Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORDINANCE 1817-1999SUBSTITUTE Suggested by: Council CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE N0. 1817-99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING KMC 14.20.185 BY ADDING A SECTION WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXEMPTION FOR ENCROACHMENTS OF UP TO A TOTAL OF TWELVE (12) INCHES. WHEREAS, currently any request for an encroachment permit requires the application to go through a public hearing process before the Planning 8v Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, that process can be unduly burdensome for applicants who request a permit for a small encroachment; and, WHEREAS, permits for encroachments of not more than a total of twelve (12) inches could be exempted administratively without violating the intent of KMC 14.20.185 provided the review criteria set forth in KMC 14.20.185(d)(1)-(4) are followed; and, WHEREAS, the allowed exemption on any one front, rear or side setback could not be more than 10% of the setback for that front, rear or side as contained in the Development Requirements Table. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that KMC 14.20.185 is amended by adding the following section: (i~ Administrative Exemption. The Administrative Official mad rant an encroachment permit without a public hearin,g_if the total encroachment, inclusive of all front, rear and side setbacks, does not exceed twelve (12) inches,, and provided that: (1) The allowed encroachment on an_y one front, rear or side setback m=not exceed ten percent (10%) of the setback as contained in the Development Requirements Table, or twelve inches, whichever is ess; an , (2) The Administrative Official finds that the review criteria in KMC 14.20.185(dj are met. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 16~ day of June, 1999. ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Introduced: April 7, 1999 Adopted: June 16, 1999 Effective: July 16, 1999 question were off Scout Lake Road. She added, code requires the ,. ~ Council determine the disposal of lands be made when they are not required for public use. Therefore, the Commission needed to make a recommendation to Council. GOECKE MOVED THE LANDS PRESENTED BE DISPOSED OF, AS THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE CITY TO OWN LANDS THAT FAR FROM ITS CITY LIMITS. NORD SECONDED. Discussion Bryson asked if the land was acquired because of foreclosure or in lieu of outstanding debt. Bannock stated he believed it was Mr. Bradford's part of the McLane Partnership and involved the City's judgment in the Inlet Woods litigation. Bradford declared bankruptcy and assets were now being dispersed. Vote Goecke Yes Bryson Yes Newbry Yes Nord Yes Erwin Yes Glick Yes b. Discussion/Schedule Public Hearing -Building Setbacks - Administrative Exemptions Glick noted this had been discussed, resulting in an ordinance being drafted. Glick asked Bannock if he had any comments. Bannock stated the ordinance came from Council action at its last meeting. An ordinance similar to this had been before the Council and the Commission in the past. Bannock stated he asked the ordinance come before the Commission because they will actually be using the ordinance. He asked for comments/ suggestions to take back to the Council before action is taken. Glick stated past discussions indicated reluctance to put an actual figure in the ordinance. Bryson stated he was concerned the measurement of inches was being used instead of feet or fractions of feet, as is typically required in plat terminology by the Borough. On the substance of the ordinance, Bryson stated he was never supportive of modifying the side setbacks; however, that is what the ordinance would do and would potentially allow a person to target that modification if his intent is to gain an extra foot. His intent was to eliminate the pesky problem of insignificant deviations. Bryson added, he felt Administration's original proposal did that but allowing a floating one-foot Planning 8v ,Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 2 encroachment wouldn't change anything. He stated he is in favor of what Administration had originally proposed and was not in favor of a blanket one-foot deviation. Building Official Springer commented it would be a problem if people were intending to take that foot. He added, he generally felt people who had encroachments had accidents during the course of construction and usually the proposed building got moved slightly. He felt Administration was trying to solve the accidental movement problems during construction of the building. Granted, they could possibly use that to try to take a foot but didn't see that as being the intent. Bryson stated he had no reason to believe the intent was always to conform to the setbacks. Problems could arise from casual measurement or lot corners measured inaccurately. That could happen as easily with the ordinance in effect as not. The Commission taking the time to address each of these issues was not the problem, but the steps an owner has to go through to clear up a 1 / 10~ foot encroachment is cumbersome and time consuming. For that reason, he thought a percentage approach addressed the situation more effectively. Nord stated she was uncomfortable with the 12" leeway. With a 1' encroachment on a 5' setback, it would be a 20% encroachment. She stated she preferred the 10% recommendation. Perhaps a solution was to make a different percentage for each type of setback. Bannock asked Springer what would be the worst case scenarios for minimum setbacks. Springer answered, R/ S zones have a 5' side setback for a single story structure, 10' for a daylight basement, and 15' for a two story structure. In R/ R, it is 15' side setbacks on all structure; the front setback is 25' and rear is 20'. Bannock suggested the ordinance be changed to read "one foot, not to exceed 10%" or "10%, not to exceed one foot" because this was a very valid concern. Glick clarified this was for comments only from the Commission. Bannock answered affirmatively and asked for any further suggestions or comments. Bryson stated, in disregarding relative distance on setbacks, the side setbacks affect neighbors and the front and rear don't usually significantly affect neighbors. He felt the side setbacks were more important to address. Kebschull noted if the Commission wanted to schedule a public hearing, she needed to know. The ordinances, as they stand, Planning 8~ Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 3 would go to Council. She added, she understood Council wanted to hold public comment and then modify the ordinances as recommended after the April ?~ meeting. She added, the resolution has to be published, along with changes to the ordinances, ten days before Council's meeting. She asked for direction on how the Commission wished to proceed. Goecke stated he is in favor of the percentage versus inches wording as suggested by Bannock. Erwin noted his agreement with the percentage versus inches wording and thought it a reasonable suggestion. Glick asked Erwin if he felt a public hearing should be held at the Commission level. Erwin stated he felt a public hearing could be held, giving the public two chances to express their concerns. Goecke disagreed and stated he didn't believe a public hearing was necessary as a public hearing would be held at the Council level. The Commission should pass their comments on to Council. Bryson stated he suspected an ordinance like this probably would not draw many people to a public hearing at the Commission level and thought it would be better served at a Council meeting. He asked Administration if, in a 5' setback situation, the entire 1' were taken off that side creating a 4' setback plus the eave, does it affect how the building code is applied to the construction of the building? Springer answered, it would by allowing only a 1' eave because up to a 3' eave can be built. Nord stated she thought public comment was not necessary and felt Council would hear and consider Commission's recommendations. She added, she was in favor of some sort of ordinance to eliminate public hearings for 1" encroachments. Newbry stated he didn't feel a public hearing at the Commission level was necessary. He added, he felt Council would duly note the Commission's comments, as they have in the past. 6. OLDr'BUSINESS -None 7. CODE ENFORCEMENT -Hone 8. REPORTS a. City Council Councilman Bannock reviewed agenda of the March 10, 1999 Council meeting, noting the following: Planning 8v Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 4 KENAI CITY COUNCIL -REGULAR MEETING APRIL 7, 1999 7:00 P. M. KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS http:/ /www.ci.kenai.ak.us MAYOR JOHN J. ~iIILLIAMS, PRESIDING ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER Mayor Williams called the meeting to order at approximately 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Kenai City Hall Building. A-1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Williams led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance. A-2. ROLL CALL Roll was taken by the City Clerk. Present were: Williams, Bookey, Swarner, Moore, Measles, Bannock and Frazer. A-3. AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Williams requested the following changes to the agenda: ADD AS: I-1, 4 / 6 / 99 JW letter to Marco Pignalbery regarding city land formerly leased by The Continuum Corporation for assisted living facility. Williams explained, he had been notified by the previous developers that they had found additional partners and they requested the letter be forwarded to Pignalbery. He added, the letter to Pignalbery noted the city was still interested in having an assisted-living facility on the property and also discussed the city's leasing procedures. Williams stated, he would be requesting council's approval to send the letter. MOTION: Councilman Bannock MOVED for approval of the agenda as amended. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. A-4. CONSENT AGENDA REMOVE FROM CONSENT AGENDA AND SUBSTITUTE: H-5, Ordinance No. 181?-99 -- Amending KMC 4.20.185 by Adding a Section Which Would Provide for an Administrative Exemption for Encroachments of Up to a Total of Twelve (12) Inches. KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 2 REMOVE FROM CONSENT AGENDA AND SUBSTITUTE: H-6, Ordinance No. 1818-99 -- Amending the Development Requirements Table of KMC Title 14 by Adding a Provision for an Administrative Exemption for a Reduction of Up to a Total of Twelve (12j Inches from the Setback Requirements. MOTION: Councilman Bookey MOVED to remove Ordinance No. 1820-99 from the Consent agenda and place it on the regular agenda for discussion. Councilman Moore SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. Williams asked Councilman Bannock if he wanted Ordinances No. 1817-99 and 1818-99 removed from the consent agenda and substituted with Substitute Item H- 5, Ordinance No. 1817-99 and Substitute Item H-6, Ordinance No. 1818-99. Bannock answered yes. MOTION: Councilman Measles MOVED to approve the consent agenda as amended and ouncilwoman Swarner SECONDED the motion. fihere were no objections. SO RDERED. ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS B-1. Charles K. Cranston -- Kenai Peninsula Youth Court Cranston thanked council for their support of the Kenai Peninsula Youth Court and distributed information of matters the Youth Court had undertook during the year. He noted, the city's financial support helped to finance the computer update used to compile the information distributed. Cranston gave an overview of cases forwarded to them by FDYS. Tomanika Haynes-- Reported she was running for Youth Court President. She noted, she had attended two Youth Court Conferences in the past, one out-of state and one in-state. In attending those conferences, she learned how youth courts work out of state and added, their organization had been making changes to their constitution through what they learned at the conferences. Cranston added, over 100 youth had been trained for Youth Court since their first year. The first National Youth Court Conference was scheduled to be held in Anchorage on May 11-13, 1999. Their organization would like to send five of their students to Anchorage for the conference. Costs for transportation and tuition would KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 7 would be out-of--town and unable to attend the meeting. Councilman Bannock offered to attend the meeting for Measles. D-3. Harbor Commission Councilman Bookey reported the next meeting was scheduled for April 12. D-4. Library Commission Councilman Moore reported the Library Commission met on Apri16 at which time they were given a presentation of the preliminary report on the Library survey. He noted, although the results were being compiled, many of those included in the report shadowed the City's survey. Moore also reported the Commission passed a motion to recommend a ~ 10.00 fee be charged for inter-library loans for non- residents. He noted, because the City of Kenai was the only library in the area that didn't charge for inter-library loans, people from out of the city come to Kenai to use the inter-library loan program. Moore noted, the new library director was en route. He also reminded council and the audience of the reception for volunteers scheduled for Apri120. D-5. Parks 8~ Recreation Commission Councilman Frazer reported the next Commission meeting was scheduled for April 15. D-6. Planning & Zoning Commission Councilman Bannock reported the minutes of the last two Commission meetings were included in the packet. He noted, during the March 24 meeting, properties in the Salty Dog Heights Subdivision were determined not needed for public purpose. He explained, the properties were out of the city and had come into city ownership through foreclosure proceedings. Bannock also reported the Commission discussed building setbacks/administrative exemptions which evolved into ordinances before council at H-5 and H-6 on the agenda. He noted, he requested the ordinances be taken off the council's consent agenda and substituted in order for the ordinances to go to the Commission for review prior to council's public hearings. D-7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees D-7a. Beautification Committee Councilwoman Swarner reported the next Committee meeting was scheduled for April 13 at 5:30. She noted a work session would be held prior to the meeting. Swarner also reported there were flowers growing in the greenhouse. Also, the Teen 1 KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 9 ITEM H: NEW BUSINESS H-1. Bills to be Paid, Bills to be Ratified MOTION: Councilman Bookey MOVED to pay the bills and Councilman Measles SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. H-2. Purchase Orders Exceeding $2,500 MOTION: Councilman Measles MOVED for approval of the purchase orders exceeding X2,500 and Councilman Bookey SECONDED the motion. Swarner questioned the purchase order to Attorney Haggart. City Attorney Graves explained, X50,000 had been budgeted. Of that, ~ 17,000 had been used. He noted, he had been processing purchase orders in smaller increments in order to better track the costs. Bookey asked if Graves anticipated an end to the litigation. Graves explained, he hoped a proposal to disburse funds would be brought to council for review at their next meeting. If the proposal is approved by the bank and council, it would then go to the firustees for review. The Trustees have indicated their approval to go ahead with the disbursement plan if the council and bank approve the plan. H-3. Ordinance No. 1815-99 -- Amending Kenai Municipal Code, Chapter 8.05.010 to Adopt the Latest Editions of the National Fire Codes and the Uniform Fire Code. Introduced by consent agenda. H-4. Ordinance No. 1816-99 -- Finding that Certain City-Owned Land Described as That Portion of the West 1/2 Southeast 1/4, Southeast 1/4 and the East 1/2 Southwest 1/4, Southeast 1/4, Section 33, Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska is Not Required for a Public Purpose for the City of Kenai and Can Be Donated to the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Introduced by consent agenda. H-5. Ordinance No. 1817-99 -- Amending KMC 14.20.185 By Adding a Section Which Would Provide for an Administrative Exemption for Encroachments of Up to a Total of Twelve (12) Inches. (Ordinance No. 1817-99 was removed from the consent agenda and substituted at the. beginning of the meeting.) KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 10 MOTION: Councilman Bannock MOVED for introduction of Ordinance No. 1817-99 marked H- 5 Substitute and Councilman Measles SECONDED the motion. Bannock explained the difference between the original ordinance and substitute was in Item No. 1. The substitute ordinance would allow administration to give up to a 12-inch exemption without going to the Commission. He noted, the Commission had some concern with a 12-inch exemption because there have been scenarios when there is only five feet involved to start and if the entire exemption is used in a five- foot setback, it would be using 20% of the setback. Bannock continued, the Commission also discussed a ten percent exemption. It was noted ten percent of a 20-foot setback would be two feet. He added, the Commission discussed an exemption could not exceed 12 inches, and at the same time not exceed ten percent of the standard setback. Bannock noted, this would only be a tool and not a rubber stamp. There were safeguards included in the ordinance. An applicant for an encroachment would have the ability to go to the Commission for an exemption if the administrative official ruled against it. He noted, he requested the ordinance to be substituted and introduced in order for the Commission to review it at their April 14 meeting; prior to the ordinance going to public hearing at the Apri121 council meeting. Williams stated, the substitute ordinance was basically his intent when he suggested the 12" figure and noted there may need to be anot-to-exceed amount included for side setbacks. He commended the Commission for recognizing this issue. There were no public comments. VOTE: Councilman Measles requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. H-6. Ordinance No. 1818-99 -- Amending the Development Requirements Table of KMC Title 14 by Adding a Provision for an Administrative Exemption for a Reduction of Up to a Total of Twelve (12) Inches From the Setback Requirements. MOTION: Councilman Bannock MOVED for introduction of Ordinance No. 1818-99 labeled H-6 Substitute and Councilman Moore SECONDED the motion. KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 11 Bannock explained, his reasoning for the substitute was the same, except Ordinance No. 1818-99 related to variances instead of encroachments. Measles questioned the ability to give an administrative exemption without notification of adjacent property owners. Attorney Graves explained, under this ordinance, the adjacent property owners would not be required. Graves referred to the Code and verified notification of adjacent property owners was required for standard variance applications. Measles asked what guidelines administration would use in granting or denying a variance exemption. He noted his concern there would not be notification to adjacent property owners. Graves explained, the guidelines stated in the ordinance was that the variance would need to meet the purpose of the standards set forth in the Development Requirements Table. He noted, those were not a firm set of requirements. The remedy would be either to appeal a denial by the administrative official or apply for a regular variance and go through the regular process. Measles noted, more discussion would take place at the public hearing, however he was concerned the ordinance would make it easier to get a variance and to reduce setbacks on property lines. Building Official Springer explained, the ordinance would be used if a person wanted to build a house on a small-sized lot and to build the size house they wanted on the lot, they would come into a situation where they were a few inches short of having the house fit the lot. Williams asked if Springer had experienced occasions when a foundation was already set and due to misalignment of block, a house built with a two to three-inch encroachment. Springer answered yes, however that would be an encroachment and not a variance (a variance is requested prior to building, an encroachment is requested after construction) . VOTE: Councilman Measles requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. H-?. Ordinance No. 1819-99 -- Finding That Certain City-Owned Lands, Described as Six Lots in Salty Dog Heights Subdivision Located in Sterling, Are Not Required for a Public Purpose. Introduced by consent agenda. H-8. Ordinance No. 1820-99 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by ~ 114,000 for the South Spruce Street Parking Project. Removed from consent agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Di scu ssi nn Administration noted the street name was incorrect and would be bringing that to the attention of the Borough and surveyor before it is finalized. VOTE: Bryson Yes Nord Yes Erwin Yes Goecke Yes Glick Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ` Councilman Bannock suggested that since the consideration had passed, the Commission might want to direct Administration to go back to the Conditional Use Permit and change the- legal description because the description would probably change. Kebschull noted this was a problem that happens often; the City now files everything by street address because there are constant changes then the parcel number catches up. 5. NEW BUSINESS -Considered under Consent Agenda. b. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion -- Ordinance No. 1817-99 (Substitute] and Ordinance 1818-99 ~Substitutej -Administrative exemptions for encroachments and setbacks. Bannock related the City Attorney had drafted the new ordinance regarding encroachment permits based on the Commission's recommendations. The ordinance was slated for public hearing at the 4/ 21 / 99 council meeting. The Commission unanimously agreed they were satisfied with the wording and thanked Bannock for letting them review the ordinance. 7. CODE ENFORCEMENT -None 8. REPORTS a. City Council Councilman Bannock directed the Commission to the Agenda of the Council meeting of March 31, 1999. PLANNING 8v ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE 7 Borough was established, the schools were transferred to the Borough. It was found recently, the property had not been transferred. The ordinance would correct that omission. VOTE: Bookey: Yes Swarner: Yes Moore: Yes ' Measles: Yes Bannock: Yes Frazer: Yes Williams: Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. C-3. Ordinance No. 1817-99 -- Amending KMC 14.20.185 by Adding a Section Which Would Provide for an Administrative Exemption for Encroachments of Up to a Total of Twelve (12j Inches. MOTION: Councilman Bannock MOVED for adoption of Ordinance No. 1817-99 and Councilman Bookey SECONDED the motion. There were no public comments. Bannock reported the Planning 8~ Zoning Commission had no additional comments in regard to the ordinance. Swarner stated she would not support the ordinance because she felt the current code was working well in dealing with encroachments. Williams stated he believed the objective of the ordinance was to make the process easier for administration and the general public. City Engineer La Shot stated he and the Building Official believed, with this change in the code, minor concerns would be able to be dealt with easier. He added, problems with encroachments were not always intentional and they believed the code change would ease the process for the public and administration. Moore asked if an adj acent property owner would have any recourse if a property owner is granted an exemption without a public hearing. Bannock answered, every decision made by administration would be subject to an appeal to the Board of Adjustment or the judicial system (after the appeal to the Board of Adjustment, depending on the outcome of the appeal] . Moore asked if the adjacent property owner would be notified the exemption was going to be given administratively. La Shot answered, not the way the amendment was written. Bookey stated he was concerned this ordinance would eliminate an adjoining property owner to have any recourse because they would not receive any notification of the filing or the exemption. Williams asked if council wanted to recommend a sentence be added to the ordinance stating the administration would notify adjoining property owners of the administrative decision to allow an encroachment. Bookey stated, he believed something would need to be done because he would not support the ordinance as it was written. KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1999 PAGE 5 Bannock stated, notification would defeat the purpose of having the administrative exemption. He added, if council did not want to give administration the authority to make an exemption, council should vote the ordinance down. Bannock added, the ordinance was not allowing a drastic departure from the norm because the Commission reviews many issues that would fall under this ordinance. The ordinance was developed to speed the process and eliminate the ~ 100 fee. Bookey asked if a property owner is given an exemption for five inches, would it impact the future construction of a building on the adjacent lot. Williams noted, the owner of the adjacent property would have the same ability to request afive-inch exemption as the other property owner. Moore asked who of the administration would have the authority to grant the exemption. He noted, this was a question brought forward by Councilman Measles at the last council meeting. Williams noted, if administration was not wanting to make an exemption, the question could be taken to the Planning 8~ Zoning Commission. He added, the issue was how to be assured any official in the future would be sufficiently honest to ensure there would be no conflict in granting an exemption. Frazer asked if an administrative exemption like this would be in the same vein as a building inspector deciding whether a structure is within the code, etc. It would be the same official granting the exemption. Ross stated, it was his understanding the administrative exemption could be used when the as-built showed there was a problem. He added, these would not be exemptions done in advance. Ross noted, the owner could be waiting up to six weeks for an exemption when the exemption would be for only a few inches. Bannock stated Ross was correct and asked Attorney Graves to read KMC 14.25.085(d). He added, an encroachment solves financing problems. Graves read, "...The Planning Department shall submit the application of the Planning Commission for review and public hearing. The Planning Commission shall establish a finding that all the conditions set forth in subsections 1 though 4 of this section have been found to exist before issuing an encroachment permit. One, that an encroachment as defined in KMC 14.20.125(a) exists; two, that the encroachment does not encroach upon a federal, state or city right-of--way or utility easement; three, the issuance of the encroachment permit will not authorize a use which is not a principle permitted use in the zoning district in which the property is located; or four, the encroachment is not located across a platted lot line." Graves added, the term administrative official was used in the ordinance because it was a term of art in the code, i.e. a defined term, meaning the person charged with administration and enforcement of the chapter. He added, it was basically the person the city manager designated with enforcement of the Planning 8~ Zoning law. Currently, it was the building inspector. KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1999 PAGE 6 Barry Eldridge -- 2679 Bowpicker Lane, Kenai. Eldridge stated he recently had to ,~ re uest an encroachment for a Habitat for Humanit house which was not lined u q Y p as originally desired. The encroachment was 1.2 inches toward the street. They paid the fee and went before Planning 8~ Zoning and the encroachment was granted. Eldridge stated, it seemed to be a lot of burden on the homeowner for an unintentional error. He believed the ordinance satisfied the needs and noted, an encroachment would not be able to be more than six inches on a side setback and 12" on a front setback. Eldridge added, he didn't think neighbors would have a concern about so small an encroachment. Moore stated he would support the administrative exemption if the neighbors were notified about the exemption. MOTION TO AMEND: Councilman Moore MOVED to add a requirement that the adjoining property owner be notified of the granting of the administrative exemption. THERE WAS NO SECOND. Ross asked Graves if an administrative remedy could be conditioned on consent knowing if it was not received, the applicant would have to apply to the Commission for the exemption. Graves answered, neighbors could not be offered veto powers of zoning. He offered suggested language, "The Administrative Official, after notifying adjoining property owners, may grant an encroachment permit without a public hearing..." Moore stated, he didn't want the neighbor to have veto power, but wanted the neighbor to know at the time of the application for exemption to go to the building official or council and object to the exemption. Ross asked, if the neighbor is opposed, what would be the opposing neighbors' remedy. Measles stated, he would rather put the burden on the applicant and not on the administration, i.e. if an applicant wants an administrative decision on an encroachment, the applicant would need to bring a letter from each of the neighbors who would be affected by the encroachment, either agreeing to the exemption or disagreeing to it. He added, if there was not agreement of all the neighbors, the exemption could not be issued and the matter would go to the Commission for consideration and go through the normal process. Measles added, the problem he had with the ordinance was that it would make it too easy and would take away a lot of incentive for a builder to be careful during the initial construction. Ross asked if council would prefer to table the ordinance and have the attorney rework the wording. MOTION TO TABLE: Councilman Measles MOVED to table Ordinance No. 1817-99 and Councilwoman Swarner SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1999 PAGE 7 Williams suggested Ordinance No. 1818-99 also be tabled for rewrite. C-4, Ordinance No. 1818-99 -- Amending the Development Requirements Table of KMC Title 14 by Adding a Provision for an Administrative Exemption for a Reduction of Up to a Total of Twelve (12) Inches From the Setback Requirements. MOTION: Councilman Measles MOVED for adoption of Ordinance 1818-99 and Councilman Moore SECONDED the motion. There were no public comments. Measles stated he had more concern with this ordinance because of the lack of notification to adjacent property owners when an administrative exemption is being considered. He added, neighbors should be notified, either by letter or Planning ~ Zoning process, if administration was going to allow a building to be built larger than allowed by code. MOTION TO TABLE: Councilwoman Swarner MOVED to table Ordinance No. 1818-99 and Councilman Bookey SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. C-5. Ordinance 1819-99 -- Finding that Certain City-Owned Lands, Described as Six Lots in Salty Dog Heights Subdivision Located in Sterling, Are Not Required for a Public Purpose. MOTION: Councilman Measles MOVED for adoption of Ordinance No. 1819-99 and Councilman Bookey SECONDED the motion. There were no public comments. Ross noted, the properties were in Sterling and would be offered in the next public land sale. He also noted, the properties did not have access to the Kenai River and they were a fair distance in from the highway. VOTE: Bookey: Yes Swarner: Yes Moore: Yes Measles: Yes Bannock: Yes Frazer: Yes Williams: Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1999 PAGE 8 6. OLD BUSINESS: a. Ordinance No. 1818-99 and Ordinance 1817-99 Administrative Exemptions for setback requirements. GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE N0. 1818-99 AND 181?-99. MOTION SECONDED BY NORD. Kebschull reported Council was concerned with the ordinances regarding administrative exemptions as they felt adjacent property owners wouldn't have the opportunity to comment. The last time council reviewed the ordinance, they requested administration to revise it to require the applicant to notify the adjacent property owners of the request for administrative exemption. If no objections were received, the applicant could return for the encroachment or variance. Bannock stated he wanted to hear comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding administrative exemptions and reiterated Council was concerned adjacent property owners wouldn't have the opportunity to comment. He added, Council feared property owners would come back if they had problems with it. Goecke asked what Council was concerned about when the Building Official does a good job. He also asked why Council was reluctant to let the Building Official do his job. Bannock responded by stating the concern was with the adjacent property owners not being able to respond as there was no mechanism in place for that to happen. Nord asked if the Code could be amended to notify adjacent property owners who were 100 to 200 feet away from the property in question. Goecke indicated he would have a problem with a code change as the only properties that would be affected would be the adjacent owners. Bryson agreed with Goecke and added, if any one of the three objected, then the request would be rejected. Glick noted the ordinances were designed to make things easier for these types of variances or encroachments and this seemed to make it more difficult. Bannock stated the ordinances would allow the Building Inspector to become Planning and Zoning and this was just a shortcut to the process. Erwin stated the ordinances were an attempt to make things easier but if Council was uncomfortable with them there was no sense to go with it as everything pushed through would come back. Planning & Zoning Commission May 12,1999 Page 2 VOTE: 6 BRYSON GOECKE NEWBRY NO ERWIN NO NO NORD NO NO GLICK NO MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY. b. PZ99-10 -Preliminary Plat -Beaver Creek Lookout GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ99 -10. MOTION SECONDED BY ERWIN. Kebschull noted the applicant was in attendance to answer any questions from the Commission. Kebschull reported Administration originally required a note be placed on the plat requiring the lots maintain single ownership due to the non-conforming lot size. Miller advised the City his financial agency indicated the note requiring single ownership would not satisfy the institution's requirement to qualify for a loan. Miller submitted the plat in an attempt to obtain financing to build a home and he reiterated he had no plans to sell Lot 1. Kebschull continued, Administration recommended the note regarding Lot 1 be changed as noted in the Kenai Peninsula Borough Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 210.14.080 as that would satisfy the Borough, ADEC, and the City's concerns. Miller stated the request would separate the lots by removing the restrictions from the larger lot (Lot 2). Bryson reported the items were on the Borough's Planning agenda on May 10~ and both were recommended for approval. Bryson asked Miller if he discussed his plans with Borough personnel. Milled replied, he did not but he was aware the Borough would not change unless the City initiated it. Bryson indicated Miller would probably still have to go through the Borough. Miller answered, the item would go to the Borough for review once it was through this process. Bryson reported it was not an unusual situation for larger tracts to have such restrictions. VOTE: ERwIN YES NORD YES BRYSON YES MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. CODE ENFORCEMENT: None GOECKE YES NEWBRY YES GLICK YES Planning & Zoning Commission May 12,1999 Page 3