The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-01-1986 Landscape Review Board SummaryKENAI LANDSCAPING REVIEW BOARD 3uly 1, 1986 ~t 7:00 PM Ken~i City Hall Lou Schilling, Chairman AGENDA I. ROLL CALL 2':" i ' 'APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~f 2une 3, 1986 OLD BUSINESS a. Violation: Renovation of Over $10,000 - Lot ), Blk 1, East Addition - Eagle Construction b. Viola[.ion: Lots 9 & 12, Aleyeska $/D- Kambe Theate~ NEW BUSINESS a. Plan Review: Lot 3, Ba~on Park S/D- P~zza Hut - Neal Hayes b. Council Action: Discussion, Combine Landscaping Review Board, Site Plan Review Board, and Planning & Zoning Commission c. Ordinance 1132-86: Site Plans- Council has requested review by this body 6. -BOARD QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 7. AD3OURNMENT Please call 3anet at 28)-79))as fa~ ~n advance as possible ~f you are unable to attend ~n o~de~ to establtsh a quorum. KENAI LANDSCAPING REVIEW BOARD July 1, 1986 at 7:00 PM Kenai City Hail Lou Schiiling, Chairman I. ROLL CALL 2~ P~esent: Caleb, Cole, Schilling Absent: Obesg (excused) APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda approved as submitted APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June ), 1986 4. OLD BUSINESS a. Violation: Renovation of Over $10,000 - Lot ), Blk 1, East ....... Addition As a result of a letter sent to Mr. Webber requested by the Board, Mr. Norm Webber had approached Board Hembers individually and sta~ed that he w°uld be bringing in the written plan prior to the next meeting, 3uly 8th. Mr. Webber had asked for permission to begin the land- scaping project even though no plan had been submitted, the Board agreed, however, if no plan is submitted the Board asked Planning Specialist Loper to check with the Building Inspector to determine if the Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. (Answer no 7/2/86.) b..Violation.: L..ot.e_..9 ....& 12, .A....1. eyeska~.S./D .... ..-..,.Kamb. e..T. hea..ter At the request of the Board, a letter was sent to Mr. Sales. In response to that letter, Mr. Sales answered ~hat he had visited the site and agreed ~ha~ ~he contractor had removed the trees. "In order ~o compensate fo~ the loss, we will be adding two additional 6' to 7' high white spruce to the grouping at ~ha~ northeast corner..." The Board found this to be acceptable and asked that Mr. Sales be contacted regarding the approval. c. Short Review: Lot 8-2 and B1A, Sp~ucewood Glen - Lowry - Kenai Plaza This plan appea~s to be a portion of ~he original Kenai Plaza mall complex. This lot is adjacen~ to the partial building which is not completed. The Board noted several factors in talking with Mr. Lowry; 1) there a~e two lots, a~e both to be deveIoped simultaneously? Answer no. The LANDSCAPING REVIEW BOARD 3uly 1, 1986 Page 2 two lo~s will be considered separately, 2) Landscaping on Lot B-2 falIs very shor~ of 5~, ~) Landscaping on Lo~ B1A falls very shor~ of 5%. Taking the smaller lot, B-2 first, the pa~king and d~iving pattern circles the building, high curbing will be placed a~ound the d~ive- through to p~otect the mounds on the east and no~th sides, plus extended to the one d~iveway that access both lots to ensure vehicle~ will not attempt to enter f~om the Spu~ Highway across the f~ontage. As both lots fall ~o short of )%, Mr. Low~y and the Board agreed to include the ROW along the Spu~, in front of both lots to be included. Mr. Low~y agreed to plant three clu~ters of t~ees, at the ~tanda~d 6' minimum, to be indicated on a final plan. Lot BiA will be completed first and because the frontage landscaping is shared between the two lots, ~he frontage wii1 be compieted as part of the Iarger lot. At this point there is no time frame for completion of the smaller lot. Since the curbing on the smailer will be extended, the parking space adjoining the driveway will need to be wider, one parking space wiI1 be deIeted. Mr. Lowry stated that he is sure he still exceeds the parking space requirements. Mr. Lowry's plan will return with the modifications a~ the next meeting. d. Short Review: Lot 6, Block 2 and Loaf F-lB, Sp~ucewood Glen - Club ~ _. Kena i , .... L 0~ y ....................................................................... I~ was noted that the~e was no buffe~ between adjacent land uses, i.e. the lots unde~ ~eview a~e in the p~ocess of ~ezoning to CG whiie the adjacent lo~s a~e RU. M~. Low~y d~ew in a fence to be 8' in height made of cedar. It was noted that the pa~king wili be on iots adjoining the faciiity and show no b~eak in pavement. It was also noted ~hat ~he parking iot has sharp co~ne~s which a~e ha~d ~o plow and b~eaks up curbing. It was agreed that the co~ne~s wii1 be made into half circles with smaIi plan~ings of his choice. M~. Low~y wili be b~inging in a ~evised pian to the next meeting. 5. NEW BUS I NESS a.~ Pian Review:~.Lo.t. ), _Ba~on~Pa~k~$,,/D,- .... ,Pizza, Hu.t.- NeaI~.,Hayes M~. Hayes informed the Board ~hat he e~ed in drawing in the building on the Plan, tha~ the building needs ~o be moved back on ~he lot about 60'. This wiI1 necessitate moving ~he back landscaped portion forward to the fron~ of the building. It was noted that ~he iot is not subdivided, ~hat a small po~ion is set aside fo~ this deveIopmen~ and tha~ amenities will be sha~ed with the adjacent "pa~ent" lot. There is no indication of when the ia~ge~ portion of the io~ wii1 be LANDSCAPING REVIEW BOARD July 1, 1986 Page ) deveioped. The Board and M~. Hayes agreed on a general pIan which would inlcude several g~oup~ngs of t~ees ~n the ROW. M~. Hayes will ~etu~n w~th a ~evi_sed pIan next meeting. b. Council Action: Discussion, Combine Landscaping Review Board, Site ........ Plan. Revie_w Board, ~ and ~Pla..nm_.nil.nm g. &_ Zoni.ng~ Commission~' .................................. As the~e were no members of the Planning CommisBion able to a~end, this item was postponed until eithe~ the nexk meeting, 3uIy 8~h, or Wednesday, 3uiy 9th which wiI1 be p~ior to the Planning Commission meeting. c. O~dinance 11)2-86: Si~e Plans - Council has ~equesled ~eview by ~ this .body ........... , .................................................................... The Board reviewed the Landscaping .Ordinance first, as this ordinance is to go before Council the next evening. The Site Plan Ordinance will be reviewed wi~h Planning Commissioners and Council in a joint session a'~ a later date pending a quorum. The Board agreed with most of the p~oposed amendments, however, had several suggestions which migh~ fu~the~ ciarify the inkent of the o~dinance. The Board ~equested a mem° d~afted to Council ~equesking a postponement pending a work session between all bodies, in particular the Building Inspector. ~ BOARD QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS None 7. AD3OURNMENT 3a net Loper Planning Specialist