Session 10-07,
a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order
by Chair Minsch at 7:20 p.m. on April 21, 2010 at the City Hall Cowles Council
Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER BOS, DRUHOT, HIGHLAND, KRANICH, MINSCH
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER SINN
STAFF: CITY
PLANNER ABBOUD
DEPUTY
CITY CLERK JACOBSEN
APPROVAL
OF AGENDA
PUBLIC
COMMENT
The public may speak to the Planning
Commission regarding matters on the agenda that are not scheduled for public hearing or plat consideration. (3 minute time limit).
Kevin Walker, Kachemak City resident,
commented regarding the steep slope ordinance. Mr. Walker said he made his life
reading this type of information and trying to enforce it. He referenced line
218 regarding natural vegetation. As a certified erosion control expert he has
never heard of a 16 month grace period to leave open slopes exposed. If someone
is building a house maybe it’s okay, but to leave over an acre exposed could result
in up to millions of dollars in fines. Mr. Walker said the State takes these
type of regulations very seriously, and cited a lawsuit in Hawaii. Secondly Mr.
Walker pointed out that the Transportation Advisory Committee discussed
constructed slopes and back slopes on roads. They are steep slopes at a 50% or
2 to 1 made up of compacted, well graded, stabilized gravel which may support
itself at that ratio, but slippery, slimy, clay slopes around Homer’s bluff may
not support even a 33% slope in his opinion. It may not even support a 4 to 1
slope in certain flood conditions. Instead of a 50% slope, he strongly
recommends a geotechnical engineering report for anything steeper than 25%. In
western Alaska the DOT often specifies 4 to 1 (25%) on compacted, closely
monitored (3 full time inspectors) slopes and they sometimes fail. If you don’t
make the slope the right grade or monitor it, stabilize it and do all the other
things, it costs big bucks if it rains and the slope fails, clogs ditches, and
washes out the road. It makes everyone look bad. He encouraged them to think
about the 50% number.
RECONSIDERATION
No items were scheduled for
reconsideration.
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. Approval
of the April 7, 2010 regular meeting minutes
B. Draft
Decision and Findings for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 10-04, University of
Alaska,
Kachemak
Bay Campus College Expansion
C. Draft
Decision and Findings for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 10-05 Fish Factory to
allow two caretakers’ Residences
The April 7, 2010 Regular Meeting
Minutes were moved to New Business and the amended Consent Agenda was approved
by consensus of the Commission.
PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations scheduled.
REPORTS
City Planner Abboud reported that the
City Council will be holding a worksession to discuss the Comp Plan at their
April 26th meeting. The City is still in negotiations with the junk
car removal contract. They are hoping to get 100 cars processed and Council
will be looking at it again on May 10. He attended the APA national conference and
said there was discussion on economic development focusing on the assets that
exist and about non conformity. He said the Planners within the Borough are
looking at pooling their resources to purchase tapes of the conference they all
could share. He advised the Commission that he will be on vacation May 15
through the 31 and Planning Technician Engebretsen will be attending in his
place.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
Testimony limited to
3 minutes per speaker. The
Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, presentation by
the applicant, hearing public testimony and then acting on the Public Hearing
items. The Commission may question
the public. Once the public hearing is closed the Commission cannot hear additional
comments on the topic. The applicant is not held to the 3 minute time limit.
No Public Hearings were scheduled.
PLAT
CONSIDERATION
A. Staff
Report PL 10-35, Bonny Bluff No. 2 Preliminary Plat
City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff
report.
There was discussion whether a
subdivision could be approved when the lots are not developable because of the
slope. City Planner Abboud noted that you can’t have a plat note that states
whether something can or can’t be built on. If a person wants to build on the
property they would have to contact staff for regulations as stated in plat
note 5. Chair Minsch noted in the staff report requirement 13 states the plat
should identify and locate all plat areas in excess of 20 % and staff response
that not all areas are completely identified. City Planner Abboud explained
that the lines delineated show the slope but when it gets to the bluff the
lines get densely packed and would be completely dark on a small copy.
There was no applicant or public
comment.
KRANICH/HIGHLAND MOVED TO BRING BONNIE
BLUFF NO. 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL.
KRANICH/HIGHLAND MOVED TO CORRECT THE
SKYLINE DRIVE TO WEST HILL ROAD ON THE PLAT.
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT.
Motion carried.
Discussion resumed regarding requirement
thirteen and that not all areas are completely identified. City Planner Abboud
suggested a condition to clearly identify all slopes over 20%. He pointed out
where it is labeled steep with no contour lines is the bluff area and is all
over 20%. Point was raised that if all areas exceed 20% they cannot get a
zoning permit to build on the land. City Planner Abboud reiterated that the
action is a subdivision and there is a plat note that it is subject to the
requirements of City Code.
MINSCH/KRANICH MOVED TO POSTPONE UNTIL
THERE IS AN APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
There was discussion arguing the
points regarding dealing with the notion that the lot is unbuildable. There was
also discussion regarding access. The Commission expressed their desire to have
an applicant’s representative available to answer questions.
VOTE: YES: BOS, MINSCH, HIGHLAND,
DRUHOT, KRANICH
Motion carried.
PENDING
BUSINESS
A. Staff
Report PL 10-36, Steep Slope
City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff
report.
Comments included:
·
Re
vegetation on line 153 applies to everything, not exclusive to steep slope.
·
This
ordinance doesn’t address road construction.
·
Discussion
if 50% slope is too steep.
·
There
has to be balance with what the existing regulations are and peoples property rights.
·
There
has to be consideration of safety for the people down slope.
·
It
is important to consider that if an engineer can draw a home on a lot that has
a 75% slope, and could very possibly be vegetated it to strengthen the slope
far greater than the person than a person doing a project on a 20% grade.
·
In
the case of a ravine, where you have one side on a lot with an 8 foot elevation
and a 20 foot elevation on the other side on the adjacent lot, one side is a
ravine and the other a bluff. There
could be drawings included with the definitions.
·
Steep
slope can be relative to location, soils, tectonics, and so forth.
·
Change
ravine height from 10 to 15 feet. It would put it consistent with the bluff.
·
There
has been public input prior to the ordinance being drafted and now the Commission
needs to have something paper for further comment. The process isn’t limited to
one public hearing.
·
The
consultant’s report states that generally speaking slopes that are 2 to 1 or
50% or less are pretty stable. Those comments don’t specifically address Homer
and the soils here are different than “generally speaking”.
·
We
can get something on the books to regulate 50% now and then start work on the
30% to 50%.
·
It
is really all about the stabilization after excavating, no matter where you
excavate. If the 16 month period was brought to the level of the State guide
line which is 14 days, then the 50% shouldn’t make much difference at all. With
good engineering it could be made stronger.
·
The
16 month time frame is for level one development standards, regulating less
than steep slopes. Line 153 addresses that the engineer will specify how
revegetation will be done.
·
Line
69 add, “and the environment”.
·
The
environment is going to be effect simply by building. That is too broad of a
statement.
·
Need
to address the footage for coastal bluffs line 24.
The Commission requested Planning
Technician Engebretsen join them for their next discussion to help address some
of their questions.
B. Staff
Report PL 10-37, Draft Ordinance 10-xx
Amending HCC 21.93 Appeals
KRANICH/HIGHLAND MOVED TO MOVE THE
DRAFT ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO APPEALS TO PUBLIC HEARING.
There was brief discussion that they
wanted questions answered regarding voting and cross examination.
VOTE: NO: KRANICH, BOS, HIGHLAND,
MINSCH, DRUHOT
Motion failed.
KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO POSTPONE UNTIL
STAFF BRINGS IT BACK WITH ANSWERS.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 10-33, Draft Homer Spit
Comprehensive Plan
KRANICH MOVED TO POSTPONE FURTHER
ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
There was
brief discussion.
VOTE: NON
OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion
carried.
NEW
BUSINESS
A. April
7 minutes
Commissioner Kranich asked for
clarification of the discussion of paving requirements during the of the UAA
conditional use permit.
KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS AMENDED.
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL
MATERIALS
COMMENTS
OF THE AUDIENCE
Members of the audience may address
the Commission on any subject. (3 minute
time limit)
There were no audience comments.
COMMENTS
OF STAFF
There were no staff comments.
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners Kranich, Druhot, and
Highland had no comment.
Commissioner Bos commented that he has
read the Homer Spit Comp Plan and thinks it is a pretty good small town comprehensive
plan. He likes the photos as it shows how a small group of people can come
together and get things figured out. It adds a little bit of personality and the
plan creates a lot of opportunity for the people on the spit, also more
business and new business coming in. He thinks it is pretty well written.
Chair Minsch said she agrees, in
general, it is a little disjointed in her opinion. She thinks they are doing good
work and hopes they don’t get frustrated with the steep slope stuff. It is
hard, but we all have to get there the same way, and we will.
ADJOURN
Meetings will adjourn promptly at 10
p.m. An extension is allowed by a vote
of the Commission. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 5, 2010 at
7:00 p.m. in the Cowles Council Chambers. There will be a work session at
5:30p.m. prior to the meeting.
There being no further business to
come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. The next regular
meeting is scheduled for May 5, 2010 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, CMC, Deputy City
Clerk
Approved: