The Homer Planning Commission at their Feb. 19 meeting decided to forgo pursuit of a moratorium on conditional use permit applications for coastal lots with multiple structures.

Instead, the commission will utilize the Title 21 Zoning and Planning Code rewrite process, currently ongoing through the 2025 calendar year, as a method for addressing issues with coastal lots that have boundaries extending into the tidal zone and/or include or intend to include multiple structures.

The question of whether to implement a temporary moratorium on these CUPs came before the commission in December. The commission previously reviewed two CUP applications in 2024 involving coastal applications and realized that existing Homer City Code impacting allowable density resulted in a “significant imbalance” of density when compared to lots of similar size but without submerged areas or steep slope conditions.

Commission chair Scott Smith conducted research following the Dec. 4 meeting on the merits of implementing a moratorium and what the language for such an ordinance would look like. In the end, the commission felt that there was less urgency than originally believed to pursue a moratorium, especially with the Title 21 revisions being conducted.

Commission members did express lingering concern with coastal development and potential inequalities and dangers regarding coastal lots that have submerged acreage or steep slope issues.

In a memorandum to the commission, Smith noted that there are “numerous criteria” for determining the number of structures on a lot in addition to the principal structure, including setbacks, building height, maximum lot coverage, state fire marshall review, wetlands, steep slope conditions, drainage areas, minimum lot area requirements and more.

“What is not considered is the density effect on a lot with submerged acreage within coastal, tidal areas,” the memo states.

Homer City Code 21.04.050, regarding zoning of waterfront property, states that “zoning code requirements applicable to property fronting on a body of water shall continue to the edge of a property line, whether or not it is submerged.”

“So, obviously it’s encouraged to include that submerged area within the allowable equation, determining density of structures,” Smith said during the meeting. “My one critical thought on that is, if you have an equal size lot across the street, if it’s in the same zone, does it cause an imbalance of allowable structures?”

Smith also noted that an increase of density can create “significant, undesired consequences” including localized downstream drainage, traffic congestion and pedestrian safety.

Through the KPB Geographic Information System, Smith found 163 lots in multiple zoning districts in Homer that were subject to tidal influence. In several instances, a portion of the lot was considered “potentially unbuildable” due to “significant challenges to obtain permits” including coastal edge conditions, steep slope restrictions or floodplain permits.

Smith provided an example in the memo of a coastal lot where roughly 40% of the lot was subject to tidal influence and “therefore reasonably can be described as unbuildable” or it would take “significant financial investment” to meet code requirements.

Smith said during the meeting that the example in the memo represented an average of how the tidal boundaries are indicated.

“This one comprises about 40% of the lot being submerged at high tide there, and therefore is very challenging to build on,” he said. “It’s possible you could backfill it — you’d have to reinforce that backfill. But technically it’s very, very difficult to build on it, and therefore most likely it wouldn’t be built on.”

Smith also said that there are lots where upwards of 70% were underwater, while others had perhaps only 10% of the lot underwater at high tide.

“It does vary quite a bit,” he said.

In the commission’s discussion on the level of urgency to pursue a moratorium over using the Title 21 rewrite to address coastal lot issues, commissioner Charles Barnwell said that he thought Smith’s memo was a “great analysis that could be a basis for revised code.”

“It’s probably not as much of an urgency as we felt it might have been in December, which is when all this started,” Smith said. “I felt responsible to at least dig into it a little bit more to maintain some accountability before the public, rather than trying to force a moratorium through. This was just an evaluation of whether or not there was significant reason to have a moratorium.”

Find the Feb. 19 moratorium discussion and Memorandum PL25-011 in full at www.cityofhomer-ak.gov/hapc/planning-commission-regular-meeting-186.