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: