Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-12 Planning & Zoning Minutes CITY OF KENAI PLANNING 8s ZONING COMMISSI011 KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 12, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. CHAIR CARL GLICK, PRESIDING MINUTES ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Glick called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 1-a. Roll Call Members Present: Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Barb Nord, Donald Erwin, Amy Jackman Members Absent: Ron Goecke, Robert Newbry Others Present: Councilman Duane Bannock, Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull, Building Official Bob Springer, Contract Secretary Barb Roper 1-b. Election of Chair 8c Vice-Chair MOTION: Bryson MOVED to nominate Carl Glick as Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion SECONDED by Nord. Glick requested nominations for Vice-Chair and announced that both positions would be voted upon at the same time. MOTION: Nord MOVED to nominate Phil Bryson as Vice-Chair. Motion SECONDED by Erwin. VOTE: B son Yes Erwin Yes Goecke Absent Nord Yes Newb Absent Jackman Yes Glick Yes MOTIONS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ].-c. Agenda Approval ~ MOTION: Nord MOVED to approve the agenda to include the handouts provided prior to the meeting and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Motion SECONDED by Erwin. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 1-d. Approval of Minutes: December 8, 1999 MOTION: Erwin MOVED to approve the minutes of December 8, 1999 and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Motion SECONDED by Bryson. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. No additions or corrections were noted and the minutes were approved as written 1-e. Consent Agenda -- None. ITEM 2: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -- None. ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF PLATS -- None. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARINGS -- None ITEM 5: NEW BUSINESS 5-a. Inlet Woods Subdivision -Determine if needed for public purpose Kebschull stated the information provided prior to the meeting included the minutes from the last Parks and Recreation Commission meeting as well as a map of the Inlet Woods Subdivision. She added, the map highlighted the lots the City received as a settlement stemming from the McLane lawsuit. The lots, if determined not to be needed for public purpose, would eventually be sold. Kebschull added, at their January 6+~ meeting the Parks and Recreation Commission approved a motion that any lots in Inlet Woods Subdivision deemed as unsuitable for building as a result of swampy areas should be recommended for use as a neighborhood park. The Parks and Recreation Director indicated the lots preferred would be 25, 26 and 27. It was noted a lake was thought to be in the area of lots 25 - 27 and a lengthy discussion ensued in an effort to determine the exact location. Bryson stated, he thought the lake would be more in the vicinity of lots 21-2~4. Bryson also noted the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2pp0 PAGE 2 lake was created by the original homesteader and the materials removed from the area were not used for any road construction. Bryson added, he thought Lots i8-27 should be withdrawn from the sale but not designated for conservation purposes. Bryson added, Parks and Recreation should evaluate the parcels for compatibility for development of a park, skating area, etc. MOTION: Bryson MOVED that the lots as proposed, with the exception of Block 12, Lots 18 through 27 be released as not being required for public purposes. Motion SECONDED by Nord. Jackman agreed with holding Lots 18 through 27 from the sale but felt that since Parks and Recreation reviewed the lots and knew which ones they wanted for a park, the Commission should go ahead and provide Parks and Recreation with Lots 23 through 27 for future use. Jackman continued, this wouldn't mean that Parks would do anything with them immediately but at least they would have them should they want to do something in the future. MOTION TO AMEND: Jackman MOVED to amend the main motion to read, Lots 23 through 27 should be retained for Parks and Recreation. Nord SECONDED the motion for the purpose of discussion. Bannock stated it might be appropriate to pass the ordinance since it was a charge of Planning and Zoning to determine whether the lots should be sold or not, and once that was completed, make a recommendation to the Council for retaining specific lots for Parks and Recreation. Bannock continued, he didn't know if the Parks Commission's idea was necessarily specific to the particular ordinance. Discussion again took place on where the lake was actually located. Nord expressed concern about the exact location of the lake and that the Commission was going by old data from 1970. Kebschull pointed out the data was 1970 through the 90's, so the actual data was not that old. Nord thought perhaps the area needed to be re-surveyed to make sure where the lake was situated before any property was released to Parks and Recreation. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: Erwin Yes Goecke Absent Nord No Newb Absent Jackman Yes Bryson No PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2000 PAGE 3 1 Glick No MOTION FAILED. Bannock suggested Item 12 in Exhibit A of the proposed ordinance, be changed to read, "Lots One (1} through Seven (7} inclusive, Lots Nine (9} through Eleven (11} inclusive, and Lots Twenty-Eight (28) through Thirty-Five (35} inclusive, Block Twelve (12}. This would eliminate Lots 18 - 27. Bryson agreed to modify the Main Motion to include the change to Exhibit A. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: Goecke Absent Nord Yes Newb Absent Jackman Yes B son Yes Erwin Yes Glick Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-b. Tide 14 Code Revisions Kebschull explained the City Manager requested that Title 14 be reviewed for any required changes. As a result, many meetings were held with the City Engineer, Building Official, City Attorney, City Manager and Kebschull. The recommended changes from Administration were included in the packet. Kebschull noted the City Attorney reviewed the language in the suggested changes and she and the Building Official would answer any questions regarding the recommended changes and why they should be made. Kebschull stated the City Council asked the Commission to do this as expediently as possible, but at the same time be thorough in reviewing the Code. Glick stated each Commissioner would have an opportunity to ask questions regarding the recommended revisions. Bryson had the following questions: Bryson asked who participated in the meetings? Kebschull replied the Building Official, City Engineer, City Manager, City Attorney and herself. 2. KMC 14.20.020(e} -Bryson asked if the intent of the change was to state that no lots could be straddled. Springer confirmed that was correct. 3. KMC 14.20.050(c} -Bryson requested clarification on what exactly was being deleted. Kebschull replied, with non-conforming lots the City was unable to enforce this section of the Code since they were not told when lots are sold. PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2000 PAGE 4 Bryson, expressed concern of creating a problem if lots are attached for the purpose of onsite water and/or sewer and then the City comes along and builds water and/or sewer and the need is no longer necessary for the sale of the lots. Bryson asked if that would complicate the situation or would the landowner would have to go through some type of modification of their deed. Kebschull stated the way it was currently, the City was supposed to be enforcing the Code but it could not because people don't come to the City when non-conforming lots are sold. 4. KMC 14.20.190 (a) -Bryson stated this change brought to mind a situation in his neighborhood where a property owner owns a number of large tracts. They served another house on their tract with water and sewer because it was shorter to run diagonal towards the back of the property. Bryson asked if a property with multiple structures was on a single water/sewer service, who would pay for the service when a lot was sold or would they have to hook up individually. Springer stated the original intent of the change was if an individual had a piece of property with a house on it and wanted to have a family member move in, they could. Springer continued, they did not give consideration to a house sharing the same property and service being sold separately. Kebschull stated the Code was quite specific in that They could not serve two structures with one hook up. Bryson stated, he thought they would probably be allowed to until they subdivided. Kebschull stated, that had been done in the past and when the City found out, they were required to run a separate line. Kebschull reiterated, the Code was specific that two structures hooked up to one service line was not allowed. 5. KMC 14.20.245(d)(3) -Bryson asked if natural gas could be added. Kebschull agreed that it should be added. 6. KMC 14.20.250(b)(8) -- Bryson expressed concern that consideration was not given to the large number of staff who were not tied to classrooms, including principals, counselors, nurses, food service, secretaries, aides, visiting adults and volunteers. He added, this could result in an additional 20 vehicles and Bryson asked this item be reevaluated. Glick brought attention to the sign code revisions and the following questions and comments were offered: 1. KMC 14.20.220(e) -Glick asked how Administration came up with the dimensions of the signs for commercial buildings. Springer replied that 110 sq. ft. appeared to be the standard sign size for a lot of the major chains such as Burger King, McDonalds, etc., so they added a little extra to that by changing it to 120 sq. ft. Kebschull stated they also reviewed past sign variances to come PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY I2, 2000 PAGE 5 into some type of conformity to eliminate the many variance requests. 2. KMC 14.20.220(h)(18) -- Bryson asked if the term "structure" in the paragraph also included a permanent pole. Springer replied, yes, it did include a permanent pole. 3. Bryson asked if the last two sentences of Section 18 would remain in the requirement. Springer thought they would because they were trying to clarify what would make a portable sign. Kebschull confirmed that all they were doing was adding three words, "or permanent pole." 4. KMC 14.20.220(d)(5) -Bryson asked what was being deleted and what would remain. Springer explained, they were trying to eliminate the two-year period because there were a lot of signs out there that were well past the two-year period and there was no enforcement. Bryson asked if the third sentence from the bottom would remain. Springer confirmed that it would . 5. Glick asked if the sign code addressed balloons used as signs for special events. Springer stated it was not currently covered and it was not addressed during the review of the Code. Springer also noted there hadn't been a great deal of interest in balloons in the last few years. Discussion took place on balloons used for advertising and it was agreed that balloons should be considered as a temporary sign only to be used for the duration of the special event. Kebschull stated that Soldotna addressed the same issue recently and they handled it as a temporary sign and businesses are given a permit only good for several days per year. Kebschull continued, the business owner was responsible for getting the permit which is documented by time. The Commission had many questions regarding the permit system to include enforcement, cost, etc. Kebschull stated she would review the Soldotna sign code and bring it back to the Commission at the next meeting. Kebschull stated that when they were asked to review the Code, she made the statement that the sign code needed to be completely rewritten. Kebschull was told this would be reviewed after the Comprehensive Plan. Kebschull reiterated, the comments and suggestions made and stated they would be brought back at the next meeting and then after that, perhaps a public hearing could be held on a resolution. Nord stated that she didn't have much time to review the suggested Code changes as she was unsure whether she would remain on the Commission. Nord asked if it would be okay to discuss this again at the next meeting. Kebschull encouraged everyone to review the Code and if there were any other additions or changes, they would be forwarded to the City Manager after the next meeting. ITEM 6: OLD BUSINESS -- None PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2000 PAGE 6 J ITEM 7: PENDING ITEMS 7-a. Proposed Livestock Ordinance {Postponed from September 22, 1999 meeting peading work session. ITEM 8: CODE ENFORCEMENT -- None. ITEM 9: REPORTS 9-a. City Council Councilman Bannock drew attention to the maps on the walls in Chambers of the newer version of the Coastal Trail project. He noted, a second public hearing was held on January 1 i and it was well attended. Bannock gave a brief report on the project and indicated the next step would be to obtain funding for the design stage. The estimate cost for the design was $1.5 million and the entire project could be in the $9.9 million range. Councilman Bannock pointed out the City Council Agenda for the January S~ meeting was included in the meeting packet. He noted, explained Item C-3, Supporting Legislation for Mortgage Loans Covered Under the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Housing Assistance Program was tabled until the January 19 meeting. He noted, the resolution discussed a Alaska Housing Loan program which placing the City of Kenai at a financial disadvantage when a person is considering purchase of a home outside the City limits. He added, the item was brought up now as the City of Kenai would have a substantial number of house lots up for sale soon and there was a need to want people to remain in the City. Bannock stated he and Mayor Williams heard many reasons why people didn't want to reside within the City limits but Council had made a commitment to keep people in the City. Bannock reported, AHFC executives would be attending the January 19 council meeting to speak to the item. Bannock encouraged P8vZ Commissioners to attend. Bannock also reported on Item H-9, Millennium Square (FAA Property) pointing out the other map on the wall which was a blueprint of the property. Bannock noted the Planning and Zoning Commission would be the key leaders in the development of this property. Bannock continued, the Council wanted to turn this area into a planned development but they want to do it right. He added, there would be many brainstorming sessions to determine what would best fit in this area. 9-b. Borough Planning: Bryson reported the Borough Planning Commission met on January 10, 2000. He PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2000 PAGE 7 1 added, the new Planning Director was on board and the consent agenda was approved as submitted. He explained, Item F-1 was a rehearing of a Planning Director decision which had some incorrect information in the legal, ad. The appeal was accepted and the decision of the Planning Director was overturned. Item F-2, vacation of the easterly area of Keystone Estates Subdivision was approved. Item F-3 recommended adopting the revisions in the flood insurance program mapping. The errors pointed out were corrected and surveyed. Bryson noted that all other items were approved. He added, Item K-1 was the primary focus with eight additional use petitions. Three were withdrawn by the applicants but they would be resubmitted and the five others were approved. Item L-1 was a declaration of a determination by the Planning Director. 9-c. Admiaistratioa Kebschull stated the yearly activity reports were included in the meeting packet. Kebschull drew attention to the number of landscape site plans reviewed by the Commission. Kebschull stated she thought that was one section of the Code needing to be rewritten because of the number that come before the Commission. Nord asked if the building permits were separated out by new structures, additions, etc. Kebschull replied were separated out by definitions, i.e. new residential, residential additions, residential garage, carports, commercial additions, etc. Nord stated she would be interested in seeing what actually happened within the City of Kenai. Kebschull stated she would provide Nord with a report of activity within the City. Springer stated there were 26 new residences last year and 12 new commercial structures. ITEM 10: PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED -- None. ITEM 11: INFORMATION ITEMS 11-a. Commission reappointment letters dated 12/ 16/99 11-b. Commission Roster 11-c. "Zoning Bulletin" -December 10, 1999 ITEM 12: COMMISSION COMMENTS ~ UESTIONS -- None. ITEM 13: ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Nord MOVED to adjourn. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2000 PAGE 8 The meeting adjourned at approximately 8: Z5 p.m, Minutes transcri e d prepazed by: Barbara Roper, o act Secretary PLANNING 8v ZONING CQMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2000 PAGE 9