.

FOSTER/ZAK MOVED TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION WHICH WOULD BE ALL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS BE ACCEPTED BY HOMER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO RECORDATION.

Commissioner Foster spoke in favor of his motion.

Public Works Director Meyer commented that before the subdivision is executed, typically a subdivider presents detailed construction plans prepared by an engineer showing all the improvements that are going to be constructed and that is what is referenced in the subdivision agreement. If they were to say that the subdivider can’t finalize their plat until all improvements are constructed there is no need for the developer to sign a subdivision agreement. One of the purposes of the agreement is to identify what is going to be done, require a performance guarantee that the City can use to construct if the developer doesn’t and to allow a developer to finalize a plat and sell lots. He thinks a detailed plan that meets the requirements of the City will be approved prior to executing the subdivision agreement, which would then allow them to finalize the plat.

Discussion continued reiterating the point that the groups involved are working toward an agreement to satisfy all the parties involved.

VOTE: NO: KRANICH, FOSTER, ZAK, HESS, MINSCH

Motion failed.

Chair Kranich expressed concern regarding the length of the cul-de-sac as it significantly exceeds the length allowed in Homer City Code.

There was discussion regarding cul-de-sac length and need for pedestrian access if the length is not reduced.

Kenton Bloom, applicant, commented regarding pedestrian access in the subdivision and said that in the pre design meeting this was addressed to some extent and he tried to address it at the Public Hearing as well by stating that they intend to provide additional pedestrian access interior of the lots, show the more community wide scope of the trail easement. Mr. Bloom said it looked them that there would be a trail off the end of the cul-de-sac and one mid span that would go from Canyon Trails Court down to the community trail on the south end, and constructed as a functional, legal pedestrian amenity. He noted the area using a map provided in the packet.

There was discussion addressing concern of the pedestrian easement crossing a driveway. Mr. Bloom noted that the easement crosses a flag lot and they aren’t constrained to putting the driveway in the flag lot, it is there to provide legal access but functional access does not have to fall within the flag.

HESS/MINSCH MOVED TO ADD RECOMMENDATION 12 THAT A PEDESTRIAN WAY AS PER BOROUGH CODE 20.20.171 SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN CANYON TRAILS ROAD TO GOLDEN PLOVER AVENUE.

There was brief discussion that this would be beneficial for people living in the area who want to walk to have legal means to be off the roadway and keep the longer cul-de-sac. It was noted that it doesn’t make the segment of road comply with Code but it does provide benefit to pedestrian traffic and is consistent with action taken in other cases with longer cul-de-sacs.

VOTE: NON-OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

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

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

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 06-112, Resolution 06-115(A), A Resolution for the City Council and Commissions to Amend their Bylaws and Policy and Procedures Manual

City Planner McKibben reviewed the changes for the bylaws.

HESS MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS AND POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL AND FORWARD THEM TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

There was lengthy discussion regarding amendments to the policy and procedures manual. It was argued that comments regarding plats and other items should be taken as the issues come up on the agenda.

City Planner McKibben made a suggestion for the future that the Code be amended to require a public hearing on a plat. She added they may want to consider the same for non conformities and those are items that come before the Commission that involve an applicant. She noted a benefit to the change is that there are a lot of business items that don’t involve an applicant but public may want to address the Commission.

Commissioners made points that because of the uniqueness of their agenda where they hear from applicants and need to allow an opportunity for public to respond. Most of the Commission agreed that they should continue as they are and hear testimony under each agenda item.

City Planner McKibben explained that this is a directive from the Council. She has had discussion with the City Clerk and the point was made that if this agenda process does not work they can take it back to Council with an explanation as to why it isn’t working and provide suggestions for revisions.

HESS/MINSCH MOVED TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE COUNCIL REGARDING SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE ABOUT CHANGES TO THEIR AGENDA.

There was discussion regarding the benefits of having discussion with Council before adopting these changes.

Commissioner Zak said he doesn’t see a need for a joint meeting as the City Planner gave a good explanation of the changes. He recommended they let staff clean it up and put this through tonight.

VOTE: NO: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, FOSTER

Motion failed.

The Commission discussed the time frame from Council for making the revisions and talked about approving the amendment for the three minute time limit to keep with the November 1 time frame and addressing the other agenda changes to meet the December 1 deadline for the agenda format.

VOTE (Main motion): YES: ZAK

NO: HESS, FOSTER, MINSCH, KRANICH

Motion failed.

Discussion continued regarding the Commission’s agenda format.

HESS/MINSCH MOVED TO FORWARD THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO THEIR BYLAWS THAT PERTAIN TO THE THREE MINUTE RULE.

There was brief discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

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 06-115, Nonconformity at Lot 9, Block 1 Katcheview Forest Subdivision, Part 2 (Amended)

City Planner McKibben summarized the staff report.

There were no comments from the applicant or public.

MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL 06-115 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Staff Comments/Recommendations:

Staff recommends the Commission accept the two residential structures as nonconforming.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 06-117, Mariner Park Highest and Best Use, Response to Economic Development Commission

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

There were no public comments.

MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO ADOPT PL 06-117 MARINER PARK AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Staff Recommendation:

Planning Commission recommend that the highest and best use of Mariner Park is for public open space, to include the activities of public camping, beach use and bird watching and that a fishing lagoon is not the highest and best use of the land at this time.

Chair Kranich commented as a pilot who has flown in and out of here since 1958 he does not want to see anything done under that flight path that would in any way, shape or form attract more birds.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster commented about the discussions regarding the new proposed Visitor Center in Seward.

There was brief discussion regarding whether there has been any resolution regarding Borough Planning Commissioners voting both at the City level and Borough level. City Planner McKibben commented that she brought it up to City Attorney Tans recently when he was in town for a meeting, but has not heard anything definitive back from him. Commissioner Minsch said she would like an answer.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report.

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

City Planner McKibben noted that they have a joint worksession with the Port and Harbor Commission on November 15^th before their regular meeting to discuss overslope development. Another worksession is scheduled for November 8 at 6:30 pm to discuss the Sensitive Areas Plan. Ms. McKibben explained that the Sensitive Areas Plan is a set of guidelines, similar to the Community Design Manual or Design Criteria that would be adopted by a resolution and would include things like performance standards and best management practices. There would also be a sensitive areas ordinance which would include things like wetlands, steep slopes and coast lines and so forth.

Commissioner Hess asked about informational item B. City Planner McKibben responded that the letter from Mr. Stark didn’t benefit Mr. Gregoire. There is no process or procedure in Homer City Code that allows the City to accept a statement from a State of Alaska Engineer that says something is pervious for a storm water plan. She said Mr. Gregoire is working with an engineer and an extension has been granted on his storm water plan.

There was also discussion regarding the letter from East End Road Motors regarding the sign. City Planner McKibben commented that there is no appeal at this point and there is language in the Code regarding calculating the height from the road. Planning Technician Harness and the applicant will be working together on the measurements for the sign. She added that the business owner has been very cooperative in working with the City.

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. Ordinance 06-51(S)(A)An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Homer, Alaska, amending Homer City Code Title 21 (zoning) to create a new Gateway Business District, known as chapter 21.55 and amending the zoning map to rezone 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 (CBD)

B. Letter dated September 28, 2006 to Dotti Harness, Planning Technician from Gregoire Property Management

C. Letter dated September 29, 2006 to Dotti Harness, Planning Technician from East Road Motors

D. Letter dated October 6, 2006 to Max Best, Planning Director and Mary Toll, Platting Officer, Kenai Peninsula Borough from Holly B. Montague, Deputy Borough Attorney regarding City requirements for plats

E. Notice of Corrected Appeal dated October 9, 2006 from Mary Calhoun, City Clerk

F. Letter dated October 11, 2006 to Walt Wrede, City Manager from Frank Griswold regarding Sale of Old Library Lot

G. Resolution 06-135, A Resolution of the City Council of Homer, Alaska requesting that the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly amend the Borough Code with respect to plat waiver provisions.

H. Resolution 06-144, A Resolution of the City Council establishing the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers as the Central location for all regular meetings of the Council and Advisory bodies.

I. Letter dated October 11, 2006 to Walt Wrede, City Manager from Frank Griswold regarding Homer Advisory Planning Commission Data Sheet

J. Draft Resolution 06-___, A Resolution of the City Council of Homer, Alaska awarding a contract to the firm of Agnew::Beck in the amount of $85,362.00 for the Comprehensive Plan update.

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

Bill Smith commented regarding the rules and procedures that the Council is asking them to adopt. He said when the Council sits as the board of adjustment they are entitled to dictate terms for findings by the Commission. When the Council sits as the Council and asks an advisory commission to act on something, they are not entitled to tell the Commission what they will respond. The Commission’s job is to advise the Council. In the case of amending the bylaws, the Council can listen to the Commissions advice and ignore it, but the Commission does not have to tell the Council what they want to hear. He said allowing people to speak on items not on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting was added because people were waiting until the end of the meeting to be able to speak to some little item. In his years on the Commission, he was instrumental in getting that moved up there because there are very few people who want to comment on something not on the agenda and they usually don’t talk very long. He recommends that the Commission try to retain that.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Foster commented that if the Commission wants any more information regarding his presentation or any other sensitive area information he can get it for them.

Commissioner Minsch asked about training. City Planner McKibben commented that she is working on setting up training at the beginning of the year. Mrs. Minsch commented that Commissioner Foster wears a lot of hats with Kachemak City. She expressed her concern regarding him and Chair Kranich attending the meeting with Kachemak City. She doesn’t feel she can talk about a plat or participate in a conversation with out losing the appearance of fairness. If the petitioner isn’t there, she shouldn’t be there because she is a Planning Commissioner. Commissioner Foster responded that they were asked to be there, not as Planning Commissioners. In his case he was there as someone who knows about the platting process and Mr. Kranich as someone who knows the City process. The issue of appearance of fairness was raised and Commissioner Hess stated that they are Planning Commissioners but they are also citizens and have other lives and other functions in the community and they should have the right to exercise those activities. He noted that the State Legislature doesn’t abide by the open meetings act, not that they shouldn’t, but they can’t hogtie themselves because they are Planning Commissioners.

Chair Kranich commented that since there now appears to be a different determination of definition of a meeting for a Planning Commission and City Council there needs to be more training and something more than just a memo coming down saying what a meeting is or isn’t. Mr. Kranich asked if it would be possible to incorporate an index with zoning permits and conditional use permits on Planning’s web page so people can go on line and see what is going on. Ms. McKibben said she would look into it. He thanked everyone for their work.

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 11:14 pm. The re is a Special Meeting November 2, 2006 at 7:00 pm and the next Regular Meeting is scheduled for November 15, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., both in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There will be a work session at 5:00 p.m. prior to the meetings.

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: