Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1983-02-11 Council Packet - Work Session
Kenai City Council Work Session February 11, 1983 Town House Variance Assessment Districts Pacific LNG I CITY OF KENAI d cap 0i ►. O. W% 690 K[MAI. ALASKA 99611 TILNMOME :89 • 7538 NOTICE OF WORK SESSION There will be a work session of the City Council on Friday, February 11, 1983 at 7:00 PM in the City Administration Building. To be discussed: 1. Town House Variance or Ordinance 2. Assessment Districts a. Local Improvement District Comparisons 3. City Position Regarding Pacific LNG Janet Whelan City Clerk DATED: February 4, 1983 jw I� 1 i !l : M trait . February 11. 1983 TO: Kenai City Council Members Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jeff Labahn. Land Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Townhouse Ordinance The Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code does not sufficiently address the complete range of housing development concepts in current practice. Permitted uses within the residential districts are described in terms limited to single-family detached or multiple -family units. There are other "specialized" dwelling concepts, (e.g. townhouses, planned unit developments, zero lot line, etc.) which do not conform to the traditional residential district development standards. As a result, it is necessary for the Kenai Advisory Planning & Zoning Commission to consider such requests on a case -by -case basis. Frequently, the contemplation of granting several variances to the zoning code is involved as a prerequisite for development approval. The result is a lack of predictability for the developer as well as the city in such situations. Therefore, in order to encourage the broadest variety of housing opportunities within the City of Kenai, amendments to the zoning code which address "specialized" dwelling concepts should be considered. The following is a summary outline of the residential development concepts which are not addressed in the Kenai Municipal District Zoning Ordinance. I. Zero Lot Line (Two Adjacent Single -Family housing Units) A. Definition/Purpose: Zero lot line is an approach which permits a sole lot to be split in two and permits construction of a single- family dwelling on each lot. Both units are to share a party wall on the interior lot line. The purpose is to allow more flexibility in site design and/or to increase the amount of usable open space. B. Application: Zero lot line may be used in any zone which permits residential uses. However, the standards of the specific zone regarding coverage and density would prevail. C. Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code: Zero lot line would be a principally permitted development option with the Rural Residential t MR), Suburban Residential (RS) and Urban Residential (RU) districts. The development standards in these zones would not be amended with the exception of eliminating the interior side yard requirement. II. Townhouse A. Definition/Purpose: "Townhouse" means single-family dwelling units constructed in a series or group of not less than 3 units separated from an adjoining unit or units by an approved party wall or walls, extending from the basement of either floor to the roof along the linking lot line. Each unit and its lot shall be held in fee simple, except that the amenities, open area and other associated common property shall be held as undivided common property of the owners of each unit. The townhouse development concept utilizes the zero lot line approach by eliminating both side yard setbacks. This type of housing permits the unit and underlying property to be owned by the individual party while the balance of the lot is held in common by all townhouse owners. B. Application: Townhouse development is suitable for the higher density residential districts as well as the commercial zones outside of the central business district. The approval of town- house projects should be subject to acquiring a conditional use permit and to satisfying particular standards for such development. C. Kenai Municipal Distri!.t Zoning Code: Townhouse development, as a conditionally permitted use, is appropriate in the Suburban Residential (RS) and Urban Residential (RU) zones. Since the code does not permit residential uses within the General Commercial (CG) zone, townhouse development should not be allowed in this district. Townhouse construction would necessitate a deviation from certain development standards (e.g. sideyard setbacks, lot width) while maintaining the required density within the specific zoning district. III. Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) A. Definition/Purpose: Generally, a planned unit development means a group or combination of certain specified residential, commercial or industrial uses developed as an integral unit in a district where some or all of the uses might not otherwise be permitted. Therefore, a P.U.D. normally involves a parcel of land intended for a mixing of computable land uses. This concept encourages a more creative use of the land while maintaining the overall development density required in the zoning district. -2- B. Application: A planned unit development is suitable within those districts which permit at least one of the proposed land use activities. The approval of a P.U.D. should be contingent upon I acquisition of a conditional use permit and compliance with general development standards. C. Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code: A planned unit development, as a conditionally permitted use, is appropriate in all zoning districts except for Conservation (C). A P.U.D. must adhere to the general provisions of the zoning district, except that i dimensional standards may be varied, based upon development plans. IV. Implementation: The Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code is a component i of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinances. Subsequently, any amendment to the zoning ordinance would require public hearings by j the Kenai Advisory Planning & Zoning Commission, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission and an ordinance enactment by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly. -3- 120 c.•{- �I l5 y,rr�l ' i r 5-- 15 . s. ya„�rcl 0 c cc %ZO / • • � +--� S � It � `tX J .. � .�.WO � s��.pry `ov.s } rJC•�'�Or.. �iS�1w� 1.�, 120: I � �I YW L I 1 j I r ' % ZO / t rr#�Ay° 80*1 QS MI( Ar WKA,+A? ..W) ,3 Or �a��«►�y City and Borough of Sitka P.O. BOX 79 • SITKA, ALASKA - 99835 W110111112 7111,987 H E M 0 R A N D U M TOs GENERAL PUBLIC RE ZERO LOT LINE gUIL.DItdr, rR0'4s PLANNING DIRECTOR CONCEPT - PUBLIC I.WARING NOVEMBER 22 ' s 30 P..'4. CENTENNIAL BUILDING ROUSSEAU ROOM The zero lot line eonsista of an approach whereby a uido by soda duplex could be constructed, the lot split in half 410ng a common party wall and the two units cold separately. This technique could oubotantially reduce Prices and increase the potential for more people to qualify for now conventional housing. EXAMPLE PROPOSED LOT SIZE - 8,000 oq.ft. 80 x 100 with a 20' front setback, 10' rear setback. and 8' sides nntbacko which include eavec,forchec,dccks. NOTE: If the elevation diff. between the front to the back of a lot is in excacc of 101, the 9,000 oq. f t. muo t be not uonable area following cuts, clones, fills; or the lot must contain at least 10,000 0q.ft•. .�. �i"J :',ir � tY:a:1 •1 };�i:.`l: '�: � •:N.; d:. .'12'`! slliii�. : r.l:i;'r�, ?lacC: i ti:i'.Si�3'/. on each small portion of thq pron"r.dl, i•,y/� .... .wwW 'w..twr.+.....•.-ray • Itj;V1513) 1/11/if'1-'.; 91TV Atlf) IfffIt()I1G11 0V 11 tTP..A, (Wtl)INAIIC[: IIO, 112-57.4 All OPOI1IUM' A14KHDt110 '1'Ilr flt'1'rA t)tll)ormion AND 7,01111,(s r)ROIt1Al1CH To PPOVII)ll NI')R 7,r1to WT r vat "1401VIllION CM13'tHUCTION Atli) BETTI110 Tllf•, WGI/LATIONA THI:RP,OV 1. C._I,AMJTVTrA'rtnll, Thin orditianco Ln of a pormanont,• nataro and' In �s►e,gn ;td to become a part of the uLkka Bonncal Code, 2. f3FV1?RA0tr,T1"l. If arty provision of thin ordinanco, or ihvnlid, 010tronlaindOr. of.h6j#yoj to ythin einancoorelrcumntanc soroor nnedoball not bu af.focted thoroby, 3. PURPO'lit. Thu purpone of thin orilinonea ins to emond Chaptor 211 t,u)r #ifalonj and Chnphar 22, 'honingl both of the uitka Gon,)ral Coda, to allow the utilizntinn of a zoro lot line building concapt. Thin coneopt nhoulA prnvido a method Lnuroby ng tho Coutn Can be nubntantially reducod thoroby incrnanin�j Eho number of famition qualifyLnq for nnw houoinq finnneLng. Thins method of davolopmont would not chanq© the mf, olytincroaaa tho ponor tontin�1"h©dornnndufinanLta cialnpracbut tLctility .of now housing con()truction, 4. PNAC'rilP,trr. OF, IT ENACTED by tho Auaombly of the City and borough of liitka, Alnaka that the fo11owLny ndditiono shall be addod to tbo uitka Gnnnral Codes: CRAPTIM 21 - uutlurvtf)loll., 21,00,100 Zero rr)t, r.i.nn 131,1101vitsiOng - allso known an common or Harty $;a r�unntruct n estd)divirsi"n - A tochnique whereby parneln play brt crnrstfsd that might not,, othnr- wiao Confnrm to minLmum fsizft atalsdardn an4 which nllowfs any two (2) adjacont nt.nq[o faltlily hnarsLng Unito to bit jnits"d by a comrlloll party well having a an,) hour r"tsiotiva fire rat.inq oil both unita and rshnr. inq lint, Ua111111[Jll ssidet ynrd prnprtrty lino without n"paration, 21.12,030 hruiiminj t,nynnt mnntn AOi)s P. If n znrri lot tits" raltnliviaion its propo unl, the pral[min:,r•y laynl,t !shall oh1r� tiv, lnaati"n of all rote and houtsinq unit/s Lnt•nndad for ouch uts", 21-16,040 r,tn„rtl l�rrniL sinnts AI)ns V. On Any z,fro lot lin,r rsubrliviuinn, th,1 plat itfs,tlf ab.111 a0llt,ain d pl,1t r"tsl.rintion noting, in fnlls,tst _t,- 1" (sr"1 lnt•tn,hr! t,i ba fsni! ,)nly for ''/,"r/,� 1,Jt fill•! 11.ty,slnprwnt, Lot ,I,eptI 1j::altrtt uhall r,tr,lain z,trn lnr tin„ Or c•,rlr,•)n p'tr•y wall IOil in its not ir/t«y, for th,t f is r of t!: :,. ; Lttly !:�•sa! 11tsi,:f, ::tt;•II ( ,! ,v r•t•'• i',:. : sr kn •�s,,, a:,sn "::,., s•. :r• 1) r,,,; ,. t,, m3 % r•1 .1 ,-•�`•�•1tt ;gal: :n;, "'= "1 ') ... ...."•,fi ra,t {rl, rf, 'r r .. 1 Flown..�Ifl■iui , altltf;IANC:: NO, 1i2-;24 "reanr,fwl 1s•Irty wall agreemunt rantrirtinq the un.s of tt/is prnlnrrty Pound at fsor,k Pago�, fiLtka Rnaor•lorz Office". Al:so, "Conutrucr,lon of (v)msum wAl unitss along tile' nhmmon lot line Will bit ntmuitanaoun un100f) nnparatc construc- tion rar•.fiv.tn prior eNproval by Elio municipality for good cauao shown", CHAPT.NP 22 - 201111jr, Ann 'Cur, POLLOWIM; DEFT 1ITI0ufis 22.00.115 Common Porgy MILL Conatruckion - means; a wall or walla oxtan nq trori files Lo.,Ei`nq of a buildinq to the underside -- �j" of the roof nh^ithl.:r) along a aide lot line, which paid -• lino in common to an adjoining lot and unit for which it is inteft4ed to bo Permanently attached. 22.00.345 jot r,lnon 2orq - a techniquo whoreby two dwolling un'1.a nro ,�,,,,,�.,,,,,...,.-..,r.,..•-1 constructM utilizing a common party wall otra'ldlinel a common aido property line. said ,roll to be constructed of a ono hour fire rating on both Sidon, if thin technique io utiiired, said neparato Wool" count be centinuod ass zero lot Lino parcola and a Party wall nIroamont must be in effect recordod in tho dee,i or atritad an a public plat restriction. 22.20.020 Pprmittn4 Prinail!,j'l then A1491itts A. Ono and two family dwellings, including ?Pro lot or a rf-v wall ronrstrur•tion , eY.PCltlWrtV( msibi e homes. Y.aen aubdLvid,n�rro lino lot may have only one singto family dwelling. 22, 20.060 b.+vnlo,;,ment it"171ui_roplotntrs A. 141n1mum root Requlrc.rmsrst:s AUDI 8. To be eonoidurud for zero lot line nuiJivinion, exlntinq lot arrfa 011411 ba at learnt 0,000 aq.ft. with a width of 00 fart, Tf tho oluvation ,, ,, ,, ,,,,, •,,,,,,�,,„ .,, diffuranca b.stwsi,in tile. front and rear of the lot exa.•ellfs trsn 1101 Net, tha Let must contain 0,000 nq,ft, of nat unable area following cuts, ;lopoop or ezeivationa. Attar the lot Is •livldfr11, onctl con:snon lot or z.rru lin.v dvvrrl ,:xv.rnt m•s .t cant sin a minim -in of 4,000 ss•1,ft, por ualobl.s p;►rcal. R. Minlsnum 'lard Ib..iuir..•rvrnt~ fvi,!a ysrl.ss A•l1 the friliowLrrlr Pr,r xuro list lino d•fv•f•,!.r. ref•, sip!• yarns rh.til !„f n cstninwn of eiil.- 1%.1 t•vrt un•,s:;ts:�ta! 1.Israbi•� .Ir�•s ;rolsit,: q •!ii�Yc, I"h nf- i,}• dnctv.z, porS.hw,, ar:•1 ;•IVng. 120 / r is =-7` 1 5.Xcl V, I ., %Zo it 1 2 3 4 5 •. 6 7 ` 8 9 • 10 11 12 123 14 . 15 16 i 17 i 18 !� 19 {{I 1. 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 permit provided that an extension may be granted by the Planning Commission following a public hearing on the matter. The Coa• mission may grant extensions for good cause only. 21.61.060 Standards for Planned Unit Developments, A. Purr ose•. Planned Unit Developments are intended • to on. courage development of large parcels of land as integrated units and to allow for. f lexibility • in design. ' PUD I a are allowed as conditional uses within a number of zoning districts and are applicable to either residential or non-residential uses or a combination thereof. H. Districts Allowed. Planned Unit Development is allowed in all districts except open Space - Recreational. C. Conce t Plan. The applicant shall prepare a preliminary Concept Plan for review with the City at a pre -application conference. The concept plan shall include a conditional use application form and accompanying maps which include the follow- ing informations (1) A legal description of the total site proposed for - development including a statement of present ownership. (2) A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include a description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. (3) A proposed development schedule indicating the ft approximate date when construction of the PUD or stages of the PUD can be expected to begin and be completed. (4) A statement of the applicants intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of the PUD such as land areas, dwelling units, etc. (5) Quantitative data for the followings Total number and type of dwelling unitst parcel size= proposed lot coverage of buildings and structuresf approximate gross and net residential densities$ total amount of open space (including a separate figure for usable open. Space)i total amount of non-residential construction (including *a separate figure for commercial facili- ties). (6) The existing site conditions including contours at five foot intervals, water course, flood plains, unique natural features and forest cover. 49 e . 1 . Ming (7) Proposed lot lines and plot designs. The location and ` gym- 3 floor area size of all existing and proposed buildings, structures and other improvements including maximum 4 heights,•types of dwelling units, density per type and non"residential structures. Preliminary architectural renderings of typical' structures and improvements. en- 5 (Such drawings should be sufficient to relay the basic ited architectural intent -of the proposed improvements but 6 shoulnot be encumbered with final detail at this are )d 9 r a 7 (8) The location and size in acres or square feet of all t in 8 areas to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved as common , open space, public parks and recreational areas. 9 (9) Existing and proposed automotive traffic circulation. w 10 systems of arterial, collector and local streets including off-street parking areas, service use Low- 11 areas, loading areas and major points of access to public rights -of -way (including major points of ingress and egress to the development). Notations of proposed 12 ownership --public or private --should be included where . appropriate. Up' .13 ` (10) Existing and proposed pedestrian circulation systems, !the 14 including their interrelationship with the vehicular circulation system. lion the. by 15 (li) _ Existing and proposed utility systems, including =n 16 sanitelephowers, stormsewers and water, electric, gas and17 (12) A general schematic landscape plan indicating vthe ages i• treatment of materials to be used 'for private and 18 common open spaces. ` F hard �j 19 (13) Sufficient information on land areas adjacent to the of proposed PUD to indicate the relationships between the 20 proposed development and existing and proposed adjacent - areas, including land uses, zoning classifications, and lot 21 densities, circulation systems, public facilities and unique natural features of the landscape. -oss ,pen 22 (14) The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the POD, including materials and techniques to be used such as, -�.IOA :ion 23 screens, fences and walls. 24 (15) Any additional information as required by the review ive authority necessary to evaluate the character and e 25 impact of the proposed PUD. r } 26 The staff shall review the application form and maps to determine their completeness. If adequate information is 27 available to allow for Homer Planning Commission review, the ' 28 50 e -"MEW- • 2 application *will be scheduled before the Homer Planning 3 Commission as a conditional use request. D. Final Plan 4 (1) If the conditional use application is approved, or 5 •, approved with modifications, the applicant may proceed with preparation of a Final Plan. A Final Plan shall 6 be filed within one year of Concept Plan approval. Plans shall be prepared by professionals qualified in 7 at least two of the following fields: (1) licensed architects (2) registered civil engineers (3) AN? $ planner or (4) registered land surveyor. 9 (2) * Before the Final Plan is approved by the Homer Planning Commission, a preliminary subdivision plat may be 10 prepared to be considered in conjunction with the Final Plan. 13. (3) The Final Plan shall include all information and maps submitted for the Concept Plan in their finalized 12 detailed form. This includes site plans sufficient for recording and detailed engineering drawings, including '13 contours at two foot intervals. In addition, a ' statement of methods to be employed to assure main- tenance of any common areas and facilities shall be submitted. • 13 (4) Upon receipt of a PUD Final Plan, the Homer Adminis- 16 trative Officer shall review and prepare a recom- mendation for action by the Homer Planning Commission on the PUD Plan. The staff shall, as a minimum, give 17 consideration to the conformance of the Final Plan to the Concept Plan as well as the criteria governing 18 conditional uses. 19 (5) Upon receipt of the administrative review and recom- mendation, the Homer Planning Commission shall estab- 20 lish a finding that the Final.Plan is consistent with the Concept Plan, or that it is inconsistent. 21 (6) In the event it is determined that the Final Plan is' 22' consistent with the approved Concept Plan, the Homer Planning Commission shall approve the Final Plan with modifications or conditions. 23 (7) If it is determined that the Final Plan is inconsistent 24 with the approved Concept Plan, the Planning Commission shall set a public hearing date and shall give notice 25 and provide an opportunity to be heard to each of the followings (1) any person who is on record as having 26 appeared at the public hearing on the Concept Plans (2) any other person who has indicated to the Planning 27 Commission in writing that he'wishes to be notified. 28 51 ' � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 '13 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22• 23 24 25 26 27 28 7� h�lO'D� l-. 't`rDvJ 1Ji�0 �E' OIzD 1 �A�JC.F �-40M�it � XA.M�I.rc health, safety and welfare of the users and inhabitants of the development. (5) Industrial Uses. If industrial uses are included in the PUD, the performance standards in Chapter 21.49.060 shall be met. ' r 21.61.070 Standards for Townhouses. Townhouses may be conditionally permitted if the o low ng requirements are met$ A. The proposed development meets the conditions specified in Chapter 21.61; B. , A detailed development .plan is submitted with the application for a conditional use including a site plan drawn to scale. The site plan shall include but -shall not be limited to the topography and drainage of the 1 proposed site, the location of all buildings and structures on the site, courts and open space areas,, 1 circulation patterns, ingress and egress points, parking areas (including the total number of parking spaces provided) and a general floor plan of the principal buildings, together with other such infor- mation as the Homer Planning Commission shall requires .1 C. Not more than six contiguous townhouses shall be built 2. in a rcw with the same or approximately the same front line and not more than 12 townhouses shall be con- 1 tiguous; D. No more than one townhouse project shall be located any 1 closer than 600 feet to another townhouse project 1; unless otherwise approved by the Homer Planning Com- mission: 1 E. No portion of a townhouse or accessory structure in, or 1 related to, one group of contiguous townhouses shall be closer than 15 feet to any portion of another townhouse (or accessory structure related to another townhouse 2 group), or to- any building outside the townhouse project; 2 F. Minimum lot width for an individual townhouse is 24 2 feet; G. Minimum lot area for each townhouse unit shall be 2,000' 2 square feet and and the townhouse project must conform to the following: 2 (1) The total floor area shall not exceed .4 times the 2 lot area. 2 (2) Total open area shall be at least 1.1 times the total floor area. 2 55 2 Ad i» 50 be he an 1) 3, 3, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 12 '13 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3) Open area shall not include areas used for parking or maneuvering incidental to parking or vehicular access, (4) Parking space area shall be provided at the minimum rate• of 2.5 space per dwelling unit exclusive of driveways, traffic lanes i'n•parking lots and street.dedications. (5) 200 cubic feet of covered storage space shall be provided exclusive of the living area of the unit. H. Each townhouse unit shall* have a total yard area containing at least-1,000 square feet. Such total yard area may be reduced to S00 square feet if 500 square feet of common open or common recreational area•, not. including parking spaces, is available for each unit. Such yard area shall be reasonably secluded from view from streets or used for off-street parking or for any accessory building; I. Grouping of parking spaces is desirable provided that spaces intended for a particular unit are no more than 100 feet from the unit. On minor streets, use of the sight -of -way may be permitted for maneuvering inci- dental to parking where this will facilitate snow removal. On collector and arterial streets, maneu- vering incidental to parking shall not be permitted:• J. Visibility at access points for automobiles: The following requirements apply to all private drives and entrances to, or exits from common parking oreas including such drives and access routes on adjacent Property. At the intersection of any private drive or entrance or exit for a common parking area with a public street, no fence, wall, hedge or other planting or structure forming a material impediment to visi- bility between a height of 2h feet and 8 feet shall be erected, planted, placed, or maintained and no vehicle so impeding visibility shall be parked within tri- angular areas defined by lines connecting points as follows: Beginning at the point where the midline of the private drive or entrance or exit for a common parking area intersects the public right-of-way line 'in the direction of approaching traffic, thence to a point 25 feet toward the interior of the property of the previously described midline, and thence to point of beginning. No such visi- bility triangle need be maintained on the side of the drive, entrance or exit away from approaching traffic on.the same side of the street. 56 �y P. Q. R. Minimum. setbacks for townhouse developments shall adhere to the setback requirements* of the zoning district within which it is located; Maximum building height shall not exceed 25 feet; All party walls shall adhere to fire safety :standards as established by the State Fire Afarshall; All townhouse developments constructed pursuant to Fi conditional use permit issued under the provision of Chapter 21.61 shall be constructed in compliance with all pertinent state statutes'then in effect; The developer or subdivider of any townhouse devel- opment shall.. have evidence that compliance with tho Horizontal Property Regimes Act, AS 34.07 has been made! prior to the sale of any townhouse dwelling units, and' furthers (1) The developer or subdivider of any townhouse development shall deposit with the appropriate homeowners association, formed in compliance with the Horizontal' Property Regimes Act cited in this section, a contingency fund in the sum of $500.0o per dwelling unit in the townhouse development. (2) A copy of the bylaws of the homeowners' associa- tion showing in what manner the aforesaid con- tingency fund shall be controlled shall be fur- nished to the city for review and approval. All areas not devoted to buildings, drives, walks, parking areas or other authorized installations shall be covered with one or more of the followings lawn grass, natural or.ornamental shrubbery or trees; All roadways, fire lanes• or areas for maneuvering incidental to parking Inot to include designated commonly held open space or recreation areas) shall be a minimum of 22 feet in width. Furthermore, no vehicu- lar parking shall be allowed in the aforementioned areas; and The standards set forth in this section shall comp- liment the general standards set forth in this chapter and shall not be construed as superceding any general standard. In the event of conflict, the stricter standard shall control. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 '13 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 57 1 28 f] min- CowceeT stogy •� a.es Advantages Possible: Large common areas of open land. Higher densities will reduce land and development costs per unit and as a result, lower housing prices. Cluster- ing will reduce street utility and grading costs. Increased flexibility frees the archi- tect and land planner to create distinguished design. More flexible and complex develop- ment discourages the fly-by-night developer. Tax revenues will exceed public service costs due to the higher per capita tax base of higher density and varied housing types. Housing will be provided for n—se- holds of a wide range of income, A recorded development plan pro- vides guarantees of quality to the community and approval security to the developer. 11 Actual Experience: Generous open space including en- vironmentally and aesthetically valuable areas are set aside. How- ever, concerns have been raised about the long range ability of Homeowners Associations to manage this land. Higher densities and clustering can reduce costs. but long term con- struction and large initial invest- ments in recreational and visual amenities can negate the potential cost savings. PUD has attracted some of the best design firms in the country at a time when many conventional subdivi- sions are never touched by designers. PUD developers tend to be better organized and financed and to have a long term commitment to the town. However, extraordinary approval requirements or market reverses can cause even the most substantial developers to desert a project. Taxes from PUD generally exceed the costs to the community but public expectations of exceptional windfall surpluses have not been realized. Housing has been provided for a wide range of age groups and family sizes but rarely for those of low income. Better plans have resulted when careful review and inspection was executed. For the developer. long range security has sometimes been overshadowed by changing markets. ..- A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Pacific Alaska LNG Company, ) at al. ; Docket Noe. CP75-140, at al. Pacific Indonesia LNG Company, ) at al. ) Docket Nos. CP74-160, et al. Pacific Lighting Gas ) Development Company ) Docket No. CI78-453 Pacific Simpco Partnership ) Docket No. CI78-452 ANSWER OF CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF HOLLISTER AND SANTA BARBARA CITIZENS TO DISMISS PROCEEDINGS AND TO VACATE PRIOR ORDERS The City of Kenai, Alaska (hereinafter "Kenai") herein responds to the motion to dismiss proceedings and to vacate prior order filed by the Hollister Ranch Owners' Association (Hollister) and the Santa Barbara Citizens for Environmental Defense (Santa Barbara Citizens). Kenai has supported the Pacific Alaska LNG project since its inception. In Kenai's view, the Pacific Alaska LNG project would provide the type of clean, non-polluting, industrial growth deserved by the Community and would provide a market for shut-in gas fields. It is a capital intensive project which would provide significant growth in tax revenues needed to improve local services. The jobs provided to local residents would be 1 - -- 19 high paid positions requiring technical skills which is ad- vantageous to the City. The long term benefits of this project -- to the national interests and to the interests of Alaska and California -- should be the paramount consideration in the Commission's ruling on the Hollister and Santa Barbara Citizen's motion. The Commission must look beyond the temporary conditions cited by Hollister and Santa Barbara and recall that this project is intended to benefit the nation into the twentieth century with an environmentally safe, stable, secure source of natural gas. Short term and frequent changes in underlying factual circumstances do not -- and as a matter of Commission policy cannot -- render the project moot or justify a vacating of prior orders. Moreover, it is important to remember that the conditions cited by Hollister and Santa Barbara as justifying the dismissal of these proceedings, assuming arguendo they are accurately described, were not brought about by the project sponsors. Those changes are the product of delays caused by a steady stream of new regulatory requirements at the state and federal level, by state/federal jurisdictional conflicts, by intervening reorganization of the Department of Energy, by the passage of the National Gas Policy Act; and by conditions placed on approvals by this Commission, the ERA and the California Public Utilities Commission. As such, they are not analogous to the common examples of mootness brought about by the party to the controversy, or where the objective of the controversy has become "impossible" to achieve. 2 This project has never been "abandoned" by its sponsors or its supporters, such as Kenai. Rather, over the years, there have been changes in a number of underlying assumptions to and components of the project. The project sponsors readily admit these changes, and, logically enough, propose to reopen the record at the appropriate time to examine these new issues. The sponsors also propose that the Commission finally resolve outstanding seismic issues. Considering the unique circumstances causing the delays in this project, and considering the unanimous regulatory approvals of the LNG project at the state and federal levels, Kenai believes that the Commission has an obligation and responsibility to respond favorably to the applicants' proposals to deny the motion of Hollister and Santa Barbara Citizens and to issue a seismic opinion. The applicants have, after, all, met their part of the bargain in these proceedings these many years: they have actively pursued and obtained favorable authorizations, and successfully met the myraid federal and state regulatory re- quirementa, which are unprecedented in any other proceeding we are aware of. It is now the Commission's turn to perform its statutory functions (1) to render a long awaited seismic decision that will finally resolve one of the significant issues in this proceeding, and (2) to render orders that will preserve this project for the benefit of the public. 3 MIRIMM �41 MI I.+l1'f�ll •.•-•--_ Ypir:��.:Y.�.-.¢�:.:itG;:��iC.�3L�.:t :3.',.:.:�4s1'li iill�m7�—•-•--^—'-"- The LNG project continues to he in the national interest. There is no benefit to realize by dismissing the application and approvals granted to date since such action would kill the project forever. The Commission's orders should reflect the long-term realities of the domestic and international energy situation. Projects such as the LNG project should, if not permitted to proceed, at least be preserved in a state of j i "readiness" to proceed. To do otherwise would be to abdicate the Commission's responsibility to further energy security for this country. i Respectfully submitted, OATEOs m Rogers Attorney for City of Kenai, Alaska tr CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a copy of the foregoing document upon all parties admitted to participate in the proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Com- mission by causing a copy to be mailed, postage prepaid, to each of said parties. Dated at Kenai, Alaska, this _ day of February, 1983. m Rogers Of Counsel for City of Kenai 5 CITY OF KENAI WE, THE MEMBERS OF THE KENAI CITY COUNCIL DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE RESULTS OF A CANVASS OF THE BALLOTS FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION OF TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1977, TO BE AS FOLLOWS: YES NO PROPOSITION SPOILED BALLOTS: ABSENTEE BALLOTS: CHALLENGED BALLOTS: TOTAL BALLOTS CAST: THOMAS ACKERLY, COU CILMAN BETTY LICK4 COUNCILWOMAN j RICHARD MORGAN, LMAN VIA '11E . COUNCIr DAN A. WHELAN, COUNCILMAN DATED: May 18, 1977 ATTEST: -- a. Q2, z - ,.,sue C . Peter, City Clerk l 0 .a. SAMPLEBALLOT= ....:: CITY OF KENAI Special Election of Ma =17 1977 y , PROPOSITION The last sentence of Section 7.3 of the Charter of the City of Kenai reads as follows: "No special assessment shall be levied by the City government against any property in excess of 250 of the fair cash market value of the property after giving effect to the benefit accru. " ing thereto from the work or action for which assessed." Shall such sentence be amended to read as follows? The Council shall provide for payment of special assessments either in one sum or in yearly installments. No,yearly install- ment may exceed 26°/a of the assessod value of the property affected. And, Section 7.4 of the Charter of the City of Kenai reads as follows: Protests - Section �7'4: "if written protests as to the necessity for any public Improvement are made by the owners of benefitted real property which would bear fifty percent or more of the esti- mated cost of, the improvement, the improvement. shall not proceed until the protests.hmve been reduced so that the pro- perty of those still protesting shall. not bear .fifty percent of the said estimated cost, except upon approval of the Council by a vote of at least six members.'. Shall Section 7.4 be amended to read in its entirety as follows: Protests S -4: • The City shall not proceed with any public im- provement or which a special assessment district is to be formed until is has received written approval to proceed fron the owners of properties bearing 50% or more of the estimat- ed cost of the improvement. And, shall a new Section 6.5 be added to the Charter of the City of Kenai which shall read in its entirety as follows? SPFCIAI_ ASSF=SA/RjT AnhInS Section The City shall have the power to borrow money to pay all or part of the cost of local improvements in special assessment districts and to issue special assessment bonds or other evidencos of indebtedness. therefor, the principal and interest of which are payable solely out of the special assess- ment levied against the property to be benefitted by the im- provements. Such special assessment bonds shall be authoriz- ed by the Council by ordinance and no ratification by the voters of the City shall be required. The property benefiffed may be pledged by the Council to secure o payment. YFC n 00 �4y