Session 08-09, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 7:03 p.m. on April 16, 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

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

AGENDA APPROVAL

The agenda was amended to hear the Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Presentation before the Steep Slope Presentation.

The amended 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 April 2, 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

MINSCH/STORM MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

PRESENTATIONS

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

A. Staff Report PL 08-47, Comprehensive Plan Citizen’s Advisory Committee Presentation – Planning Commission Review Draft

City Planner McKibben read the Staff Report.

Val McLay, Chairman of the Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), recognized the membership which consisted of two high school students and community members Allegra Bukojemsky, Anne Marie Holen, Barb Seaman, Bill Smith, Bob Howard, Chris Story, Hannah Bradley, Jim Henkelman, Marianne Schleglemilch, Mike McCarthy, Ethan Martin and himself. Mr. McLay reported that the Committee met monthly and at every meeting a member would bring up comments they received from people they know in the community. Because of the concerns that were shared the Committee could look at the different issues and consider ideas on how to proceed. They wanted to make the plan fit the community for the future and not hurt anybody. They worked hard and he is very proud of the Committee and time they spent on it. Mr. McLay said that at the last public meeting a question they asked of the public was “How do you feel that this plan at this point in time has proceeded, is it the way you envisioned it to be?” He said they got a standing ovation. The Committee feels pretty good that they listened to the Community. Mr. McLay said they would like to sit down with the Commission to answer questions and asked that they read through the plan and bring their questions to the worksession. He doesn’t think it would be advantageous to go through the plan line by line.

Bill Smith, committee member, commented regarding the land use portion of the Comprehensive Plan and the six goals regarding land use:

· Increase the supply and diversity of housing while protecting the environment. They felt the need to allow densification in some areas while treating others as traditional.

· Maintain the quality of the natural environment and scenic beauty. DnA design came up with a green infrastructure and referenced a map for an idea for the community to drive development.

· Guide the form and development of growth with site development. This has been started with the Community Design Manual.

· Support well defined commercial districts for commercial development. It looks at densification of the commercial districts.

· Maintain high-quality residential neighborhoods. There are areas where you want high density housing and areas where you want it to be low density. The contractor suggested looking at development in rings with the highest density is in the center of town and less as you move out.

· Develop a clear and open public process looking at future changes in city boundaries.

Mr. Smith said there are four goals in the transportation plan. He noted that the current City plans are not included and he feels it is implicit that they are. These include the Transportation Plan, Master Roads Plan, Water & Sewer Plan, and the Non Motorized Transportation and Trails Plan and should be included by reference. He suggested the Commission include that in their recommendation to Council. Mr. Smith commented that there are some ideas in the plan about creating new zoning districts which would expand from what we have now.

B. Steep Slope Presentation – David Cole, Dowl Engineers

David Cole of Dowl Engineers said he has been working with the Planning Staff by giving technical advice on the steep slope ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect life safety, protect property and protect the surrounding environment as we do not want slope failures that impact buildings and properties or people in the buildings and properties. He provided a power point presentation and addressed-

Concerns affecting development on or near sloping ground:

Structural stability of slope

Erosion of slope face

Increased and or concentrated runoff

Blockage of natural drainage channels

Removal of ground cover

Elements that affect stability

Angle of slope

Height of slope

Materials comprising slope

Ground water

Surface runoff

Ground cover/erosion protection

Mr. Cole reviewed slope inclinations relating to stability. Generally slopes that are 2:1 or 50% or less are pretty stable and don’t require a lot of engineering analysis. Steeper slopes need engineering analysis to ensure stability and address improvements if needed. There are general modes of slope failure. Shallow failures are where you get a shallow slump on the face of the slope, it might occur after heavy rains. Slumping may only be 2-4 feet thick, but it is an issue as you don’t want the slump to go down into a drainage ditch, into a roadway, or onto neighboring property down slope. Deep or circular type failures are not just at the surface but deep in the soil mass. Usually engineers evaluate the stability of slopes by comparing the sliding or driving forces to the resisting or friction force at the bottom of the potentially sliding mass. If the resisting forces are greater than the driving forces, the slope is stable. The factor of safety for a slope is the ratio between the driving forces and the resisting forces. If the factor of safety is greater than 1 then the slope is stable. The minimum factor of safety that is used in industry and is required by most codes is 1.5. It is very rare that a 2:1 slope, man made or natural, doesn’t meet this minimum factor of safety. Mr. Cole reviewed a graph, along with drawings to review cut and fill situations as well as road and driveway development and setbacks.

Commissioner Zak questioned if you would expect to see more continued erosion or continued failure after a slope fails. Mr. Cole responded that generally a massive failure will stabilize the ground and shallower slope failures will continue to fail.

Commissioner Foster asked what role a standard septic will play on unconsolidated loamy soils with a coal or clay seam. Mr. Cole responded that you do not want to put water on a sloping structure. If there were a coal seam it would tend to be the weak layer and would tend to fail along the coal seam. If there were a septic system along the coal seam and the water began running along the coal seam, it would de-stabilize it.

Commissioner Zak commented that vegetation is a recommendation when a person cuts into something, but it doesn’t seem to work well in these soils. He asked Mr. Cole what would be a good recommendation when developing a steep slope. Mr. Cole said in some of the road development there are areas that have to be re-vegetated. He said they use erosion control fabrics or blankets, like a jute mat, to hold everything together while the grasses grow and mature.

Chair Kranich opened the floor to questions from the public.

Nina Faust asked about the factor of safety (FS factor). She asked if it is determined before the slope is disturbed and questioned if it changes once they disturb it. Mr. Cole responded, citing a re-grading project as an example, his group would drill soil borings, get soil properties, strength properties and the civil engineer who would be designing the new slopes would tell them what the new slope would look like. Mr. Cole said they would review the information and if it doesn’t have the proper FS factor, they would go back to the civil engineer and give feedback on what needs to be done to achieve the proper FS factor. Ms. Faust commented that a lot of the development that is occurring in the area is on the tops of bluffs and some of the bluffs have erosion areas that are affected by wind and water and are already carved out and actively eroding. If someone puts in a house with their drainage field, gravel pads and so forth, those things have to be factored in when determining a safe setback. She asked if 40 feet on an active erosion slope would be a safe distance. Mr. Cole responded that is different than what he was discussing. The analyses that he was discussing were not active erosion areas or trying to inhibit erosion. That is a different analysis of trying to predict how much erosion you will get and try to determine what setback is going to be appropriate. Mr. Cole said in his mind the ordinance, as it is written now, is for the upland areas, not for the beach front bluffs. He doesn’t think it should be used for that unless they add something specific to it. There are strict requirements for constructing on or around these areas. One approach is to analyze the bluff faces, estimate where it might fail and put the house back behind it. Ms. Faust said it sounds like something that needs to be considered as this slope ordinance is developed. She added that she has seen where people who clear their property and dump brush over the bluff and suggested they consider adding to the ordinance that it not be allowed. She has seen major rain events where the slope fails in those areas. Mr. Cole responded as an engineer and said that would not be acceptable. When there is an “engineered fill” you would compact and use the proper material. Regarding the ordinance, Mr. Cole thinks it is addressed in that it says that if you do a fill over a certain height, it has to be engineered.

Mike McCarthy, resident on Kachemak Drive, asked about the life span of the multi layer geo-textile material before the UV rays start to break it down. Mr. Cole said he couldn’t answer that, they have used the materials sub surface. He said the jute matting goes away quickly; it is usually there long enough for the planting to take hold. Mr. McCarthy asked if when they are analyzing and using the diagram that was shown, if they take into account that the terrace here is marine sediment and the cementation naturally occurring in it is sodium chloride and the latistructure, once water is introduced into it, dissolves out. Mr. Cole responded that when they analyze slopes they try to retrieve soil samples within the bluff and perform strength tests on them. Usually they try to perform the test on undisturbed samples so as not to introduce additional water to the samples and not dissolving chloride cementation that is there. But it is not taken into account in the graph shown in the presentation. Mr. McCarthy asked how they address area-wide ground water and surface hydrology in their study and if they could encourage a basic basin-wide hydrology baseline study. Mr. Cole said he would encourage that it be done. When they are researching areas they look at all the information they can find for the area. They had a brief discussion regarding the area where the hospital is located.

Milli Martin, Borough Resident, commended the City for pursuing this and reiterated Ms. Faust’s concern regarding the development that occurs on top of the bluff. She questioned the impact of the construction that occurs on the top and is there a risk of weakening the bluff as the construction grows, because that is where people want to build now. She sees that the ordinance is endeavoring to protect the lands around, but it needs to be not only what happens below, but also what happens above. Mr. Cole commented that as he understands it, the ordinance is addressing the bluff areas, the sloping ground areas and the definition of where this sloping ground ends is what Ms. Martin is talking about. She makes a good point but he is not sure how to fit it into the ordinance. The ordinance is concerned with the sloping ground, not the ground above it. He added that it is a concern, but also a legal question when a person owns property and wants to put their house on it.

Bob Howard, City Resident, commented regarding structures on the bluff, item “e” on page 2 of the draft ordinance. He said the ordinance addresses the set back and said that it seems to beg an appropriate engineering analysis to determine the stability associated with putting a structure at the top of the bluff. He thinks the City would be prudent in requiring analyses of homes to be set on top of bluffs to ensure that the real estate would remain stable. He reads the ordinance that if you have a bluff that is 30 feet high, straight up and down, you would only have to come back about 10 feet to build a structure and a 2:1 slope is 60 feet back. In all likelihood you are adding additional load to the bluff that potentially would exacerbate its potential for sliding. He thinks there should be language to address this issue in order to ensure any structures at the tops of bluffs are put in a stable fashion. Mr. Cole said he understands that right now the ordinance says that you can’t build houses on a slope that is greater that 50% or 2:1 and it will be amended to add “unless you can do engineering studies to show that it safe.” There would still be setback restrictions on a 2:1 slope. Mr. Cole said the paragraph Mr. Howard referred to is what they were saying earlier where they need to differentiate between the upland bluff slopes and the bluffs at the waters edge. City Planner McKibben added that the draft ordinance does differentiate between upland bluffs and coastal bluffs.

Michael Armstrong, with the Homer News, commented that in talking about slopes 30% or 50% and under it is pretty safe, is not necessarily true in avalanche areas. He asked if it should be considered in the ordinance that a slope might be safe in the summer but not in the winter, no so much with the slope failing but the snow above you failing on your structure. Mr. Cole said that these are two different things. The ordinance addresses the permanent earthen slopes with buildings versus a seasonal occurrence. Mr. Armstrong said there have been avalanche deaths in Homer.

Robert Archibald, City resident, asked if they factor rain and weather when they are figuring the safety factor. Mr. Cole said they do. They address the potential for liquefaction of saturated sands in the soil mass during earthquakes and that sort of thing. They do look at the shallow type failures assuming the ground is going to get saturated at a certain depth.

There was no further discussion.

Chair Kranich called for a recess at 8:27 p.m. the meeting resumed at 8:37 p.m.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

Commissioner Foster reported that the Kachemak Ski Club received a recommendation that the area where the hay flats are has been rezoned recreational. It is about 80 acres and a 10 year lease was recommended for the Ski Club. The City Water Treatment Facility plat was postponed until Nancy Hillstrand’s attorney could be present. Country Club Estates has been remanded back to the Borough. He said he will not be at the meeting on the 12^th.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no KBAPC report.

C. Planning Director’s Report

1. Staff Report PL 08-48, Planning Director’s Report

City Planner McKibben reviewed her staff report. She added that the joint worksession with the Port and Harbor Commission regarding Spit Parking is going to be May 8^th. She suggested that Commissioners who can not attend provide their questions to staff and they will bring them to the worksession.

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.

There were no Public Hearings scheduled.

PLAT CONSIDERATION

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

There were no Plat Considerations scheduled.

PENDING BUSINESS

There were no items scheduled for Pending Business.

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 08-43, Steep Slope Ordinance

City Planner McKibben recommended the Commission discuss scheduling the draft ordinance for a future worksession. She said she has comments from the City Attorney and she, Planning Technician Engebretsen and Mr. Cole have gone through it again and there are amendments to be made. Once those amendments are added, that would be the draft the Commission would have to work with. Mr. Cole’s contract ends with the grant but there is some additional funding that could be used to work with him on an hourly basis. Ms. McKibben said they have a detailed list of people who attended the public meeting and suggested they be notified when this comes before the Commission.

Commissioner Minsch asked that there be more detail in the public comments as the Commission won’t be seeing this again for a while. Commissioner Hess requested line numbers on the next draft.

HESS/STORM MOVED TO SCHEDULE A WORKSESSION ON THE STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCE AT A LATER DATE TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 08-46, Request for Acceptance of the Nonconforming Structures at 3585 East End Road

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

The applicant was not present and there was no public present to comment.

MINSCH/HESS MOVE TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL 08-46, REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE NONCONFORMING WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.

City Planner McKibben clarified that the water fill station is not eligible for nonconformity and could be addressed later. Regarding clarification of the mini storage, she said the buildings could be looked at two ways. The Commission could consider that all the buildings through “P” were built prior to zoning. Buildings “Q” & “R” were built after zoning was enacted and built with a valid zoning permit; or they could be considered eligible for nonconforming status because they were built before the policy that the City requires the CUP before you can expand the nonconforming use.

There is no asbuilt and no information to confirm the setbacks are legal.

HESS/MINSCH I MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE FINDING ON “C” TO READ: “HOMER CITY CODE 21.64.030 REQUIRES THAT ONCE THE STRUCTURES ARE ABANDONED OR BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY, THE STRUCTURE(S) SHALL THEREAFTER CONFORM TO THE REGULATIONS. FURTHER EXPANSION WILL REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.”

Commissioner Hess commented that whether the applicant understands or not is not part of the finding. He expressed his concern about subsequent owners and a statement from the code would be better.

It was noted that parking is adequate.

VOTE: (Primary Amendment) NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

There was brief discussion regarding clarifying the status of the buildings. City Planner McKibben reiterated that the buildings through “P” can be considered nonconforming because they lack a permit as there is more than one building with a principle permitted use. The other two buildings received a zoning permit, which was the policy in 2002 when they were permitted. They could be considered nonconforming as well; it is a determination the Commission will have to make.

HESS/MINSCH I MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE RECOMMENDATION TO READ “THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCEPTS 18 STRUCTURES WITH MORE THAN 8,000 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 3585 EAST END ROAD, WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING TO CURRENT ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY LACK A ZONING PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS VALID USES OR STRUCTURES ON THE LEGALLY DESIGNATED LOT. THE STRUCTURES WERE BUILT PRIOR TO MARCH 11, 2003, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL 1 ZONING FOR THIS PARCEL. THE NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES, DUE TO LACKING A ZONING PERMIT OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ACCEPTED AS VALID ARE:

· 1 SHOP, APARTMENT, STORAGE AND RENTAL BUILDING

· 1 COFFEE SHOP

· 16 MINI-STORAGE BUILDINGS LABELED A-P ON THE KPB TAX DETAIL LAST DATED NOV. 13, 2003”

The Commission considered including the language “until the use ceases for one year” at the end of the first sentence. They discussed change of use and the definition for abandonment and decided to leave it out.

VOTE: (Primary Amendment) NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

There was further discussion reiterating how to deal with the buildings “Q” & “R”. The findings in the report that will be adopted already say that you cannot expand the development on the lot with a CUP.

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

Motion carried.

There was brief discussion regarding the need to clarify code language regarding nonconformity. City Planner McKibben commented that it might be helpful as they think about future annexations, something that was addressed in the Comp Plan update; it is inevitable that the City is going to grow over time and the Commission will have to address this issue. Commissioner Hess commented that if you have a use that has been annexed and is now a permitted use, it should just be okay. If it is a use that the zoning code wouldn’t allow, that is a situation that would need to be addressed with nonconformity. Point was raised that in other communities nonconformities are prohibited from expanding because the point is to move them out and bring things into compliance.

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

There were no Informational Materials provided.

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

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

There were no audience comments.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Commissioner Howard thanked the Commission.

Commissioner Hess congratulated Commissioner Howard on her appointment to the Commission and wished City Planner McKibben well on new job in Juneau.

Commissioner Foster said he gave Planning Clerk Rosencrans a list of dates he will be absent. He noted the new comp plan has information regarding standards for student housing and he wished they could have had it to consider with dormitories.

Commissioner Storm congratulated Commissioner Howard and City Planner McKibben.

Commissioner Zak dittoed the congratulations.

Commissioner Minsch said she is proud of them and will miss them both.

Chair Kranich said he has another meeting scheduled on Tuesday and will miss the first meeting in May. He said it has been a pleasure working with Commissioner Howard and City Planner McKibben and wishes them the best.

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 9:28 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 7, 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: