Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-06-10 Planning & Zoning Packet
Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 3 June 10, 2020 Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2020 ꟷ 7:00 PM Kenai City Council Chambers 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska www.kenai.city Agenda A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Consent Agenda 5. *Excused Absences *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the it em will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. *May 27, 2020 C. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker) D. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated E. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS 1. Resolution PZ2020-15 - Preliminary Subdivision Plat of Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 2020 Addition, submitted by Segesser Surveys, 30485 Rosland St., Soldotna, AK 99669, on behalf of Glen Martin, P.O. Box 1389, Soldotna, AK 99669. 2. Resolution PZ2020-16 - Preliminary Subdivision Plat of McLennan Estates Addition No. 1, submitted by Segesser Surveys, 30485 Rosland St., Soldotna, AK 99669, on behalf of Cheney and Maryann McLennan, 701 Davidson Dr., Kenai, AK 99611. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Resolution PZ2020-13 - Application for the Rezoning of two parcels adjacent to the Kenai Spur Highway and described as Tracts 1 and 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision, and located at 7344 and 7450 Kenai Spur Highway, from Rural Residential (RR) to General Page 1 Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3 June 10, 2020 Commercial (CG). The application was submitted by the majority property owner, Glen Martin, P.O. Box 1389, Soldotna, AK 99669. G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS H. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution PZ2020-17 - Request to Rename Pelchy Drive to Pelch Drive. The request was submitted by the adjacent property owner, Michael J. Pelch, Jr. 3230 Harlow Rd., Eugene, OR 97401. 2. Action/Approval - Authorizing the City Planner to Send a Letter to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Supporting a One-Year Time Extension to Finalize the Plat of Kee’s Tern Subdivision 3. Action/Approval - Application for Ten-Year Lease Renewal of City-Owned Land Within the Airport Reserve described as Lot 1A, Block 1, General Aviation Apron Subdivision No. 6 and located at 330 Main Street Loop. The application was submitted by Kenai Aviation Services, Inc. d/b/a Aviation Services, 1755 Lincoln Hill Rd. Martinsville, IN 46151. I. PENDING ITEMS J. REPORTS 1. City Council 2. Kenai Peninsula Borough 3. City Administration K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated L. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Information on Variances and Variance Standards M. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION 1. June 24, 2020 - Regular Meeting N. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS O. ADJOURNMENT The agenda and supporting documents are posted on the City’s website at www.kenai.city. For additional information, please contact the Planning and Zoning Department at 907-283-8237. Virtual Participation (join Zoom meeting): https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84974323132 Meeting ID: 849 7432 3132 Password: 357836 Page 2 Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3 June 10, 2020 OR Telephonic Participation: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 Meeting ID: 849 7432 3132 Password: 357836 Page 3 File Attachments for Item: *May 27, 2020 Page 4 KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 27, 2020 – 7:00 P.M. KENAI CITY HALL 210 FIDALGO AVENUE, KENAI, ALASKA CHAIR JEFF TWAIT, PRESIDING MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair J. Twait called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance Commission Chair J. Twait led those assembled in the Pledge of the Allegiance. 2. Roll Call Commissioners present: J. Twait, D. Fikes, V. Askin, T. McIntyre, G. Greenberg, J. Halstead Commissioners absent: R. Springer Staff/Council Liaison present: City Planner E. Appleby, Deputy Clerk J. LaPlante, Council Liaison H. Knackstedt A quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval MOTION: Commissioner Halstead MOVED to approve the agenda and Commissioner Askin SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED. 4. Consent Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Askin MOVED to approve the consent agenda and Commissioner Halstead SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED. *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 5. *Excused absences – R. Springer Page 5 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4 May 27, 2020 B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. *May 13, 2020 The minutes were approved by the Consent Agenda. C. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT – None. D. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT – None. E. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS 1. Resolution PZ2020-10 - Preliminary Subdivision Plat of Baron Park 2020 Replat, submitted by Segesser Surveys, 30485 Rosland St., Soldotna AK 99669, on behalf of City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Ave., Kenai, AK 99611 MOTION: Commissioner Halstead MOVED to approve Resolution PZ2020 -10 and Commissioner Askin SECONDED the motion. The staff report was reviewed as provided in the packet and it was recommended the preliminary plat of Baron Park 2020 Replat be approved with the condition that further development of the property shall conform to all federal, State of Alaska, and local regulations. Chair Twait opened the floor for public testimony; there being no one wishing to be heard, public comment was closed. It was noted the progress had been successful; the location, creation and maintenance of the dog park was great. It was clarified that the City of Kenai would ultimately be responsible for maintaining the dog park while a large volunteer community was assisting in the maintenance of it. VOTE: YEA: Greenberg, McIntyre, Halstead, Fikes, Askin, Twait NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Resolution PZ2020-14 - Preliminary Subdivision Plat of Newton-Segura Subdivision, submitted by Segesser Surveys, 30485 Rosland St., Soldotna AK 99669, on behalf of Frank D. and Marilyn K. Newton, 260 Juliussen St., Kenai, AK 99611 and Peggy A. Segura, 270 Juliussen St., Kenai, AK 99611 MOTION: Commissioner Fikes MOVED to approve Resolution PZ2020-14 and Commissioner Askin SECONDED the motion. Page 6 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 4 May 27, 2020 The City Planner provided the staff report noting the plat lots access was from Juliussen Street which was attached to Beaver Loop Road and it was paved and would later be maintained by the City of Kenai. It was recommended that the preliminary plat be approved with the following conditions: • Further development of the property shall conform to all federal, State of Alaska, and local regulations; and • Remove plat note 4 because the City will be taking over Beaver Loop Road and there will not be adjacent State maintained right-of-way; renumber remaining plat notes to continue sequentially to have notes 1 through 7. VOTE: YEA: Fikes, McIntyre, Askin, Greenberg, Twait, Halstead NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None. G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None. H. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion - Kenai Municipal Code 14.20.180(c)(2) - Review Criteria for Variances It was clarified that this discussion item was requested due to the variance permit granted at the last Commission meeting for the property of 2392 Redoubt Avenue in Kenai, regarding maximum lot coverage. The City Planner noted that the City Attorney could provide historical information regarding the property and it as determined that the special conditions or circumstances of that property were not actions caused by the applicant. I. PENDING ITEMS – None. J. REPORTS 1. City Council – Council Member Knackstedt reported on the actions from the May 20 City Council meeting. 2. Borough Planning – No report. 3. Administration – City Planner Appleby reported on the following: • The City of Kenai Incident Management Team was finalizing protocols for the change in upcoming Council and Commission meetings and the option for in- person/virtual hybrid meetings or stay with the full virtual meeting format; • City Hall has been opened for appointments only; • She attended a virtual meeting organized by the Borough to bring Regional Planners together; noting it was a nice opportunity for collaboration; Page 7 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4 May 27, 2020 • Met with the Kenai Historical Society about security cameras at the historical cabins; a grant was received and it is hoped to have cameras installed before the end of the summer; • The City is taking steps to clean up vacant lots covering a portion of the Black Gold Estates Subdivision off of Alpine Drive, including removal of trash and junk vehicles; and • The Community Library was continuing curbside pickup of books with a limited opening on June 1. K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT – None. L. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – None. M. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION – June 10 , 2020 N. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS It was the consensus of the Commission that meeting in-person was preferred. O. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Minutes prepared and submitted by: ____________________________ Jacquelyn LaPlante Deputy City Clerk Page 8 File Attachments for Item: Resolution PZ2020-15 - Preliminary Subdivision Plat of Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 2020 Addition, submitted by Segesser Surveys, 30485 Rosland St., Soldotna, AK 99669, on behalf of Glen Martin, P.O. Box 1389, Soldotna, AK 99669. Page 9 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner DATE: June 5, 2020 SUBJECT: PZ2020-15 – Preliminary Plat - Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 2020 Addition Applicant: Glen Martin P.O. Box 1389 Soldotna, AK 99669 Submitted By: Segesser Surveys. 30485 Rosland St. Soldotna, AK 99669 Requested Action: Preliminary Subdivision Plat – Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 2020 Addition Legal Description: Tract 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision Property Address: 7344 Kenai Spur Highway KPB Parcel No: 04103056 Lot Size: 6.556 acres (approximately 285,754 square feet) Existing Zoning: Rural Residential (RR) Current Land Use: Vacant Land Use Plan: Mixed Use Page 10 Page 2 of 3 GENERAL INFORMATION Segesser Surveys has submitted a preliminary plat on behalf of Glen Martin, the property owner. The plat affects the parcel described as Tract 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision. The preliminary plat shows that the owner is subdividing an approximately 6.566 acre parcel (Tract 2) into two smaller parcels to be described as Tract 2A and 2B, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 2020 Addition. Tract 2A is approximately 3.082 acres (134,252 square feet), and Tract 2B is approximately 3.484 acres (151,763 square feet). Application, Public Notice, Public Comment KMC 14.10.010 General under Chapter 14.10 Subdivision Regulations states preliminary plats or replats must first be submitted to the City for review prior to the submittal of the plat to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department. Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) 14.10.060 describes the process in more detail. The plat will be reviewed first by the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission and then by the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Plat Committee and Planning Commission. The property owners completed the City of Kenai preliminary plat submittal form. The City of Kenai follows Kenai Peninsula Borough Code 20.25.070 and 20.25.080 for preliminary plat submittal requirements. City staff published notice of the consideration of the plat as part of the agenda for the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission in the Peninsula Clarion. No public comments have been received as of June 5, 2020. ANALYSIS The proposed tracts are adjacent to the right-of-way for the Kenai Spur Highway, which is a paved road maintained by the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation. Plat note number seven (7) on the proposed plat provides that “no private access to State maintained rights-of-way permitted unless approved by the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation.” It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain the appropriate permit from the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation to access the tracts from the Kenai Spur Highway. The proposed plat does not dedicate any additional rights-of-way. A gravel pad is shown on the plat that is not on the aerial imagery. The applicant acknowledged that a building may not be constructed over the new property line and must meet setback requirements in Kenai Municipal Zoning Code. The applicant has requested the City rezone this parcel (existing Tract 2 and proposed Tract 2A and 2B) from Rural Residential (RR) to General Commercial (CG). Plat note three (3) states development must meet requirements in Kenai Municipal Zoning Code. City of Kenai water and sewer lines are not available to the proposed subdivision. The property owner must install private wells and septic systems approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. An installation agreement is not required. Plat note number ten (10) on the proposed plat addresses wastewater disposal on the property. The note provides that the soil conditions, water table levels, and soil slopes in this subdivision have been found suitable for conventional onsite wastewater systems serving single-family or duplex residences. Any other type of onsite wastewater treatment and disposal system must be designed by a professional Page 11 Page 3 of 3 engineer, and the design must be approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. A fifteen-foot (15’) easement for utilities is located along the property lines adjacent to the right- of-way for the Kenai Spur Highway. A section line easement is located along the eastern edge of Tract 2B and Plat note eight (8) references a Homer Electric Association easement. Plat Note six (6) indicates that portions of this subdivision are within the Kenai Peninsula 50-foot Anadromous Street Habitat Protection Area are subject to Chapter 21.18 Borough Code of Ordinances for restrictions that affect development of this subdivision. An anadromous stream passes through the eastern edge of Tract 2B and is identified in the Alaska Department of Fish & Game Anadromous Waters Catalog. Areas of inundation are shown for Tract 2B on the plat. Extraneous text should be deleted from this plat note that was inadvertently copied from plat note four (4). Staff recommends adding “as may be amended” to the Borough Code reference in plat note six (6) to match another recently approved plat within the City of Kenai referencing the same Borough Code. The preliminary plat meets requirements of KMC Subdivision design standards and KMC 14.10.080 Minimum improvements required under Chapter 14.10 Subdivision Regulations. City staff recommends conditions of approval for the property to conform to all federal, State of Alaska, and local regulations and for plat note six (6) to be amended to delete extraneous text and to note the Borough Code referenced may be amended. RECOMMENDATIONS City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 2020 Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Further development of the property shall conform to all federal, State of Alaska, and local regulations. 2. Plat note six (6) will be amended to read as follows: 6) Portions of this subdivision are within the Kenai Peninsula Borough 50-foot Anadromous Stream Habitat Protection Area. See Chapter 21.18 Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinance, as may be amended, for restrictions that affect development of this subdivision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. PZ2020-15 2. Application 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Aerial Map Page 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING THAT HOLLAND SPUR HIGHWAY SUBDIVISON 2020 ADDITION ATTACHED HERETO BE APPROVED WHEREAS, the City of Kenai received the plat from Segesser Surveys, Incorporated; and, WHEREAS, the plat meets Municipal Code requirements of the Rural Residential Zone; and, WHEREAS, street names are referenced correctly; and, WHEREAS, the plat grants a fifteen-foot (15”) utility easement adjacent to the right-of-way of the Kenai Spur Highway; and WHEREAS, the plat will not change the existing access to the properties; and, WHEREAS, an installation agreement is not required; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds: 1. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 14.10.070 Subdivision design standards, the plat conforms to the minimum street widths, easements are sufficiently provided for utilities, the proposed lots would be arranged to provide satisfactory and desirable building sites, and the preliminary plat meets standards for water and wastewater. 2. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 14.10.080 Minimum improvements required, there is adequate access and facilities available to the proposed parcel. An installation agreement is not required. 3. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 14.24.010 Minimum lot area requirements, the proposed lots meets City standards for minimum lot sizes. 4. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 14.24.020 General Requirements, the proposed lots meet City standards for minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, maximum height, and setbacks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA: Section 1. That the preliminary plat of Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 2020 Addition be approved subject to the following conditions: Page 13 Resolution No. PZ2020-15 Page 2 of 2 1. Further development of the property shall conform to all federal, State of Alaska, and local regulations. 2. Plat note six (6) will be amended to read as follows: 6) Portions of this subdivision are within the Kenai Peninsula Borough 50- foot Anadromous Stream Habitat Protection Area. See Chapter 21.18 Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinance, as may be amended, for restrictions that affect development of this subdivision. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 10th day of June, 2020. JEFF TWAIT, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________________ JAMIE HEINZ, CITY CLERK Page 14 C ity o f Kena i J C? Planning and Z o ning Depart ment Preliminary Plat 210 Fida lgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Submittal Form (9 07) 283-8200 planrnng@ kenar.cr t y www.kenai.ci ty/planni ng r.r-;J•TlfrK.!.~~.nrr~"'11la•J~I] Name: Segesser Surveys Inc Mailing Address: 30485 Rosland St City: I Soldotna State : IAK IZip Code : 199669 Phone Number(s): 907-262-3909 Email: seggy@ptialaska.net ~·1·,·J~1=:~ Name: Glen Martin Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1389 City: !Soldotna State: IAK IZip Code : 199669 Phone Number(s): 907-252-5326 Email : ~~tl::~1'.f·~l[th'I Property Owner Name : !Glen Martin Current City Zoning: Use: D Residential D Recreational Ill Commercial D Other: Water: l!l On Site D City D Community Sewer: l!I On Site D City D Community [iJ1!jlj' lfil?': t l ".' l U ~ l Ht 1 ~ I Preliminary Plat Name: Revised Preliminary Plat Name: Vacation of Public Right-of-Way: DYes Iii No Street Name (if vacating ROW): Exceptions Required and Requested: ------- Comments: t<~Ll::.IVl:.U CITY OF KENAI DA TE ~-26--lo2.6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ !J ·1=w ·\ -r,:,!j l'J:::i~.Jikj ~ Certificate to Plat -/) ~ (1) 24" x 36" Plat ~ (2) 11" x 17" Plats //// // '!hl)rl .,- Signature: ~/1---~ ~~I_ljA.-I Date : I :.; -7-_e>-{).o Print Name: "; J,..;;H-~ C:...h ,e;:;..1~.se'!-ITitle/Business: f),~t o ~r /. c:;~ ~-~' Page 15 ~ 'l 1fl" 8$'4S$ :A/" Q.O WOH 11)? rQ.IHO @ ~/a-N:tMt •/M»M CW •026-t 1C10 fOIJM!) 0 )/e" M:l,c.lt •flV,$'tre, CAP t$&Mo9 $(1 ( ) #l!"CIORO :M.1\M Pi.A' 20t'l-te 40 1)8cs1sot~t(llttnJiomSc...~·~l"Gr1flittt.~1t.) .. 17J, i(tltleli ltecatd'of!O 04\rkl 1) '""'"• ~_..Id'"-•rlt'•tr el'IOll fv'qnon lo "" teuerol !i11u of MOlho, ~llkflf(~l.oO"--- J) o.~ .. 1 -u ,.,...-, co.1 ol l(..w.i ~·• u :zo,._,.. •~,,.,,.•t.. 4) "'!' otOM"t;> ~ aiO)fo<.1 10 0 ttwr\IO"Wl'I •' toMl"lelll ~ flltf\...,. ~L OMd ... 1 ~fll1 (II llM't l ... .o• '°' leveo1ienca, 11t4•l1 « Ol"lt p11~ Ol ~OJ P\Alllc. l ... OIO. M~ I01, <Md ~OtO tt; ?W.c lOllCS Orelf!'t ~Wt 151 o"4 1&,) er>d Ofo<ir'll'l'lent Orclt:1 fli.ll•"bfr 166~ ~-NWTIMP" 1 ~· £r<lfll'<M.,_I ~ ......... , l'l••to,. f.I•,.""' r'6er111t••• $) :h"or#'IOllO!I '°" 1 .... Jl.ff'>CI ~ ~.Cy """ '°''" trOl'I ~ol• 0C No'....o ~:lf'1-lof fr~~l~;cw.<:tld ~ rotJ.lct ft~'ll o! way.-ap I« ho.,ec:t !liG. f-Ott•l(f) tlloM-1 If C>l 1J. &) Poo-IMI• oc lh;.. '"~Ml'! O'e • "'"' t!l<I 1(-,;1 P..r-""° ~ •~t Al!Od!~• $tr.cni "clll•lcrt f'rott<lloll Alto. S.. QI,.,~., t'-18 WOooO'\ coo. 01 Crdfwwlc:H "-'""ot'liOM t'lltl otftrt ~"'' o! lhl•~ 2"~ Mi~l~!Mr I Co'>d ~ .. , ~ 2 f!o.ett'tG. f.le!! ~ l"ul (e611ol'.tQdl'et' 7) t.~ ,.. •• en• otetlft l.o ~lol• molr!10,.c ltOW'• ~•1t4'0 Ul'll•• QllPI'°""" i.r '"" S'ole .. A~c o.oorw .. t o! TrGn.-ttll»'I. 9) :: ::'fatc1':c ~.c.=· :,:ro: 1:·t:.·:-rc:;·,~.(::t• lt~Oal•od 9) rr~l t) iffl OCI~\ ~o f'f~OI'·~ It cH• o 11\jl..tf ~I 'Co P•""'°"*"'l IU\IC~wrc .... k C:Otoatr.i<!to Of~ •!Jlllt G utloi1-eo1t -"-<ft.o..ff ... l«l•lfl-<•nt°"Olllllll1Gfv .. til>'l)'tolilM11"T~I 10) wAS'!f»AJ?! P!F'SWM • ,._ ~t. •I>!., tOCll• .. ......_ °"° to1 ~ .. tti!" -.iw.'lOl"1 ~ ~ '°""' ... ltllbl• t" (01 .. •t~l.ot!ol or>-.llt ""'e.oot., tt.o~ one d,.:icno1 ),,,_1_ -*'G ~0!4-tol!IJir ........ ,_._ °"" _,, ..... ~ •119-1"""1 ''41 .... _,, .. tN lo(-p_..~ lor9119"1-Mr$-'! .... f)94 c.' o->PI• •'Ot'lt•Vt• V~tf\1 010 ~ .,.,_ .,...,.., ••~•to oto••n.,.. "'"~· tf?;'Wt'd \o P!'OCt<• "I MIN, or>d ll'le 4e•.qn f'lt.4.t bt GWllOW-C bi l'lc-.-.~ ~1-t of tr.W00"1 .. t0' ('~wc:IO'I SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE i l>el''°I' Cert·f)' tt>o\ I V" propt!f'!I t~1C"'H crta l«l"MG le Ct<octl(• ..,_. -~ itl ,,.. S!•I• o1 Nvwo. 11\:s "'4rt •'P'c:w-U 1 _..., ~-, "" IJ1' W'>dtr 111r11t«4 ....,.._. ,,....._..,,,......,,'*"""°"'._,..,..,as~ ... o ctll""-'•lottlO'OC!Wltf CttMO't«itf•tl .... __ _ KN 2011-68 Troct 1 KN 2008-.30 Tract Al V!CfNITY MAP 1° • I lrlJLt CERTIEICATE or OWNERSHIP and PEPJCATION NOTARY'S ACKNOWJ,E:DGEMENT "OT-.~ ll'Vill.IC (Qllt A4ASl!A M'I' ~~ (lclt~ts---- PLAT APPROVAL ~1'1$ "-AT ¥1'4$ ~ovtO llf Tl< l{'!fW ,.,-__.,~ ~ ~Nl"IG(Ql.l.lill$$.IOf"ii\1 Tt!Clolt'rtON>:" KPB FJLE No Holland Spur IUghway SUbdJv1s1on 2020 Addition t.OC.CU:O •·Ill~ 1,.. St/1 $1/1 !n/• ht.t/4 s.tt.oM J). l~ .-it11o Su Cir ol f(«>OI,. (ttlf)i Ptti~ Soto..>q!I. A ..... ~·-~o.S56Ac-..,..,.. Scgess~r Surve:ys 3046$ Rosia.ad St. Soldotna, AX 9986"9 1907 ui-3909 .,..... Cltn Wo.rUn P.O Bo.-1389 Soldot.n•, -'l .. k• ~801.l SC•l.l ''"" Page 16 Parcel 04103056 7344 Kenai Spur Highway Tract 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 04103056 KENAI SPUR HWY .Data Source: Kenai Peninsula Borough. Data is for graphic representation only. Imagery may not match true parcel boundaries. Date: May 2020 LEGEND Parcels Amended by Preliminary Plat 04020 Feet Aerial Map Preliminary Plat: Holland Spur Highway Subdivision 2020 Addition Page 17 File Attachments for Item: 2. Resolution PZ2020-16 - Preliminary Subdivision Plat of McLennan Estates Addition No. 1, submitted by Segesser Surveys, 30485 Rosland St., Soldotna, AK 99669, on behalf of Cheney and Maryann McLennan, 701 Davidson Dr., Kenai, AK 99611. Page 18 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner DATE: June 5, 2020 SUBJECT: PZ2020-16 – Preliminary Plat – McLennan Estates Addition No. 1 Applicant: Cheney and Maryann McLennan 701 Davidson St. Kenai, AK 99611 Submitted By: Segesser Surveys. 30485 Rosaland St. Soldotna, AK 99669 Requested Action: Preliminary Subdivision Plat – McLennan Estates Addition No. 1 Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, McLennan Estates Property Address: 701 Davidson Street and 601 Davidson Street KPB Parcel No: 04519049 and 04519050 Lot Size: 2.65 acres (approximately 115,434 square feet) and 1.90 acres (approximately 82,764 square feet) Existing Zoning: Suburban Residential (RS) Current Land Use: Residences Land Use Plan: Suburban Residential GENERAL INFORMATION Segesser Surveys submitted a preliminary plat on behalf of Cheney and Maryanne McLennan. The plat affects the parcels described as Lots 1 and 2, McLennan Estates. The preliminary plat shows that the owner is reconfiguring two lots (Lots 1 and 2) into three smaller lots (Lots 1A, 2A, and 3). Lot 1A comprises 2.537 acres (approximately 110,512 square feet); Lot 2A comprises Page 19 Page 2 of 3 1.572 acres (approximately 68,476 square feet); and Lot 3 comprises 0.924 acres (approximately 40,249 square feet). There are residences located on the proposed Lots 2A and 3. Lot 2 formerly held both residences; the preliminary plat divides the two residences into separate parcels. Application, Public Notice, Public Comment KMC 14.10.010 General under Chapter 14.10 Subdivision Regulations states preliminary plats or replats must first be submitted to the City for review prior to the submittal of the plat to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department. Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) 14.10.060 describes the process in more detail. The plat will be reviewed first by the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission and then by the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Plat Committee and Planning Commission. The property owners completed the City of Kenai preliminary plat submittal form. The City of Kenai follows Kenai Peninsula Borough Code 20.25.070 and 20.25.080 for preliminary plat submittal requirements. City staff published notice of the consideration of the plat as part of the agenda for the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission in the Peninsula Clarion. No public comments have been received as of June 5, 2020. ANALYSIS Access to the proposed lots is via Davidson Drive which is a gravel road that is maintained by the City of Kenai. The proposed plat does not dedicate any additional rights-of-way. The property owner is connected to City of Kenai water and sewer services. The connection for the services is located in the residence on the proposed Lot 2A and a line runs from this residence to the residence on the proposed Lot 3. The connection to the residence on the proposed Lot 3 would cross the property line between the two lots and is not allowed by Municipal Code. The property owner must install a separate water and sewer connection to the residence located on the proposed Lot 3. Proposed Lot 3 would likely be able to meet Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation requirements for a well and septic system and the residence on proposed Lot 2A would remain on City water and sewer. The parcels are not required to be connected to City water and sewer. An installation agreement will be required for the capping of the water, sewer and electrical lines to the proposed Lot 3. The plat will not be recorded until the property owner and the City have an installation agreement in place. The applicant is aware of and amenable to these requirements and has started consultation with the City Planner, Building Inspector, and Public Works Director for an installation agreement. City staff recommends a condition of approval of the plat be the requirement for the installation agreement. Plat note number ten (10) addresses wastewater disposal on the property. The note provides that the soil conditions, water table levels, and soil slopes in this subdivision have been found suitable for conventional onsite wastewater systems serving single-family or duplex residences. Any other type of onsite wastewater treatment and disposal system must be designed by a professional engineer, and the design must be approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. A fifteen-foot (15’) easement for utilities is located along the property lines adjacent to the right-of-way for Davidson Drive and the Kenai Spur Highway. The preliminary plat meets requirements of KMC Subdivision design standards and KMC 14.10.080 Minimum improvements required under Chapter 14.10 Subdivision Regulations. City Page 20 Page 3 of 3 staff recommends a condition of approval for the property to conform to all federal, State of Alaska, and local regulations and for an installation agreement to be finalized prior to the recording of the plat. RECOMMENDATIONS City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of McLennan Estates Addition No. 1, subject to the following conditions: 1. Further development of the property shall conform to all federal, State of Alaska, and local regulations. 2. Prior to the plat being recorded, the property owner must enter into an installation agreement with the City of Kenai to meet requirements for the water, sewer, and electrical lines serving the proposed Lot 3. 3. Denote the width of Davidson Drive on the face of the plat. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. PZ2020-16 2. Application 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Aerial Map Page 21 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING THAT MCLENNAN ESTATES ADDITION NO. 1 ATTACHED HERETO BE APPROVED WHEREAS, the City of Kenai received the plat from Segesser Surveys, Incorporated; and, WHEREAS, the plat meets Municipal Code requirements of the Suburban Residential Zone; and, WHEREAS, street names are referenced correctly; and, WHEREAS, the plat grants a fifteen-foot (15”) utility easement adjacent to the rights-of-way of Davidson Drive and the Kenai Spur Highway; and WHEREAS, the plat will not change the existing access to the properties; and, WHEREAS, Davidson Drive is a gravel and City-maintained road providing access to the property; and, WHEREAS, an installation agreement will be required; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds: 1. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 14.10.070 Subdivision design standards, the plat conforms to the minimum street widths, an easement is sufficiently provided for utilities, the proposed lot would be arranged to provide satisfactory and desirable building sites, and the preliminary plat meets standards for water and wastewater. 2. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 14.10.080 Minimum improvements required, an installation agreement is required to cap the water, sewer, and electrical lines that would illegally cross the property line to connect from proposed Lot 2A to serve the residence on the proposed Lot 3 if the connections were left in place. 3. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 14.24.010 Minimum lot area requirements, the proposed lots meets City standards for minimum lot sizes. 4. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 14.24.020 General Requirements, the proposed lots meet City standards for minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, maximum height, and setbacks. Page 22 Resolution No. PZ2020-16 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA: Section 1. That the preliminary plat of McLennan Estates Addition No. 1 be approved subject to the following condition: 1. Further development of the property shall conform to all federal, State of Alaska, and local regulations. 2. Prior to the plat being recorded, the property owner must enter into an installation agreement with the City of Kenai to meet requirements for the water, sewer, and electrical lines serving the proposed Lot 3. 3. Denote the width of Davidson Drive on the face of the plat. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 10th day of June, 2020. JEFF TWAIT, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________________ JAMIE HEINZ, CITY CLERK Page 23 City of Ke na i J C? P lan ning an d Z on in g Department Preliminary Plat 21 0 Fid algo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Submittal Form (907) 283-8200 p lan ning@kenai.ci ty www .k enai.ci ty/p lanning ~·1 "'J ~Ellr:i ~ ___ .. _ ''" Name : Segesser Surveys Inc Mailing Address : 30485 Rosland St City: !Soldotna State : IAK !Zip Code : 199669 Phone Number(s): 907-262-3909, 907-252-3421 Email : seggy@ptialaska.net ,;.11!!1. :.I =' ~ ~ JVr I :WW =a:~ Name: Cheney and Maryann Mclennan Mailing Address : 701 Davidson Dr. City: !Kenai State: IAK IZip Code: 199611 Phone Number(s): Email : :.l:{IJ:.I :I :~jfilli(tl:Ui r!l I [IJ~ I Property Owner Name: !Cheney and Maryann Mclennan Current City Zoning: 5 U-.lb CNv H~ l2e ,$ I oU-vJi ",J..._ Use: ~ Residential D Recreational 1J Commercial D Other: Water: l!l On Site D City D Community Sewer: l!l On Site D City D Community ~~tJ:~,1,r .,f[tJ~I Preliminary Plat Name: Revised Preliminary Plat Name: Vacation of Public Right-of-Way: DYes Iii No Street Name (if vacating ROW): Exceptions Required and Requested: -----·· ·----Cornn 1ents : ~C\,.,CI V CU CITY OF KENAI DATE y22-2o2o PLANNING DEPARTMENT lii3!l'J.ui3• ~' \~;.J'I~ ~ Certificate to Plat /I ~ (1) 24" x 36" Plat ~ (2) 11" x 17" Plats -//// // .iI ~!l;..._. Signature: v _z_,, 10 -/? _ d.d/ I Date: I 5--2 :7.~~o Print Name: r t.=.r-# A -~--,.. ~-f].._ I Title/Business: fo ~ · fY.::r? ),.,-/,_ "'-~· ~s:. <:/-l't ~ \~ ~ Page 24 > J J " I? ~ .. t E : ai l~~ § I ~ I r; ! S' .. ~ l1 -~ iij!! ! ~ ' ~ "~U .. ~ r· hi h~ ~ ' . Z!: .. t.:l <.:) ! -~ l ~&_, . rli . . ~ Q c ll I ->ij <• a ~~ I> ' I ~a ~ r ~J I ~ . 11~-t -, a a h. ! i i n ~ I> 7.. 5; ~. pj1 a~ J i I J . I ~ .. t i :1 g :: ~t :t'ii!J I& ~ g~ ~'a ~: ~:i1 ;.,, ~ ~ o! ~1 ll~!! Ii~ l B fi * ~ 'f 1 h :l i~ i~ w "'h· .. r.., >-~ I i 3 .-:=a .. z I ~JS ii:: ~~ ~ \l~ li " t• ~ t 5,tH < a B ~~ ~! ~ fti!i§ :.. f-i u Ii H ~ ::. • .. : :U 0 c: tl~ -z i '• " tf!i~ !i !A "' ~z ! !:: ~ ~!>;. H i ; u ~~ <CQ If Page 25 Parcels 04519049 and 04519050 701 and 601 Davidson Street Lots 1 and 2, McLennan Estates DAVIDSON STBUMBLEBEE AVE KENAI SPUR HWY .Data Source: Kenai Peninsula Borough. Data is for graphic representation only. Imagery may not match true parcel boundaries. Date: May 2020 LEGEND Parcels Amended by Preliminary Plat 04020 Feet Aerial Map Preliminary Plat: McLennan Estates Addition No. 1 Page 26 File Attachments for Item: Resolution PZ2020-13 - Application for the Rezoning of two parcels adjacent to the Kenai Spur Highway and described as Tracts 1 and 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision, and located at 7344 and 7450 Kenai Spur Highway, from Rural Residential (RR) to General Commercial (CG). The application was submitted by the majority property owner, Glen Martin, P.O. Box 1389, Soldotna, AK 99669. Page 27 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner DATE: June 5, 2020 SUBJECT: PZ2020-13 – Rezone – Rural Residential to General Commercial Applicant: Glen Martin P.O. Box 1389 Soldotna, AK 99669 Legal Description: Tract 1, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision Tract 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision Property Address: 7344 Kenai Spur Highway 7450 Kenai Spur Highway KPB Parcel No: 04103056 04103055 Lot Size: 6.56 acres (approximately 285,754 square feet) 5.28 acres (approximately 229,997 square feet) Existing Zoning: Rural Residential Current Land Use: Vacant Land Use Plan: Suburban Residential GENERAL INFORMATION A completed application was submitted to the City requesting that adjacent parcels Tracts 1 and 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision located at 7344 and 7450 Kenai Spur Highway (parcel numbers 04103056 and 04103055) be rezoned from Rural Residential (RR) to General Commercial (CG). Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) 14.20.270, Amendment procedures, describes initiation of zoning code and official map amendments. Zoning code amendments may be initiated by a submission of a petition by a majority of the property owners in the area for consideration if the area to be rezoned contains a minimum of one acre unless the amendment enlarges an adjacent district boundary. Glen Martin is the owner of the adjacent parcels that are approximately 11.84 acres in size. The requested rezone meets the criteria for an amendment. Page 28 Page 2 of 3 Application, Public Notice, Public Comment Pursuant to KMC 14.20.280-Public hearing and notifications, describes processes for public hearings. City staff published notice of the public hearing as part of the agenda for the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in the Peninsula Clarion, sent notification to real property owners within three-hundred-feet (300’) of the affected parcels, and notification was posted on the property. No public comments have been received as of June 5, 2020. ANALYSIS These parcels front the Kenai Spur Highway for approximately 2,640 feet. The Kenai Spur Highway Road is a major collector street maintained by the State of Alaska. There parcels are vacant and surrounded mostly by vacant land. There is a gravel pad covering the middle of the two parcels. Parcels adjacent to these two parcels are either within the CG Zone or the RR Zone: Across the street on the Kenai Spur Highway from Tract 1 (parcel 04103055) is a City of Kenai wellhead that was damaged in the 2018 earthquake and is slated to be relocated. The wellhead is on parcels within the RR Zone. A City owned parcel borders the east of Tract 2 (parcel 04103056) and is within the RR Zone. The parcel bordering the north of these two is within the RR Zone and is owned by the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. The fronting parcel along the Kenai Spur Highway across from Tract 2 (parcel 04103056) and half of Tract 1 (parcel 04103055) is within the CG Zone. The parcel bordering the west of Tract 1 (parcel 04103055) is also within the CG Zone and is owned by the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. The RR Zone is intended to provide for low density residential development in outlying and rural areas in a form which creates a stable and attractive residential environment. The CG Zone is intended to provide for areas where a broad range of retail, wholesale, and service establishments is desirable. Uses are regulated to concentrate commercial development to the greatest extent possible and new residential uses and other noncommercial uses are not permitted in this zone as principal uses. The CG Zone is more consistent with the layout of the parcel. The applicant has indicated plans for commercial development. Commercial uses could take advantage of the frontage on the Kenai Spur Highway. A neighborhood is not adjacent to these parcels and a rezone would not impact residential housing or the quality of neighborhoods within the City. An anadromous stream is on the eastern part of Tract 2 (parcel 04103056) and the Kenai Peninsula Borough 50- Foot Habitat Ordinance prohibiting development within 50-feet of anadromous streams would apply and protect the creek. The 2016 Imagine Kenai 2030 City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan states, “original community has expanded with commercial development along the Kenai Spur Highway.” This change is zoning reflect the change in the City layout over time and supports Goal 3 – Land Use: Develop land use strategies to implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development. The 2016 Imagine Kenai 2030 City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan also notes that, “commercial land uses dominate the corridor along the Kenai Spur Highway” and a rezone for these two rectangular parcels with long frontages on the Kenai Spur Highway is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 29 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATIONS The rezone request for Tracts 1 and 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision located at 7344 and 7450 Kenai Spur Highway from the Rural Residential Zone to the General Commercial Zone is suitable for an approval recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Kenai City Council. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution No. PZ2020-13 B. Application C. Map Page 30 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI APPROVE THE REZONE REQUEST OF TRACTS 1 AND 2, HOLLAND SPUR HIGHWAY SUBDIVISION FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the City of Kenai received a rezone application from the majority property owner in accordance with Kenai Municipal Code 14.20.270, Amendment procedures; and, WHEREAS, the RR Zone is intended to provide for low density residential development in outlying and rural areas in a form which creates a stable and attractive residential environment; and, WHEREAS, the CG Zone is intended to provide for areas where a broad range of retail, wholesale, and service establishments is desirable and uses are regulated to concentrate commercial development to the greatest extent possible; and, WHEREAS, the rezone request is for an area over ten acres in size; and, WHEREAS, the area to be rezoned fronts the Kenai Spur Highway, a major collector street maintained by the State of Alaska; and, WHEREAS, other parcels in the CG Zone border and are across the street from these two parcels; and, WHEREAS, the CG Zone is consistent with commercial development along the Kenai Spur Highway and will not impact residential housing or the quality of neighborhoods within the City; and, WHEREAS, the rezone is consistent with Goal 3 – Land Use: Develop land use strategies to implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development of the 2016 Imagine Kenai 2030 City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA: Section 1. That the Kenai City Council approve of the rezone request of Tracts 1 and 2, Holland Spur Highway Subdivision from Rural Residential to General Commercial. Section 2. That a copy of Resolution PZ2020-13 be forwarded to the Kenai City Council. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 10th day of June, 2020. Page 31 Resolution No. PZ2020-04 Page 2 of 2 JEFF TWAIT, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________________ JAMIE HEINZ, CITY CLERK Page 32 City o f Kena · Rezoning Application Pl anning and Zoning DepartmPnt 210 Fidalgo A venue Kenai. AK 99511 (907) 283-8200 plannr ng@kena i c1ly wwv. kena1 .c1 ty/p la nning Name: Glen Martin Mailing Address: POB 1389 . City: Soldotna State: AK Zip Code: 99669 Phone Number(s): 907-252-5326 Email : Proposed Zone: Intended Use and/or Reason for Rezoning (attach additional sheets if necessary): I would like to make this highway strip available for restaurants, clinics, gas stations , retail shops, etc. It abuts CG lands , and most of the Spur Highway between Swires Road and Beaver Loop Road has already been rezoned CG. This will help make the zoning consistant in this area. The area proposed to be rezoned contains a minimum of 1 acre (excluding street or alley rights- of-way), unless the amendment enlarges an adjacent zoning district boundary. This proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance is not substantially the same as any other unapproved proposed amendment submitted within the previous 9 months. I understand a public hearing is required as outlined in the Kenai Zoning Code, a $250 fee is required ($265 total after tax), and that this application will be reviewed following Kenai City Code 14 .20.270 , available at kenai.municipal.codes/KMC/14.20.270. I have included a map of the proposed rezone area and applicable signatures . The proposed Zoning Code and Official Zoning Map Amendments is initiated by (check one): 0 Kenai City Council D Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission !!I Petition of majority of the property owners in the area to be rezoned D Petition bearing the signatures of 50 registered voters w ithin tile City of Kenai 0 Petition as provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City of Kenai i!i!J YES l!!!J YES ~YES ~YES Printed Name : Glen F. Martin Date : 5/1512020 Date Application Fee Received : PZ Reso lution Number: Pl--).-0-I!> For City Use Only Page 33 I I Page 34 r· I ; ' I I City of Kenai Zoning Map Zoning -Airport LigM lndll'll,,al (AU) -Conscrva:ion (C) Educaoon (ED) Rural Residen l 1al (RR) Rurol Rrsi1enl'al 1 (RR· 11 -SutJu1ban ReS1den1 .. 1 (RS) -Subu1oon Resi<jontlal 1 (RS ·'I [ Sublnban ResldcnMl 2 (RS ·l 1 -Urt>an R8Sldcnlial (RU) Townsitc tfal0<ic (TSHJ C..nlral Commercial (CC) -Lim11od Commcrcoal (LC) General Commereial (CG) Conlt~I Mixed Use (CMU) Lighl lndu••ri.11 (IL) Heavy lndusl1lal (IH) RN:loal<inal iRl A" ~A " <·rr·~.:1 '\,,.,' lllW.WSlll '~ ~ \\'+E s This map Is for graphic representation only and the City of Kenai assumes no responslbl llty for errors on this map. March 2019 Page 35 KENAI SPUR HWYTUSTUMENA STMINCHUMINA AVERAVEN STDate: 5/15/2020The information depicted hereon is for graphic representationonly of the best available sources. The City of Kenai assumes no responsibility for errors on this map.7450 and 7344 Kenai Spur HwyTracts 1 and 2, Holland Spur Hwy SubdivisionRezone Request ofParcels:04103055, 04103056City Wellhead #1(to be relocated)0 33,00016,500 Feet.City-OwnedParcelLEGENDZoningGeneral Commercial (CG)Rural ResidentialPage 36 File Attachments for Item: Resolution PZ2020-13 - Request to Rename Pelchy Drive to Pelch Drive. The request was submitted by the adjacent property owner, Michael J. Pelch, Jr. 3230 Harlow Rd., Eugene, OR 97401. Page 37 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner DATE: June 5, 2020 SUBJECT: PZ2020-17 – Pelch Drive Rename Recommendation Requested By: Michael J. Pelch, Jr. 3230 Harlow Rd. Eugene, OR 97401 Requested Action: Rename Pelchy Drive to Pelch Drive Michael J. Pelch owns parcels 04949051 and 04949052 described as Lots 2 and 3, Michael J. Pelch Homestead Jr. Addition No. 3 that border Pelchy Drive. Mr. Pelch has requested Pelchy Drive be renamed to Pelch Drive. Pelchy Drive is accessed from Beaver Loop Road. The plat for Michael J. Pelch Homestead Jr. Addition No. 3 was recorded on November 13, 2019 under plat no. 2019-48. This plat dedicated the right-of-way for Pelchy Drive. There is some evidence in City records that earlier versions of the plat had the street name as Pelch Drive before the final plat had the name as Pelchy Drive. Mr. Pelch noted that there is not yet a street sign up on this road. Kenai Municipal Code 14.5.140, Renaming streets states that City Council may by resolution change or rename a street upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and after consultation with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. In email correspondence, the Kenai Peninsula Borough stated they have no objection to changing this street name from Pelchy to Pelch as long as the street suffix of Drive was retained to be consistent with Borough Code for street names. The Borough did not identify an issue with the street name change for 911 navigation. City staff recommends the Commission approve of the name change from Pelchy Drive to Pelch Drive. Resolution PZ2020-17 and a map are attached to this staff report. Page 38 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI RENAME PELCHY DRIVE TO PELCH DRIVE CURRENT OFFICIAL NAME: Pelchy Drive RECOMMENDED OFFICIAL NAME: Pelch Drive WHEREAS, Kenai Municipal Code 14.15.140 authorizes the Council of the City of Kenai to name and rename streets within City limits upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and after consultation with the Kenai Peninsula Borough or any other affected municipality; and, WHEREAS, the Kenai Peninsula Borough has no objection to changing the street name to Pelch Drive; and, WHEREAS, adjacent property owners have no objection to changing the street name to Pelch Drive and were the ones to request the change; and, WHEREAS, the name change would not impact 911 navigation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA: Section 1. That the official name for Pelchy Drive be changed to Pelch Drive. Section 2. That a copy of Resolution PZ2020-17 be forwarded to the Kenai City Council. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 10th day of June, 2020. JEFF TWAIT, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________________ JAMIE HEINZ, CMC, CITY CLERK Page 39 RENAME Current: Pelchy Drive Proposed: Pelch Drive J. PELCH HOMESTEADR. ADDN. NO. 239363936BEAVER LOOP RDP E L C H Y D RONEDAY LN.Data Source: Kenai Peninsula Borough. Data is for graphic representation only. Imagery may not match true parcel boundaries. Date: June 2020 06030 Feet Page 40 File Attachments for Item: 2. Action/Approval - Authorizing the City Planner to Send a Letter to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Supporting a One-Year Time Extension to Finalize the Plat of Kee’s Tern Subdivision Page 41 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner DATE: June 4, 2020 SUBJECT: Plat for Kee’s Tern Subdivision – Time Extension In a letter dated May 18, 2020, the Kenai Peninsula Borough notified the City of a request from the surveyor for a one-year time extension for the finalization of the plat of Kee’s Tern Subdivision. The Kenai Peninsula Borough requires concurrence from the City of Kenai before granting the extension request. The proposed subdivision received preliminary plat approval by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission on February 11, 2013. The City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat on December 11, 2013 (PZ13-41). Several time extensions and the recording of Phase 1 on May 12, 2015, under Plat Number 2015-25 have extended preliminary approval to July 15, 2020. If the Planning and Zoning Commission approves, City staff would sign the attached letter of non-objection to the time extension. City staff have no issues with the time extension request and recommend approval. The same conditions from PZ13-41 would still apply to the approval of the plat with the time extension. A copy of PZ13-41, the plat, and the letter from the Kenai Peninsula Borough requesting the extension are attached for reference. Thank you for your consideration. Page 42 .wiEW2. / / 0 --··-11 if./ .,, ..... , ........ _,, I ~""/ •tr...,..,...,.. ... .,,., ...... ....,1 I ~tj</ ', .._ ............. ,.,. .... ~~ I~~/ @ t fs mire •m~I ~z;tr ~ 4... ' u1., J mif I "°''' '!.-=-·~ .. t ~ -. -----:( 11111111 Go......,..menl Lot .l Unsubd Lot 6 'l'ract B ~:....--:1, H*'"''" ...... I '" ! ..;~Lot 24 ' 4 1 ~ ~ _-;::_ ~ .. o l lot25 '/~ . "" "• I ,.t~•2c/ 8 ~ /lot/' -~ ·-••IT '< '-/ Lot 28 / -... " / .wtr.Q t) ..... ., ............... .._ .................. ,.., .. ~ ~·1"1, ... ._..., or.iw.. V4' lot 21 ~ lot 2 "-. ........ ........ ' l YlCINJTY llAP r -11111.J: Lot J ' ' '~ CERTIFICATE of OlfNERSH!P and DEDICATION ' / I....,._,, CPW'Y ?HAt t NI ftC t1llMJt OI M CA._ "°'°""" ~--~ICJllCc.#O"""tl.....,.flOCIP'tHSf\,M 01 ~NG IT 111t ftll'I COfSEWT omc.1t ~ lllClfft,.o(Jr- ---~-------· ~ )' £::::: .......-<\ 2) .._,.....,....,...._,...__ .. _....... ....... --\ ~ / \,o Lot 30/' \ .. / / \ Lot 1 Lo\ 27 I NOTARY"S ACKNOWLEPCMENT JOltKa.tbltr;o a m,.J.n ......... ..., .... -~ .... ~10.li l) tr.ci,,. ... ~~ ..... _ .. .,.....,,,,,.., .. "". ~., .. _,.,\111 ........... t«-,..., .... ,.,.,. .... ~ ~ .. o;:;~~.~..,::._ ~~ ...:::= ··---..... .......,..........., .. _.,... ~ '--==-~-:. ':.::.. "-=::.::::: ...... _ .. ._9't ...... ., ~ ..... ~ ....... l-Jllodl2• "-'•t.C. .... 0•· ............ ~-........ ~ .......... =:;:1::. r:=R~:-::~=z·~~ ...... .,.,. ..................... 1• • f'ltM_...._, _. lot ,,,_"'......,. o.ncc ..........,_ ._.. ..... J1'~1H ................. ~ t1.r._,.......,~,...... ... -....... -.. _... ............ _ .. ""'' ....... '.~ ..... ...., a.-~ .. c...., o.11rr. ,_....,.. _-..,. ...... "-'."' ......... """ ---~ ... ,..........,. ~·.....__~s.. ......... , ...... ,. .... ..,..,... ...... ......,.,...,...,,......,.......,.,.,.OIOCn ~-....-....... n..._, .................. , ---. .............. ..,, ......... «U".1.-........ .. ... ... _..._ ...... IOiC 1&.l'JOM. .......,. _...._.... :..= =:..-=.,~ ~=-=-4:.=-~ .... ., t ...... a.., .... -_.,,. -a/tir .... 1- ,..._..., .. .,~ -'V*I "'• ........... , ...... )19 •tt-lobt ............ t•-ICll1ofK~ tt ... ci.• ... ""'"" .... "--~h~ ......... ,....,..__~ .. ,.,_, °'' ., " ....... __.. .. -.......... ,. '"""""' --~ .... ~·)'-\-.4"'*'t"""'---1) .,.._".., ........ ----........ ..... ......_.. .... _...,. .... _. .... ......_ ......... I) I .......... 11"1 JCUCUIO, J:I .... It~.__. !CN 10. le.~.:."':":. ... ..!::: .,'-rJ::,.,",~~.., ..._ .. ~ ............. ~-------~ _ _... .. ~_.. ........ " .............. ··-tl'I) ,. ........... ..,.._ ..... __.., .................. ---11) °ftMrt'-•lS'""' --"~'-111'.-i .... n.1.4.,_. IO :::.-: ~':: == .:..~ ~~1; ..... ~ ....... ..,. ... ~ .. -... -.. U) ._ .......... ~_..,.Clltreflt ............ ..., 01 Ii#<, __ ........., .. .,....., .. ,......._. • ...,.... .. ,...... .................... ...,.,.u. .......... us. ,,_,,c.,.. .. ~ ............ ~~lf-.... ... ~ \J-Lol3t '!., \ ~ / ~ '< Lot 32 /\};: <ft / •• ~-~. '( ~ lot 3J "'':\'-./ 't) $_, v -.;, ~ \ Lot34 /· ~ ./ '\ LO~ v / < \ ./ Lot 1 t•) ND»D flT'Nt .............................. ... ................. ._._ ............. _ _..... ............... .......,,_, ......... ,...... ..... ~,.,,.., :...~~~~ .. ~-==::..:.:: ......... ,..._-""" .............. ~ ........ . ~ .................................... ., ... ............. ,,,._..._...~ ~~.a_ 7/l!~ -----,.0. ... tOf.1 -c..-. ........ o / / ....---/1 i4-1 l Lot 34 1--oO~ / I t)O~ I/ c!i I 8 I 0 Cf k ii · / lot 5 ., t----+--/ 1·s- /"\Loi• L =,t I /...-\lotJ \ --,if- \ lot 2 \ 8 1\ • c lk e I I \ \ ;--\ \ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE , ...... ,-"" .... -~ ............ ...... .. ......... _....,... ........ -....... ..... ....... .....,_.,_ . .,,.,,,., ... ........ .. ._. ...... ..._.__.., ............ .... ..................... _ _..... -~ .......-"\\ 1~~ .,, le Lot I -Ji r- 7 _J~ L I o I ~:dlo.~"Z --~~ -- "~·-~t··. ~:;6~a:m: c ~I -1- ~--~· --...... -~--~~,,....._:.Zi .. ;;;;:_ ·~~#, ,., ~12;-:i)i;;z f·J ~~;J ....... ~~\ ~~-~ ~·'/ • ~1';). '~°"n~ PLAT APPRO\IAL '."<__iif:~ Mtt'\.ATWAS~rrHICOoN~~ l'l..NMIO~Alkwa:'11Jr1C()f'(~t0.20t4 ;;t,;:;;;:; --~ KPB FllJ: No. 20HI · %5 Kee's Tern Subdivision Phase l EC~~:.:.._!:..-r~~ ~JU~A&. iJ SEGESSER SURVEYS 3048~ Rotlud SL Soldotoo, AX -D .. #0 t:l:l:l&J' OlltA... 11-1"-14 ~ .-...20t1 ttA&L; 1·-1ocr 'UP ICOl U-1 I '4r' 1 .,, I ~ii.If' I c\ l Page 43 the city of KENAI. ALASKA '¥ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. PZ13-41 SUBDIVISION PLAT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING THAT THE ATTACHED SUBDIVISION PLAT BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: WHEREAS, the attached plat KEE'S TERN SUBDIVISION was referred to the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission on December 11, 2013, and received from Segesser Surveys . WHEREAS, the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission finds: 1. Plat area is zoned RR -Rural Residential and therefore subject to said zone conditions. 2. Water and sewer: Not available. 3. Plat does not subdi vide property within a public improvement district subject to special assessments. There is not a delinquency amount owed to the City of Kenai for the referenced property. 4. Installation agreement will be required if lots are sold prior to construction of all required improvements. 5 . Status of surrounding land is shown. 6 . Utility easements must be shown on the final plat. 7 . Plat shall verify that no encroachments exist. If an encroachment exists; plat does not create nor increase the encroachment. 8. Receive approval from the Kenai Peninsula Borough on exception to requirements in KPB 20.20.200 referencing Street names . 9. CONTINGENCIES: a. See Page 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDS THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE KEE'S TERN SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO ANY NEGATIVE FINDINGS AS STATED ABOVE. PASSED BY H PLANNING AND ZONING COl\fMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, D cem er 11 2013. Page 44 PZ13-41 Amended Resolution Page 2 Recommend approval of the revised preliminary plat subject to the following: 1. Per KMC 14 .10 .080(b) if lots are desired to be sold prior to construction of all required improvements an installation agreement will be required. 2. Roads must be constructed to standards per plat notes prior to final plat unless and installation agreement is in place. 3 . Road design must be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of Alaska. 4 . Sig:nage including but not limited to stop signs, speed limit signs and street signs. 5. As-built drawings prepared by the design engineer responsible for observation must be submitted to the City in both paper and digital format (Adobe & AutoCAD). 6. Surveyor and property owner must work with the City of Kenai and the Kenai Peninsula Borough when designating street names to ensure names meet City and Borough regulations. 7. City must be notified if gates are intended to be placed on the road way and approve plan for gates that assure adequate emergency vehicle access. 8. Homeowners Association must be formed by developer and approved by the City of Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission prior to plat being finalized . 9 . Receive approval from the Kenai Peninsula Borough on exception to requirements in KPB 20.20.180 and 20.20.200. 1 O. City requests opportunity to consider and comment on any new changes and/or additions added to plat. 11. The following plat notes must be sufficiently modified as follows : a. Plat Note 2. States "Tract A is a parcel whose use and access is limited solely to the owners of ... " This entails that others; mail carriers , guests, utility companies, etc. (anyone who is not an owner or emergency service vehicle) cannot use and access. Should be revised to reflect that use is limited for benefit of lot owners as provided in Plat Note 5. b. Plat Note 2 needs to be revised as to correct either punctuation or add words in the following "and to the mandatory payment of assessment, insurance dues." c. Plat Note 3 should explain/clarify who responsible for the prio r review of site plans and construction other than City code en forcement (building/zoning code). d . Plat Note 5. Replace last sentence with "Roadways constructed to Kenai Peninsula Borough Category III standards do not meet minimum standards required by City of Kenai and therefore if at any future time the City takes over ownership and/or maintenance responsibilities of roadways within the subdivision roadways will have to be improved to meet City of Kenai Standards in effect at time of acceptance. The cost of roadway improvements to meet City of Kenai standards will be borne by property owners in the subdivision by assessment without further approval required. 12 . Pursuant to KMC 14.10.090, recommend City Council approve exception to KMC 14.10 .070(e)(3) and KMC 14.24.020 which require all lots in thi s zoning di strict to have a minimum width of 90 feet and Tract A is only 60 feet Page 45 PZ1 3-4 1 Amende d Resolution Page 3 based on the following : allowing Tract A to have a width of 60 feet allows reasonable development of the subdivision given that Tract A is intended to be used for roadway purposes only and such an exception preserves public welfare and interests of the City and the general intent and spirit of the City's subdivision regulations. Page 46 ~<t • Planning Department ~ R o u 144 N . Binkley Street, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 • (907 ) 714-2200 • (907 ) 714-2378 Fax May 18, 2020 Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99611 RE: Kee's Turn Subdivision Time Extension Request KPB File 2013-023 Charlie Pierce Borough Mayor The surveyor is requesting a one-year time extension for Kee's Turn Subdivision, located in the City of Kenai. The proposed subdivision received preliminary plat approval by KPB Planning Commiss ion on February 11, 2013. Several time extensions and the recording of Phases 1 have since extended preliminary approval to July 15, 2020. The time extension will be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting after Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission review. If the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission concu rs with the time extension, staff will recommend extension of preliminary approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. wm Peggy Clements Platting Technician pclements@kpb.us RECEIVED CITY OF KENAI DATE ;,,.. 2<r l-oZ,,U PLANNING DEPARTMENT Page 47 D D D D D Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department 144 North Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone: (907) 714-2200 Fax: (907) 714-2378 TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FORM Location of Subdivision : C, r '1 CJF /{_~a)A=> KPB Number: ::2 0 f ,3 ..... 02 3 Date of Planning Commission Approval(s) Reason for time extension request. ~@~[JW[§fID MAY 16 2020 KPB PLANNING DEpt Ou1A)et< HA-~ AJcrr PtA.JA:L.tZG Df-E:-su6011}JS1<:JttJ Date : 6=-J 3 -AC> ,:1..0 Signature of Surveyor/Property Owner: Source : Resolution 89 -27 REVISED 051617 Page 48 File Attachments for Item: 3. Action/Approval - Application for Ten-Year Lease Renewal of City-Owned Land Within the Airport Reserve described as Lot 1A, Block 1, General Aviation Apron Subdivision No. 6 and located at 330 Main Street Loop. The application was submitted by Kenai Aviation Services, Inc. d/b/a Aviation Services, 1755 Lincoln Hill Rd. Martinsville, IN 46151. Page 49 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner DATE: June 5, 2020 SUBJECT: Recommendation for Ten-Year Lease Renewal for Lot 1A, Bl. 1, GAA Kenai Aviation Services, Inc. d/b/a Aviation Services (Applicant), submitted an application to the City requesting a 10-year renewal to their Lease of Airport Reserve Lands for the property described as Lot 1A, Block 1, General Aviation Apron (GAA) Subdivision No. 6 that is set to expire on June 30, 2020. The property is located at 330 Main Street Loop, Kenai, AK 99611, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough parcel number is 04324028. Pursuant to the term table in Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) 21.10.080(b) and a professional estimate of the value of existing improvements meeting requirements of a lease renewal of an expiring lease in KMC 21.10.070(d)(2), the applicant qualifies for a lease term of 10 years. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 21.10.075 – Leasing and Acquisition of Airport Reserve Lands, Competing Applications, the City posted notice of the lease application and did not received a competing lease application for the parcel within 30 days. The applicant currently subleases the parcel to United Parcel Service (UPS) and the applicant expects UPS to continue subleasing the parcel. The applicant has provided the City a copy of their sublease agreement with UPS. The uses allowed on the current lease would remain the same; the uses are the following: aircraft parking, aircraft sales & service, repair & maintenance, sale of petroleum products, aircraft parts, aircraft rental, charter flights, pilot training & air cargo service. The applicant converted to the City’s new standard lease form in 2019. Kenai Aviation Services, Inc. is current on rent payments and obligations to the City. The annual lease rate is set to be $10,238.46 starting July 1, 2020 with approval of a lease renewal. The parcel is within the Airport Light Industrial (ALI) Zone. The intent of the ALI Zone is to protect the viability of the Kenai Municipal Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. The proposed use by Kenai Aviation Services, Inc. is a permitted use in the ALI Zone and is a compatible land use. The sublease to UPS provides necessary shipping services to the City. The proposed use by the applicant complies with the 2016 Imagine Kenai 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It supports Goal 5-Transportation, which has a vision for Kenai Municipal Airport as a Page 50 Page 2 of 2 gateway to the Kenai Peninsula and West Cook Inlet. The proposed use also supports Goal 3- Economic Development to support the fiscal health of the City of Kenai. Does the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the City approve a 10-year lease renewal application from Kenai Aviation Services, Inc. d/b/a Aviation Services for Lot 1A, Block 1, GAA Subdivision No. 6 for the use of aircraft parking, aircraft sales & service, repair & maintenance, sale of petroleum products, aircraft parts, aircraft rental, charter flights, pilot training & air cargo service and the applicant’s continuing sublease to UPS? The Kenai City Council will be notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision as part of their evaluation of the lease renewal application. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes their decision on lease applications based on the proposed development’s compliance with City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. The Airport Commission will also review the application and provide a recommendation to City Council. Thank you for your consideration. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. Lease Renewal Application Page 51 Action-Approval - 10-Year Lease Extension Parcel 04324028 330 Main Street Loop Lot 1A, Block 1, GAA Apron No. 6 FBO RDMAI N S T R E E T L O O P R D .Data Source: Kenai Peninsula Borough. Data is for graphic representation only. Imagery may not match true parcel boundaries. Date: May 2020 0 4020 Feet LEGEND Parcel 04234028 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 File Attachments for Item: City Council Page 55 Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 1 of 4 June 03, 2020 Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting June 03, 2020 ꟷ 6:00 PM Kenai City Council Chambers 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska *Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 4* www.kenai.city Action Agenda A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes) per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated) *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker) C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated) D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UNANIMOUSLY POSTPONED TO 07/01/2020. Ordinance No. 3127-2020 - Repealing and Replacing Kenai Municipal Code Title 6 - Elections to Provide Clarity, Process Improvements, and Increase Voter Accessibility through Vote By Mail Elections. (Council Member Peterkin) 2. UNANIMOUSLY POSTPONED TO 07/01/2020. Ordinance No. 3128-2020 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code Section 1.85.040 – Records Public, To Provide For A Record Retention Length. (City Clerk) 3. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3129-2020 - Accepting and Appropriating Private Donations to the Kenai Animal Shelter for the Care of Animals. (Administration) 4. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2020-34 - Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the Restaurant Concession Agreement in the Kenai Municipal Airport for One Year. (Administration) 5. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2020-35 - Approving the Fourth Amendment to the Airline Operating Agreement and Terminal Area Lease and Authorizing the City Enter Into Such Agreement with Grant Aviation, Inc. (Administration) Page 56 Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 2 of 4 June 03, 2020 6. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2020-36 - Authorizing a Budget Transfer in the Airport Fund, Airfield Department for Costs in Excess of Budgeted Amounts. (Administration) 7. ADOPTED AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2020-37 - Supporting The Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Establishing The Resilience And Security Advisory Commission For The Kenai Peninsula Borough. (Vice Mayor Molloy) 8. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2020-38 - Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the City of Soldotna to Provide Animal Shelter Services for the City of Soldotna at the Kenai Animal Shelter. (Administration) 9. ADOPTED AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2020-39 - Approving a Grant Disbursement Program for Small Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Utilizing Funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. (Administration) 10. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2020-40 - Further Extending the Disaster Emergency Declaration for the City of Kenai Made on March 18, 2020 in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Administration) E. MINUTES 1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Work Session Summary of May 18, 2020. (City Clerk) 2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of May 20, 2020. (City Clerk) F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS G. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified. (Administration) 2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval – Special Use Permit to Crowley Fuels, LLC for Aircraft Loading and Parking on the Apron. (Administration) 3. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval – Special Use Permit to Empire Airlines, Inc. for Aircraft Parking on the Apron. (Administration) 4. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval – Special Use Permit to Everts Air Fuel, Inc. for Aircraft Loading and Parking on the Apron. (Administration) 5. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval – Special Use Permit to United Parcel Service Company for Aircraft Loading and Parking on the Apron. (Administration) 6. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA / PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 06/17/2020. *Ordinance No. 3131-2020 - Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning a Page 57 Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 3 of 4 June 03, 2020 Portion of S1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 Lying North of K-Beach Road Excluding VIP Country Estates Subdivision Part 5 from Rural Residential (RR) to Limited Commercial (LC). (Administration) 7. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA / PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 06/17/2020. *Ordinance No. 3132-2020 - Increasing Estimated Revenues And Appropriations by $454.84 in the General Fund – Police Department for Drug Investigation Overtime Expenditures. (Administration) 8. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA / PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 06/17/2020. *Ordinance No. 3133-2020 - Authorizing a Budget Transfer in the Airport Terminal Improvement Capital Project Fund and Appropriating FY2020 Budgeted Funds in the Airport Master Plan Capital Project, Airport Snow Removal Equipment and Airport Operations Facility Improvement Capital Project Funds for Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Improvement to the Airport Operations Facility and Replacement of the Airport’s Wide Area Mower. (Administration) 9. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA / PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 06/17/2020. *Ordinance No. 3134-2020 - Appropriating Funds in the Water & Sewer Improvement and Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvement Capital Project Funds for FY2021 Capital Improvement Plan Projects. (Administration) 10. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA / PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 06/17/2020. *Ordinance No. 3135-2020 - Appropriating FY2020 Budgeted Funds in the Kenai Multipurpose Facility Improvements Capital Project Fund for Installation of an Exhaust Fan and Corrosion Remediation. (Administration) 11. AMENDMENTS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Resolution No. 2020-26 - Amending its Comprehensive Schedule of Rates, Charges, and Fees to Incorporate Changes Included in the FY2021 Budget to Include Adjusting the Kenai Municipal Airport Apron Rental Rates, Airport Reserve Land Annual Lease Rates, and Adjusting the Monthly Rental Rates at Vintage Pointe. (Administration) [Clerk's Note: This resolution was adopted at the 05/20/2020 meeting. It has been discovered that five of the new rates calculated for Vintage Pointe rents were incorrect. A motion to amend something previously adopted is in order and, as such appearance on this agenda serves as notice.] H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council on Aging 2. Airport Commission 3. Harbor Commission 4. Parks and Recreation Commission 5. Planning and Zoning Commission 6. Beautification Committee 7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS 1. City Manager Page 58 Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 4 of 4 June 03, 2020 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker) 2. Council Comments L. EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Discussion of the Facility Management Agreement for the Kenai Visitor and Cultural Center, pursuant to AS 44.32.310(c)(1)(3) a matter of which the immediate knowledge may have an adverse effect upon the finances of the City, and a matter by which law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential. M. PENDING ITEMS 1. Ordinance No. 3117-2020 - Appropriating Funds in the Airport Fund, Accepting a Grant From the Federal Aviation Administration and Appropriating Funds in the Airport Equipment Capital Project Fund for the Purchase of Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) – Loader with Attachments. (Administration) [Clerk's Note: At the May 20 Meeting, this item was Postponed to the June 17 Council Meeting. A Motion to Enact is On the Floor.] 2. Resolution No. 2020-30 - Recommending the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Enact Ordinance 2020-24 which would Provide for Vote by Mail Elections, More Time Between a Regular Election and Run-Off Election and Removal of Proposition Statements. (Council Member Peterkin) [Clerk's Note: At the May 20 Meeting, this item was Postponed to the June 17 Council Meeting. A Motion to Adopt is On the Floor.] N. ADJOURNMENT O. INFORMATION ITEMS 1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000. The agenda and supporting documents are posted on the City’s website at www.kenai.city. Copies of resolutions and ordinances are available at the City Clerk’s Office or outside the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. For additional information, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 907-283-8231. Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81429001838 Meeting ID: 814 2900 1838 Password: 402645 OR Dial in by your Location: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592 Meeting ID: 814 2900 1838 Password: 402645 Page 59 File Attachments for Item: 2. Kenai Peninsula Borough Page 60 144 N. Binkley Street, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (907) 714-2200 (907) 714-2378 Fax Office of the Borough Clerk Betty J. Glick Assembly Chambers, Kenai Peninsula Borough George A. Navarre Administration Building Paulette Bokenko-Carluccio – City of Seldovia • Cindy Ecklund – City of Seward Robert Ruffner – Kasilof/Clam Gulch • Paul Whitney – City of Soldotna Alternate: Franco Venuti – City of Homer Plat Committee Action Agenda May 26, 2020 5:30 p.m. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and CDC guidelines, the meeting will not be physically open to the public. The meeting will be held through Zoom. The Planning Commission and staff members will be attending via teleconferencing. The public will be able to listen or participate. To join the meeting from a computer visit https://zoom.us/j/2084259541. To attend the Zoom meeting by telephone call toll free 1-888-788-0099 or 1-877-853- 5247. When calling in you will need the Meeting ID 208 425 9541. If you connect by computer and do not have speakers or a microphone, connect online and then select phone for audio. A box will come up with toll free numbers, the Meeting ID, and your participant number. Detailed instructions will be posted on the Planning Commission’s webpage prior to the meeting. https://www.kpb.us/planning-dept/planning-commission. The hearing procedure for the Plat Committee public hearings are as follows: 1) Staff will present a report and staff recommendations on the item. 2) The Chair will ask for petitioner’s presentation given by Petitioner(s) / Applicant (s) or their representative – 10 minutes 3) Public testimony on the issue. – 5 minutes 4) After testimony is completed, the Plat Committee may follow with questions. A person may only testify once on an issue unless questioned by the Plat Committee. 5) Staff may respond to any testimony given and the Committee may ask staff questions. 6) Rebuttal by the Petitioner(s) / Applicant(s) to rebut evidence or provide clarification but should not present new testimony or evidence. 7) The Chair closes the hearing and no further public comment will be heard. 8) The Chair entertains a motion and the Committee deliberates and makes a decision. All those wishing to testify must wait for recognition by the Chair. Each person that testifies must write his or her name and mailing address on the sign-in sheet located by the microphone provided for public comment. They must begin by stating their name and address for the record at the microphone. All questions will be directed to the Chair. Testimony must be kept to the subject at hand and shall not deal with personalities. Decorum must be maintained at all times and all testifiers shall be treated with respect. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA, EXCUSED ABSENCES, AND MINUTES 1. Agenda 2. Member/Alternate Excused Absences 3. Minutes a. April 27, 2020 Plat Committee Meeting b. Motion to approve the agenda, excused absences, and minutes passed by unanimous consent D. PUBLIC COMMENT (Items other than those appearing on the agenda or not scheduled for public hearing. Limited to five minutes per speaker unless previous arrangements are made.) Page 61 Plat Committee Tentative Agenda May 26, 2020 Page 2 E. SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Betty Goodrich Churchill Meadows KPB File 2020-020R1; [McLane / Best, Buerge] Location: off Kayeway Rd; Kalifornsky Kalifornsky APC Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent. 2. Camelot by the Sea 2019 Replat KPB File 2020-032; [Lang & Associates / Turnbull] Location: off Camelot Dr. & Wizard Ave.; Bear Creek Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent. 3. Cranewings No. 4 KPB File 2020-041; [Geovera / Artz] Location: off East End Rd., Seaside Farm Dr. & Cranewings Ct., Homer Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent. 4. East Ridge Subdivision Reilly Addition KPB File 2020-039; [Peninsula Surveying / Reilly] Location: Off Mosey Along Rd. & Kalifornsky Beach Rd.; Kalifornsky Kalifornsky APC Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent Motion to grant the exception request to KPB 20.30.030 Proposed street layout and KPB 20.30.170 block length passed by unanimous consent. Motion to grant the exception request to KPB 20.30.230 Double frontage prohibited on Lots 3 & 4 passed by unanimous consent. 5. General Aviation Apron Tract A Replat KPB File 2020-038; [Segesser / City of Kenai] Location: off N. Willow St. & Granite Point St.; Kenai Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent 6. Grant Fritz Subdivision No. 5 KPB File 2020-042; [Johnson / Fitz III, Blossom] Location: Off Moose Head St.; Kasilof Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent Motion to grant the exception request to KPB 20.30.030 Proposed street layout and KPB 20.30.170 block length, for Marina Ave passed by unanimous consent. Motion to grant the exception request to KPB 20.30.030 Proposed street layout requirements & KPB 20.30.120 Street width requirement for Moosehead St. passed by unanimous consent. Page 62 Plat Committee Tentative Agenda May 26, 2020 Page 3 7. Inglima Tracts 2019 Replat KPB File 2019-139; [Geovera / Drake, Gallios] Location: off Old Sterling Hwy., Appleberry St., Mossberry St. Anchor Point APC Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent 8. Kristine Subdivision No. 1 KPB File 2020-037; [McLane / Ambrose, Estate of Donald Fredrickson] Location: on Bridge Access Rd.; Kenai Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent 9. Team Shredder Subdivision KPB File 2020-040; [Peninsula Surveying / Phillips] Location: off Rust Ave. & Woohead St.; Ninilchik Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent Motion to grant the exception requested to KPB 20.40 Wastewater review for Lots 1 & 2 passed by unanimous consent. 10. Voznesenka 2020 KPB File 2020-016R1; [Ability / Basargin, Voznesenka Community Council Inc.] Location: off East End Rd. & Thereses Ln.; Fox River Kachemak APC Motion to grant preliminary approval based on staff recommendations and compliance with borough code passed by unanimous consent F. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARING - None G. OTHER / NEW BUSINESS H. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION – NO ACTION REQUIRED I. ADJOURNMENT NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING June 22, 2020 5:30 P.M. Betty J. Glick Assembly Chambers, Kenai Peninsula Borough George A. Navarre Administration Building 144 N. Binkley St. Soldotna, Alaska 99669 CONTACT INFORMATION KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 907-714-2215 (toll free within the Borough 1-800-478-4441, extension 2215) Fax: 907-714-2378 e-mail address: planning@kpb.us website: http://www.kpb.us/planning-dept/planning-home An interested party may request that the Planning Commission review a decision of the Plat Committee by filing a written request within 10 days of the written notice of decision in accordance with KPB 2.40.080. Page 63 144 N. Binkley Street, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (907) 714-2215 (907) 714-2378 Fax Office of the Borough Clerk Betty J. Glick Assembly Chambers, Kenai Peninsula Borough George A. Navarre Administration Building Max J. Best, Planning Director • Charlie Pierce, Borough Mayor Blair Martin, Chairman – Kalifornsky Beach • Robert Ruffner, Vice Chairman – Kasilof/Clam Gulch Dr. Rick Foster, Parliamentarian – Southwest Borough • Syverine Abrahamson-Bentz – Anchor Point/Ninilchik Jeremy Brantley – Sterling • Paulette Bokenko-Carluccio – City of Seldovia • Cindy Ecklund – City of Seward Robert F. Ernst – Northwest Borough • Diane Fikes – City of Kenai • Virginia Morgan – East Peninsula Franco Venuti – City of Homer • Paul Whitney – City of Soldotna Planning Commission Tentative Agenda June 8, 2020 7:30 p.m. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and CDC guidelines, the meeting will not be physically open to the public. The meeting will be held through Zoom. The Planning Commission and staff members will be attending via teleconferencing. The public will be able to listen or participate. To join the meeting from a computer visit https://zoom.us/j/2084259541. To attend the Zoom meeting by telephone call toll free 1-888-788-0099 or 1-877- 853-5247. When calling in you will need the Meeting ID 208 425 9541. If you connect by computer and do not have speakers or a microphone, connect online and then select phone for audio. A box will come up with toll free numbers, the Meeting ID, and your participant number. Detailed instructions will be posted on the Planning Commission’s webpage prior to the meeting. https://www.kpb.us/planning-dept/planning-commission. The hearing procedure for the Planning Commission public hearings are as follows: 1) Staff will present a report and staff recommendations on the item. 2) The Chair will ask for petitioner’s presentation given by Petitioner(s) / Applicant (s) or their representative – 10 minutes 3) Public testimony on the issue. – 5 minutes 4) After testimony is completed, the Planning Commission may follow with questions. A person may only testify once on an issue unless questioned by the Planning Commission. 5) Rebuttal by the Petitioner(s) / Applicant(s) to rebut evidence or provide clarification but should not present new testimony or evidence. 6) The Chair closes the hearing and no further public comment will be heard. 7) The Chair entertains a motion and the Commission deliberates and makes a decision. All those wishing to testify must wait for recognition by the Chair. Each person that testifies must write his or her name and mailing address on the sign-in sheet located by the microphone provided for public comment. They must begin by stating their name and address for the record at the microphone. All questions will be directed to the Chair. Testimony must be kept to the subject at hand and shall not deal with personalities. Decorum must be maintained at all times and all testifiers shall be treated with respect. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA All items marked with an asterisk (*) are consent agenda items. Consent agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent agenda items unless a Planning Commissioner so requests in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the regular agenda. If you wish to comment on a consent agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public hearing, please advise the recording secretary before the meeting begins, and she will inform the Page 64 Planning Commission Tentative Agenda June 8, 2020 Page 2 Chairman of your wish to comment. *1. Time Extension Request a. Christensen Tracts 2009 Addition KPB File 2010-024; [None/Hough] Location: City of Homer *2. Planning Commission Resolutions - None *3. Plats Granted Administrative Approval *4. Plats Granted Final Approval (20.10.040) - None *5. Plat Amendment Request - None *6. Utility Easement Vacations *7. Commissioner Excused Absences a. Dr. Rick Foster, Southwest Borough b. Vacant, Ridgeway *8. Minutes a. May 11, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS E. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Vacate approximately 200-foot-long Wild Salmon Way cul-de-sac adjacent to lots 1-A, 2-A, 14- A & 15-A Ninilchik River Estate Addition No. 1 (HM 91-71); KPB File: 2020-043V; Petitioners: Bruce & Charlene Mclean Living Trust of Soldotna, AK and Christina M. Hoffman 2. Ordinance 2020-025: Establishing the Resilience & Security Advisory Commission for the Kenai Peninsula Borough 3. Ordinance 2020-0__: Authorizing cooperative leases of space at the Kenai River Center building with the State of Alaska Departments of Fish & Game and Natural Resources 4. Application for a retail marijuana store license in the Kalifornsky area; Applicant: Alaska Harvest Company LLC, KPB Parcel Number: 055-160-35; Location: 43837 Kalifornsky Beach Road, Soldotna, AK 99669 5. Application for a retail marijuana store license in the Ninilchik area; Applicant Alaskan Grown Cannabis; KPB Parcel Number: 157-200-13; Location: 14477 Sterling Hwy., Ninilchik, AK 99639 Page 65 Planning Commission Tentative Agenda June 8, 2020 Page 3 F. ANADROMOUS WATERS HABITAT PROTECTION DISTRICT (21.18) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Resolution 2020-13; Conditional Use Permit for the installation of an elevated, light-penetration platform within the 50-foot Habitat Protection District of the Kenai River; KPB Parcel Numbers: 055-253-13 & 055-255-47; Applicant Castaway Cove Homer Owners Association, Kenai, AK 2. Appeal of permit application denial to install a 16-foot by 130-foot boat ramp in the Borough’s 50-foot Habitat Protection District of the Kenai River; KPB Parcel Number: 047-057-03; Applicant: E&E Food, dba Pacific Star Seafoods, P.O. Box 190, Kenai, AK 99611 G. UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS – None H. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS – None I. SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARINGS a. The Plat Committee reviewed and approved 10 plats at the May 26, 2020 meeting. J. PUBLIC COMMENT/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSIONERS (Items other than those appearing on the agenda or scheduled for public hearing. Limited to five minutes per speaker unless previous arrangements are made.) K. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS 1. KPB Comprehensive Plan Discussion Focus Area: Commercial Fishing & Seafood 2. New Plat Committee (July, August, September) – 5 Members / 2 Alternates L. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS M. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS N. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS O. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS P. PENDING ITEMS FOR FUTURE ACTION Q. ADJOURNMENT MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS NO ACTION REQUIRED NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 8, 2020 7:30 P.M. Betty J. Glick Assembly Chambers, Kenai Peninsula Borough George A. Navarre Administration Building 144 N. Binkley St. Soldotna, Alaska Page 66 Planning Commission Tentative Agenda June 8, 2020 Page 4 ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and CDC guidelines, the meeting will not be physically open to the public. The meeting will be held through Zoom. Please see the area Advisory Planning Commission webpage for meeting details. Advisory Planning Commission webpages are linked to the Planning Department website https://www.kpb.us/planning‐dept/planning‐home . NOTE: Advisory planning commission meetings are subject to change. Please verify the meeting date, location, and time with the advisory planning commission chairperson. Chairperson contact information is on each advisory planning commission website, which is linked to the Planning Department website. CONTACT INFORMATION KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 907-714-2215 (toll free within the Borough 1-800-478-4441, extension 2215) Fax: 907-714-2378 e-mail address: planning@kpb.us website: http://www.kpb.us/planning-dept/planning-home A party of record may file an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with the requirements of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinances. An appeal must be filed with the Borough Clerk within 15 days of the notice of decision, using the proper forms, and be accompanied by the filing and records preparation fees. Vacations of right-of-ways, public areas, or public easements outside city limits cannot be made without the consent of the borough assembly. Vacations within city limits cannot be made without the consent of the city council. The assembly or city council shall have 30 calendar days from the date of approval in which to veto the planning commission decision. If no veto is received within the specified period, it shall be considered that consent was given. A denial of a vacation is a final act for which the Kenai Peninsula Borough shall give no further consideration. Upon denial, no reapplication or petition concerning the same vacation may be filed within one calendar year of the date of the final denial action except in the case where new evidence or circumstances exist that were not available or present when the original petition was filed. ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION DATE TIME Anchor Point Anchor Point Senior Center TBD 7:00 p.m. Cooper Landing Cooper Landing Community Hall TBD 6:00 p.m. Funny River Funny River Community Center TBD 6:00 p.m. Kalifornsky Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association TBD 6:00 p.m. Moose Pass Moose Pass Community Hall TBD 6:30 p.m. Hope / Sunrise Hope Social Hall TBD 6:00 p.m. Kachemak Bay Zoom Meeting TBD 6:00 p.m. Page 67 File Attachments for Item: Information on variances and variance standards Page 68 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner June 5, 2020 Informational Items on Variances Attached as informational items are some materials from the American Planning Association website on variances. Please review the attached documents I have listed below. ATTACHMENTS 1.Salkin, Patricia E. 2012. “PAS Quicknotes No. 38: Zoning Ordinance Variances”. American Planning Association’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS). 2.Kendig, Lane. 2012. “Avoiding Idiotic Variances.” Zoning Practice, 6. 3.Lovelady, Adam. 2014. “Coates' Canons Blog: Variance Standards: What is hardship? And when is it unnecessary?” University of North Carolina School of Government. https://canons.sog.unc.edu/variance-standards-what-is-hardship-and-when-is-it- unnecessary/ Page 69 Planning fundamentals for public officials and engaged citizens This PAS QuickNotes was prepared by Patricia E. Salkin, Raymond & Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law, Associate Dean and Director of the Govern- ment Law Center of Albany Law School. OuicknOtes A Publication of the American Planning Association | PAS QuickNotes No. 38 Zoning Ordinance Variances OVERVIEW A variance is a form of administrative relief from zoning regulations. It allows for the construction of or change to a structure or land that is prohibited by a zoning ordinance. A variance is granted to render justice where the strict application of a zoning ordinance results in a hardship for a property owner. A hardship arises when highly unusual circumstances prevent a property owner from securing a reasonable return from or making a reasonable use of their property. Oddly shaped or sloping lots, for example, may make it difficult for a property owner to meet setback or height requirements. A granted variance stays with the land and passes to the next purchaser. Zoning boards of appeal are delegated the authority to grant variances by state or municipal legisla- tive bodies. The zoning boards are constrained by limitations on this power. For example, the board has no authority to determine the validity of the zoning law and must follow proper statutory proce- dures for granting variances. While the zoning boards are delegated a certain amount of discretion, they are usually directed by law to grant the minimum variance necessary and adequate to readdress the complained-of “hardship.” The board must consider any impact on the community and devise a solution to accommodate the applicant and the community. TYPES OF VARIANCES There are two types of variances: use and area. A use variance is requested when a zoning ordi- nance prohibits a particular use (e.g., a commercial building in a residential area). An area variance is requested if the zoning ordinance regulates a particular use (e.g., height restrictions). Eighteen states do not distinguish between use and area variances and instead set forth four basic common general criteria for granting variances: (1) the variance is not contrary to public interest; (2) there are special conditions pertaining to the parcel; (3) literal enforcement of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship; and (4) the spirit of the ordinance is observed and justice done. Use Variances Use variances should be difficult to obtain. In fact, 12 states prohibit zoning boards from approving use variances altogether. The rationale is that a legislative determination has been made that the proposed use is incompatible in the zoning district and therefore it can threaten adjacent land or the character of a neighborhood. This is why there is heightened scrutiny when reviewing request for re- lief from a legislative determination as to appropriate uses, and applicants typically have to prove that their hardship is unique and not likely to be experienced by nearby property owners. If a critical mass of property owners in the same locale start requesting use variances, the more appropriate remedy may be consideration of a rezoning. The granting of a use variance usually requires that the applicant show unnecessary hardship. Estab- lishing such hardship typically requires proving that the land in question cannot realize a reasonable return, that the hardship relates to circumstances unique to the parcel of land, and that granting of the variance would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Each element of the unnecessary hardship test in a particular jurisdiction must be satisfied for a variance to be granted. Some jurisdictions use the terms “undue hardship” or “unusual hardship” to refer to their specific test. There seems to be no substantive difference in the requirements. While there is some variation on how to establish the ele- ments depending on the jurisdiction, the basic formulation of the test is similar. A variance is granted to render justice where the strict application of a zoning ordinance results in a hardship for a property owner. Page 70 REFERENCES 1. Published by the American Planning Association Kendig, Lane. 2012. “Avoiding Idiotic Variances.” Zoning Practice, 6. Easley, Gail and Theriaque, David. 2005. The Board of Adjustment. Chicago: American Plan- ning Association (APA Planners Press). 2. Other Resources Salkin, Patricia. 2011. “Variances.” American Law of Zoning, (5th ed.). Thomson Reuters. Juergensmeyer, Julian and Roberts, Thomas. 2003. “Zoning ‘Forms of Action:’ Obtaining or Resisting Development Permission.” Pg. 186 in Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law. St. Paul: West Group. Area Variances It is typically easier to obtain an area variance than a use variance. The test applied is usually “practical difficulties,” used in three ways: (1) synonymously with “unnecessary hardship”; (2) to denote a version of the “unnecessary hardship” standard where the standard of proof for the elements is relaxed—this standard probably represents the most common usage of the term, “practical difficulties”; and (3) to describe a balancing test where various factors are weighed against one another. Many factors are considered and under this type of standard, typically no factor outweighs the others in determining whether the variance should be granted. Rather, the benefit to the applicant is weighed against the potential negative effects granting the variances would have for each factor. Among the factors considered in most typical variations of the balancing standard are: (1) whether the property in question has any beneficial use without the variance; (2) whether the variance is substantial; (3) whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining property would suffer detriment if the variance were granted; (4) whether the dif- ficulty was self-created; (5) whether there are alternative means to obviate the owner’s predicament; and (6) whether the spirit of the ordinance can be observed and substantial justice done by granting a variance. CONDITIONS ON VARIANCES Where recognized, zoning boards of appeal may attach conditions to a variance. Conditions must be used to reduce any adverse impacts of the land use, such as protecting nearby property. Boards can- not impose conditions that are not rationally related to minimizing the adverse impacts of granting a variance. Boards must clearly state any conditions in its decision to grant a variance. Zoning boards may also impose time conditions. For example, a board can grant a limited variance that will lapse if not acted upon within a specified time. They may not, however, limit a variance to the period of the applicant’s ownership since variances run with the land. ALTERNATIVES TO VARIANCES In some instances, a rezoning may be more appropriate than a use variance. If the use is deemed appropriate in the zoning district, then the community should evaluate whether the use should be permitted by right or as a conditional use in that district. Permitting a use with conditions (also known as special uses or special exception uses) allows the local planning commission, zoning board, or city council to impose additional standards to ensure compatibility and can minimize the need for use variances. Numerous requests for area variances in a specific zoning district may indicate that there is a poor fit between the dimensional standards for a particular zoning district and the existing building stock. This mismatch means that the district has a high number of nonconforming structures. In some cases the municipality may be actively trying to promote a transition to a different development pattern. In other cases, this mismatch reflects an outdated goal to recreate suburban development patterns in traditional urban neighborhoods. In the latter case the easiest way to avoid excessive area variance requests is to amend the district standards to match the historic fabric of the neighborhood. PAS QuickNotes is a publication of the American Planning Association’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS). © 2012 by the American Planning Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permis- sion in writing. Visit PAS online at www.planning.org/pas to find out how PAS can work for you. American Planning Association staff: W. Paul Farmer, faicp, Chief Executive Officer; William R. Klein, aicp, Director of Research and Advisory Services; Erin Musiol, aicp, QuickNotes Editor; Tim Mennel, Senior Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Susan Deegan, Senior Graphic Designer. A Publication of the American Planning Association | PAS QuickNotes No. 38Page 71 ZONING PRACTICEAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION205 N. Michigan Ave.Suite 1200Chicago, IL 60601–59271030 15th Street, NWSuite 750 WestWashington, DC 20005–1503ZONING PRACTICE JUNE 2012 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 6 ISSUE NUMBER 6 PRACTICE VARIANCES 6DOES YOUR COMMUNITY HAVE A VARIANCE PROBLEM? Page 72 ZONINGPRACTICE 6.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2 Avoiding Idiotic Variances By Lane Kendig The drafters of the first zoning ordinances felt it was legally essential to provide a variance procedure to deal with unique circumstances that render a lot unbuildable. For example, an existing lot might have a small ravine on it, making it impossible to locate a home within the required setbacks. The ravine was a unique condition that differed from the conditions on neighbor- ing lots and a variance could allow for a relaxation of the setbacks to make the lot buildable. All state enabling laws delegate the power to grant variances to a zoning board or board of appeals (comprised either of elected or appointed officials). These state laws generally include criteria that should be met in granting a variance. Some com- mon ones are: • There is a special condition on the site not present on other properties in the district. • A literal enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary hardship. • The condition is not self created. • A strict interpretation would prevent the owner from enjoying the same rights as oth- ers in the district. • A variance would not create a special privilege for the land owner. The variance was an excellent tool for big cities where streets and blocks were often platted in advance of development and before the adoption of zoning. The initial intent of the variance was to grant relief to an existing lot that was rendered unbuildable, but planning and zoning objec- tives have expanded greatly since the first zoning codes. Consequently, there is now a second class of variances that develop- Because these town houses have a variety of unit configurations, many communities would require variances before approving the project. All photos and diagrams by Lane Kendig Page 73 ASK THE AUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE! About the Author Lane Kendig is the founder and former president of Kendig Keast Collaborative. He has been practicing and writing about the relationship between community design planning and regulatory tools for more than 40 years. In addition to the recent books Community Character and its companion, A Guide to Planning with Community Character, Kendig is the author of Performance Zoning and the PAS reports Too Big, Boring, or Ugly; Traffic Sheds, Rural Highway Capacity, and Growth Management; and Performance Standards for Non- Residential Uses. ers seek because standards in the code do not permit a creative solution to laying out the development or result in the loss of lots or increased costs. A third class of vari- ance applies to a whole series of controls in the zoning—none of which render a site unbuildable—that simply frustrate a devel- oper’s attempt to build a different type of community. For example, in some communi- ties developers might have to obtain more than a dozen variances to build a cluster subdivision, planned unit development (PUD), or a rural hamlet. Yet another class of variances is attributable to code amend- ments that create a host of nonconforming uses. These last three classes are foolish, or idiotic, variances because good planning is frustrated by the ordinance. Unfortunately, the administration of variance requests in many communities can also be described as idiotic. It is not un- usual for communities to grant 70 to 95 per- cent of all variance requests. When nearly every variance for a larger sign, enclosed porch, or reduced setback is granted, then it is foolish to force owners to go through the variance process. This means zoning boards are either ignorant of or not following the local zoning code and variance criteria es- tablished by state statute. Leaving aside the possibility that zon- ing board members are incompetent, why is this happening? One reason is that zoning boards see themselves as problem solvers for the residents. In small communities this may be a “help your neighbor” attitude. In other cases zoning board members may not understand the role of their quasi- judicial body. In older cities it may simply Go online during the month of June to participate in our “Ask the Author” forum, an interactive feature of Zoning Practice. Lane Kendig will be available to answer questions about this article. Go to the APA website at www.planning.org and follow the links to the Ask the Author section. From there, just submit your questions about the article using the e-mail link. The author will reply, and Zoning Practice will post the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at announced times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA Zoning Practice web pages. ZONINGPRACTICE 6.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3 cedural and does not address the underlying inflexibility and rigidity. Worse, the approval process quickly became a battleground between developers seeking flexibility and NIMBYists who would prefer no develop- ment. While new urbanists decry the failure of Euclidean zoning to permit mixed use and traditional designs, form-based codes are rigid too in their street design, setbacks, requirements for porches and fences, and architectural detailing. THE SOLUTION The tongue-in-cheek solution is to permit “idiot variances” when the code is foolish as applied or if it stifles creativity. The real- ity is this would exacerbate the problem. It is unconscionable for a community to force its citizens to seek a variance (at considerable time, effort, and expense) when relief is nearly always granted. The solution is to reduce the need for variances to a few unique conditions. The discussion in the following sections details various approaches that eliminate the need for a variance to be requested. Annual Review One simple procedural means of eliminating improper variance approvals is an annual review. At the end of the year all approved variances would be submitted to the elected officials for review. The staff would pre- pare a report as to whether the approvals conformed to the required standards. In the case of the municipality that approved numerous sign-size variations, the elected officials could indicate to the zoning board that their actions were either improper— be a desire not to impede reinvestment. Too few communities use a hearing officer to create a truly quasi-judicial process, and there is rarely a review of the zoning board’s performance. Planners often share the blame. For example, some planners fail to strongly recommend denial in staff reports when an application fails to meet the criteria. There are many communities where staff never makes recommendations. In the absence of strong recommendations it is easy for zon- ing boards to grant variances. Furthermore, many variances are the result of poorly writ- ten or obsolete codes. Citizens are left to muddle through the zoning board instead of planners proposing code amendments to fix the code and eliminate the need for a vari- ance. If there are many approved variances to a specific provision, it is irresponsible not to amend the code. The last reason for the idiotic variance is rigidity. The first zoning codes used a min- imum lot size combined with setbacks from front, side, and rear property boundaries to control character. Over the last nearly 100 years, designers developed more creative approaches to development: cluster, PUD, mixed use, and traditional neighborhood design. Unfortunately, zoning has not kept up and Euclidean provisions remain the dominant form of ordinance. In an attempt to provide flexibility, communities introduced conditional ap- proval processes instead of writing flexible standards. In many codes there is a specific enumeration of variances required for clus- ter or planned development options. The problem with this approach is that it is pro- Page 74 ZONINGPRACTICE 6.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4 This mix of single- and two-family homes in Serenbe Hamlet (Chattahoochee Hill Country, Georgia) shows how flexible standards can encourage high-quality design. directing them not to approve similar re- quests, or proper—directing staff to change the maximum sign size. Either of the actions should eliminate the need for variances. Neighborhood Conservation Districts In cities and counties with a long devel- opment history, many subdivisions are nonconforming. Often the problem arose because areas were platted before zoning or because the zoning was changed. The prob- lem of nonconforming residential lots is best addressed by creating a neighborhood conservation (NC) district that matches ex- isting conditions. The NC district is applied to existing developed areas that were built to different standards than current districts, and no unplatted land may be zoned NC. An example of the problem was a community that 20 years previously had changed the frontage requirement for their 5,000-square-foot lots from 50 to 60 feet. The result was that nearly half the homes in the zone were nonconforming, requiring many home owners to seek variances. This was corrected by creating two neighbor- hood conservation districts, an NC5n (nar- row) and an NC5w (wide). The zoning map was revised to place all 5,000-square-foot lots in the proper class. The result was that the existing 5,000-square-foot district was eliminated and the map revised so that all the nonconforming narrow lots became conforming. Since these are residential districts, all single-family NC districts can be treated as one with a single-use table entry and lot requirements in tabular form for each district. to 25-, 26 to 30-, 31 to 35-, 36 to 40-, and 41 to 49-foot lot widths. The result of these two approaches is that all, or nearly all, existing lots become conforming, eliminating the need for a variance. Where setbacks of exist- ing homes are not uniform, the community can use setback averaging to eliminate the need to request a variance. The problem of nonconforming residential lots is best addressed by creating a neighborhood conservation (NC) district that matches existing conditions. The NC district works very well when the nonconforming areas are entire devel- opments or blocks, and in most munici- palities or counties this will be the case. Occasionally single-family lot size may vary within the block or development, which would require parcel-by-parcel mapping that would be tremendously costly and prone to error. A different approach can be used for these types of areas. All such areas would be NC single family with a table showing ranges of lot sizes, with a setback related to each range. Thus, the table might show 20 Limited Uses Limited uses are uses permitted by right, provided they meet specific performance criteria. The performance criteria could be location, history, design, or other factors. For example, in many older cities size- able areas were developed in the 1920s through 1950s with single-family homes, even though the zoning permitted du- plexes or multifamily buildings. Decades later, developers saw opportunities to replace single-family homes in these aging neighborhoods with permitted duplexes or Page 75 ZONINGPRACTICE 6.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5 apartments. Predictably, residents often objected that the redevelopment was in- consistent with the character of their neigh- borhood. While downzoning is a logical response, all existing higher-intensity uses would then become nonconforming. This was a problem for about 25 percent of such areas. However, if the downzoned district permits duplexes or apartments as limited uses, provided they existed on the date of the downzoning all existing units remain conforming uses and can be remodeled or rebuilt. This approach increases the likeli- hood that residents will accept the existing units, while preventing teardowns that change neighborhood character. A similar approach can be used to ad- dress corner stores, restaurants, or even bars that existed prior to the zoning and have continued as nonconforming uses. Despite the convenience these uses provide to residents, their value has depreciated be- cause of the nonconforming status. Corner stores are a particular problem because it is difficult to convert the ground floor to residential use. As a consequence, they sit vacant, or the lower floor is abandoned, creating an eyesore. All of these uses could be made limited uses in the district, with conditions that the buildings not only had to be built prior to a specific date, but that they also had to have been built for commercial use. For some uses such as restaurants or bars, additional criteria could be added to prevent a neighborhood-serving use from becoming a regional use involving late-night music or street activity. In this strategy the neighborhood is protected from the intro- duction of high-intensity commercial uses or nuisances while still permitting local com- mercial services. If formerly nonconforming uses can invest in improvements, it en- hances the value of the neighborhood. Mitigation In theory nonconforming uses are supposed to disappear. In fact, nonconformities may continue for decades. When this happens, the nonconforming use often declines in value and appearance because the owner is unable to obtain financing for improve- ments. For this reason, communities should allow for conditional approvals to provide a means of mitigating nonconforming uses. A landowner can apply for mitigation via a conditional use. This requires a hearing to be held to examine the current effects of the use and to recommend improvements to make the use a better neighbor. Converting a nonconforming use to a conditional use can remove the cloud that discourages investment and maintenance while protecting the neighbors. An example of this is a tire store on an arterial highway in a residentially zoned neighborhood. It has been nonconforming for decades and re- mains a viable business. For most residents, who have lived with it for years, the store is only a minor nuisance. The conditional use process would allow the owner to propose expansion of the use while providing things like screening walls or landscaping, facade renovation, or ensuring that tire work occurs indoors. Subject to a hearing that allows the neighborhood to review the proposal and suggest mitigation measures that improve the neighborhood, a conditional use permit can be issued. ADDING FLEXIBILITY Why are codes so rigid? First, mandating specific lot area, frontage, use, and other standards is easy to write or illustrate in drawings. No thought needs to be given to a problem with a particular property or to conflicting goals. One-dimensional thinking is easier than systemic thinking. As soon as one identifies a series of objectives that zoning is supposed to address, one needs to understand how all elements of design interact. Secondly, there is complexity as- sociated with flexibility. If something is a problem, it is easier to throw the baby out with the bathwater than to write a section that identifies exceptions to a prohibition and rules governing permitting the design to be used. There are two basic approaches to dealing with rigidity: providing targeted flex- ibility and providing general flexibility. Targeted Flexibility Using Modulation As an alternate to variances or conditional uses, modulation is a tool that can ad- dress most flexibility issues. A great many regulations are written to eliminate a specific problem, by prohibiting the use of a design element or setting a limit. Unfortunately, this may mean prohibiting something that, while generally undesirable, can be a valuable tool in specific conditions. Providing flexibility requires looking beyond a specific problem and determining where or when the tool might be useful. Modulation provides staff with rules that permit modulation of the standards with- out having to appear before the zoning board. For example, developers used flag lots in the past to avoid building a street. In extreme cases there may be two rows of lots taking access off a street, resulting in nu- merous additional curb cuts and potential hazards. Consequently, most ordinances prohibit them. However, there are several situations where flag lots actually could re- sult in better planning. As noted above, it is cumbersome and complex to write a series of exceptions to the prohibition. A better so- lution is a modulation article containing the conditions where the rules can specifically be relaxed, eliminating the need for a vari- ance. Two exceptions illustrate the point. A flag lot that eliminated access on a collec- tor road would be desirable. Another case would be using a shorter cul-de-sac with flag lots accessing several lots to reduce the disturbance of a wooded area created by a longer cul-de-sac. A modulation chapter allows for simple base regulations while providing more complex rules in another article that is only used by those needing them. Rigid limits on block, cul-de-sac, or town house group length, or prohibitions on trapezoidal lots, are examples of regulations where flexibility is desirable. The key is providing staff with specific rules for the granting or denying of the modulation. Thus the areas of flexibility are pre-identified as are the rules for grant- ing the flexibility. Targeted Flexibility Using Pattern Books Because poor design may make a unit unde- sirable, a means of permitting good design while avoiding the undesirable is important. For example, to avoid the monotony of row houses, communities often require facade offsets. Unfortunately, the same pattern of setbacks repeated on 100 or more units is equally monotonous. The uniformity of front setbacks makes great sense in cities where blocks are platted and uniformity is desir- able. However, for hamlet, village, small traditional neighborhood, or estate develop- ments this can be a severe design restriction. A pattern book includes the site plan but also all the essential design elements, build- ing types, lot standards, setback, facades, and all the design details. It is akin to a final planned development approval in that it locks the developer into building what has been shown in the pattern book submission. The conditional approval process used by most local governments includes review criteria that have nothing to do with design. Worse, they introduce nondesign issues into the approval process, most of which can be used to deny the approval, lower density, or otherwise frustrate a good design. The Page 76 ZONINGPRACTICE 6.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6 approval of the pattern book addresses the value of the modulation in achieving a supe- rior design. While a single front yard setback makes sense in a large urban area, in a small hamlet or a traditional mixed use neighbor- hood decreasing setbacks as lots approach the center is one design technique to empha- size the pedestrian-oriented nature of the center. The modulation article should provide for approval of the pattern book-controlled modulation where it creates a desirable design, and the approval criteria should be limited to design considerations. When the regulations prohibit modulation to modify density, land use, and height, many com- mon concerns of citizens at conditional use hearings are taken off the table. Also, limiting modulation to interior lots ameliorates the concerns of citizens worried about impacts on the character of adjoining development. General Flexibility Permitting All Development Forms Euclidian zoning is very inflexible. Other ap- proaches like clustering, planned develop- ments, traditional neighborhood development, and mixed uses have all been found to be more desirable forms of development. In some states this finding is included in the statutes. Despite this, alternative development patterns are often forced to seek conditional approvals. In the 1960s, when clustering and planned With targeted flexibility, communities can permit flag lots only in special cases, such as when a flag lot would eliminate lot access from a collector road. developments were new and planners had no experience with them, the conditional approval made sense. But now it makes no sense for a better design form to have to go through a lengthy, costly, and uncertain process. Communities can provide general flexibility by adopting ordinances that are designed to allow a developer multiple ways of meeting the standards of a district. For resi- dential areas, all dwelling unit types should be permitted in the district subject to meeting density, open space, or design standards to protect the character of the district and to encourage traditional neighborhood, planned, and cluster developments. Permitting all dwelling units eliminates the exclusionary nature of many zoning districts. Development forms such as clustering, planned and tradi- tional neighborhood, and mixed use should be permitted as a matter of right. The zoning standards would still regulate district inten- sity through density, open space, use mix, scale, average and maximum height, and form requirements. These basic controls are essential to ensure the design intent or char- acter is met. Street width can be varied with general rules that address traffic volumes on the street, unit frontage, and parking needs. Quality should be addressed by sign and other controls that address quality of design by setting high standards that should not be modulated. Landscape can be addressed The modulation article should provide for approval of the pattern book-controlled modulation where it creates a desirable design, and the approval criteria should be limited to design considerations. Without carefully written standards, developers may use flag lots to avoid building new roads. Page 77 ZONINGPRACTICE 6.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7 Cover image © iStockphoto.com/David Bukach; design concept by Lisa Barton. with flexible tools that describe the degree of opacity of the vegetation that is to be required, allowing the landscape architect flexibility in choosing the plant material to achieve the desired result. Design Rules for Special Cases There are relatively unique development forms like hamlets, villages, transit-oriented develop- ment, or new (very large) new communities where specific design standards are needed over and above density and other controls. For example, a hamlet or village needs a center where commercial and the highest intensities are located, perhaps an employment area for industrial uses, interior open space, provisions for a rural buffer, and setbacks from other developments. These design rules should be included in a modulation or a design article. The rules should be highly generalized, using ranges and illustrations so as not to force a rigid template. Pattern book approval allows a designer freedom to work site constraints and the forms of development in a design review. CONCLUSION The excessive use of variances, in conflict with state enabling legislation or through poor planning and zoning, is very costly. The general solution is to eliminate the need for variations. This can be accomplished by providing a legal path for transitioning existing nonconforming uses to conditional uses and by adopting zoning standards that acknowledge historic development patterns and permit both targeted and general flex- ibility. All of the tools above can be used in combination to virtually eliminate the need for a variance. In small communities it should be rare to even have variance request. In larger cities and counties a combination of these rules should also make legitimate vari- ances rare. When variances are necessary, a professional hearing examiner should hold a quasi-judicial hearing for each request. Communities can use general flexibility to encourage residential clustering by offering increasing density with increasing levels of clustering. VOL. 29, NO. 6 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, faicp, Chief Executive Officer; William R. Klein, aicp, Director of Research Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, aicp, and David Morley, aicp, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-431-9100 or customerservice@planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable. Copyright ©2012 by American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005–1503; www.planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. Cover image: ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59 Page 78 ZONING PRACTICEAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION205 N. Michigan Ave.Suite 1200Chicago, IL 60601–59271030 15th Street, NWSuite 750 WestWashington, DC 20005–1503ZONING PRACTICE JUNE 2012 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 6 ISSUE NUMBER 6 PRACTICE VARIANCES 6DOES YOUR COMMUNITY HAVE A VARIANCE PROBLEM? Page 79 Coates' Canons Blog: Variance Standards: What is hardship? And when is it unnecessary? By Adam Lovelady Article: https://canons.sog.unc.edu/variance-standards-what-is-hardship-and-when-is-it-unnecessary/ This entry was posted on May 27, 2014 and is filed under Land Use & Code Enforcement, Quasi-Judicial Decisions, Zoning Generally, development regulations like zoning and subdivision standards apply equally to all properties. But sometimes a particular property is unfairly burdened by the general rules, creating an unnecessary hardship for the owner. The general statutes authorize the local board of adjustment to grant a variance from the rules in those limited circumstances. But what is an unnecessary hardship? Recent amendments to the state statute clarify what can (and what can’t) qualify as unnecessary hardship. This blog explores those new standards. General Statute section 160A-388(d) sets forth the standards for granting a zoning variance (The standards also may be applied to subdivision and other development regulation). These mandatory standards apply to zoning variances for all counties and municipalities in the state, and the new standards override any contrary ordinance provisions that may have been in place prior to 2013. For a summary of the other changes to the board of adjustment statute, see this blog from my colleague David Owens. Under the new statute a board of adjustment shall vary the provisions of the zoning ordinance if strict application of the ordinance would create unnecessary hardship. In order to obtain the variance, the applicant must show all of the following: Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property The hardship is not a self-created hardship Additionally, the applicant must show that the variance will Be consistent with the intent of the ordinance Secure public safety Achieve substantial justice Finally, the statute prohibits any use variance. To be sure, a variance is not a free pass from regulations or a tool to subvert the zoning ordinances. In order to obtain a variance, the applicant bears the burden of providing competent, substantial and relevant evidence to convince the decision-making board that the property meets all of the statutory standards for a variance. Merely showing some hardship is insufficient. Let’s consider each of the standards in more detail. Unnecessary Hardship from Strict Application Whenever there is regulation, there is some level of necessary hardship and inconvenience shared by all of the community. An applicant for a variance must show unnecessary hardship. What is enough hardship? Unfortunately, there is no simple formula. It is determined on a case-by-case basis. That is why the board of adjustment holds a quasi-judicial hearing and considers the evidence presented. The hardship must be more than mere inconvenience or a preference for a more lenient standard. Cost of compliance may be a factor, but cost is not determinative. It is not enough for an applicant to say that development will cost more in order to comply. The applicant must show the substantial and undue nature of that additional cost as compared to others subject to the same restriction. Page Coates' Canons NC Local Government Law https://canons.sog.unc.edu Copyright © 2009 to present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved. Page Copyright © 2009 to present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved. Page 80 Under the old statutes, many jurisdictions applied a standard that the applicant must show that there is no reasonable use of the property without a variance. Under current statutes, that stringent standard is no longer allowed. A property owner can prove unnecessary hardship, even if the owner has some reasonable use of the property without the variance. Peculiar to the Property The unnecessary hardship must be peculiar to the property, not general to the neighborhood or community. Such peculiar characteristics might arise, for example, from location of the property, size or shape of the lot, or topography or water features on the site. Imagine a lot that narrows dramatically toward the front yard and where the side yard setbacks prohibit the property owner from building an addition. The hardship (not being allowed to build an addition) flows from the strict application of the ordinance (the setback) and is peculiar to the property (because of the shape of the lot). A variance may be appropriate if the owner presents evidence to show she meets all of the standards. By contrast, a variance is not the appropriate remedy for a condition or hardship that is shared by the neighborhood or the community as a whole. Consider that same narrowing lot. If all of the houses on the street shared that hardship, a variance would not be appropriate. Such conditions should be addressed through an ordinance amendment. Hardships that result from personal circumstances may not be the basis for granting a variance. The board is looking at the nature of the property and the land use ordinances, not the nature of the applicant and their circumstances. Bringing an elderly parent to live with the family, for example, is a change in personal circumstance, not a condition peculiar to the property. The reverse is also true. An applicant’s personal circumstances cannot be the basis for denying a variance. The board should consider the property, not the applicant’s bank account and ability to cover the cost of the hardship. Moreover, the fact that the applicant owns property nearby is irrelevant to the consideration of whether this particular property deserves a variance (Williams v. N.C. Dept. of Env. & Nat. Resources, 144 N.C. App 479, 548 S.E. 2d 793 (2001)) Not Self-Created Hardship You can’t shoot yourself in the foot and then ask for a variance. The hardship must not result from actions taken by the applicant or property owner. So what is self-created? Suppose a property owner sells part of a conforming lot and makes the remainder of the lot nonconforming. The hardship (limitations on the non-conforming lot) was self-created (by the owner selling the sliver off the parcel. The owner may not seek a variance for building on the substandard lot. Similarly, where an owner failed to seek zoning and building permits and then incorrectly placed foundation footings in the setback, the hardship is self- created. No variance is allowed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. What if the owner relied in good faith on seemingly valid surveys and obtained building permits? After construction began, a neighbor objected, citing a new survey and arguing that the foundation wall is within the setback. Is the owner’s hardship self-imposed? Our North Carolina courts have held that hardships resulting from such good faith reliance on surveys and permits are eligible for a variance (Turik v. Town of Surf City, 182 N.C. App. 427, 642 S.E.2d 251 (2007)). An important statutory provision applies here: “The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.” For example, if the original owner had a legitimate case for a variance, someone buying the lot from that owner would have the same legal position as the original owner. They could seek a variance. This rule aligns with the broader zoning concept that land-use permissions run with the land, and land-use decisions are based on the property and impacts of development, not based on the particular owner. Is this a loophole for an unscrupulous owner to overcome the limit on variances for self-created hardship by selling the property to a spouse or sham LLC? Maybe, but the requirement for substantial justice (discussed below) probably protects from someone gaming the system. Restrictive covenants and other legal limitations may be a factor in determining hardship. Consider a property that has Page Coates' Canons NC Local Government Law https://canons.sog.unc.edu Copyright © 2009 to present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved. Page Copyright © 2009 to present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved. Page 81 limited development ability due to a privately-imposed covenant for a street setback and a publicly-imposed stream setback. Can the owner seek a variance from the public stream setback? The NC Court of Appeals—interpreting a specific local ordinance—found that the board should consider physical and legal conditions of the property, including restrictive covenants (Chapel Hill Title & Abstract Co., Inc. v. Town of Chapel Hill, 362 N.C. 649, 669 S.E.2d 286 (2008)). Let me emphasize that covenants and other legal limitations may be a factor. In that case, the decision was based on the local ordinance, and the decision pre-dated the statutory variance standards. A self-imposed legal limitation—like an easement across a property that limits buildable area—that was created after a zoning ordinance limitation became effective, could be viewed as a self-imposed hardship so that no variance should be granted. Ordinance Purpose, Public Safety, and Substantial Justice In addition to those standards for “unnecessary hardship,” the statutory standard for granting a variance requires the applicant to show that “[t]he requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.” Where an ordinance expresses a clear intent, a variance cannot subvert that intent. But, alternatively, a variance may help to give effect to the ordinance intent. In one North Carolina case, an applicant was seeking a variance to allow an additional sign at a secondary entrance. Among other things, the ordinance purpose was to provide “adequate and effective signage,” “prevent driver confusion,” and “allow for flexibility to meet individual needs for business identification.” The purpose, the court found, called for the flexibility that the applicant sought, and the variance was allowed. (Premier Plastic Surgery Ctr., PLLC v. Bd. of Adjustment for Town of Matthews, 213 N.C. App. 364, 369, 713 S.E.2d 511, 515 (2011)). The applicant also must show that the variance does not harm public safety. Even if an applicant met the standard for unnecessary hardship, a variance may be denied for public safety concerns. A property owner may prove an unnecessary hardship exists from limitations on on-site drives and parking for a commercial use. But, if neighbors presented expert evidence that the increased traffic and stormwater effects will harm public safety, the board may be justified in denying the variance. Additionally, the statute requires the applicant to show that through the variance “substantial justice is achieved.” The concept of substantial justice raises issue of fairness for the community and neighbors. This concept echoes the requirement that hardship must be peculiar to the property—not shared by the community. If everyone bears this hardship, then one lucky person should not be relieved through a variance. Similarly, the justice standard draws upon a notion of precedence. Suppose Joe sought a variance last year and was denied. If Karl is seeking variance this year that is essentially the same request for a similar property, then the variance outcome should be the same. The substantial justice standard also can play in favor of the applicant. If an applicant relies in good faith on a city permit, and that permit turned out to be wrongly issued, the applicant would have no vested rights in that mistakenly issued permit. Substantial justice might argue for allowing a variance for the applicant. No Use Variance North Carolina courts long ago established that use variances are not permitted, and that rule is now part of the statutory standards. If a land use is not permitted on the property, a variance cannot be used to, in effect, amend the ordinance and allow the use. If only single family residences are permitted in a district, a variance cannot permit a duplex (Sherrill v. Town of Wrightsville Beach, 76 N.C. App. 646, 334 S.E.2d 103 (1985)). If the use is already permitted on the property, a variance to allow the expansion of the permitted use is permissible. So, for example, if a sign is permitted for a commercial property, a variance to permit an additional sign is allowable. It is an area variance, not a use variance. (Premier Plastic Surgery Ctr., PLLC v. Bd. of Adjustment for Town of Matthews, 213 N.C. App. 364, 713 S.E.2d 511 (2011)). Conclusion Making decisions about variances is a hard job. How much hardship is enough hardship? Is justice being served? Does the variance preserve the spirit of the ordinance? Rarely are there clear answers for these questions. Seeking those Page Coates' Canons NC Local Government Law https://canons.sog.unc.edu Copyright © 2009 to present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved. Page Copyright © 2009 to present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved. Page 82 answers is the hard task of the board of adjustment. The applicant must present competent, material, and substantial evidence that they meet all of the standards. And the board must consider the issues on a case-by-case basis; they must weigh the evidence, apply the required statutory standards, and decide if a variance is warranted. Links www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=160A-388 canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=7155 Page Coates' Canons NC Local Government Law https://canons.sog.unc.edu Copyright © 2009 to present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved. Page Copyright © 2009 to present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved.This blog post is published and posted online by the School of Government to address issues of interest to government officials. This blog post is for educational and informational use and may be used for those purposes without permission by providing acknowledgment of its source. Use of this blog post for commercial purposes is prohibited. To browse a complete catalog of School of Government publications, please visit the School’s website at www.sog.unc.edu or contact the Bookstore, School of Government, CB# 3330 Knapp-Sanders Building, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330; e-mail sales@sog.unc.edu; telephone 919.966.4119; or fax 919.962.2707. This blog post is published and posted online by the School of Government to address issues of interest to government officials. This blog post is for educational and informational use and may be used for those purposes without permission by providing acknowledgment of its source. Use of this blog post for commercial purposes is prohibited. To browse a complete catalog of School of Government publications, please visit the School’s website at www.sog.unc.edu or contact the Bookstore, School of Government, CB# 3330 Knapp-Sanders Building, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330; e-mail sales@sog.unc.edu; telephone 919.966.4119; or fax 919.962.2707. Page 83 JUNE 10, 2020 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/REVISION REQUESTED REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA/PACKET: ACTION ITEM REQUESTED BY Add New Item H. 4. Action/Approval - Transitioning to In-Person / Zoom Hybrid Meetings City Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner DATE: June 10, 2020 SUBJECT: Action/Approval –Future In-Person and/or Virtual Meetings The Commission decided via email to meet with an in-person/virtual hybrid style of meeting. This was in response to the latest guidance related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A protocol for Council Chambers is the following: Given that the guidance that goes with the “Reopen Alaska Responsibly” Plan still provides for 6 feet distancing, 17 people can fit in Council Chambers. There is room for up to five Commission members to sit at the dais. If all seven attend in person, two members will need to sit in the back of the room. Alternatively, two or more may participate by Zoom. Staff will sit at desks or participate by Zoom. The Council Liaison will also sit in the back of the room. Please let the City Clerk know if you are willing to sit in the back of the room or wish to participate by Zoom. Does the Planning and Zoning Commission wish to ratify their decision made via email to have in an in-person/virtual hybrid meeting style moving forward?