Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-02-11 Planning & Zoning Packet
CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS February 11, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. Consent Agenda d. *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 item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. *January 28, 2009 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (10 Minutes) 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker.) a. PZ09-04 - A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that KMC 14.20.260 be amended to better provide for enforcement for violations of the Kenai City Code and to provide for appeal of administrative enforcement orders to the Board of Adjustment. b. PZ09-OS - An application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Vocational Center from the property known as Tract A-lA, Cone Tracts A-lA & A-1B (2880 Beaver Loop Road), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Frontier Community Services, 43335 K- Beach Road, Suite 36, Soldotna, Alaska 99669. c. PZ09-06 - An application to rezone properties North of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor from McCollum Drive West to No-Name Creek from Rural Residential 1(RR1) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). Application submitted by Rick Koch, City Manager for Kenai City Council, City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. 6. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ09-08 - A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) be amended to allow an extension for the ninety (90) day time limit for skirting in mobile homes placed in mobile home parks -Discussion -Set Public Hearing. Agenda February 11, 2009 Page 2 7. PENDING ITEMS: a. PZ07-25 -Recommending Council enact KMC 9.10.015 to require dumpsters be screened on at least three sides. 8. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: (3 Minutes) 10, INFORMATION ITEMS: a. 2008 Annual Report -Extraction of Natural Resources b. 2008 Annual Certified Local Government Report c. Reappointment letters Commissioners Rogers, Koester & Twait d. "Zoning Bulletin" - 1/10/09 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: ZG CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS January 2$, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. 1.. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Election of Ck~air & Vice Chair c. Agenda Approval d. Consent Agenda e. *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 na 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 an the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. *January 14, 2009 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (10 Minutes) 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker.} a. PZ09-02 - A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai; Alaska, recommending to the Council that the Development Requirements Table in KMC 14.24.020 be amended to provide for Front Setbacks of Twenty-Five (25} Feet, Side and Rear Setbacks of Ten (10) Feet in the Light Industrial (IL), Heavy Industrial (IH}, Central Commercial (CC), General Commercial (CG) and Central Mixed Use Zones (CMU). b. PZ09-03 --- A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council the enactment of KMC 14.20.255 establishing a process for the regulation and establishment and placement of communications towers within the City of Kenai and amending the Land Use Table in KMC 14.22.010 to provide that communications towerslantennas area conditional use in the CMU zone. 6. OLD BUSINESS: 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. ~Z09-04 - A Resolution of the Planning And Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that KMC 14.20.260 be amended to better provide for enforcement for violations of the Kenai City Code and to provide for appeal of administrative enforcement orders to the Board Of Adjustment -Discussion. S. PENDING ITEMS: a. PZ07-25 -- Recommending Council enact KMC 9.10.015 to require dumpsters be screened on at least three sides. 9. REPORTS: a. ,City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: (3 Minutes) ll. INFORMATION ITEMS: 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 13. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CHAIR JEFF TWAIT, PRESIDING MINUTES ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER Chair T~wait called the meeting to order at approximately 7:03 p.m. ].-a. Roll Call Roll was confirmed as follows: Commissioners present: K. Koester, S. Romain, R. Wells, J. Twait, P. Bryson, K. Rogers, J. Brockman Commissioners absent: None Staff/Liaison present: City Planner M. Kebschull, City Council Liaison R. Molloy A quorum was present. 1-b. Election of Chair & Vice Chair MOTION: Commissioner Wells MOVED to nominate Jeff gait as Chair and Scott Romain as Vice Chair. Commissioner Brookman SECONDED the motion. VOTE: Koester YES Romain YES Wells YES Twait YES B son YES Ro ers YES Brookman YES MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 1-c. Agenda Approval Commissioner Bryson noted the fallowing changes: - ADD TO: 5-a. P209-02 Memo from Planner Email with Attachment from D. McClintock of AT&T MOTION: Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve the agenda with the above-mentioned lay downs and Commissioner Romain SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. Y-d. Consent Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Brookman MOVED to approve the consent agenda and Commissioner Wells SECONDED the motion. There were na objections. SO ORDERED. 1-e. *Excused Abscnces *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 ~Mernber 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. Approved by Consent Agenda. ITEM B: *APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- January 14, 2009 Approved by Consent Agenda. ITEM 3: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -- None ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF PLATS -- None ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5-a. PZ09-02 - A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that the Development Requirements Table in KMC 14.24.020 be amended to provide for Front Setbacks of Twenty-Five (25) Feet, Side and Rear Setbacks of Ten (10) Feet In the Light industrial (IL), Heavy Industrial (IH), Central Commercial (CC), General Commercial (CG) and Central Mixed Use Zones (CMU) . Kebschull reviewed the staff report included in the packet, natang variances would allow smaller lots to be developed. Twait opened the meeting to public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 28, 2009 PAGE 2 Commissioner Romain MOVED to approve PZ09-02 and Commissioner Wells SECONDED the motion. VOTE: Koester YES Romain YES Wells YES Twait YES B son YES Ro ers YES Brookman YES MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-b. PZ09-03 -- A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council the enactment of KMC 14.20.255 establishing a process far the regulation and establishment and placement of communications towers within the City of Kenai arid amending the Land Use Table in KMC 14.22.010 to provide that communications towers/antennas area canditlorial use in the CMU zone. Kebschull reviewed the memo added to the packet at the beginning of the meeting, noting the 23-page letter from AT&T was received at approximately 1:00 p.rn. Kebschull recommended postponement of the resolution to the February 25, 2009 meeting. Twait opened the meeting to public hearing. Debbie Sonberg, 410 Cinderella -- Requested another public hearing at the February 25, 2009 meeting. Ray Espy, 403 McCollnrn -- Noted he believed the City was moving in the right direction with regard to cell towers and supported the postponement in order to study the additional materials. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Romain MOVED to approve PZ09-03 and Commissioner' Bryson SECONDED the motion. MOTION TO POSTPONE: Commissioner Wells MOVED to postpone action on PZ09-03 to the February 25, 2009 meeting and Commissioner Brookman SECONDED the motion. Kebschull Hated Administration would readvertise the public hearing and the meeting. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 28, 2009 PAGE 3 VOTE ON POSTPONEMENT: Koester YES Ramain YES Weils YES "1`uvait YES B son YES Ro ers YES Brookman YES MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 6: OLD BUSINESS -- None ITEM 7: NEW BUSINESS 7-a. Discussion -- PZ09-44 - A Resalution of the Planning Anal Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Cauncil that KMC 14.20.260 be amended to better provide for enforcement for violations of the Kenai City Code and to provide for appeal of administrative enforcement orders to the Board Of Adjustment. Kebschull reviewed the resolution included in the packet, noting there would be a public hearing on PZ09-04 at the February 11, 2009 meeting. gait opened the meeting to public hearing. Kristine Schmidt, 5 ~3 Ash Avenue -- Noted she was not sure why the Commission was moving forward with the resolution. Kebschull explained, if codified by Council, the City would be able to place judgments through Civil Court instead of Criminal Court to allow for better enforcement of City Code violations. ITEM 8: 8-a. PZ07-25 -- Recommending Council enact KMC 9.10.015 to require dumpsters be screened on at least three sides. ITEM 9: REPORTS 9-a. City Council -- Molloy reviewed the action agenda items from the January 21, 2009 City Council meeting, noting the proposed Limited Commercial rezone would return to the Planning & Zoning Commission at the February l 1, 2009 meeting. J-b. Borough Planning -- Bryson reviewed the agenda of the January 26, 2009 Borough Planning Commission meeting. 9-c. Administration -- Kebschull reported she would begin scheduling work sessions soon, including one to rewrite the subdivision ordinance. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 28, 2009 PAGE 4 ITEM 10: PER50NS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED -- None ITEM 11: INFORMATION ITEMS -- Nane ITEM 12: COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS -- None ITEM 13: ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Brookman MOVED to adjourn and Carnmissioner Romain SECONDED the motion. There were x~o objections. SO ORDERED. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:53 p.m. Minutes prepared and submitted by: Corene Hail, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 28, 2009 PAGE 5 ~~, . CITY OF KENAI PLANIIIING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~.. ~, , '~ ~'`~~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. PZQ9-04 t{re a'' y o~ NEMA~ SSA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THAT KMC 14.20.260 BE AMENDED TO BETTER PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE KENAI CITY CODE AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.260 provides for the administration and enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.260 does mention the role of the City's Planner fn administration-and enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.260 should be amended to define the role of the Planner in administration and enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.260 also needs to be amended to better provide for administrative enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code and other portions of the .City Cade; and, including enforcement orders and administrative fines; and, WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.260 should include the ability of a person served with an enforcement order to appeal that order to the city's Board of Adjustment. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA amend KMC 14.20.060 as shown on Attachment "A." PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 11TH day of February 2009. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 5a New text underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED AND ALL CAPS] 1.20.260 Administration, enforcement, and penalties. ~(A} THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF KENAI IS NAMED AS THE ADMINISTRATNE OFFICIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. (B} IF THE ADMINISTRATNE OFFICIAL FINDS THAT ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER ARE BEING VIOLATED, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY 1N WRITING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS, INDICATING THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATION AND ORDERING THE ACTION NECESSARY TO CORRECT IT. HE OR SHE SHALL ORDER DISCONTINUANCE OF ILLEGAL USES OF LAND, BUILDING, OR STRUCTURES; REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL BUILDINGS, OR STRUCTURES OR OF ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS, OR STRUCTURAL CHANGES THERETO; DISCONTINUANCE OF ANY ILLEGAL WORK BEING DONE; OR SHALL TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHAPTER TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH OR TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS.] a. Planning and Zoning Administration and Enforcement.. The administration and enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code is a fiinction of the Planner under the supervision of the City Manager. b. Cit~Planner -Functions and Powers. 1. The City Mana eg rmay appoint a City PIanner and, one, or__more assistants, however denominated. 2. It' appointed by the -City Manager, the City Planner shall have, all, functions and may exercise all powers necessary to adminiGter and enforce the zoning code. Assistants to the City Planner __ __ _ ,,,veers of the City Planner under may exercise the administration and enforcement functions and pa ,,.,,, ,,,,, ___..__ ._._..___...... the City Planner's supervision. 3. Administration and enforcement functions and powers of the Cit,~lanner include, but are not limited to maintaini~ records of all zoning text and district changes related to this title. c. Enforcerrient orders. 1. In addition to any other remedy or other method of enforcement available under the Kenai Zoning Code or other provision of the Kenai„City, Code.or„other law, the City Manager or the City Planner may order: The discontinuation of a use of land or a structure that is in violation of the Kenai Zoning Code, a regulation or a permit. ~ ThP__a_batement or_ removal of a structure or part of a structure that is in violation of the Kenai Zoning; Code, a regulation or a permit. The discontinuation_ ofconstruction or other activit~preparatory to a structure or use -- ofreal property that is in violation of the Kenai Zoning Code, a regulationor apermit. The_ suspension or revocation. of a permit under which a violation of the Kenai Zoning Code or regulations is occupied, maintained, constructed,or established. The restoration of an structure ve etation land water bod or other thin u on the land that is destroyed, damaged, altered or removed in violation of the Kenai Zoning Code, regulations or a permit. Any_other action necessary to prevent, abate or discontinue a violation of the Kenai Zoning Code, a regulation or a permit. .~, Correction or abatement of a violation of KMC 12.25.030. ,{H}. Correction or abatement of a violation of KMC 12.20.20-50. 2. An_enforcemer-t _ordder sssued_under subsection (c) of this section may be directed to one or mare violators. 3. A written enforcement order issued under subsection {c) of this section that is served on a -_ _ violator personall~or by certified mail is irrnnediatel~ppealable to the Board of Adjustment. Ana eel must be filed within 15 da s of service of the written enforcement order. Failure to PZ09-04 Attachnnent A Page 1 appeal to the Board of Adtustment within 1 S days of service shall constitute a waiver of all rights of appeal from the order. The~rocedure for appeals is set forth in KMC„ 14.20.290. 4. During such time that an enforcement order is under appeal, no further use or development contra to the order ma continue. 5. Upon correction of the condition or termination of the activity that,caused the issuance of an enforcement order_under subsection (c),_the officer who issued the order may terminate the order or issue written confirmation of satisfactory compliance with the order. b. An enforcement order need not be issued before a prosecution or legal action is commenced with respect to a violation of the Kenai Zoning Code,, a regulation pr. a permit. The pendency of an;~proceeding re a~ riling an enforcement order issued under subsection ~c) of this section does not stay any prosecution or other legal action with,respect to the violati~n.that is the subject of the enforcement order, d. Whenever a written enforcement order is in effect that has not been a Baled or if a Baled remains in effect during an appeal or aft_ er all appeals are exhausted, and a violation continues to exist the Cit Mana er ma Commence ~raceedings to cause the. abatement of the violation or, ~2,) Assess an administrativ ,fine, not exceeding_,~250.00 per dax, for failure to comply with an . _. a ._._ enforcement order. e. [C] No permit far the erection, alteration, moving, or repair of any building or other structure shall be issued until an application has been made for a certificate of zoning compliance, and the certificate has been issued by the administrative official in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. The administrative official shall maintain a record of all certificates of zoning compliance and copies shall be furnished upon request to any person. Failure to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance shall be a violation of this chapter and shall be punishable as provided in this section. All applications for certificates of zoning compliance shall be accompanied by plans in duplicate, drawn to scale, showing the actual dimensions and shape of the lot to be built upon; the exact sizes and location, and dimensions of the proposed building or alteration. The application shall include such other information as lawfully may be required by the administrative official, including existing or proposed buildings or alterations, existing or proposed uses of the building and land; the number of family housekeeping units, or rental units the building is designed to accommodate; conditions existing on the lot; and such other matters as may be necessary to deternvne conformance with and provide for the enforcement of this chapter. The administrative official shall render his decision within thirty (30) days of the filing of the application for a certificate of zoning compliance, However, this time linnit zzaay be extended by common consent and agreement signed by both the applicant and the administrative official. One copy of said plans shall be returned to the applicant by the administrative official, after he or she hall have either attached a certificate of zoning compliance or marked the plans as disapproved and attested to the same by his or her signature on such copy. The second copy of the plans, similarly marked, shall be retained by the administrative official. ,f1D] Complaints Regarding Violations. Any person may file a complaint regarding an alleged violation thereto. All such complaints shall be brought to the attention of the administrative official who shall record such complaint and immediately investigate and report thereon to the Commission and take any action required by this section. gIE] Penalties for Violations. For any and every violation of the provisions of this chapter, the owner, agent, or contractor of a building or premise where such violations have been committed or shall exist, or any other person who maintains any building or premises in which any violation exists, shall be subject to a jCIVIL] penalty in an amount as provided in KMC 13.05.010. Each and PZ09-04 Attachment A Page 2 every day that such violation continues shall be deemed a separate and distinct violation. All remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. The issuance or granting of a building permit ox approval of plans or specifications under the authority of the building code without a certificate of zoning compliance shall not be deemed or construed to be a permit far, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or any amendriaent hereto. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel any of the provisions of this chapter shall be valid except insofar as the work or use which is authorized is lawful and permitted. PZ09-04 Attachment A Page 3 ~.~~~\ .. v -- 'r }°_ ttie clly o~ ~[EHA~ 5KA CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE NO. *-2008 Suggested by: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING KNIC 14.20.260 TO BETTER PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE KENAI CITY CODE AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.260 provides for the administration and enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Cade; and, WHEREAS, KMC .14.20.260 does mention the role of the City's Planner in administration and enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.260 should be amended to define the role of the Planner in administration and enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.260 also needs to be amended to better provide for administrative enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code and other portions of the City Code; and, including enforcement orders and administrative fines; and, WHEREAS, KMC 3.4.20.260 should include the ability of a person served with an enforcement order to appeal that order to the city's Board of Adjustment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that KMC 14.20.060 is hereby amended as shown an Attachment "A." PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this * day of ~`, 2009. PAT PORTER, MAYOR ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Introduced: Adapted: Effective: IVew Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BUCKETED] 14.20.260 Administration, enforcement, and penalties. [(A} THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF KENAI IS NAMED AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. (B) IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL FINDS THAT ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER.ARE BEING VIOLATED, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY IN WRITING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS, INDICATING THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATION AND ORDERING THE ACTION NECESSARY TO CORRECT IT. HE OR SHE SHALL ORDER DISCONTINUANCE OF ILLEGAL USES OF LAND, BUILDING, OR STRUCTURES; REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL BUILDINGS, OR STRUCTURES OR OF ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS, OR STRUCTURAL CHANGES THERETO; DISCONTINUANCE OF ANY ILLEGAL WORK BEING DONE; OR SHALL TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHAPTER TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH OR TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS.] a. Plannin and Zonin Administration and Enforcement.. The administration and enforcement of the Kenai Zoning Code is a function of the Planner under the supervision of the City,Manager. b. City Planner -Functions and Powers. 1. The City Manager znay appoint a City Planner and one or more as,sistantsL however denominated. 2. If at?pointed by the City Manager, the City Planner shall have all fianctions,and may exercise ali powers necessary to administer and enforce the, zoning code. Assistants to the City Planner may exercise the administration and enforcement functions and powers of the .City Planner under the Citv Planner's supervision. 3. _ Administration- and. enforcement functions anal powers of the City Planner include, but are not limited to maintaining records of all zoning text and district, changes related to this title, c. Enforcement orders. w.. 1. In addition to any other remedy or other method of enforcement available under the Kenai Zoning .Code or other provision of the Kenai City Code or other law, the City Manager or the City Planner may order: The discontinuation of a use of land or a structure that is in violation of the Kenai Zoning Code, a regulation or a ~ennit. The abatement or removal of a structure or part of a structure that is in violation of the Kenai Zoning Code, a regulation or a hermit, The discantinuation_ofconstructIon or other activit~~reparatory to a structure or use of real ro ert that is in violation of the Kenai Zonin Code are lotion or a ermit. The suspension or revocation of a permit under which a violation of the Kenai Zonin Code or re lotions is occu ied maintained constructed or established. The restoration. of any structure, vegetation, land, water body or other thing upon the land that is destroyed, damaged, altered or„removed in violation of the Kenai Zoning Code,_reQulations ar a permit. F . An other action necess to revent, abate or ~ y ary p discontinue a violation of the Kenai Zoning Code, a regulation or a permit. ~. Correction or abatement of a violation of KMC 12.25.030. ~. Correction or abatement of a violation of KMC 12.20.20-50. 2. An enforcement order issued under subsection (c) of this section maybe directed to one or more violators. 3. A written enforcement order issued under subsection (c) of this section that is served on a violator personally or by certifcd mail is immediately appealable,.te~, the Board of Adjustment. An.. a~peal_ must_be fjled within 15 days of service of the written enforcement order. Failure to appeal to the Board of Adjustment within 15 days of service shall constitute a waiver of all rights of appeal from the order. The p„rocedure,fclr.appeals is set forth in KMC 14.20.290. 4. During such time that an enforcement order is under appeal, no fiuther,use or development contrary to,the„order, may, continue. 5. Unon correction of the condition or termination„of the activity,„that caused the issuance of an enforcement order unde_r_subsection_(c), the officer who issued the order may terminate,the, order or issue written confirmation of satisfactory compliance. with the order. 6. An enforcement order need not be issued before a prosecution or Legal action is commenced with res ect to a violation of the Kenai Zonin Code are lation or a ermit. The endenc of andproceeding regarding an enforcement order issued under subsection~c~. of this section does not_stay_any prosecution ~r other legal action with respect to the violation that is the subject of the enforcement order. d. Whenever a written__enforcement order is in effect that has not been appealed, or if appealed,, remains in effect during an appeal or after all appeals are exhausted, and„~ violation continues to exist, the City Manager may: Commence proceedings to cause the abatement of the violation or, ~2} Assess an administrative fine not exceedin 250.00 er da fox failure to cam 1 with an enforcement order. e. [C] No permit for ,the erection, alteration, moving, or repair of any building or other structure shall be issued until an application has been made for a certificate of zoning compliance, and the certificate has been issued by the administrative official in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. The administrative official shall maintain a record of all certificates of zoning compliance and copies shall 6e furnished upon request to any person. Failure to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance shall be a violation of this chapter and shall be punishable as provided in this section. All applications for certificates of zoning compliance shall be accompanied by plans in duplicate, drawn to scale, showing the actual dimensions and shape of the lot to be built upon; the exact sizes and location, and dimensions of the proposed building or alteration. The application shall include such other information as lawfully may be required by the administrative official, including existing or proposed buildings or alterations, existing or proposed uses of the building and land; the number of family housekeeping units, or rental units the building is designed to accommodate; conditions existing on the lot; and such other matters as may be necessary to determine conformance with and provide for the enforcement of this chapter. The administrative offFCial shall render his decision within thirty (30) days of the filing of the application for a certificate of zoning compliance. However, this time litx~it may be extended by common consent and agreement signed by both the applicant and the administrative official. One copy of said plans shall be returned to the applicant by the administrative official, after he or she hall have either attached a certificate of zoning compliance or marked the plans as disapproved and attested to the same by his or her signature on such copy. The second copy of the plans, similarly marked, shall be retained by the administrative official. f1D] Complaints Regarding Violations. Any person may file a complaint regarding an alleged violation thereto. All such complaints shall be brought to the attention of the administrative official who shall record such complaint and immediately investigate and report thereon to the Commission and take any action required by this section. g[E] Penalties for Violations. For any and every violation of the provisions of this chapter, the owner, agent, or contractor of a building or premise where such violations have been committed or shall exist, or any other person who maintains any building or premises in which any violation exists, shall be subject to a [CIVIL] penalty in an amount as provided in KMC 13.05.010. Each and every day that such violation continues shall be deemed a separate and distinct violation: All remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. The issuance or granting of a building permit or approval of plans or specifications under the authority of the building code without a certificate of zoning compliance shall not be deemed or construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or any amendment hereto. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel any of the provisions of this chapter shall be valid except insofar as the work or use which is authorized is lawful and permitted. 5b STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: January 14, 2009 Res: PZ09-05 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Ann Shirnberg 7 i 4-6649 Directoz• of Administration & Development Frontier Community Services 43335 K-Beach Road, Suite 36 Soldotna, AK 99669 Requested Action: Legal Description: Street Address; KPB Parcel No.; Existing Zoning: Current Land Use Land Use Plan: ANALYSIS General Information: Conditional Use Permit -Vocational Center Tract A-1 A, Cone Tracts- A-1 A& A-1 B 2880 Beaver Loop Road 04944007 RR -Rural Residential Commercial Rural Residential This is an application for a vocational center to be operated from the property known as 2880 Beaver Loop Road. The property has operated under a conditional use permit since 2001 with no complaints. The property is located in the Rural Residential zone. In 2001, the building was converted to operate a retailloffice/hotel/guide service. Since the proposed use is not listed in the land use table the following applies: KMC 14.20.040 (b) (2) Rules for Interpretation of Permitted Uses. "In cases of reasonable doubt as to whether a use is permitted in a specific zone, the guidelines established in the conditional use section shall apply." The proposed use closely resembles a high school, which would also require a conditional use. Frontier Community Services intends to run two programs from the above-referenced location. There will be 4 permanent employees working from the location during various times. PZa9-OS Comments Page 2 • The Day Habilitation Program will operate between the hours of 12pm - 4pm and 12-pm to Spm 5-days a week providing a variety of activities that teach functional life skills, and provide for meaningful recreation and a safe place for social interaction. The applicant lists some of these activities as: arts and crafts, theatre, personal financial skill, menu planning, pre-employment skill development and social outings in the community. The maximum number of consumers to participate in this program would be 18. ® The Vocational Program provides local businesses a variety of high quality services while providing individuals with developmental disabilities the opportunity of employment. Some of these services are: laundry and janitorial services, shredding and various printing jobs. There are approximately 16 consumers enrolled in this program. These consumers and their employees will meet at the facility and then disperse to their job sites. Background Information: Kenai Peninsula Borough assessing records indicate the structure was constructed in 1963 as a lodge. In 1984, the structure was converted into a crematory/residential dwelling. The dwelling has also been a Laundromat and a church. In 2001, the property was converted to operate aretail/office/hotellguide service. The property has operated under a conditional use permit since 2001 without any complaints. Building Official: The building must comply with all current code requirements for the proposed new use to include the following: • Electrical must meet commercial standard • ADA accessibility • Separate restrooms far men and women • Drinking fountain • Occupancy not to exceed 49 persons Other requirements will be determined by plan review. Building is not to be occupied until all building requirements have been met. RECOMMENDATIONS Frontier Community Services has been providing educational and developmental skills to disabled young adults on the Kenai Peninsula since 1981. This property has operated under a conditional use permit since 2001 without any complaints. The- City attorney believes the proposed use closely resembles that of a trade school. KMC 14.20.250 parking requirements for a trade school would be "One (1) per five hund~•ed (S00) square PZ09-05 Comments Page 3 feet of gross floor area, " The structure is approximately 3,200 square feet; which would require a minimum of 6.4 spaces. One of which must meet ADA requirements. There is sufficient parldng available. According to all retards, it appears the property has operated as a business entity since it was constructed. The property is located in the Rural Residential zone. The property is served by on-site water and sewer. Based on the application and review of Kenai Municipal Code, the requested use meets the criteria for a conditional use permit. Recommend approval with the following requirements: 1. Obtain a building permit and complete the modifications required by the building code for use: • Electrical must meet commercial standard • ADA accessibility • Separate restrooms for men and women • Drinking fountain • Occupancy not to exceed 49 persons 2. Facility shall be inspected by the sire Marshal for compliance with the fire code (KMC 8.05} prior to approval of the permit. Thereafter, they shall be inspected every other year by the Fire Marshal. 3. Permit will not be issued until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. PZ09-OS 2. Application 3. Drawings _ _ r,~ _.-~-~ = \v flee ~,Zv of CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ09-OS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO: NAME: Ann Shirnberg for Frontier Com_ munity Services USE: Vocational Center LOCATED: 2880 Beaver Loop Road -- Tract A-lA Cone Tracts A-1A & A-1B (Street Address/Legal Description} I~ENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PARCEL NO: 04944007 WHEREAS, the Commission finds: That an application meeting the requirements of Section 14.20.150 has been submitted and received on:.Ianuary 13, 2009 2. This request is on land zoned: RR =Rural Residential That the applicant has demonstrated with plans and other documents that they can and will meet the following specific requirements and conditions in addition to existing requirements a. Obtain a building permit and complete the modifications required by the building code for use: • Electrical must meet commercial standard • ADA accessibility • Separate restrooms for men and women • Drinking fountain • Occupancy not to exceed 49 persons b. Facility shall be inspected by the Fire Marshal for compliance with the fire code (KMC 8.05) prior to approval of the permit. Thereafter, they shall be inspected every other year by the Fire Marshal. c. Permit will not be issued until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. . 4. That the Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing as required by KMC 14.20.280 on: Februar~l 2009. Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROPOSED VOCATIONAL CENTER MEETS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SAID OPERATION AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION DOES AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, FEBRUARY 11, 2009. CHAIRPERSON: ATTEST: "~/cll~ e t•~ct~ a Asst, Gi roc°t~ a ~r~tr~~°e ~® ~-~ 210 Fidaigo Avenue, Kenai, Aiaslca 99611-7794 I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~" ~ Teiephone:907-283-7535 :907-283-3014 ~ ~ G~~Y (~~.'~ 1992 d the city o f . J~~ ~° ~ HENAl, AM~ASKA ~ ~D`~ 9~;,~ ~ ~, PLANNING AND ZONING APPL)<CA Date I2/19/OS 1. Name of Applicant Frontier Community Services (Contact: lames Kenneth Duff) 2. Business Name Frontier Community Services 3. Mailing Address -43335 K,_ Beach Road Soldotna, AK 99b69 ~`i ~-~~'~ 4. Telephone 907/262/6331 Email Address kduff a fcs_onlii~e.org ~~I(~ ~ _ ~ ~ P~ _ ~ ~~,~~ 5. Legal Description T SN R l IW SEC 11 Seward Meridian KN 0770I73 Cone Tracks A-IA & AIB Track A-IA Kl'B Parcel Na. 04944007 b. Property Address 880 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, AK 9961 I 7. City of Kenai Zonilag 335 Lodge/Multiple Cabins 8. Application applying for {mark permit being applied for): ^ Bed & Breakfast ~ Conditional Use ^ CUP -Transfer ^ Encroach_ment ^ Gravel Extraction ^ Home Occupation ^ Rezone ^ Townsite Historic Development ^ Variance ~ .. The_ following_informatioii must ye,~rovided beforeyoultr application will be considered for processing. Da not submit ,your application until it contains all required information, (Check each box that applies and attached the necessary information to process this application.} I a1,n the legal owner of the property. ^ I am not the legal owner of the property; however, I have attached verification by the owner of the property that I have permission to apply for the permit. ® I have paid the required fee ($100 plus sales tax}, Attach a detailed description of the proposed nse. Review the applicable section of the Kenai Municipal Code and include all information required by code for the type of application. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. 12/19/200 PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS ON BACK C®nditi®na1l~Jse Permit Applicant; Frontier Community Services 43335 K-Beach Road, #36 Soldatna, AK 99669 9071262-6331 Contact: Ken Duff Legal Description of Property: T SN 11 W SEC 11 Seward Mexidian KN 0770173 CONE TRACTS A-1 & A-1 B -TRACT A-1 A Parcel Address; 2880 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai tDescription of the Proposed 1<_J'se: Frontier Community Services {FCS) began in 1.981 as a grass roots operation through the efforts of parents in the Kenai/Soldotna area with disabled children who had aged out of high school. The parents were concerned of the potential risk of isolation for their young adult children due to their spending the majority of time at home. The home atmosphere provided a minimal amount of interaction with peers and did not encourage further growth and development of their adult children. FCS began a number of different programs for these individual that focused an everyday life and vocational skills. FCS would like to like to use the above property to house run our day habilitation and vocational programs. FCS Day Habilitation Pra ram: FCS Day Habilitation program provides adults with developmental disabilities a wide variety of activities that teach functional life skills, provide meaningful recreation and provides a safe place for meaningful social interaction. A few examples of the type of activities that consumers can participate in are: ® Menu planning, meal preparation ® Budgeting and personal finance skills ® Theatre Arts ® Arts and Crafts ® Social Outings (restaurants, movies, shopping, swimming, hiking, etc...) ® Pre-employment skill development Hours of operation are: Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday 12pm - 4pm Wednesday & Fxiday 12pm -- 8pm Numbex of employees: 4 Number of consumers that participate in the program: 18 Number of vehicles parked during business hours: 5 FCS Vocational Program: The FCS vocational program office local businesses a variety of high quality services while providing individuals with developmental disabilities the opportunity of employment. Currently the services available are: Laundry Services -- this is most a seasonal services as most of our contracts are far summer months. Janitorial Services. ® Shredding ® Printing of business cards, brochures and flyers (this is currently just for in-house use) FCS suns a sheltered workshop as well as providing job coaching for consumers that work out in the community. FCS also run a janitorial crew that has several contract in the community and use the vocational building as a base to pick up crews and vehicles. Hours of operation of the sheltered workshop: Monday -~- Friday gam - 5pm Hours of operation of janitorial crew Monday _ Friday 6pm - l Opm Number of employees on site: 11 (7 day & 4 evening) Number of consumers that participate in the program on site are: 16 Number of vehicles parked during regular business hours: 7 FCS does plan to do some remodeling of the existing building to better accommodate the needs of the two programs.. This remodeling will consist of tearing down some of the bedroom room walls to open up the area of side of the building that will accommodate our Day Habilitation program. One of the bathrooms will also be remodeled to make it wheelchair accessible. The are no immediate plans to add to the existing building, ~ G ~~~ ~~ 210 FIDALGO AVE., KCNAI, ALASKA 99b11-7794 ~`'~ TELEPHONE; 907-283-7535 FAX: 907-283-3014 ~LJ TO: Marilyn Kebschull, City Planner rROM:~~ Cary R. Graves, City Attorney DATE: February ~, 2009 ItE: Protest of Charles VVi>negarden I. You requested that I review the protest dated January 31, 2009 fiom Charles Winegarden aazd make a xecoznznendation regarding it. My analysis follows. The protest requests that Commissioners Twait and Koester be disqualified from participating in the proposed rezone of properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway Cozxidor from McCollum Drive. west to No-Name Creek {"proposed rezone"). There are actually two different protests in the letter.. One alleges Commissioner Twait has a conflict of interest and the second alleges pre- judgmentbias. I will analyze, each separately. TI. The protest alleges Commissioner Twait has a conflict of interest under KMC 1.85.060. As l understand it, the letter alleges that Commissioner Twait's daughter is the granddaughter of Glen McCollum, Jr. who owns property in the area of the proposed rezone. The City Planning Department checked the Kenai Peninsula Borough land records via the KenaiView GIS systezxz and did not find any property within the city limits owned by Glen 1VIcCollum, Jr. However, l will assume, fox purposes of argument, that Mx. McCollum does own property in the area. The theory is that Commissioner Twait has an indirect financial interest in the issue because his daughter, Miranda, znay at some point in the future inherit all or part of the property. ] KMC 1.85.060(d) provides that: No Council or commission member may vote on any question in which he or she has a substantial direct or indirect financial interest. Direct or indirect financial interests shall be disclosed to the presiding officer prior It appeaa~s that Miranda's mother, Cora Leigh McCollum, is the ex-wife of Comir-issioner Twait and the daughter of Glen McCollum, 7r. to a vote on the question and the presiding officer shall determine whether the financial interest exists and whether the prohibition from voting is applicable. A decision by the presiding off cer may be overridden by a unanimous vote of the members present, exclusive, of the member presenting the possible conflict. Whether a person has a substantial direct or indirect financial interest is analyzed under the criteria in KMC 1.85.060(d}(1}. Those criteria are: Whether the direct or indirect financial interest is substantial shall be determined by the presiding officer on.a case-by-case basis, with evaluation of these factors: {i) Whether the financial interest is a substantial part of the consideration; {ii}Whether the financial interest directly and substantially varies with the outcome of the official action; (iii) Whether the financial interest is immediate and known or conjectural and dependent on factors beyond the official action; (iv} Whether the fizzazzcial or private interest is significant monetarily; (v) Qtlzer factoz•s deemed appropriate by the presiding officer under the specifics of the disclosure and the nature of the action taken before the council or commission. Since the records do not show Glen McCollum, Jr. owns any property in the area, there does not appear to be any direct or indirect financial interest at issue, Moreover, the alleged indirect financial interest is not immediate and is both conjectural and dependent on factors beyond the official action. The complaint is based on a theory that Commissioner Twait's daughter mad at same point in the future inherit all or part of property in the area alleged to be owned by her grandfather. The alleged indirect financial interest is purely conjectural. It is clear that if Commissioner Twait owned property in the affected area, he would have a conflict of interest which would not allow him to participate.2 However, where the alleged conflict of interest is attenuated and speculative, the Alaska Supreme Court has held there is not a substantial financial ixiterest.3 Even if Mr. McCollum owns property in the area, the allegation regarding possible inheritance by Commissioner Twait's daughter is too speculative and attenuated to be a substantial indirect financial interest in this case. Therefore, it is my opinion that Commissioner Twait does not have a conflict of interest under the Kenai Municipal Cade. z Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 21 1015, 1027 (Alaska 1996), 3 Griswold v. City of Homer, 34 P.3d 1280, 1287 (Alaska 2001). Page 3 of 3 ITT. The complaint also alleges that Commissioners Twait and Koester should be disqualified because tlaey have exhibited apre-judgment bias. The protest alleges bias an behalf of Commissioner Twait because he signed the first rezone application and has written a lettex indicating support of the rezone idea. Tt also alleges Commissioner Koester has indicated bias in a letter to Council supportive of the rezone concept. The letter cites two cases in support of that argument. However, neither of the cases cited involves a zoning amendment. One involved an adjudication of a pipeline rate taxiff by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska4 and the other involved an adjudication of an unfair trade practices complaint before the I~edexal Trade Commissions Both cases involved quasi judicial or adjudicatory proceedings, not legislative proceedings. In Alaska, like most states, a zoning amendment is a legislative function, not an adjudicatory ar quasi-judicial function.6 Because zoning is a legislative function, the prohibition against the appearance of pre judgment bias does not apply.? If the prohibition against pxe judgment bias applied in legislative proceedings, a legislator who sponsored an ordinance or bill would not be allowed to vote on his/hex own bill. Obviously, that is not the rule. Therefore, it is my opinion that neither Commissioners Twait or Koester should be disqualified from participating on the proposed zoning amendment due to pxe-judgment bias. TV. T~MC 1.85.464(d} provides that the presiding officer should make the determination of whether a member of the body is prohibited from voting on an issue. The decision of the presiding officer may be overturned by a unanimous vote of the members, exclusive of those presenting the possible conflict. Because the complaint involves Commissioner Twait and he is the presiding officer, he should pass the gavel to Vice-Chair Romain to rule on the issue. Depending on the ruling by Vice-Chair Romain (and any override attempt), either Commissioner Twait would be allowed to participate as the presiding officer or he would be excused and the Vice-Chair would run that portion of the meeting8, V. T hope this memorandum answers the questions you had xegaxding these issues. please let me know if you have any questions regarding these mattexs. `' Amerada Hess Pipeline Corp. v. Regulatory Commission of Alaska, 176 P.3d 6b7 {Alaska 2008}. s Cinderella Career & Finishing Sch. v. F. T C., 425 F,2d 583 (D.C. Gir. 1970) ~ Alaska Planning Comrasission Handbook, p, 31-32 {July 2003). ' Ibid. See also Harris v. Hornbaker, 658 P.2d 1219 {Wash. 1983) (Prohibition against pre judgment bias does not apply to legislative decisions). s The ruling would also involve Commission Koester, but that part of the ruling would not involve who chairs that portion of the meeting. ~~~ ~~ "~ 2E0 FIDALGO Av);., KENAI, ALASKA 996E I-7794 ~``~ TELEPHpN>;: 907-283-7535 FAX: 907-283-3014 1°~ ~ ~.l TO: ~ Marilyn Kebschull, City Flanner FROM: ~ ('-,~' Cary R. Graves, City Attorney DATE: ~ ~ ~ ` February 4, 2009 Z~F: ~'he "t~.ppearance oiF Fairness Y~octrine" You requested that I provide a summary of the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine" (doctrine) and its applicability to zoning in Alaska. My analysis follows. Tlae doctrine was judicially established in Washington State in 1969.' It was later codified into the statutory law of Washington.2 It was intended to provide courtroom type procedural due process protections for quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) land use decisions.3 In Washington, zoning amendments are considered quasi-judicial in nature.4 The doctrine prohibits such things as ex pay°te communications and pre-judgment bias in quasi judicial land use proceedings. Planning Commission decisions can be either legislative ox quasi-judicial.5 lxz Alaska, land use proceedings which are considered quasi. judicial are such things as conditional use permits, variances, plats and Board of Adjustment appeals.6 Unlike Washington, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that zoning decisions, including small scale amendments to the zoning map, are considered legislative rather than quasi judicial proceedings.? That is the rule in the majority of states.8 ' Srrar'th v, Skagit Co., 453 P,2d 832 (Wash. 1969), Z RCW 42.36.010-110. s The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in Washington State, Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, }~.1. (January 1995). ° Fleming v. City of Tacoma, 502 P.2d 327, 331 (Wash. 1972}, Oregon and Idaho follow the same rule as Washington. See Neuberger v. City of Portland, 607 P.2d 722 (Or. 1979) & Cooper v. Board of Count), Comna'r°s, 614 P.2d 947 (ldaho 1980}, S Alaska Planning Commission Handbook, p. 31 {July 2003}. ~ Alaska Planning Commission Handbook, p. 32 (July 2003). 7 Cabana v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 21 P.3d 833, 836 {Alaska 2001) (classification of borough land was legislative, not quasi judicial or adjudicatory); Balough v. Fairbanks North Star Boroxcgh, 995 P.2d 245, 249 (Alaska 2000)(rezoning a 75 acre parcel was a legislative decision); Griswold v. City of Homer-, 925 P.2d 1015, 1019 n. 3 (Alaska 1996)(rezoning 7.5 acre parcel was a legislative enactment). s 1-6 Land Use Law X6.26 {Mat#hew Bender & Company, Inc. 2008}. The Alaska, Planning Commission Handbook states: In Alaska, a rezone is legislative. rt affects all those vvith~property in the area that is rezoned and the legislative body has the discretion to approve ox deny the rezoning. Although there maybe statutory rules that govern legislative proceedings, there are no procedural due process rules that apply to legislative proceedings.9 Since a zoning amendment in Alaska is a legislative act, not aquasi-judicial one, the appearance of fairness doctrine and the prol~ibitions against ex pa~-te communications10 and appearance of pre judgment bias do not apply. ~ ~ i2 Please let the know if you have any questions regarding this memorandum. ~ Alaska Planning Commission Handbook, p. 31 (July 2003). 10 Alaska Planning Commission Handbook, p. 32 (July 2003). " Harris v. Hornbaker, 658 P.2d 1219 (Wash. 1983). (Prohibition against pre-judgment bias does not apply to legislative decisions} `21-Iowever, the confkict of interest rules in KMC 1.85.060 apply fio both legislative and quasi-judicial acts. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: January 27 2009 Res: PZ09-Ofi GENERAL INFORMA T14N Applicant: Rick Koch, City Manager For Kenai City Council City of Kenai 283-7535 .~ 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Requested Action: Rezone Legal Description: See Attached Map & Spreadsheet Street Address: Multiple KPB Parcel No.: See Attached Map & Spreadsheet Existing Zoning; Rural Residential 1 (RR 1) & Conservation SC) Current-Land Use: Residential & Vacant Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Residential & Conservation/Open Space ANALYSIS General Information: This is an application to rezone several parcels north of the Kenai Spur Highway from McCollum Drive west to No-Name Creek. This includes 13 parcels and a portion of another parcel; approximately 21.71 acres. The majority of these properties are zoned Rural Residentia! 1. The portion of the City of Kenai's property, Kenai Peninsula Borough parcel number 04501029, is zoned Conservation. The City property will require a subdivision plat and is shown for the rezone application an the map and spreadsheet as an approximate area. The actual property will be identified when a plat is processed and this platting will insure that the area rezoned does not encroach on No-Name Creek. KMC 14.20.270 describes amendment procedures. Section 2 states, "Amendments to the Official Zoning Map shall be considered only if the area to be rezoned contains a minimum of one (1) acre (excluding street or alley rights- of-way} unless the amendment enlarges an adjacent district boundary." The PZ09-06 Comments Page 2 area of this rezone meets the requirements fior an amendment to the Official Zoning Map. Background Information: In September 2008, an application was submitted by Dr. Wortham to rezone his property, Kenai Peninsula Borough Parcel #04506025, The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the application on September 24`". The Commission postponed action and held a second hearing on November 12`" The Commission voted 2 to 4 against the rezone. That recommendation was forwarded to City Council. City Council held a public hearing on December 3, 200$. Counci! tabled action an the ordinance and requested administration bring back a more comprehensive plan for rezoning the area. At the direction of Council, administration reviewed the area and selected the parcels to be considered for rezone to the Limited Commercial zone. An application was prepared for the Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman's- signature. On December 11`", a letter with information on the proposed rezone was sent to the owners of property included in the proposed rezone area. The application was scheduled far a public hearing at the Planning Commission for the January 14, 2009 meeting. Due to a question as to whether the Chairman has the authority to submit an application on behalf of the Commission as provided in KMC 14.20.270, Administration requested the Commission remove the item from the Commission agenda. The item was removed. At their meeting on January 21, 2009, City Council directed City Manager Koch to proceed with an application far the rezone an behalf of the Council. Evaluation of Application: During the creation of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, development concerns along the Kenai Spur Highway corridor were discussed extensively. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the issue of neighborhood concern relating to commercial development near residential areas as conditional .uses or through rezones, particularly along the Kenai Spur Highway. However, the Plan provides guidelines to address these concerns City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan, Page 37}. The City of Kenai's Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council recognized the issue of development along the Kenai Spur Highway and created the Limited Commercial zone to provide a transition area between commercial and residential districts and allow a mix of low volume businesses as well as residential use. The Limited Commercial Zone meets the recommendations for Commercial Land Use Development Policies CM1, CM3, and CM4 I;City of Kenai PZd9-db Comments Page 3 Comprehensive Plan, page 37}. KMC 14.20.115 -Limited Commercial Zone PLC Zone) - "Intent; The LC Zone is established to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts by allowing low to medium volume business, mixed residential and other compatible uses which complement and da not materially detract from the uses allowed with adjacent districts." The. Limited Commercial Zone requires that developments meet the requirements in KMC 1.4.25, landscaping/Site Plan Regulations. Included in those regulations is the requirement for a buffer separating commercial. uses from adjacent residential properties [City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan, Commercial Land Use Development Policy CM4 -- Page 37}. There- are 13 parcels zoned Rural Residential 1 and a portion of a parcel zoned Conservation included in this application. Six of these parcels are undeveloped. Four of the parcels located in the Rural Residential 1 zone are considered non- conforming. These are the Tree Top Estates Subdivision which house four- plexes. The non-conformity would continue under the proposed rezone to Limited Commercial. The remaining lots are in conformance for lot size and use and would continue as conforming under the proposed rezone to the Limited Commercial zone. !n 2006, the City of Kenai initiated the first rezone of properties along the Kenai Spur Highway to the Limited Commercial zone. That rezone was the result of an appeal by a property owner who had applied to rezone a residential property to General Commercial zoning. On appeal, the Board of Adjustment remanded the case to the Planning and Zoning Commission and directed the Commission to review whether the area was more conducive to the Limited Commercial zone. In the decision the Board commented the increased traffic along the Kenai Spur Highway has limited residential development along the highway. "The Board is forced to recognize that restricting use of the property to solely residential purposes may simply result in vacant and run dawn homes along the highway." The Board commented, "The Limited Commercial Zone was specifically designed for this type of zoning problem, allowing limited commercial development while protecting adjoining residential neighborhoods." (In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of A Zoning Change for Jay T. Snow and William A. Snow -Case No. BA-05-3, October 7, 2005.} The rezone before the Commission is a similar situation and the issues identified in this appeal are consistent with development issues for these properties. Building. Official: No building code issues. PZQ9-Ob Comments RECOMMENDATIONS Page 4 The City of Kenai has identified the area along the Kenai Spur Highway as hindered from future development due to traffic along the highway and the residential zoning limitation. There is limited land currently zoned commerciak along the highway and the current vacant residential land does not allow for commercial development. The Comprehensive Plan noted that uses should not be allowed through the conditional use process that has been used to allow same development along the highway and recommended zoning suitable for all land uses and to prepare criteria and standards under which compatible mixed uses are allowed to ensure that the uses are compatible with surrounding uses. When the Comprehensive Plan was written, the City did not have amixed-use zone. Since then, the Limited Commercial zone has been developed to allow mixed uses of residential and commercial. The zone has strict development criteria that limit the size of structures as well as landscaping with separation between uses. The proposed rezone from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial will provide for development -along the Kenai Spur Highway while not restricting residential use. Based on the application and review of Kenai Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan, the requested rezone meets the criteria far an amendment to the zoning map, Recommend approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Rlo. PZ09-06 2. Application 3, Drawings i ~''~ CITY OF KENAI .~ ,^, s ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ09-06 tl~e u~ o f REZONE PERMIT HENA~ SNA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE KENAI CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUESTED REZONING SUBMITTED BY NAME: Rick Koch_,.CityM_ ana er Cis of Kenai for Kenai City Cauncil T ADDRESS; 210 Fidal~o Avenue LEGAL: See Attached S readsheet & Ma PARCEL #:. See Attached Spreadsheet Sc Map ,,, ,,,.,,,,.,, WHEREAS, the Commission finds the following: 1. The subject property is currently zoned Rural Residential 1 & Conservation 2. The present land use plan designation is Neighborhood Residential & Conservation/O~en S ace 3, The proposed zoning district is Limited Coxnmercial 4, An appropriate public hearing as required was conducted Februa 11 2009 S. That the following additional facts have been found to exist: 6. Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai that the petitioned REZONING of PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND SPREADSHEET are hereby recommended to the Kenai City Council. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, FEBRUARY 11, 2009. CHAIRPERSON: ATTEST: a ~ ~ w F w f- w r w ~- w r w F- W r W r W r w >W w F- a z a °a > > > ~ > ? > > Z > > a ~ O H- to ~ ~ a ~ a ~ n. ~ a ~ a ~ n. a a a a oc n. ~ a ~ a n ~ O ~ 0 ~ 0 O 6 O O M O O O 0 S d p tl O ~ O p o ~R C m o p M a p a0 NN r ~ a 0 S O W ~~p 00 Op~ 01 cO fV M c~ M ~ 69 FR ff! M' ~ ~ Y r W 0 rn 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 °M 0 ° 0 ~ 0 g 0 v 0 a ~ g ~ ~r N 77 ~+ ~3 N M N 4N9 ( ~ 4A ~ p N ~ ~ 6~3 N N ( ~ bF3 ~ 69 Vi 69 69 f/7 U3 44 ¢ ~ ~ p GH S ~ cA 609 S ~ O p O ~ 0 O Ni p V3 T ~ ~ cN0 ,I ~C e0 n - ~ ~ N 0 ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ VY ~ ~ ~ N N 69 ; N d p p pp p e pp p pp O p O M S pp O co O n O ~. O O v O m g ~' N Zn d m N ~ o [O t a M m o (O ~ V ~ ~J N r 69 < to M 69 7 69 ~ 69 ~ ft~0] f9 14 y y q F rn g'i w Y ~ ~ m iD ~' F Z Y Y d ip ~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ¢ Z Yi oY 4 Ym ¢ rn ~ rn ~ a i ~ a K d r d FZ- ~ ~ N ° ' ¢ ° ' a 4 N ~~ 9 ~ Z ~ ~ z ~ ~ 9 ~ ~~ ~ V Q ~i t011 1 LL~l Y LL~l 1 Y X X ~1l ~ X y y E rn N f011 ¢¢ Y ~ ~ $ N ~ F a O ~ F ~ ~ }- o N o r~ g 0 ~ x ~ r f / r N v aa W N u~ p t7 p N M `" ~ o W {~ O X pp Z X ~ ~ q U Q U X m l~ o0 N O o O O O Q 06 p O ~L Z o ~ 4 ~ O o w ° O oD ~k o0 p [il O m ~ Iq O W O m O O °~ ¢ m a u. M m a ~i ~ a a a a a a N¢ x c7 o U g ~ U 2 m F U K ¢ WW U Y , , O ~ ~ W ~ ~ O N ~ („) Z U ~ F- Z~ Z w U1 K ~ Z F N V ~ Z ~ ¢ w ¢ O ~ m ~ 4 z Dz w m¢ W a y r a z ~ W ~ O ~ z ~ ~ w Z G ~ O p ~ ~ w ~ O 7 ¢ C a Y (D [A U' C .~ ~ 7 t i ~ U ~V Y~~ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ZZ Y Y y Y Y Z W ¢N Zw~ ¢°~!K Z ¢ Z ¢ Z_, ¢ ¢ Z_ ¢¢ Z'- ¢F ZN aF- Zm ¢F z Qr ~ ~ Q qa ~ O~~ ~W ~ O ~' O ~ Ouz~lll (Y ,[aZ Kw pd Km Ga~ ffm O~ Km o~ Km n ~ o K ^} Ix~ ~ w~j l jy wrn_ 41 W y W y W W~ WO Wp ~ W' ~ WM g W ~ W ~ gold gv¢ ~~ ~ ~ g0 ~~ gtn gm (h N F.. 7 = nNo ~~~ ra EYE Wy a K n z ra KN n trF ncn ~ ~ nN ~w r AN ~w i-- ncn W ~F. o0 J ~ 0.- r ~ a O ~ ¢~ ~W~ ¢ ~~o ¢ ~ a ~ ¢ ~o ¢ ~o ¢ ~F ¢ bra- ¢ 3~ ~~ ~ ~N pJ ~ ? ~~ w= U)r~ W~ N~Z w fn w U1 wz fn0 wZ (1lN Wlq NW wN Nw w~ fn wal NW N V7 m N~ (41n I M W Moa M W (~ mxz m M M M M Mz } m Mz } m 6. m0 d ~o M a Mo U Q ~o U IL ~o U"'~ (7 ~p U M ll mo¢ U'"~ t~ () Z W Z ll~ O Ur W W~ U w U W U W ^a U W J Ur W W V W~ r W W fn {{-- W W 11 W a V J W lL n F W¢ U N O Y U7 ~~O vlO~ ~cn` N~ ~f- N~ ~r N-~ ~r-~ NN ~f-~ N W ~~ fnW ~H W ~a 1W ~~ id ~a (n ~K ~ ~n.~ p ~ S ~ ~ K K IX IY a ~ K K K ~ a ~ o ¢ 0 F [7 z z t- ~ z~~ r z~ z~ ~ z~~ ~ z5a z$ z$ + ' ~ z$ m"' Q z~ z~ z ~ zNa jo o u i J <°~Y N}-J r °O FCI.N wo F-(7 X00 rC7 wOa F-C7 (/> ~o0a F-(7 fn ~m F-o w 0 p N0 r0 mop }-O mrn ro co rN g F-N~ d W ~ ~l'f I(l M ~Ofl CV V M S 0 N 0 V O ~ O ~ Q ~ [j Off/ N M [V h N U ¢ ~ j ~ K a iY a K a w K a ~ ~ 0 a a ~j ~ > ~ ~ n . ~ ~l z ~ z p ~ ~ z z ~ z ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢~ ff w UU ~ ~ ~ ~Z ~ Q ~ ~ 10 O p ~ M ~ pp ~ yQ M ~ a O/ O] M M O / O 1 GO o0 W 1 O h # pp~~ N o W aU d O O 0 ~ pOp ~D O O pO S m S p~o (t) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~p O N d (Np O ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ u 7 ~ ~ a V ..~;~~~. - ~ -~ ~~ t~rea~uf ~~ KEHAIv 5KA "~`~~a e wit~r a Past, Gc` wc't~i a ~ut~.re" 9 ~' 210 Fidaigo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 996 1-7794 Telephone: 907-283-75351 FAX: 907-283-304 III. ~ssz APPROVED BY C®tsrt~c~ ~l ~ 'r .~. ..., . ~.ar~ REZONING APPLICATION ~`~`~~ PETITIONER Rick Koch, Ci Mana er ADDRESS Ci of Kenai, 210 Fidal o Avenue, Kenai, AK 99611 PHONE 907-2$38222 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attachments PRESENT ZONE Rural Residential 1/Conservation PROPOSED ZONE Limited Commercial Intended Use and/or Reason far Rezoning: To_rezone properties along the Kenai fur Highway corridor consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ~.oals and to provide ,, _,. develo meat o Lions for those ro erties. Section 14.20.270 Amendment Procedures governs any amendment to the Kenai Zoning Code and Off cial Map. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING, COMPLETE THE BLANKS AND INITIAL THE SPACE AFTER THE ITEM NUMBER TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THESE CONDITIONS. °l 1. ~~ ~` Amendments to the Kenai Zoning Code and Official Map may be initiated by: Kenai City Council; Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission; Submission of a petition by a majority of the property owners in the area to be rezoned; or, a petition bearing the signatures of fifty (50) registered voters within the City of Kenai to amend the ordinance text; or, 4~ ~~ Ke~~ . submission of a petition as provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City Rr?CP~VP.d ~ of Kenai. ~1AN 2 3 2609 Rezoning Application Page 2 2. G ~~~ Amendments to the Official Zoning Map shall be considered only if the area to be rezoned contains a minimum of one (I}acre (excluding street or alley right-of way} unless the amendment enlarges an adjacent district boundary. ., 3. L ~' A Public Notification and Hearing is required before the issuance of this t permit. A $100.00 (plus sales tax} non-refundable deposit/advertising and administrative services fee is required to cover these notification costs. Depending on the rezone location, an Affidavit of Posting may also be required. 4. ~ i, A proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which is substantially the same as any other proposed amendment submitted within the previous nine (9) months and which was not approved shall not be considered. 1 -, ~ ~ . ! ~ I ~,eti~tion s signature REZONING CHECKLIST: _u/_ ___ a. MAP ~i~ b. SIGNATURES -At-~ c. DEPOSIT/ADVERTISING FEE ($i00 + sales tax) ,/ d. APPLICATION FORM OR LETTER ~~ e. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING W W = C7 ~ w h w ~ W h w h w h w h w f- w r- w t- W w w ~ J a V Z O ~ 4 > ¢ > ¢ > ¢ > ¢ 7 ¢ > ¢ > ¢ J ¢ J ¢ ~ ¢ J z ~ o N ~ O m a a ~ a ~ a ~ a ~ a m a ~ a K a tY a K a ~ a ~ ~ W o ~ ~ o W g m o M 0 O 0 W 0 S 0 OV 0 O 0 CO 0 ~ ~ 0 M 0 64 0 M «1 m ~ N M H3 lf1 _W ffl a ~ O ~ cD ~ Hf O m tR l0 o0 64 ~ ~ ~ [O N !9 l0 M~ M 0 F O O poO S S O S S O O O O S S t9 V] In ~ 0 [V ~ 1D ~L o0 f~ ti a0 ~ N M 'Q ~ O N d0 ~ P ~ N d ~D ~ O ~1 O1 a0 ~ ~ P~ N') N M f0 ~ ~ 44 w F/Y 6 9 69 IA fR ~ Hi O ¢ ~ o /.H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ o O O 0 "~ 1A +~ 4 h m m ~ 01 ~ ~ 0 O 3 j O vr9 d3 a9 to r» 5Fr Vi ~ ~ . ~ a m N ~ O p O p O p O O O O S S O O S S ~ L~ Q ^ d J i O (V lfl m (0 fA O (A 64 O l0 NN9 M [may fR O NM- ~0 ~ 49 f+ [7 E/i h M ~A ~ 64 d ~ ~9 O~ ~N4 M ~- N 10 F 100 ~ ~ W ¢ m rn ~ Z Q ¢ y ~ m rn ~ Q U Q ~ a ~ ¢ m ¢ o> a i rn a a Q ¢ ^ i m ~d a i rn ~d m a ~., o o o 0 o x ti ~ ~~ ~ z z z z z czi~ ° A ~~ z z z U Q~ UOj Y ~ ~ J Y Y Y q a~i ~ ~ Q¢ Y Y 1 1~~ Y N ~ O w W O 1~ ~ O O ~ N M J F- J (f~- n d w ¢ ~ o N ~ ~ d M N N M lV O -~ O w fl U to ~ m Z O m ¢ f 1 `~ U O m m N [0 ~k ~ m K M X m X m X m X m ti [ Q M d ~ LL M M 0. ~ 4` fL f p V a 0. a a N J O ~ U ~ ~l ~ Z x~ m F.. U h0.' ¢ ~ J z ¢ a Z Q ~ w ' ~ m ~ ~ ~ H o ~ U ~ ~ a ? w W ¢ N O LL ~ ~ m ~ Z ~ z p U w m¢ ~ ~ aY h a ~ r h O ~ ? ~ , ~ W w U ~ O ~ ~ OL w¢w N ~ ~ _ ~ O ~ U z u~i ~ q O y 1- O 4 r- Y W m m C7 O [x ¢ O u. 0. ~ U ZZ y d zz Y Nr` ~ Y ZZ Y ZZ Y Z Y Y Y .1ZC Y ~ Y ~ W cn Zwx ¢°n at Z ¢ Z ¢ Z_ ¢¢ ~¢ Z'- ¢~- ZN ¢F- ZM ¢~ Zd ¢~ Z ¢ ~ Z ¢ Z ¢ O~ R ~ ~~^ R'tL~ O OC ~ a OZ ay OZ 0.y !~~ ~m A~ Km Q~ X00 Q~ ~m q ~ 41 ~ Ca>" 0.'J W ~ cn0 w~n_ ~ a¢ w ~ w ~ W ~p w ~p w~ ~N w0 ~N w~ ~U W~ stn M ~h W ~ wg ~O O_N¢ 4 ~ ADZ TY A A a Q~' pO~ ¢~ 00 ~h tlul ¢h Ow ¢~' Otn ¢h p0 ¢m p~ ¢~ px ¢m ~ Wj Q ~L"p *- Q ~ Q ~ ~O - ~O ~F¢-- ~F ~F¢- w ~F¢- w ~~ ~p ~y zo, {nh~ (q 1y ... w cn}rz M W C~ ~ M w cn M z ~ M~ Z z cn M O Z wrq ~ W ~~++77 d ' w0 w W M n, w rnw M d ` w ww M Q, w ~cn t~ 1l1 ' m mp M N rnw M 111 ' M O¢ U Z Z W M 2 Z Uh J M U w M U M U>' W J C] U>' W --~ C ] O UH W M O UH W ( ~ O UH W M O UH W c 1 O U~ W M p U.,J W LL ( 9 O Q U~ W V d/ N o W {n ~ Y ~ ~ w LL (n O d to ~ W !n N UJ N to N W to W ~ W ffl W ~~ W U W ~ W to W ~ . Q f/1 d d N O ~~ ¢ U1 d a~ G v _ p ~Z111 ~H ~~ ~F-~ ~F-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "nO.Z ~ SON ~ r0 ~ r0 ~~~ ~ '~dz `~`Si ~ ~~i a ~`8i a ~i ~ TN ~"' 1n a~ a~~ 0 {~rJ Z r'Z o~ g Z~~ ~n FF 27 m a}~ Z7 m F Z7~ x0 a Z~~ wO Z~ m Zg tom ZS tom Zg 10~ Z~ <°rn ZS mo ZNa c°R o a W r p~ 0 0 0. a m ~ W K ,.r h h~ H0. HC7 Hl7 I-~C9tn h-C9N ho ho Ho h Ho FN Hc iK ~. rn ~ 1n 1[j m 1°n (V ~ rNi rn O N O v° O v° o ~ 0 v 6 rn fV vn fV n U N r ~ r x _ ~ z z x x ~ ¢ a ~ W W ~ ~ N 4 ¢ N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Y Q WZ p ~ Z x Z Y wZw U ~ U U Z X V U O U wZ m Q ~ Y U U X ~ ~ ~ ~ Y 41 ° ~ N [0 ~ V1 o 01 O aNi M N M a~ ~0 d a0 O ~ 777 d 4 O~ rn N ~"/ .~. D ¢ m w M ~ M o rn m ~ ao rn m M m h Yk N -~ ~ 47 o h o ~ n d ~ ~sy~,i a !ti ~ (~ o ~ o N `chi (O ~ Q~ o d o Ii 5 `g O a a a `~ ~ v a ,4d, ~ ".~ ~ ~ v w ~ _~ F?~,~it~~~, January 2fi, 2009 Planning and Zoning. Commission 210 1=idelgo Ave. ltenai, AK 99611 Ro: The issue of the contemplated rezone of properkies north of the Kenai Spur Highway Corridor from 11~cCoflum f]rive West to No-fame Creek ®ear Council: Nly wife, Jo, and I moved from Kodiaf~ to Soldotna in February, 1997 due to Jo's health and opened my law practice at # AO Trading day ®rive, Kenai. We did not buy a home rantif Decerriber, 1999 because we were looking for just the right combination of factors. We wanted to be close to the law office since I -often haute to meet with clients at odd hours on short notice, close to a camrrrercial center for shopping but yet in a quiet neighborhood. fn f]ecember, 1999, we found our house at 309 Princess which met all of our requirements and we have lived there since that time. Our home is 1 miles to my office, approximately the same to the f]ena'in~a Health Clinic and a lesser distance to the area grocery stores and home supply stores. When the 2003 Comprehensive Flan, hereinafter referred to as the "Plan" was adopted, we did not comment because the Plan requirements recognized the needs of the City of Kenai and insured that our neighborhood would remain essentially as.it is now and has been since we moved here in 1999, We were in full support of the Plan. We do not believe that the contemplated rezone is in conformance with the Plan. It appears that the rezone is nothing more than a pretense to legitimize spot zoning. When the rezone was proposed there had been no study done. There had been no planning. It was proposed because a developer wanted to build commercial buildings on a lot that he had purchased. fn order to facilitate that developer and avoid an illegal spot zoning, this rezone was proposed. The hasty illegal application submitted by the Planning and Zoning chairman, which had to be withdrawn, supports that conclusion and gives the public the appearance that the rezoning is going to be done regardless. As stated above, the rezone does not comply with the Plan for the reasons set forth below. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2p09 Page No. 2 Several goals of the Plan are listed but the first two of the goals of the Plan are: Create an attractive, vital, city center, with a mix of private and public facilities and activities to benefit residents and visitors: Protect and rejuvenate the livability of residential neighborhoods See page 2 of the Plan. These goals will be discussed in the order presented above. It was recognized in the Plan that: The city's dorzninant spatial pattern --linear growth along the Kenai Spur Highway spine a suits local ground conditions. ~a~t it g®~~~~s a wea9~, po®rl~ ~e~i~~d ~I~y c~ra~erro It a#so channels most locale and through traffic onto the Kenai Spur Highway, whose roadside is Kenai's front yard. The community has cited development of an identifiable, diverse, prosperous city center and a more attractive Kenai Spur Highway corridor as important planning goals. Bolding added. See page 25 of the.Plan. T'he Plan goes on to state: A common theme at the public planning workshops was that Kenai lacked swell-defined city center. The okd business district did not project a well defined city center. The ofd business district did not project a positive identity of a thriving Kenai. Instead, it was losing vitality and looking faded. Citizens generally agree that creating a strong, attractive, busy city center is a highly desirable planning goal. Kenai dies have the potential to develop a mare distinctive, attractive, successful city center. but it will take a joint public-private focus on the economics, appearance, and convenience of the city center in order to make it an attractive venue for residents and visitors. Some of the policies to foster that goal are set out below. Along-term strategy for development of IlAillennium Square, a remarkable community asset, is a key element for the future emergence of a city center. Planning and Zoning Can-rmission January 19, 2009 Page No. 3 My law office serves clients who reside throughout the Kenai Peninsula. The office was intentionally located in the city center so that clients who visit my office can accomplish other tasks in the city when making the trip. My practice benefits from this versatility offered the clients and the city benefits from the business that nny clients bring to the city. I support the concept of a strong city center and I believe the 2003 Comprehensive Plan correctly identified such need. Land Use Plan, Map 11 on page 28 of the Plan (attached} shows the concept of the strong city center clearly. The addition of Lowe's and Wall Mai fit into the concept and strengthen the city center. I supported the addition of those two businesses as they will enhance my clients ability to accomplish other tasks while in the city. An inspection of Map 11 will show that the location of the two businesses also complies with the flan as it enhances a strong city center. Unfortunately, :Cowes and WalMart will increase the traffic coming from the east past Princess Street which will effect the safety of my family attempting to egress Princess. This is especially true in the winter when the snow berms along the highway block the view of oncoming traffic from the east. The traffic from the north and west substantially stops at the city center, Cowes and WaIlMart and will not increase the traffic past Princess from those directions. The proposed rezone of the Kenai Spur Highway does not comply with the Plan In tha$ I$ '~®S~ ~ w~~3k9 ~®®rly ~7e~egn~d cQty c~n~ Which was Sp~CIflCauy Warned against in the Plan. It will draw professionals and other businesses away from the city center. It will increase traffic flow past .Princess in both directions from clients and customers going to and from the rezone. Since WalMart is not finished, it is impossible to predict what the traffic pattern will be pest Princess other than to say for sure that traffic will increase significantly and that the rezone will add to that traffic flow. In that respect alone, the rezone is premature as the addition of Lowe's and Wall Mart may stress the traffic flow on the Kenai Spur Highway. Increased commercial use in the rezone would hamper individuals entering the city center and would then adversely impact the city center. Further, the rezone does not meet the second goal of protecting a,nd rejuvenating the residential neighborhoods. An examination of Maps 10 and 11 shows the entire area of the rezone colored Qrange which identifies the rezone area as Neighborhood Residential. There is absolutely no Neighborhood Commercial shown in that area. Neighborhood residential is defined as: The Neighborhood Residential district consists of single- family and rriultifamify residential areas that are urban or Planning and ,Zoning Commission January 19, 20Q9 Page No. 4 suburban in character. Typically, public water and sewer services are in place or planned .for installation. This land use district may include both single-family and multi-family dwellings subject to reasonable density transitions and/or design compatibility. Formal public ou#door spaces (parks) are a critical feature in this district. Small home-based businesses may be accommodated within certain design guidelines. Neighborhood institutional uses such as churches, schools, and day care facilities may be intermixed if they comply with neighborhood design guidelines. See Flan, page 29. There is nothing in that description that would imply commercial activity on any scale. ®n the west side of the city center, there are areas shown as Neighborhood Commercial which is defined as: The Neighborhood Commercial district applies to areas along the arterial road system that are suitable for small scale neighborhood-serving retail service, and office uses. it appears that the Limited Commercial Zone, KIUIC 14.2Q.115, was developed to foster the Neighborhood Commercial areas along the Kenai Spur Flighway on the west side of the city center. The LC zone is described as: (a) Intent: °p°he LC Z®~e is e~tablfasb~d ~® pr®vid~ to~an~atb®~ a~ea~ between c®rnea~ercoaB ~~d ~es6d~ntial distracts ~y aGl®e~ung ~~w to r~~~i~m v®lua~~ ba~~in~~~, mixed residential and other compatible uses which complement and do not materially detract from the uses allowed with adjacent districts. The principal permitted uses shown in the attached Land Use Table are: single, two and three family dwellings, churches, clinics, government buildings, day care centers, dormitorieslboarding houses, essential services, green houses) tree nurseries, professional offices, restaurants, gunsmithing, printing, taxidermy, off street parking and personal services. Personal services are defined in Note 25 to the Land Use Table (attached) as art studios, barbers, beauticians, dressmakers, dry cleaners and self service laundries, fitness centers, photographic studios, tailors, tanning studios and massage therapists. There is no statutory definition of an "essential service" which is allowed. Since medicine and other health supplies are essential to some individuals, it could include a drug store. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 5 All of the foregoing will encourage businesses to locate away from the city center and degrade the buffer zone of the neighborhood. The users of the rezone will be transient users with no connection to the neighborhood. I was asked-during my testimony in front of the City Council if l considered churches and schools as commercial entities. I answered that I did not but did not get a chance to explain my answer. Church members are usually #rom the neighborhood but, even if not, the members are seeking good moral values and are sel# disciplined, church activities are monitored and controlled and such activities most often take place within the building and are not conducted every day or night of the week. School activities are always well monitored and controlled. There is very little interaction between the schools and the neighborhood. Any "bad" interaction is usually addressed by school officials quickly. Whereas those individuals using commercial facilities are not monitored and are not coming to the area seeking a good moral end. The commercial entity wants satisfied customers. ~'or example, It is not going to attempt to control a customer's actions outside the business. The goal of the Plan is to protect and rejuvenate the livability of residential neighborhoods. The rezone under application does not protect the livability of my neighborhood. As stated above, it subjects the neighborhood to transitory unknown visitors'. The impetus of the rezone was based upon an application to place 5 commercial buildings on a !ot in the zone. The proposal was that the buildings would be professional buildings. As far as I am concerned, as a professional, I want to be in the city center. Dr. Carlson of the MediCenter built in the city center possibly for the same reasons that I have broached. I have not seen any explanation addressing how this rezone is going to make my neighborhood more livable or how it is going to rejuvenate the neighborhood. I would appreciate such explanation. When investment is high and the need to bring in revenue to support a mortgage, any renter that will not violate the zone limitations will be welcome by the developer. Even the developer can not say who will inhabit those buildings in the long term future. It can be said for sure #hat the character of the neighborhood will change. 7'he neighborhood can no longer be titled "Neighborhood Residential" and Map 11 will. not be an accurate representation of the area. It can be said for sure that traffic flow will be affected. As a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, you must recognize that this rezone is merely an attempt to satisfy one developer and that the selection of land area was done in haste without even consideration of Maps 10 and 11 of the Plan. Recommending the rezone will bean arbitrary use of power of the Planning and Zoning 3 ~liost visitors in a residential neighborhood are invitees or people such as repoirmen who are there i`or a purpose. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 6 Commision as it is merely an illegal spot rezoning. The Alaska Supreme Court in Griswold v. City of 1-lomer, 925 P.2d 1015, 1020 (Alaska 1996) stated: Spot zoning "is the very antithesis of planned zoning." Courts have developed numerous variations of this defini#ion. These variations have but minor differences and describe any zoning amendment which "reclassifies a small parcel in a manner inconsisten# with existing zoning patterns, for the benefit of the owner and to the. detriment of the community, or without any substantial public purpose." Anderson, supra, § 5.12, et 362. Professor Ziegler states: Faced with an allegation of spot zoning, courts determine first whether the rezoning is compatible with the comprehensive plan or, where no plan exists, with surrounding uses. Courts then examine the degree of public benefit gained and the characteristics of land, including parcel size and other factors indicating that any reclassification should have embraced a larger area containing the subject parcel rather than that parcel alone. No one particular characteristic associated with spot zoning, except a failure to comply with at least the spirit of a comprehensive plan, is necessarily fatal to the amendment. Spot zoning analysis depends primarily on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Therefore the criteria are flexible and provide guidelines for judicial balancing of interests. 3 Edward H. Ziegler Jr., Rathlcoph's The Law of ,Zomirg amd Alarming § 28.01, at 28-3 (4th ed. 1995). In accord with the guidance offered by Professor Ziegler, in determining whether Ordinance 9218 constitutes spot zoning, we witl< c®a~side~ {~~ the c®t~sistency o~ the amendment with tl?~e c®rt~p~eh~nsive pBan9 (2~ the benefits and det~°#B~ner~ta ~f the am~e~dment t~® tha g®J~wrte~g~~, a$r'~j~~ea~µtg~l~nd®vpgw~p~~~e,~$~, and c®~rem~a~ity9 ~irud Q~p $$Q~ ~06L~ ®A ~h~ ~ll ~s~ ~'M~~4/dU~$So00 !n our case the rezone is not consistent with the Plan. There has been much testimony by owners, adjacent landawners and a few members of the community of the detriment that they believe they will experience. The effective area of the rezone is not Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 7 as large as proposes in that some of the area can not be developed and some is already developed. Other landowners who are more familiar with the total area have addressed the effective area of the rezone. I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the application. At the least, it is premature. No one knows how 11Valfl~art will affect the community or the traffic flow on the Kenai Spur Highway. Pet the worst, it is inconsistent with the Plan ahd wiff unalterably change the character of my neighborhood. Regardless of what the developer represents neither he nor you can predict the type of business that will operate within the rezone in the future. The permitted uses of the f_C zone is extensive. thank you for your time. Sincerely, C.('~ Charles Winegarden, Est$. 309 Princess Kenai, AI{ 996'f 1 283-5774 14.20.115 Limited Commercial Zane (LC Zone). (a) Intent: The LC Zone is established to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts by allowing low to medium vaiume business, mixed residential and other compatible uses which complement and do not materially detract from the uses allowed with adjacent districts. (b) Principal Permitted Uses: As allowed in Land Use Table as long as the footprint of the building does not exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet. (c) Conditional Uses: As allowed in Land Use Table. (d} Accessory Uses: As defined (see definitions section). (e) Home Occupations: Uses as allowed by this chapter. (fj Development Requirement: As described in this chapter. (g) Parking Requurements: As required by this chapter. (h) Outside storage is allowed for display purposes only unless the storage is in an area enclosed by asight-obscuring fence. (i) Landscaping/Site plans: As required in T~CC 14.25. (Ords. 2081-2005, 214-2006) ~'i€:le 1~ E'LAiVNING RfVf~ "L'Ofvlf~lG Cha.ptel-.1.Q,22 LAIVI~ US~.TR~LE i~e2~o®~~ L~n~ as~~ k+~l~l~. LPsI~>C- USE TAIBL,3E 1CEX: P =Principal Permitted Use C =Conditional Use S ~ Secondary Use N =Not Permitted NOTE: Reference footnotes on following pages for additional restrictions ~®I~TIl~~ I9~ST~C'I'S ~Si®El~i~'YAL LAI\TD ITSES C RR R1R3 RS RS1 R$2 RYT CC CG IL IH EA lq T$H LC C11~fC7 QneFamilyDwelling C18 P P P F P P Pzl S1 s2 $2 G22 P P P S1lG2t 'ItivofI'hreeFamilybwelling Ct8 P P P P P P P2t St C C C22 P P P St/G21 Four Family Dwelli~ag Cts F C3 P N N F p21 St C C C22 N P C Sa/C2~ Five/Six Family Dwelling CIS C3 N P N N P p21 St C C N N P C S1lC21 Seven or Moxe Family Dwelling Cts C3 N C3 N N P pzt St C C N N P C S1/CZt Townhousesa Gls C C C C C C C C C C C22 C C C C Mobile Home Parks6 N C C C C C C C C C C N C N C C Planned Unit Residential Development? Cls C C C C C C C C C C N C C C C C®I~ERCJ[A.L LAMA i<TS)ES C 12It RRl RS RSl R52 Ri7 CC CG H, 1tlll ED It TSH LC CMU Automotive Sales N C C N N N C P P P P N N N N P Automotive Service Stations N C C N N N C P P P P N C N N P Banks N C C C N N C P P P C N C G C P Business/Consumer Services N C C C N N C P P P C N C C C P Guide Service N C C C N N C P P P P N F P C P Hotels/Motels N C C G N N C P P P C N C P C P Lodge N C C C N N C P P P C N P P C P Professional Offices N C C C N N P P P F P N C F P P Restaurants N C C C N N C P P P C N C C P P Retail Business N26 C C C N N C P P P P S24 Sea C C P Wholesale Busn~ess N C C C N N C C P P P N S24 C C N TheaterslCommercial Recreation N C C C N N C P P C C N P C C P httpa/www.c{code.las/codes/kenai/view.php7topic-l4-14 22-14 22_010&frames=on 1/24/2009 L.~4~IU YT~E '['.~,~~.E ICEY: P =Principal Permitted Use C =Conditional Use S =Secondary Use N =Not Permitted NOTE: Reference footnotes on following pages for additional restrictions Z~N~G Dg~TR~CT~ )~iTSTFi][Ay. LAND USES C RR R1t3 1[iS T2S1 ]1152 T2U CC CG II. ]~~ ED R TSIi LC CIVi[I Airports and Related Uses p20 C C C N N C P P P P N C N N C Automotive Repair N C C C N N C P P P P N N N N P Gas Ivdanufacturer/Storage N N C C N N N N N C9 C9 N N N N N ManufacturinglFabricating/ Assembly N G C C N N C C P P P N C C N C Mini_Storage Facility N C C C N N C G P P P N N N C C Storage Yard N C C C N N C C P P P N N N N C Warehouses N C C C N N C N P P P N C N N N ~U~I.I~/ ~~`~'~'i'UTI®~TA~, LA1~1D USES C ]R.Tt 1iR1 ]ETS IJ1ST ]RS2 RU CC CG TL ]lfi lED R TS]Ff LC CNN Charitable Institutions G C C C C C P P F P P P C P C P Churches$ C pro pro pro pro pro plo pro pro C C P pro P P P Clinics C C C C C C C P P P C C C C P P Colieges* C C C C C C C P P C C P C C C P Elementary Schools* C C~ C C C C C P P C C P C C C P Governmental J3uilderrgs C C C C C C C P P P C P C C P P T-Tigh 5chools* C C C C C C G P P C C P C C C P I-icspitals* C C C C C C C P P P C C G C C P Libraries* C C C G C C Cr2 F P F C P C P C P Museums C C C C C C C P P P C P C P C P Parks and Rocrcation P C G C G G C P P P P P P P C P Assisted T,iving C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C IVlI~~E~.L,~TE®US LAND USEES C 1[tTi 1[tTt1 RS ]ft5l ItS2 RU CC CG TI, 1tTi 1;D R TST3 LC C1i~CU Animall3oarding13 C C C C C N N C C C C N C N C C Tied and Brea[cfasts C C C C C C C C C C C N C C C P Cabin Rentals C C C C N N N P P P C N P P C P Cemeteries C C C C N N N N C C C N C C N N Crematozies/Funeral (Tomes N C N C N N C C C G C N C C C C Day Care Centersr2 C G C C C C C P P P C C C C P P I?ormitoriesBoarding Flouses C C C C C C P pet S C P p23 G C P P Essential Services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Farming/Gerrezal Agriculture*** P P N N N N N N N N P N P N N N Greenhouses/free Nurscriest3 C C C G C C C P P P C N C C P P http://www.gcode.Tas/codes/kenai/view.php?topic=l4-1422-14_22_010&frarnes=on 1/24/2009 g,AI~IID >tT~11J TA1~)1.,E KBY: P =Principal Permitted Use C =Conditional Use S =Secondary Use N ~ Not Permitted NOTE; Reference footnotes on following pages for additional restrictions 1~C~CEL]L~VE®U~ LAND LS1ES C RR RR1 RS RSl R52 RTI CC CG 1L 1[H LD R TSH LC CId1iJ Gunsmithing, Printing, N C C C C C C P P P P N C P P P Taxidermy Assembliesl5 (Large: C C C C C C G p15 ply pt3 prs prs C P N pry Circuses, Fairs, EtcJ Fraternal Organizations/ N C C C C C C P P P C N C P G P Private Clubs/Social T-Ialls and Union Balls Nursing, Convalescent or N C C C G C G P P C C C C C C P Rest Homes Parking, Off-Street P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parking, Public lotsr2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C Persona] Services2s C G C C C C C P P P P C C P P P Radio/TV TransmitterslCell P P C C C C C P P P P P C G C P Sites** Recreational Vehicle Parks C C C C N N G C C C C N C C N C Subsurface Extraction of C C C C C C C C ~C C G N C N N N Natural Resources16 Surface Extraction of C C C C N N C N C C C N C N N N Natural Resources 17 ° See 42 USCA Sec. 2000cc (Religious land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000) ** See 42 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Sec. 704(a) *** See, however, the limitations imposed under KMC 3.I0.070 Footnotes: 1. Allowed as a secondary use except on the ground floor of the part of the building ftonting oat collector streets and major highways. Commercial or industrial which falls under the landscaping/site plans requirements of KMC 14.25 shall include any secondary uses in the landscaping and site plans. 2. One (1}single-family residence per parcel, which is part of the main building. 3. Allowed as a conditional use, subject to satisfying the following conditions: a. The usable area per dwelling unit shall be the same as that required for dwelling units in the RS zone; b. The site square footage in area must be approved by the Commission; c. Yards around the site, off-street parkiaig, and other development requirements shall be the same as for principal uses in the RR zone; d. Water and sewer facilities shall meet the requirements of all applicable health regulations; e. The proposed dwelling group will constitute a residential area of sustained desirability and stability; will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding property values; f. The buildings shall be used only for residential purposes and customary accessory uses, such as garages, storage spaces, and recreational and coznsnunity activities; g. There shall be provided, as part of the proposed development adequate recreation areas to serve the needs of the anticipated population; h. The development shall not produce a volume of traffic in excess of the capacity for which the access streets are designed; i. `1'hc property adjacent to the proposed dwelling group will not be adversely affected. 4. Sae "Townhouses" section. S. See "Mobile Homes" section. http://www.geode.us/codes/kenai/view.php7topie=i4-14 22-14 22 010&frames~on 1/24/2009 6. Allowed as a conditional use, subject to "Mobile Homes" section and provided that any mobile home park meets the minimum Federal Housing Authority requirements. 7. See "Planned Unit Residential Development" section. 8. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that the proposed location and the characteristics of the site will not destroy the residential character of the neighborhood. 9. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that all applicable safety and fire regulations are met. 10. Provided that no part of any building is located nearer than thirty (30} feet to any adjoining street or property line. 11. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that no part of any building is located nearer than thirty {30) feet to any adjoining street or property ]ine and provided further that the proposed location and characteristics of the use will not adversely affect the commercial development of the zone. 12. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that the following conditions are met:. a, The proposed location of the use and the size and characteristic of the site will maximize its benefit to the public; b. Exits and entrances and off-street parking for the use are located to prevent traffic hazards on public streets. 13. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that setbacks, buffer strips, and other provisions are adequate to assure that the use will not be a nuisance to surrounding properties. The Commission shall specify the conditions necessary to fulfill this requirement. 14.' Allowed as a conditional use, provided that no indication of said use is evident from the exterior of the mortuary. 1S. Allowed, provided that the following conditions are met: a. An uncleared buffer strip of at least thirty (30) feet shall be provided between said use and any adjoining prop~riy in a residential zone. b. Exits and entrances and off-street parking for the use shall ba located to prevent traflzc hazards on the public streets. 16. See "Conditional Uses" section. 17. See "Conditional Use Permit for Surface lsxtraction of Natural Resources" section. 18. Conditional Use allowed only on privately held property. Not allowed on government lands. i 9. Deleted by Ordinance 2144-2006. 20. The airport related uses allowed under this entry are aircraft approach zones per KMC 14.20.070{a), except that for properties contained inside the airport perimeter fence or having access to aircraft movement areas, ramps, taxiways or parking aprons, l?AA authorized uses are allowed. 21. Developments for use shall be the same as those listed in the "Development Requirements Table" for the RU/TST-l zones. 22. Allowed as a conditional use in conjunction with a permitted use in the ED zone. For example, housing far teachers or students for a school in the zone. 23. Allowed as an accessory use in conjunction with a pezrniried use in the ED zone. For example, a dormitory used to house students for a school or educational facility. 24. Retail businesses allowed as a secondary use in conjunction with the primary use {e.g., a gift shop or coffee shop within another business}. 25. Art studios, barbers, beauticians, dressmakers, dry cleaners and self-service laundries, fitness centers, photographic studios, tailors, tanning salons and massage therapists. 26. Food sezviees are allowed on a temporary or seasonal basis of not more than four (4) months par year. (Amended during 7-7-99 supplement; Ord. 1862-2000; amended during 12-1-00 supplement; Ords. 1911-2001, 1938-2001, 1956-2002, 1962-2002, 1990-2003, 1994-2003, 2053-2004, 2081-2005, 2112-ZOOS, 2113-2005, 2144-2006, 2152-2006, 2185-2006, 2195-2006, 2246-2007, 2272-2007} httpa/www.~code.us/codes/kenai/view.php?topic=l4-14_..22-14_.22_._010&frames=on 1/24/209 Fr~~ 3 20x9 January 31, 20p9 ~~ Kenai City Council Planning and Zoning Commission Rick Koch, City Manager 210 Fidelgo Ave. Kenai, AK 99611 Re: The issue of the contemplated rezone of properties north of~the Kenai Spur Highway Corridor from McCollum Drive Vllest to iVo-blame Creek Dear Council; I am lodging a protest concerning Jeff Twait end Karen Koester participating in any further voting an the above nexone. They should either recluse themselves ar be disquaiitied for the following reasons: ,II~Tvvait The City of Kenai Municipal Cade 1.85.060 Conflicts of Interest prohibited states: (d} No Council or commission member may vote on any question in which he or she has a substantial direct or indirect financial interest. Direct or indirect financial interests shall be discbsed to the presiding officer prior to a vote on the question and the presiding offioer shag determine whether the financial interest exists and whether the prohibition from voting is applicable. A decision by the presiding offroer maybe overridden by a unanimous vote of the members present, exclusive, of the member presenting the possible conflict. Mr. Twait and Cora Leigh McCollum have a daughter Miranda Twai4. Miranda Twait Is the daughter of Glen McCollum Jr. who is an owner of property in the proposed rezone area. Miranda will have an heir to that property, Mr. Twait has an indirect financial interest byway of-his daughter. Further, Mr. Twaft illegally 61ed the rezone application and has provided a letter to the City Council supporting the rezone. The letter is attached. In AJVIE. Hess Pipe Corp. v. REG. COA9., 178 P.3d 867 (Alaska 2006}, the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed iCenai City Council Punning 8 Zoning Commission Rick MCoch, City Manager January 31, 2009 the decision in Cinderella Cariesr & Finishing Sclr. v. F. T, C., X25 F.2d 583 (D.G. Cir. 1970) and approved the finding in that case, In Cinderella, Paul Rand Dixon, who was the chairman of the Commission spoke at the Government Relations Workshop of the National Newspaper Assaciafion in which ha made several derogatory statements concerning deceptive advertising and charm schools which substantially implied that he had pre judged the issue which was being brought before the Commission. The Cinderella court expressed its strong disapproval by stating: This daps not give individual Commissionrre license to prejudge cases or to make speeches which give th® appearance that the case has been prejudged. Conduct such as this may hour the affect of entrenching a Commissioner in a position which he has publicly stated, making it difficult, !f not impassible, for him to reach a different conclusion in the event he deems it necessary to do so after consideration of the record. There is a marked difference gstween,the tssuancr of a press release which states that the Commiaslon has filed a complaint because it has "reason tp brlieve" that ti'SSr+a have bran violations, and statements by a Commissioner after an appeal has bran tiled which givr the appearance fleet hr has already prejudged 4hr teas and that the ultimate determination of the mrrits will move in preiteatinrd grooves. White these twro situations - Commiaston press releases and a Cgmmissionrr+s pre-decision public statements -err similar in appearance, they are obviously of a differ®nt order of merit. Id. @ 590. The Alaska Supreme Court in AME. Hess Pipe Corp. cited above added this comment: In the light of prior warnings to him In other cases, the court scarcely concealed its disgust for his ethical laxity. Cinderella most squarely stands for the proposition that intemperate public remarks by a decision maker create a constitutionally imprrmisaiblr appearance of outcoerrr-determinative prejudgment. 976 P.3d @ 67~. In the case of the rexorle, based upon Mr. Tvuait's illegal tiling to the application 4o rezone and his public remarks to the City Councit, I and many others have no Kenai City Council Planning & Zoning Commission Rick Koch, City Manager January 31, 2009 confidence that Mr. Twait will fairly and impartially consider the issue of the rezoning. He should recuse himself or, tt he refuses to do so, Mr, Twait should not be allowed to participate in discussions or vote on the issue. Karen Koester Ms.Koraster also provided a !attar to the City Council in support of the rezone. Tt~e letter is attached. The ahave cited cases also apply to Mir. Koester. Her remarks in the letter certainly indicate that she will vote for the rezone regardless of what additional testimony will be presented at the hearing. Ms. Koester has certainly created an "appearance of outcome-debernntnative prejardgra~enY'. She should recuse herself, ar, if she refuses to do so, Ms. Koester should not be allowed to participate in discussions or vo#e on the issue. Sincerely, - ~Jl. , ~ Charier Winegarden, ~s~' 309 Princess Kenai, AK 98611 283-5774 .Ieffrey M. Twait 1808 Julia Anna Drive I{enai, Ak. 89511 December 3, 2008 Marijpn, I wanted to write a brief letter in light of the rumblings I've heard over the past week regarding the rezone af'l~act A, Papa Joe's $ubdiviaion Clxumley Iteplat from Rltl to LC..Aa you ens aware, T was out of town iior bath of the meetings in which testimony was gives regarding this. I have read the minutes firm the first meeting inn September and have sifted thxowgh the Compaehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. having spent a 'great deal of timo with fellow oomzniseionera and yourself in developing a Limited Commercial Zone it ie my opinion t$at this is the beet xatxe for the above rae~atioxied Property. I lznova that nsighbore iw the area ere reluctant for change and it is our job as a Planning and Zoning Commission to weigh all, the factors and allow reapoxyaible development and growth in our community as long as it is in harmony with tho guidelines that we moat use tv make such decisions. I feel that Dr. Wortham has taken the proper steps ar~d hired the proper profesaiona]B to assure the community that hix investment in this property will not only irnpmve the aesthetics as we all drive by but also be an asset to the satire area. That being said, had I been available at the last meeting it wauid have been my vote to vats in favor of the rezone. Please forward this oa to the groper body for oonaidaration if you feel it appropriate. Sinoere)<y 1 ter' ~ ~~ y Twait planning and Zoning chair ~ aeceivad 4EC 1 ~ i` ~snn~n p°, • r /Ce~P~1 h~'G°l7~4' ~'s~iiPvv Oa No'ecmber ~~, 'tip `tact ~ doe's won - ~~mtiley tq~ati for~xemne cente bc6Qne ibe City ni` rfe~i.PIatrning.~ ~onirsg Gtaumissiun of whir2r f.at4t a der, #or a second titer. 6Via~ ~is.~ue °t'ust~ ~.1 wa~eelto 3tnwr botha~ af~.at~be ~ to airy ~• ]artmtly, ti~,c a na~g]tbors fesiG~ying~weiae xta# Welty apgosed'to Dr. SiVortham's off~ce~e+opoaai' tart to ib~e i+e-~; how~wdt by November, tl~o~ same i~tdividuals appaeed the build~g pianaatd~rw..~Crmsrh flwugbt, ~hsd.pilmnec~ m vale thr the n~ra~,but in the end, w3-at avvayed ttze to robe against it a# the 3ast ~in~c waa whim a aeigbdba~ stated tbattl-ey didn't rm+e i~F6 tri lam, ~wStleout air lea~ca~ag.phbu or~r ~e were buitt~t that' lat. I voted ags~tffise x~rn~~mor~a ia~say''`~tc; if~t's wed yarx x~y-w,an'P', bnt x~ b~u>s~ 1 knew it would gio lacfore tbde council $ar~a final dci~ ao it was a wary for me w vreenie atu S~~t~.f of#bieu appa~gia~t: 1~at areas ~.t ~ a~~' for >ma to east a~~te. " ~,1 ~~1Y ~ ~appla~sd 8t ~ ths.acfjaceut~tboes ~ ~~xs~u+ding sibta imts ta~,• ~~ 1 must say 1~ ~9ou't agree with thcir.atealyeis. ilr. Wortl,an~ propGaty is cu~efly a tameless, hi-rvay frontage ey~e- sonr and.fie is~s zta Puns to bw7d.has harne tltesc..L~vrai ifhe ~wr~+w''t~tha a-tnner, I don't believe this lot is eair~iwe t4 any owner budding a ~e Q.iet+e. 'l~re4e era a £cw residentiat'homes tZmY ithe SYmr Hwy, but I'.m act aware u~t`a~ ~ hnmc ~ along this-corridoe. Options far Dr Worthaffi dnn't include teavueg it Hs:tt .is, as .he obviously wants to recoup his investu+erst. A reoadidoztal tie permit sit~ly doesn't pravidie Dr. Wattleam any long team asps snd.puats h~ ~ att awkward and ~ pt~ition as at tee to his iavesttttent ~ for #l~is Iut. Tlr. ~fl~am's m m I.ia~ed ~Co~tmeereial waa>t~.afla~v the cityto-hnve some ant! awbe ,g i~rplaas~. Ash, ~t~isp3rna ~ viable, xealistic,~ low impacf and intakes ixrto causideration a "z#ial." look to his pcuposad bvilding~ SttotxlQ-~ t+ezot~ ~, in rrty n tla~ hype of man most cun~dncive to ~ cleared [ resideetial la# is pgnbsbly male apat#aiat~ wt~ wrill ~ enhance the city ~ T think tJso tteighboxs would' evcstriyally deplasa #tsam,'l31[7T, Dn Waai3hain could g~-x his asoi~y out of ~e }~opexty. '1.3flda~tiue l~ ltesidrutigi ~; ®p#m+6~tri plausva~ubd•bc.buiitoa titis.lat and neitltes the txeighbors nor the city would ltav~e a say as to their design, lanclsCape or buffer. io+we'a attd Walwart sre hoe smd ~- ~, a seal for more agarmae~ ~ aCOOatmodate employee's oc~ve'a+aSes, end with this Iot's close pity tp stcxus a~ad se~aals, ~ ~ a vile a~.ioat forany owaerm pta witlwaurtl~ lsa~e of a 'i'hst ~i~'ttas ash, ~'s~ sete-knee fir. ~+c+r an,e else to af~inpt tn,recover their invent. and iflk. Wurdiaan c~a'tistdld his office thore as pied, he ~or sx~ruoane rise ~ 3ock ate locad~iop, ~t canditign. ~ ~ the eaanamic ~ to dictate wlurt w~ pacovlde Snaucial recovexy. lU~ Ye~alsu~s Ott ~ paaa~o~rad• falls .~ pltat and code. ~&is ~y corridor is trabcri is the compreh~sive plan along wit># demon ofbw itnpc3ct ixansiticvns betw~a ce~dergia] and oonunenc~al. this pmpused l~ and m west appears #0 tie a good~e~mPTe of w'hy~e city added limited Coal as a ffic of tiatisitix~-ing Inroppties ,stal cxc~tifles what a ~ i~baitad C'om~-ecial .mac d lactic-iiko. u~vn ~o~iac ~u'~img~. ~Vkile :~i .~s in~~'~v~es:~: wa4~; iT~e:is:~ ic~. near the~e-days -fit csu`~t.a.i,cnt. ~~rd. trial may for.addl l~ bf$7 pr~ars to rasme, I ~u~nadY~o,iate t~&~qu cows ekg..1 ~y ooh the v and acs of. t~ plena as v~l,as iaAp~ts of ~ noiaa,.li~tie;g,. clienisTe,iwnts ofvpciaiintt--~ vtr~la ~ga~€ue imp~t t4 the ~nd~lhed I~~Id mink o~ 6ut i~c~"t're~Eiq 5nd~~r. "f~ ~ane~,t' aei~i~ars. ~oega willing too det~at ~ ov~een, kt~avrr; 8c'~~i'~~, ~' ~ Pte, ~rr~ragt~tt ~,~ ald~aa~ar>i~al 3 ~~t~ ~ a.lc.ca~g shoW,d t~ '~ co~i# is ci5erg~d w~ftt ca~upliaace to :thc .node xnd c~mir~e ~.to reviear ~ v~i~y and isnpncis~ of ~upas~a; bu! alga M ]eve ~ ata~•i iaanes~t'ea aoler as a whop, It is my aP' '~ ~ 1~ t~s ~kc riatto uerae~ ~~ it Cel~r eve &~e lac a#tl~e~a~ •fnr aA ~ e~£ors artike lhst drive #ia+o~gti '~u~vn,'r~a~r-~egj~rou#~i~tha+~~fKi'1~~: "11~i1~1'w~ldli~,3~utt~jt ~resi~l~fs, I feel tLs Co+lt~il te~ust oonsi,der e~ of this rezc~e raque~C as other optiomn ~e &impXy not destrab]c for~i3i Woxtlsam, farms ~CaRy ~i mrd ae~.my.huenble ~~, the adYe~enC nei~bors. ~~~~ ~~ ` ~ c~ t c Marilyn Kebschull From: Carol Freas Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:32 f'M To: mboyie@alaska.com; barry_eldridge@yahoo.com; molloyla+rV@ak.net; cpajoe@altrogco.com; kena~mayor1 t}@msn.com; rossrck@hatmail.com; hvsmalley@yahoo.com Cc: Cary Graves; Rick Koch; Marilyn Kebschull Subject: Gloria Wik email comments FYI From: Gloria Wik [mailto:gwik@alaska.net] ~~~'rv ~ "~~ Sent:: Mon z/Z/2009 1Q:58 AM ~~~ ea Tom: Carol Freas 3?pdy Cc: Colleen Ward •°~, . Subject:: Rezone ~~',~ ~?~ ~,• ~~ ~~ Hi Carol I would like to make it known that l am against the purposed rezoning between No Name Creek and McCollum Drive in Kenai. Although my residency here has been very shor# comparatively speaking l have lived here long enough to come to enjoy the quiet neighborhood and country living. I fear this neighborhood would change dramatically if RR1 was changed to Limifed Commercial with the increase in traffic alone. As !understand it back in 1985 the neighborhood did help pay for water and sewer installation so they would be able to have a say as to how development occurred. What happened to that agreement? We have come together as neighbors to voice our concern and opposition #o this and if seems to be falling on deaf ears. Gloria Wik 707 Magic Kenai f~arilvn I~(ebschr.Ell From: Carol Freas Sent; Monday, February 02, 2009 9:34 PM To: mboyie@alaska.com; barry_eidrldge@yahoo.com; molloyiaw@ak.net; cpajoe@altrogco,com; kenaimayor90@msn.com; rossrck@hotmail.com; hvsmailey@yahoo.com Cc: Cary Graves; Rick Koch; Marilyn Kebschull Subject: Bissett rezone comments FYI ~roeva: covops specops [mailto:spectorcesOa mail.comj Sant: Mon 2/2/2009 9:15 AM i"o: Caroi Freas S~bjeet: To whom it may concern, -, ~t~' ~ ~ I~ I am very concerned about the way this council is treating this in a socialist manner. Rezoning this neighborhood would be a detrament to all residents in the area. My wife and I moved to AK almost 7 years ago and took six months to locate the perfect neighborhood to fit our needs. We picked this particular place because of its location and the zoning as we intended to live out our lives here. We bought the tract of land next door to us so our kids could build right next door. We were going to pick up more land in the area for the same purpose and for our childrens children. Over the past 6 years there has been increasingly more traffic in the area which has made it more difficult for my children to cross the highway anal to play without fear of traffic hazzards. If this is rezoned and this proposed proffessional "mall" comes in, the street that was once safe behind our house would be taa dangerous and the increase of trespassers on my personal drive would be unforgivable. As it is I have problems with people trying to take shortcuts through my drive which is dangerous for my family. Nat to mention I axn the one that pays for the upkeep of this drive. As it is I have had the police out a few times. I would be calling the police constantly to report trespassers and demand some form of protection. I would also have to seek legal action for any damage committed by such encroachments. I am not ignorant that I would believe there would be na more traffic on Magic street nor through my drive. They would have to use it to get in and out of this proposed proffessional plant because the traff c an the spur is too dangerous to get in and out effectively. To put in another light would only increase the congestion and create more problems of another kind. My kids and I like to ride bikes in this area and injustice would be too groat a risk. I have too much invested in this area not to be heard, I have made renovations to my house, spent thousands updating it and maintaining it. I planned to do many more improvements but have haulted my efforts because of this unjustifiable act of preferring money over the wellbeing of the people. There is no reason for this to be be a transitional zone because there is no transition. There is a distinct separation between the industrial and this residential area created by nature alone. If you propose to do this you are creating many environmental and social issues that are not sound policy no matter what your agenda is. There must be sound reasonings and a definitive purpose behind this rezone other than someone has spent money on some land. This cannot be done because someone thinks it would be a nice gesture. This is a demoralizing unethical act that would be unforgivable if persued any farther. Too rezone would be to exact mare taxes on my family wich already have enough hardships as it is with this current economy and the socialist regime that is now in office on the national level. We have need of every dime we have left over to live on. Why sould you impose an unconstitutional act upon the people when this area already has an agreement with this city zoning commission restricting any such action? It makes me suspect motives and leadership abilities. Let alone your concern for the people. Government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE not far big money, the respecting of persons, or big government. I admonish you strongly to please fore-go these efforts to create further hardships upon this residential area and its occupants. With great expectancy of your compassion, wisdom, and reconsideration on this matter. Thanks, Marc and Lois Bisset and family Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.ranaii.com! ~1 t r ~~`~ ~` February 1, 2009 -~ 3~~a9 Dear Kenai Planning and Zoning Commissioners, ~j,; have lived at 403 McCollum Drive since November 4, 1988. It was our first home and we w~Y"d'~very excited #o be moving in. We had house hunted all over Kenai and in Nikiski. We could have chosen a larger home in Woodland or other Kenai neighborhoods but fell in love with this home the first time we pulled in the driveway. The Rural atmosphere of the neighborhood, the church across the street, having an acre to ourselves, and living close to the schools and grocery stores were a!I part of the appeal that helped us make our decision. Just as we were preparing to close on the house, a report came in that the private water well was not adequate. The seller quickly brought in equipment to hook our home up to Kenai city water and sewer. We were glad for that but a little disheartened. The heavy equipment and the process of digging water and sewer lines drastically changed the look of our lot as they took out the trees on the front of our lot that had provided a lot of privacy. You could now see our house from the road. We had an opportunity to back out of the deal but losing fhe trees was not a deal breaker for us. We knew we could replant trees and put in grass and create a beautiful yard with a little bit of work. That is exactly what we did; making planting trees a special family project. The frees were fhe same height as our two Tittle boys and they took great pride in planting them and watching them grow. Those trees are as tall as the house now and the boys #ake their children out to show them the trees they planted when they themselves were small. The trees now provide a nice natural barrier and privacy for our home. We are glad to have them as we lost many of the older trees on our property from beetles. I have heard many reasons why the Papa Jo property should be rezoned to Limi#ed Commercial with the primary reason I keep hearing being because all the trees were cut down. I agree the piece is an eye sore as it stands now but there are many ways to fix tha# problem. Rezoning far commercial entities is not the only solution. Just as rezoning the whole corridor now to LC is not the only solution and only prevents an arbitrary spot zoning condition, creating a strip zoning situation. Nine years ago our neighborhood formed a "Lighthouse of Prayer" gathering in my living room on a weekly basis to pray for our neighbors and our city. Sometimes some of us went on prayer walks praying through the neighborhood. Red McCollum was one of the members who came regularly and prayed with us for fhe neighborhood. He also would pray for his children. He said, "Someday I won't be here to continue praying and I ask that you continue to pray far them for me." He taught us how to pray for them and entrusted the neighborhood and his children to us. January 5, is a special anniversary for those of us in this Rural Residential neighborhood. Debbie Sonberg had gone to the house of Red McCollum on this day seven years ago because he was not answering his phone and she felt the need to check in on him. That is what neighbors do. She entered the home of our beloved friend and found that he had passed away sit#ing in a chair in his living room. She picked up the phone and dialed 911. From 2 houses over, we heard and saw an ambulance arrive at the residence. My husband, Roy, barely took the time to slip on his shoes as he went running over to see if he could assts#. I hopped in the car and drove over as was expecting to accompany the ambulance to the hospital. On arrival, the Kenai ambulance crew met us outside the living roam saying they were sorry, bu# there was nothing they could do. Red was gone. I called Colleen Ward so that she could begin to contact Red's family members. She came and we all hugged and cried as neighbors, and the family was called. On January 1, 2002, many of us had gathered at my home to celekrate the New Year together. It was the last time I saw this man and the memory of that day is very vivid in my mind as I recall how happy and content he was mostly just watching us and chuckling to himself. With his passing we resolved to never forget the man of whom part of the neighborhood was named after and to honor his request to pray for it and his children. On January 11, 2002, we alongside his family buried Red. We will not stand by now and just let his property where his daughter, our friend, now lives be rezoned to anything commercial. We are a neighborhood of people who are neighborly. Around 600 B.C.B., the prophet Jeremiah sent a letter from Jerusalem to the exiled community of people in Babylon. In the letter, Jeremiah relayed a message to the people: "Build houses and settle down, plant gardens and eat what they produce.... Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek fhe peace and prosperity of the city #o which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Nord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." Today we are still called to care about the community in which we live. Get involved; get serious about where you live become a part of the community. Becoming a part of the community can mean three things. Caring about the peace of the communi#y -- making sure that the community is a safe place for all to live; connecting with the people of the community -- working together with others in the community to serve the community; and committing the community, its people and its needs to prayer -- coming together to pray for its peace and prosperity. My husband and I graduated from KCHS 29 years ago and have enjoyed the 20 years we have lived here in this home, in Kenai raising five children. We were creating a legacy for our family, planting berries, raising flowers, cultivating an apple orchard. Our son even married "the little girl down the street". They bought fhe Name directly behind us so the kids could grow up walking a path through the woods to grandmas. We put in another path creating a "secret garden" for Them. When they come, the first thing they ask, "Can we go to the secret garden grandma?" They believe this will never end, #ha# there will always be a treasure chest of sweets waiting for them. I have devoted a leng#h of this time to serving the community, helping neighbors to help other neighbors and teaching my children to do the same. Now, because of the fighfing we have fo do to maintain what we have, my husband and I have begun house hunting in Nikiski. I told him when we moved here that I would never move again. We planned to die here. I cannot begin to describe my agony. urge you to vote "no" on recommending this rezone on the grounds that it will 1. Drastically affect the surrounding neighborhood residents as well as the majority of the residents being rezoned, 2. Creafe a strip zoning situation, 3. Does not comply with the Kenai City Code that states "the purpose of the ~C zone is to create a transition from commercial to residential, and 4. No one in this neighborhood asked for this rezone, it was the sole desire of four members of the City Council. Please protect the current zoning our neighborhood enjoys as well as have trusted to be protected. Sincerely, Janine Espy 403 McCollum Drive Maril n ~~bschuBf iFrom: Debbie Sonberg (debbie Sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 20p9 8:11 AM Yo: Carol Freas; Marilyn Kebschuli Cc: Colleen Ward; Debbie & Russell Sonberg Subject: Opposed to any rezone of RR1 & Conservation to Commercial Please include my staternent in the packet that I am OPPOSED to any rezone of RR1 or conservation as described on the petition. I fully support the neighborhood report that is (or soon will be} submitted for inclusion in the P&Z packet for the February 11 meeting. I will let the petition and neighborhood report reflect my position in greater detail. This email is to simply, officially register my opposition to this and any similar rezone to the RR1 MAPS neighborhood. Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 907-283-5880 ~f° ~~g~t><ne Aa ~chmgd$ ~ ~pa~ . 513 Ash Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99b l l ~~ (907) 283-7102 ~~~.~' p~~~'~ February 4, 2009 My husband and I moved to the Kenai-Soldotna area in the early 1980s, and we lived in both Kenai. and Soldotna. In 1985, we chose to buy a home in Kenai, rather than Soldotna, where we both worked at that time. We chose Kenai {and the daily commute to Soldotna for many years) because Kenai had a compact city center, arzd was not a sprawlscape like Soldotna. We also believed that Kenai government, at that time, was more protective of the quality of life far Kenai residents, than in Soldotna. I am opposed to the proposed rezone, PZ09-06, for the following reasons. A. l~®E~ ITT C'®1V11+'~IZM T® COIVIPREHEI+ISIVE PLAN. I personally participated in flee Kenai comprehensive plan community workshops in {I believe it was) spring of 2002, The most memorable featuxe of those meetings to me: the great majority of people attending the workshops felt very strongly that they did not want Spur laiglt~vay business s#rip develo Eu_ Went. They wanted business development to be in and around a core City Center, with strong residential neighborhoods around the city center. This is reflected several times in the Comprehensive Plan (see below): (1) Page 25; "The City`s~iiozninant spatial pattern -- linear growth along the Kezaai Spur Higltway...fosters aweak, poorly defined city center. It also channels most local and through traffic onto tlae Kenai Spur Highway, whose roadside is KENAI'S VISUAL FRONT YARD," (2) Fage 2S: "The caaaamunity has cited development of an identifiable, diverse, prosperous city center and a more attractive Kenai Spur Highway corrider as IMPORTANT :PLANNING GOALS." (3) Page 26: "The Proposed Land Use Plan {Maps 10 and l l) are to be used with the develapznent policies to guide growth. The Proposed Land Use Plan is a generalized vision of a desirable pattern of land uses toward which the City has chosen to evolve, The zoning map and regulations are meant to implement the proposed plan." NOTE: Map i0, Proposed Land .Use Plan, shows the highway strip along the proposed rezone to be NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL. {4) Page 26. "A common theme at the public planning workshops was that Keaaai lacked awell-defined city cerzter...Citizens generally agree that creating a strong, attractive, busy city center is a highly desirable planning goal," (S) Pages 30-34: Create a city center, discourage "highway-oriented, low-density, free- standing cotaamerciai buildings or land uses." ,.'.~ (6) Page 36: "Some residents complain about commercial 'strip development' along the Kenai Spur Highway." "On analysis, these concerns seemed aimed mainly at the appearance -- lack of landscaping, unattractive signage -- and poor access of sofne businesses and, to a lesser extent, the dispersed character of development." (7) Page 37; "Another issue of neighborhood co~acern is commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or THROUGH REZONES, particularly along the Kenai Spur Highway. One of the goals of zoning is to achieve stable, livable residential neighborhoods by SEPARATING them from incom atible uses." This rezone proposal does NOT conform to the Kenai Comprehensive Plan (CP): ~.. Comprehensive ]Plan - 11~ap ~0. CP Map l0 is the "Proposed Land Use Plan" far the City of Kenai. This map shows the "desirable pattern of land use" for the City. See CP 26. The proposed rezone area is currently zoned rural residential, consistent with Map 10. This proposed rezone to limited comnn.ercial is right in the middle of one of these large "neighborhood residential" areas. Commercial developnn.ent is not "desirable" for this area, according to Map 10. Map 10 was amended this last May 2008, but the proposed land use plan for the proposed rezone area remained the same -- neighborhood residential, 2. Altows.and. Y;ncourag_es Commercial Strip Develo rnent. This proposal opens up a large residential zone to highway business strip development, with no protection for "Kenai's visual front yard." See CP 2S. The landscaping ordinance is cited by City staff, but that ordinance is extremely weak, and the City does not enforce it. See the strip mall next to Safeway as an example. It had a required landscaping plan, but the City allowed the developer to remove every single bit of vegetation, and replace it with a building and asphalt -- and no enforcement of the landscaping plan. In this strip mall development we see the future of this proposed rezone. 3. Weal~ens City Centem. This proposal allows business development far away from the city center, which weakens the city center. This proposal encourages "highway oriented, low-density, free-standing commercial buildings" -- which the CP says should be discouxaged. 4. Allows_ ..end. Encourages Incompatible ~'ommercial I~evelo ment. This proposal would allow incompatible commercial development in the middle of a large residential zone, through rezoning. Nearby residences arc not protected from potentially incompatible eornnaercial development, because commercial development is specifically allowed in the Limited Commercial Zone, regardless of whether it is incompatible with nearby residential areas ox not, and the adjacent residential property owners have no recourse. This rezone is exactly the type of rezone that the CP 37 says should not happen. ~. ® IPREI~IiI ~ PLAN -1WIAJQI~ RE~VRITE'VVITHC~U'I' PTJBY,IC ]INPUT'. This proposal is a major rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, with no community involvement allowed -- unlike with the Plan itself. This proposal has been singled out for the fast track, with no work sessions, just to accommodate the developer of one lot -- Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision Replat (Tract A). This Commission turned down a rezone application for that lot recently. r !., C. I'R®]P®SED 12EZ®N'E - N® PIJBI.IC B3El~IEFI'Il'. The proposed rezone of this area -- both the pending rezone of Trac# A, and this new rezone proposal -- has no benefit for the general public, bu# is exclusively for the benefit of the private owner of Tract A. I have not heard one single reason expressed for this rezone, that establishes a public benefit. I have only heard people voice their personal opinions that the lot as developed is ugly, and would be better off being developed according to the Tract A developer's -2- proposed plan for a professional services "mall." However, these opinions don't express any PUBLIC benefit, just a private one, for the benefit of the developer, There are also many good arguments the opposite; for example: {1) rezoning to "fix" the ugly existing development sets a bad policy, that rewards bad actors; (2) Tract A could also be developed for attractive single or multiple family housing, or for many other purposes already allowed in the existing zones. No af~eeted property owner applied for a rezone of this proposed area. This proposal is not related to any plan or design in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed lots are not mixed use -- the supposed rationale for rezoning the Thompson Park highway frontage from general commercial to limited commercial: There is no reason for this proposal EXCEPT to benefit the one Tract A developer. This new multi lot proposal, which includes Tract A, appears to be a ploy to "cure" the spot zoning of-Tract A through duplicating the prior proposed rezone of that parcel, and just adding a few mare parcels to get around the spot zoning problem. Call this what you will -- it's still spot zoning. I). ~.2EZONE PROCESS ~„ARI3ZTRARY, IJNFAIR, ,NC~T COIl~IPLIAN'I~ Here are other reasons the two rezoning proposals for this area are arbitrary and unfair 1. I+lo rezone Standards. The Kenai Zoning Code contains virtually no substantive standards or criteria far arezone -- just a one acre lot minimum. A person who opposes the rezone has no way of knowing what facts to present or arguments to make against the rezone, because the final decision can be based on any reason, or no reason -- it can be completely arbitrary. Regardless of whether the Kenai Zoning Code contains standards, the Alaska Supreme Court developed a test in Griswold v. -City of I-Iomer for whether zoning arrrendxnents are constitutional. The rezone musf: (1) be consistent with the comprehensive plan; {2) provide a benefit to the public, rather than primarily a benefit to a private owner; and (3) not be a small parcel (or small multi-parcel area} singled out far a use classifrcation totally different from that of the surrounding area. This proposed rezone fails all three tests. At a minimum, the desires of the people within the rezone ox adjacent to the property to be rezoned should be given the same consideration or more than the applicant. There is only one lot owner {LaShot) in the proposed rezone that is on the record as consenting to the rezone -- the othexs in the proposed rezone, or those adjacent to it, either oppose the rezone on the record, or non-object, ar have not responded on the public record (not counting the City's lot; see below). It's wrong and bad public policy to force a rezone dawn the throats of the affected praperry owners: in the proposed zone and adjacent to it. 2. No )l+air Hearing. The Planning and Zoning Cozxrmis`"sion hearing process itself can be unfair. There is no time for interested persons to submit comments into the Commission packet before the hearing. The general public has no idea what will be on the P&Z Commission agenda until AFTER the agenda and/or packet have been published, when it is too late to get a statement into the packet -- unless a person has inside information, or has personally received a notice of the rezone because of residing within 300 feet of the proposed rezoned area. For example, the Feb. 11, 2009 P&Z Commission meeting agenda was just published in today's (Feb. 4} morning newpaper, and the packet deadline is today at noon; leaving na time for the general public (not "in the know") to submit a comment far the packet. -3- Commissioners and PIanning staff make statements after the public hearing is closed that cannot be addressed by people opposed to the rezoning, Often, the applicant has an unlimited time to speak and answer questions, but the people opposed to the rezone are not given the same opportunities: I saw this happen with the prior Tract A rezone proposal. Planning staff advocate for the rezone, anal the Commissioners give their testimony more weight than anyone else's (more on this below). People testifying are interrupted (losing their time), or their testimony is stopped before their time is up. Favored testifiers (including the applicant) are allowed to go past the time limit, while unfavored testifiers are held strictly to the time limits. The City Manager has submitted a chart (dated 1/9/04) which contains hearsay and misinformation. For example, the chart states that laric Gerke supported the rezone, while Exic Gerke submitted a statement in the retard apposing the rezone. The chart states that the ~oxough supports the rezone, while the borough letter in the record states only non-objection, with conditions. The chart claims that the City "supports" the rezone, but the City Council {which decides these policy matters under the City Charter} has not taken a position on this rezone yet. The Commission should not accept any claim of a property owner's support (or opposition) on this chart, where the property owner has not submitted a written statement for the public record, ~8. Unfair,Aclyocacv. Tam very concerned about the level of advocacy and lobbying by Planning staff on some rezone applications, such as the Tract A proposal, and this proposal. This advocacy biases the whole process from the beginning, because the Commission and the City Council give more weight to the staff report and testimony, which is evident from comments I have heard from Commissioners at Commission meetings, and the City Council members at Council meeting. Tn addition, City staff has an unlimited time to advocate far the rezone, including after the public hearing, while the public is limited to 3 minutes each, and cannot address comments made by staff after the public hearing -- another unfair process. 5, ~.upearance of JI$ias. Tam also concerned that two P&Z commissioners who testified {by letter and in person, or both) in favor of the Tract A rezone before the City Council on 12/3/08, might be voting on PZ09-06. These commissioneer sshould recuse themselves from voting tonight, or be barred from voting, for conflict of interest -- because the Tract A rezone is included in PZ04-Ob. A public official cannot be both an advocate far one side, and a decision maker. Tt is obvious that these two commissioners have pre judged this issue. Even though this type of conflict of intexest does not appear to be covered by the City code, it is one well recognized in Alaska Iaw (called "appearance of bias"). 6. aelure to 1Follow Zonin Code. As of yesterday, February 3, 2009, the property in the proposed rezone had not been posted for the 10 day period, as required by KMC 14,20.280{d). According to KMC 14.20.280(d), "Failure to properly post notices shall be grounds for deferral or denial of the application." Therefore, this rezone applicant should be denied or deferred. Also, one can't legally post the property within the proposed rezone without the consent of the property owner -- without consent, posting is trespassing. The very fact that the Zoning Code requires posting on the property within the proposed rezone means that rezoning cannot occur without the consexrt of all property owners within the proposed rezone. -4- Thank you for your consideration of #hese comments. ,(rtP /~11.~tkGV ~.. _g_ 11~arllyn -~Cebschtall From: Carol Freas Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:17 PM To; Marilyn Kebschull Subject; ~ FW; Opposed to any rezone of RR1 & Conservation to Commercial Don't think you got this one. Corey Fworn: Debbie & Russell Sonberg ~maiito:sonberg@alaska.net] W~FF~T~Y,~~u~»~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sint: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:23 AM 1i'®: Carol Freas ~c: xcel@alaska.com Sa~bject: Re; Opposed to any rezone of RR1 & Conservation to Commercial TO Cll-Y OF KEfVAI I am OPPOSED to any rezone of RR1 or conservation as described on the petition. I fully support the neighborhood report that is {or soon will be) submitted for inclusion in the P&Z packet for the February 11 meeting. I will let the petition and neighborhood report reflect my position in greater detail. This email is to simply, officially register my opposition to this and any similar rezone to the RRl MAPS neighborhood. Russell Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 907-283-5880 February 4 2009 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~e~ruar=y ~, 2®®~ ~F~~ PE AND 'S~01'T°E T°'I91R[1G' 7"E CLLA'TIV ~I~?° ~~ ~~ The City manager stated in a letter to the Council dated September 11, 2008, "if it's not broke why fix it." The Kenai spur Highway corridax -east of Kenai's commercial district beginning at Walker Lane on the south side of the highway and beginning at No-Name creek on the north side of the highway is nog broke and is agog ~ rased otf 11a~in~. On the contrary, it is working exceptionally well. It is this significant hub of residential and educational life intentionally segregated from commercial activity that contributes to the character and distinction of Kenai. This highway corridor just east of the commercial center is characterized by residential and educational life -children go to school, play sports, conduct concerts and plays; families run and walk their pets, ride bikes and roller blade on the walkways; the young and old play tennis and walk the track; club and school teams practice and play hockey games; children and adults alike come from the local area and around the state to orbit through the galaxies at the phenomenal and integral Challenger Center. This hub is a recognizable attribute that helps define the quality of life that attracts families and citizens to Kenai and distinguishes Kenai from Soldotna, Wasilla and the Muldoon and Spenard communities of Anchorage. This residential and educational hubs without commercial sprawl is an intended and recognizable attribute that has successfully developed Kenai as an idyllic place to Iive and raise a family. This hub of residential and educational life is not what is wrong with Kenai, it is what is right with Kenai. ~t is a~ot bro)I~e so ait~a~'g $ go fiz ig. In this report the residents of the McCollum/Magic, Aliak, Princess and Spur (MAPS) area will address the proposed strip rezone in the following manner: ®dispel widely propagated, but incorrect paradigms; ®provide compelling legal roadblocks; ®demonstrate clear conflicts with the Kenai Comprehensive Plan; ®outline violation ~of the Kenai Municipal Code; and ®discuss improprieties and probable illegalities surrounding the proposed rezone process. An overwhelming majority of the property owners located in the adjoining parcels and within the proposed rezone area itself st~~~ m~~®se a~~a°a~ral o~the application being prepared by City Manager Rzck Koch for the Kenai City Council to strip rezone a portion of the MAPS area from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and, Conservation to Limited Commercial {LC}. We urge the elected and appointed officials of the City of Kenai to hear -the voice of the people and to open-~nindedly consider the following presentation. Before we can provide an analysis of this proposed rezone in light of the Kenai Comprehensive Plan, the Kenai Municipal Code, and the applicable legal precedent related to the rezone application, we must Hirst clarify prime paradigms being widely propagated by city officials. To do justice to this process we must recognize these paradigms for what they are -perceptions of reality. Perceptions of reality and reality can be, 'and often are, two completely different and contradictory things. False paradigms, when left uncorrected, result in prejudice. Decisions based on false paradigms are arbitrary. The deension re ardari giai,s rezora~ aaaaast~ be based on the a~ga~al realities, not on false paradigms or perceptions of pextinent reality. ~~I~~ Pa~~c~e~~a ~°B: 1~496t~g ~6~~ ~r~ y®e~ ~~~~~ $® d®r~i$1~ $C~a~ ~~®g~e~~ N~ ®~~ t~r~~alc9 vsr~~a$ $® 9av~ a9~n~ $~~ ~ig9~way. The reality is that people want to and do live along the highway. In the specific area targeted for rezone the Sherry James family (Parcel 4545011} has rented her duplex fronting the Kenai Spur Highway for the past 16 years. As a renter she could easily up and move if she so chose. She does not choose to do so. She likes living along the Kenai Spur Highway. Her neighbor, Glen Smith (Parcel 4505011) also has the option to rent elsewhere, but he too, chooses to lzve along the Kenai Spur Highway. Homeowners Petria Fallcenberg (Parcel 4506024] and Marcus and Lois Bisset (Parce14506004} also choose to live on the highway in the proposed rezoned area. The Bissets have plans to build a house with their son on a second parcel (Parcel 4506005) they purchased along the highway so he too can live in this area with his family. The tenants in the Scott Anderson (Parcel 4506016} and the Robert Gonzalez (Parcel 4506013} apartments could just as easily rent elsewhere, but they choose to live along the highway. It may be the preference of the city officials to not live along the highway. This preference should in no way be projected on the. populace as a whole. See ~s~hi6i~ ~. ~~Ise P~~~~a~m ~~: N® h®es~es h~e~~ ~~e~ ~~uiB$ ~I®n~ thg~ ~®rrastl®r ®f ~h~ hagi~er~-~~v ~®¢r a I®n~ $im~. @$ a~ ~ tBet~~•io~a$a~g aria. The reality is that of the eight road frontage, privately owned properties being considered in this rezone, ftve have already been developed with residential housing. The Bissets hazne was built in the early 2000s. They purchased it shortly thereafter. They have since purchased the lot beside them and plan to build another house on this lot. In spite of the neighbor's offer to purchase the properties for residential uses, the Franklin T. & Kristie Wortham lot, formerly owned by Hugh Chumley, was unavailable for purchase for residential use at any semblance of market value pricing far over a decade. MAPS owners have also made the Warthams aware of their desire to purchase lots from them for residential uses. The only other remaining vacant lot is now owned by former city employee, Jack Lashot. From the inception of a new community through its development, the properties along the road systems feeding that new community are quite naturally the first place homes are built. The most obvious reason includes convenient access to the rest of the community. Therefore, the Kenai Spur Highway corridor being targeted for rezone is one of the alder and more maturely developed residential neighborhoods in the community. The slowing of n~~v growth along this corridor is an indicator of maturity and availability, not undesirability. ~?ne has only to drive through the adjoining and surrounding neighborhood to recognize that this is not a deteriorating area. Several new homes have been built in recent years and in many cases these homes have been built as second homes by current residents of the neighborhood. It would not be a stretch to assume that people would be eager to vacate a deteriorating neighborhood. Instead of vacating, multiple owners have built second homes in this same neighborhood. Also demonstrated in this development is the care of the neighbors to preserve the "intent" of the zone and "the residential atmosphere" of an open, un-crowded, low density neighborhood. Residents are often choosing to place their single family dwellings on properties that could actually accommodate multiple dwellings. ~~ls~ PaPaC9i~gvt ~3: ~$ is a~n e~~ S®r~ ~~¢$ $h~r~f®p~ we iti~IS$ d~vel®p it C~1YIBfi1~d'Caally $® Yt'lak~ i$ pfd®~~ appea9artg. Prior to this property being clear cut this paradigm was non-existent. The reality may actually be that it is an eye sore to some, however there are many viable options to change that reality that do not include rezoning. The most obvious is re-forestation. A thorough listing of other viable and compliant alternatives is provided in ~xi~i~i~ ~ on both page 4 and Attachment C. 2 ~i~ls~ P~raciigan ~4: Th~r~ as n® a®mm~rei~i pr®g~~a°ty sv~i@~~6~ ira ~Ce~ai s® additi®nai ~r®p~rty raeec#s 4® ~e r~~®~~~ ~®r ~®mav~~r~i~9 use. In reality, one MAPS owner discovered on a quick drive around Kenai, five undeveloped commercial properties for sale and observed numerous unoccupied developed properties, some of which he knows has been vacant for years. In further research, focusixtg only an undeveloped commercial properties, he learned the following: "A quick search on www.alaslcarealestate.com reveals 14 undeveloped commercial properties in the Kenai area; nine of which are in Kenai or an the Spur Highway.{Listing #:0~-824; Listing #:07-1.6226; Listing #:08-4053; Listing #:08-6677; Listing #:07-12816; Listing #:08-10$19; Listing #:0$-14452; Listing #:04-310558; Listing #:os-14359) Most striking is that "three {3) parcels of land are located near the Kenai Airport right in the-heart of a rapidly growing retail area of the city. Neighboring development includes: Horne Depot, Cams Safeway, 3-Bears, and the Stanley Chrysler." (Listing: 0$-14359) These lots are strategically located in the fastest growing commercial area in Kenai." "The City of Kenai is also considering rezoning nearly 1,080 acres of airport reserve lands surrounding the airport from conservation to light industrial use at this same- time, a significant amount of land for future commercial development." {PHIL HBRMANI;K: Peninsula Clarion, February 22, 200$) Another resident, with little effort located the multiple parcels represented in ~~9~o~ett ~. Some of these parcels axe raw land; others contain vacant buildings. Of the approximate 15001inear feet of p~°gvate property that is under threat of being rezoned only two are undeveloped lots that have not already been or have plans to be developed residentially. The assertion that these two lots are somehow going to mitigate a nonexistent shortage of commercial property is an unabashed distortion ofreality. Perhaps this is not about availability, but about pricing. Or perhaps this is not about availability, but about directionality and the underlying, but unstated false paradigm, that in order for Kenai to progress it must develop easterly. i°'~Is~ Par~tllg~m ~5: A Peq~sar~d lar~dscsp~ ~~aff~r wNl lapavide ~h~ s~~~rati®n e~~eeled t® ~r®tect the r~sid~~~i~i ra~i~&~b~rs ~'r®s~ 4E~e ~~aBam~s•~i~~ d~~~l~~m~nts. If this were true, and the codified buffer provided a protective level of separation, then it would also be true that such a buffer could provide the same protective separation between the highway and the highway frontage residential development. City officials claim the frontage properties, although zoned RR1, are not suitable for residential development. They also claim the codified landscape requirements suff ciently buffer the non- campatible commercial development from the residential development. If the City had successfully codified landscape requirements that provided such an effective buffer it would be more sensible to apply the landscape requirenrrent to RR1 highway frontage then it would be to destabilize the entire neighborhood through rezone. A simple landscape buffer-code could then mitigate the concern, albeit false; that no one wants to live along the highway. Unfortunately, the reality is that the landscape buffer prescribed in the landscape code (KMC 14.25.040) does not provide protective separation. It does not contain any required line of sight protection or separation. It does not contain any buffer requirements to minimize noise. it can be as ineffective as a ten foot wide perimeter of grass or gravel. Commercial enterprises that locate along a highway generally face the front of their buildings towards the highway for exposure. This leaves the far less attractive backside of the buildings, and often their respective dumpsters, facing the neighborhood with essentially no requirement of effective buffering. The City Planner may recommend a fence with trees as a buffer, but if this property is rezoned, that recommendation has na enforcement power. The City does not have the authority to impose this expense on an owner when it is not a zoning requirement. Line of sight and noise minimizing buffers are not a zoning requirement for the LC zone. 3 ~~Ise Par~dJigm ~~: Every®e~e ~+r~uie9 rn~ch rather ~~~ i°irniteel C~mavaerci~l cledel~pmerat th~r~ sic ts~ipBexes. The reality is that MAPS is a residential neighborhood consisting of a blend of family owned and occupied residences and rentals. The homeowners have co-existed with both landlords and tenants for numerous years. Many owners value the contribution of the tenants to the neighbarhood. The MAPS neighborhood is bordered on one side by two schools that house approximately 1.000 kids, akid-oriented hockey rink and the Challenger Center. The MAPS area is about family and about residential community and living. Many of the MAPS residents would, without hesitation, choose the six triplexes over the commercial development. The discriminatory references regarding this type of development {six triplexes} demonstrates a misplaced bias an the part of the city officials. The attempt of PZ07-06 to remedy the practice of making decisions "with conflict being resolved in favor of business" is apparently at risk. See ~~6eib~tr ~ (Ordinance PZ07-06) This paradigm is further exasperated by off cials' assumption that "the type of construction most conducive to this cleared rural residential lot is probably multiple apartments ... up to 6 triplexes could be built on this lot .. . Lowe's and Walmart are here and with them, a need fox more apartments to accommodate employee's receptive wages..." (Commissioner Koester, 12/3/08, Council Meeting, ~~~o-~e~ ®} The insinuation that the maximum number of triplexes allowed is the likely alternative to a rezone, or that the triplexes built would need to be low- ered quality confirms preconceived false paradigms. Tn step with existing development, it would be reasonable to assume that an owner may choose to put less than the maximum allotted number of structures on this property as has been done throughout the entire neighborhood. In addition, ~~9~a@~at ~ illustrates potential higher-end, quality triplex developments that would both enhance and be compatible with the existing zone and neighborhood, False P~racligm #7: Bt the neighb®rs vv®uld just r-~ork vvit4t the city this c®uld X11 be worked gut. An owner asked the city officials at the 115109, public meeting for clarification on process, "lf the neighbors and original applicant worked together to prepare a Conditional Use Permit that met all parties needs and all parties agreed on, would the city work with us?" The City Planner responded by, "It is not something that I do." The reality is that the neighbors and the original applicant did meet and discuss alternatives on various occasions. In the course of the proceedings the neighbors discovered that the City officials were openly and erroneously counseling the applicant by: a} telling him a Conditional Use Permit (CUP} is too restrictive when the reality is that a CUP can be written as liberally as the applicant would have required, b) asserting that the CUP would be tenuous and awkward to maintain and transfer if ever it became necessary to sell the properties, and c) leading him to believe rezoning his property would be a relatively quick, non-controversial and easy process. The evidence seems to suggest that City officials are exploiting the original application, for an illegal spot zone, to drive their own agenda. In so doing, the original applicant, whether willing or unwillingly, is caught in the cross fire. Turthermore, the City's actions make it much less likely there will ever be a collaborative solution between the neighbors and the original applicant and greatly escalate the risk of an extended and costly process. ~~Ise Paradigr~n ~$: "Highest end best use" ~~ this deteri®ratirQg high~vey ~~rrid®r i~ ~c~am~rcial development. The reality is that the "highest and best use" is not a codif ed standard for planning and zoning and can be a dangerous target when applied in the sensitive arena of public land management. This nomenclature is typically used by appraisers, assessors and developers and relies heavily on potential monetary values. The complexity of determining the "highest and best use" intensifies in the political arena of planzung and zoning and requires 4 officials to focus on an expanded array of criteria which encompasses suitability of zoning, compatibility with surrounding uses, conformity with the prevailing comprehensive plan, greater public safety and welfare and legal precedents, among others. F~Ise ~aradig~'r ~9: ~'he SAPS resfdent~ d® ~®t have ~ ~&e~r ~andeP~~~ada~g ®~wh~t the ~C zarie prgvedes, The reality is that the lv1APS residents clearly understand that the I,C zone provides twenty three additional "Principal Permitted Uses" consisting of: professional offices, restaurants, clinics, governmental buildings, day care centers, dormitories, boarding houses, greenhouses, tree nurseries, gunsmitlaing, printing, taxidermy, art studios, barbers, beauticians, dressmakers, dry cleaners, self service laundries, fitness centers, photographic studios, tailors, tanning salons and massage therapists. Furthermore, LC permits a decrease in lot size front RRi to LC for various uses ranging from 62.5°/a for all "Principal Permitted Uses" and a decrease to 55.$1% fora "ConditXOnal Use Permit" creating greater density of development. The LC minimum lot width, setbacks and maximum coverage and height are the same as RRl anal the building footprint is not to exceed three thousand square feet unless a variance is sought and granted. Landscaping requirements do exist, but offer no guarantee of line of sight or substantive noise buffering quality. Once the property is rezoned any of the twenty-three "Principal Permitted Uses" is permitted, and maybe developed to the most minimum density requirements. Finally the residents of MAPS clearly understand that according to ]Kenai Municipal Code the "LC zone is established to provide traansatfi®an areas between commercial and residential districts." The reality is that the MAPS residents clearly understand that if the proposed rezone is approved the following scenario could compliantly occur. Surrounded by residential and educational development the Wortham- Chumley 2.97 acre parcel of land alone could became the location of approximately nine enterprises that could include, among other things: A restaurant, and A gunsmither, sand A barber or beautician, and A tanning salon, sand A self service laundry, and A massage therapist, and A dry cleaners, aid All additional traffic created by such. ~'aBse P~radl~m #1 ~: ~ pr®f~~~@®n~l deeag~A ®f~i~e i~ ~ ~~®d flk far this ~~ighb®rh®~d s® ~t ~h~uld be rep®~aedl l.C e The reality is that if a professional dental office was a good fit for this neighborhood it should be conditionally permitted because the above stated scenario is zzot a good fit for this neighborhood_ The application for the proposed rezone is not about a dentist office, it is not about a professional building, and it is not about five professional buildings -all scenarios discussed by the original applicant. The application before the City officials to rezone this critically sensitive area of the Kenai Spur Highway is an application for restaurants, gunsma.thing, fitness centers, laundromats, tanning salons and any other of the additional twenty-three principally permitted uses. Once the rezone is approved Conu~nissioners and Councilors have no authority whereby they can pick and choose. A rezone blows the door wide open to any one of these uses and a compliant "buffer" could be as minimal as a strip of grass ten feet wide along the perimeter. The fu11 spectrum of these uses must be factored into responsible decision making. ~~ ~ ~~ In our current scenario where City off vials are both the applicant far rezone and the governing body that will determine if the rezone is approved, the bar must be extremely high in terms of carrying the burden of proof to justify what is obviously an acutely challenged, very controversial and high impact decision. 1Vonetheless, the City has flailed to provide atleu~tate iustiffacatian 1'or their positions and reeomrgaendatioars presented in staff reports as found throughout the record and provided in public meetings. Due to City imposed deadlines, at the time of this writing, the City Administration has provided two documents available to the public. First, in defense of their recommendation to approve the proposed spot rezone, there is a staff report to Planning and Zoning dated 9110108. Secazad, in defense of their recommendation to approve the subsequent proposed strip rezone, we have the staff report to Planning and Zoning dated 1212210$. Additaanally Planning and Zoning Chair, Jeff Twait and Commissioner Karen Koester provided personal statements to the Kenai City Council on 1213108, which are now part of the public record. The officials entrusted with the City's welfare are encouraged by the MAPS residents to open mindedly and comprehensively evaluate all pertinent facts. A thorough and objective analysis of the pertinent guiding policies, regulations, and legal precedents will provide ample and canapelling cause to reject fihe proposed rezone. ~' APL The undeniable history of the MAPS area is a reality that neither the Council nor citizenry of Kenai has the prerogative to ignore. The 1985 assessment and rezone~did occur. The 1998 Chumley Conditional Use Permit application and subsequent reiteration of the record did occur. It was crystal clear in 1985, it was indisputably clear in 199$, and, today, it is still a fact of record that the City of Kenai did and said something that induced an expectation of the owners of the MAPS properties. The owners of these properties and new buyers reasonably relied on this expectation to invest in upgrades~and additions to their homes and, in multiple instances, build new homes. The City's inconsistent and unconscionable rezone will cause detriment to the MAPS owners. The City of Kenai will be estopped from granting a rezone from the RR1 to the LC zone. In general, estoppel protects a party who would suffer detriment if each following tests is met: ® A second party has done or said something to induce an expectation in the first party ® The first party relied (reasonably] an the expectation.. . ~ ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were not rnet. {Wikipedia) ~'ia°s$ test: 66A seeoae~l H~~H°ty 1Has done ®~° saae~ s®mg~lt~t~~ to ~Had~c~ an ex~ec$atHOn99 A review of the history of this neighborhood and its interaction with both the Kenai City Council and Planning Commission will show a highly collaborative effort of the majority of property owners cooperating ar working with the City to preserve and maintain the low density residential character of the neighborhood. In 19$S, the citizens of the MAPS neighborhood petitioned the City offering to pay 20% assessments for sewer and water improvements and to have a say in future development of the neighborhood contingent upon the city rezoning the defined area from RR to RRl . Furthermore, the City's record of the event revealed that the understanding of the resident's was clear that they would "have a say in how the neighborhood is developed in the future" with particular upfront understanding that the intent of the residents was to avoid a "patch work type of development, almost a Spenard-like type of development..." {Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-56} 6 Signif cant to the history is the fact that due to the prosperity of the state the City, prior to this period, had provided the same service without assessing adjacent landowners." {See E~ci~ibit F} The owners ultimately paid 25% assessment for the installation of sewer and water and the City rezoned the area from RR to RRI. During the 199$ Chumley Conditional Use Permit application process this agreement was revisited and the records regarding the "1985 Beal" were again reviewed. Exi~i~i~ G provides a page form the 19$5 petition, served as the catalyst to the assessments and rezone, and states, "This petition shall be valid only upon the prior f Zing with the appropriate administrative official far the City of Kenai of a valid petition, containing Buff dent signatures, for the rezoning of substantially the area described above, from 1ZR. to 1ZR1." ~xinibi~ i`9 provides a letter from former City Finance Director, Charles A. Brown, which states "... as with the first petition we received on February 5, 19$S, it is contingent upon the validity of a rezoning petition:" acid later states, "The petition appears to be valid, pending the validity of the rezoning petition." It is a matter of record that the owners offered, with condition, to pay and did ultimately pay the assessments and that the City did subsequently rezone the identified properties. These exhibits inextricably link the payment of the assessment with the rezone to RIt1. Not only did the City do or say something that built the expectation of the land owners, but the City records prove the City's actions were and are "based on full knowledge of the facts" of the "1985 Deal." This presentation of the facts and the records of the City are Buff dent evidence. If there is dispute of these issues affidavits can be taken from the people involved in the 19$S Deal. It is irrelevant whether the current Council members agree or disagree with the actions of their predecessors. History can not be re-written. The record is clear. '1['~ae CIl iradueed an ex eetati®aa. Secmn~ testy 66'~'li~e fi~°st gar s°~ln~~.,~~°easo~n~bly~ ®a~ t~e,e~cpeet~ta®~a...99 It was ~°e~sn~aalb9~ f®~ tYne ®w~ne~s to ~•et ®n tl~e e~ ec$~teoffi created in the 19$5 Deal. The owners negotiated a deal when they made an offer to pay assessments, have their properties rezoned and a have a say in the future development of the MAPS properties. The City accepted the owners' money and rezoned the MAPS properties ~as requested to the mare restrictive RRl zone. The reasonability ofthe expectation initially created in 19$5, was again reiterated in the 199$ Chuinley Conditional Use Permit application process. "It is clear that the city understood the connection between the assessment and the rezone (from RR to RRI) as indicated in a letter from .former Finance Directory, Charlie Brown. (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-6b, page 4) Inherent in due process is the right of the residents to be heard. Burden of proof for exceptional uses rests with the applicant and has not been met. Exceptional uses should be evaluated against rigorous and restrictive standards. The neighbors have supported their chosen direction fox the city with well documented, rational "proof' that is not even their obligation to provide. There is no logical reason for allowing the "19$5 Deal" issue to escalate beyond this level at potential expense and liability to all taxpayers of this ciiy." (Appeal of PZ9$-12 Commission Decision, #$) The ~°elaaaiee on the expectation of RRl zoning has been a°e~eate~l~ s-~~n~stu°a#ed through the immense level of investment owners have made in upgrades and additions to their current homes, building new homes, and in multiple incidences, the seine owner building a second house in the MAPS area. Examples include: 7 1. The Becks remodeled the flooxs, kitchen and bathroom inside their house and installed a porch and fencing. 2. The Bissets bought and have conducted two remodels to their home on a lot they have now been "notified" is a newly proposed rezone property. 3. The Bissets bought a second lot to build a house for and with their son on a parcel that they have now been "notified" is newly proposed rezone property. 4. The Dixes purchased two larger parcels and built their dream hoities adjoining the newly praposed strip rezone properties. 5. The Daniels purchased one of the Iarge parcels from the Dix and built their three bedroom, two and one half bathroom, house with throe car garage adjoining the proposed rezone properties. 6. The Espy's son married the Sonberg's daughter and purchased a home in the neighborhood based on the multigenerational expectation regarding the MAPS area. They have made weatherizatian and professional painting improvements over the last three years. 7. Steve Gille built two new homes and sold them as single family dwellings a block away frorri the newly proposed rezone properties. 8. The McCollums added an entry way to the home they owned for approximately the last fifty years on a lot they have now been "notified" is a newly proposed rezone property. 9. The Piatts built an addition doubling the size of their house and subdivided out a lot which they sold to a daughter who wanted to locate in the neighborhood. 10. The Schrags purchased -the vacant lot next to them and approximately one block from the proposed rezone parcels. 11. The Sonbergs added a two story addition to the home they currently occupy. 12. The Sanbergs are also building a second house right next to their current home less than a block away Pram the newly praposed rezone properties. 13. The Wards built atwo-story addition to their current home which is located less than a block away from the proposed rezone. 14. The Wilshusens (Platt's daughter} are currently building a new two story, two bedrooms, three and one half bathroom house with two car garage, from the lot they purchased from Platt's in 2007 and on a lot adjoining the proposed rezone. 15. The Wiks built an oversized two car, detached garage less than a black from the proposed rezone. 16. The Winegardens built a greenhouse, two storage sheds, added a chain link fence along the front and back, paved their driveway, installed undexground area lighting acid power outlets and landscaped, 17. The Wxights currently live in a house on McCollum Drive they have awned since 1983, and are building a second and planned ultimate dream home adjacent to the newly proposed rezone properties. 1$. Others invested tens of thousands of dollars in upgrades and additions within a block ar two of the newly proposed strip rezone properties. Third test: 6b.. o aid woa~id suffffer rle$i-i~aaent iff tlhat ex~rec$atioaa wepe n®t met.99 The past, current and long term expectation of the overwhelming majority of MAPS residents is to dwell in a low density, residential community. The MAPS residents have relied on this expectation and made substantial investments and significant life decisions based on this expectation. The approval of the praposed rezone will inescapably cause unconscionable detriment. The ~~ta-ina~nt will fake inaffiy ~®a-~s including, but not limited to: a variety of sources of financial hardship, ® increased traffic negatively impacting road conditions and potentially resulting in new assessments to owners to further upgrade roads to address this negative impact, 8 © causing further danger to exceptionally vulnerable pedestrian (students) and road traffic (new, f rst time drivers}, ® landlords' loss of current and long term tenants, ® line of sight degradation imposed by commercial activity, ® destabilization of the residential character of the neighborhood spiraling into decreased quality of life, open invitation and subsequent introduction of undesired human traffic frequenting any variety of "personal use" businesses permitted in the LC zone (e.g.: fast food restaurants, laundromats, hair salons, gunsmith, coffee stands, massage therapist, fitness centers, etc.), o intrusion of anon-compatible commercial wedge unposed between fully compatible uses of educational and recreational with residential uses, ® unknowable and unpredictable development environment regarding home investment, property improvements and neighborhood enhancement projects; and ® extreme anxiety and other health issues directly caused by all the other previously listed detriments. The financial hardship, albeit inevitable, is further exasperated by its unpredictable nature. If the commercial developments that might ultimately spring up are tastefully developed and quality establishments, those living next to ar near the property will likely experience increased assessed value creating an increased property tax burden. If the commercial developments that znight ultimately spring up are poorly developed and low-grade establishments, the property values may substantially decrease. In both scenarios the obvious sale-ability of the property is likely to decrease. Fox those whose properties are rezoned against their will, the detriment is undeniably unconscionable. The increased assessments and subsequent tax burden will make it difficult, if not irnpossible, for some residents to be able to afford to stay in their homes. It likely will cause a loss of both long and short term residential tenants, loss of desirability to replacement tenants and prevent some owners of rental properties from even being able to break even. Therefore, the necessary elements of estoppel are present. In addition to the necessary elements, there are other considerations relevant to this legal doctrine. .Adalgti®n~~ c®nside~°~tie~ru a°elatin~ ~o-esto.~~el and ~~e~si~e~~~~a~le Additional considerations also show that the City would be estopped or quasi-estapped preventing the City from continuing to force this rezone on the neighborhood. Three Alaska cases in particular provide a strong basis for these considerations. They include ~r•e~~el v Week,, .Ta~~~~ ~. ~~ns~la~lated gl~r&, Ine, and the 142a~~aaei~alaty ~~'Arac~orr~~e v ,S'chraei~ler. V;le learn that quasi-estoppel "precludes a party from taking positions inca~nsisgent with one he or she has previously taken where circumstances render assertion of second position n~cansciaaaa6~Ile." Jamison v. Consolidated Util., Inc., S76,P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 197$) "In essence, the doctrine protects the integrity of the judicial process by preventing litigants from "blawing both hot and cold" where the assertion of inconsistent positions would be ~nnc®~ascl~n~bl¢." (AIaska Law Review: Michael D. Moberly and Laura L. Farley, Blowing Hot and Cold On The Frozen Tundra:..." I) The "nnc®nscion~hier9 standard is generally defined as grossly unfair, unjust, inequitable, oppressive, or unduly harsh. (Alaska Law Review: Michael D. Moberly and Laura L. Farley, Blowing Hot and Ca1d On The Frozen Tundra:..." I) The act of rezoning the RRl properties along this small stretch of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor unquestionably meets this standard. Increased tax burdens andlar decreased market values, degradation of quality of life and the potential taking of property as a result of this rezone is oppressive and unduly harsh. The City has plenty of just and fair options available to them. The City of Kenai has over 9 110,000 feet of Kenai Spur Highway frontage. Of that total, only approximately 30001inear feet of the Kenai Spur Highway frontage is RR1. Of the 30001inear feet of RR1, approximately 1500 feet are owned by the Kenai Peninsula Boxough School District and the Alaska Mental Health Land Trust. Of the rerx~aining 1500 feet of privately awned RR1 frontage, only two lots have not been developed or have plans to be developed residentially. That leaves only two undeveloped privately owned lots along the Kenai Spur Highway in any RR1 zone that is not currently developed. The detriment caused by this proposed rezone to the many other owners in the area who oppose the rezone and have approximately a collective $4.1 million in assessed value to benefit a couple of speculative owners who have approximately a collective $56,400 in assessed value is grossly unfair, unjust, inequitable. According to the Kenai Zoning Code (14.20.080 ~z 14.20.150) and Development Requirements Tables (14.24.010}, RR1 and LC zones are in conflict with each other and are neeessa~°iIl~ inconsg~tera~. ~ RR1 provides low density residential development while LC allows lot sizes to decrease to 62.5% fax the same permitted purposes and 55.81% for a conditional use. According to statements made by the City manager at the 115/08, informational meeting, the original applicant has already indicated he will seek variances to increase the sizes of his buildings from the maximum allowed in the LC zone. Placing larger commercial buildings on smaller lots is inconsistent with low density residential development. ® RR1 creates stable and attractive residential environment and prohibits violation of the residential character of the environment while LC permits twenty-three additional commercial uses both violating and destabilizing the residential environment. o RR1 prohibits heavy traffic. The Code claims LC allows "low to medium" traffic as defined by the code, but in reality a fitness center in the winter, a tree nursery or greenhouse in the summer months, a coffee stand and fast food restaurant year around are all examples of businesses that comparatively can generate high volumes of traffic. ® RR1 separates residential structures and preserves the rural, open quality of the environment while LC has twenty-three more additional, commercial, permitted uses than the RRl that can be more densely populated and thwarts the open quality of the environment. The "Alaska Supreme Court also has concluded that the (estoppel) doctrine may ~p~Iy asa ade~iniista°ative and other quasi judicial ~~°occcdin~s..." (Alaska Law Review: Michael D. Moberly and Laura L. Farley, Blowing Hot and Cold On The Frozen Tundra:..." III} 11~unicipality ofAnchorag-e v. Schneider demonstrates this reality. The City of Kenai is not exempt from the application of this legal doctrine. S~a~~a~ of list®~~el The estoppel of the proposed rezone can be summarized using the pertinent issues identified in ".Iamison v. Consolidated Utilities, 1`nc. " 1. Rn ad~rantage had been gained or a disadvantage produced -- the MAPS residence will be greatly disadvantaged by the rezone to LC. 2. The magnitude of the inconsistency -- in light of the 1985 Deal and the reiteration of the resident's understanding and continued desire to remain RR1 in 1998, a rezone to LC is inconsistent with RR1 and a rezone to LC is inconsistent with allowing the owners to "have a say in how the neighborhood is developed in the future." 3. ~lhether the changed circumstances tended to justify the inconsistency -destabilizing one of only two RR1 neighborhoods in the entire City of Kenai is unjustifiable, as is defying the good faith agreement with the citizenry conveyed through the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 1a 4. Whether the inconsistency was Belied apon -- the expectation created was reasonably relied upon and substantial investments and significant life decisions were made based upon that reliance. S. Whether the first asser4ion was made with full la~owletlge of the facts -the records of the City, the 1998 Appeal of PZ98-12 {see ~xhBFaa~ ~), the document submitted by MAPS at the 12/3/d8, Council meeting and this document demonstrate both parties have full knowledge of the facts. In light of a fair an honest evaluation of the 1985 Deal, it would be an egregious betrayal of trust for the officials of the City to approve this rezone. The very real and present likelihood of "inverse condemnation" should this rezone be approved must be considered. Obviously the MAPS resident are not the ones that will make this determination, but serveral indicators give cause far pause. Basically stated from a layperson's perspective inverse condemnation is a legal term that describes a situation in which a government body "takes" private proepryy, but fails to pay the just compensation required by the Constitution. A taking can be physical or reglatory by nature. Some types of government action are categorically treated as takings, Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) provides an example wherein the Court declared that regulation, such as the zoning ordinance challenged in that case, "effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state .interests ... or denies an owner economically viable use of his land" in which. case just compensation must be given. Due to the "ripeness" standard clarif ed in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of.lohnson City (1985), which requires that "the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue" {p. 18ti), it is premature to make this judgment. The MAPS residents do submit to the public record their concern regarding inverse condemnation and believe that approval of the rezone will deprive landowners of "all economically beneficial. use of the landowner's property or defeated the landowner's reasonable investment -- backed expectations" (Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 2001, p. 618). ~L~Y ~~ Regulatory taking is an additional legal aspect of the proposed rezone. The fifth amendment of the United States Constitution states, among other things, that ".., r~or sha11 private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." By destabilizing the livability of the MAPS residential neighborhood the City may be creating a scenario wherein residents may no longer find it suitable to remain in their homes. By going too far the City deprives the landowner of the value of his land "When government regulation of private property "goes too far" and deprives the landowner of the value of his land through enactment of a statute, promulgation of a regulation, refusal to issue a permit, or declaration of land as a wetland, as endangered species habitat or as unsuitable for mining, such a taking also may be compensable. This is known as a ~GI.TI[,,A'll`Qli~~ 'I`AI~II~T~ or I1~l~I~SE C®1~1E1~A'I'I~1~I." Source: http://www.regulatorytaking.com/pages/l/index.htm 11 The significance of the Kenai Comprehensive Plan (PLAN) was fully addressed in the "Response Regarding Application to Rezone Ordinance No. 2362-2008." The principles presented therein still apply. We have subrrzitted to public record the complete document and again ask the City officials to review E~hibA~ A for an in-depth analysis of this rezone in light of the PLAN. Furthermore, E~~~b~~ ~ is a letter dated 1/26/09, and submitted to the City by MAPS resident and attorney Chuck Winegarden wherein he addresses the inconsistency of the proposed rezone to the PLAN. In summary the Alaska Statutes requires that the City: " .adopt a comprehensive plan AS 29.40.030(b). A comprehensive plan is a "compilation of policy statements, goals, standards and maps for guiding the physical, social and economic development of the city" (AS 29.40.030{a). It serves as a long-range policy guide for development of a city as a whole. City land use regulations are to be "in accordance" with the comprehensive plan AS29.40.040(a}. Requiring zoning decisions to be in accord with the comprehensive plan "helps to `guard against prejudice, arbitrary decision-making, and improper motives' by providing. substantive standards against which to measure individual zoning decisions." (Quoting South Anchorage Concerned Coalition, Inc. v. Coffey, $62 P.2d 16$, 174 (Alaska 1.993) Price v. Dahl (3115196}, 912 P 2d 541 {touchngo.comisp/html/sp-4326.htm) Furthermore, the Alaska Planning Commission Handbook requires City policy to be guided by the PLAN. The MAPS owners maintain and the facts set forth herein show that this rezone is in direct violation of the PLAN. In the staff report dated 1212210$, staff correctly asserted in their "Evaluation of Application" that: "During the creation of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, development concerns along the Kenai Spur Highway corridor were discussed extensively. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the issue of the neighborhood concern relating to commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or through rezones, particularly along the Kenai Spur Highway. However, the Plan provides guidelines to address these concerns (Page 37)" At this point in the staff evaluation, other than to simply state with no further explanation, that the LC "meets the recommendations of..:CMl, CM3 and CM4," staff, in essence, disregards the PLAN anal launches into their defense of the "Limited Commercial Zone." It is imperative that an objective evaluation of the PLAN be factored into the examination and decision making process. The following points s~tm~x~.arize the relevant issues of the PLAN. Na~axaber ®~e ~o~l ®f tine PL.~N The number one goal of the PLAN is to 66c~°eate ~~ ~t~~°aetnve9 vital ei~ ce~ger99 (page 2) which the PLAN declares currently has "ample inventory of privately owned vacant Iand" {Page 25) and "the gross supply of privately owned, developable, a~p~r~ap~°iateiy coned sites appears more than adequate for future development needs." (Page 14) "Kenai cannot afford an abandoned business area." (Page 36) Approval ofthis rezone "fosters a weak, poorly designed city center." {Page XX) The PLAN is incontestably clear on this paint. The City has failed to substantiate or provide any level of proof regarding the need to abandon the city center and propagate easterly development away from the city center. The unfounded claim by City officials that "there is I2 mo commercial property available in the city center" is simply not true as is illustrated in ~~~a~e¢ ~. The PLAN very plainly communicates that something is broke with Kenai, and it is the struggling city center. The PLAN clearly promotes addressing this problem as the number one goal of the City. Although the MAPS area is not broke and is not in need of fixing, the ei , e~aater is ba°ol~e-and needs inxiua~. Approving this rezone would be a breech in the policy outlined in the PLAN. Approving this rezone would also be an arbitrary action that will serve only to exacerbate the City center deterioration. rinally, approving this rezone alters the private sector dynamic of supply and demand through capricious governmental intervention and unwarranted discrimination that provides no economic benefit to the citizenly merely to benefit one, possibly two, landowners. I~Iaarnlbe~ 71`w® ~®al ®f tlae Pl<..Al~l Tlie number two goal of the PLAN is to " a°~teet seed ~e°a~veaaate the livalaili off resi en#ial aaei~l$b®~°h®oals." (Page 2) 4f particular concern to the citizens is the "strip development" along the Kenai Spur Highway including both the appearance and the dispersity of character. (Pages 36, 37) It is not a stretch to conclude "dispersity" would be mixing commercial with residential. It is unconscionable that in an evaluation of the application as it relates to this very strip rezone, city officials would fail to convey iaa ffaall the most pointedly relative statement in the entire PLAN: 66Arnotiaer isseae off neigiallD®rrh®®d a®neea°n is c®ntnterci~tl ~evelo ~rte~tt near re~ide~ttiad aa•eas a~ a®nditional case peaanits oa° tlaa°oa~gla a°ezoaaes, articaclarl' al®ra Ise ~e~zar S` ~~° .~ighway. ~aae ~nf the GIs mf ~®ni~g is t® a~laieve stabile, livable a°esideaatial aneiglab®rhoods se a~atirt them rant i~re~rtt atible rimes. '~'lais is best aelaieved by z®aain~ saaffieieaat suitably l®eated laaAd faDa~ all expected Haas, then adlBea•ing to tlae zoning plan." (Page 37) [emphasis added] The PLAN has already established supply of "suff dent suitably located land for all expected uses" and directs the City specifically in this scenario to adhere to the existing zone. The City has failed to provide any justification for doing otherwise, rurthermare, they have failed to demonstrate how LC can mitigate the issues of incompatibility and destabilization. The PLAN states "The community leas cited development of an identif able, sli prosperous caty eeaat~a• seed a more atta°aetive ~effiai S ana- ~i laws corridor as important goals." The City's interpretation implies that this is a mandate far "diverse" commercial development along the "Kenai Spur Highway." This guidance from the City is an obvious misinterpretation of the PLAN and an unmistakable disregard for the policy it has established. Furtbezxnore, the City should "promote an orderly overall pattern of land that...maintains the quality of exastina development." (Page 15} (PLAN page 25} The Land lUse )lplaan Map ~ ~ The PLAN contains Maps 10 and 11 - "Land Use Planb," City of Kenai, 200. See ~~~a~~~~ W, page S, paragraph I , for a detailed discussion of the MAPS. At the 115109, information meeting, the City Planner told attendees that the Land Use Plan maps were not really planning maps at all, but rather maps that reflect what currently exists. The City Planner admittedly does not view the PLAN's "Land Use Plana" maps as a plan to guide growth. Consequently, the Planner is capriciously recommending a rezone that is in direct nonconformity 13 with the "Land Use Plan" maps. The maps that reflect what currently exists are in the PLAN -the are called "Existing Land Use" (Map 4) and "Existing Zoning" (Map 6). In reality, the "Land Use Plan." maps are ~~the~atac planning rx~a~s iuteuded to wide ~rowtle and deeisiona nnalsan~ a°elativc to that ga~o~wth: ® To other citizens who participated in the comprehensive planning process, ® To the general citizenry of Kenai who recognize that a "plan" by any other name is still a "plan," According to Alaska Statutes 29.40.030(a) which states, "The comprehensive plan is a composition of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for uidi~a the physical, social and economic development...'.', and ~ According to the City PLAN itself in which it states, "The Proposed Land Use Plan {Maps ~0 and 11) are to used with the development policies to ~~aide growth. The Proposed Land Use 1'Ian is a generalized vision of a desirable pattern of land uses toward which the City has chosen to evolve. The zoning map and regulations are means to implement the proposed plan." {Page 26} C®~n~ereial Land) t7se Bevel®pataeut Polieies of tlae P11,Al~T Contrary to the staff report, the proposed strip rezone does not meet the recommendations of the Commercial Land Use Development Policies {CM) found in the PLAN (Page 37). The staff report doesn't provide even sa much as a pretense of trying to meet the most minimal burden of proof. The report succinctly and without foundation states, "The LC zone meets the recommendations for Commercial Land Use Development Policies CM1, CM3, and CM4 {City of I~enai Comprehensive Pian, Page 37)." The error of the analysis is that it essential) fmcuses ®a~ how flee new) develo ed LC roue eau lees with the PLAN. Frank, it is totally irrelevant whether or not the LC zone, itself, meets the Commexcial Land Use Development Policies outlined in policy. The analysis trust fmc~s offi whether ®x• .not the prop®sed a-ez®~ne Wrests floe eritemia outlined in the PLAN. A cursory review of Cl~l~ demonstrates its complete irrelevaucy t® the ~~°®posed rre~®rae. The policy states, "Promote adaptive reuse of vacant commercial buildings in the city center and along the Kenai Spur Highway." This policy addresses v~eatrt e~ttrttrereial braildin~s, of which there are none in the proposed rezone area. .Stating the "Limited Commercial, Zone meets the recommendation for ...CMI"may or may not be true, but it is definitely arbitrary to claim the proposed rezone meets the CM1 policy. Similarly, CI~1I3 states, "Update existing guidelines for commercial development." The LC zone maybe an attempt to respond to this policy, but a comprehensive analysis of the PLAN renders this policy itra Iicable to the proposed rezone area which is currently, aid according to the PLAN must remain, residentially developed. ClVI4 provides a list of factors that must be considered "In designating {zoning) areas for commercial uses" including "The use has adequate access to a collector or arterial level street" and "Potential conflicts with adjacent non-commercial uses have been minimized through site design, landscaping ar other appropriate rr~.easures." To date the City Administration, Commission and City Council have altogether failed to address 46the assess gaCkor99 and, other than a deficient mention of landscape buffers, the 66~otentiai canfliets i~1'i$lt adiacetrt ar®n-contnler~ial uses P9 The City has negligently shed their rightful burden of proof as it relates to this proposed rezone in light of CM4 and instead has made the woefully inadequate statement that "the LC zone meets this recommendation." 14 PredictabDc ~etti~~ ~'or ~'antaare .~~vestment Pr'o~~ted~ T1he lED1LA1~1 The City manager asserted at the 1/S/09, information meeting that "zoning is a very dynamic animal. Not only do zones change but zoning requirements change." He further stated, "The whole code book with the exception of the charter is pretty much fair game...and are always open for discussion and change." The PLAN states that "the city's land use plan and zoning code and map §hould promote orderly overall pattern of land that... e~-e~tes a stable, predictable settia~ for future investment." {Page 1 S) Albeit true that city government does have the authority to make zoning changes, those ~han~es must ~dl~er~ to aaty stan.da~-ds and intense s~r~atiny incl~cli~e;~ eonfor~nnance with the PLAIN, t1Ye Kenai l~ua~~ei~al Code and legal precedent, The MAPS residents who invested in their properties did so because these elements all existed and gave surety of a predictable and stable fixture far residential development.. The recommendation by the City Planner to approve the rezone is arbitrary: Approval of a proposed rezone by the Commission or Council vrould be also arbitrary. The City officials have failed to meet even a minimal standard of proof and have misrepresented the proposed rezones as being in conformance with the PLAN when it is clearly nonconforming. In conclusion, to legitimately adopt the proposed rezone would require a substantive rewrite of the PLAN. Adoption of the rezone would, in essence, be a rewriting of the PLAN which would bypass the required public process. Neither the Commission, the Council nor the Administration have the statutory authority to conduct a rewrite without broader citizen hearing and input. The elected and appointed officials of the City are, by law, entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the PLAN regardless of their personal persuasions and opinions, In light of a fair an honest evaluation of the PLAN and the 1985 Deal it would be an egregious betrayal of trust for the officials of the City to approve this rezone. d~~~e 2® tie l ~ The Kenai Municipal Code (CODE) provides land management regulation for the City of Kenai. It is a binding document that legislates how applications are to be evaluated, such as the one initially presented by Dr. Todd and Krisitie Wortham, secondly attempted to be presented by 3eff Twait, Chairman, City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission, and thirdly is to be presented by the Kenai City Council. The relevance of the CODE was initially addressed in the "Response Regarding Application to Rezone Ordinance No. 2362-2008." The principles presented therein still apply. Please review ~xtaa~~~ ~, pages 1 - 4 for an in-depth analysis of this rezone in light of the CODE. ~,II~>1T~D C®I~'llI1L~C~A1G Z®l~l~: '~'raffisztfl®a~ Area between In relation to the code the staff report dated 1.2/22108, claims, "The City of Kenai's Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council recognized the issue of development along the Kenai Spur Highway and created the LC zone to provide a trae~sfltion area between commercial and residential districts anal allow a mix of low volume businesses as well as residential use." A critical distinction exists between this summary and the actual code. On various occasions the City Planner has verbally attempted to explain that "transition" does not really mean transition from residential to commercial or transition in the conventional sense of the word. The Planner claimed at the 1 /5109, 1S informational meeting, "it infers that transition already exists, but that was not the intent." She suggests if attendees at this meeting had participated in the development of the anginal language they would know "it was to provide an area of limited conunercial and residential use" ar "the mixed use in the intent of the zone." Clearly the wording of the code does not support this interpretation. The code actually reads, "The LC zone is established to provide t~°as~siiri®HD a~°eas ~etwecn commercial and residential districts ~ allowing low to medium volume businesses, mixed residential and other compatible uses which complement and do not materially detract from the uses allowed witli adjacent district." The word "~" is in the code to convey "the means by which" the mixed zone will be allowed and the transition will occur. The word "and" implies the potentially unrelated existence of mixed zones "and" transitions from commercial to residential. Furthermore, the CODE is crystal clear in stating the "transition area" is to be "between" commercial and residential The paint being made in the accurate language ofthe CODE is that in order to comply with the CODE this proposed strip rezone must provide transitioning from residential to catnmercial. It does not. Rather it imposes commercial within residential while butting up to Rural Residential on one end, Conservation an the other and Rural Residential 1 and Education on the sides. By changing this single word the City Planner has inaccurately represented the CODE and presented arbitrary reasoning for making her recommendation. ~uffeH° The 12122108, staff report states, "Included in those regulations is a requirement for a buffer separating commercial uses from adjacent residential properties." Closer scrutiny of the code reveals that the minimum requirements of the Landscaping plan --~Perfarmance criteria {KMC ].4.25.a4a) ~eci~ia°e no actual ~~linc of SH,~Lkt99 ~fr.'~~I°eptHQDH9~ ®~_° 66-fl®~~~ ~3B_H~Y'9~~~Da~l~c$$IiDIIIl,~. Virtually it provides no substantive separation. The allowed ten feet wide perimeter of gravel, grass or flowers does not serve as a suffident border, yet alone an effective separation intended to buffer low density residential from incompatible commercial establishments. The capability of the City to enforce what minimal landscaping standards do exist, are untested and offer no convincing assurance of effective initial or ongoing separation. Initial LC Rez®ne ~®del Although the intent of the City Planner and Manager seem to be to apply the initial eastern Kenai LC rezone rationale to all the lots along the highway as conveyed in the staff report of 9/1 x108, such application would be misdirected. The f rst rezone to a LC zone was fundamentally dissimilar than what is being proposed in the current rezone. The first rezone along the Kenai Spur Highway started with aver 5x acres that was originally mixed zones of General Commercial and Rural Residential. Several lots were involved and there was a lengthy public process with a great deal of public notice. Conversely in the proposed rezone of the MAPS property only soxne owners within 300 feet were provided notice of the initially proposed rezone and, then only far the Commission meeting, not the Council meeting. As the controversy of the proposed rezone became more evident a lengthy public process did ensue, however ode seats aaoti~eation did not occur and a en daal® rea~aai~aed thwa~ed and consisted of three minute limitations of public hearing testimony and a 115/x9, information meeting proposed for the purpose of the Administration to "sell" the LC zone to the MAPS attendees as suggested by Councilor Joe Moore in an email sent 12/17/x8. See E~~®bret K. 16 This proposed rezone stands furthermore in stark contrast to the initial LC rezone in both its size and constitution. In the staff evaluation of the Twait's application it is noted that "There are 13 parcels zoned Rural Residential 1 and a potion of a parcel zoned Conservation included on the application. Six of Chase parcels are undeveloped." Amore thorough breakdown is quite telling and should be factored into decision making. Of the proposed rezone parcels: (See ~a~~b~n's~ ~ -Color Coded Map} ~ 3 vacant parcels are ~pu~blicly owned -- (red) 0 1 currently zoned RRi can only be developed for "public educational site purposes only," 0 1 currently zoned Conservation is an un-subdivided partial of a much larger city owned parcel and is configured as a narrow rectangle and in such a way that development is highly questionable due to setback requirements, and a 1 currently zoned RRl is owned by the Alaska Mental Health Trost Authority who have not requested or offered their support far this rezone; o ~ parcels are ~r;>ivate~y owa~ea~ wrath ~znstln~ ~°esi~e~tIlal dev~l<~~~~t~ (Yellow) ®1 vacant parcel is privately owned ~eth_ ®w~~~ nt~n~~n;~ ~~ h~lla~ a ~an~-¢-fa~lly ~°~~~d~~~~g (gold) and ®2 vacant parcels are privately awned - .-.°° ~~•~. ~..--..-__..,....,.,,~, 0 1 owned by origi~aal applncant Dr. Todd & Kristie Wortham (blue) 0 1 owned by ~'®rm~~° ~i e~ to ~~ Jack Lashot quitclaimed to Lashot during his employ with the City (gieY)• This proposed rezone encompasses approximately 21.7 acres according to the 12/22/0, staff report and fionts a neighborhood that is about four blocks long and one to three blocks deep at the widest paint. ~estabilizataon of the neighborhood is inevitable if the proposed rezone is approved. The rezone area is only approximately 3000 linear feet long, whereas the City has an estimated 110,000 feet of Kenai Spur Highway frontage. Of the 3000 linear feet of Kenai Spur Highway frontage, approximately 1500 feet is owned publicly. Of the remaining 1 S00 feet of privately owned RR1 frontage, only two lots have not already been or have plans to be developed residentially. The initial. LC rezone rationale does not fit the currently proposed rezone and is conversely different in many ways. First, the initial rezone area and the current proposed MAPS rezone areas are dissimilar in size, serf guration and original zone constitution. Second, the initial rezone response was not as overwhelming opposed by owners in and around the rezone properties. See ~~~i~~~~~ E~, N ~ t~. Of the eight privately owned parcels, five parcels have owners who staunchly oppose the rezone, and only one owner has requested a rezone, but not the currently proposed rezone. Third, whereas the first rezone contained a mix of commercial and residential properties, the MAPS rezone proposes to rezone thirteen RR1 parcels, the most restrictive residential zoning available, and one city-awned Conservation parcel, to the far less restrictive LC zone. Whatever successes the initial LC rezone may or may not have experienced, the model does not fit nor will the successes transfer to the dissimilar MAPS area. LC gone lCna~~~-o~a°iatc foa° ~'aa°cc~s Responsible rezoning would consist of ensuring zone changes consistently reflected land usage or usage otential. It is nonsensrca to converts a Kenai Pe~a~nsxala ~~_,.,_,,.,, ,.. p ' , „,o., , „ ,,,, ~°or~g-~_parcel that can only be used for educational purposes to a LC zone when the City has a truly applicable Ecl~eafi®~a z®nc. If this property is to be rezoned at all, it should only be appropriately rezoned to Education. The Council's attempt to rezone this parcel to LC further demonstrates capricious and arbitrary decision making. The Cii~ ®wn~d ~arrcel being presented for rezone in the City Council's application is currently zoned Conservation. The portion designated for rezone is actually a partial of a much larger and unsubdivided 17 Conservatian parcel The City's pattern of rezoning Conservation, and in particular this parcel, is troublesome for many reasons. ~ The first reason being the very grounds for which the Conservation Zone exists. It is "intended to apply to areas which should be 1~~°ese~we~ ~r~~a~°i~y ~~ op~~ area~_axre~_~~ wate~slxecls and wildlife reserves"KMC 14.20.07. Relative to watersheds, the City's mitigation with Wal-Maxi has already resulted in a net loss of watershed. Sensitive watershed, ine~uding an Alaska Department of Fish & Game identified salmon stream (see E~c~n~~~ ~), is found on the City Conservation parcel. Environmentally it would be wholly inappropriate to subdivide the parcel with No Name Creek and rezone a portion wherein development would abstract-the openness surrounding No Name Creek. It is appropriately zoned Conservation. ® The second reason also sterns fi•om the provision of the code wherein it states that the Conservation Zone is "intended to apply to areas which should be ~x°ese~ed ~~°nrc~aaa°gly as o~sen areas." No-Name Creek provides a natural barrier on the north side of the Kenai Spur Highway whereby residents intuitively understand that the residential and education hub ends and the commercial activity begins. Natural barriers provide rational and justifiable parameters for city planning and zoning. Although the Code has na provision fora "green belt," many residents of Kenai value the green belt that currently exists east of No-Name creek on the north side of the highway and east of Walker Lane on the south side of the highway. They provide appealing open areas between the residential and educational hub and the commercial zone and contribute greatly to the attractiveness and uniqueness of Kenai. ® Third, the City's proposal to subdivide off a relatively small, oblong portion of the Kenai Spar Highway frontage land is illogical, Because the parcel has not yet been subdivided and the property dimensions, right away, easements and applicable set backs are therefore unknown, it is premature to determine, but ~uestionalble of this nazxaw portion of land can even be bevel®pe~ for commercial purposes. If the City intended to self the parcel fox pxivate use, RRl would be the logical, consistent and most compatible zone. If the land actually is undevelopable, the appropriate and responsible zoning designation is without question Corase~atyon. One might also argue that even it the land could be developed, the appropriate and responsible zoning designation is still Conservation. Due to the usage question, the environmental consideration and the "open area" intent, the proposal to rezone and then subdivide out the designated portion is arbitrary and appears to be notlrzng more than a pretext.to provide the original requested spot zone. The current and forward-thinking Conservatian zone is an effective strength of Kenai's land management strategy safeguarding critical parcels for generations to come. S~TI~MA~~ ®F Al-~lC'~'11®1~AL CDII~E l[l~lk'A~.C'~'~®N~: The proposed rezone to LC will substantially destabilize the neighborhood, in the following manner: 1. Converts low density to high density by decreasing required lots sizes from 20,000 square feet to 12, S00 square feet. 2. Encompasses approximately half of the MAPS neighborhood depth essentially changing the very fabric of its charactex and endangering the residential element that rightfully exists. 3. Introduces incompatible uses of commercial within a residential and education hub. 4. Erodes safety and road quality by introducing increased traffic (see Taaffic section below). 5. Expands permitted uses by twenty-three additional and undesirable allotments. 1$ 6. It is undeniably apparent that a conflict exists between the proposed rezone and chapter 14 of the CODE which addresses "Planning and Zoning." The CODE describes how such conflict should be resolved - "Whenever there is a conflict between this chapter and other ordinances pertaining to the regulation of property within the City, the ~®st_a°~straetivemre~~)<ati®rn shall a~~l~." KPC 14.20.020. It would be in direct violation of the CODE to apply the less restrictive LC rezone to the most restrictive RR1 zone. The elected and appointed officials of the City are, bylaw, entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the CODE regardless of their personal persuasions and opinions. In light of a fair an honest evaluation of the CODE, the PLAN and the 1985 Deal it would be an egregious betrayal of trust for the officials of the City to approve this rezone. ~ ~ Z~ The legal challenges that trouble this rezone are not limited fa Estoppel, Inverse Condemnation and Regulatory Taking. At the close of the 12110/0, Planning and Zoning Commission work session, a MAPS resident heard a Commissioner ask the City Planner why the rezone issue had come back to the Commission. The Planner responded that they "want to prevent this from being a spat zone." Improper motive and arbitrarily proposing a non-compliant strip rezone as a subterfuge for an illegal spot rezone does not exonerate the City from the illegality of their action. Essentially the City has taken a bad idea, the Chumley-Wortham spot zone, and made it worse by proposing anon-compliant strip rezone as m~xt for ~~e~®~°i~sffis~~ ~p®~ zoa~e. Moreover, standards developed and contained in legal precedent from the Alaska Supreme Court's 1996 Griswold v. City of I-Iomer (GRISWOLD) case apply to the most recent application for the proposed rezone sponsored by the City Council. The relevance of GRISWOLD was initially addressed in the "Response Regarding Application to Rezone Ordinance No.2362-2008." The principles presented therein still apply. Please review Exhibit A, pages 9 - 11 for an in-depth analysis of this rezone in light of the spot zoning legal precedent. As stated in this exhibit it is appropriate to again reiterate that the citizen taxpayers of the City of Kenai have elected the Council to protect the best interest of our community. The legal ina~licataons of the newest application are snbstantaal and important variables to factor into both the Commission's and Council's consideration. The nature of the rezone, combined with the Council's history of repeatedly attempting code contrary and plan prohibited usages along the arterial strip of the Kenai Spur Highway and in multiple neighborhoods, (see ~x9ae~l~ ~) truly constitute a "public interest" scenario. In summary, the lessons learned from Griswold v. City of Hamer teach us the following about the rezone. 1, The action the Council takes regarding this proposed rezone is legislative. 2. Spot zoning is per se illegal. Should a favorable rezone decision be deemed spot zoning by the Superior or Supreme Courts of Alaska, the Council would have taken illegal action. 3. The Supreme Court invalidates zoning decisions which are result of prejudice, arbitrary decision zxzaking, ar improper motives. 4. The court considers consistency of amendment with comprehensive plan, benefit and detriments to owners, adjacent landowners, and coxzununity and size of area rezoned. S. Consistency with the comprehensive plan is one indication that zoning action has a rational basis and is not an arbitrary exercise of city's zoning power. 6. Filling in vacant places, and increasing tax base and employment of community are not automatically legitimate zoning goals far the purposes of deciding whether particular zoning actions constitutes improper spot zoning. 19 7. Srrzall-parcel zoning designed merely to benefit one owner constitutes unwarranted discrimination and arbitrary decision-making, unless the ordinance amendment is designed to achieve statutory objectives. 8. An affected parcel cannot be too large per se to preclude fording of spot zoning, nor can it be so small that it mandates finding of spot zoning. 9. Similarly, a legislative body's zoning decision violates substantive due process if it has no reasonable relationship to a legitimate government purpose. if the City believes it has a legitimate purpose for this rezone it has failed to convey it to the public. 10. The party challenging city ordinance bears burden of proving its invalidity. The applicant of the proposed rezone, most recently the City Council is the party responsible to bear the burden of proof T' ~~ ACT By approving this rezone the City essentially revokes their right to prevent any ar~d all of the newly proposed twenty-three permitted commercial establishments. The entire strip zone runs parallel and encompasses both pedestrian and road traffic from two rrrajor schools with combined student bodies close to 1000 students. Since the City is the applicant in this action, the burden of proof rests with the City. Traffic considerations are addressed five times in the Alaska Planning Commission Handbook and are essential criteria to sound planning decisions. The City must prepaxe far the scenario in which a single or all of the additional twenty-three permitted uses being proposed actually develop along this strip. The City would be negligent to approve such a change without first collaborating with the Department of Transportation to determine appropriate ingress and egress options and to further study traffic patterns, impact and risks. The traffic implications of this proposed rezone evoke legitimate concerns regarding first and foremost the safety of the children who routinely enter and exit the Kenai middle and high schools located across the highway from the proposed rezone. The City awareness of the already existing traffrc problems for the Kenai Spur Highway was xrrade evident at the 12/15/06, Kenai City Council work session with state legislators. The minutes from this session state: "The Kenai Spur Highway between Soldota~a and Kenai has become an increasingly more dangerous roadway. The conflict between through traffic tzaveling at higher rates of speed, and traffic attempting to exit the roadway into local businesses and residential subdivisions has created an unsafe condition. At present there is not a project on the Statewide Transportation Iznprovetnent Plan. The City of Kenai requests legislative assistance in having ADOT/Pp' provide some preliminary engineering data produced showing costs for having the Kenai Spur Highway upgraded to athre~-lane configuration, with overhead street lighting in appropriate areas. . The City of Kenai will work v-+ith the City of Saldotna, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough to submit a project nomination to ADOT/Pr." The MAPS residents addressed traffic concerns in their response to the 1998 Chumley Candrtional Use Permit proceedings. ~~8~6~6~ ~ contains the excerpt regarding "Traffic Patterns" wherein the residents recorded traffic volumes at peak times during the day school day. Studies conducted by the Alaska Department of Transportation (AI30T) at the Tinker -Kenai Spur Highway intersection in October of 1.996 can also be found in E~r~an~ot S. MAPS residents recently conducted another survey and the results are demonstrated below. These counts are not intended to imply an "apple to apple" comparison. These counts da, however, provide conclusive evidence that traffic volumes in this particularly sensitive hub of Kenai are increasing. Obviously it doesn't take a traffic study to anticipate that the addition of Lowes and 20 the incoming Wal-Mart alone will increase traffic volume in the proposed rezone area. The City is obligated to address the implications of LC traffic changes prior to determining the fate of the rezone. X996 _ ~®~ .9996 -MAPS 2009 -MAPS _ "Elms of f3ay 7'in6cer ~ ~tenai Spear ~Cf~S Entrance ¢ ~ui~s T'iredcer & Kenai Spur Vehicle ~otaf ~ Vehicle 'Total Vehicle 'Total 7:00 - 7:15 a.m. 112 7:15 -- 7:30 a.m. 142 165 + 79 = 244 7 0 i 877 : 7 a.m. start t me) ( 7:30 -- 7:45 a.m. 127 7:45 - 8:00 a.m. 143 886 8:00 - 8:15 a.m. 194 Children in the MAPS area on Princess have to walls over a third of a mile from Princess to McCollum in order t~ cross the f ve-lane highway at a traffic light, then almost that far basic to get to the high school. From Cinderella, students have to walls a quarter of a mile to a traff c 1zght to cross the highway. In the winter the bike paths often are not cleared after a snow fall. Testimony provided by Janine Espy at the 4/15/98 Board of Adjustment Hearing additionally addressed the issue of children safety and is included in E~i~aii@~ii~ ~. Scott Thomas of the ADOT spoke to a Kenai resident an approximately 1/29/09, and indicated that ADdT does not plan to approve more Kenai Spur Highway access for any development, commercial or otherwise, along this highway corridor. Therefore, all new ingress and egress for any and all commercial enterprises that may locate in the area, with the exception of one already approved highway access, will be through the MAPS streets of Princess, Cinderella, McCollum and Magic. The commercial traffic will add considerable stress to the neighborhood road infrastructure, decrease safety and turn the quiet, low-density MAPS neighborhood wherd' our children walk to and from school, ride their bikes, and walk their dogs into a commercial access passageway. The intersections of Princess, Cinderella and McColluul with the Kenai Spur Highway will undoubtedly experience increased traffic volume. Ail in all the safety, stability and very nature of the MAPS area will irreparably be changed. ~~L ~ ~~'~ Many MAPS residents are convinced that, in its haste to push this strip rezone through the public process, several improprieties ar other procedural missteps have occurred. These possible improprieties include, among other things, conflicts of interest and violations of the Open Meetings Act. Should the Commissioners consider approving the pending application in spite of the many objection raised by the MAPS residents, we strongly urge that, before taking such action, you look into these improprieties. If, instead, the proposed rezone continues to proceed apace, and reaches the Council for a final vo#e, the MAPS residents will, regrettably, have no choice but td present to the Council, before any such vote, information and evidence documenting these likely improprieties. The interested residents of Kenai encourage the Corr~missioners to recognize this proposed rezone for it is -- a noncompliant violation of the PLAN and CODE, an illegal act and a very, very bad idea. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission is encouraged to kill the proposal at the Commission level, f®~° once and t'b~° ail. . . 21 ~~ , , Thank you for your consideration of the facts, issues,' and positions presented herein. The residents of MAPS have trusted and invested in the regulatory (CODE) and policy (PLAN) direction they collaboratively developed with the City of Kenai; as well as sound legal precedent established irl this state. We strongly urge you to honor and uphold the public trust placed in you and xejeet the proposed rezone. 22 ~~~ 23 ra ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~n~~ ~~~~~~~ ®~C~i~9~~P ~9 ~®~~ ~ PREPARE P`~~ T~IR[~GH ~-~~ CAL '~'l~/E EFF~R`I~ F N~ER®[!S MAPS E~1®~'6~1T5 The Kenai Municipal Code {K.MC) provides land management regulation for the City of Kenai. It is a binding document that legislates how applications, such as the one presented by Franklin T. & Kristie L. Woxtham (the applicant} are to be evaluated. Based on the KMC we take objection to the "Analysis" and "Recommendations" presented in the September 10, 2008, Staff Report, the erroneous "whereas" statements made as fact in the Ordinance No. 2362-2008 and the Planning Administrators Memo to the City Manager dated November 19, 2008, due to the following reasons. 1. These staff generated documents failed to consider all ~~~~acahle c®~&~s in drawing their conclusion. The report focused fully on the Limited Commercial Zone language of the code to justify the recommendation and did not include undeniably pertinent and non~supportive language from the Rural Residential Zone language of the Cade which is the existing, prevailing zone for this parcel. 2. The 1Lemated Commercial Zone {LC Zone) language of the code does not, in fact, provide the support for this application that is acclaimed in both the staff report and the ordinance. a. KMC 14.20.115 LC Zone states "latent: The LC Zone is established to provide t~°~~sitn~aa areas between comrr~ercial acid residential districts by allowing low to medium volume business, mixed residen#ial and other compatible uses which complement and do not ma#erially detract farm the uses allowed with adjacent districts." The parcel in question is bordered on three sides by Rural Residential 1 (RR1} developed properties and on one side by Education Zone. There are no nearby commercial properties to which it is transitioning. Therefore, it is capricious and misleading to claim it as a "transition" area. b. The staff report states that "The proposed development will improve the property providing for limited commercial development. The landscaping requirements will [ejnsure commercial use is separated from the adjacent residential properties." Staff hereby suggests that KMC 14.25 "La~xclsc~~i~n~/~ite Flan Regulations" in some manner solves the incompatibility of spat zoning a commercial parcel in the middle of an education and residential parcels by offering a buffer of trees or shrubs. Verbal testimony implied this would be an additional level of protection afforded the neighbors should the parcel be rezoned. i. First, this statennent is meaningless. Any degree of development technically 6`hn~ex°®ves99 a property, including single- and multifamily homes and churches. However, if one was to interpret improvement qualitatively, this statement is inherently bias in that it claims the property will "improve" by placing an incompatible and non-harmonious commercial structure or structures smack-dab in the center of a residential and educational zone. ii. Second, according to the KMC man es ®f clevelo %e~at with the exception of single family, duplexes and churches would be ~cgrrg~ed to s~ibmnt for approval a lan~sea~e/alts 1?l~n~ anyway. {KMC 1~k.25.020; 14.20.020; 14.20.320) The implication, that by rezoning this property, the neighborhood would enjoy an extra level of controlled development otherwise unrealized is inaccurate far many of the potential uses other than LC Zone. iii. Third, the lan~-sca~in~ c®de does not "insure" or "ensure" separation of commercial from adjacent residential properties. It only requires a plan that has very minimal requirements in which "buffer" is not defined. The buffer therefore could conceivably be very narrow. There are no visual requirements of the buffer that would keel neighbors from actually seeing the development. Typically, the types of gsbuaffcr~" allowed by the City axe just ~a°~ss ®a° ~-mc~ s#A°i s with a tree or two along the street. They are actually more like setback areas than a real buffer purposefully designed to impair line al site as trees or bushes. c. Unfortunately even if the incompatibility of commercial properties could be hidden by trees and foliage, there is still a huge issue of increased non-neighborhood traffic such an enterprise would generate. i. The conceptual plan of the applicant conveys two additional avenues of ingress and egress to Cinderella Street. The increase of connnercial traffic on Cinderella Street would be ~n~~~tDt~+fivel,~ n~~~°e~sed ~~a~„~a~a~i$~tnvel~r ~nl~®w~a. ii. The code itself acknowledges that traffic generated by clinics, such as the one being proposed in the application for a den#al practice, rea~~ia°es 62,~,_5~/0 ~aa®re,~~rlcin~ spaces than a similar sized professional building would require. it seems logical to deduce based on this requirement that clinics ~e~er~te a much Ihag-~ea;,va~lu~e pf tg°affic than professional offices - bath of which are substantially higher than routine residential traffic. iii. This increased traffic flow and congestion is a particularly troublesome detail in light of the p~~oximi$y ofthis parcel t® ~® mai®r seh®®ls with combined student body populations of 916 students. These issues are not new to this Council relative to the foot traffic generated by these schools. The timeline provided by the Council does not allow the neighborhood to fully develop its defense and conduct a traffic study as was done in the 1998 Appeal, but a review of the MAPS 1998 Appeal PZ98-12 document demonstrates the vulnerability of this pedestrian and traffic hub. Please see ~t~~hm~~~ m W. These pedestrians are particularly vulnerable due to their young age and the hazardous five-lane street crossing corridors in which there are not enough crossings, they are not within reasonable proximity of the students, the timing allowed for crossing is inadequate and the intense concentration of both pedestrian and vehicle traffic occurs at special events and at two peak times aday -~ the start and close of each school day. Although it may not be obvious to the Council, the exit to the high school is directly across from this parcel and the entrance a few seconds' drive away. Due to the youthful nature of drivers at the high school, a higher number of inexperienced drivers use this entrance and exit more than any other single driveway system in the City of Kenai and do so at a time when pedestrian traffic is at its highest. Undoubtedly the best interest of the entire community was being considered when this parcel was zoned the most restrictive available zone - RR1. The safety risk a commercial spot zone would afford is absolutely unconscionable. One more accident would be one too many. d: The first rezone to a LC Zone was fundamentally dissimilar than what is being proposed in the current rezone application. The first rezone along the Kenai Spur Highway started with over 50 acres that was originally mixed zones of General Commercial and Rural Residential. Several lots were involved and there was a lengthy public process with lots of public, notice. Although the intent of the City Planner and Manager seem to be to apply this former rezone rationale to all the lots along the highway as conveyed in the staff report of 9/1fl/0$, only people within 300 feet were provided notice of this rezone application and, then only for the Commission meeting, not the Council meeting. 2 Conversely this application it to rezone a single parcel fiom the most restrictive residential zoning to the far less restrictive LC zone. 3. Furthermore, the Barrel Jlt;esideaatial lRR~ language of the code does not provide the support far this application that is acclaianed in both the staff report and the ordinance. Rural Residential 1 {RR1) is the current and applicable zone that applies #o this property aztd the regulation found in this section of the code should be factored into any decision regarding this application. a. The unique histo of thus anei fib®a°lnood is a matter of record. Its interaction with both the Kenai City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission demonstrates a highly collaborative effort of the majority of property owners to preserve and maintain the low density residential character of this neighborhood. See ~~~~~~~~~~ a l ~`-ne RR~ ciesi~nation came at a colt tm.the ~esideaaee ~~sed oan theaa° ~a•anactaye staaace ta~i¢n$y°$h~°ee ye~~~.~~®,..,.,tlne `s19~~ ~ea~" he$ween $tae ~ea~~nhoa°s of 661~.~IPs99 liN,lcCo~iaaaan, A$ia-~, Pa°iences~) sand ghe Cam=®f ~e~~ia The ~>rre~onen$s of tine ~9~~ good faith a~~eeanent with tlne Ci#y of )l~enai annade theia• inteaatiamas clear t'rraaan $hu be~innian~o "For the price of the assessment we wannt to have a sa ion ho-~ i$ is develo ed iaa $he f~tun°e. At the present time its RR in character has 2 potentials_ If we do not rezone it then I see a patchwork type of development, almost a Spenard-like type of development with people who want nice residential lots being slowly squeezed out or chased away ... I understand the City Comprehensive Plan calls for such ari area [low density residential] in the City. One with larger lots so that people can actually live close in to town without having to live on smaller lots. (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-S6, Rick Baldwin) "The i98S Deal" as it has come to be called and our approximate $300,000 utilities assessment investment (not factored. into real or current dollar values) was an agreement of goad faith whereby the city agreed to consider the input of the current land owners when making decisions of impact and the owners agreed to pay to the city what was then a substantial assessment for improvements as well as rrraking individual improvements and upgrades to their own properties. b. The RR Zone is intended "to provide for low density residential development in outlying and rural areas in a form which creates a st'ahfle and atta°active a•esidentiaff eaavir®anaaneatt." Spot zoning commercial parcels in the middle of .residential neighborhoods does not s$ahili~e $lae a•esideanti~9 e~ayia°oaantent of the area and in fact would create an "endangered neighborhood." c. The RR Zone is "to prohibit uses which would: a) r~idiate the residential claaa•actea° of the environment; b) ~eaner~$e, h~~vy traffic in predominately residential areas." Principal presented uses for this parcel according to the KMC Land Use Tables are: 1) One Family Dwelling; 2)Two/Three Family Dwelling; 3)Churches; 4)Essential Services; and S) Off Street Parking. The common characteristics of these principal permitted uses include: principal activities occurring at each of these uses is non-commercial, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic is often known or knowable to the principal occupants, generated traffic in and out of permitted use areas is generally low density with the exception of Churches at strategic non-imposing times of the week and day, and the character of the neighborhood is enhanced by the familiarity factor as neighbors watch out for and help each other out. Com~x~ercial entezprises, such as professional offices, do net share any of these common characteristics. Their principal activity is commercial, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and out of the businesses will be primarily unlcnou+n to the principal occupants, generated traffic in and out will likely be of a fax higher density, and the character of the neighborhood will be eroded as an unfamiliar public files in and out of the area. Professional offices are not similar to those principal uses permitted in RR1 zone. Therefore, a LC rezone would both violate the residential character of the environment and generate heavy traffic in predominately residential areas. d. The argument neighborhood residents have repeatedly heard from both staff and Council members that "nothing else can be done" with this particular parcel is absolutely false and further indicates a preconceived bias on the part of these officials. Not surprisingly this is a bias that has been propagated by the former owner in his endeavor to convert a residential investment into a commercial windfall profit. Here is a list of &~i hl ~ri~hie ~ite~~aative uses: i. Single-faxnily dwellings. The Kenai Comprehensive Plan (KCP) explains the city's honaebuyers prefer larger residential lots. (KCP Page 34) To claim that na one would want to live along the Kenai Spur Highway is ludicrous. one only has to drive from Princess to Swires to see this is not true. Furthermore, proximity to the schools makes this a very desirable location for families with children. ~~~~~m~¢~~ m ~ roughly illustrates a potential site plan and layouts for single family development. The original plat of the former owner was at one time platted for seven RR.1 lots. ii. Duplexes and/or triplexes. We are a neighborhood that values both our rental properties and our renters. The home owners and renters have successfully co-existed in this neighborhood for several decades. This property is bordered by townhouses on one side, duplexes on another, a single family on the one side with a triplex one block away. iii. A church. Vie currently leave two churches in our neighborhood and would welcome another. iv. Essential Services v. Sell a portion or all the land to the neighbors. The neighbors don't need this additional land. The collective investment of the first 42 owners to sign the petition alone is already assessed at over 4.I xnillion dollars. However, residents are willing to make an investnrient to maintain the integrity of the residential character. vi. If the city is intent on providing the applicant's dental office a place to operate, they could do a land swap to one of their commercially zoned parcels. The debated property could then be sold at RR1 market values, converted to a city park or perhaps explore assisted living home options. To fairly evaluate the requested rezone the en$ir~ c®dec®de must be reviewed. In considexxng the entire code, the guideline provided in KMC 14.20.020 fie] states "~1Vhenever there is a conflict between this chapter and other ordinances pertaining to the regulation of property within the City, the most restrictive regulation shall apply." In adherence to the code ~iae ~®~~ rrestrictive r°~~aal~ti®n ~na~s$ ~e ~ to the assessment of this rezone application leading to its rejection. This parcel is zoned the more restricted RRl, and as outlined in the KMC and the Kenai Comprehensive Plan should remain such. 4 Just as the KMC provides far the regulatory basis of land management, the Kenai Comprehensive Plan (KCP) provides far the policy basis of land management. Although not law per se, "Kenai's land use plan and related development policies are a deci lion-making tool that provides a "blueprint" for growth and change in the cammunity...The comprehensive plan does provide the public policy basis for defining the zoning districts and related development standards that guide what happens an the land." (KCP, Page 25) The Alaska Statute (AS 29.40,030} and the Alaska Planning Commission Handbook further mandate and support this function of comprehensive plans. The handbook states "Planning can protect property and property values by separating a potentially harmful or disagreeable land use from surrounding residential and comxercial uses and by helping to protect stable neighborhoods." (Handbook, page 7) Based on the KCP we take objection to the staff pxepared documents referenced above and included in the Council's packet. 1. The Proposed Land Use Plan and subsequent M~ 10 and i 1 complement the written policy and are to be used with the development policies to guide growth. The Maps were updated in June of 2008. As the maps illustrate Kenai has a well defined, long-term plan for futare growth. The terms used for the Land Use Map are different than the terms for the actual zones. Map 10 shows the areas where "Neighboxhood Residential" and "Neighborhood Commercial" are planned. See t~~ch~~e~4 ®. The section of the arterial road system being reviewed for rezone is not planned "Neighborhood Commercial," nor should it be. The Maps nllust~°ate that the applicant's parcel clearly is lannetl f®r 661~TeH hb®rr-aood Resrdentaa199 aa~ci n®t fog 66Nei~hb®xh®®d cCom~e~°cial," while in fact other areas of the arterial road system are planned for "Neighborhood Commercial." 2. "The broad pup®se of the laud use play is to ensure an adequate supply of land that is: a suitable for development; p in appropriate ownership status; ® appropriately zoned; ® with needed utilities and services; fox future pxivate and public uses; anal 4 at desirable locations." (Page 9} a. According to the KCP "the ~ru~s ~~~~-y of privately owned developable, appropriately zoned sites appears ~.~re thin adequate for future development needs ..-Comparison of estimated demand for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses to the existing zoning status of vacant land suggests that Kenai has an adequate supply of appropriately zoned parcels for future demands." (I~CP Page i 4 including Table 5) b. The plan establishes a standard of su~tabnluty for development, Rezoning a residential parcel to commercial when it is surrounded an three sides by residential development and on the fourth side by education in an arterial corridor that is designated the mast restrictive zone defzes the definition of suitability. Expanding the scope of review to the entire highway frontage from the Walmart to Swires Road, on both sides of the highway, is some form of residential zone, except for one small commercial lot (not near this proposal) and the two educational parcels (KCHS, KMS). The proposed rezone is a commercial spot zone, plunked down into the middle of a large residential zoning district. 5 c. The appropriateness of the ownersl~ilr stata~s is demonstrated by the number of owners who have purchased more than one parcel in this area. At least three current owners and one former have built and/or lived in two separate dwellings within this neighborhood. Private homeowners a~ad laradlords appear to be the predominant ownership group. d. The plan establishes appropriate zoning as a standard. According to the KCP "the gross supply of privately owned developable, a ro riatel zoned sites a ears snore than ads oats for futnme develop~e~nt needs. {KCP Page 14) It fiarther states that "One of the goals of zoning is to acltiewe stable. livable residential nei~bborl~o®ds by separating them from incompatible uses." (Page 3'7) Rezoning this lot will cut into our neighborhood by 50% of the land mass from north to south. It will cut us in half east to west. That is a huge dent -- significant enough to have c-estalbi~~~n_~~act on the continuing life of the entire RR1 zone, hence, the "endangered neighborhood." e. The plan establishes desirable l®eations as a standard for development. It is entirely desirable for residential development to be located in the vicinity of other residences and schools. It is entirely desirable for a dental clinic to be located in the city center near other health care providers. It is nit desi~°ablc~ to open up a residential community fo those p®texatial noses thus LC rezone woa~ld permit including restaurants, art studios, barbers and beauticians, dry cleaners, f mess centers, photographic studios, tanning salons, massage therapists, professional offices, to name a few. 3. Section IV of the KCP defines the "Framework far the Future" of Kenai. The first planning topic revolves around the ei~ cent~a° and naillennaunt snare. (Page 26) "Citizens generally agree that creating a strong, atlxactive, busy city center is a highly desirable planning goal." a. The city leadership serves as guardian of our community's best interest and caretaker of the greater public purpose and good. Policy decisions that influence market variables are a form of ~arkei intervention and government control. It is commonly understood that supply and demand are the variables that dictate market direction. To increase tl~e 66sa~ppl~" of commercial properties in the rr~arketplace that already has an adequate supply of land to accommodate new commercial development is u~awarrannted ~oyex'nngn~pt inten°yeration. Obviously, increasing the supply impacts the supply arid demand relationship. In this instance approving a rezone will intervene with the marketplace to pull businesses away from the city center and result in "sprawl." Sprawl is not good for a vital city center. Such a move would be in direct opposition to the KCP. By not approving this rezone the city avoids tampering with these market variables and the natural course of supply and demand will concentrate commercial enterprises in the city center. We already see this occurring with our health care services accomplishing the goals of the plan. 5 (KCP page 25) b. Another impact of this rezone mould be that urne land ®wner waa~ld beneffi# at a cost to all other .property owners who have previously invested to build this community. No greater public interest would be served by granting this rezone. The granting of the rezone would further influence the supply and de;nand by providing a single property owner advantages that are not available to other existing owners. The KCI' states, "This [to peanut uses that otherwise might not fit within the intent of the underlying zoning] approach may address the immediate need of individual. applicants. However, over time, it can compromise the basic purpose of zoning and public confidence in zoning." (Page I5} c. The ~ as described in the KCP is to revitalize ci cen#er by promoting residential and commercial developanent in this area, ~~# by promoting co~~~ereial level®p~¢n~ inn resider#ial area outside of the city center. To rezone this parcel underxnines both the goals of revitalizing the city center and the goals of protecting the harmony and character of residential environments in RR1, and proxnotes commercial sprawl. 4. Another planning topic addressed in the "Framework for the Future" of Kenai focuses on Residential l~e~lr®r~n®o v+e~®~~nne~~.}lDo)~icies (R). {Page 35) a. The KCP states the city is to "Promote the siting and design of land uses that are in harmony and scale with surrounding uses." Specifically to "Enforce e~is#in~ code re~tuiretnents and address zoning violations." (Page 35) Again, the point is being made that the Council should not change the code in order to place commercial development in a residential area, but rather that you enforce the existin code. b. The KCP further states that the city is to "E~c®~ara~e a varied ®f neighborhoods within the city that offer a choice of urban, suburban, and semi-rural lifestyles." Specifically to "Establish standards in the land use regulation Cade for various housing types and housiaa~ densities." (Page 3S) Frorn the zoning map it appears that there are only two RRl neighborhoods in Kenai. A rezone would essentially change the character of this residential neighborhood fiom the most restrictive zone to a more liberal zone and thereby endanger one of the only two RR1 neighborhoods, thus diminishing the variety the city is committed to encourage. c. Rez®~i~n~ this parcel would contradict the Residential Neighborhood Development Policies outlined in the KCP and would result in the following de#rime~#s #® the comaa~u~ni i. If a single spot zone is approved, residential districts will never again be stable and safe from the impact of adjacent commercial or industrial uses. ii. The City would essentially be changing the policy direction of the KCP without adequate public notice and disregarding the 2003 KCP rewrite, annual reviews and the 2008 Maps 10 and 11 updates. iii. Finally, establishing this dangerous precedent would crew#e an unstoppable danriino effect. 7 S. The "Framework for the Future" of Kenai also addresses ~®Hnn~e¢H-ci~fl ~,aand i[Jsc ~Devel~arHent Pollncaes (C11~. (Page 35) - ~ ~~ ~ ~. a. The KCP states, "Soxne H°esideffits cones I~HHfl ~b®Hat coH~HeH•eeal 66Stu°H ~evelo rmaeHng" ~~®Hn tl~ne l~cnaa Sna~~-;Hii_~@H~r~y. On analysis, these concerns seem aimed mainly at the appearance ....And to a lesser extent, the dispersed character of development." (Page 36, 37} First, to address the issue of appearance, the staff recommends approving the application and implies that dressing up LC Zones through landscaping and building placement is the method that makes spot zoning acceptable. As a side bar, it should be noted that the applicant's conceptual plan, which consists of five buildings, each exceed the maximum footprint allowed for Limited Commercial zoning. b. The other issue of concern expressed in the KCP {Pages 37} is the "dis~eH°se~ cl~a~a~~er off der~el® me~atg9 along the Kenai Spur Highway. This rezone plainly proliferates the problem instead of controlling and/ox reducing the problem. c. The plan suggests, in the very next sentence that "These deficiencies [appearance and dispersed character along the highway] can largely be addressed through development and desi stax~~a~°c~s tln~t ~°e~ect the coH~s~n~aHit~y c®anseHHS~HS, and by provision of adequate, suitably located commercial sites." {Page 37} We proactively demonstrated community consensus in 1985. We overwhelmingly demonstrated cornr~n.unity consensus in 199. Again, on the ten year anniversary of the Appeal of PZ98-12, we still have community consensus. As of December 3, 2008, at 3 p.m., ~2 of the 43 residents surveyed oppose this ordinance to rezone. To ignore this histn~ ara~ el~a°it~ ®f ~®Hase~HSaHs in combination with the fact that there is adequate and suitably zoned land fox the desired usage available through the year 2020, (Page l~4} would be a capricious break from the KCP community consensus policy standard. d. The most conclusive paragraph in the planthat pertains to the consideration of this rezone states: "Another issue of neighborhood concern is commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or through rezones, particularly along the Kenai Spur Highway. One of the goals of zoning is to achieve stable, livable, residential neighborhoods by separating them from incompatible uses. This is best achieved by zma~ia-~saafffieie~t senitahly 1®c~te~fl l~nal for all expected uses, ~~e~ adhea-a~a~ t® the z®H~nH~~,~~~~." - ~. (Page 37) This fundamental KCP policy is crucially and glaringly pertinent as it describes exactly the scenario being considered. The unreasonable choice of the staff to arbitrarily ignore this policy in their eagerness to lobby in favor of the rezone on the applicant's behalf demonstrates total disregard for a fair and unprejudiced due process. Furthermore, staff has ass~zmed the burden of proof that is rightfully assigned to the applicant which places the neighbors in the undesirable position of bearing a burden of defense in an unreasonable time frame. The staff documents have not provided the Commissioners and Council members a comprehensive and objective, unbiased rendering of the issue at hand. S ~ ~~ The 1996 Supreme Court of Alaska case of Griswold v. City of Homer establish legal precedent for "spot zoning" and subsequently contain valuable criteria that Council members must consider to apply legally sound decision making. The citizen taxpayers of the City of Kenai have elected the Council to protect the best interest of our community. The legal implications of the application and the subsequent litigation that would result from a favorable vote, are substantive and judicious variables to factor into the Councils' consideration. The nature of the case, combined with the Councils' history of repeatedly attempting code contrary and plan prohibited usages along the arterial strip of the Kenai Spur Highway in multiple neighborhoods, truly constitute a "public interest;' scenario in which it is highly likely that legal fees will be charged to the City at the expense of all taxpayers and to the detriment of other valuable potential uses. The lessons learned from Griswold v. City of Homer teach us that a "SPOT" by any other name is still a "spot" and the following factors gnust be weighed with the utmost intention. 1. First, we would like to remind and ensure that the C®uancil understands that the actiom~ tiaey talc re aa°diffi dais a iic~ti®aats le illative, and the legal consequences of their decision constitutes a very real and potentially present danger to the citizens of Kenai. (Cabena v Kenai Peninsula Borough [4127101 j "Because small-scale rezonings are treated as legislative decisions under Alaska law ...") 2. The second lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "Not all small-parcel zoning is illegal, but s~®g ~®niaa~ Hs user se ill~~al; "spot zone" is zoning decision which affects small parcel of land and which is found to be arbitrary exercise of legislative power." (Page 5, Section [7]) Although the neighbors of this area are not lawyers, from. a layperson's perspective an analysis of the criteria outlined in Griswold v. City of Homer makes it quite evident that approval of this application would comprise a classic spot zone scenario. It further stands to reason that should this decision be deemed spot zoning by the superior court of Alaska, the Council would have made an illegal decision. 3. The third lesson extracted from the .Griswold v. City of Homer case is that the "Supreme Court invalidates zoning decisions which are result of pa°e~udice, aa~bitx-aa°~ alccisi®~a am~lriaa~, ®r i~~pa•o~er ~au~iv¢s." (Page ~, Section [5]) The staff documentation surrounding this application clearly expresses a foundational prejudice and displays an arbitrary decision making process when measured by the City of Kenai regulatory document, the KMC and by the City of Kenai policy document, the KCP. Although motives are more difficult to prove in a court of law, there appears to be reasonable evidence that the staff of Kenai has assumed both the burden of proof for the applicant, and a lobbying role in favor of the application for unknown reasons that appear to have a foundation in the misled notion of staff and Council alike that "there is nothing else that can be done with this property." The neighbors have successfixlly countered this fallacy elsewhere in this document. 4. The fourth lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "ln determining whether amendment to zoning ordinance constitutes spat zoning, court considers caaasistcnev of aancaada~neaa~ avith c®IIaStDIC°claeaasive gJ1affi, lacaael~t and dcta•ianen$s to ova;aaers~„arlla~Cen$ landnwners~~aad c~aaa~aaUng~ app s~c,~a~ca rc~oaaed." (Page S, Section [$]) This document provides, at the very least, a minimum gauge of reasonable doubt regarding consistency with all four of these criteria. 5. The lmftla lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "C®aasistea~cy va!ith c©aaa a°claeaasivc laaa is one indication that zoning action challenges as "spot zoning" has rational basis 9 } ~ r and is not arbitrary exerciseof city's zoning power." (Page 6, Section ~1~]) The K.CP is a critical tool to be fully utilized in the process of making this decision. In so doing this Council must conclude that sound policy dictates the rezone be rejected, 6. The sixth lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "F'illin~ ins vae~nt~laces, and increasing tax base -and employment of community are not animnaatieall~ legitimate zonita~ foals for the purposes of deciding whether particular zoning actions constitutes improper spot zoning." (Page 7, Section [11]) The notion that "there is nothing else that can be done with this property" and that this parcel is now a "dust bowl" are irrelevant criteria on which to base Council's decision. It may be wise to take heed to this legal precedent that vacant land is a perfectly legitimate and sound alternative to illegal "spot zoning." 7. The sevexatln lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Hamer case is that "Small-parcel zoning designed merely t® benefit one owner constitutes a~nwar•raa~ted di~criminatimn and ar•bitra~ decisio~a-mal~ian~, unless ordinance amendment is designed to achieve statutory objectives of city's own zoning scheme, even if purpose of change is to bring nonconforming use into conformance or allow it to expand." (Page 7, Section 12) The specialized consideration given to this particular owner (the applicant) through a favorable vote, and the outcome it would incite, are contrary to both the regulation of the KMC and the policy direction of the I~CP to revirtalzze Kenai's city center, preserve and stabilize Kenai's residential sectors and promote commercial development in suitably zoned areas in adherence to the I~CP. Arbitrarily rendering a favorable vote for this one particular applicant would be discriminatory and therefore illegal. ~TVith intent to provide full disclosure to the Council the e. lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "Affected parcel cannot be too large per se to preclude finding of spot zoning, nor can it be so small that it mandates Ending of spot zoning." (Page ~, ,Section X14]) The applicant's parcel is less than three acres. However, before one considers this a ray of light favoring the rezone, it is critical the Council review the discussion relative to this point. "We believe that the relationship between the size of reclassification and a finding of spot zoning is properly seen as symptomatic rather than casual and thus that the size of the area rezoned should not be considered more significant than other factors in determining whether spot zoning has occurred. A parcel cannot be too large per se to preclude a finding of spot zoning, nor can it be so small that it mandates a finding of spot zoning. Although Anderson notes that u-ecl~s~a~ac~ti®~~_®f ~arc~~s_a~~ns~err ~~aa°¢~,~ca~~~,~lre,uaea~°I~ always found invalid, while reclassifcations of parcels over thirteen acres are nearly always found valid. Id., as Zieler notes, the relative size of the parcel is invariably considered by courts ..." {Page 20, 3. Size of "rezoned" area [13] (1~]) as ®~a+~~®~ ~8'f5gdbd.~ 0 0 9. The ~ainth lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homex case is that "Similarly, a legislative body's zoning decision violates suhstantive due ~°ocess if it has no reasonable relationship to a legitimate government purpose" (Page 15, Section [5] ~6]) Although the burden of demonstrating violated substantive due process is a heavy one, a decision to approve this rezone would seem quite arbitrary and capricious. It would require discounting the Planning Commission's advisory opposition vote, it would be la in transparent contradiction to the regulatory mandates of the KMC and the policy direction of the KCP and the one-sided documentation of the staff documents would be a factor. Therefore, if the rezone would be approved there exists convincing argument regarding substantive due process. Frustrating procedural due process experiences the residents have had regarding this application include the denial far postponement to allow more time to prepare a response, the denial of city officials to allow inclusion of documentation from the neighbors in the Council meeting packet on a holiday week when conventional deadlines to submit documentation were skewed, the placement of this highly controversial issue on the consent agenda for its first reading. Additionally, it is the understanding of the neighbors that an reasonable time frame and suitable format for a fair hearing or an opportunity to be heard and defend against the proposed action will not occur during the December 3, 200$, Kenai City Council meeting. See page 33 of the Alaska Planning Commission Handbook for due process guidelines. 10. Although many more lessons can be extracted from this precedent-establishing case, the ~~eal mess®n®n we bring to the attention of this Council is that the "Pam ch~lflen~i~~ cif ®rc~ina~ace,bea~°s baau°de~n of ~~'®v~n~ a~~ ir~valicli4~." {Page 11, Section [24]j No property owner has a "right" to rezone; in fact, the opposite istrue -~ the property owner has the burden of proving that the rezone meets the appropriate criteria. It is our finding that not only dzd the applicant not bear the burden of proof, the applicant appears to have been misinformed by city officials as to what could be anticipated in his pursuit of this rezone and the city assumed the burden of proof as demonstrated in the "Analysis" and "Recommendations" presented in the September 10, 2008, Staff Report, the erroneously. interpreted "whereas" statements made as fact in the Ordinance No. 23&2-2009 and the memo dated November 19, 2008, from the Planning Administrator to the City Manager. 11 ~f ~~ ~~ Details have and are being discussed throughout this process as justification for this particular spot zone that are truly irrelevant to the decision and legitimately must be discounted from the decision making process. Please review A4~~a~~~ee~~ ~ E. "lt is role of elected representatives rather than courts to decide whether particular statute or ordinance is wise." (Griswold Page 2, Section [2]) Based on the lessons learned from Crriswold v. City of Homer, we admonish the Cota.ncil to wisely reject the application anal avoid an insidious precedent that would fundamentally undermine the regulatory and policy directives of the City. Zoning is a matter of public trust. It is intended to "create a stable, predictable setting for future investment." {KCP, Page 15}, The Kenai Comprehensive Plan should provide reliable information about the City of Kenai and its development plans and policies that potential buyers will factor into their decisions regarding their land purchases, It can provide the assurance current owners factor into their decisions regarding property improvements. The residents of this neighborhood have trusted and invested in the regulatory and policy direction they collaboratively developed with the City of Kenai. Spot zoning this parcel would be an egregious breech of the public trust that each member of the Council is elected to uphold. 12 C ~ e P, ~~®~l~~~p ~p~e~~ ®f ~Z9~w°~ ~ ~ ~®>l~l~aas~o~~ ~e~esfl~~p 7.1 Valid Planning ,Issue During the February 4, 1998, l3oard of Adjustment Hearing the applicant's representative stated, "... we feel a traffic problem, if it exists, is a traffic problem and not a property development problem and we think we would like to respectfully suggest that traffic problems be addressed with traffic control items." (Board of Adjustment faearing, Chumley/Chumley Appeal, February 4, 1998, Page 6) ~f'he residents of the neighboring lots respectfully disagree, The Planning Commissioner's Handbook (June 1993, State of Alaska) validates traffic as a sound planning and xoping concern in the following statement; The effects on traffic congestion are also mentioned some in the conditional use section of a zoning ordinance. A permit granted or denied under this standard has a better chance of surviving judicial review if it is based on a credible traffic study which quantifies the effects of the proposed use. (68) 7.2 Traffic Study and Ejertinent Statistical Data Residents of the neighborhood conducted counts of three main areas: (1) children in the neighborhood and at local schools (2) number of ears entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway, and (3) a taunt of clientele entering & exiting other professiona! offices to represent a possible traffic sampling for the proposed professional offices traffic. These counts were conducted by neighborhood rosidents around such priorities as family, school, jobs, and neighborhood issues in an all too shorC allowable time frame. Although they may not be an official traffic study, they do show that there is a traffic impact on the neighborhood and surrounding area that must be considered. 7.2. i The number of children potentially affected by traffic concerns who Itve on the north side of the Spur F-lighway and who must cross a five lane highway to get to their respective schools is currently at 70 and will clirr3b to 71 in approximately three months. The ages of these children range and the number is relative to change. See attachment ~# 7 for recorded tally of survey. . The number of children enrolled in the area school are: 475 at Kenai Central High School, 455 at Kenai Middle School and 409 at T~iountain View Elementary. These statistics establish the fact that many children will feel the impact of the council's decision concerning this CllP now and For years to come. 7.2.2 The number of cars entering & exiting the i<enai Central High School from the Spur hiighway were 'tallied at three different counts. €~umber of vehicles goincJ in to the high school: * first count ]:55 p.m. to 2:50 p. m. 66 *second count12:45 p. m. to 3:00 p. m. 83 * third count 7:07 a.m. to 7:45. a. m. 1 65 (as many as 47 in a 15 minute period) {as many as 10 in a one minute period) * fourth count7:00 a.m, to 10:30 a. m. 19 i Number of vehicles exiting the high sc * first count 7:00 a. m. to 10:30 a. m. * second count12:45 p. m. to 3:00 p. m. * third taunt 7:07 a.m. to 7:45.a.m. '~ fourth count7:00 a.m. to 10:30 a,m. pool (offset exit from Cinderella St.): 90 78 79 (as many as ] 8 in a 9 minute period) (as many as 17_ in a one minute period) 50 increases in traffic flows at peak hours due to the Kenai Middle School traffic flow have not been included in those counts. businesses): 7.2.3 professional Offices clientele traffic {information obtained by phone calls to the { 1) A Dental Clinic (2) A Medical Wallc-in Facility {3) A Medical Specialist {4) Tanning Salon {5) A Hair Salon {6) ~, Chiropractic Clinic {7) An Insurance Agent 7.3 Conclusions 25+ vehicles per day plus 5-6 employees 20 on a slow day pies 3-~ employees 60 on a heavy day plus added employees 40 on office days (non-surgical days) 30 on off-season days plus 2 employees 90 on in-season days 30 do SO in the winter plus 4-5 employees (doubled in the summer) SO per day plus 4 employees SO per day plus 3 to 4 employees 7.3.1 Traffic ftelatecl Safety Issues Exists. The Chumleys' application is for two professional office buildings, The number of stories or businesses in each is still undisclosed or unknown. Assuming that each building held only one professional office, based on the above clientele counts for two professional offices, in and out traffic, the clientele numbers above would have to be quadrupled to account for the traffic. Each of the two offices would have in and out traffiic for each client served. It is entirely -feasible that each building, even if single story, could house two ar more professional offices. Each building could be two stories high (or higher), and double the traffic possibilities. Considering the traffic from the high school, added to the traffic from a minimum of two professional offices, congestion could became unmanageable around the high school exit and Cinderella Street without further traffic assistance (such as a traffic light at an already unaligned intersection -- just planning the traffic light might be a nightmare). Due to the general nature of the drivers at the high school, a higher number of inexperienced drivers use its entrance and exit than any other single driveway system in the City of [Canal. Not one map presented by the Chumieys has shown the location of the high school exit in relation to their proposed site plan. 7.3.2 One Accident 'rs One Tao many. Unfortunately the peak traffic congestion times are also the times children are walking to and from school. It is obvious from the data collected that safety risks, particularly to, our children, will escalate if this CUP is approved. This is of utmost concern to the neighbors and rightfully should carry tremendous weight in making the decision to approve or decline the CUP. The history of this neighborhood and its interaction with both the l<enai City Council and Commission demonstrates a highly collaborative effort of the majority of property owners to preserve and maintain the low density residential character of this neighborhood. - 8.1 f-listorical Data fn "1985 the citizens of this neighborhood petitioned the City offering to pay 20% assessments for setnfer and water improvements contingent upon the city rezoning the defined area from RR to RR1. We ultimately paid 25% assessment. City of Kenai Assessment Roll records show total amounts paid were $328,181 or $87,889 excluding government properties. Many residents paid these assessments over a ten year period at a 10% interest rate. The residents of this neighborhood confidently invested in the City of Kenai. We agreed to pay and we didp 8.2 Linkage of the 1985 Assessments Levied an Residents and the RR1 Rezone In return for the approximate $300,000 investment made, the residents received a rezone to RR-1 and at very least reinforced our right to "have a say in how the neighborhood is developed in the future" with particular upfront understanding that our intent was to avoid a "patch work type of development, almost a Spenard-like type'of development..." (Board of Rdjustment Packet, BA-56) To breach this good faith agreement is a detriment to the overall community. it erodes confidence in the city leadership's ability to plan and zone in a responsible, progressive and consistent fashion. Et deteriorates the motive for future investment in our city and ultimately deters future growth and economic vitality. These points are 6urther supported in the Planning Commissioners Handbook. The determination as to the legally binding impiicatiort (i.e. assessment reimbursements) should not have tv be established in a court of law. it is clear that the city understood the connection between the assessment and the rezone as indicated in a letter from fanner Finance ©ireetor, Charlie Brown. (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-61, page 4~) [nherent in due process is the right of the residents to be heard. Burden of roof for exceptional _uses rests._ with the a iicant and has not been met. Exceptional uses should be evaluated against rigorous and restrictive standards. The neighbors have supported their chosen direction for the city vrith well documented, rational "proof" that is rant even their obligation to provide. There is no logical reason for allowing the "1985 Deal" issue to escalate beyond this level at potential expense and liability to ail taxpayers of this city. ~ . Haw ever the legal implications are interpreted by individual council members, what occurred in 1 985 must be given due consicieratinn in malting the decision to accept or re}ect Chumfeys CU?. r a i i :- ~'~ ~ .i The ~a°ice a~a~lieaa~t paid for the land is irrelevant. Whether applicant paid 10 percent of ar 10 times .~xiore than market value is not only irrelevant, it pales by comparison when you look at the collective financial investment made by the many neighbors who have lived in this neighborhood for the Last several years to a few decades. Add to that the relational and quality of. life investment these individuals have made. Multiple owners own ar have owned more than one parcel andlor lived an mare than one lot. Two owners are currently constructing new homes an second lots in this same neighborhood. When we moved, we didn't ga far. We have even seen our children grow to adulthood in this neighborhood, some have married each other and some second generation residence, as adults, are choosing to locate in this very same neighborhood. The relevancy of pricing becomes an issue when land management decisions arbitrarily made negatively inn~acts taro~e v~~~aes, particularly in cases where due process has been thwarted. Relative to this concept of "takings" the constitution is clear, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law...." (Fifth Anaendxnent to the U.S. Constitution). 2. The tree-less, "dust bowl" phenomenon perpetuated by the former owner. The tees aye a Gaon-issaae in malting this decision. Practically speaking the cleared trees would allow the new owners} to tastefully landscape their rot without the added step of removing unwanted and/or unsightly trees. The picture in the meeting packet is based an an old satellite photo and inaccurately shows forestation that does not exist. Currently this parcel has only a sparse scattering of trees along its perimeter. 3. What the applicant knew or did not know prior to the purchase of this property is no one's responsibility other than the applicant's and is irrelevant to the decision of rezoning. Nor does the city have responsibility to remedy any misunderstanding to which the applicant adheres by voting iri favor of ar "through this vote." The 66~uye~ ~ewaa-e" principal applies to us all. 4. The applicant's concern for the future of his family should something happen to him is an irrelevant criteria. With all due respect the applicant is rightfully concerned for his fate's ~'utaaa°e. The applicant is not suggesting his family's benefit be given precedence over the neighbors in this area. It would be highly inappropriate for the best interest of the applicant's family to take precedent over the future well being of an entire well established, well populated neighborhood. 5. The f®rme~ owne~•'s intent to utilize this property for p~xrposes atlrer residential is irrelevant to this decision. The fact that the farmer owner basically held this property hostage for about a decade requiring a commercial price for a residential parcel should not impact, nor does it provide justification to convert this parcel to :commercial. The farmer owner had every right to get whatever price he could get, and the current owner had every right to pay whatever he paid. Neither fact has any bearing on the decision this Council must make. This parcel was, is and should remain RR1. "~ s~ ~G m~ O a~i V ~ ~ .i a ri ~ cn t ~o Y M O+ ~ rn `~ O xt ~a, ~S ~, ~ r' . ~ vz 4 j $ tai J a~ O ~ z ,ay+ ro G3 .~ ~ '~ i it i I I ,~ ~~ 3~ 1 $ ~~ i~ I~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ j ~ ~, . ~ .~1 ~ ~ ~ Y ui i In °m ~i ° p '~ ~~, °a E ~ ~ fN i ~; ~~ r~ ~y,A~r. W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IV ~ ~} ~r~ ~~ty~ ~ I I f~i s~ L7. ' cn ~~ :L u_ ~::.,~ 5' Nil lo:v ;~s=:;' 1~~ _ ; ___ R~ K ~~ ; ~ k I Ix` ti ;{ ~~~~ [ ' f to -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ S' r ~~ ~ ~' ; ~ 1, ~ f ~': FF ~f ~i4 4 3 ~r~= ' °~; "~ _ ~._ s ~~ ~~ :~~f ~~ ,gam ~ <<rAJr k _~ ::;~1 ~O~ 'J ~~ l- i" II rb ~ E j~. ._.'.-_~ ~. _ ..~ ~~ ~~~~~ k ~' ~ _ L. ~ - "" ~, F Y r~ Z N }u N ~ ~ .-i ~ .~ ~ ~' o ~ 1 r ~ r fi.: ~, ,,~ ,. ~ Ql J i O N ~ ~ aw ~ ~ ~ Cf5 ~ ~ N dd ~ o~ . G1. f 4i ~, S~' fi'r' tJ! ' .~~ .~ ~a ~ ~ y ~ C~0 ~ P] ~ [~ +~ N fr7 .~ rd. kY1 ,~ I f r. ~ ~ .~ ,~ ,n aw ~ ~ ~yw4` i JS\ ~ i - ~~' s® G3 Uj 1 k [~ji L1 Q7 A O 5,. ~ :. '-a '.~ ~` ;i ~~~ ~ry~E _ t~~ i~~~JO+s ~.~f C s; ' _ rl ~ ~ p rp C Y 1p17 ~pD~ ~ ~ I!7 ~ '""~ O [~ ~~ ~~~ G i 7 O ' ~ in Stei:"_oop 7= ~ ~ ~~ ~i `-~ Chi ,~ ~. i, xYh i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ce7 ~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~~ :~'~ c t ~? s i. . tea '~f ~I z ~ i < { ~ i~ R .fir r ~~~:~ a ~ ~-€~~ 63 ~ ~~ ~ ~? ~ t W ~` ~' ~~ ~~ - _: 1`~~ Id A.= ,~ !{may ~5~ r~ ° ~~' -'{"'~~~.. :..:i~ ~ Rte . o. ,~ ti C;dI u1 ply N ~[ ~ Y ~ V. ~ ~ ~ i ~ iJ . N ~ 1 O ~ f} Fn :~ L ~ , ~ ~1 ~ k-r ~ ` 2 ' ' ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iw _ ~, f ?:_ '4. i ~ ~~ I ~~ i i ~~+ 61 G N d ~~ ~ ~~ j iii f F 'r ~_ v3 l ticy y~ 1 ;~, 'F {1_ t, ~' ~ U7 i~ fv .1 '. :. ~" ~ $ l' ~" ~~ w~ F% h sF ~ ~ ~. F~ ea ~ ',i : ~ li~ 61 ~ ~ L'- ; _ _ ~ H ~~ ~ Z ~ ~ p ~ Lti , ~ rn ~ o n e, . ~ `'~ r3 ~ fV ~ i. ,. i ~ ~, s j,•? y~ i t 'yj6X' N ~. t ~fi~; ~ h i t s ~ k {~ ] r ~i[~ F - ~ .~ ~ ~ ift V,-ark-,es ~~~~ ~. k z n n~ 'm ~y ~ ~ h &,+~ n i I~ ~.,. ~ ~: ~ ~ '~ :' ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ..~ ~i .~ '~ ~ Y N~N fi~D ~ry ~ c Y M 6i ~ p ~ ~ :s d ~[N y~ ~ eo Cd y~ ~j.~ ~ ~ _T 3 i~ <., i ~~~v~ ~ ~ t:t, ,~ •3 C CC _ ~~~ ~ ~ &~ ~' t ~~ Fie` ~~~, .Y Cal ,, .,~ + - -- s ~ ;:';w.' a. a ~s~ t ~ 3 3 c [~ ~ ,~ '~ i ~ ~' U7 N ~ /'' Y U ~ _ C If7 tQ Cr ~ ~~ ~>1„ E X C~~7 6~+ ~ O q . U: i" ~ } ~ ~ .~:,5> ~ m i ~ ~3 o ~~~~ ~i~ r ~ ~ ,J { i D R.` Li ~~ ~~ t r_ i,:~~, ,. :: a~ 't:~ rq ~, ~: ~ ~ ~ v , ~; Q _ ~ ~ v ,° iiv iJ ' ~ ~ 03 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ £ Y ~ 46 - ~ % ~ ~ 9 V o ~ {a C _ R~ ~ .. l y ~ +~ ~ ~ iy ~ ~ ~ hJ , ~ ~ ~_ ~ C7 ~ '~ ~ C o °S ~ ~ w w ~ ~ ~ _ f f ~, ~ c o .o~~ ~ ~ "m ~ ~ a ~ r ~ - ~ a O ~ ~ ~ ~}j 6 r ~ ~ ~ ~ °~9 e E 1 yy ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ u Q ~ U p ~ ~ 9 7 s ~ ~ N ~ C C ~ ~ ~ (1: ~ ~} C ~• O N ,~ y~+ dy} V ~ ~ fl? Vl O ~ ~ @ ~ ~ S ~~ ~ ~ c CJ W .,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~.,~ .r': ~ ,t . 7 _ 0 ~ C J m ~ ' o g ~' ~ ~ "a'~ Z ~ ~ ~~, Q ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ G ~ r ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ { ~- ~ ~ L. yy 'x _~~ ~ O ~ N ~ V `~ L"l lG ~_ ~ Rif) ~ p ~ (l~~ ~ {~7 ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~'~~t a ~'• is i~~~ ® a ~ © r ~ . tV C9 V .c ~ ~ y~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~~ ' Fm t ~ ~ b7 ys ~ ~ v m f ~' 4d. ~ ~ 1 ~ 61 ~ C ,O .E $ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 L, r{ C1 t~ ~ N 3y ~ v '~ ~!, m ~ ua ~~7 T'~i E~ € ~.~ g [% ~ ry ~ ~ ~ y1 Ly T ~ ~ ~ « ~ V ~a _ ~ W R~S 4..7 G6 ~ ~ , ; ,: a C! 7' ~ _ ~ . ~ :" r s ~ a ~ - -t ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4 v a 4J n ' ~ ,f o m ~ °~ ~'U t~ c .,zr < fit''>:, - ' N W ~ ~ ~ DS O ~ o OJ ,~ rik e° ~ Q ~ a a"'i x '' ~ ~ ~ r` ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ N o.. Z LT Q r _ _ 1 ~ £ p ~ N ~i L? ~ ~ m ~ '~ ~ ` p ® ~ ~ d t ~ Ui C Y1 d6 O g~ r d ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ; r_ b ~' Suggested by; Adtninisiration CITY 0~' KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ07-26 ' A RESOI: UTION OF TI-IE PLANNING ANL} ZONING COIvIMISSIpN ~Op TIME CITY OI' KEN'AI, ALASKA, RECOIvIMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THAT I~MC 14.20.125(a} BE AMENDED BY :I~~IvtLL:~ THE REQUIREMENT THAT (~I~I:I~!C~'S ~3l/TWEEN RESXDIJNTIAL AND BUSINESS USES IN TIdE CENTRAL N1I~ED USE ZONE VVILI.TBI` .`I~SUL~~~S~S ~~A~O~~'Q~Tr~, ,~,. ~~~r ~,~^~~ W~I`EREAS, ICMC 14.20.1.25 established the Gents] Mixed Use Zone {CMU zone}; a1id, WHEREAS, K.MC 14.20.125(a) provides that: conflicts between residential and busir~css use in the CIvIU' zone shall be resalved in favor of business; and, WIIEREAS, conflicts between residential and business uses in the CMU zone should be resalved according to the best i~xterest of the city according to the prhlaipals set forth in the Kenai Zoning Code rather tlYan. autoanatically in favor of business; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Kenai to amended KMC ] 4.20. i25(a) by renia~vi.tag floe requirement thazl conflicts between residential and business uses will be resolved in favor of business. NOW, TI-IE12E~'OR.E, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF'I~E CITY QF K.ENAI RECOMMENDS ~.'HE COUNCIL OI, THE CITY OF .ICENAI, ALASKA, AMEND KMG 14.20.125(a) as follows: ' (a} intent; The CMU Zane is established to provide a centrally located area iz~ the City for general retail shopping, person.ai and professional services, entertainment establishmertta, restaurants and related businesses. Tlae district is also intended to acconaru.adate a mixture of residential and commercial uses WITH CONFLICT BEING ItESOLV.ED TN FAVOR OF BUSINESSES}, The CMU.Zane shall be designed~ta encourage pedestrian inove~nent throughout the area.. ,Bui~ldiug and. other structures within the district should be compatible with one another arad the surrounding area. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF TFI~ CITY' OF KENAI, AI~ASICA,, this l 1 thtli day of 3uly 2p07. . 151 car~a~ ..~ar~ ~ ~~.~~°;I~~as.~~~ ~ a~~~ ~3.~~ ~~'.Ixy.~;~ ~~. ~ ~b~, ~c~• a. ~~ :~. a€~a~ :i~~r~s ~~~x~:I:°~ ~ xx~,, ~ ~ ~~~:~ ~ s~ a~~.i~~.:g~a~gj~ ~~ar~ ~a~~~g ~~s ~~ r.,~~a~saa~. :i~~~~9 ~ jace3zt xa~~gl~b~rs ~es~~~~ w>~a~ t ~.ty~ a3~~~~ t~~ . `.~rtlaa~~'~ ~~~~ ~~ b~€~ » ate; h~s~~~v.~r b~ ~~~.~~~~, ~I~~s~ s~ €sxd~vids ~~~ .~~ ba~1~ :~ .~ ~~;. ~r ~aaxcka csza~hi~ .~ ..~I uc~t~ ~" t~i~ ~r, ~~t~ ~ ~~; encl, ~w~aat ~s.~`er1 ~ #~ ~~rs~ ~~~im~'c ~~ ai: ~I~ ~~ ~~~ta~e ~- ~~ a ~a~i~T~ std ~~~~ ~;~~ dc~ao.'~: ~ a~=~ ~ :~r~~;~, ~~a~ a~~ ~~~I~as ~a• ~it~ ~~~ ~IS~i1~.a ~' Int. ~ ~~ ~~"~Ia :~ ~a~~rxa~~~~~~..s~a~~.va~~~ ~~'s ~i ~a~ ~~I~..v~~"s ~~:~ ~r~~ kn~~ ~~ v~~e~.a~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~az.~cil E~~°:~ ~~~~~i~~ s~ .~~: ~~s ~ ~ ~c~~ ax~~ t~ ~~.a~ ~"f~at bra ~~i~, ~ ~:~~,~ ~~~~ax~ :~es~~~ ~ ~j+~ax~~7~to.~~x~.~ saa~ ~`~e~t~~~i;vax~s~: gig ~c~~sa~Z3.~ ~r~~~ ~~r ~~iB~I~~,~ 1~~~e~, ~ m~a ~ ~~~ ~~x'~ aga~~ z~.~ ~~~~.~rsa~ Via: ''~xts ~~~~~~~ .~~ ~a~tl~r ~ .~1~, h~--~~ ~~oxxr.~ ~~~~ ~~~~ s.Ixa; .I~a~ asp ~a1s ~xti]a .Ix'~s.~x~~~~..~?.~~rs ~~Ix~ a~"~~~ a~~narr, ~~ ~an'~:I~i~xr~ t~ ~.~~ ~s ~a.d~~f~~ tas ~~~ ~~~r Ixui~Td~g aa, :~~ Mme. `~~~a~:.a ~ ~ ~s~~.~a~~t ~~ara~s ~~~ ~ca~t~ ~`~ , ~iaa~ ~'.a~ .a~t:~.~ ~~=~ ~'~ :I~ _r~c~t~x~.~Craag .~€is ~.~da~. €~p~~xas.f~x .I~~•'~d`~a~~ ~c~.€~4t i~~Iaz~ay Ie~~ri.~~:.:i~:, as.h~ ~2xs~s~~~ ~~:~~~:Iais ~.v~~t~ A. ~.ai~~:I ~~~ a~a~it s~a~~~l~ c~~s~'~;~rad~ rx~~ ~' .I~~~ ~. ~s~s .~ I~~. x~, ~ ~t~d xaaxa•~~ati~~i~ ~~~x ~.~t ~I ~s ~~r~~>xt pI .Tsar ~hi~ .I~~. :ice. ''~r~'~.u~s~.~a .a~~ia~~ ~ ~,~~~ ~x~:I ~kd.~I.~~r a~~~~. lax ~~ .~. ~:~a±s ~:~ ~.cp~Ir~~i~~. ~ "r~s~.~.~~~.al" I~ ~~ I~~ ~~~ps~s~ I~sxi~, mss. ~Ii€~- ~~ ~t~ ~;~ s~~naz~exa~. ~ ~ ~~~~csax a~a~t cs~a~~~~~ ~ s ~I~~a ~~~ ~~ Ica ~~ ~rx~~Is~&~~~ ~a~tip~ ~~#~ ~~Ix ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~I~ ~3~ ~~ ~ ~xi ~I3~ r~~~ghbs~~ ~r~u{~ ~~~u~I.~ ~I~x~~~, ~~~ ~.; ~3~. a~z~a~. ~~~d ~~ ~ ~~- s~~ cxfi' xa~ztl~~r aa~~~Iibrx n~~ ~ ~I~y ~cx€~1a~ h~~~ ~. s~~ as ~~~ ~sl.~,xa, I~tclsp~ ~r baaa;~. ~~~I~~'s ~~s~~~ a~g~s, ~~. ~s i~t~s ~~a~ ~~~~y .~ ~ax~s ~:~. se~ss~is, ~~~IY~~~~~s ~.a~~~~, '~~®~ ~~~~I~ ~ :~~:.~ mar ~~I~ ~~ ~.~€ ~~~~ t~ ~~:t~t .r~~~r ~~i~Ir.~xo.~~s~xa~ ~.d its fir, '~z'~a~tYa ~°t ~~zlal s ~~ t~~~ ~ .~~~ ~~e~ ~e ~~~ ~x~~~ 1 ~aaxs~ SIC ~~~~ ~cac~~i~~a, ~~~~at ~~~a~~ ~aa~ . ~ ~~a~ a~mi~ ~~i~~ta~ ~~ cla~~ ~~ iII ~~xs~~~ ~"~~g~f ~av~ry. ~I ~ ~a~~.~. '5,~ I~~I~wa~ ~or~~tx~ ~~ ~a~ ~ ~pr~I~~s~v~ ~ ~.~.~x ~i Ih ~~s~~~ ~~~Ia~r apa~~ ~~.~i~~as ~era~:~ia~a;al .~ a~a~~~ T~:gs ~~~~ ~I~~ d ~~~ x€a~stt ~~s ~o I~.a ~.~~t cxf Ian ~ .c~ ~ ~.:i;it~ ~~ ~s a sates ~f p_f ;~..~ ~a~° ~~'~ia~~1~ ~it~~ ~ ~~~ ears ~ ~~. ~i~~ hates a~ a~t~~sat ~~- ~ ~n~c~"~~~ ~~~.~~ ~ixt•~~ t~ ~ ~.e~~~.~ t~ ~~~: ~:i~ic ~~ ~ ~•c~tai'~~ ~y ~~d~~.~. ~"~~ ~~~~ ~a~~g~~~ ~e ~€~ia~g ~ ~e~ ~t ~a~s~n, ~~~~~ ~: ~';~~ ~~~~:~ ~~ ~:•~ fly ~~~r~~ ter ~.~ ~ ~ ~~s~i~~ ~;.~ ~z~~~~,.~s, ~ ~I~ ~~ ~c~.ct~c~ ~au~s~ i~er ~~• o~ us~ ~ ~c~~~ ~.~s ~~~ t~~~i~~ ~f `'`-. ~~ ~• ~.~ ~~~ { s ~: ~~.~ Here are your Saved Favorites _ fro C•i®a~g~ PB~aa ~lcssrais®s: kL4~~1~F.~v er6inipi: ~ ~~ Delete from favorites '' ~ ~ ~ E u ;R~ ~ ~ Bedrooms; 6 Levels; i ~' F.~~ ~" ." ~ ~.. or b th~ desi er : ~ 'i > Bathrooms: 5 Width: 82'0 A .. i ~~. E3~~, ~~ `"~'~~"~t,.-.F...'"__=?s~~y CarStalls: 1 Depth: 62'0 - `_ ' - Square Feet: 2818 ~ ~ view details kDasigtner Rlotms; 6REENRIDGE 3 w- a -~.t -.,~..,.~ -- __-, t,~a~ea~s~ 4~i~n ~9nsEa@~~e: ~ ~@~~~~ Bedrooms:' 6 Levels: 1 i?el_e~e from favorites Mare by this designer Bathrooms: 3.3 Width: 70'0 Car Stalls: i Depth: 65'0 Square Feet; 2802 _:' view details ®esigner ~lotoe:: DIINYELLE- Triplex C,io€eQa f~8u7n Bd€ss~cutsc:s: @.,~•Ci'~wi~a Delete From favorites :~ 4y ti~ ~,, ; ~ Bedrooms: 6 Levels: i `~ ~ More b Chis desl ner ~; ~ F ~, ~ ~ r: ,~~~ ~~~ i3athroems; 6 Width: 68'8 `~~+~ _, ~; ,~ ~ { Car Stalls: i Depth: 69'0 ~_. "' ' ~ Square Feet: 3030 4 :' clew details ~®signar i~ot®s: GREENRIDGE S- Triplex ~~-s~~u=_-,,. .~-.~..n.~~car~xz.r~r r Y:r~-~-a:+~r„z~z=ax.-..msc..- ~~~-a~n-a W-rza-.-aww«~~-~r.~,x:'~a~-.~-~~saus.~-._-r~..:4-s~-...~;:~z., d,9®sa:aa ~@as~ ~';a~r~aEac~s: f,~®~~~ Bedrooms: 6 Levels: 2 Delete frorn_favorites ore by~his designer Bathrooms: 3.3 Width: 74'10 Car Stalls: i Depth: 40'0 Square Feet: 3528 ~ ~ aiew dekails - Clesign~r Iifot®s: 7RIP{?LY- Triplex r GW~e.~~e C~iasv R9r~raa@~es•: G~~~~~4'd'rilria~e f ~ . {~ ~*~~'t "' ~ ` `"~ ~~lete from fayro i '~" ~ ^' o~~"`e Bedrooms: 3 Levels: 2 ' '+ N' ~ ~ More by this designer ~ ;; ~ I ~ , ' ~ Bathrooms; 2,S Wldth: 6T 8 t~, "~ ~' x ~ ~~~ ' Car Stalin: 0 Depth: 47' 0 .r2~r` idd fir. °4s e 5'~_ a«_v,w ~ Square Feet: 4145 (•';i viewdekails ®esignar Piot®s: "HAMDI=N" Titis is a tr@-plex with 38R/3bath. Unit "A" Measurements Unit more 5> _~-.,.-.-,-..~,--~..T.~,T.,.~...,.. _. S~8®u~e k~i~us R;iesaaviaar: i31~~~(~~ `Griiisicax Delete~;om favorites Bedrooms: 2 Levels: i More by this deslgner Bathraoms: 2 Width: 122' 2" http://www.a~nazingplans.cal~~lcatalog.php?action 807 1/2/2009 _s;~ Car Stalls: 1 Depth; 55' 10" Square Feet: 4194 ._ view xietails Designer Notes: Each Unit; 1398 sq/ft Tri-plex A Traditional Neighborhood Design triplex more » r ti ~;, k = - fr - x~ S ,x ~,. ;N ~ =~ C~a~v~a flan Nenr:~af4csa': i\fL+it~C~~~i1 GE i@~ltlr ~ ~ r elete from favorites ~` s ~' rI ~ ':. x `° ' Bedrooms; 2 Levels; i ~ ~ •~ ~ ~~• More b this desi ner - ~' ~, ~~: Bathrooms: 2 Width: 123' 2" .r y ~., ~ ` ~ ~~ Car Stalls: 1 Depth: 53' 10" '~ ~~ ~ -Square Feet: 3540 ."" ~~~~, , _ view details ~ Designer Notes: :3, Each Unit: 1180 sq/ft Tri-Flex Traditional Neighborhood design in multi-family more » Lhars~sc~ in~i~a~a iZSradluE~cs•: C~i~a,Qt'~~ b Tr'ri€; 6(3~r Bedrooms: 4 Bathrooms: 1 Car Stalls: 0 Levels; 2 Width: 72` - 0" Depth; 50' - 0" Square Feet: 4897 ®esigner Notes: Apt # i ist level: Foyer with coat closet, kitchen with island / lunch counter, more » Dele e f om vo ~ s More b this desi ner l-~~ view details }r ;~_ ~.(4°/r. {~[ r C:t~c : fiC3F:C`.fi: a~ °.~;..:'F.. I •<f E:, I.x~: f r:F;t! 1 ; Lit ~i,:" ~„ HomePian Resoufce~s - Ir tenor Decorating - Home Decorati & Decor - Home Buiidin PI ns - Orient I Ru s & Area Ru s - urricane Shutters - Li h fn Lam s Cellin Fans - St Johns Count St Au Stine - Stoc House Plans - BilndsHelp.com ~Faop itor ®i~COUn~ ($lind~ ~ 1lNinc9ow ~Fa~cle~a p Discount Wood Blinds o Cheap Faux Wood Blinds Home euilding_Forums o iscount Vertical Blinds o Discount Mini Blinds o Discount Ceilu ar hades o Discount Window Shades ~i9me Building o Discount Bamboo Shades a Horizontal Window Shadings Resources D,irectorv o Bamboo Slid€n Panels a Pleated Shades House Plans Glossary Vie~u_our Home Plans Deflnltlons TbePlanColiect~on r~ Ho a Buiidin & House Plans Link Aro ram SS(.!.^?~C4~tE631Y£ JHA 2 2409 ~ ~0:04~Qd 'i tall i-1ot!sF~ Flan, t~pl:Yyright Cc> I,rnazirrg f~l;:rnc, or tE~}rir resg~ec:tive designer, ~,.ii i~~ie~S~,~;;: ec-~~c~'r,en~ . rill `~r2.Ciern%:!'€;4 8nfl ill"gilds are j31'Gi:sC?rtr ryf the;II' rL5f?(.Ct:Ilrf GV1!?e!;~, l~s;: of t111G v~reil rlft~ ar}'7;;€,ituLes acc~:l~s;ancc n` €.i1c 'e'.ar}~s,:~ ~f F~~s4; ti€~~c# F~~~€~~~:,~:t; LFc~~tc~<. I;If f~~os-~~c a;nd iiUl.!5u ffcsrr plan irtt~,gcs are apps-exinl~.te :;nci not to scale. AmaaingPlan~},casn rsffers a ~rd':cic: rs~lecl;icrn of t€(~us'<r+ Ialane.r berme: f~Eans acrd ffcror plan,. t3y ,;G:~rrc:hing our dat:~br€w~E trf t!•!crusand, of house-: fioar plal'is y0!.{ f.'iin fin("} d~;;l~l€1S fpl" a nCrhr ilousc, ~8S'e~(i4r r13U1t1 falTiiiy, P..tC. YUU Gaff S<:~I"l'11 4rk1.1" 11(?I1~CI:IIaI'fS by usirl;;, otlr "hOU.ie: pI$ns c;ufc:l; 4c:al-e:h" nr i:he .:dv€~11ced ilollre ptz}ns search t>ox s:o view thousancis of r:ever 11on1e d~!sigl'}s. U<<c Criso affc-r a scfercfon ar` c3ccfusivc: neu~ house fiacsr pia€~:: f~~uncl n6ih'hC'.E'E: cafsll S#` you Carl filyd tY}e r€C?r~ hUUSe. plan of yarn' Br'ev}ns L-€'€an gtve s.SS ti C~II 'and V~C'II be ~IE7Ca ('pr]SSI5t, /-lr[.:hItLC€:S nilca i~l!IY3E'. b}.EIft~ErS C:un ~.~ i.(4 C~):t!'}~ :!. ~i~}',: vff l)r1 brllif pi'dE:r!; (rf 11o€e an pl8n :. CliciE 4r"I Lilc_ "f'C:I" Bl}lide3'~'" tali fCYr d(:i:iiFla. 1Jicto}"5841, Olt,lk:l7rini:, C(]LInF.}'y, Cial'aGe, http://www. a~nazzngpians. coxx~/catalog. php?action=807 1/2/2009 nn ~. . ~C~.c~.rr~r~rcv~~~.crr~vxel7i .3~i ~.~~~~a.i°'z`zL'~or~a°'`a.~.c'°'v /lriytau; ~a~ .99677 TgLepHONS 907 - 283-7 189 May 31, 1.984 ~~ Mr.~Charles Ao Brown. Finaxice Directox `~ ?_10 Fidalgo Kenai, Alaska 99511 ~~~ Re:: ~~ Your letter of May 24, 19$4 .. ~. ~~~ ~ ~~ Assessrrient ,D~s.tricts f_or Princess and. Magic Streets _ .~ ~. Dear :. Mr > ~ Brown .. - . ~- ~' ~~~'~ This matter has gotten completely blown out of proportion. . 'The people-that live over in the area of Princess and Magic -~ Streets were under the impression that they were going to-have ;~ - considera~ile street improvements without putting underground water and sewer in first. ~Tn other words getting the cart before •.~ the horse. They went to the City Council with their request .that the City put in sewer and water before doing anything else, During the course o~ the meeting one of the City Councilmen • -.°= inquired if the people in the area would be taillirig to pick up .:.:.-;part of the cost i,e., 20 or 25~%. Pursuant to that request and ~~inquiry9 the paxties cif the original petitian~were reeontacted, . :`'four were out of town and one refused to pay anything and the '~~ others agreed to pay a portion of the costs of the installation, -. Now I find the whole thing has gotten completely out of context '.:~ ~ to the extent that it is ridiculous. T am going into the second ~~ paragraph on the second page, "in general, the City has requested = .,that=the petitioners waive the .257 limitation on assessments" ,that~is not true. Councilman Wise inquired whether these people _~ would be willing to pick of 25% of the cost of water and sewer. ~..They_agreed, they waived nothing. ~:~Based upon your letter of'May 24, Councilman Wises4 inquiry ~.. ~. ~~ was~an exercise in futility and a jousting at windmills for my clients to answer the question, Tt apparently is not possible to ~•-~~.do~thzs. T am going to advise my clients that they should seek :'. to-get these improvements put.in at no cost to them on the basis :'_~:M~''~~~~:.:'of ~the~~fact that the City has and. in the past and regularly put ~.:in streets, sidewalks, gutters, sewer, water, and storm. sewers ,. ~ without any assessments.wha.tsoever to the adjacent landowners and for them not to do so would be a discriminatory act on behalf of • _ the:-City.... Tf .they decide they want to pursue that matter it ~~- S~-CTAJ1 ASSCS.5P3f;'AI~'_ PF~]t~`SC113 it ~ ~~, ~ . /~ ' h1}1R 195 • ~~ ...~..s ~ LU • _ ~Y CLiec~ We, the undersigned property owners, desire the Cit~~ntti too establish an assessment district in the area described in Exhifait 1 t~rhich is attached to this pe~:itzono „~^c~~~~`''`'`.- F ~ '' . C. . 4' .. ~~F ~ C requested improvements includes ~.~'~~ Z) Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Systems \"~'!a~ ~ ' `':_ . 2) Assessments For the improvements shall be limited to twenty pekceni: {2fl~) o~ the actual coats a~ the imprevasnentis. 3e) Phis ),~rLitioa~a shall be ~m)?d onl~r ugun the peiar ~ili:~ with. the a~apr~pri.ai~e ac~m~.t~istrativ~ a~~ici<sf X01 the C::L•y o~ ~~u~ai of, a ~a~.~,a pet•? wia~t, crsn4:.sirti~g su~~ir;ient signatures, Ear the re~~nzng aE st~t~stan~ial.Zy' the area descxitae>3 aksove, Proper4jr ~ga.i pescription Aoxoug~a Owner's . ~ g~.s._Pr~zt~ Paz'Cel ~ ` (Ari.nti ] .,~~~~5 ~ C •~ ~__._.~...f Cif e ° n.~C•r~Sl ""~ /1° ~` °'~G i `` 7~~ " ~ ~. Ry I.uySar~r,-15 I ,~ Lt.C~~ ~ntSC~x~~~ ~~ 1?rop°rty O+rner' s 7~f C.• ~_~:~ Lae;...---.. ~.I64s -~~0~1 ~ia~zri.~- 4~, ~~~~,~ ! ~~ 6wf.10_~-r~----~- 1 ? f_ _~___ ~_ -~~ f ~11~ 13~.~~ ~ YI.~--f Y ~e'~'+~! ~J GQ~iI~-...,.~~ !~~ pf .._`7~ /~ i ~ I w `s " ~p 1_7 LI.A.Y ~-~+'i 1 ! 4[lyiuo I / t7~-",~ _,~. 9T ~ ~ Y ~:_,S~ ~- -- I •``? ~ ~ G~~~' G n ~ ; ~'~ _ 4~?vAn,' 'f' ~X.._ ~~~<<~ ~~. X77 .~a _~. ~- 1 ~~~ S~~ f D4~-o7Q-16 f GJ~ ~. r~onrv I ~~`~.~' J -~^ ° <{1 = // O - ~ ~"d lei' ~., C U L Z C:LL i ,strii i`^ ~ /' ~.a rc-,'_ 219 ~i~ALG~ iCEhiAi, ALASKA 99611 TEI.EPHOfli1 269 - 7535 ~±~`i0 T0: Kenai City Council 1=!202.3: Charles A. Brown, ~`inance 1}irector `may ;? DATE: ~larcta 25 , 1985 S[f23JECT: Assessiuent ~i.strict -- Aliak/l~icCol.lum 0n March 19, 1985, Che City received a revised petition for a water and sewer assessment district in the Aliale/.McCc~llum area. The petition asked Eor the assessments to be iimi.xed to 20% o£ actual costs. In addition, as ;with the,--firs. etition we c 'ved t ebru~r 5 1 $ , it~,s contingent validlLw arf a re2o-~a.n~ peta.~_ion. The scope of the water and sewer improvements requested by the petition is smaller than that planned by the City. The bene~itte'd lots, as requested by the petition, number 72. 'phErei_ax~e, 36 valid signatures are reauired• T believe that we have at least 39 valid signatures. ~~ petition appears to be rralid endi_n the va3~i_dity_ of~the rezgni~ You can review the rnap that is enclosed marked "Planned by City" and see she di~'~erence from that "Requested by Petition." The lots that are benafited by the water' and sewex i~npxoveruents, as planned by the the City, number 89. They are lasted in detail an the two enclosed printouts. One printout shows legal descriptions, names, and addresses of benefitted praperCy owners. The other printout serves as a preliminary assessment :all. A review of the preliminary assessment roll shows that the City expects total costs of the watex and sewex° improvement to be about $1,352,000 (excluding desagn). Tt1e CiL-y expects to assess 50% o£ that cost, or about $576,000. Note that this is not what was requested by the petitioners; ciley requested an assessment of 20% of cost. A1I property owners will be Given instructions on how to pxotesC< ~, a .~~ HPPEflL OF PZ98-12 Commission Decision c ~T~ ®F ~E~~ ~ ~®~~® OF ~®~~]STf~ENT . HPRiL ~ 5; ~ 99R~ ,ES~AI~ C~iTED, Phi SPA ~.]E AN~7 P E~~N?°~]) TAR®t1~I~ 1~~IE ~'[1LLA~~I~;~~°IY1E EFF'®?° OF ~t~11~ER®iJS ~IAP~ 1{E~ID.~N'?B~ 5" • ~~ ~ ~®Mt~IS~~®N MEETING ®E MARCH ~~9 199 In the March 5, 199$ issue of the Peninsula~Clario~i, reporter Dave lrucas explains how Kenai Mayor John Williams describes the role and relationship of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Kenai City Council. "The planning and zoning commission is second in its authority only to the council, added Williams. Commissioners have to' register with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, file conflict-of-interest statements and meet numerous other bureaucratic rec{uirements, despite being appointed, rather than elected. Williams said they put a great deal of time and effort into their duties and it isn't the place of the council to second-guess their decision." Mayor Williams is directly quoted as saying, "The city council puts a great deal of credence in what the commission does." We are pleased our Commission artd Councii work so well togef>1er. However, regarding the Hugh and Joe Chumley's Condtional Use Permit {CUP) we strongly urge the Council to carefully review, as we have, what occurred at the commission level regarding this permit and exercise independent thinking on this matter. City Attorney Graves reminds council members they ".... may consider the recommendation of City officials but may ' not substitiute that judgement for theirs." (Board of Adjustment Packet BA-1, p. 2) 1 .1 ~ COMMISSION ~HAND.BOOK REGARDING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES The commissioner's handbook clearly states, "The commission should not act on controversial, complicated, ar difficult issues with more than one member absent." {Plannin Commission Handbook, State of Alaska, June 1993, p.58} Two commissioners were absent from the March 25, meeting. Yet, inspite of both verbal and written requests from the public, and a motion from Commissioner Werner-Quade, the commission voted against delaying the vote. Unless the commissioners do not view this CLIP as controversial, the vote that occurred on March 25, should not have occured at that time. 1.2 DECISION COMMISSION MADE WAS BASED ON ERRONEOUS iNFORMATlON The commission's decision to allow the CUP was based on erroneous information as demonstrated in both the meeting retard and the Finding of Facts. first a close look at the meeting record and supporting documentation reveals misleading and incorrect information presented by Mr. Hugh Chumfey. 1.2.7 Map Chumfey presented a map in which he claimed 53 families dwelled, 15 who were opposed to his'CUP, 38 who were non-opposed. Chumfey took the liberty to represent anyone who did not testify or sign a petition in opposition as being "non-opposed" Chumfey also represented families as non_opposed where families did not dwell, and have not dwelled for months. Furthermore, he deleted an entire segment of the neighborhood from his map that has been actively involved with the development and shaping of this neighborhood for years. We have expanded- the map and conducted a door to door survey to determine who is "opposed", who for reasons of their own choose to be represented as "no voice" and who is favorable to the Chumpley CUP. An additional category was created for those we were not able to'cantact. We have classified them as "unknown." See Attachment # 1. This Map is based on actual family dwellings with the exception of the Tree Top Townhouses. We have represented the land lords preference due to the simple logistics of contacting each family and the imposed time constraints of the Board of Adjustments. Attachment # 2 is a map of farad owner and demonstrates those land owners opposed to the CUP and the parcel the possess. ~° ~ 1.2.2 Majority/Minority Statistics Chumley states his CUP "is opposed by a MIN0121TY of the family households within the neighborhood." In reality a majority of the neighborhood has in the past and currently opposes the granting of this CUP for commercial professional offices. According to our door to door survey 43 families oppose the CUP, 3 have no voice (including 2 churches), 7 are. unknown and.l .(Chumley) ,is in favor. The erroneous information presented ~at the commission meeting claimed that only 15 (not the actual 43} households out of 53 total were apposed. Chumleys number of 53 includes 16 fourplex households, six of which were vacant at the time of the commission meeting. Futhermore it excludes important areas "within the subject area." Our total number of 54 includes two churches and, due to logisticaE constraints, only provides 4 counts for the fourplexes compared to Chumleys .16 count. For further accurate. representation of the MAPS area please see attachment 1. -. i _ 2.3 Position of Surrounding 5chaols Chumley states that his CUP "is no longer opposed by KCHS and the school PTA groups, based on `Professional Offices' category. Attachment 3 contains letters from the Kenai Middle School PTSA and Site Based Councils and the Kenai Central High School PISA stating their concerns and opposition to the approval of Chumleys CUP. Petition signatures including the Kenai Middles School principal, Paul Sorenson and public testimony also reflect related opposition. The schools still have legitimate concerns that. must be factored into the decision regarding Chumleys CUP. 1.2.4 Claims Compliance with Land ~Use~ -Table Chumley claims his CUP complies with the Land Use Table requirements. This topic will be discussed in~21`etail throughout this presentation and document. ' 1.2.5 Buy Out Offer From Neighbors Chumley relays the offer of residents to purchase his land for what he had in it. He claims, "I didn't think that was too bad ah ... ideal under one condition, that those opposed would sell us their property for what they had it in. But they didn't want to do that and I don't blame them." Unfortunately important details were omitted from this explanation and the end result in another case of comparing, figuratively speaking, apples and oranges. The offer to Chumley was for raw land.. The residents making the offer had improved lands with homes, landscaping and in some cases paved driveways and walkways, therefore equity values could not be rightfully compared with raw land. Chumleys land purchase occurred within the last few years. Those offering to buy Chumleys land had purchased their properties ranging from approximately twenty to forty years prior. Therefore "actual dollars" would need to be converted into "real dollars" accounting for inflation and the difference in purchasing power of a dollar from 1959 to 1995 to 1998 to provide a fair comparison. 1.2.6 Surrounding Property Value Impact Chumely claims, "it's been proven ar been stated by professionals that there is no devalue of property upon the current development plan." First of all the "professionals" proved nothing, they simply shared an opinion. Second, the commission and the council should consider the increase in a realtor's commission if they sell developed commercial property in an exclusively residential neighborhood verses selling residential property. Was there potential benefit to the "professionals" for sharing their opinions? Third, because no one {including Chumley) knows what kind of businesses are going into these "professional offices" it seems more than a bit premature to be making claims of property value impact, Fourth, the mast straightforward test of impact an surrounding property is to consider the implications for the landlord with properties closest to the land in question. Will the tenents of these duplexes continue to reside in the homes they have been in far 1 5 years and 3 years if a business moves into their front yard? What impact does that have on the landlord if he can not find tenants who want to live beside a commercial business? 1 ~ -'~ 1.3 1=INDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAUV The very premises the commission decision was founded on as outlined in the "Findings" document are at best questionable and at worst insidious. Furthermore, the commission seems to have taken on themselves the "burden of proof" that rightfully rests with the applicant (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-1, page 2) by developing favorable arguements on issue the_applicant did not.address or themselves develop. 1.3.1 ~ Desirakiility of. Property for Residential Use Findings state, "the property is no longer desirable as residential property" and "the only practical use would be for multi-family use". In an attempt to justify this conjecture the Findings explain that no new single family dwellings- have been built. bordering the Kenai Spur Highway in eleven years. This explanation is invalid as justification for declaring such properties undesirable for residential use for the following reasons. 1 .3.1.1 From the inception of a new community through its development the properties along the road systems are quite naturally the first place homes are built. The most obivous reason includes convenient access to the rest of the community. Therefore the Kenai Spur Highway corridor being referred to in the Findings ~is one of the older and more maturely. developed residential neighborhoods in the community. The Pack of new. growth at this stage is an indicator of maturity, not undesirability. 1.3.1 .2 The absence of new canstructfon serves to further ,support the "intent" of the zoning and the desires of the residents to "perserve the residential atmosphere" of an open and uncrowded, low density neighborhood. It is very typical in this neighborhood for property owners to place their single family dwelling on a property that could actually accommodate 2 to 4 residents. 1 .3. 1 .3 In a recent survey conducted of home owners who live along the highway 12 out of14 stated they considered their homes to be suitable far residential usage. The first gentlemen who felt his home no longer was suitable explained the widening of the highway brought the road far too close to his front door. This is a variable- Chumley can control. The other women who didn't feel it was suitable residential also did not believe.commercial development should be allowed. As this survey was conducted, a number of the residents stated their objections to commercial development. As one home owner stated, "I could put in a twelve-plex if [wanted to, but I wouldn't do that to my neighbors." 1 .3. 1 .4 Based on this reasoning, to be consistent, the City of Kenai would need to proclaim all maturely developed neighborhoods to be undesirable for residential development. Such logic is a formula for planning and zoning disaster. 1.3.1 .5 Another indicator of suitability is the single family dwelling in close proximity to the highway that recently sold that had only been on the market a matter of a few months. 1 .3.1.6 The Findings state, "Because of close proximity to the highway, the proeprty is no longer desirable as residential property ..... The only practical residential use would be for multi-family use {duplexes and triplexes are ai~owed in the RR-1 zone)." The opponents of this Cl1P would like to know what justification and proof is given for this judgement of desirability. Furthermore, how and why is land suitable for multi-family dwelling if it is not suitable for single family dwelling. 1.3.2 "The 1 985 Deal" Findings state, "the proponents of this arguement would have us believe the city could never rezone the property, grant a conditional use permit, or a variance in the MAPS area. Thus, under that arguement, fifty years from now if all the property owners requested a zoning change or a conditional use permit be granted, it could not be done." 1 .3.2~. 1 This dire oversight on the part of the commissioners who voted in favor of this permit is somewhat confusing in light of the sign variance (PZ98-097) passed earlier during the very same Planning and Zoning Meeting in which some of the same neighbors spoke in support. 1 .3.2.2 Such extreme deduction infers a preconceived bias that taints the objective course of due process. The proponents of the 1985 good faith agreement with the City of Kenai made their intentions clear from the beginining. "For the price of the assessment we want to have a say in how it is developed in the future. At the present time its RR in character has 2 potentials. If we do not rezone it then I ~,.~ see a patchwork type of development, almost a Spenard-like type of development with people who want nice residential lots being slowly squeezed out or chased .-away .,...I -understand that the City Comprehensive Plan calls for such an area in the City. One with larger lots sa that people can actually live close in to town without having to live on smaller (ots." {Board of Adustment~ Packet, BA-56, Rick Baldwin} "The 1985 Deal" as it has come to be called and our approximate $300,000 irtivestment, should at very least ensure an untainted due process. 1.3.3 Less f2estrictive Standard of exceptional Land Use Applied Findings state, "We adopt a definintion of similar as "having characteristics in common" rather than more restrictive as in "strictly comparable" -because the, latter definition would make the new land use table and KMC14.20.150 irreconciable. 1 .3.3.1 The Kenai Comprehensive Plan establishes, as policy, the requirement that commission and council members "Follow consistent, enforceable policies in administering the Zoning Code, pursuant to Title 29, Alaska Statutes. The City should:.... (d} Review the Conditional Use Section of the code (14.20-1 50} to ensure that rigorous standards are applied for approval of exceptional uses..." (P. 69} 1 .3.3.2 The latter would not render KMC14.20.150 irreconciable. It would simply require planning and zoning decisions to 'be be made from a full spectrum of considerations and "take zoning actions which are "in accordance with" or in conformance to the adopted comprehensive plan (AS29.40.040 {a}}. {KGP P. 69} " 1 .3.3.3 Findings state, "Does a professional office have characteristics in common with a triplex in terms of its effect on the neighborhood? We find it does. We do sa because the proposal is for a professional office with a buffer of 30 feet behind and on the sides of the property. That combined with the limited traffic a professional office requires means the neighborhood impact is no greater than the two three- plexes with access on Cinderella which could be built without a conditional use permit." Avery relaxed interpretation has been offered by the signing commissioners based on a 30 foot buffer zone and a parallel between residential and professional office traffic. Objective thinking might lead one to ask same obvious questions. Why is a 30 foot buffer zone acceptable to insulate residents from businesses when an approximately 100 foot tree buffer zone (currently available to applicant according to maps submitted with CUP application} is not acceptable to buffer residential development from the Spur Highway? On what bases is the traffic flow comparison founded? How many triplexes require a 14 space parking lot and is phis any indication of expected traffic flows? Section 7 of this document father discusses Traffic Patterns and provides some factual basis of comparison. Section 7 does not support this Findings Claim. 1.3.4 incorrect "Facts" in the Findings The Findings states the assessement rate was 20% when it actually was 25%. 1.3.5 Omission of Facts Paints of pertinent interest to these proceedings were left out of the Findings record in a manner that provides a biased representation of the facts. 1 .3:5.1 The Findings state, Ten pEOple spoke at the public hearing, including one of the applicants Hugh Chumley and eight residents of the MAPS area." The record should also reflect the stand- in liaison from the city council requested, was granted and did step down and addressed the committee speaking in unquestionable favor of the CUP application. 1 .3.5.2 The Findings state, "... one must recognize that the land use table in effect now is different than that in effect during the last application by the Chumleys for the property." Chumleys last application was submitted on December 12. The new Land Use Table was introduced on December 17 and adopted on January 7. Chumleys application was addressed at the commission level on .lanuary 15, and again at the council level on February 4. The new Land Use Table was. effective February 7. The Findings statement leads the reader to assume the Land Use Table rules have changed since the previous application was addressed. In reality the commission and the council both were aware that the CUP was being evaluated in fight of the new Land Use Table. 1.4 COMMfSSIONERS VOTE 1.4.1 VVe understand that Mike Christian will address the council this evening and he is apposed to the CUP. 1.4.2 Karen Mahurin regretted not being able to attend the commission meeting due to a family medical emergency. She is opposed to the granting of this CUP far reasons outlined in her letter seen in attachment 4. ~ .5 OBJECTIVITY OF COUNCIL MEMBER The process outlined in the Planning Commission Handbook { 1993) for "Due Process" requires certain behaviors and actions from the elected: and appointed officials of any Alaskan city. "The commission has a responsibility to assure that its decisions are fair, impartial and objective, unbiased by even the appearance of having been privately influenced .... ".... the hearing must be conducted as to.be free from bias and prejudice; ~it must not only be open-minded and fair, but must have the appearance of being so....." Smith v. Skagit County (1969}..... "Members of commissions with the role of conducting fair and impartia! fact-finding hearings must, as far as practicable, be open-minded, objective, impartial and free ofi entangling influences and capable. of hearing the weak voices as well as the strong." Buell v. City ofi Bellingham X1972). (p.45) ~'"'d 2 ENA ~ C®MPREHENS ~ UE ~LA~! The Kenai Comprehensive. Plan (KCP) is designed to do more than fill a legal requirment. It is designed to represent our community's vision for the future and serve as a guide for decision-making and a blueprint for growth. It potentially can serve as the standard by which the legal system measures actions and decisions of the city leaders. The following extracts outline the reasons why the Chumley CUP must be denied. 2.1 City of Neighborhoods -- the KCP recognizes and supports the uniqueness of neighborhoods. Kenai is characterized by dispersed pockets of development separated by drainage ravines, bags, and the Kenai River floadplain. (P. 17) These separate developable areas have tended to create a city of identifiable neighborhoods, each with a somewhat different character. When asked, Kenai residents say they 1ive~in such neighborhoods as Woodland, Beaver Loop or Valhalla for . }i9,4PS] == nat just "Kenai". (P. 17} italic nvvn 2.2 Separate Lower Density Housing from High Density and Commercial Uses -- the KCP acknowledges the need for separation. Small highway commercial uses may be found in close proximity to single family houses, duplexes, and an occasional apartment building. While such diversity is~well established and accepted in the original townsite, it ma be ob'ected to in some other nei hborhoods where residents which to maintain far er rau ire s of -lower densit housin se arate from hi her density and commercial uses. (P. 19) (emphasis added) The City should strive to maintain physically separate neighborhoods in Kenai, and strengthen the "identity" of each neighborhood by encouraging development of public and private facilities... (P.22) Strengthen residential neighborhoods by better control over the development of different densities of housing in neighborhoods. {P. 22} 2.3 Restrict Commercial Uses to Commercial -Zones -- the zone of Papa Joe's subdivision is RR1, not commercial. Support development of neighborhood-serving commercial uses .... in commercial zones. (P, 22) 2.4 Restrict Commercial Uses Which Do Not Serve the Neighbors -- their is no need to permit this conditional use. [Discourage highway coi~emmercial uses in residential neighborhoods which have no direct service relationship to the needs of residents or the neighborhood. {P.22) Neighborhoods along the Spur Highway such as Wildwood, East Kenai, and Thompson Park/ Valhalla have small commercial districts, each with a variety of automobile services, liquor stores or small businesses, which do not necessarily serve the needs of the immediate neighborhood. The zoning for these commercial areas is General Commercial, the same zone as the dovvtawn area, but the residential neighborhood setting is quite different than ciawntown. Land use regulations should better reflect the differences betweon downtown commercial uses servin the re ion and smaller commercial sites in neighborhoods along the Spur Highway. (P.24} (emphasis added) , +/ 2.5 Availability of General Commercial Land is Generous -- there is no need to make an exception and provide a CUI'. There is a generous amount of land in the central .business district to accommodate new commercial development, most of which~is zoned General Commercial. (P.24) 2.6 Consistent- Procedures Regardless of Changing Rgembership -- The rezone/assessment. of 1985 at very least established this neighborhood's desire to be afforded due process and be treated fairly and without bias on all future decisions Impacting. our neighborhood regardless of the personal agenda of individual and changing council and commission members. The City Council stands as a Board of Adjustments on appeals from decisions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. An appeal from a decision of the Council to the Superior Court shall be heard solely on the record established by the hearing officer, Council or other body {AS 29.40.969(b)). This means that Planning and Zoning Commissions and Councils must take pains to follow consistent procedures to insure fair and unbiased decision, re ardless of than in membershi s. {P. 69} (emphasis added) . 2.7 Zoning Map and Code Required to Conform to KCP -- The KCP provides a more valid criteria of decision making than a controversial Land Use Table footnote. The Planning and Zoning Commission is responsible for amending the Zoning Code and official map. This will be required to make the zoning map and code conform. to the adopted comprehensive p I a n. (emphasis added} Normally the code should not be updated on a piecemeal basis, because provisions of~various zoning districts tend to be adapted to others [setting trends], significantly weakening important distinctions. A clear, well-written code is important not only for administrative simplicity, but also to stand any appeals or legal challenges... {P. 69) 2.8 Rigorous, Simplified Conformance Standards -- The KCP requires rigorous standards to be applied to exceptional use applications. It does not design interpretation and decision making to weaken and lessen the significance of residential uniqueness of neighborhoods for the sake of applying a more flexible application of land uses,. particularly commercial. Follow consistent, enforceable policies in administering the Zoning Code, pursuant to Title 29, Akaska Statutes. The City should: (a} Maintain careful records...in support of judicial review of appeals. (b} Take zoning actions which are "in accordance with" or in conformance to the adopted comprehensive plan (emphasis added) (AS 29.40.040{a}}... {d) Review the Conditional Use Section of the code (14.20-150} to ensure that rigorous standards are applied for approval of exceptional uses... (e) Simplify residential zoning district classifications by amending the Zoning Code and enact new zones. (P. 69,7.0) {emphasis added) Contrary to the KCP, the new Land Use Table weakens rather than strengthens neighborhoods by making provision for less restrictive, more flexible development in our neighborhood. ~ CITY ®~' KENA~ ZONING CO®E In reviewing. an application for a conditional use the City of Kenai Zoning Code, also called the Kenai Municipal Code (KMC} needs to be rEViewed. 3.1 Conditions of Conditional Use Permits 14.20.150 Conditional Uses: (a) Intent: There are some uses which may be compatible {emphasis added} with principal uses in some zones if certain conditions are met. The Commission shall permit this type of use if the conditions and requirements listed in this chapter are met. Before a conditional use permit may be granted, the procedures specified in this chapter must be followed. {Ord. 1 504-92} {b} Conditional Used in All Zones: { 1) Uses not specifically permitted in the zone concerned may be permitted provided that the following conditions are met: [i] Such uses must be similar to principal uses permitted in the zone; [ii] Such uses must be in harmony with the intent of the zone. In order to grant the permit the council must find that the applied for uses are similar to the principal uses permitted in the zone and that the applied for uses are in harmony with the intent of the zone. "lf an applicant seeks the allowance by the zoning board of a variance or exception, he has the burden of proving facts entitling him to it; i.e., he has the burden of setting before the zoning board the evidence necessary for exercise of its seasoned discretion." {Board of Adjustment Packet BA-1) The applicant fails to delineate any similarities between the principal uses permitted in the zane and their applied usage. Furthermore the applicant fails to prove the applied for uses are in harmony with the intent of the zone. Principal permitted uses are: 1 }One family dwelling; 2}Two/three family dwelling; 3)Churches; 4)E~ssential Services; 5}Farming/Gardening/General Agricultural; and 6)Off Street Parking. The common characteristics of these principle permitted uses include: principal activities occurring at each of these uses is non- commercial, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic is often known or knowable to the principal occupants, generated traffic in and out of permitted use areas is generally Eow density with the exception of Churches at strategic non-imposing times of the week and day; and the character of the neighborhood is enhanced by the familiarity factor as neighbors watch out for and help each other out. Commercial enterprises, such as professional offices,. do not share any of these common characteristics. Their principal activity is most often commercial, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and out of the business will be primarily unknown to the principal occupants, generated traffic in and out wil! likely be high density {See section 7 Traffic Patterns}, and the character of the neighborhood wi[I be eroded as an unfamiliar public files in and out of the neighborhood. Thus rofessional offices are not similar to those rinci a! uses ermitted in this zone. Professional offices are not in harmony with the intent of the zone. The statutory intent of the RR-1 zone is contained in KMC 14.20.080. The intent stated in KMC 14.20.080 far the RR zones is to provide for !ow density residential development in a way that creates a stable and attractive residential environment and to preserve the rural and open quality of the environment. The RR zones are also designed to prohibit uses that would violate the residential character of the environment. It is.also clear that the intent of the residents who petitioned the City for an RR-i zone in 19$5 was to preserve the ~resideritial character of the neighborhood. (Board of Adjustment- Case No. BA-98-1, Decision, p.5) MAPS comprises 75% of all RR1 in the City of Kenai and Maps comprises 100% of RR1 along the Spur Highway. For these reasons., the develo ment is not consistent with the intent of RR-1. D ~y '" 3.2 Most Restrictive itegulation Shall Apply When Conflict -- the KMC requires the "most restrictive" regulation in conformance with the KCF' rigorous standard far exceptional uses. 14.20.020 (f) Whenever there is a conflict between this chapter and other ordinances pertaining to the regulation of property within the City, the most restrictive regulation shall appiy. {Ords. 925, 990} {The Commission. seems to betaking the most liberal, rather than the most restrictive interpretation of regulations.} i~ 4 RESiDENT'~#~L SU17'AAIEIT~ A basic premise the supportive commissioners stated in advocating this application is .the unsuitability or undesirability of this property for residential development. Section 1.3.1 of this document states 6 reasons why this- premise is invalid. This section offers more explanations. 4.1 planipulation of Suitability/Desirability Factor Desirability and suitable of land use can often be manipulated by the configuration and directional bias of the plat layout. If a parcel of land along a five lame highway is layed~ out so the two lots bordering the highway have frontages exposed to the highway (i.e. no tree buffer zone}, the facilities located on the lots face the five lane highway, and access is confined to entrance and exit to and from the five lane highway, then the residential suitability is~gt diminished. See attachment #5 On the other hand. if the parcel of land is laved out so the two lots bordering the highway have maximum allowable tree buffer with optional fence between the home and the highway, the homes are set back as far-away from the highway as practical for lot size, the homes face the opposite direction of the highway and the homes have access channeled through residential side streets, then residential suitability is maximized. See attachment #6. 4.2 Burdens or Hardship "The Board should not consider .... burdens or hardships arising not from zoning. laws, but from plat or deed restrictions, since these are not relevant to proper grounds for relief. from zoning restrictions. (Board of Adjustment, April i 5, 1998 Packet, BA-i } The applicant has a variety of configurations and layouts available to them which provide suitable and desirable residential land. usage. As presented, the applicants layout provides self-induced restrictions that may produce unnecessary burdens ar hardships for which the city can not assume responsibility. ~ o,"_ 5 LE~A~. ~ ~L I ~AT~ ONS AND SP®T Z®N 0 NG The citizen taxpayers of the City of Kenai have .elected the. City Council to protect the best interest of our . community. As the council responds to this appeal it is imperative that the legal implications of this appeal decision be considered. The 1996 Supreme Court of Alaska case of Griswold v. City of Homer and West's Pacific Digest contain valuable criteria that council members are encouraged to apply to legally sound decision making. 5.1 Canditiona.l Land Use Permit as Viewed 15y the Law In reviewing a zoning anti planning Issue the legal system focuses on the actual purpose for which the land will be used, not on the semantics of the exception. ~~ "The City (Homer) states that'`this is not a case of `spot zoning' at ail, because the area in question remained BCD (commercial business district). However, treatise discussions of spot zoning appear to make no distinction between cases where a zonina district has been reclassi#ied_and those where a new use without district reclass'rfication is at issue. [Griswold v. City of Hamer 925 i'.2d 1015) The exception being allowed is the issue,.not what the exception is being called. Certain Commission and Council members have emphasized the distinction between a "rezone" and a "conditional use". The court system will focus on the "new use" regardless of sernat~tical reclassification or lack thereof. 5.2 Spot Zoning Defined It is our position that if the City Council grants the CUP the Council will be.illegally spot zoning and the Council's approval will be struck down in a court of law. In Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 101 5, 1020 (Alaska 1990, the Alaska Supreme Court held that it would invalidate zoning decisions which are the result of prejudice, arbitrary decision making, or improper motives, and that zoning decisions which have no reasonable relationship to legitimate government purpose will. be struck dawn as violative of substantive due process. The Court in that case ,held that spot zoning is per se illegal. The Court described the spot zoning situation as one in which a property owner seeks to establish a use prohibited by existing regulations. The Court discussed spot zoning as: "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of 'the other owners", and "the very antithesis of planned zoning." The court settled on the following definition of spot zoning for Alaska: "any zoning amendment which reclassifies a small parcel in a manner inconsistent with existing zoning patterns, for the benefit of the owner and to the detriment of the community, or without any substantial public purpose." S . 3 Jurisdiction Criteria In the Griswold case, the Court states that it would look at the following factor in deciding whether the action of the City of Homer was arbitrary spot zoning: (1) the consistency of the amendment with the comprehensive plan; (2) the benefits and the detriments of the amendment to the owners, adjacent landowners, and community; and (~} the size of the area rezoned. Other cases include an additional factor: character of the adjacent land. it '"r ~ ~= 5.4 Comprehensive Plan In Griswold, the Court stated that consistency with the comprehensive plan is one indication that the zoning action in question had a rational basis and was not arbitrary. In this case, the current zoning is residential, and the applicant is seeking a CUP for a currently prohibited, noncomforming commercial use; therefore, it is not consistent with~the`comprehensive plan..This discussion if expanded in Section 2 of this document. 5.5 Effect of Small-Parcel caning on Owner and Community In Griswold, the Court stated that the most important factor in determining whether a small parcel zoning amendment such as this one would be upheld was whether the amendment provided a benefit to the public rather than primarily a benefit to the private owner. The Court considered public interests such as preservation of the neighborhood character, traffic safety and aesthetics to be legitimate and substantial concerns: and stated that proposals to change land uses.that would negatively impact these interests were "tangible harms." Clearly in this case the only person that would benefit from granting the CUP is the private property owner. An overwhelming- majority of neighboring residents are.against this application. Further discussion of this point are' in the following section of this document. 5.6 .Size of Rezoned Area In Griswold, the Alaska Supreme Court stated that the size of a parcel proposed to be spot zoned is relative; that is, just because a parcel is a certain size does not mean that the zoning amendment will be either spot zoning or not per se. Ivor can reclassification of surrounding parcels into a similar use as the proposed amendment be used to avoid a charge of spot zoning. This parcel is a small parcel rezoning in that the property is only 3-4 acres. It cannot be argued that this parcel is too large to qualify as-spot zoning. S.7 Character of Adjacent Property Other courts have also examined the character of the adjacent property in making a determination whether a zoning amendment is illegal spat zoning. The more a proposed new use differs from the character and uses of the adjacent property, the more likely it is to be illegal spot zoning merely to the benefit of the owner. In this case, the surrounding character of the adjacent property is primarily residential. The property under consideration can be developed as residentia! property, such as single family; duplexes or triplexes. Thus, the City has no justification for approving the amendment on this ground. Sections 2 and 3 of this document further establishes the character of adjacent properties. The Alaska Supreme Court set out the rules that the City must follow in making its determination, as discussed above. Under those rules, the City must uphold the appeal and deny the CUP, for the reasons discussed above. 5.8 Burden of Proof Finally, the City Council is required to follow the rules of~due process.in cases such as these. tdo property owner has a °right" to a conditional use permit; in fact, the opposite is true -- the property owner has the burden of proving that the CUP meets the criteria set out above: consistent with the comprehensive land use ~ ~~ ~ ~ plan, benefits the community and not just the private owner, is not "small parcel" zoning ,and is consistent with the character of the adjacent parcels. The.Pfani~ing and Zoning Commission acted improperly in approving this permit, because the applicant did not meet his burden of proof in the Commission hearing; yet the Commission still granted the CUP. The Commission seemed to be placing the burden on the community -- it appears from the Corr~mission's decision that the Commission will always grant an application for a CUP unless Kenai residents provide overwhelming evidence under same impossibly high standard known only to the Commission: This is not the correct analysis. The applicant simply cannot and has not met his burden of proof and the permit must be denied. -- ~ .~ ~ ~®®® ®~ c©~u~ ~~~ Asa o~~~ ~~~~ ~~ 6.1 Fr~+~ lularket anal Government ,Gantt®I In the decision passed down by the council regarding Chumleys' previous application the decision document states, "The free market, not the Board of Adjustment, will decide which commercial properties wild be used and which will remain vacant." (P.6) In reality the Board of Adjustment and consequently the council and commission are not absolved of responsibility in this area. The market economy has been highly successful in most industrial countries, especially the United States. E=ven here, however, a perfect market eGOnomy does not exist because of the influence of three factors: large corporations, labor unions, and the government..... Government policies continue to shape the U.S. economy .... Governmerifi intervention can be regarded in two ways; actual government ownership of means of production and government influence in economic decision making. Ownership is easy to quantify statistically, but since influence is a matter of policy and custom, it is difficult to measure precisely. (International Business by John D. Daniels and Lee H. Radebaugh, Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 6th ed.,.01992, pages 53,54) 6.2 Commercial Vacancies are Community Good Issues The city leadership serves as guardian of our communities best interest and caretaker of the greater public purpose and good. Policy decisions that influence market variables is a form of intervention and government control. It is commonly understood that supply and demand are the variables that dictate market direction. To advocate the increase in "supply" of commercial properties~to a marketplace that has "a generous amount of land in the central business district to accommodate new commercial development" is intervention. Increasing the supply impacts the supply and demand relationship. The impact is that one land owner benefits at the cost of decreased demand to all other current commercial property owners. furthermore the granting of the Chumley permit would further influence supply and demand by providing a single property owner an advantage that is not available to existing owners -purchasing at residential prices and selling at commercial prices. Without the exception (Chumley CUP} or the exceptions (commercialized Spur Highway corridor) of conditional uses, the free market, would in fact, force development back to the centralized commercial zone. It is a mere fact of supply and demand. Such movement is far the good of the city because it allows the natural course of economic checks and balances to infuse life back into a sluggish commercial sector. Intervention on the otherhand, contributes to rendering a sluggish sector into a slum and creating a liability far the City of Kenai. The city leadership is not exonerated when they tamper with free market variables through policy influences. 6.3 Precedent Setting Action With Long Term Community Good Ramifications The proposed conditional use issue transcends the applicant, the surrounding residents, and the commission and council. It impacts the good of the community. This is a precedent setting decision that will serve as a measure of accountability for years to come. What basis will future councils have far saying "no" to other CUP applicants if they say "yes" to the Chumleys. The proposed conditional use will be harmful to the community, trot beneficial. The public has made it crystal clear to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the City Council that they are against this application and against opening up the Kenai Spur Highway outside the City center to strip development as proposed by the applicant. Their reasons correlate with those the Alaska Supreme Court deemed legitimate and substantial in Griswold v. City of Homer (925 P. 2D 101 2,1020 (Alaska 1996)). The proposed development will destroy the primarily residential character of the rieighborhoodr and permanently alter the lot itself -- once a commercial building is built, the lot will not .be used for residential purposes again. There will be increased traffic caused by the businesses in the building, with increased noise, fumes and traffic hazards causing harm to the adjacent landowner's residential lots. The proposed development will interfere with the flow of traffic on the highway. The proposed development will contribute to unsightly strip development along the Kenai Spur Highway. ~ T'RA~F~C ~RTT~RNS 7.1 Valid Planning Issue During the February 4, 199$, Board of Adjustment Hearing the applicant's representative stated, "... we feel a traffic problem, if it exists, is a traffic problem and not a property development problem and we think we would like to respectfully suggest that traffic problems be addressed with traffic control items." (Board of Adjustment Hearing, Chumley/Chumley Appeal, February 4, 1998, Page 6) The residents of the neighk~oring lots respectfully disagree: The Planning Commissioner's Handbook (June 1993, State of Alaska) validates traffic as a sound planning and' zoning concern in the following statement: The effects on traffic congestion are also mentioned some in the conditional use section of a zoning ordinance. A permit granted or denied under this standard has a better chance of surviving judicial review if it is based on a credible traffic study which quantifies the effects of the proposed use. (6$} 7.2 Traffic Study and Pertinent Statistical Data Residents of the neighborhood conducted counts of three main areas: (1) children in the neighborhood and at local schools (2} number of cars entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway, and (3) a count of clientele entering & exiting other professional offices to represent a possible traffic sampling for the proposed professional offices traffic. These counts were conducted by neighborhood residents around such priorities as family, school, jobs, and neighborhood issues in an all too short allowable time frame. Although they may not be an official traffic .study, they do show that there is a traffic impact on the neighborhood and surrounding area that must be considered. 7.2.1 The number of children. potentially affected by traffic concerns who live on the north side of the Spur Highway and who. must cross a five lane highway to get to their respective schools is currently at 70 and will climb to 71 in approximately three months. The ages of these children range and the number is relative to change. See attachment # 7 for recorded tally of survey. The number of children enrolled in the area school are: 475 at Kenai Central High School, 455 at Kenai Middle School and 409 at Mountain View Elementary. These statistics establish the fact that many children will feel the impact of the council's decision concerrnng this CUP now and for years to come. 7.2.2 The number of cars entering & Exiting the .Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway. were tallied at three different counts. Number of vehicles going in to the high school: * first count 1:55 p. m. to 2:50 p.m. 66 ~' second countl 2:45 p. m. to 3:00 p.m. * third count 7:07 a.m. to 7:45 a. m. 83 1 65 (as many as 47 in a 15 minute period) (as many as 10 in a one minute period} * fourth count7:00 a. m. to 10:30 a.m. ~ 191 Number of vehicles exiting the high school(offset exit fr om Cinderella St.): * first count 7:00 a. m. to 10:30 a.m. ~ 90 * second count 12:4 5. p. m. to 3:00 p. m. 7 $ 79 (as many as 18 in a 9 minute period} * third count 7:07 a.m. to 7:45 a. m. {as many as 12 in a one minute period) * fourth count7:00 a.m. to 10:,30 a.m. 50„ Increases in traffic flows at peak hours due to the Kenai Middle School traffic flow have not been included in these counts. 7.2.3 Professional Offices clientele traffic (information obtained by phone calls to the businesses): { 1) A Dental Clinic (2) A Medical Walk-in Facility (3} A Medical Specialist (4} Tanning Salon { S} ~ A Hair Salon (6} A Chiropractic Clinic (7} An Insurance Agent 7.3 Conclusions 25+ vehicles per day plus 5-6 employees 20 an a slow day plus 3-4 employees 60 an a heavy day plus added employees 40 on office days {non-surgical days) 30 on off-season days plus 2 employees 90 on in-season days 30 to 50 in the winter plus 4-5 employees (doubled in the summer) 50 per day plus ~ employees 50 per day plus 3 to 4 employees 7.3.1 Traffic Related Safety Issues 'Exists. The Chumleys' application is for two professional office buildings. The number of stories or businesses in each is still undisclosed or unknown. Assuming that each. building held only one professional office, based on the above clientele counts for two professional offices, in and out traffic, the clientele numbers above would have to be quadrupled to account for the traffic. Each of the two offices would have in and out traffic for each client served. It is .entirely feasible that each building, even if single story, could house two or more professional offices. Each building could be two stories high (or higher), and double the traffic possibilities. Considering the traffic from the high school, added to the traffic from a minimum of two professiona! offices, congestion could become unmanageable around the high school exit and Cinderella Street without further traffic assistance {such as a traffic light at an already unaligned intersection -- just planning the traffic light might be a nightmare). Due to the general nature of the drivers at the high school, a higher number of inexperienced drivers use its entrance. and exit than any other single driveway system in the City of Kenai. Not one map presented by the Chumleys has shown the location of the high school exit in relation to their proposed site plan. 7.3.2 One Accident is One Too ~ Many, Unfortunately the peak traffic congestion times are also the times children are walking to and from school. It is obvious From the data collected that safety risks, particularly to our children, will escalate if this CUP is approved. This is of utmost concern to the neighbors and rightfully should carry tremendous weight in making the decision to approve or decline the CUP. ~" ~ ~ 9~5 F~SSESSN9ENT AN® REZ®NE The history of this neighborhood and its interaction with bath the Kenai City Council and Commission demonstrates a highly collaborative effort of the majority of property owners to preserve and. maintain the low density -residential character of this neighborhood: 8.1 Historical Data ~ - In 1985 the citizens of this neighborhood petitioned the City offering to pay 20% assessments for sewer and water improvements contingent upon the city rezoning the defined area from RR to RR1. We ultimately paid 25% assessment. City of Kenai Assessment Rall records show total amounts paid were $32$,1$1 or X2$7,$69 excluding. government properties. Many residents paid these assessments over a ten year period at a 10% interest rate. The residents of this neighborhood confidently invested in the City of Kenai. We agreed to pay and we did? 8.2 f.inkage of the 1985 Assessments Levied on Residents and the RR1 Rezone In return for the approximate $300,000 investment made, the residents received a rezone to RR-1 and at very least reinforced our right to "have a say in how the neighborhood is developed in the future" with particular upfront understanding that our intent was to avoid a "patch work type of development, almost a Spenard-like type of development..." (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-56} To breach this good faith agreement is a detriment tv the overall community. It erodes confidence in the city leadership's ability to plan and zone in a responsible, progressive and consistent fashion. It deteriorates the motive for future investment in our city and ultimately deters future growth and economic vitality. These points are further supported in the Planning Commissioners Handbook. The determination as to the legally binding implication (i.e. assessment reimbursements) should not have to be established in a court of law. It is clear that the city understood the connection between the assessment and the rezone as indicated in a letter from former Finance Director, Charlie Brown. (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-6b, page 4) Inherent in due process is the right of the residents to be heard. Burden of roof for exce tional uses rests with the a li.cant and has not been met. Exceptional uses should be evaluated against rigorous and restrictive standards. The neighbors have supported their chosen direction for the city with well documented, rational "proof" that is not even their obligation to provide. There is no logical reason for allowing the "19$5 Deal" issue to escalate beyond this leveE at potential expense and liability to all taxpayers of this city. Haw ever the legal implications are interpreted by individual council members, what occurred in 1 985 must be iven due consideration in making the decision to accept ar reject Ghumleys CUP. ~~ ~~®5~~~ ~~~~~~ See attachment #$ for the lists of community members that are opposed to the City of Kenai granting this CUP. Due to the collaborative nature of signature collection there may be duplicate signatures. We request permission to offer written rebuttal to applicants closing comments to be forwarded to council members to be used in decision making. ~ . We request that the permanent record of this Board of Adjustment include past commission and council proceedings related to Chumley's applications for. rezoning and conditional use permits, as well as the records of the 1985 rezoning proceedings. We also request that the permanent record reflect the number of all present who have not testified and who are apposed and. willing to indicate so by a raised hand. In closing, deny the Chumiey CUP. l.EGEN D Opposes O (43) ~ ®~ [ J Cityo(Hanai 214fidalgo Nsnai,AKB9611 ~ha Honorable Mayor Williams and Members of khs ~~nai City Council As the executive board of the Kprtai INiddla School PT°~4, we would like to assure you that we oonkinue in oc~r oppoa#tion to the oandltinr~ai use permit Ivor Lots i; ~ 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, Kenai Spca~ Highway. We believe that even under a prafessianal affiae designation the affects on the trafific as well as tQ the atmosphere a# the neighharhaad will ba negative apes for the school community, In addition, we are distressed as oiti~ens off the city to be invalVod 'tt~ ti~is continued atternapt to change the xnne in this area against the wishes of the averwhe#ming majority ol` these residing irr that naighbarho4d. We respectfully request that you rever~a ruling at the I~lanrrin~ and Zoning Cgrr~mission arrd deny the canditianat case permit, Sin~oerely, i fl~ar,~orie Campbell, AT,Q Preslder~t .iamea Montggrrrery, PTq Vice~pr®$idant ~'isita ~ciawemlay, PTA Secretary 6Ceily Hicks, P7'q `i"reasurar 3 "i. ~~G~~ fJ L~PY CN ~'1~1;C7rN C-, t~~Cp,~IJ Air 05 98 O1:Olp Adams' 2837630 p,l Kenai Central High Schaal 9538 Kenai Spur Ham,, Kenai, AK 996I i City Council April 6, 1998 City of 7~enai 210_ Fidalgo, Suite 2(10 Kezlai, Alaska 9961I-7794 Regarding; Appeal of approval afapplication for Conditional Use Permit for professional office building fax the Property descz-ibed as Lets 6&7, Papa .foe's Subdivision, 9520 and/or 9488 Kenai Spur Highway. Metlal~ers o~the Crty Cozincii, .t,adies and ~entleme~a, The Kenai High Schaal PTSA is concerned that development of tb.is particular area with ~~' l~liainesses waiild filrther complicate an already complicated traffic pattern. The area in question lies itt a parkicularly bad Location to be adding fiirtlier egresses onto Kenai Spur. It is already complicated because CindereiXa is slightly staggered from the KC.~H.S, exit, 'We are concerned that this added congestion would be an accident waiting to happen. Please look caxefully at the traiio pattern in this Location befoxe voti~ig on this -appeal. ~ - Weare gratefi~l to the Chumley's for the way that they have tried to appease all of our conce~x~s. ~Ne do, however, want to urge caution when adding tb the traffic pattern iu the high school's local, Respectfully submitted, ~)p,~~,a6,_ A~~a~ u} lJeborah Adams K.C.H.S. P'I'SA Presideat A 3- 3~4 A~r~-].5-98 12:45P C7~?rta.irizx HC-!al~.h C`1 ir'ii Z .+ April 15, 7 998 City of Kenai 2717 )~idalgo Kenai,.,~K ~96~1 1~L: Papa joe'$ Subdivision Laos 6 & 7 g07 283 2.28J. bear ll~fayor'Williants and City Co~xricil Mcr~zbers; . I am writing to represent' the Site Base CanRmitkee and the staff' of Kenai ll~icldle School. We are again befrare yo~x #a speak about tote iss~ce of the above mentioned piece of property, As a group of parents and educators our first and farexnosk priority is the well being of the children.. ~Ne feel that airy commercial endeavor iiti the ~u'ea of the schacals has #lae pote'1tial ko cause problems. There will be an iz3clrease iz~ traf~fie into this area. Also, there may be the further tezzipfatian that once a camlmercial facility is prQSent, that in the future t}Zere would be a c~-anca far ~~r#her developxx~ent along the Spur. l would like to ask the Kenai City Council tQ consider the wishes of those whc~ live in this area as well as those who are concerned about commercial development in this area to reverse the decisinrt o~ the l'Ianning and Zoning Con~nzissiort. 'Thank you vexy m~xch for your cansideraticrn in this matter of concerz<. U Barzy L. Caix~pbell, ~',!~-C president, Kl1~S Site base C~anmittee ~ ~~ P.02 A3- y ~Fy AN- l~f~ ~ . ~6 Karen J. Mahurin F~, U. Box 1 U73 Kenai, AlasKa 99511 April 13, 199$ Mayor John Williams and .Members of Kenai pity Council Re: ~humley #~ard of Adjusters Hearing Dear Jahn and Council Members: As I am not able to attend the council meeting tonight, please accept my letter as the testimony I would have presented at the puEalic hearing on this matter. Due to a family medical orlsis ]n Montana, I was unable to be back in Kenai when this conditional use permit came back before Planning & Zoning or- M~irch 25. Had I been in attendance 1 would have once again voted "na". Conditional uses, in my opinion, mean that a property owner wants to do something different with his property than is allowed under the zoni~~g ordinance, Public testimony is what helps me as a commissioner dECide haw 1 will vats. Public testimony an this issue has been overwhelming against tY~e permit, time and time again. I realize that many council merr~ber support a central Spur Highway Commercial Corridor - as you know, 1 da ~nat, especially in this area, Residents of this particular area have worked for years to protect the integrity of their neighbor by rezoniryg and fighting to keep the zoning as is ai•td 1 urge al! of you to recognize tflat. Yes, Kenai is made up of business and residential -that is what community is. And, yes, we need business to make }obs and thus have a community. However, a community is also people. And, the people in this area say NO to this permit. I am also very concerned about additional traffiic in this Schaal zone - no matter what is said, offices bring traffic and traf#ic pose hazards to students going to and from School. Please, please listen to ~th~: public testimony and also I remind you that Mr. Chumley was well aware of the zoning pf this property when it purchased it. For ante and far all let's end this cor~traversy and deny the conditional use permit, Thank you tar your time in reading my letter. Sincerely, ~ ~~ Karen ~Mahurin CC: Ca{teen Ward Ati- I ~F a Statement to be Presented to be Kenai City Council hoard of Adjustment 7~ 7I'his is a surrvey bei~ag concering PZ98-12- Conditional Laud Use Permitt (Pro~essio~al ®t~ces)-hots 6 and 7, Papa's does Subdir~ison, 9520 &/or 988 Kettai, Alaskan VVe, are tying to see how many families, with,schoal age children, live in the surroundding area from Linwood ]Lane to Princess. 'What will be affected by Joe ~ugll Chumley Puilding Perxni#. Address ~ ,i~. ~~ Children .-. ._ 1 1 ~ .S~ .~ /,-~--~-~---- ~ G' v y '~ ~ /~ ~ t~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ; ~ ~~ ~ ~) ~ ~ v~ ~-~ ~ ~?~ t~~-a~ 6 ~, ~ ~ ~tatemetzt to be Presented to be Kenai City Counei! board of Adjustment This is a survey being concering PZ~8-IZ- ~onditianal .and Use Permitt {Professional t7ffices~-~.ots 6 and 7; Papa's ,foes Subdir~ison, 9520 ~/or 94$$ T{enai, .Alaslc~a ~'e, are tying to see how many families, .with school age children, live in the surroundding area from Linwood bane to Princess. That mill be affected by .Toe Hugh Chu~ley l~a~ilding ]Pe~°mito Address Children A i a 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ y - ~ c i ._ o ~ - n 3 - ~~~F~ ~s cur ~~,~ l << - o D~_ ~~~ ~- m. '~ ~ Statement to be Presented to be k~enai City Council 1~oard of ~Ad~ustment `T'his is a survey being concering PZ9$-~.~...Conditional Viand gJse Permitt {Professional ®ffces)-Lots G and 7, Papa's .foes Subdivison, 9520 ~/or 948 TCenai, .~Iaska. ~3!e, are tying to see how many famines, with school age children, live in the surroundding area from Linwood Lane to Princess. 'I<'hat will be affected by .Toe ~ugb Chumley wilding Permit, Address Children ~.~ ~ - 3 .. ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 5 C) ~,. n ._ .. ._.. z-t I fJ _., ~r 1 I~ k r 1 ~, . , ...-___W --- t3~~`~ ~~ ~ f~ i1 j- v _~~ f'~'~- 1, j /J A'1- 4 of Statement to lae Preseiated to be Kenai City Council hoard of Adjustment Address Children -~~~ ,% i J~ 5~ ~~ ~ ~ s 1 ~ `f l ~ r r ~ ~ c ~ L,~ n~ ~~ l ~' J ,.....,. .._ r} 'his is a survey being concering PZ9~-12- Conditional band LTse Permit4 (Professional ~fficesj-Cats 6 and 7, Papa's .Toes Subdivison, 950 8~lor 94$$ Kenai9 A.laslca. `4~Ve, are tying to see how many families, with sehool age children, lire in the surrounddin.g area from Linwood Lane to T'rincess. 'What will be affected by .Tae Hugh Claumley building ~"erYnito U A'I- 4 of b y ~~ Statement #o~ be Presented to be .Kenai City Council hoard of Adjustment This is a survey being concering Conditional I..and ~Jse Permitt (~'rofessional ®t'#ices}-hots 6 and 7, Papa's Joel Subdivison, 952U ~/or 9~4>$~ Kenai, Alaska. fie, are tying to see lgow many faritilies, with school age children, live in the staw~°oundding area fironu Linwood Lane to ~rincess..'a'hat will be affected by ,doe ffiugb Chua~lcy building Pernaita Address Children I Oft ~~ ~~ G~ R f4 ~. f C ~' C1~ /YIGx i~-~ /~~~ 1~~~-r~~ ~i a~-sib statement to be Presented to be Kenai City Council hoard of. Adjustment 't'his is a survey being cancering PZ9812- Conditional g,and i_Tse Perr~nitt (Professional ®ffcesrLots 6 and '7, Papa's Does ~ubdivison, 950 &/or 94$$ ~enaiy Alasl{ao We, are tying to see how maoy families, with school age children, live i~a the surroundding area from Linwood Lane to Princesse 'i<'hat will be affected by Joe Hugh Chuanley ]~ttilding Permite Address ~ Children 1 1 s~ A1- 6 oF6 ~4rrat~M~nrr 8' 17e~-i~ions ~~,-~ ~ AK-lefl9 ~iiaf~~e~~ 4® be ~~°esen3ed ~® ~h~ ~~n~e Cify C®~ttcif ~®~r°d ~f Ad,~ustm~~t file, the undersigned, ARE ®PP®SEi] to PZ98~12 -Conditional Land Use ~errnit (Rrofessional ®ffioes) .. Lots 6~ and 7, Pspa Joe's Subdirrision, 9520 ~/or 9486 Kenai Spur .I-iighv~ray, QCenai, Alaska, an appii~ati~i~ submitted by Hug h Chumley and Joe Chur~nlev, P.~. Roy 753, Sterling, Alaska. a~ store Name Address Phone Number !' .~ ,S'~ ;; , ZG ;~ ,~)~ ~~ 5 ~ 5~ ~ 1 A _~~,~~1 _t ~Nf~ O'i"46'L~..._.__lJ1/Pl7 4._ /,~Q~9i~/t' ~V~c~ i7~~/~"~ 02_3 `" /~~ A8-~~P 19 ~~_' ~ ~ Li" ~ ~ s~atemen~ t®` be ~~e~~nted t® ~~~ ~/~e ~ I 1~~, ~ A®aa°d ®f Adjusfinenf ~'e, the undersigned, APE OPPOSED to PZ98-12 -Conditional Land lJse Permit (Professi-oral Offices) -Lots -6 and 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 9520 &Ior 9488 6Cenai Spur Highway, I<ePlai, s4laska,~ an applicati®n submitted by Htagh Chumley. ar~d Joe Ch~trnley, P.®. Dox 753, Sterling, Alask~.~ Signature Name ~dtiress Phone Number ~' (%~~~`~ ~% "i '~ r'r ~.. f' (`'~.,`},a,~ ~~ ~ r'":c =~ l'~' ~ ~: ~ : ~~; ~~ l ~Y~} i , ~ ,, l ~~~f Iy1 ,-~~. ~ ~' - 1: = (' .;1 I^ - _~~/"'~"`-'~-"~ ~~ Gr ~+!/ I '~(.:!5 !'lr~ i- n ~( ~l d L~ ,/~ ~~~J L"5 ~ l _~t ~ V/4 ~ -Y^/; L,~ ~'~'_T!i/. C.kj, ~~r~l~ ~il/~;,f.'.t, s~ ~~, iL' ~y,r~.-_~~/ /~i/~~. ~" J .. ~~ ~f~ ^: - - „Z. ,, J -:: s~ ~~ ~JS~/C~~ ~' °F_'-~ ~l~l~` ~ ~~ l,L~ 1 L~d~~~ 1~ ~~~' ``~G~ C~ fir' ~• , S S~'- .. _ ~~t-t~~-mot: ~~L.~l-,_>`i~.~2.~7 .~V-L.. J ~~> ~~., 5X r ~ r~ ~ ~- 7~-~~ ~f ... , .. ,.. 1, _... .~ . ~ / f~ ~ ~ j _ lt8-3{19 C/ S~~~ement #® b~ P~°ese~t~d $® ~~~ K~n~~ ~i~~ ~®un~oi A®ar~d ®f .Adjus~men~ 9f~e, the undersigned, AIRS ®PP®SE® to PZ98m12 -Conditional Land Use Pernnit ~Pr®fessionai ®ffices) w Lots 6 and 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 9520 &/or 9488 Kenai Spur hiighway, ICena~, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Chumiey and Joe Chumley, P.®. fox 753, Sterling, Alasicae ~s~~.~$~oa,a ~~~~ ~ddx~s~ ~C~~1rto~.r~ Ph®ne Number ~ ~G3 J6~- 1 ~5 ~~ ~ 2~1 ~c~; ~~C3 ~~ ~!/7 K ~ ~i4~ 1 N ~. ~ ~~ ~/ k~ - ~ 34_'> >IYE.~~fP.~ ~-k Zk 3 -./ S~ e. ~ r ~ ~ )h ~--~ ~~ ~`~~ C ~ i .~(~ ItiU a ~~ -sy~~ ~8 - µ •/ 19 1~-; ~~ ~ r ~ , 09 '~1c~~il~Sci~~~l ~I~S J ~~.~t ,~aJ ~t ~~ t~~+ °"~ 4 ~'tatement $a be Presented t® the ~ K.en~B C.~ty C®unG~l 1~e, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSE© to PZ98-'i 2 s Conditional Land Use Parrriit (Professions! C##ices} -Lots 6 and 7, Papa Joe's Subdidision, 9520 &/or 938 Kenai Spur Highv~-ay, Kenai, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Chumley and Joe Chuntley, P.®. ~o3C 7~3, Steritng, Alaska. Si rgnature Marne Address Phone Number ~`~ ~~Lut/vliGc~ ~cL'`\~1~~~- ~ 1 ~ ~-i,~f"%^.1;1.(':f,~,! ~ ~ {f1 ~~~ ; ! ~I. ; ITrn r l.::i ~ !.~ I ~ f~Y ~- S~1 ~~-f e ., ~ 1- ` `~~ i ~h~ __......_.J ~~-(~~~1~4~..-- L~~l~ h~~J`i_ i.~'~.~~' ~ ~(''I ~~E' ~.~ 1"L E: ;~41: ~ i ~ ~ r 4\~t`~~~[~,~~ ,1 "~ I ..,1 ~). ~ (~1' ~1 'i~}~5j` ~~; f~l ''(':'r-il~t1 ~' - --- -- --~('+_~_ ~`_-~`y° •-- _ ~~_,_`.•} i",14[? ~1S ~: 1 ~.- ~~ :_• 1 ~/ T''~ LMr.~I. ~ l!~J r ~' 1 ~ ~ W (:'r;'1~'~ ~ ~(~ ~~' n~ i ; ;+ 7 ~ ~c ~ fr G' ~ ~ ~ _ ' '' L ~,~.G Lt ~ ~' i`L i ~ Git [ ~ ~~ ° ~U 1 ~ r ~ ~ ~Cr i, `CC's G ~~ c5 3 - c.(t~ `( ~ 1 ////11 17 ~ may, 4 r~fr`C.I,+4G~s.J~.. ~ sIV~~.t 7 4A~~., ~ i... ~,J ~: i 7 fS ,~~ r !: ~~~ .~'.~ ~'"i.~ _ `'r~~ ~ r~ ~ _ ,_~li,'•. t K-. f ~~ ~ .r~,~ -I~-.• f - ~~~ \~.l l ~~~~ ;~ l 1 L ~ y~~-t~,~,i~.~~! 't ~ 1 ~-,~~~ ~ { ~r ~ ~-l_L ~,~-; i' ~~ l-~,~r i L ~ -,j~-t r(.~ .., f G/77 c~ f}$- 5 ~ 19 G~ ~#~te~enQ ~® be Pre~ente¢~ ~® ~~~ Kenai C~~y C®un~il ~®ard '®~' Rd;~u~~men# ~Ye, the undersigned, ARE CDPP®SED #o PZ98-12 - Condi#ional Land l)se Permit ~Professionai ®ftioes} a L®ts 6 ,and 7, Papa Joe's ,Subdivision, 952U &/or 9488 Kenai Spur Highrrva.y, Kenji, Alaska, an app!l cat!®n subrr~i##ed 'by ,ugh ~h~rnley and Joe ~hurt~ley, P.®: 13ox 753, Sterling, Alas ka. °gna#ure Name Address Ph®ne Nurrtber ~ n ~~ 12 L~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~/~c? ~ig/~r~~ ~~ ~~" 3 ~ 30 ~ o ~~ [l,j.k;~. `.~~~~Gm~~ C f ~ i- / 1 i"~ J c1 ~ r rti ~ .7' i -}` ~}i. e~ Sj ~ - ~ s' fr C ~' ~~..~~~~ ",.~ ''>> . ~u~ ~ ,~~ ~ G ~. ~ - spy.. ~~L. ~>: _~.~- ~ ~ i n ~ ~ ~~ , L %~ J ~~! C ~/,~ ,._ ~ __ / "7 (/ ~-619 .._: ~~~~ ~~a~e~e~&'~ #~ be p~°esente~l to tt~e Kenai ci~y c®unc~~. ~asa~d~ of Ad.~us#men~ ~eb~°uary 4y 1 ~~~ ~qN,D /'?A,acN ,z~, i998' fey the undersigned, are opposed to the approvai of .ioe and HUg3~ ~humiey's Condifiional Land Use Permit application. lflle support the reservation of the iow density, re~identiai character ofi our neighborhood p as prescribed by ®ur assigned caning -~ Rural Residential 1 ~cl-{,(~v`.' ~+U C.~ ~ y - ! `7 D 8' ~1n rat Ei 1 G ?4 v ~ . ~ C ~ ~v ~Pr 1 Kai `~~ ~~,,~, `~~ ~ r~''1..` w.JL C'~ j~ ~~~~~-. ~~, ~~!~~ t ~ ~r c~ ~-,~ lf~ 4.. - ~ r ~/f /! / C 3 °- 7 3 7i ~t8- 8 ~I -~ ~~-~ ~taterne~t t® be p~esenYed t® ~~0~ - Kenai City C®~nci!~ ~®a~d ®~ Ad,~c~stment _, ~e~ruary 4s 1~~A Vy~, the undersigned, are opposed to the approval Chumley's Conditional Land Use Permit applications preservation o~ the l®w density, residential character o as prescribed by ®ur assigned ~ z®s~ing A Rural ResidestiaL oi= .foe and Hugh Idle support the ~ bur neighborhood 1. -c.t.~.; man ~ ~. ~s~ X03 /~c ~ /l ~ fir. j~ 5 h v1 /~ .Jf.. p r J~ [~ p~B ~,p,~.~ ~ I (. yam{ 1 ~' , ; v E.: ~..i Q t'~ ~ I ! l 1 N ~~F i ~L f ,~0 ~ ~C.~ ( ~~~ ! `' f ~ h G ~ l 1 L^~ f~ L'I t~ 1c 1) 0 3 ~ ~- ~ ~-'~ ~ } L-~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ r . .~ ~ y ~ /` ~ ~~ /~ ~.~, G~ ~~ `~~~. ~ 5~~~ ~a ~ ~ Qva ~~ -~~~• . ~-~r-~-s- -~~~zd~ ~;~ ~~ ;S ~ ~, U~-~- 5 ~~-' ~~ 1 ~ ~R.i ~.c2s a .~~ ~ fir; n G eS.~ ~ f v ~ ~~,~ -e ~2 ~e ~ S r , y~9 mc~~~lU~~-t. ~~~ _- f -~ y 6~ ~. G~ ~ C ~-~., Dr qG ~ Vii' -~ ; ~ •v-P 9 ~(~9 ~~ate~ent ~® b~ Presented ~® the Ken~e City C®€~r~~il A®ar[i ~f Adjustment !~'e, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSE® to PZ98-t 2 - Conditional Land Llse Permit (Professional ®iffices~ -Lots 6 and 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 952® &!or 988 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an application scabrni#ted by Hugh Chun,iey and Joe CE~umiey, P.®. Box 753, Starting, Alaska. Signature ~ me Address Ph®ne Number ~~ .:~ .~_ ~ ~ , ' ~ ~,_ ::fit ~ /~ ~.~a~Z~~=• ~,G''; ~. -~~~ ~:. ~~ . ' ~ _.a .ter'; ~: ~-.~~a~ .-~~~~ '• ~ ~ r i ,. ~ r-. ~. -~ ~ `~~ `~ During the March 25, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the following property owners were represented as not opposing the Hugh and Joe Chumley Conditional Land Use Permit Application. However, these property owners were never contacted about the permit application by the Churnleys. As indicated .by their signatures the ~n-ish t® ~®~ ®ra rec®rd with the City of Kenai Council and Planning and Zoning Commission as ® ®~in the Chumle C®nditi®~a9 Land Use Permits ~. ~ April ~ , 1998 AB- I~~f 19 i ~~atement t® ~~ pa°e~en'~~~9 t® ~~ie K~~~~ C6~y C®unoBB :. ®®~~d ®t. Ad,~us~me~~... ~/° `~nl~~l~'rr fie, the undersigned, are. ~ opposed to the approval o~ Joe and Hugh Chumley's conditional Land llse ~ Permit applicati®n. !fie support the preservation of the Iow. density, residential charact~f o~ our neighborhood as prescribed by our assigned z®ning -Rural. Residential 1~. i ~~~ ~~ . ~ ~~~~ ~~ y~~ ~ ~ ~U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ _ ._ !~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~~. ~. ~~~ ~,~ ~ ~. . ~.: T,~~ ~. Holr~~cs ..,~~-~,. o-~/ ~/ ~~i~i ~~ ~~7~a ~~ `~ . -- ~~~~~~~ ~c~~ ~ C~o.3 ~'I ~ ~ ~ .. . ,~ r ~ ,48- 1219 _.~ ~ ,~: Statement t® be Pre~ent~d t® the K~n~~ ~et~ Ce~nceB ~®ar°d ®t' #tdjustme~t ale, the undersigned, AIRS APPOSE®~ #o PZ98-~ 2 - Condi$i®nal Land Use Permit Professional Offices) - Lots fi ~ and ~, Papa Joe's Subditrision, 9520 &/or 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, arr applicati®n submitted by Hugh Chumley and Joe Chuntley, P.O. Soy ~a3, Sterling, Alas~aa ~-~~-na~u~°e ~ i~arae ,44ddress Pig®r~e fVumi~er C/ ~~~1 ~. ~ ~ .~ ~U ~1 ~t~. ~-LL,G~ ~. ,~ ~~iTd~.- G ~3~~~~ -~ rl ,~ n ll _,l -~ _. n '~C~ Z~5 -5~~~ r, n ., ~~ . .~ ~~-sir c~~~ . ~~ ~ ~/J'/l ~'i~~ L~ ~E'17 -- `9 r I /s' X00 ~ ~/i ff k ks - r3 ~l ~9 ~i J ~ ~t~~~~~~t ~® b~ ~~°~5~61te~ t® t~~ i Kenai Cott' C®un~~l ~' i3®ard ®f Aefjustrnent 1Ne, the undersigned, ARE ®PP®SE® to. PZ98-~2 d Conelitional Land Ilse Permit (Profiession.ai ®ttices~ -Lots ~~ and 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 952D ~/or 9488- Kenai SpurHighway, Kenai, e4iaska, an applioati®n subrriitted by Hugh Cht~rriley and Joe ~htart~ley, P.ta. fox 753, St®rting, Aiaska. Signature Name Address Ph®ne Nurriber ~. ~-vt~u ~ ~ ~~=~~ /~ _ /` .: ~ I t. ~ ~~ ~1~ y~~°°~ i ,. r.~ ~ i ~ da~~ _~ ~ '~ ~ r ~~~ f Z43-3S z_ k~~Uu: ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ C rJn-~-,t/~f ~ %~ ~~ 3.-~~ s ~~ r~i?7C A8- X4.!/9 5~~~~~~~Bt t® b~ ~B°~5~~t~d ~® the K~n~a CQt~ C®Q9nCf! .~®ard of Adjustment VV'e, the undersigned, ARE APP®SE[~ to PZ98~'!2 v Conditions! Land Use Permit (l~rolessional ®ffices) - L®ts 6 and 7, Papa J®e's Subdivision, 9520 ~/or 9488 Kenai SpurHighway, Kenai,- Alaska, arf ~pplic~#ion: ~subr~itted by Flugh Churmley and Joe Chumley, P.O, Rox `753, Sterling, Alaska. Signature N me Address Phone f'~umber ' r-~ ' ~ 1 ~ C.~ ~~ `-~1 ~j r~'.Cn ' ~f~ ~ ~~' Yl-~r"lL~j ~/,i~~e,~ -- ~ ~ _~ 1l ~~ .. 1 ~=-1--~ ' . ,.~ _, , ,.= .. _ ~_ ~j,JtL~,7~Z~G'-- ~i ~~.~ :~ /v ~~~~, ,, , ~- ~;/ , ,y -;%;~; ~. ;+, ~~ ~~ -_ G .~ ..~ - / l ~ ~~ 1 l ~ --~ ~ ~7~~ ~,-, ~ n ~', _ ~ r-- 's -~ f' .•, ~! ~;~ ~. ~r , -. ~io~~~~'.~7 ~~ ~ ~ ~. MI6- 150(19 ' Y~~ Y [ ~~ ~-~r1 h~ ~JV~,nS~~ Statement t® be Presented t® the ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ <' ~,-.~ J ~~ K~na~ Cita~ C®un~ii ion - ~®ard ®f Adjustment Ilse, the undersigned, ARE .OPPOSED to PZ98-92 - Conditional Land Use Permit (Proi'essional Ofifices) -Lots 6 and 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 952D BJor 9488 Kenai Spur Highvuay, Kenai, Alaska, an application subrr9itted by Hugh Churnley and Joe Ghumley, P.O. Eox 7~3, Sterling, Alaska. Signature Name Address Ph!o~ne ~urvaber ~..- _ --~ ~~~~../~,,. . CC.i/~, ~ • ~__ ~~ ~f~ (,(1L~, fc:s~, ~ ..---~'-C (~ ir~~~c ~_,//c,.~c. ' `~~ ? ..;:._...<---`i:t- --~, ~' ,, .~.. {. ~~ ., ~~ '` ~-,, •.~ ~~ `~ 1 ~ fie--- •~ ~'~' - ~"76 .~ ~ t . ~, -~/ .~- ~ -~ -'7 C'. ,. _ [~ ~ ~, -~ 1- -~ .~ c. I ~ S~~t~m~nt #® b~ P~~~~~~ed tD ~~~ • Kenji C~~y ~®un~il ~ . ~®~~d ®~ ~d,~u~t~nen~ VVe, the undersigned, ARE ®PP®SE~ t~ PZ98-12 - C®nditi®nai Land Uae Permit (Pr®fessi®nai ®ftices) - L®ts ,~ and -7', Papa J®e's Subdi~isien, 9~2D ~/®r. 9~~~ Kenai Spur ~6ighway, Kenai, Aiasica, an appiicati®n subrr~itted by Hugh Chumiey and J®e Chumiey, Po®o ~®x 7~3, Sterling, Aiaskao - ~`pgraature Name Address Ph®ne Number r ~~r . ~~4 r? L ~' ~4c ~ ~'~ ~/~l r? C r~i'~it~~ rQQ a~ 3. 3 e ~ o .~ ~ Sc r ~ ~u ~nld 5?` e~ ~r. ~7 ~3-~ G~~ ,, .. ,/~ . cl.?fie o o ~ 0 ~ ~ ~'~ ~~w i r INE ET ,~ ~ Q. ~ C.L ~ " ~ ~ ~~ ~ •~ ~~ ~ ~- m s c, ~ t !a S tt~ a vZ ~9 {48- 17x{19 ~ - 4 ~ S#aterrae~t t® tae Pt°ese~ted t® the Ke~al ~ ~gty ~~u~c~l ~®aa°d ®~ Ad,~ust~e~t Vde, the undersigned, ARE ®PP®SE® to PZ98-12 a C®nditionai Land Use Permit {Pr®tessi®nai ~ftices~ -Lots 6 and ~, Papa J®e's Subdi~isiorr, J520 &/or 94~~ Kenai Spur Flighvuay, ~iC~nai, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Churnley and Joe Cl~urY~ley, P.®. fox ?53, Sterling, Alaska. Siga~atu~ Name Address Ph®ne Number Pn-~ ~ I ,(~ ~,..,... , ~ ~~ «N I ~ 1 ~ r ~ e..~-, ~~ ~ , ~~ ._ ~~ qe- -s~ ~ N„!~ 4:~° ~. ~~ 'p~;': i. k" ~~~tem~n~ ~~ b~ Pr~~e~ted ~~ 4h~ Ke~~f City C~~~~ff ~~a~rd ®i Ad,~ust~~~t Wes, the und~rslgn®d, ARE _~?P QSE~ #~ ~'~~$_ ~ 2 ~ C®ndi#i~nai i..~ne! Use F~ermit {f~~~t®ssi®n~l ~1fB~~s) m L.~ts ~ end 7, P~p~ J®e'~ tted i~i~i~~~h CIS ~ ®y~~~tf J ~~i Spur Hf~hvv~y, Ke~~i, ~1~~kao ~a~ ~ppiic~#ian ~u~m y . ~~auml~y, ~~®a ~~~ 75~, S#®a°lin~,. Ai~ek~a Signs#~~e i~~rn~ ~ddre~~ phone ~um~e~ .~ yC ~, ~i:c:o ~3S SC-T~~T ~Ri~ Z.t33-S~bb 0~~ ~~~ `~3i2 ~~• ~b,Y~J~~ ~a b~ A8 19 aFl9 ~~ January 29, 2009 l~kanning and honing Cor~~n-ri~siat~r 290 lYidelgo Ave. Kenai, Ali 99F99 lie: ~ he issue crf fhe conterr+(~fated rezone of properties nc~r%h of the Kenai put' i-lic~hwey Cc~rridat- frotrt kVicCaiirarn ari~fe ~(ttest ire i~ra-i`~~zrrte Greeic tear Gtauncil: ivly wife, Ja, atRd k mflved fror~i Kaciialc t~ ~aldotrra in ~'ei~ruary, 959' dtae to .to's i-~eafth and apaned my law practice at 1t~0 Trading Qay k7ri~~e, Kenai. ~P~fe did nat buy a i7ame untik C]ecember, 9998 because we ware lovE:ing for just the rir~ht car~rtbirtation of factor. We wanted to be close to the lair oi`fice since i o~:etr #~ave tea r~ieet with clients at odd hours on short notice, close to a comtr~ercial center for shopping but yet in a quiet neighborh©od. [n i?ecember, 9898, we found Qur house at 309 Princess En.Fhici~t metal! of Drat r~;quircments and we have lived there since ti~at tir~re. ©ur horEte is 9 'r{ miles to try office, apprtiximate[y the sarr-te to tl~e E}ena'ina {-leaith EJlit~ic ar~d a iesser distance to the area grocery stores and hc~n•te supply stares. When trio 2083 Comprehc~rtsive Flan, hereinafter referred tee as tl~e "Dian" was adopted, we did not comment because the Plan reclrtirements recognized the treads of fhe City of i~enai and inss.tred that our n®ighborhvod vtrould remain essentiaiky as it is now and has been since we rnov~d herd in 9 999. We were in full support of the i~lan. We do not beiievQ that the coat®rrrplated rezone is in conforrvranc© wit:Ft tl-te i'is~r•t. it appears that the rezone is nothing snore than a pretense to iegitirrrize spat r_oning. When fire rezone was proposed there I~ad been no study lane. There had been no l~Eanning. it was prnpased because a developer wanted to buiid eommerciai buildings on a sat that ho had purchased. in order io i'aciiitate that dc;vefoper arrd avoid an kll~:gal spot zoning, this rezone was proposed. The hasty ilEegai appiicatian submitted by the Planning and Toning ek~tairrYtan, which had to be withdrawn, supports that canciusion and gives the public the appearance that the rezoning is going to be done regardless. As stated above, the rezone does not r„~rrtply with the t'lan far the reasons set forth below. ~k (~:,.. i~ianning a,nd caning ~c~i~3rrrissiar~ Jatluary'P9, ~l)g9 Page fro. 2 uever-ai goals af'chG i~kan are fisTed lout the fiirsf iwa of the goals o4 the Plan are: Create ~n attractive, vifaf, city canter, vvifh a rrrix of private and pu~ilic facilities and activities fa Benefit residents and visitors. [°'rofecf and rejt~t<er9sft~ fi'rca iival3iGty of residential neigl~b©rl-t©c~ds See [gage ~ of the Ilan. 'i"hese goats will be c~iscusscd in t:he order presented above. It was recognized in the f~[an Tft2zt: the ciT}~'s dor'nirranf spatial pattern ~.. [inset grov~til along the Ifenai Spar i~fighway spina -~ suits Focal ground cnrtditions. [~~s~ lit S'®sfa~~ ~ ~~~[e, p~a~~ty dc~~C~~~ ~it~ ~c~aaf~r~ it a[sQ channels rrtasf !©cal and Through traffic onto the tCenai Spur Ffighway, whose roadside is lCenai's fr~nf yard. ~'ha community has cited develapn~ent of art identifiable, diversca, prosperous city cenfeo- and a +~-rore aYracTive Kenai Spur F~ir~hway corridor as impai-tanf pianninn goals. balding atfded. Sae papa ~a of the flan. i°h~ f~l~ r~ gays csr~. $a staY~: A cr~m~non therrte of the public pEannirsg wor[:shcsps t~vas that Kenai laced a well-defined city cenfei•. ~'i-re aid br~siness district did not project a vuefk defined city cerrfer. The r~[d business district did not project a pas[tive identity pf a thriving Kenai, Irrsfead, it vuas losing vitality and loc~Ecing faded. Citizens generally agrcae T[-ta2 creating a strong, aftractive, laus4t citYr center is ~ high}y desirable pianniElg gas[. Ftenai dross Dave the potential to deveEc~p a rnare disfincTive, af~racfive, s~ccessfuf eiEy center, l3~rt if vui[[ talcs a joir<t public-private focus an fibs economics, ap{~earance, ar3d convenience of tl~e city center in ©rder fa make it art attr€~cfive venue for! residents and visitors. Some of the paAcies fca foster that go~a[ mare set out below. !~ long-ierrrr, sfrafegy for development a# Miller:niur~n Sr~uar®, a remar[cable comrrruniTy Assaf, is a Ec~y elerrrenf far the future emergenac €af a city center. ~~ W ' Pfannirtg and ~:tinina Corrtr~tission January 13, 20C?S Page lea. 3 My !aw office serves clierzts wl~a reside throughout t€~r~ l :enai Peninsula, '1"he office vase knfentionally located in the city cenfer sa that clients who visit my office can accornpiish ether tasks in fhe city wl~~n trra~irrg the frlp. My practice benefits frarrr this versatility offered the clients and the city benefits front the business that my clients bring to the city. {support the concept of a strong city center and !believe the 2Q03 Gamprehensive flan correctly identified sErch need. land tJse flan, Mats f 1 an page: ~8 cif fhe plan (affached) shatrvs the concept of fhe strong city cenfer clearly. -{'he addition of l_arnrc's anti 1Nail Mart fit rota the concept and strengthen the city cenfer•. ! st!ppar#ed the addition of those two businesses as they veil! enhance rrty clients abilit}r to accomplish other tasks while in the city. /:n irrspectian of Map ~ E wi€€ shave that t!-~e lc~catian flf the two businesses also complies with the Plan as it @eZhances a strartg city center. EJrrfortunafely, lwowes and V1lallylart will increase the traffic corning from fhe esrst gust l'rirrcess 5fireet which veil! effect the Safety of r~ry'raryrily atierrtpting to egress Princess. This is espeeka€ly iruu in the vvinfer where the snotinr berms alanc~ fhe highwa}, block the vie~+u of oncoming traffic from fhe cast. Tyre traffic franc fhe north and west suk~stantially slaps of the pity cenfer, Cowes artd VUallMart artd wi€! not increase tk~e trafi~c pest Princess frarrr fhas~ directions. The proposed rexorre of YYre l<eriai Spur i-{ighway does not comply with the f?iarr in That it fo~~ a ~r~~a6~, p®~rr~6y ~e~iigr¢ez~l cloy oer~f~ar° w{rich was speci~caliy warned against in the Plan. kf wlll draw professiarlals and afl~er htrsinesses away front the city c~:nter. kf wild increase traffic flaw past l'rineess in bafih directions from ciierEts ~tnd customers going to and frarrr tl,e rezone. Since tillalMart iv eat finished, it is Impassiblo to predict what the traffic pat-terri wi[l be past Princess other than to say for sure that traffic veil! increase significantly and that the rezonQ vdilk add to that traffic flow. lr7 fibs[ respect atone, the rezone is premature as the addition of i.owe's sett Wall Mart may sfres5 the traffic flow on the {eenai Spur l~lkghway, €ncreased comr~tercial awe in the rezone would hamper indiv'rduafs entering the cit}r cec3ter and would then a€ivorsefyf in3pact the city center. Further, the r~xane does not meet the second goo! of protecting and rejuvenating fhe residential neighborhoods. ~ln examination of Maps ~ 0 and 9 r shotrvs the entire area of the rezone colored Grange which identi~res tl~e rezone area as iVeigl-rborhood t~esidentiak. There is absolutely nQ f~eighbflrha©d Gommerciak shown in that area, f'~eighborhaod residential is defined a5: The Neighborhood residential district consists of singia- far~rtily end rrrultifamily residential areas [Prat are urban or ~~ . i~laE~ning a;ncl ~raniE-€a C©nzrr€issian ~anEaary f a, 2{fQ9 Page b#a. g 5l.{i3Urb~n In charaCteY'. Ty~iically, {)ubilC wateC and Sewk;F se€vices are in piece ar piarEned for installation. ~'l~is land use district may !nc#ude i,oth single-farrEily and rnulti~fa€nily dwellings subject to reasonable density transitions andlor design compatibility. ~vr€r€al public rautdaar spaces (parks} arF a critical featu€•e in'€itis district. Smal! han~c~-based businesses ray be accasnnlodated tnrithin certain design guidelines. Neighborhood institufianai uses such as churches, schavis, and day cE~re facilities rt€ay be intermixc-d if the}r cc~r~tply with E~€eighbc~rhood design guidelines. See I~i~ai~, page 29. Th~:re is reoti~tirig in that descri~tirsn that would itrply carsa€~~ercia! aciiviiy oE~ E#ny scam. ~n the west side of the city ceE~ter, Thera are areas shrswn as i~eighbt3rhoad Camr'ncrc#ai v~~hich i~ defined as: The I~eighbarhaad CarrErr-ercial district applies fa areas Malang the arterial read system that are suitable for s€~€a!! scale neighborhoraa~etving retail service, and rake uses. it appears that the lin7ited {;a€~€n'€~:rciai lane, K~~ 'i4~.2f}.1'E5, was developed tea taster the i~eighborhaod Cvrr€rrr€erc'€al areas along the Kenai Spur l~ighway an the west side of fhe city canter. The LC pane is described as: (a} Enfar€t: ~'t~~ I! ~ ~~k~a 'ss ~s~EaiQS&~~~ ~ ~E's~~~~c~ t~a€E'~si~ai~rB areas bE~tes~rE~ee~ ce~re~ea~~a°ci~i r~~d EPes6r~eE~tia6 disttri<a~ ~y aaii'avErirag Ea~ty E® ~o+~ias~ tralE~r~e ~868~66'@~"s~, €~nixed res#dentiai aEtd ether coEnpatible uses which compiernpnt and do not materially detract frt3rn the uses allowed wlth c djaCent diStriGtS. The principal permitted Eases shorn i€i the attached land lJse Table aro: sirtgie, fwa and th€~e family dwellings, ei>urches, clinics, government buildings, day care canters, darrnit©riesl#aoarding pauses, essential services, greE;n houses/ tree nurseries, peofessian2E! offices, restauraE7ts, gunsrrtithing, printing, taxidermy, ofi#-street parking and persaE~a! services. f~ersana! services are defined in mote 25 to the E.and Else Fable (attached) as art studios, iaarbers, beauticians, dressmakers, dEy cieaneES atld self sertrice laundries, fitness ceE~ters, photogE•aphic studicas, tellers, tanning studios and massage therapists. Tl-Eere is no statutory definition of an "essential service" which is aliawed. Since rrE©dlci€3e and other health supplies era essential to saEne individuals, it could include a drug store. ~'lanning and Zoning Commission ,lanuary 19, ZE)09 Wage hlo. 5 Ail of the foregoing will. encourage businesses to locate away from the city center and degrade the bufifer zone of the neighborhood. The users of the rezone will be transient users with na connocfivn to the neighborhood. l was ask:cd during my testimony in front of the City Council if k canskdered churches and schaoks as corrrrrrereial entities. I ~nsw®red that I did not but did not get a chanoe to explain r~~+ answer. Church rvren'rbers are usua#ly frot~-r the neighborhood but, even if naf, the menllOePS are 50e1<In(~ goad moral values and aPe Self°diSCIpIIYEGd, Ck1i,ErC#1 ac~iVitie5 ire monitored and cantroUed and such activities rrrast often take place within fhe building and are not conducted every day or nkght of the week. ~chaak activities are always vdell monitored and controlled. there is very litffe interaction between the schools and the neighborhood. Any "bad" interaction is usuakky addressed by schooE officials a;uiclcly. Vtlhereas those indkvkduais us#ng corrrmercial facilities ara not monitored and are vat carving to the area seeking a good n'roral and. The commercial entity wants safi5fic.cl easterners. for example, #t is trot going to atterrtpf to corrtral a cusfar~er's actions outside the business. The gook of fhe Pion. is to protect and r~}uvenate the kivability of residential neighborhoods. -fhe rezone under appkicatian does vat protect the Ikvability of my neighborhood. As stated above, it subjects the neighbvrhoc~d to transitory unknown visitors'. '~ha irrrpetus of the rezone was based Upon an application to place commercial buildings an a lot kn the xvn~. The proposal was thaf the buildings vfrouiet be professional buildings. fps far as I am concerned, as a professional, E want fo be in thc~ city center. Dr. Carlsat7 of fire MediCenfer built in the ckty canter }aossibly for the saute reasons fhat I have broached. l have not seen arty explanation addressing how Phis rezone is going fo make n'ry neighborhood mare livable or haw it is going fn rejuvenate the neighbar'haad, l would appreciafe such explanation. When investment is high and fhe need to bring in revenue to supparf a r~rortgage, any renter That. wilE nett violate the zone iimktatinns will be wekcome by the developer. Yvon the developer can vat say who wilE inhabit those buildings in the long terrrt futf.~re. It can be said fat' sure that the cl-raracter of the neighborhood will change. The rtekghborhaad can no longer be titled "Neighborhood #zesldentkak" and Niap ~'I will vat be an accurate representation of fhe area. Et can be said far sure that traff;c flog! will be affected. As sr r~ernber of the k'kanning and Zoning Comrnissian, you must recognize t!-rat this rezone is rrrerely an attornpf to satisfy one developer and that the selection of fond area was done in haste without even consideration of iVlaps 9 Q and 9 ~ of the flan. Recornrnending fhe rezone will be an arbitrary ase of power of the l~kanning and Zaizing ~ Mos4 visrQors in a residontiar neightaarhood are invitees or people such as repairmen evho are there for a purpose, #~lanning and honing Car~rrrissiar~ January 'i9, ZOOS Wage t~lo. G Cor~nntision as it is rnereiy an iffeg~sl spot rexar~ing.. The ~-~fasfia 5upr'erne Lauri 'rl~ Urisr~alc3 v. City ofllamer, 925 fa.Zd ~0~5, 'it)Z© (Afasi:a X596) stated: Spot zoning "is the very antithesis of planned zoning." Cortrts gave devefaped numerous variations of this definition. These variations have but rr~inor dffFerences and describe any zoning atnendr-nent which "reclassifies a srrtali parce! in a r'nanner inconsistent with existing zoning patterns, for' the berrefit or the owner and to the detrirrrent of the comi-nunity, or without any substantial pufafic ~sut-frase." Anderson, scrpr-a, ~ ~. ~ Z, at 36;x. ~'rofessor Siegler states: f=scarf with an allegation of spot zt~ning, caurt,~ deter-s~ine first whether tf~te rexaning fs eompatif~te witi~ the con'tprehensive plan or, v<<here ncs plan r~xist:s, with surrounding uses. Courts then e~rarnirre the dea~ree of puf~fic benefit gained and the characteristics of fend, including parcel size and other factors indicating that any reciassiffcatinn should Dave err~braced a larger ai~a containing the subject parcel rather than that pareei aiane. pia one particular character-istic associated with spot zonine~, ercept a failure to carnply with at ieast thc~ spirit of a cot~p-~hensive purr, is necessarily fatal to the arrtcndrrgent. Spat zoning analysis depends pr'irmarify an the facts and circur~tsiances of the par~icufar case. Therefore thc~ criteria are fiexibfe and provide guidelines for judicial i~alarreing cif interesfs. 3 Cdwar'd F`!. Ziegfc:r Jr., Rr~tfTko~l~'s rf~e Law af~oning ana l~fan~ring § 28.07, at 25-3 (4th ed. E9S'5). En accord with th© guidance affer~ed by f'rat~essar ~iegier, in determining whether Ordinance 92-7 S constitutes spot xaning, vwe wiiiB rtrr~aieiar• ~~~ fibs c®reei:~Y~i~r~y ®li fibs arcaeradr'neeafi ~~~ifih fife ~ompeei~eer~ive pfarg; ~~~ 1he be~efifi~ and ~efiri~er~fia ~f fibs aevteead~erafi fir fihe avun~ee, ad~aorrnfi ta~~eawrrseES, aeon e:a~r~er+sturr~i~i; ar~~ (gyp fife size of 4he as °'cez~areed." !n our case the rezone is not consi3tent witi'r the f'fan. There has been rrrr.rch testimony fey owners, adjacent iandownars and a few members of the con'rr~ranity of tf~e dstrin~ent fihat Choy believe they viii experience. The EfFecfiive area of the rezone is not .~.~ ~~ 1~'iannir~g arrd honing Carrtmission January 9;~, 2005 Page fro. 7 as large as proposes in fhaf sotrte ofr fhe area can not be developed and s©me is already developed. Ofher fartdowners who are r~rore farrrifiar with fhe fota! area have addressed fhe effective area of the rezone. 1 urge fhe Planning attd caning Cornniissiort fa c~er~y fhe application. l~f the feast, if is premature. #~a one fcnovus how llVaifyiar~ will atfecf tho cortrmu€~ify or fhe Traffic fiovu on the 6<enai Spur t-iighway. Af fhe wor~f, it is irrcansistenf wifh file falan rand wl11 tlnafterabfy change fhe character of my rteighhorl~oad. l~egardfess ©f what fhe developer represents neither he nor y©u can predicf fhe Type of business fhaf wif! operafe tinrifhin fhe rezone in the fuftrre. "f"he i~ermif~.ed uses of fhe !_C gone fs e~fensive. L fhar~l< y€~u #•'or year tir~c~. sincerely, Charles Winegardor~, 3=sc1. 9pg f~r•incess Kerrai, A~ 85~~'i 2.Ei3-~77~'~ ~~ ~" 1Q,2Q.t l5 Limited E~orrttnerciai 2,one (LC Zone). (a) Intent: Tlta LC Zone is established to provide transition areas between cornrnerciai and residential districts by allowing Iow to znediun~ voiurrre business, [nixed residential and athcr compatible uses which cotxrpletnent and do uat trtaterially detract franc the uses allowed with Adjacent districts. (b) Principal Permitted Uses: As allowedut Land Use Table as long as the footprint of the building does not exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet. ' (c) Conditional Uses: As allowed in Land Use Table. (d) Accessory Uses: As defined {see defrnitians section}, (e) I-Iome Qccupafiions: Uses as allowed by this chapter. (fj Development Req[rirement:.~s described in this chapter. (g) Parking Requirements: As required b3, ibis chapter. (h) C?ttfiside storage is allowed for display gutposes only unless the storage is its as area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence. (i) Landscaping/~ite plants: R.s required in I~NC l 4.25. (Ards. 20&1-2005, 214-8-2006) as = f iii#"iE.l {~,,i;!„CI}i~i CCCi ~. Title ~`l PE.,4l~f~IRG_I~ND_Z~hflf@G Chapter 14.22.,1,AR4D USE,FA8LE KEY: P =Principal Pesmilted Use C =Conditional Uso S ~ Secondary Use N y No[ PcmSilicd LAtti{D TJSI'~'l'A13I.~ NOTii: Reference feutnotes on fcliowing pages for additionaE res[riclions ~)~);~~ DI5'L'Ft[C'I'~ LANll USE5 C RR ftttl RS ltSl RS2 IEU CC CQ ST, Ili >;D R "P5H l.C CME1 One FamilyDsvelling Cle P P 1> P P P. t>zs St Sa Sa Caa P P P SllCal 7\uolf6reePamilyDwelling CtS P A P P P A p?t 5t C C G22 P P P Sl~ai PcurFamilyllu~elling Gts P Cs P N 1~ P P2[ Si C C Caa N P C S1/CZt FivelSix Pamily DwelFing C18 Ga N P N N P Pal St C G N N P C SllCzt SevcnorMnn:Pamily f7welling Cts C3 3J C3 N N 1' p2l St C C N N P C SIICat Townhouscs~ Cts C C C C C C C G C G Gza C C C C Mobile Home Parks N C C C C ~ C C C C C C N C 3 N i_._. C C Planned Unit Residential t3cvelopmenl7 Cis C C C C C C C C C C N C C C C COIY1Nd~I2C)AL LAND US13S C lilt itRl liS RSl RS2 RU CC CG IL i19 l:l) R TSH LC Cis~fU Automuliv4 Sules N G C N N N C P P P P N N N N P Automotive Service Stations A' C C N N N C P P P P N C N N P Hanks N C C C N N C P P P C N C C C P ]3usinosslConsunte; San•lccs N C C C N N C P P P C N C C C P Guide Service N C C C N N C P P P P N P P C P HotelsMotels N C C C N N C t> P P C N C P C P Ladgo N C C C N N C I> P P C N P P C P PsofessionolOffices N C C C N N P P P P P N C P P A Reytatuants N C C C N N C J P P P C N C C P P Rclaii Busiacss Nzs C C C N N C P A ~ P P Sea Saa C C P 1Vholesale Business N C C C N N C C P P P N Sas C C N 'flteatc~slCommcrciel Rccn~alioa N C C C N N C P P C C N P C C P hitp://wwv~~.geode.us/eacles/lcenai/wiew.php?topic=l4-14_32-14_22_p10&fi'ames =011 1/24/2009 °~ Ll~I~rIA U~11 ~k~l~E TCEY: P=Principal Permitted Use NOTB: Reference footnotes on following pages rot C = Condlticnal Usc additional rasttictions S c Sccandary Use 3J ~ Nat Permitted ~~,~1'~E1~ r E.ANn.us~s c >ra>z 12RE I28 n31 Rsz aU cc cc EL rET r;p R I~s~T r.c crvEu AGporls. nd Related Uses Pao C C C N N C P P P P N C N N C Automotive Repair N C C C N N C P P A P N N N N P Cas Manufacturer/SSOmgc N N C C N IJ N N N C9 C~ N N N N N MannfactututglPabric:atingl Assembly N C C C N N C L' P P P N C C id C Mini-SiorugePacilily N C C C N N C C Y P Y N N N C C Storage Yard N C C C N N C C P P P N N N N C WBrehnt,ses N C C C N N C N P p p N' C N N N L'U$F.,I~I il§f3TCTUTI~D~~L 14kVDUSUS C RR 12123 4LS RSl rtS2 R[I CC CG EE. [N Y;6 R 'E'S# LC CIt4[) Chari[ablelnstimtimts C C C C C C P P P P P P C- P C P Churchesz C pto pto C,ta Pw Pto p!D ht0 pw C C P pto P P P Clinics C C C C C C C ]' P P C C C C Y P Collages C C C C C C C P 1' C C P C C C P Blementnry Schoals° C C' ~ C C C C C P Y C C P C C C P Govemneenla! Buildings C C C C C C C P P P C P C C P P Higb Schocls* C C C (.' C C C P P C C P C C C P C~aspi[als"~ C C C C: C C C P ~ P p C C C C C P Librarics¢ C C C C C C Ct2 Y P P C P C P C P Museums C C C C C C L' P P P C P C P C P Farks end Recrest'son P C C C C C C. P P P P it P P C P Assisicdl..iving C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C i~lSC);1.LAtV~;QUS J.~1ND USLr3 C rtR TlR1 [[S E2S1 0232 RU CC CG rf. EFI ED R I'SH E.C CIV{U Animal J3ourding13 C C C C C N N C C C C N C N C C Tied and Breakfasts C C C C C C C C C C C N C C: C P Cabin RenEals C C C C N N N P P P C N P P C P Cemeteries C C C C N N N N C C C N C C N N CnmtatorieslPmtetal Homes N C N C N N C C C C C N C C C C any Care Censcrsl` C C C C C C C P F P C C C C P P Domdtorics/Acatdiug Homes C C C C C C P Pzt~ S C P P23 C C P Y Essential Services P P P P P p P A P p p P P P P P FanninglGcnanil Agricplture4i'~ P P N N N N N N N N P N P N N N GneenhouseslFree Nurseriasl3 C C C C C C C p P P C N C C p P http:J/wwu'.gcode,us/codes/~cet~ailvi~w.php?topic=l4-14_2?-14_22_010&frames-pn 112a~I20U9 ~~ ~~~ 4 ~ ~.~,i~~ >J~la ~ ~f~~,l: KCY: P =Principal Percnitirod Use NO'I'F: Reference footnotes on €ollowsng pages for C=Conditional Use additional restricttans S = Secondary Usu 14 =Not Permitted ~c~rtrrl~ ;~r~~'rttc~~ IVT45w~~ILLAi~QFJS LAh'a [1S)rS C RR tiI[I ![5 R51 TI52 RU CC CG [L II! CD R TSIi LQ: CPhTJ Gunsmitlting, Printing, N C C C C C E' P P P P N C P P P Taxidermy Assemblies~s(Largct C C C C C C C pls pis pts pis pts C P N pis ClTCnses, Tralrs, Tste.) Prafernal Organiratinnsl N C C C C C C P 1' P C N C P C P Y PriYate ~,'llktl5~~'oClat 1~a11S and Union Hulls Nu[siug,Conva[csccntor [.~ C C C C L' C P P C C C C C C I' Rost Homes Parkuig, Off Stret:t ~s P P P P P P P N P P P P P P P P Parking, Public Lotslz C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Por5ona15e[vioes~s C C 4 C C C C P P P P C C P P P RadiofPV TrausmitterslCell Y P C C C C C P P P p P C C C P Sltcsve Recrealioual Vehicle I>nrks C. C C C N N ~ C C C C C N C C N C Subsurface Flxtractien oT C C C C C C C C ~C C C N C N N N Naatrnl Resourcest6 Surface L'xtmction of C C C C N N C N C C Z: N C ~ N N 14 Natural Resourxs~~ ~ Sec 42 USCA Sec. 2p[lOcc (Religious Land Ust: and Instituiionolizcd Pcrsuns Actof2plfp) x`° See ~2 Tclewmmunicaiions Act oP 1946, Sea 7p4(a) °°" See, however, the ]imilativns imposed undcrT:iviC 3.1p.07p 1'001Y10@CS: i. Allowed as a secondary ase except on the grortnd floor of file pa,t of the building fronting on collector streets and major highways. Commercial or indushial which falls under the landscap'snglsite plans requirements of TGf~4C 14?5 shall include any secondary uses in the ]andscaplag and site plans. 2. CTne (1) stogie-family residence pot parcel, which is gait of tine main building. 3. Allowed os a conditional use, subject to satisfying the tollmving conditions: a. The usable area per dwelling unit shall he the same as that required for dwelling units in the RS -none; b. The s[te squat. footage iu area must be approved by t3te Contntissinn; c. Yards around the site, off-street gerkitig, and other development requirements shah be the same as for principal uses in the ItR zone; d. Water and sewer facilities shall meet the regsiiremeuts of all agplicahle health regulations; e. The proposed dwelling group will constiuue a residcatial urea of sustained desirability and stability; will be in harmony with file character of the surrounding neig[rborhood, attd wit! no[ adversely aT~'ect surrounding property values; The buildings shat! be used only far residentiol purposes and customary accessory uses, such as gamges, storage spaces, and recreational attd community activities; g. There shall be provided, ae prat ofthc proposed development, adequa[c recreation areas to serve the needs of the anliaigated population; h. 'T'he developrneni shall not produce a volume of traffic in excess of tine capacity for wlsich the access streets are des'sgned; i. 'T'he property adjacent to the proposed dwelling group will not be adversely affected. 4. See "fosvnJtauses" section, 5. See "Mobile Homes" section. ht[p://www.gcode.us/codes/~certai/~i~w.php?topic=~4-14 22-14 22 OtO&f~•amesWafl I/24/2O09 ~ ~~ 6. Allowed as a conditional use, subject to " tvlabilc ]tomes" s..ction attd provided that arty mobile Koine part: meets the minimum Federal Housing Autlrority t~equirements. 7. See "Planned Unit Residential 1}avelopmcnt" section. S. Allowed as 0. conditional use, provided that the proposed location and the characteristics oftfte site will not destroy the residentiaf character of the neighborhood. 9. hllowed as a conditional use, pmvidcd that all applicable safety and fire refulxiious are met. ft7. Provided that no p0.rt of arty building is located newer than thirty (30) feat to tuty adjoining shr:et ar propet-ty line. l 1, Al[awed as a conditional use, provided that no part of any building is located nearer than thirty (3b) feet to any adjoining street or property line and provided further chat Uie proposed location and characteristics ofthe use mill not adversely affecf fihe conunerciai development of the ~Ane. 12, Allowed as a conditional use, provided that the following conditions ate met: a. The prupossd location of the use and the size astd characterist'sc of the site will maximize its hane~t to the public; b. D'xits xnd enh•artces and off-street parking for the use era located Yp prevent tratlic haiards ou public sweets. 13. Allowed as a conditional use, provided [ItaF setbacks, buffer ships, and other provisions arc adequate to assure 4hat the use wilt not be a nuisance to surround'utg properties. ?7te Comhtission shall spuify the conditions riecessary to fulfilf this requirement. 14. Allowed as a conditionaE use, provided Utat no indication of said use is evident from the eetcrior of the mm•tuary. l5. Altowcd, provided that the foilau'ing conditions arc met: a. An mteleared buffer strip of at ]cast thirty (30} feet shall ba proridcd between said use and any adjoining property in a residential zone. b. Exits and cnteanccs and oft'-street parking for the use shall be located to prevent traffic hazards an the public streets. 16. See "Condiliwtal Uses' section. 37. Sec "Conditional Use Permit for Surface ~ctractiott ot'Natural licsources" section.- 38. Conditional Use allowed only on privately held property. Not allowed on gnvamment lands. 39. Deleted by Ordinance 2144-2006. 20. The airport related uses allowed under this entry are aircrat3 approach zones per f:IlRC l A.20.U70{a), except that for properties cohtained inside the airport perimeter Pence nr having access to aireratt movement areas, ramps, taxiways or parking aprons, FAA suthorizeil uses are allowed, 21, pevcloptnents Fur use shall be the santc as those lister] in the "Itevelopntent Requircntenfs "Fable" for the RUTTSI'l zones. 22. Allowed as a conditional use in canjanation with n permitted use in the P.B woe. 1'or example, housing far teachers or students for x school in the zoae. 23. Allowed as an accessory use in conjunction with a permitted use in Urn Ell zone. f=or exantplc, a dormitory used to house students frn~ a schoo3 or educe[€uiral facility, ?~#. Retail businesses aflaived as a secondary use in conjunction with Cite priiuary use (e.g., a gift chap or coffee strop within another business). 25. Arl studios, barbers, beauticians, drassmalers, dr}• cleaners and soli-service laundries, fitness centers, photographic studios, tailors, tanning salons attd massage therapists. 26. i:pod services arc aflowed on a temporary ar seasonal basis of not more than fmir (4) monUts per year. (Amended daring 7-7-94 sttpplemerrt; Ord. I862-2000; amended during ]2-1-00 supplernenE; Ords. 1911-2002, 1938-200I,1956-2D02,1962-2002,1990-2003,1994-2003,2053-2004,2081-2005,2312-2005.2113-2005, 2144-2006, 2I52••2006, 2185-2006, 2195-2006, 2246-2007, 2272-2007) h~.p://www.geode,-ua/codes/lcel•Iailvie~rr.php?topic=l4-14 22-14 22 Q],Q&frames=o3> I/2~/2009 `E~ ~r~~R ,doe Moore [mailta;jaem@aftrogco.carn] ~~e 1Nednesday, pecember i.7, 2D0$ 8:36 AM ~~o `Patricia Porter'; berry eldrfdge@yahoa.cam; hvsmafleyCa~yahaa.com; cpajoe@aftrogco.cam; al~soluteprinaess101@yahon.com; mboyle@al~ska.com; rossrcic@hatmail.cam; mollaylaw~alak.r~et; `Carat 1"reas' ~~: 'Marilyn Kebschull'; 'Nancy Carver`; Rick Koch ~~Gsj~~o RE; Rezone -- Rural Residential ]. to I_imii=ed Camrr~ercia! I liked the information as well. I would like to see the administration hold an informative work sessian, for the public, prier to the P and ~, meeting on the ~4{'~, ~ . Subject wauld be the "t.imited commercial zone" what is it? We have some rrtaterials that were drawn up by an airport Planner several years ago when we created the zone. Whose mafierials should be available at the work session, I believe the work session will allaw a mare infarma] dialogue between the adrr~inistratian, the public and council. ~"he work session would avoid any specific rezoning Issues and could be limited to an hour. My hope is to diffuse same of the misconceptions and maybe "sell" the zone to more of the public. The administration and public wor!«d very hard an this zone when It was created. We probably gave it the wrong name. Maybe "limited development" would have been better. € feel~this outreach to the public will be well received and perhaps the public hearing an the 14th of January will be more productive. Thanks Jae ' I 7 - n ry y _- ' !. ~ .. f it ___... - - - ~ E .~' ~l I y ~ ~~ II I I I _ ._.. _. .__. ~ 1 1 ~ __ II __._ - .. -__ u qV di ~~I'i 1 __ , . 4I __ _ _.' __ _ i _ yI~ _ ,_ . ".__ __ I i V . ~ I ~~I ~ i .. 14 ~, 7 Z h ~• ~ = 1 _ I x ~. - e. a PZ09-01 might increase the value of some property on the highway, but at the expense of others. If PZ09-01 is to be considered further, I believe the City is.obligated to consider the impact on nearby properties. if this rezoning can not be done without adversely impacting the neighbors who have built their homes under the protection of the existing zoning, then it. should not be done. Thank you far considering my view. Sincerely, Kevin Dix 2 ~`~~~ .~. ~®o~~~~ ~~~~ Fsorra: Jessica Piatt [jessipiatt@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:0 PM T®: xcel@alaska.com Sasbjec~: Wilshusen Letter To Whom It May Concern: I have lived down Hutto Street for 22 years out of my 2~ years of fife. I love this area I grew up- on. My husband and I wanted to have a home in this neighborhood where our family could grow and we would have a large yard for our two sons near their grandparents and town. We had awned a previous home in Kenai that was near commercial land and the high way. When I got pregnant with our first son we had thought of what we really wanted for our family so we sold our home and decided to build down Nutta Street. We love being so close to town fn this central location but the feeling of seclusion. We are against the proposed rezoning. Our property backs to the proposed rezoning and makes us very worried about what will happen in the future if this is approved. We feel as ff this fs the last subdivision in Kenai with the feeling of seclusion and the small town warm neighborhood feeling. I love that there is possibly of growth to our neighborhood but small and homier then most. I would like to see Kenai grow to a point but not to the determent of this neighborhood or any other neighborhood. The schools are walking distance from our home and with our two sons going to be attending these schonls in the future it saddens us that if this rezoning is approved there is a a unknown to our future here. We love Kenai, but are opposed of these proposed changes. We had afro purchased our land here down Hutto Street and are building on it due to the fact that it was residential and that there would be no large changes such as this. Thank you for you time. Jessica Wilshusen Windows LiveT'"; ~-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. S~~„_ho_w_i~_wt~a-ks. fro virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http:llwww.avg.com Version: 8.0.1761 Virus Database: 270.10.1611928 _ Release Date: 2/2/2009 7:51 ~M 2~2~2oa9 To the City Council, I'm opposed to the rezone of properties north of'the Kenai Spur I~ighway corridor tom McCollum Drive West to No-Name Creep frozxz Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Limited Commercial. This purposed rezane is destructive to the continuit~~ of the present neighborhood and represents a threat to the nature of this part.of the community. I also perceive it as a punitive measure from the City of Kenai with its timing fallowing sa closely to the neighborhoods opposition to the rezoning of Papa Joe`s Subdivision in December. The proposed rezone does net coxxxply with the Kenai Coxrzprehex~sive Plaix. Alaska statute and legal. precedent establish the Kenai Comprehensive Plan as the olic directive to be used in decisionx n~al~ing. The Kenai Corrzprehensive Plan was developed by a broad based coxnznittee of citizens and the City of Kenai and ratifxeci by the City Council and is periodically updated. Additionally, the proposed rezone does not adhere to the Kenai Zoning Code. Alaska statute establishes the Kenai Zoning Code as the re ug latory directive to be used in decision making. The proposed rezane parcels are as follows: 0 3 vacant parcels publicly owned, 1 of which can only be developed for education 0 8 parcels privately owned with existing residential developzxzent 0 1 vacant parcel privately owned with owner intending to build asingle-family residence . 0 2 vacant parcels privately owned Spot zones per se are illegal. A strip zone does not cure a spat zone. The neighborhood opposed that original propased rezane, amoxig other things, for the illegality of "spat zoning". The reality of the current proposed rezone is that it essentially benefits t~vo parcels, Dr. Wox-tham's and one other lot to the detz~rxzent of the surrounding parcels. It is self evident tllat the expaxision from Dr. Wot•tham's property in this second rezane is to cover up the initially intended spot zoning. Commercial traffic will likely be heavier through a residential neighborhood. The proposed rezone does not rrzake any allowances for the commercial traffic and the surviving residential area. A .neighbor has contacted the State of Alaska D.O.T. and they are resistant to additional driveways onto the Spur Highway. That means all additional traffzc will be fuxaneled onto Magic, Princess, McCallum and Cinderella drives. This issue is not about "Landscaping", or if the "corridor is not conducive to residential" in the opinion of the City, it's about our homes and families. The truth is people live there so it is conducive. It's also about public trust, and zoning is public trust. A rezone will violate that trust. In "The 1985 Deal" the neighbors agreed to pay assessments to help pay for sewer and water installation in exchange for a rozone to the most restz~ictive RRl and the chance to have a say on hour the neighborhood developed in the future. The City would be breaking tl-zeir part of the deal by rezoning. The City is stretching its credibility with rezoning people's private hozxxes along with bits of other properties to create what appears on a map as a unified block of property. There is no justi~ZCation to rezone as there is nurne~•ous commercial cots in Kenai, including several that are tru1~! "deteriorating". Voting against this rezone will not impede the economic growth a~Kenai. Surrounding properly owners do not want this rezone. No occupants have requested this rezone or support it. The p.~rpose of a Limited Cofnmercial Zane as stated in the Kenai Code is to "provide a . ixa~as,~ion between Corn~ercial and Residential". The proposed rezone butts up to Conserv~ti~ on one end and~~Ral. Residential on the other. No transition occurs. To the contrary there ~s a liu~~Fer. between-~~e neighborhood with a church on one end and aYiother. ch~,u•ch and natural b~•ier on the other end. ~Nhen we as a neighborhood. came to the Cit~T Council about a cell phone tower, we were a neighborhood worth preserving. what has changed? R o E p~ -~ q~- - Mc lum Drive. ~~~ ~®u~~e~ ~~~~ Fr~~xa: Gloria Wik [gwik@alaska.net] Perot: Monday, February 02,2009 10:58 AM `~o: cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us Cc: Colleen Ward ~e~bj~ct: Rezone ~i Caral I would like to make it known that I am against the purposed rezoning between No fVame Creek and McCollum Drive in Kenai. Although my residency here has been very short comparatively speaking l have lived here long enough to come to enjoy the quiet neighborhood and country living. I fear this neighborhood would change dramatically if RR1 was changed to E.imited Commercial with the increase in traffic alone. As I understand it back in 1985 the neighborhood did help pay for water and sewer installation so they would be able to have a say as fio how development occurred. What happened to that agreement? We have come together as neighbors to voice our concern and opposition to this and it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Gloria Wik 707 Magic Kenai No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - httpalwww.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 /Virus Database: 270.10.1611928 -Release Date: 2/2/2009 7:51 AM 2/2/2009 February 1, 2009 Dear Kenai Planning and honing Commissioners I have lived at 403 McCollum Drive since November 4, ~ 988. It was our first home and we were very excited to be moving in. We had house hunted ail over Kenai and in Nikiski_ We could have chosen a larger home in Woodland or other Kenai neighborhoods but fell in love with this home the first time we pulled in the driveway. The Rural atmosphere of the neighborhood, the church across the s#ree#, having an acre to ourselves, and living close to the schools and grocery stores were all part of the appeal that helped us make our decision. Just as we were preparing to close on the house, a report came in that the private water well was not adequate. The seller quickly brought in equipment to hook our home up to Kenai city water and sevuer. We were glad for that but a little disheartened. The heavy equipment anc! the process of digging wader and sewer lines drastically changed the look of our lot as they took out the trees on the front of our lot that had provided a~ lot of privacy. You could now see our house from the road. We had an opportunity to back out of the deal but losing the trees was not a deal breaker for us. We knew we could replant trees and put in grass and crate a beautiful yard wi#h a little bit of work. That is exactly what we did; making planting trees a special family project. The tre~~ were the same height as our two little boys and they took great pride in planting them and watching them grow. Those trees are as tall'as the house now and the boys take their children out to show them the trees they planted when they themselves .were small. The trees now provide a nice natural barrier and privacy for our home. We are glad to have them as we lost many of the older trees on our property from beetles. I have heard many reasons why the Papa Jo property should be rezoned to LimiteCl Commercial with the primary reason i keep hearing being because al! the trees were cut down. I agree the piece is an eye sate as it stands now. but there are many ways to fix.that problem. Rezoning for commercial entities is not the only solution. Just as rezoning the whole corridor now to LC is not the only solution and only prevents an arbitrary spot zoning condition, creating a strip zoning situation. Nine years ago our neighborhood formed a "Lighthouse of Prayer" gathering in my living room oh a weekly basis to pray #or our neighbors and=our city. Sometimes some of us went ion prayer walks praying through the neighborhood. Red McCollum was one of the members who came regularly and prayed with us for the neighborhood. He also would pray for his children. He said, "Someday I won't be here to continue praying and 1 ask that you continue to pray for them for me." He taught us how to pray for them,and entrusted the neighborhood and his children to us. January 5, is a special anniversary for #hose of us in this Rural Residential neighbgrhood. Debbie Sonberg had gone #o the house of Red McCollum on this day seven years ago because he was not answering his phone and she felt the need to check in on him. That is what neighbors do. She entered the Name of our beloved friend and found that he had passed away sitting in a chair in his living roam. She picl~ed up the phone and dialed 911. From 2 houses over, we heard grid saw an ambulance arrive at the residence. My husband, Roy, barely took the time to slip on his shoes as he went running over to see if he could assist. 1 hopped in the Car and drove over as i was expecting to accompany the ambulance to the hospital. On arrival, the Kenji ambulance brew met us outside the living room saying they were sorry, but there was nothing they could do. Red was gone. 1 called Colleen Ward so that she could begin to contact Red's family members. She came and we all. hugged and cried as neighbors, and the family was Called. ', ~_. C7~,,i~nuary 1, 2D02, many of us had gathered at my home to Gelebrate the New Year together. It was the last t-saw this man and the memory of that day is very vivid in my mind as l recall hove happy and content he was .,;r~ip~~,y~ust watching us and chuckling to himself. With his passing we resolved to never forget the man of whom ~~rt.g1F$~re neighborhood was named after and to honor his request to pray for it and his children. On January 11, 2~~~; ~°~~side his family buried Red. We will not stand by now and just-let his `property where his daughter, our frie~~; lives be rezoned to anything commercial We are a neighborhood of people who are neighborly. ~~iund`600 B:#C.'E., the prophet Jeremiah sent a letter from Jerusalem to the exiled community of people in ..Ba'~yibn. In the le~t~~i`, ,Jeremiah relayed a message to the people: "Build houses and settle down, plant gardens and eat what th` oduce.... Increase in number there; do not decrease: Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which i have carried you in#o exile. fray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you~too will prosper." Today we are still Galled to care about the community in which we live. Get involved; get serious about where you live become a part of the community. Becoming a part bf the community can mean three things. Caring about the p~~~ of fhe commur~ify -- making sure that the community is a safe place for all to live; connecting with the .people of the community -- working toge#her with others in the community to serve the commuhity; and ;committing the Gommunity, its people and its needs to prayer -- coming together to,pray for its peace anct- prosperity. My husband and I grar9uated from KCHS 29 years ago and have enjoyed the 2p y~rs we have lived~;e~ira,is home, in Kenai raising five children. We were creating a legacy for nur family, planting berries, raising flnv~!'~, cultivating an apple orchard. Our son even married "the little girl down the street". They bough# the home directly behind us so the kids could grow up walking a path ~i:#irough the woods to grandmas. We put in another path creating a "secret garden" for them. When they come, the first thing they ask, "Can-we go to the secret garden grandma?" they believe this will never end, that there wil[ always be a treasure chest of swee#s waiting for them. k have devoted a.~tength of this time to serving the community, helping neighbors to help other neighbors and #eaching my children to do the sarne. Now, because of the fighting we have to do td .maintain wf~at we have, my hlasband and !have begun house hunting in Nikiski. I told him ~rVhen we moved h,~re-that I would never move again. We planned to die here. !cannot begin to describe my agony. I urge you to vote "no" an recommending this rezone on the grounds that it will 7 . prasticaily affect the surrounding neighborhood residents as well as ttre majority of the residents being r~~oned, 2. CC~ate a strip zoning situation, 3. Does not comply with the Kenai City Code that states "the purpgse of the LC z~rte is to Create a transition from commercial to residential, and 4. No one In #his neighkorhood asked for this rezone; it was the sole desire of four members of the.City Council. Please protect the currer#t coning our..:neighborhood enjoys as well as have trusted to be protected. Sine~erely, ,lanine Espy 403 McCollum t]rive ~ ~' ~ ~~V -----Origins! Message----- ~r®~: covops specops [mailtoapecforces@mail.com] ~r~t: Monday, !"ebruary Q2, 2QQ9 9:38 ,4M T®: Colleen Ward ~uibj~~: Re: Letters for the Packet To whoxn it may concern, I am very concerned about the way this council is treating this in a socialist manner. Rezoning this neighborhood would be a detrament to all residents in the area. My wife and I moved to AK almost 7 years ago and took six months to locate the perfect neighborhood to fit our needs. We picked this pat~ticular place because of its location and the zoning as we intended to live out our lives here. We bought the tract of land next door to us so our kids could build right next door. We were going to pick up more land in the area far the same purpose and for our childrens children. Over the past 6 years there has been increasingly more traff c in the area which has made it more difficult far my children to cross the highway and to play without fear of traffic hazzards. If this is rezoned and this proposed proffessional "mall" comes in, the street that was once safe behind our house would be too dangerous and the increase of trespassers on my personal drive would be unforgivable. As it is I have problems with people trying to take shortcuts tlrrough my drive which is dangerous for my family. Not to mention I am the one that pays far the upkeep of this drive. As it is I have had the police out a few times. I would be calling the police constantly to report trespassers and demand same form of protection. I would also have to seek legal action far any damage committed by such encroachments. I am not ignorant that I would believe there would be nv mare traffic on Magic street nor through my drive. They would have to use it to get in and out of this proposed proffessional plant because the traffic on the spur is too dangerous to get in and out effectively. To put in another light would only increase the congestion and create more problems of another kind. 1VIy kids and I like to ride bikes in this area and injustice would be too great a risk. I have too much invested in this area not to be heard. I have made renovations to my house, spent thousands updating it anti maintaining it. I planned to do many more improvements but have haulted my efforts because of this unjustifiable act of preferring money over the wellbeing of the people. There is no reason for this to be be a transitional zone because there is na transition. There is a distinct separation between the industrial and this residential area created by nature alone. If you propose to do this you are creating many environmental and social issues that are not sound policy no matter what your agenda is. There must be sound reasonings and a def nitive purpose behind this rezone other than someone has spent money on some land. This cannot be done because someone thinks it would be a nice gesture. This is a demoralizing unethical act that would be unforgivable if persued any farther. Too rezone would be to exact more taxes on my family wick already have enough hardships as it is with this current economy and the socialist regime that is now in office on the national level. We have need of every dime we have left over to live on. Why would you impose an unconstitutional act upon the people when this area already has an agreement with this city zoning commission restricting any such action? Tt makes me suspect motives and leadership abilities.. Let alone your concern fax the people. Government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE not for big money, the respecting of persons, ar big government. I admonish you strongly to please fore-go these efforts to create further hardships upon this residential area and its occupants. With great expectancy of your compassion, wisdom, and reconsideration on this matter. Thanks, Marc and Lois Bisset and family ~~`.. ~®~9~~n ~~~~ Fp~s~: Ken Seavey [kenseavey@yahoo.com] Sept: Monday, January 12, 2009 8:02 PM ~'o: cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us ~c: xcel@alaska.com Saa~jeot: Rezone of the Kenai Spur Highway strip (Cinderella Street ~ Kenai Spur Hwy) T"o whom it may concern: As a property owner in the Cinderella Street area, I am writing this e-mail to express my opposition towards the rezoning of the Kenai Spux Highway strip {Kenai Spur Hwy ~ Cinderella St). Thanl~ you, Ken Seavey 704 Aliak Drive Kenai, AK 99611 kenseavey@yahoo.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http:llwww.avg.cam Version: 8.0.1761 Virus Database: 270.10.6/1888 -Release Date: 1/12/2009 7:04 AM 2/4/2009 ~®8~~~~ ~G'~9 F~~~: Debbie & Russell Sonberg [sonberg@afaska.nekJ Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:23 AM T~: cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us Cc: xcei@alas#ca.com SeaBoject: Re: Opposed #o any rezone of RR1 & Conservation to Commercial To caTV o~ ~~~~~ ~~~ I am OPPOSED to any rezone of RR1 or conservation as described on the petition. I fully support the neighborhood report that is {or soon will be) submitted for inclusion in the P~iZ packet for the February 11 meeting. I will let the petition and neighborhood report xeflect my position in greater detail. This email is to simply, officially register my opposition to this and any similar rezone to the RR1 MAPS neighborhood. Russell Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 907-283-5880 February 4 2009 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.233 /Virus Database: 270.10.1711934 -Release Da#e: 02/04/09 08:24:00 2/4/2009 ~~ ~®B~~~f19 ~~~~ F~®cav: Debbie 5onberg [debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com] S~r~g: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:11 AM 7°®: cfreas@ci.kenai.ak,us; mkebschull@ci.kenai.ak.us Cc: Colleen Ward; Debbie & Russell Sonberg S~n~aject: Opposed to any re~ane of RR1 & Conservation.to Commercial Please include my statement in the packet that I am OPPOSED to any rezone of RRl or conservation as described on the petition. T fully support the neighborhood report that is (or soon will be) submitted for inclusion in the P~zZ packet for the February l 1 meefing. I will let the petition and neighborhood. report reflect my position in greater detail. This eanail is to simply, officially register any opposition fo this and any similar rezone to the RRI MAPS neighborhood. Debbie ~onberg 410 Cinderella Street I~enai, AK 99611 907283-5880 ~o virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.4.233 /Virus Database: 270.10.1711934 -Release bate: 02/04/09 08:24:00 2/4/2009 ~,~-fry A ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ Z~I~TII~G C~~~E ~~ ~u~ ~®~Inzu~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~'e, tie ~r~dex°sig~~d, A.HE ~Pt'~S.ED to the City o~ ][~e~~i ~r~i~a~ce 2362-20~~ - ~1V~ ®1~lTi~T.r~I~CE ~F TIIE ~~uIiTCII., ~~''T'HE CI'T'Y ~E ~E~I.~4.:~, .A~.I.~ASI~, Al~ENDII~~ ~'IIE ®E~"ICIAL ~~I~Ii~G ~,A~ ~3~ T~E~~NIN~ 'I'~CT ~1, ff'AIP~ J~E'~ ~u~DIVIS.I~I~, CHU~IIE~ ~E~LA'I' ~~®~[ ~uR,r~I~ ~2E5IIIEIVTI~L ~. ~~~~} Ica I1~~I~E~ C~~IV.CERCI~I.~ {~.C~o . Prrira~ed ~~~ae .~- ~ to ~ ~ ~....:. ~.~` ~ ~~~ .~ ~~ ~ ~~ 'i r 4 ~ . ~,.y.. :fr "~ y~4 ~ t! ki"~ n . , -.., .r 1~ ~ . qe , .•~. ~ ~~ ~~~~t~~~ ~3 ,r; ~.4 ~ „~ ~ n ~~y~ic~~ Addxes~ _ 7.. rf l'horee # Ila~~ sa~~ed ... f. ~..-.-- i Y` 4 w !.s{ ~.1 'v ,/LPG f, `~""tc~~~F~~ ,~ i 1/ 1 .. rc r'6 f' ~t.... f r ~. ~ ~fM~=~ {. P ~..~ 'rm~ :t ~.1f~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~~~~ Q~ ---~-/p ~~ p y r .Cn. G~l...~+ ~,, Yt.G~ !~ 7`~1 ~~ k~ ~~ ~P. ~'~' ~ ~ ~-~- 4~1~, ~h~ unc~~~-si~u~d, ,AFIE CD~~'®SED t® the City of ~~~a~ CS~'di~a~a~~ 2362--200 ~- A~ r~~-p~II~yA~7-~,~yCEq~~rg7['H~,~Er C,~(r~-pY, T~~pTC~ii~q~®~Fy ~'~`H/'qL~+p~,~~~I7'~C'~+~y~~~~p',~-+.ENp,~,~, A.A~..p.~,75~ ,~r~,MEI~~IIY~ ,k ~~-p1Ey~~~1r1'~Is~AL~~17H.~ C~~y~-~17~A~LTgi~Vl.('$lC ~ 1 ryR+ly`~,~y~~ll1'~Elir~7~~ly.l~l~d.~ t~-+~ygy~~t+~~}p~~rt~+9-~al~ y~E9~7~-p~ ~1~Y1~ ~V ~~.7~~1.'~I g ~~71 V ~~E H ~~~ R Jk' .ld.~~ ~~J.1C9~~ ~E~7i9JoL' 1V 1 ~8.~ ~ ~Ra~.~~ ~~ I.I~~TED C~1~II~ERCI~iL ~.~}a P~°M~I~E(~ ~~.~~ ~1~i~~BIC~ phi/51.~`a~. ~?.[~[~!'~~S ~h4111~C ~ ~`s$t~~i~ b-``' f / ~ ~ 1 G~`. ~ ^rr r ^y!' .~f~Z.~~ ~~~/ `~ L~ G~~`~ 1 G' ~j'~ ~ ~ 7 ~l. '~ ~~ ~ "' C:Y~ ;~~ ~~b ~ccr~. ~s a ~ a w~ .e , 3~5-~~'~05 ~ l 2 - Z-.Za~~ ~ ,n l ~~' ~3'S~~ / - "~ ~` ~ 7U~ ~n+~c~~c~ ~.v~ a~~-~,~~ da-~,-aroma I., ~~ G[ ~" Gl. (~.~ ° 0 $ 0~~ v~ ~ 83'x? ~ !d `~ ~~©d~ . ~~ ~~S~S~C.~., So ~~3 e2C~ ~,,~,.~ '~ ~ Cf ~o eR ~ ~~ ~ Se ~~ .~ ~, ~o~ me~,nlS~m ~3-~~~~ ~ ~ -~ -~g ~~ s ~ ~ s ~ as ~~ ~ ~ _ !~~ ~~` ~ ~, r } ~.~. ~... ,~ ~d , y~ .f~~ ~~%~-X4`'1. ,~ ~ --~~~~-. -~~~Gyt~...~~ ~ ~ ~ sy r ~ . ~J ~ .,.J ~~ ~..~,ti' ~.w,G~ ~~~~ ~~ i .G ~~lr. .%~ ~- ~ ~/ ~~~~~ ~3 r ~' ~ S' .5 a? l~ ~~ ~~~ V~W7 ~ •W'V"~" ~~"' 1 i -~ Q'"~ ~ ~~"'~ ~~~~~ c ' ' 1 X1.3 4 ^+ ~O ~+~V ~'~ ~~~ ~ tx ~~ A ~ H A~~ k. ® ~.9~~~ ~ d~®1'V~l`!~ ~~J.~1~~ A ® ®V~ ~~~~dJE'~~~ 1L '~~, the un~ersi~ned, ~,~ APP®SE~ ~® the pity ®~ ~ea~~i ~~°dinanee 2362-200 - ArN ~III~I~T~.1~~~ C)~ TI~I+ C®IJN"CII~ ®~' THE CI.'I'~ ~F KE~.A-I, A.I~.As~~A, I~11~E1®iI)I~~ 'I'gI'3~~y~~y~~7'I'~~r~I.AI~ ~~[g)~I~TG;+r~.A~ ~~g~Ig, r~~EZC~]~Li~~~r~y~-p'~g.~T ~A~,-gP.~~FTrA J~~~'S7~p~p~p rye V.kD~9.! i' ~ti7~®~, ~Y~~~~a JC ~~+1-~ 9. ~~®~ ~R11~~L I~1~P~iV i ~~~ ~ ~9`4i~1~ i ~In~g~El~ ~~~~~~~~~~, ~~~}e ~~~ted.l~am.~ ee f ~r~ ~~y~ac~~ A~€~~e~s ~k~®~n~ ## I~~~e ~i~aed S ~~~ .:_ ~~'I`~`i"II~I~T T~ ~~'®~ A ~(71~I~G ~If.~G~ T® I~I~Ii ~iJ11~Y~~NITY ~~--ggVeq ~aah~~~TT ~~nrd~~~+~i~~a~d7g~Alt~'E Cg)~~~P/Ii~S~~ fo~~hge~ ~ig~ry~go~ ~~n~i 7(~~Ir~di~A~n~e 2g~3-6~2-p270~~0g~~~-,SAN ~-v L~.AJ.'Q~A.V~L' ®~ 1 ~~ '~v~L11®Ll~ ®~ l~L`1 ~A i A ~~ ~~J.~I~~g ,['3.~~~d'~1.~~ !'~A'1',11~1~1~~~'l7i ~I]~I?I~ISIC~-N, C~I~~Y PIJA~ ~'ItCDM Rt3~~I~ ~~~ID~1~'I'IAI~ 1 (~~~.} ~I~ I~IIVII~'EI~ I;~~II~II~~CI~.~ ~~;}o Prirat~c~ ~a~xe ~~.~~w ~~ ~~ ~i ~aa ~~r~ ''''~~ ~h,~,~a~~~ ,Add~e~~ lPh ~ ~ l ~x~ r1`.~$J~ f ~:L'.~.ul;/b"'~~~ ~~6~4.A.C.~L /~~~~1~-~'~.~-"J''~'~v`L'1: ~~~ 3 S Date ~i~~aed ~~/~ /~ sr e~ ~, ~ ® ~ ~~°. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' "~ as a> ~ ~ ~°~~~ ca ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ®.~ V ~ a °~ ~ ~ ®~~~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ V ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.g~ o ~ U .~+ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~~~ -~ _ ~ y ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~.~ *~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~~~ u~ ® ~'~`°~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~® ® ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~~~~ E~~®~~~ ~ ~.~~05 ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ a '~ ~ ~ e~ ~~~~ ~ ,~ .~ o~ ~~~~ ~ o~, .+~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ . ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~y ~ ~ '~ ~, ~ ~ °~ w ~ ~ .~ ~ d ~ 1 ,~ ~i a~ ~ .~ .~ ~ v v '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ ~ .~ t .V C G N .~ .~ r `S \~ ~ . /' ~ ~ v u Y ~ ~ ~ ~~ , . ~ ', ~ J ~ \ 1 ~ ~ _ .IJ ' ~ ~ V1 .._~ ~ ? C _ ~ ~ ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ .~ ^ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~, °~ ~~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~,~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ •~~~ °~ ~~~ ®® °~ o ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ "~"~'~'~ ® ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ n~oa ems i a n ~ ~ ri~ V ~ ~ V ~, ~ ~ e '~ -, . ~~~ ~ , ~ , ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~g~ ~~~,~ ~ •. ® ~ ~ C~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Iv >>1 ~~~~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ _ ~ h ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~,,, Em ~! ar ..+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ so ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o .~ '~ ~ ;~ .~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~:~~ ..~ r-t~ ~ v ~~ \~ ~=~ n~ 0 .+ n~ .c~--~ ~~ ~~ ;~ L .~ c=am f ^~ 1 ~~ ~~ s~ ~ ~~~~ C.J ~' '~ tom! ~ ~ ~ ~ [~] ~ ~., `- (7 ~ o ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~- - ~ ~ vii ,~ - ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~n 00 ~ -~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .-~ . ~ ~~~ .~ ~' ~~~ ~ •~ ~~~ ~ ~ ® W~ ~~ ~~~~ U ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ M ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ® ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ °~~ ~~ ~ ®.~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~~,~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~;~~ ~ ~.~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~.d ~ Q a N .~~ r n ~~ h ~~~ ~~ 'V rte. ,~ :~ r :~' ~~ .~^~ lv s ~a ®~ ~, ~ #~ ~ ~ ®~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~~~o~ ~ ~~~® ~ ~, ~~~~ ~ ~~ 93 , J a.' ~ ~. ~~~~ ~ ,may ®~ +~ ~ . ~ ~ d e~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~...' ~ mm~ L~ ~,} .~' V ti .~ N] ~ N ~U ~ ~ ~ V ~v ~ ti ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~v ~ ~~ ~~~~nooo~o~~~o~. G `~' -.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. .~ ~ ~ UJ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ O ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~J O ) ~ ~. } ~ a N ~ ~ ~ o m ~~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ y ~ ~ ~ M ~^y b v ~• O ~ ~ ~~ ~~y ~ .~ ~ ~ v W ~.f? o < ~. /, ~ a o 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .e ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~, C ° °~ ~ Q a , ~~~ ~ a~ ~ e .~ ~' v ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ V ,~' N ~~~ ~ ~ .~~~`~ .~•~~, ~~ ® ,.~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~® ~rn ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~.N ~ ' ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ ®'~ v "o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ®a ~ ~`; ~~~`~ '~ ~ r+ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ .~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~~~ ~_ ~•~ ~~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ®~ _ ~ ~~~ ~ ~. ®~~~ ar -~ ~~ ~ ~ ®• "~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ i9 ~ ~ ~. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ u ~ '°C! as p .~ ~ 1 _ ~~•~~ ~ 6~7 ~J ~'~ C~` C r N' r~ I _. P~ C~ ~ ' ~_~ ~ ~ f C ~ ~ r n~ 6°J ~ c ~ ~ ,/~ s ~ , .:.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `- 5' ; ~? ~ ~~ ~ wC~ o ~ ;1"r ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~. ~I ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^. l.J ~_ as ~ ,~ ~ ~ as ,~ ~ o~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ ~. o ° ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ° a? ~ ~ c a .~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a A ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ® ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .~ ~' °d ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ '°{ V ~~ trA ~ Q 0 ~ ~ ~ ~' A A ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ,. - v , . w ~ ® ~ ~ ~U •~ i~ q r , O ~ ~ f -~ -` F-i a `l/i~ r~l '4 in~l ~ O Al ~ ® S ~ ~ i a {-®, ~-~-i ~ ~ ~ qq ~ y W ~ p y y~ .PSI 1d A® #~ EC 14 //q~ ~~ .~1 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ® c w~ ~hd ~~ ~ ` ~,~ t, ~~y y yy ~ ~ ® ~.I ~ f .J ~ ~i~l rV/a'~ ~ ® yy sw ~ r y ~ ~ y •PI M ~ ~ 1 1 •~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ A ~ .~J . ` ~I ~ ~ ^ i ~ ~ W a~ ~' ~ ~ ~ o~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ®~ ~ ~J •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ®~~ V ~~~~ ~ ® ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ E9A ~ ~° 9d .~~ ®.5 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ®~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ®~~~ s~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~a r~ ~•~~~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~<.~ as ~®~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ; .~ ~ `~ A ~' o~ ~w ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -rte ')1'~0 ~L~I~II~III~~ ~.l~~A ~~l~l~l~+l~ i~~9~R~1~ ~N~ ~~'~'~' ~~ I~ICl~~B ~®~1~i~>111, M1Ci~~>i~l~~ ~~1~.U~~"~'a li~li<a~~~Nl<I~~ alt®~'®~~C, ~+®l~ Sl~~'I'~~1~' ~~` ~i~;I~~.t ~~1J!'t ~'~'~. lf~A"!'~1>l~a l~~l~a~~3~1~~ Z, 2@B09 It has cattle to i~ty attcntinjt pia the newsplper, that there is a pc;titi~~n to i•e-roue sonic of tltc 1Ccnai ~pitr l-1«~y. propcrtics sQtttewltcrc around catadleligltt clt•ivc at• so. I live ott tllc l~ettai spur Higlt~vay at ff480, slid my spausc slid [ ltavc o~~~ttetl t}te larc>pc~rty fis CsUr princig~al t°esiclent;e yinCe 1996° IV1S1 t•esi~Ec;ttcc is aba~tt a tttil~; ar l~:ss ft•otn tltc prnposecl y'c~aznttictg. '~•l~e t•easort we bought this ltoitse was ntativated vy tlac i'act that it was alt the [tigliwa~~ slid iii cInse proxitttity to the clcmentary, ntidcile, attd high scltnnl. "1"ltcre was t~cry ltttlc: naFrtmcrcial ar retail attd mostly Mice residettcc~s and lets nfchurches ant! resiclcttti~tl pt•aperty ott the hi~,h~vay af3d was tatted as residential. ~Ie e~ °o star @°esiale@tec as the hi's l~ev~a v`t;@° etttaeh. 'l< he ade~ ati ~€aIl}~ ~Bthe~- tl~aan r°esi~ential ~Wil1 ~dtii mot's ®61Io$F tY'ZB~~iC 5t@°ess sax°at@ttcl tl~c seitoals, dh~@ra:hey, a~~ ~A!! fife ottte@` ~•csacle~ees. eve@• ills fl~st f~eev~r yep@•s there Mt~ve beset @taaaaiera~s ser~c@-e tend !a!'e et@~@i@tg cr~sltcs a@t this sectiatrt ®~ the hagla~va~~ slid its at @tt~tter o!` faIlet tl2G.'@'6' lulls Otte l~ci!!a@®~ s~ecicle~@# right tte~t door to @t@c° Last ~~eeic tlaet•e Svc@°e sevet•~! t@@tc! o@te talrgicleHalo®~@~ vehicle right ire frost tBi' t!@c !sigh se8raa!° ~hct~l~ ~vatli the iBOlice ~lep~a•t~x@c~at arc! yoaa •~a!! ~:ertaanl~f ~@1[~ tOEt~ Qb1 A~~iQl~HIlt~ Zb~L1$i~ tit@S qtr@~B° ~'e ~eal~ 1~lc~ li~a€~ a~a tits kti h~~~~; ~~ath at§ aceess aged gtticl~ sgiar~ re~t~k~~~l, bit ~rdttiueg othet• thaB~ @•esidetnees vas ~ re-~ea@~iHIlg Q1YDly G416Di1((1 ~fl0~ 1~~ ~~@~e° ~C fec! thcrc~ is aBaceaty of @°ma@~Il !~o@' otlRl',$' tha~a Il°~~ttDL`@tEi~! ~aa~i~g a@t ~tlt~Y° ll~cBIlAa A@'~'s'33 to@aQ! Z9E"~ strcta~gl;~ ag~i~st thas IlRflo@'Q:AtIl~l~t to @'~~~a~teo'~e t!o @~ot ~~a@rt to sec st@ty ~,~aa°e ca@•ive~~~~ys to ills high~~•ay sec! !By ot6tcr tloa@@ for @°esialeatti~! aBt@~°iBfases ~@~a! s~zt°eay c!o mot ~-~~nt this seeta®tt of the ltuglttvay to !Dolt` !il~e the resacae~'tia!lctB@tamet°cioE at@@~! €levelage@@aetst mess aIlS tie scc ooa this high~vaay sIlaBrtlt mf l~e~n~a" ~itt~ea°e!1'9 ,.• ~~yattaz'c! ~tigcBa° ~~$4 l€~c~e~a ~~a@r ll~agh~v~t~' ll~c@~Aa, ~~{ 9~Glt ~ ~9Q`7) ~~~-~~~`~ i~'@• a *ei.@ea~t ~ cc. Mrs. Debbie ~onbetg f,~~ ~ 1~ March 2, zoos -Kenai loses court appeal Management decision on rec center costs city in fees "The city had appealed Kenai Superior Court Judge Warold Brown's ruling that the city should pay "reasonable attorney's Fees" to the public interest group known as Friends of the Recreation Center inc., which claimed Kenai violated its own municipal code by giving a management contract to Boys and Girls Clubs. The contract was awarded in 2003 without being put out for bid, as required by Kenai statute." An Anchorage attorney, .john Havelock, said, "The court went out of its way to affirm Judge Brown's ruling that the city had misinterpreted its own ordinance," htt : Enrww. eninsulaciarion.co stories X30206 netnrs 0302newoal.shtml April 19, 200 -Reader: Are we no longer welcome in Old Town? Kathryn Tomrdle wrote about concerns if her neighborhood was rezoned to Commercial Mixed Use since many of the residents had lived there mare than 30 years. "What this means is that there can be no alterations to homes, apartments or property unless a variance is granted from planning and zoning." ht~ www.r~eninsulaciarion.com stories 04~.90~' letters 2~070419~(} .shtrr~l October 17, 2007 - dunk Rec Center, buffers on docket "After a dozen residents from the 5prucewaad Glen Subdivision protested the removal of trees in a strip of city-owned land along Walker Lane at the last city council meeting, city administration is proposing two options for establishing the strip as a buffer between the residential neighborhood and commercial development to the west." Homer Electric Association wanted a 20 foot easement to bring power to the Aspen building. "A plat in the 1970s had noted the land as a buffer strip, but a subsequent plat in the 1980s did not include the annotation." The final decision, "After some discussion, the city council agreed to give HFA a 20- footwide utility easement behind the hotel now, in exchange fora 60-foot easement coursing through the middle of the strip." hie-t www. eninsulaclarian.cc~m stories 1.0~70~' news 4~272shtr~l February 22, 2oas --Airport Reserve to be rezoned? Kenai City Council considers light industrial development "The first stone was tossed into the rezone pond Wednesday night as the Kenai City Council tack up a recommendation to change all airport reserve lands surrounding the airport from conservation to light industrial use. The suggestion to "rezone nearly 1,080 acres away from the relatively pristine classification to one allowing for same development came to the council by way of a motion of the city's Airport Commission." htt~lJwww.peninsulaclarion.com~stories/022?OSlnews 3$90.shtrnl september ~s, zoos ~ Tir~te spent voicing opinions was wasted Glenn Fore, along with about a dozen residents, spoke at a Kenai Planning and Zoning meeting. They were against a permit allowing a business to operate in their residential neighborhood. Mr. Fore expressed that all of the residents who spoke were against the permit, yet the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission approved it. "One of the comments from the commission was that the neighborhood would not be "significantly impaired." To the residents of our neighborhood, any impairment is significant." hf~;~J/wwvvnDOninsu(aciarion.eorryLlc©ries/091~Q811et 284225737.shtnnl December 7, zoos -Students Recruited for Kenai rezone protest Public commented on the proposed rezone for the Papa Jae's Subdivision Kenai Ordinance 2362-2008. "A longtime resident, Patricia Falkenberg, said she petitioned the neighborhood and received 43 signatures out of 49 people opposing the rezone." Residents and high school students read from a 12 page document about the opposition far the rezone. The paper cited a 1996 Homer court case ruling against spot zoning. hti:o:l/www.r~eninsulaclarion.comistories/12070$Inew 36480~OJ.1.shtml ,January 4, 2009 -Rezoning on Kenai docket: Meetings slated to discuss Limited Comr~nercial labs! "Kenai officials have scheduled two public meetings in hopes of quelling controversy surrounding the potential rezoning of rural residentia! property along the Kenai Spur Highway across from the high school... The lot, which fronts on the highway, has residentia! properties on the other three sides. More than a dozen residents protested the proposed. rezone during the Dec. 3 Kenai City Council meeting saying they want their neighborhood to remain residential... The Limited Commercial zone was created in April 2005 to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts in Kenai by allowing smaller businesses, mixed residential and other compatible-uses that complement and do not detract from adjacent districts." httg:i.~,www.penlnsulaclarion.com/stories/010409/nevv 28fl5981316.shtml ~~ ~ ~~ Monday, l=ebruary ~, zooo -Kenai Gun Shop Gets Turned Down A gun shop was proposed in a residential neighborhood was voted down by Planning and Zoning. Neighbors and other Kenai residents opposed the permit. htp( www. eni sul clarion.com stories 02Q713i3/nevu Q2glgqnewqql..ht~~•tl .lone 1~, zooo -Proposed Business Upsets Neighbors "The possibility of a construction business next door to a rural residential neighborhood has got some people in the area up in arms. Aconditional-use permit request will come before the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday night that, if approved, will allow the project to go forward." A neighbor was upset over the time frame given in order for him to prepare a statement for the commission. He did not want planning and zoning to delay and wanted them to vote no. htt wwv~F. eni•isulac#Arian.corrEfsi:ories~tl~i13C10(new Ufil.~ggqQq3.shtt~~1 Friday, October z6, 2go1-Kenai planning session worthy o~ residents' tune An opportunity for residents to give opinions during the work session regarding updating the comprehensive plan was posted in the Kenai Peninsula Clarion. l~tt,~~°.f~VdllllyV., ~i~~p~~ia~iai-iorr CUmLs~orles1~~~GO1/oi~~_ ~.a26gi~dlt~s~ri~l.sl~ti~•~I Friday, December 7, zoos -Kenai Plan Corning Together "After an Oct. z7 public meeting, where attendees were turned into participants, scores of ideas were distilled into five pages of recommendations by the consulting firm Kevin Waring Associates of Anchorage.° Goals listed were: 1. Create an attractive, vital, cultural center in downtown, with a mix of private and public facilities and activities to benefit residents and visitors. 2, Protect and enhance the livability of residential neighborhoods. 3. Meet the needs of Kenai's growing senior population. 4. Limit residential and commercial sprawl. 5. Arovide appropriate city facilities and levels of service. 6. Protect the city`s natural areas and scenic views. 7. Develop a local system of trails and public access. 8. insure that Kenai is a safe place to live. 9. Improve educational services for all age groups. iq. expand or provide public facilities that increase the quality of life for Kenai's citizens and visitors. ht_ 'tea:/ wtnrw~..eninsulaclarion.cor~ls~rics~zo~a~~new izQ7Q10ElQS.shtrni Duly io, zgoz -Council OKs New 'school zone' "Many schools in Kenai, like Sears and Mountain View Elementary schools, Kenai Central high School and Kena! Middle School, are in areas that are zoned residential, so the schools have to conform to the rules of that zone. The problem is that schools aren't designed as homes and aren't used the same way homes are. In fact, they function more like commercial buildings than homes, said Marilyn Kebschull, city planner for Kenai," The article stated in the past, the schools had to request a conditional use permit to do things such as landscaping and signage. harp: www. eninsulaclarian.com stories 071dOZ n w 710gz0005.shtml Duly zz, zgo2 -Council Hears Zoning Plight "The council held a Board of Adjustments hearing in council chambers regarding a piece of property in the Anglers Acres Subdivision. The lot is zoned rural-residential and has an existing conditional-use permit tp al#ow a Fishing guide business with no more than three guides to operate off the property. The owner of the lot, Gary Foster, applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission to modify the permit tp allow him to build up to five rental cabins on the property." The amendment was approved and a neighbors were unhappy, so the decision was appealed by a neighbor, i~tt~:/_Iwww.pcninsulaclarion.comLstories~~'zzo2/new 07z~OZQOQ1.si~trr~! .~ July 24, 2003 -Kenai officials miss point about rec center decision Carol 13renckle wrote, "Instead of trying to work with the Friends and the Parks and Recreation Commission to open the rec center, the Kenai city manager and members of the city council continue to work "behind closed doors" independently of public opinion. The mayor denied a request by the parks and Recreation Commission to schedule an emergency meeting to discuss reopening the rec center under a plan submitted by former city employees to operate the rec center pending a final resolution of this case." ht~p://www.~aeninsufacfarian.corn/staHeslOy240~/let 0~2~F03fet00100i.shtm! September 2f, 2003 -Kenai Woman Caught on Fence In September 2002, Nancy Henricksen of Groomingdales appealed Planning and Zoning's decision about a permit to operate her business from her home to the city council which acted as a board of adjustment. The board decided to award her the permit, on the condition she put up alight-obscuring fence in her backyard. Henricksen explained her financial situation in not being able to afford a new fence. She finally put tarps over her fence to make it sight- obscuring. hf'~t3:///tNwenr, e~~insulaclarior~.COm/stories Og21.03/netinr 092I03new~0~OQ~.siltE~nf January 6, zoa5 - RV park planners a no show Washington based developers wanted to put an RV park near VIP Estates. After being turned down, they filled out an appeal but did not receive a notice In the mail until after the hearing had passed. "Karen Koester, a VIP Estates resident, testified in strong aversion to an RV park. She said her neighborhood is important to Kenai, and that transient visitors would not be good far fine area. She called upon the board to preserve and protect the neighborhood from the appealed request." ht-ft~: www.peninsulaciarian.coi~n/stories/010G05/news 010Gnew002001.shtrnl May io, 2ao5 --Green grass or green cash? Kenai to decide whether to allow developrr~er~t ofLawton,4cres "The Kenai City Council on Wednesday agreed to allow the city's planning and zoning commission to address the issue of rezoning the strip of city-owned land, known as Lawton Acres. The land sits between the Kenai Spur Highway to the north and Lawton Drive to the south. Et currently is zoned for conservation purposes, meaning it must be left untouched." ham: vdww. eninsulaclarion.cam/stories/05~Or?5 news O~~.onew00300~..shtml March 4, 2005 -- Kenai QKs IVeW ZOne The Limited Commercial Zone was created for areas where residential and commercial uses are close together, "The idea of creating the zone came about fast year, when small business owners Nate and Gina Kiei came before the council asking that a strip of land known as Lawton Acres be opened to business development. The land is at the eastern edge of the city's business district along the Kenai Spur Highway. Currently, the land serrres as a strip of undeveloped land between the highway and a residential neighborhood." Nate Kell was in support of a new zone. "Another Lawton resident, Roy Wells, however, cautioned the city to move slowly when it comes to zoning areas that could impact residential areas." http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/030405/news 030~new002.shtmf June ~, zoos -Kenai faces growth spurt City will decide whether to open land to building Lawton Acees was considered for a Limited Commercial Zone. The area was considered changing from Conservation to Limited Commercial, ht~p_//www.~ninsufaciarion.,cam,Ltories/U50705 news 06t~~newr)020D1.shtnal June I2, zoos -Staying in bounds... what others say "The decision by the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission not to rezone Lawton Acres for limited business development makes sense." A reason being, "Recent efforts by the Kenai Economic Development Strategy {KEDS} group have highlighted the need to develop a mare defined town center. Opening up more [and along the Kenai Spur Highway would only thwart these efforts, further adding to Kenai's reputation as a sprawling, disconnected Gity. •• htt~//www.peninsulaclarion.cam/stories/061205laped OG].2ope00300~..shtrnl ~` TRA~~lC PiA1TERtdS... 7.1 Valid Planning issue During. the February 4, 1998, Board of Adjustment Hearing the applicant's representative stated, ".., we feel a traffic problem, if it exists, is a traffic problem and not =a property development problem and, we Think we would like to respectfufiy suggest that traffic problems be addressed with traffic control items." {Board of adjustment Hearing, Chumley/Chumley Appeal, February 4, i 998, Page 6) The residents of the neighboring lots respectfully disagree. -The Planning Commissioner's Handbook (.tune 1 993, State of Alaska) validates traffic as a sound:planning and zoning concern in the following statement: The effects on traffic congestion are also mentioned some in the conditional use section of a zoning ordinance. A permit granted or denied under this standard has a better chance of surviving judicial review if it is based on a credible traffic study which quantifies the effects of the proposed use. {68) 7.2 Traffic Study and Pertinent Statistical Data Residents of the neighborhood conducted counts of three main areas: (1) children in the neighborhood and at Iota! schools { 2) number of ears entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway, and (3} a count of clientele entering & exiting other professional offices to represent a possible traffic sampling for the proposed professional offices traffic. These counts were conducted by neighborhood residents around such priorities as family, school, jobs, and neighborhood issues in an all too short allowable time frame. Although they may not be an official traffic study, they do show that there is a traffic impact on the neighborhood and surrounding area that must be considered. 7.2. 1 The number of children potentially affected by traffic concerns who five on the north side of the Spur Highway and who must cross a five lane highway to get to their respective schools is currently at 70 and will climb to 71 in approximately three months. The ages of these children range and the number is relative to change. See attachment # 7 far recorded tally of survey. The number of children enrolled in the area school are: 475 at Kenai Central High School, 455 at Kenai Middle School and 409 at Mountain View Elementary. These statistics establish the fact that many children will. feel the impact of the council's decision concerning this CUP now and for years to come. 7.2.2 The number of cars entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur i-lighway were tallied at three different counts. Number of vehicles going in to the high school: * first count 1:55 p. m. to 2:50 p.m. 66 * second count12:45 p. m. to 3:00 p.m. 83 * third count 7:07 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. ~ 1 65 {as many as 47 in a 15 minute period) (as many as 10 in a one minute period) * fourth count7:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 191 Number of vehicles exiting the high• school '"' first count 7:00 a. m. to 10:30 a.m. * second count 12:45 p. m. to 3:00 p: m. * third count 7:07 a.m. to'7:45 a. m. (offset exit from Cinderella St.}: 90 78 79 {as many as i 8 in a 9 minute period) (as many as 12 in a one minute period) "~ fourth count7:00 a. m. to i 0:30 a. m. 50 ...~ 1' `~ Increases in traffic flows at peak hours due to the Kenai ~i~ddle School traffic flaw have nat been included in these counts. . 7.2.3 Professional Offices clientele traffic (information obtained by phone calls to the businesses): - (1 } A Dental Clinic (2) A Medical Walk in Facility (3) A Medical Specialist (4) Tanning Salon {5) A Hair Salon (6) A Chiropractic Clinic (7) An lnsurance Agent 7.3 Conclusions - a ~~ .-. 25+ vehicles per day plus 5-6 employees 20 on a slow day plus 3-4 employees 60 on a heavy day plus added employees 40 on office days (non-surgical days} 30 on off-season days plus 2 employees 90 on in-season days 30 to 50 in the winter plus 4-5 employees (doubled in the summer} 50 per day plus 4 employees 50 per day plus 3 to 4 employees 7.3.1 Traffic Related Safety Issues Exists. The Chumleys' application is for two professional office buildings. The number of stories or businesses in each is still undisclosed or unknown. Assuming that each building held only one professional office, based on.the above clientele counts for two professional offices, in and out trafftc, the clientele numbers above would have to be quadrupled to account for the traffic. Each of the two offices would have in and out traffic for each client served. It is entirely feasible that each building, even if single story, could house two or more professional offices. Each building could be two stories high (or higher), and double the traffic possibilities. Considering the traffic from the high school, added to the traffic from a minimum of two professional offices, congestion could become unmanageable around the high school exit-and Cinderella Street without further traffic assistance (such as a traffic light at an already unaligned intersection -- just planning the traffic light might be a nightmare). Due to the general nature of the drivers at the high school, a higher number of inexperienced drivers use its entrance and exit than any other single driveway system in the City of Kenai. Not one map presented by the Chumleys has shown the location of the high school exit in relation to their proposed site plan. 7.3.2 One 'Accident is One Toa Wlany. Unfortunately the peak traffic congestion times are also the times children are walking to and from school. It is obvious from the data collected that safety risks, particularly to our children, will escalate if this CUP is approved. This is of utmost concern to the neighbors and rightfully should carry tremendous weight in making the decision to approve or decline the CUP. n ALASKA D&PARTNf6NT OF TRANSPORTATl~ic ..~ ds.- cite Cane : 333333 33 PAGB: 1 N-.9 Street; Tinker F1LB; Cin~erap • . 3-VI Street: Kenai Spur GCF : D,.98 ~,Gl6~42 ~~ Neather ; cold #iovements try: Pri mary DATB: 10/24/96 Time ,,.. Frog South .... .~... From Wesc .... .... From North ,.., ,... From Bast ,.,, Vehicle peels 3egin peels RT THRU uT pods. RT THRU i,T pads RT THRU GT peds~ RT TNRU GT Tatal Tatal 0:04 AM J 0 0 1 0 2 21 0 0 D U 0 0 0 JB 0- `----62~---~ -0 6 ;15 0 1 0 1 0 1 23 a D 4 0 0 0 0 J9 D 69 0 0:34 0 2 0 6 4 4 24 i 4 2 D 0 0 0 98 1 $2 0 6;95 D 0 0 0 b 1 24 0 0 1 Q 0 D 0 74 1 i01 0 8R TOTAL 0 3 0 2 0 8 92 1 0 1 _ 0~ 0 0 D 199 2 319 0 '':DO Af9 0 1 0 1 0 3 29 1 0 0 0 0 b 0 03 12 105 0 . ?:15 1 ? 0 9 0 10 30 0 D D 0 J 0 0 50 i1 112 1 1134 D 19 4 i0 D 1? 37 ~ D 0 2 .. 0 ? ?? :D 142 U :95 0 $ 0 2 0 5 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 2 127 D HR TOTAL 1 30 4 ±? D 35 i39 3 6 0 2 2 Q 1J 206 3§ 98.6 1 3;OD AH J :, i 1 0 .~ 46 2 :} i 0~ 0 D i3 05 u 143 0 3:15 3 9 0 10 l 0 ?4 2 0 0 0 D 0 0 94 4 i94 0 :;;J4 v 9 J ;3 D 5 ~3 i; 0 i 0 u tj D 109 ''a ~ 234 U 8:95 ~ 0 4 0 16 ~? 7 101 D 0 2 b 1 0 0 112 6 249 0 'R TOTAI~ 0 i? I 46 0 i5 314 4 J 4 J i J i9 380 19 $20 0 9:OD AM 0 6 0 b D 6 101 0 U b 0 0 0 2 6? 2 19Q 0 ?:15 0 D 0 i0 D 3 5$ 1 ') 2 D 1 4 0 54 3 128 0 9:30 D 4 0 3 D 9 63 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 66 2 14$ 0 9:95 4 0 4 1 0 I ?3 J D i 0 0 ~} 0 54 a 139 0 R TOTAL 0 1U 0 20 0 19 295 9 0 3 0 2 0 2 293 045 0 D:UO AM D 5 i} 1 0 1 69 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?1 1 151 4 :0:15 0 G J, 1 0 0 ?0 0 0 i D u 0 1 69 l 143 0 .0;30 0 2' 0 5 0 K 'S J J J D ~} .} 0 ", i D I64 0. :t:45 0 0 0 4 2 s ?i 0 0 D D G 0 0 86 2 16 8 2 ::~ T'~'1'AL ? '} .t 6 .i S$'J r ~} ~ 'ti ~ F S43 1 0 o2bF 2 =i:04 AAf 0 5 0 2 0 4 05 24 0 ? 0 0 4 0 70 6 183 0 1:15 1 2 0 2 0 3 39 3 0 0 0 0 '° 0 5 56 3 1G3 1 ';i:30 0 2 0 ? 0 6 107 3 0 2 D 0 D 2 94 4 22? 0 :1:95 0 2 0 2 0 2 10$ I J 0 0 J 0 0 11$ 0 239 0 ;1R TOTAL 1 I1 4 i3 DS 15 369 3l 0 9 0 0 D 7 338 19 812 1 :u:00 PM 0 s' 0 i i} 3 ?2 U D !} 0 0 D i 93 4 i$J 0 :2:15 D 3 O i 0 5 123 0 0 J 1 0 0 U $4 3 223 D X2:30 0 b 0 ; J 3 r2 2 D i D 0 D 0 103 3 193 0 a2a95 0 1 0 15 D $ 116 2 D 1 0 0 4 0 101 I 245 D R TOTAL 0 3 D 30 0 i1 383 9 U 5 1 J 0 1 J81 11 844 0 i:DD PM D 1 1 10 0 4 130 2 0 D 4 0 0 1 43 2 244 0 6:15 D J 0 a 0 7 119 2 0 1 a 0 0 4 99 J 236 0 1:3D 0 7 0 4 D 5 199 5 D 1 0 2 0 1 104 2 275 0 1:95 4 1 4 3 D 6 12b 1 0 I D 0 O D $9 3 234 0 RR TOTA6 0 12 1 19 0 22 519 10 0 3 0 2 D 0 2 385 10 985 4 .~ ~ ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING APPEAL OF LEIGH/BUZZELL APRIL 1 S, 1995 PAGE 45' ~ ~ ~'~.~ ._. Espy; To the best of knowledge; yes. And I don't know that`this is a closing statement, but I ani here to'try to make this personal to you people because this is very personal to me. I am a wife, a rrxother, a community 3•nember, a neighbor in this area, and someone. who's activetin~.Kenai: anda have~.a=big,concern for Kenai. I graduated frbin Kerrai° Cex°itral High School'and•sa•I feel I~ can try to make this personal'to you peaple•~sa that's what I'm fining to~attempt to do. I don't know whether you want to consider this as a closing. carrirnezxt or not. My Husband and I purchased our home on McCallum Drive because we fell in love with it the first that we pulled into the driveway fucked into this quiet little neighborhood. We ~maved in with our two small sons on November fx#'th, 1988, the same day George Bush was elecfed as president of the United States: We soon began attending church~~ right there~~iri nth€s ~heighborhood: ~:t ~" , ,.- : ~ ., ~ ... . In 1.991, we felt really good~about bringing our fwo new adopted daughters, age eight and nine, from Portland, Oregon to Kenai, Alaska to complete our family. We had so much to offer them. ~ Two parents to love'them. Two brothers totorment them and a cosy little log cabin on IVIcCollum Drive in the beautiful city of Kenai. There was Laura Sue and -Kaleen~ newt door and Becky just around the corner. Our children grew. One by one ~ they have YnovecT frorri school to school' here. First Patrick onto Kenai Middle School. Then Stacy. I11 never forget the'terror~I had when I. learned about the trouble she had carving from school one day from that school. I thought everything was perfect. I foolishly thought she could safely cross the Spur Highway from the Middle ~Sclaaol~to her home..It was so short of a distance..~We were so blessed that day that slie' didn't get hurt. ~ She began to crass the Spur and got half way when she slipped and~~ fell. ~ She had enough tune to pick herself up and run back to the side she started from before the car going 55 miles per hour descended on her. That's when I knew we had to do something, about the safety of all our children on this highway. l drove my kids back and forth until the expansion project brougYat the stop light. At the P&Z~xneeting on March 25~',~it.was stated that the speed limit on this section of the highway was lowered from.55;~miles .per.hou~.ta 45 miles per, hour for the purpose of accommodating~more traffic. I remembei° it differently; I believe the speed limit was lowered to 45 miles per hour when.it was determined that many children cross this section of highway to~travel to and from school. It.was for the safety of the children. I deduct this franc a conversation I had on the telephone with Mr. Horn before the highway expansion project began, who wars and still is the head of the State's DOT BOARD OF ADJiJSTMEN'T,~I~EARINGf'~ APPEAL OF~LEIGH%B1rJZZELL' '`'~` '"' ~''- APRIL 15, 1998 PAGE 46 and i apoiogiae, I don't have the date far that conversatian~ that lie and I had. And I remenr~ber trying=to. lower itrtor35•$nibs::Viper=hoili~a.~IEStill;think~that it should be 35 nniles, per hour here in~this area. I fought long acid hard~far safety measures to be ruade for our .children who have to cross this section of the,highway.~every day while attending school. :The Borough does not pay for busing for our neighborhood, Kenai Middle School and~Kenai Central High School students. The city council agree that there was a safety issue and that some sort.~f plan needed to..be rxiade to accommodate the children. Finally the state gave in and. agreed .to .put in: the :stoptlightiwith~pedestrian..cx:assing._,.... ` _ ... . , E l 1. ~ ~ ~ . Y . ~ ~ ~ 1.1 s . Please remember this issue where you make your decision. Please remerz~.ber why you supported that effort. Please don't make the decision to. add snore traffic for xny children to cozatend with. W~-moved here to offer our children what we have now and we hope to be able. to. offer. my grandchildren tl~e same thing. T never dreamed 1 would have to be. dealing,.with the possibility that our rieighborhaad would or could be. issued this kind of permit, Please don't take our residential. neighborhood away frorz~: us. ~ ... Neighbors are important to me. ~T`wo..gentleznen sand to.gain financially from. this. Numerous people stand to lose.. I would welcame~these two~men into our neighborhood if they wanted to live ~tk,~er~ .with ~us. The ~anly~ danger that .I pose to them is. that I make some pretty cookies that I.like to share with our neighbors. Outside of being a wife, a ~nnarn and a~neighbar here, I devote the rest of axiy time to helping Kenai be a better place for everyone~to live. I help neighbors to help neighbors. I'zn asking you to think of any.family and all of any neighbors tonight when you make your ;decision~that ~ivill affect.us ver3r,.very personally. Thank you. ~Vi]lilaanso Thank you very much. All right. I think were taken probably all of the testimony that's pertinent to the hearing this evening...i:want to thank both sides. You~re both been.yery eloquent.in your presentations, There are some lingering questions, I'm sure, that members of the council xnay have and most definitely myself, Weil be doing a lot of thinking and examination of the.materials that we have and will be working very cXosely with the administration in developing our decision. As you know, when we develop the decision from the past record, we will vote one way or the other, there'll be room far each person to personally identify their feeling on the particular issue. Ah, we do have 30 days in which to coanplete the appeal process, During that tirrxe, eaccuse sne, again all of the material will be examixaed very closely and we will be able to present what the council feels to be a justified decision. .. . ... ~,t, .. , .,~ . ~.~~-~. ---__ -~/ the cc'ty u f ~~ SEHAIV SKA MEMO: ,~~°ll~ e ~ct~ ~ Pest GL r~lt~r a Fray ~ .~ 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99691-7794 Telephone: 907-283-75351 FAX: 907-253-3014 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1992 4 T®: Planning & Zoning Commission .~~'~ FROM; Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administration " Y '~, ®ATE: February 3, 2009 SEDBJECT: KMC 14.20.240 ~- Mobile Horner In 2006, KMC 14.20.240 was amended to provide standards for mobile homes permitted in the City of Kenai and #o provide for building permits for mobile homes. During the past year, administration has recognized inconsistencies in the code. Building permits expire within ninety (sDJ days unless an extension has been granted. However, in KMC 14.20.240~c)(6) requires that the mobile home be skirted within 90 days. There is no process wherein an extension can be granted. The proposed ordinance would provide for an extension to complete the skirting, A public hearing will be scheduled on the proposed amendment. {-~1~~''~ .~ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION '~ ' S~'~ RESOLUTION NO. PZ09-OS t{teco~af IiENAI~ SKA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THAT KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) BE AMENDED TO ALLOW AN EXTENSION FOR THE NINETY (90) DAY TIME LIMIT FOR SKIRTING IN MOBILE HOMES PLACED IN MOBILE HOME PARKS. WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) provides that mobile homes placed in mobile home parks must be skirted within ninety {90) days of placement in the mobile home park; and, WHEREAS, during the winter months, the weather can make it difficult to skirt mobile homes placed in mobile home parks within the ninety (90) day period; and, WHEREAS, the Building Official should have the authority to grant an extension of the ninety (90) day period. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, amend KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) of the City of Kenai Code of Ordinances as follows: (6} Skirting. All mobile homes shall be skirted within ninety (90) days of placement iri a mobile home park unless an extension is ranted. The skirting shall be in such a manner as to withstand the elements and all access openings in skirting shall be closed when not in use and made of solid panels. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 25th day of February 2009. ATTEST: CHAIRMAN New text underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED ANi7 ALL CAPS] ,~~~~'~` __,~-__ h _~ ;:_; ~lheai~of, I(ENAI~ S~iA Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE NO. *-2009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, KMC 14.20.240(c){g) TO ALLOW AN EXTENSION FOR THE N LIMIT FOR SHIRTING IN MOBILE HOMES PLACED IN MOBI: WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.240(c) (6} provides that mobile parks must be skirted within ninety (90) days of place and, WHEREAS, during the winter months, the homes placed in mobile home parks within WHEREAS, the Building Official should have the a ninety (90} day period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINEI ALASKA, that KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) of amended as follows: (6) Skirting. All m h. placement in obile skirting sh 'n su access openin ski solid panels. AMENDING ~) DAY TIME PARKS. in mobile home file home park; can ake it difficult rt mobile :ty (9 ay period; , an extension of the UNCIL E CITY OF KENAI, jai Co of Ordinances is hereby hall b rted within ninety (90) days of park u ~~ss an extension is ranted. The anner as thstand the elements and all .be ed when not in use and made of OF KENAI, ALASKA, this day of 2009. PAT PORTER, MAYOR Carol L. Freas, Introduced: 2009 Adopted: 2009 Effective: 2009 New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACT~1'ED] O~ AC3`I0~1T AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL -- REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2009 7:00 P.M, KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS http: / /www.ci.kenai.ak.us IfiEM A: CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Consent Agenda *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. ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS { 10 minutes) ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS {3 minutes} ITEM D: REPORTS OF KPB ASSEMBLY, LEGISLATORS AND COUNCILS ITEM E: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to ~ minutes per speaker.} PASSED UNAMMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2375-2009 -- Amending KMC 20.50.010{c) Changing the Range that Police Trainees are Paid While at the Police Academy in Sitka from a Range 2 to a Range 2, Step F. 2. PASSED UNAMMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2376-2009 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by X4,000 in the General Fund Fire Department for a State Grant. 3. PASSED UNAMMOUSLY. Ordinance No, 2377-2009 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $200,500 in the Airport Special Revenue mind and the Courthouse Parking Capital Project Fund for Construction.. 4. PASSED UNAMMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2378-2009 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $5,417 in the General Fund for State Traffic Grant Overtime Expenditures. 5. PASSED UNAMMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2379-2009 -- Authorizing a Budget Transfer of ~ 10,000 From the General Fund Parks to the General Find Non-Departmental and Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by ~ 10,000 in the Dunes Rehabilitation Capital Projects Fund for Protective Fencing. 6. PASSED UNAMMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2380-2009 -- Appropriating $325,000 Fram Airport Funds to Purchase Certain Improvements on Property Known as Tract A-1-A, Baron Park Subdivision, Fire Addition From the University of Alaska. 7. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2009-02 -- Authorizing the City to Enter Into an Agency Find Agreement with the Kenai Community Foundation. 8. TRANSFER APPROVED. TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE -- From Amy Bowen, d/b/a One Stop Liquors to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Wal-Mart Supercenter #4474. ITEM F: 1. 2009. ITEM G: ITEM H; 1. 2. MINUTES APPROVED BY CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of January 21, UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVED. Bills to be Ratified APPROVED. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding X15,000 3. INTRODUCED BY CONSENT AGENDA, *Ordinance No. 2381-2009 --- Arnending the Development Requirements Table in KMC 14.24.020 to Provide for Front Setbacks of Twenty-Five (25) Feet, Side and Rear Setbacks of Ten (10) Feet in the Light Industrial (IL), Heavy Industrial (IH), Central Commercial (CC], General Commercial (CG) and Central Mixed Use Zones (CMU). ITEM I: COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council on Aging 2. Airport Commission 3. Harbor Commission 4, Library Commission 5. Parks & Recreation Commission 6. Planning & Zoning Commission 7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees a. Beautification Cornnnittee b. Alaska Municipal League Report c. Mini-Grant Steering Committee d, Advisory Cemetery Committee e. Kenai Convention & Visitors Bureau f. Salmon Task Force ITEM J: REPORT OF THE MAYOR ITEM K: ADMINISTRATION REPORTS 1. City Manager 2. Attorney 3. City Glerk ITEM L: DISCUSSION 1. Citizens (five minutes) 2. Council ITEM M: PENDING LEGISLATION (This item lists legislation which will be addressed at a later date as noted.) Ordinance No. 2362-2008 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision, Chumley Replat From Rural Residential 1 (RRI) to Limited Commercial (LCD. Ordinance No, 2365-2008 -- Amending KMC 1.80.010 by Increasing the Mayor's Salary From $900 to $1,000 Per Month and Council Members' Salaries From X400 to X500 Per Month. (Clerk's Note: Ordinance No. 2365-2008 was tabled to the first meeting in July, 2009, to allow for further consideration of a salary increase during the budget FY10 budget process.} EXECUTIVE SESSION -- None Scheduled ITEM N: ADJOURNMENT KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ASSEMBLY CHAMBERS 144 NORTH BINKLEY STREET SOLDOTNA, ALASKA February 9, 2009 - 7:30 P.M, Tentative Agenda Philip Bryson Chairman Kenai Cily Term Expires 2010 Paulette 8okenko- Carluccio PC Member City of Seldovia Term Expires 2009 Alice Joanne Collins Anchor Point/ Ninilchik Term Expires 2090 Dr. Rick Foster PC Member Homer City Term Expires 2010 Mari Anne Gross PC Member Southwest Borough Toren Expires 2011 James (sham PC Member Storting Term Expires 2009 Bren#Johnson PC Momber KasiloflClam Gulch Term Expires 2009 Harry Lockwood PC Member Ridgeway Term Expires 2010 t3lair Marlin Vice Chairman Kalifornsky Beach Term irxpires 2009 Sue McClure PC Member City of Seward Term Expires 2091 Linda Murphy PC Member Soldolna Ciiy Term Expires 2013 Todd Peterson PC Member East Peninsula Term Expires 2010 A. CALL TO ORDER B, ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA A11 items marked with an asferlsk (") are consent agenda items. Consent agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commisslon 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 Chairman of your wish to comment. *1. Time Extension Requests a. Wayne Fellers Subdivision 2007 Addition KPB File 2007-246 [JOhnsanlBlOSSam] Location: West of Kalifornsky Beach Road in Kasilof b. Alaska State Land Survey No. 2006-5 KPB Fife 2007-143 [Integrity/KPB, SOA] Location: Hope area c. Paradise Airpark Addition No. 1 Kph File 2006-043 [SegesserlBangerter] Location: Off Arrowhead Avenue, 5oldotna area d. White Earth Na. 3 KP8 File 2008-043 (Imhoff/Bovich] Location: East of Skyline Drive in Homer e. Catkin Subdivision KPB File 2008-044 [AbilitylKilcher, Catkin, Burton] Location: East of East End Road in Homer *2. Planning Commission Resolutions a. Resolution SN2009-02; Naming an unnamed 30' Public Roadway Easement to Mistral Skreet within Emergency Service Number (ESN) 302). Jason Tauriainen PC Member b. Resolution SN2009-03; Naming an unnamed private road to Aura Northwest Borough Term Expires 20~ ~ Lane within Emergency Service Number (ESN) 302. *3. Plats Granted Administrative Approval *4. Plats Granted Final Approval {20,04.070) Max J. Best Planning Diroctor "5. Plat Amendment Requests Boro ghrMayor *6. Coastal Management Program *7. Commissioner Excused Absences a. Paulette Bokenko-Cariuccio, Cify of Seldovia b. JoAnne Collins, Anchor Point / Ninilchik c. Sue McClure, Cify of Seward d. Linda Murphy, City of Soldotna *8. Minutes a. January 26, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes D. PUBLIC COMMENTIPRESENTATIONSICOMMISSIONIwRS (items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited 3o five minutes per speaker unless previous arrangements are made.) 1. Kenai Watershed Forum -- Robert Ruffner -Systematic Review of 21.18 E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None F. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Ordinance 2009-04; Amending KPB Chapter 20.20, Subdivision Design Requirements to Require a Minimum Width of 60 feet for Plat#ed Lots. (Postponed from January 2B, 2fl09} 2. Ordinance 2009-09; Creating a Flood Hazard District, outside the Flood Insurance Ra#e Map area, within the Seward-Bear Creek Flood Service Area to include the 1986, 1995 and 2006 KPB GIS Mapped Flood Data Areas 3. Ordinance 2009-10; Authorizing a negotiaked sale and exchange of cerkain lands in the City of Homer with Leroy and Doris Cabana at Fair Market Value G. ANADROMOUS STREAM HABITAT PROTECTION (KPB 21.18) H. VACATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING I. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Time extension of RS 2477 Right-of;-Wav Vacation: Vacate a portion of the 100-foot RST 621 RS2477 right-of-way easement (Bear Creek Trail} shown an Alaska S#ate Land Survey No 78-174 (Plat SW 80-3); and vacate a portion of the 100-foot RST 621 R52477 right-of-way easement shown on US Survey 3922 in Wope; within Section 28, Township 10 North, Range 2 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska; and within the Kenai Peninsula Borough; 2 KPB Fiie 2007-033; Petitioners: Frank L. Miller of Ninilchik and Linda Lu Graham of Hope, Alaska; Location: Hope area within Hope APC SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HlWARING$ The Plat Committee will review 5 preliminary plats and 1 final plat. K. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS L. OTHERINEW BUSINESS Election of Two Planning Commissioner Representatives. Resolution 2009- 005, Resolution establishing an Assembly Taskforce to examine possible solutions regarding flood plain issues for the Seward Bear Creek Flood Service Area. M. ASSEMBLY COMMI=NTS N. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS O. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS P. PENDING ITEMS FOR FUTURE ACTION Q. ADJOURNMENT MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS NO ACTION REQUIRED Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 14, 2009 2. Seward Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 16, 2008 FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting wi11 be held Monday, February 23, 2009 in the Assembly Chambers, Borough Administration Building, 144 North Binkfey, Soldotna, Alaska at 7:30 p.m. ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Advisory Meeting Location Date Time Commission Anchor Point Anchor Point Chamber of Commerce February 17, 2009 7:00 p.m. Cooper Landing Cooper Landing Communit Hali March 4, 2009 fi:00 p.m. Hope 1 Sunrise Hope Social Hall March 5, 2009 6:00 p.m. The Kachemak Bay and Funny River Advisory Planning Commissions are inactive at this time. IVO7E: Advisory planning commission meetings are subject to change. Please verify the meeting date, location, and #ime 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 BOROUGW PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 907-714-2200 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLAT COMMITTEE ASSEMBLY CHAMBERS BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1 ~4~4 NORTH BINKLEY STREET SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 5:30 p.m. February 9, 2009 Tentative Agenda MEMBERS: Philip Bryson Kenai City Term Expires 2010 Mari Anne Gross Southwest Borough Term Expires 2011 Brent Johnson Kasiiof 1 Clam Gulch Term Expires 2009 Blair Marlin Kalifornsky Beach Term Expires 2009 Sue McClure PC Member City of Seward Term Expires 2011 ALTERNATES: Paulette Bokenko- Cariuccio Seldovia City Term Expires 2009 Linda Murphy PC Member Soldotna City Term Expires 2011 A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL. OP AGENDA, EXCUSED ABSENCES, AND MINUTES 1. Agenda 2. MemberlAlternate Excused Absences a. Paulette Bokenko-Carluccio, City of Seldovia b. Sue McClure, City of Seward c. Linda Murphy, City of Soldo#na 3. Minutes a. No minutes due to no meeting on January 23, 2009. D. PUBLIC COMMENT (Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited to five minutes per speaker unless previous arrangements are made.} E. SUBDIVISION PLAT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Anchor Crest 2009 KPB Pile 2009-016 [ImhofflKyllonen] Location: West of Old Sterling Highway in Anchor Point Anchor Poink APC 2. Fireweed Meadows No. 3 KPB File 2009-017 [ImhofflKyllonen] Location: On School Avenue in Anchor Paint Anchor Point APC 3. Thompson Park Bergholtz Replat Na. 2 KPB Pile 2009-019 [IntegritylThompson, Bergholtz] Location: City of Kenai 4. Stone Hallow Estates Phase 3 KPB File 2009-020 [Segesser/Bangerter] Location: West of Stone Hollow Drive in Sterling 5. Sand Hill Subdivision No. Two KPB File 2009-022 [V1lhitfordlKPB, SOA DOT, City Soldotna] Location: South of Soldotna on Arc Lake F. FINAL PLAT PUBLfC HEARINGS 1. Fair Ridge Subdivision Part Six KP8 File 2008-245 [McLanelFair] Location: On Forbidden Court in Soldotna G. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION -- NO ACTION REQUIRED H. ADJOURNMENT NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING The next regularly scheduled Plat Committee meeting will be held February 23, 2009 in the Assembly Chambers, Borough Administration Building, 144 North Binkley Street, Soldotna, Alaska at 5:30 p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 907-714-2200 Phone: toll free within the Borough 1-800-478-4441, extension 2200 Fax: 907-714-2378 e-mail address: I~anningCa.borough.kenai,;~ak.us web site: www.~orou~c h.kenai.ak.uslplanningde~t 1~ 0. CITY QF KENA~ ~~ r~ ~~ ~ ~a~~r, 210 FIDALGO AVE., SIiITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794 TELEl~HUNE 907-283-7535 FAX 907-283-3014 ~~~~~~ rs9i MEMO: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission ~' FROM: Maril n Kebschull Plannin Administration Y ~ g DATE:. February 2, 2009 SUBJECT: Annual Reports - Ex#raction of Natural Resources There are currently seven active gravel pits operating in the City under Conditional Use Permits. The operators have submitted yearly reports as required by code. The following is a brief report of the 2008 operations: 1. The Cone pit operates under grandfather status. Chester Cone passed away in 2008. Mrs. Cone completed the reporting requirements for the operation. There are several parcels included in this extraction operation. Mrs. Cone reported approximately 3,000 cubic yards of material was extracted from this site this past year. This year, Meeks. Sand and Gravel leased the pit. The lease does not require a transfex of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. Foster Construction holds permits to excavate from two areas. The oldest gravel pit is located off Beaver Loop Road in the Angler Acres area. This pit was purchased from Mr. Cone. Last year, Mr. Foster has advised that this pit is now owned by Angler Enterprises, a corporation formed by the Fosters. Mr. Foster reported approximately 3,500 cubic yards of material was extracted at this site. This included 2,400 cubic yards of gravel and 1,100 cubic yards of peat. Reclamation at the site included grading and finishing the road into the site from Angler Drive. Topsoil was placed and seeded between the new road and the lake. Approximately 2 acres of the area has been seeded and is now maintained. These improvements are part of the long-term plan for the Planned Unit Residential Development. The Fosters are continuing to work with legal representation to complete the documents required for the development. Gravel Pit Yearly Reports February 2, 2009 Page 2 The second pit permit that Foster Construction operates is located off Beaver Loop Road between the Krogseng and Doyle pits. This pit is now owned by Twin Rivers Resources with Mr. Foster being the main contact. The report for this pit notes approximately 72,000 cubic yards of material excavated this year. The majority of this material was used at the Wal-Mart site. Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of material was used in the City of Kenai Marathon Road project. Fill was hauled into the site from the Wal-Mart project and placed where gravel had been excavated. Mr. Foster pates that this was their busiest year since 1996. The report estimates approximately 1 S percent reclamation has been completed. Pat Doyle, Beaver Laop Sand & Gravel, operates off Beaver Loop Road next to Foster Construction. This pit is operated under grandfather status. Mr. Doyle reports approximately 31,426 cubic yards of pit run gravel was extracted this year. Approximately 13 acres of land was cleared. The report notes approximately SO percent of reclamation completed but there is no description of the reclamation activity. There is also a storage yard at the site for Doyle Construction. 4. Daniel Krogseng, AA Dan's Construction operates off Beaver Loop Road next to Foster Construction. Mr. Krogseng reported approximately 4,178 cubic yards ofpit-run gravel extracted this last year. Mr. Krogseng advises that they have started to dig the lake and approximately S percent of the reclamation has been completed, S. Zubeck, Inc. operates from two parcels located in Hollier Subdivision. The pits are behind Cone's property. The report notes minimal activity during 2008 with approximately 730 cubic yards of pit run gravel and 36G cubic yards of top soil excavated from the site. No reclamation activities took place this year. This site is operated under grandfather status. 6. Michael Pelch operates a pit located off Beaver Loop Road across from the Foster's Angler Acres pit. Mr. Pelch reports no activity during 2008. The report notes approximately 3 percent of the reclamation has been completed including side slope work around the pond and filling in low areas. Some trees were planted around the pond. Mr. Pelch also reported that he continues to clean up miscellaneous debris and garbage dumped on his property. fob CITY OF KENAI 2008 ANNUAL CLG REPORT A. LOCAL. PRESERVATION ORDINANCES: 1. There were 4 amendments to I~enai Municipal Code during 2008 that affected the City's Historic District: Ordinance No. 2282-2008 -Amending KMC 14.20.160{b)(8), KMC 14.20.161(b)(5) and KMC 14.20.170(b)(8) by replacing the reference. to the Horizontal Property Regimes Act in AS 34.07 with a reference to the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act in AS 34.08. Ordinance No. 2288-2008 -Amending Chapter 14.25 Landscaping/Site Plan Regulations requiring approval of plans before clearing any land ,requiring buffer separation between Commercial and Residential uses, extending the completion time to two years and providing that the approval maybe revoked with thirty days notice. Ordinance No. 2340-2008 -Amending KMC 14.20.200(a) Accessory structures to allow accessory structures no larger than two hundred (200) square feet in the rear setback and to define one { 1) story height. Ordinance No. 2349-2008 -~ Amending KMC 14.20.180 to prevent the same or substantially similar variance permit applications from being considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission more than once in any nine month period. Other Ordinances were approved, but did not affect the City's Historic District B. LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OR BOARD: The City of ICenai's Planning and Zoning Commission assumed preservation responsibilities in January 2001. Current Commission members are as follows: Kenai Plannin and Zonin Commission as of 12/31/08 MEMBER POSITION Jeff Twait Chair Scott Romain Vice-Chair Karen Koester Commissioner Phii Br son Commissioner Roy Wells Commissioner Kurt Rogers Commissioner Jerry Broolcznan Commissioner Robert Malloy Council Person-Ad Hoc Rick Ross Council Person-Ad Hoc 1. Alan Boraas continues to remain available to the Board to fulfill the needs of the archaeologist. Two former Historic District Board members have agreed to provide professional consulting advice to the Planning Commission in matters of historic preservation, Bill Kluge will consult on architectural issues aril Mike Huhndorf will address historical issues. 2. Planning and Zoning Commissioners have not been asked to provide statements of occupation and/or expertise: 3. The Planning and Zoning Cammission has had a fully seated Commission far the entire year. Even though seats were vacated, they were immediately filled. The City Clerk is responsible for the City's Boards and Commissions, Vacancies are advertised byword of mouth, public information advertisements, and by mailing information to citizens who have served an various boards and committees in the past. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission meets bi-monthly, the second and fourth Wednesday. The July 23`d meeting was cancelled due to no quorum, and the November 26t~' -and December 24t~' meetings were cancelled due to holidays. All other meetings were held as scheduled. Copies of the agendas and minutes are attached. 5. The Commission did not formally participate in any CLG training or conferences during 2008. C. SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES: Note; This information did not change during 2008 In July 1996, Preservation North completed the survey of the Townsite Historic District, which was funded through a CLG grant. The area surveyed was approximately 70 acres and included 32 properties in the Townsite Historic District and 12 properties in the adjacent area. 2. Thirty-two historic properties were sw•veyed. AHRS cards were completed for these properties. 3. This was the first survey of historic properties for the City of Kenai. The survey cataloged historic properties providing the City with information as to what properties existed, their condition, owner, etc. This information will be used when revising or preparing development guidelines for the historic district, For the properties surveyed, there were 28 different property owners. 2DD8Annua! CLG Report Page 2 D. PRESERVATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES: The City of Kenai's Preservation Plan was completed in 1998 and approved by Kenai City Council Resolution No. 98-71. The Preservation Plan was updated in 2007. Review of the development requirements in the zone will be conducted when the Commission feels it's appropriate. E. NATIONAL REGISTER PROGRAM PARTICIPATION: The CLG did not evaluate any properties for listing an the National Register of Historic Properties during 2008 F, PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES: In 2007, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed an application for Development in the Tawnsite Historic Zane for a Restaurant/CateringlResidential development. The property is located at 510 Upland Street (Lot 22A, B1ocIc 5, Original Townsite of Kenai - Vozar Addition). A Conditional Use permit was approved in 200b contingent upon an approved landscapclsite plan and building plans drawn by an architect. The applicant met these requirements and began construction of the project. The building permit was issued only for the residential portion of the structure and the Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant expired. The applicant reapplied and the Conditional Use Permit has been granted. The applicant has twelve (12) months to obtain the building permit for the restaurant construction ar the Conditional Use Permit will expire. On August 14, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution PZ08-43 approving a request to relocate five historical cabins to a permanent location. This is the initial phase of the planned relocation described in last year's report to relocate the cabins and create a historical museum, The museum will be located at 816 Cook Avenue, outside of the Townsite Historic District; however structures located at this site were included in the "Kenai Tawnsite Historic District Survey Report -July 1996," 2008Annuaf CLG Report Page 3 G. PUBLIC EDUCATION PROJECTS: In 2007, the City of Kenai partnered with the Kenai Chamber of Commerce and the Kenai Rotary and replaced the walking tour signs that were warn or missing. As part of the ongoing educational project, preliminary work to install sidewalks along the walking tour throughout the Historic District was initiated. After a survey of the area, it was determined there was not enough space along the streets for sidewalks. Instead, the City painted lines along one side of the streets to identify walking paths in the District. I-I. HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT ACTIVITIES: 1. The City of Kenai did not apply for any CLG Historic Preservation Fund grants during 2008. 2. Updated from 2007 Report: RELOCATION OF HISTORICAL CABINS -About 1967, the City of Kenai leased Russian Orthodox Church land adjacent to the Holy Assumption Russian Orthodox Church Kenai rectory and constructed the Fort Kenay building as a part of the centennial observation of the purchase of Alaska from Russia. Over the next several years the City, with the assistance of the Kenai Historical Society, moved four early Kenai cabins and an old cannon onto the property to preserve them and make them available for public viewing. The Kenai Historical Society furnished one of the cabins through donations of items from local residents. When the City of Kenai relinquished its lease of the property, the Russian Orthodox Church became the owner of Fort Kenay and the relocated cabins. In order to maintain the cabins and to make them accessible to the general public again, the City of Kenai and the Kenai Historical Society requested the ownership of the cabins be returned to the City of Kenai and the Diocese of Sitlca and Alaska agreed to return ownership to the City of Kenai. The Rasmuson Foundation has awarded a grant toward moving the cabins and cannon and including, site preparation, repairs, fencing, foundations, utilities, etc. The Kenai Historical Society, City of Kenai and other entities have begun preparing the cabins for moving. It is hoped restoration of logs needing replaced can be done during the winter of 2009 and that the cabins can be relocated in summer 2009. I. OTHER PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES: In prior years' reports it has been noted the City's hope to complete a park at the location of the Shk'itulc't Village sign (constructed in 1996 as part of a CLG grant). This is located at a parking area overlooldng the mouth of the Kenai River. The site is a popular axea for people to view the mouth of the river. No further activity has occurred in this regard. The City maintains the parking area and signage and the area is used during the summer by local residents and tourists to view the Kenai River and area mountains. It is 2008Annual CLG Report Page 4 anticipated that any further development of this site will be postponed until the bluff erosion issue has been solved. 2. The City of Kenai continues work with the Corps of Engineers to identify a solution to solve the ongoing bluff erosion. The original concept included a bluff stabilization project as well as a walking trail, There has. been some concern during the discussion with-agencies relating fo the walking trail, During October 200$, the Corps of Engineers presented design alternatives derived as result of studies and agency coordination. The preferred alternative does not include the walking trail as originally designed but may include a trail for passible bird viewing and maintenance of the proposed trail, Based on the most recent reports, the City is continuing to seek funding for the construction of the revetment. The City has been notified that the Governor has included funding for this project in the Governor's budget and is pursuing additional federal funding for construction. (The City has identified this project on the City's Capital Improvement Project (CIP} List for a number of years. In the 2007 election year voters approved a bond proposition for 2-million dollars for construction.} 2008Annual CLG Report Page 5 ioc, "~/'~la e with a Past, Gi wct~r a F~t~~'e" .~ January 9, 2409 " ~, ~ ~.. 210 Fidalga Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 9961 ~ -779 ..~ _ ____ -" Telephone: (907) 283-7'5351 Fax: (907) 283-30'14 - www.ci.kenai.ak:us tyre ~c'fy o f K~NAI, A~as~a ~_ Kurt Rogers Planning 8s Zoning Commission 5335 King Salmon Drive Kenai, AK 99611 RE: REAPPOINTMENTS -COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES/BOARDS City of Kenai At its regular meeting of January 7, 2009, the Kenai City Council confirmed your reappointment to the Planning & Zoning Commission for an additional three-year term, ending in January, 2012. The Kenai City Council and City Administration thank you for the tinne and effort you have contributed and willingness to continue to contribute to the City. Your interest and endeavors are examples of a dedicated citizen working for a better tomorrow for the City of Kenai. Congratulations and again, thank you. CITY OF KENAI r ~.~i Coral L. Freas City Clerk cif cc: M. Kebschull, City Planner ~~~~ _ _ ~'~- ---== tl~eclyof ~~ KENafv nsKn January 9, 2009 ~~I~'~~a e wit~r a Aast, Gi wc't~ a FGttGIYe'~ 210 Fidalga Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-779 Telephone: (907) 283-75351 Fax: {907) 283-3014 www.ci.lcenai.ak.us Karen Koester Planning 8v Zoning Comzx~.ission 8~5 Set Net Drive Kenai, AK 99b 11 RE: REAPPOINTMENTS - GOMMISSI'ONS/COMMITTEES/BOARDS City of Kenai At its regular. meeting of January 7, 2009, the Kenai City Council confirmed your reappointment. to the Planning & Zoning Com,rnission for a.n additional three-year: term, ending iza. January, 2012. The Kenai City Council and City Adrninistratian thank you for the time and effort you have contributed and willingness to continue to contribute to the City. Your interest and endeavors are examples of a dedicated citizen working for a, better tomorrow for the City of Kenai. Congratulations and again, thank you. CITY OF KENAi ~~ ~~ Carol L. Freas City Clerk elf cc: M. Kebschull, City Planner ~~ ~~ _ -- _ ~r-~~=~ -. - - \~ tlae~ityaf'~~ KFNAI\~~ SKA January 9, 2009 '~#/'~ra e with a Aast, Gc' with a Futr~re" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Teiephone: (907) 283-75351 Fax: {907) 283-3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us Jeff Twait Planning S~ Zoning Commission 1808 Julie Anna Drive Kenai, AK 9961 i RE: REAPPOINTMENTS -COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES/BOARDS City of Kenai At its regular meeting of January 7, 2009, the Kenai City Council confirmed your reappointment to the Planning & Zoning Commission for an additional three-year term, ending in January, 2012. The Kenai City Council and City Administration thank you far the time and effort you have contributed and willingness to continue to contribute to the City. Your interest and endeavors are examples of a dedicated citizen working for a better tomorrow for the City of Kenai. Congratulations and again, thank you. CITY OF KENAI ~~~~ Carol L. Freas City Clerk clf cc: M. Kebschull, City Planner N '~- ~o 00 0 O "'O ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ;~ u tt t O O a'~J P ~ (/~ O . -1 ~ y ~ ~ (d Q ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ ~ . ~ . ~ -cs ,.,~ o U ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ o ~ ctl ~ ~ ~ O ~,~ `~ ~ • ~ ' O ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ '+ ~ ~ ~' bA U ~ p ' ~ cd ~ ~-~' d ~ ~ ~ O ~ pa O ~ 4l ,~ , q Z p I ~ ~ O (~ r .~ . ~ a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ u ~ p '~ O uU1 ~ C~...f] ~ ~ 'A N.~o i~uc~ Z.~ca~ s -~ ~°~ ~~3 m .~ c N ~ ro ~ ~ u ~+~ hN ~ y •l~ ~ ~, -b N O of `~ ~ ~ a~ ~ y "~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ " ~ ~ ~, o ~ V ~ +~ ~ ,~ ~, '~ as a, ~ ~ ,~ o ~ u -~ ~ ~ O ~..+ h ~ O ~• ~ ~. '~<•. ,~~`''b ~ O cad r~`' -cy 'd C3 O U N ~ ~ ~ '~ .~ ~ ~ _ C ,". '~ ~' vim Cle ~ v 's' U V a N :~ U +-+ O ;~ .~., `~~~~~_. ~. y ~ +'~ ~ cd ~ U ~ O O ~ ~i '~ pp ~ q ro ~ cad Qe` O O :.'..~+.. +, ~ ;:; ~;~: .~ a m C .~ O N ~ ~ o Q '~ ~ •~ a~ ..~ oho `~,~ a~i ' U ~'~ .~~~~,~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~~ o cci ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ',~ ~ ~ ia4 '~ ~ .~ p ~ b ~ o ~ ~ d, ~-, ~ a ~ `~ -~ ~ ~ o `~ ~ ~~~~ ~ . u v~ V ~:~A .~ O O '~ . ~n~~~~ bA +-, ~ yr" ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ "~ O d ~ V.b;WU +~ a., ~, ' ~ at G o ~, o ~~ v ~ ~ at o.t ° ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ®_ V .~ ~.. >"' ~ +.~ ~ . ~ ~ u cvtl M w ~ O U ~ i~t ~ ,~ ~ rS cn 'O ~ .~ O ti ~ '~ ~ '~ .~ f=t ~ ~ ~ •~ O ~ • ~ ~ U' a~ `n v .~ O Oy'"~. -ty ,~ ~`p ~ ..~ ~ • ~ .~'.~ ~ ~ ' ~ 'mac ~ O '~ ~~i, b1J ~' ~ ~i • V ' U 'L'] ~` f~ . `.~ OJ ~ ~ -~ '~ ~-` 'd ~ ~-+ .L~'.ti °~ •'~" +'~i`-t O ~ s.' ~` fit ~ ^ ' ~'~, to d O ~ c~ -'o u '~ b as +~ a i~ y ~ °-' o ~ b O as ~ O ~ o v w ~ci O ~ ....~ bA bA bA u ~ ".i V N .~."' R+ v R, 'Cl~ '~ pt ~ O ~•+ O ,-Q N ' N O ' ~ ~ ~ to '~ .--~ .r_; ~ ~n +v'-+ a~ V +~ ~ ~+' U ~ ~'+-t N c~ ~ '~ f-. O y W.' w E--~, O 'U ~ ,-~] O td a~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w ~ ~ ~ w ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ y U ~ cd ~ ~ ~ O ,~ ~ a~ a3 ~ ro Z a~ cd ~ u ~ ~ q ~ -zy as ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 'y ~+' U U w --- .O .'~-i .~-. ~ .~" -.4" ~ +..4'J 'r? a~ °~ s-t ~ cd .L"., TS bA ~ cd 'n p ~ '.~. ,.~ a3 °~ v ..+~.~ .. as O w ~ ~ cn ics v, ~+ ~ ~ ,.~ ~ U ~ .~ 'v~ O "a~-+ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ' cq 'Cl A ~ a "~ ~+~ 'Ct ai v ° ~ ~ ..~ ~° ~ pi ~; m O a ~ ~ ai a~ 5, 'T3 O bA 43 fat . ti ~ w ~ ~ . ~ ° :;-` ~ - E.-`~ ~ ~ ~ p m ~ rv c ~ „U.e ~ ~ N 4J ,~ 0 a ~',, ~ ~ C,.0. ~". ro m~ a; m ~ =' N ~ "~~` '~'~ ~ qU N U a'n-~ N -~'0 dC C~ ~ ~ ~ x O cd ~ O m` p o . ~ N ~ S-i ~I O ~ p -U~ a 1-J fK L ~ :. i1. ~dl-u~' 8~ dr _'"v G1 L O • 0 N Z ~ ~ y 9l '~ ~ O '~ p O a~ S3t O Off,, bA v ,~ ~r .. ~~d,:~ °- o ~ ~ °' w. `O °~ a a g Erna ~° a-+ O a~ w a3 ~ a~~S'- V - 4p dx < r °?'~'~ ~ ~ ~--•n , y m' a __ $ cc 4.1 ~ ~i ~~ O N i ~'r- tt `P}~~~.Oiy r-N-. +'~'vviO 7L^=~ ~ ctl ~ ~ .--t O ~ c S/, to a ~c ~ F a ro d rWJ ~ N ~ O •c~ ~ ,y~ yNy ,N ~S~ ~•{>~~F ~>,~pj .'k~ ro v,~~~.. ~ o~ 0 0. ~ ® t+ 4> "Cy U a' Q U ~ ,~ J ~ 9{ ~C4'r5 ~ G `~ tp, ~ M .O '' ~ c - - ~^ ~n r ' ~' .~.. ~ ' ® ~ .r; w ~ ~. rid ?, . O O ~ '~ '~cd ~i"'~ ~~ >9~ ,~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ k~' ° o a o°'c ~' ~ ?, O +~ +-' p, .~ ~ O a~3e ~ ~ g ~ 3 a ,~yy~ o ~ ~'c° ? E 'o o- d p ~,i ,`D„ ~ c CG C2 tC ~ ~ ~ ~ O ?x ~~ 1;°gF` t'~ c Z ;~ ~r ~ 'O : r c m ~ ~7 U ~n E c o ,_y `+~ ~, ~ ~ 'C3 U `d cd ~ a'~. ~ v'°,~',~f~A?t" ~' ~~~ie'~''~C~~"i"i*~~s x ~~`~.. ~ c ~ ".. H c O m ~ w s ~ E ~ '~ ~ j 'i~ ~ ~' taA p 'pa cNd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~",~>~:~~~a Q'~;:K'~;z~~?. ° ~ o-. A o a rn x ~ E o ~ O ~ r ~`~ s ' ~ i Fj~ a ~. Yo a.. a+ ti .~ m ~ o .c ~ ~ ~"-y N ''7 ~+ U. i-+ U (~ r~`~'•"}- 1 3 ~ ~~j:~lFf xt7'~h g _ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ N m ~ ~ N fM' +-~- ".~ ~ x~t }'` ~~ rz ,- }.C` r~.~,~ W'Y - ~ 7 ~ w a N p ._ ~. rr.~I phr~ d O ~-! 1-r ~~~rgcC?±! i ~ i x+4~ '~ "~ 1 -z o e o ? ~° L6 V y~ I U~"' ~ NQ ~ ^~• G ~ (yO~ N ~- 'S ~e'~Y ~'.~~'~,~ (~,t~~ ~ ~ ~ , p'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y Q ~ C ® '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ O V ~ ~ ~ ,.C' V 5-i ~ s ~{-.v fi-~E~.~~{~ ~ ~ ~1+ t'j 4 ~d~`~-.. 'Y7 ~. }~ ~ ; Q.. m ~ ~ Vi '3 ~ 4•r ~ +a ~ 'd W O ,~ +' O ti-+ N •~.tl i ~~ x^ .,~ " ~F ~ ~ ~ ; m rv .0 . ~ ro `! ~ O' C~ CJ OJ `T [b A+ N e ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y1 -4'` Fr '~ o E n ~ ~ ® U O '~^' V ~ 1-3 ~~+„7 ACS ~-+ f~.t .~ 'S,cl+ f ~~A~`~'~ ~ fx ~ : O~~ '~ N'~ ~ v ~ ~~ W .~- rv ~' cY . ,~ C.+ y ~ V N O y 'i'' p 'S,3Y~~f,,,. ~$<{ 'qri t e~~ x' QN c~ y ~ ., N' ~ cn - ~ Q ~ vl V a N ~ [d '~'~' " U U3 `a-i ~*'~ '' d ~i r ~~€._. - ''`~°~ a ' u # O : _ °' v °- ~ o ~ • a ~ v1 ~ Pa ~ cts .~.. O 5US' ~ v ,-W" ~ ~ '` t~~~T`~ f5~~>4 Q ~ s ~ ~i ~ m ~ 9 •N ~ 'N^ 'c '~ `° O m z ~, ~` "~ ~ V ~ O +' .--t 4J O ~ ~-+ s??'t~r.~" `'t,~A~S~;'i~,~~€~ ~ t~~,` GLj° ~-~ ~ W ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ v N V U ~ ,~ d' ctl O . ~ 4 .C, tc1 v +.~ O ~ s ~ r~F3 r~ x~~~ ~~7G y~-~7,~ 5 ~ ~ ~~ ~1~`'Ti r ~ c _ ~n ~ v ha •~' O ~^ ~ c~ ~ ~ O O bA U N 3j: ~~ f ~~ 'ro ~ 3~`~N}~'$ "_~ ~lCq. ~ n .a' t- ~ N rf ~ H U "C9 L< ~ ._..t N t F F '~. ~ '6 ~1j' ~ c O Q .O - C vNi y _ sn 3 4 s: c-S { ~ ~ {]. Fi...s-i ~ ~S N N ~ G~ N V 4.~ a - t G? ~tP c ~ ~~i _a` O O ro i s ~~x+ ~ (C cry .. A., ~ ctl 'd ~ '3 ~ V O ' ~ u. A m t- o o . of ~ V a a b ® ~ CC U ~ G ~ • ~ ¢~ ~ ~ O b Off" ,- ~ O m m 0 rn 0 0 N 0 3' C rB -•, c .~ as ~1 .~ c O .~ N ° *' vi ~' a•~ ~ H 'd *' ,+i G O v~ O "G ~ ''~ O '~ "~ t-+ yr `b OU td ~~' . ~ ~ ~ 04 o cti ~ ~ ca , ~ ,~„ ~ '~ ^; O w ~ o v °~ ~, ~ O as ao o ~ ro ~ v ~ ~ v ~• O ~` v-e 'b +~ al '~ ° a) O V O y ..~ ~i ~ Cd rq •~-~ u h--~ .~" '~ +~ • M ~ cad ~ ,;,, v v '~ ^" ~ ~ ~ ° . u a ~ ~ ~ V u -~ ~ 00 ~ -b • .~ O O '[~ ~ ~+ Q' ~ u N o ~ ~ v g .~ "d na «~ n-, '~3 u :~ ~ c~ ~ u c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ o v ..a ca ~ ~ ~ °; ' ~ °; ~, ~+ ~ as ~ ~ v o ~ ~ ~ ° °' • ° as r~ ~ v ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~s w o ~ ~' °' ~ ~ ~ .s~yo-' ~ 5n ~ off-' u ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ,~ ~ ~ ' ~ ° . ~ ' ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ivi ~ ,~ ~-' ~' ~ as o • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,., ' ~ ~ . ~ " v o °,~' v ~ ,~ ors ~ a o o -rs ~ ~ "., ~ ' ~ o c~ cu `~ ~ o ~ i.e ~ r`-e -~ O '-''-' rn bA ~ ~ t`nd cd~ N ~ ~ Ca ° ~ ~ ~+ O O b • y u{~-, 4) O cd ~ N .~ v "~ +~ qq.~'' 'd ~ O of O '+'w.+ ~ ~ c~ +~ '-d ~ 'v'"i a~ "O -~ u R. ~-' cd b~A ~ a ~ ~ ~ b w u ~N ~ ~ ~ cUd '~ p;p ~ '.~ ~ a~ WAD O ro .4, 'a~ O °~ ~ '~f ~°.a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ v~ ~ g~~+ ~ ~ . ~ O p ~" a..+ "C7 ~ C-i" `~ n ~ ~ .-{y ~ `" ~ ~ '-~j' ''~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ vai 'd ~ 'd O '~_ O ~.' O ro '.~" t~` ' Cam". ``_' ~ WD ° ~""` ~ `~ ..~~"` ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ +~- ~ ~ ~ "aO.s Ica v P. ~ ~ a~J ~~u '~ N u a~ ~ ~ a~ 5, ~~' ~ a~i ~O~++ "" ~., v~ ~ ~ h4 ~" y i-+ v id N ~ t-r u N Ca 'L7 O w N ~ ~ ~ ~ td ~` ~~.' -~ ~ ~ ~ F r~i ~° :. `Cj ~ ° ~ °'~'_' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ° ~ y ° ~ ~ ~ ~ Y-d td ~+-~ ° [IS N . a N r~i C10 ~1--e ~ Ca Y ,-„ t.r f"'i ,~ ~ ~ .--~-~ O v ~ u U ~ a1 ~ '''' ,~ s.; ~ ~ O U ~ N ~ ~,•, "Cy .13 ~ ~ ,., ,~+ v •~-+ ar ~ O °~ y ..4" O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~, ~ i., ~ ay ~ ~..i ~ to ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ar c~ G a~ ~ ~ ~ _`.' ,,~.~ o v ~ ~ ° .~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ai O ° is ~ ° ~ ~ G v ~d ~ ' ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ° ~ ° ~ `+-~ ti a~ ~ O v o ~ -ti -b • -ts .-~ as '-` a~ ~ b 'b p u ~ +~ +-•~ 'rJ O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° zS bin ' a~ a~ ~ ' a~ a~i p '~ n~ ~+'~ °} o ~ a) O ti «s O p N O O .-~ ~ ~ s-~ 'tl ~ ~ w ~ +-' . ~ +~ ~ {., N cd cd +~ `,~"+ ~ +~ • S ~-S H ~ ~ ~-' ' NJ "" ,~ ° tV y ~ a> '+.~.~s . ~ ~ a..t `.'' °~'. ate., cd ~ O +-' O 4~ N ~; cd +~- +-+ y a~ ,~ ~ '~ ~ •s~`. ~ ~ ~ U ~+ ~ N O ~" '~S as O u k ~ ° ~ "d ~ ~ ~ O y 'LS r~ ,~~ b '~ ~ cV '+' ..O ~ .~ ~ 4.,, u as y +., < ~ ~ t..t O s.a ~ ~ O % 43 ~, ° Z7" ~' N Q ~ N ~ ~t H ° Gsr N At N ~ ~ a'' O L" ~ f ca N a~ 't.r cd U v., ~.. a> U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 4., '~'p ~? 'd ~ ~ u a' cu a.~ -~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~; ~ • O p ' s ° ~ +..~ +~ O ~G ~ .~ +-' ~ ~ O ~ "t'f • ~ <tl c~ O ~`` O +~ ~ ~ ~43r r'te``-+ 'd N O s.! ~ ~ ~ Oa ~ .~ ~ • ~ '7r b~A . ° I '~ a) C." ° `"` ~ ~ ° ~ `~ ~ ,~ a} ~, {.; ~ O a.~ C1...d \O ~ V +~- -L7 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~..-~ ' a~ v ~ ~ H I--~ ~ o ~ ~ *' o ~O ~ ~ ;~ °~Jy O .~' ~ O H ~ '~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ a~' o a~ O ai N ~ i O ate.. ~ O • y ~ ~ ~ O ~ i~ P., ~? O Q ~C; "d ' c'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O..-N', N O O 'ice °G' ~ c a~ ay ~ ~ O ~-' ~ 'ti `G a~ a~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ '~ bq a3 v ~ ..Q *~' ' ~ ~ ~ cd ~ . ~ ~ ' a~ ~ 'iii a~'J p u pN_', t~ `O ~ ~, ~' ~"' ~...` ° p' ~ G ~_ y~l, ~ ~ ~ s~ "' a~i ayi a? w ~ aJ ~i Pr ~ h ai .~,w ~ ~ N ~ ~., u 'ti O cd ,W C Pi ~ ~ .1:! yu-, '~ U ~ tui a~ ® '~ ~ ~r O ~ V O .4 .~ N ~ c~ . ~ ~ ~ .~'-~ ~ ~ ~ cCd 4J G ~ 181 ~ Qii ^~ ~,' + ~ a> u vy p ~ q-, ~ ~ u , ~ °~ .~ '~3 bOA ~ N. N .--: ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ r~ ~` U ~ ~., a ~ O '~ ~' Gl ~ ~ 'y1 ~If. ~ c'~ ~ olio y~ 'd v ~ ~' o ~ ~ o °3 ° °S w° o ~ • ~ ~ ~~ ~ v°, Q ~ ~ ~ o o a '~ ..~ cad cj 'y' ~ .~.' ~ y "~ 'Tj ~ ~ v' °~ '"1 ,~ ° ~° ~ V °) ,,, •'~ o C1 ~ a7 ~ bA u ~,' ~ ti ~ y ~ ~ by ~ ~+, ' ~,` ~ ~ .Li ~' ® ' ® ~ N ~ ° N ~ v u v v v m ,.~, }, ~ w ,~ ~ ~ m v .•~ ry o ~ rrTT,, ~ +~ ~ ~ `-++ al ..~ i 1-a (ti ~ Y (]~ ~ 1y {.~ ~ V1 ~ 4 v ~ +"'~ 1-x••1 v a' • ~ ~-+ p, ro ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ O "' ai °' y cd ra ~ o ~ .~°°' -•~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Q Ar ~ ~ , v ° w • ~ ~ u w u u .~ o . ~ u C7 u: •~-~ -~ 01 cn cn ~ ~ cn ~--+ ~; U U o ~ a, o ~c ~ v ~ O ~ 'v, ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ -~ a~~.,i O '~ ~ ~ w ~' °J~i ~ ° v ^ . ~ a" ~ Qi ~ ~ cad ~ 'ti v ~ v ~l .-..., <d n °} O ~° O ~ v c~tl ~ c~ y ~ '-~ ~ v ~ .--r a`ni `-' • ti ~ ¢, ~ cia ~ ~ cij b °~ ~ ~ .~ <-' ~ v .21 'L'} I-r ~ '~ t„1 ~ +`~-~ ~ 'L3 AJ O ~ y Fze ..d (~ F i ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a O -~ ~ ,_, C! !~ p ~ Y .~~.,~ •°~ U ~ '~ V v y '++ U ^tj W "Cj W ~ ay N '!~ c~ ~ 'd U m U ~+ O ~ .w °~ "-., O O "~ a~ y~ cti O ~ ' ~ ~ O cvn y ~ 'L1 ~ ~` .M o b ~• ~ ~v~~ ~ ~~~~ .. ~ ~ v ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ u ,~ o ~ h ~ o ,~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ crs ,~ ° v ~ .~ •+, ~ a~ .r ~ u O V ~f ~ v~ fs. ca ~ N ~ U ~ o ~ at ~ o ~ o ~ • y ~ -~ '~ u ~ o use, •-o ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~~yy ~ ~" -~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,o . ~ ~ .-s ~"., ° ° v ~` ~ ~ N ~+ ,~. ~ tR ° '~' O ~ ~ Y '+3 ~ t-~ ~"' y G ° "CJ N 4) ~ ~ 4) ~ v y N N [-~ cc1 ~ q U v v ~,'~ ~ d .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "Ct ~a-,i +-~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, a.., ~ . ~ ~ ~ o u ~ o`.> ~" +~-' v v ~ +-~ a~ v s..~ v •~ O O U O +~ N O ~ ,rC scs ~+-~ y c.> O ~ w f-' ..~ ~ bA ' ~ ~' 'd ~ O c~'d ~ ~ ~ ~' O •'C1 U U .-~ ® V ~ I~, V +' ~ O +~ w ~ cd V b ~ O ~! N ~+., ° ~, ~ I~ N '-' ~ QS R-i ' w Ufa O °) ,~, . ° ..9 ti .a"i ~` a. v cti U ~ ~ ti ~ G ~' +-~ U ',--'~' dr ~ {-.~ .~ ~ ,~'' ~ (~ ~ ~ +., ~ ~ ~ a~i ~ •+~ ~ N ~ ~ U ~ cv-,-, ~`.~ ~ ~~ .~ „~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ v v ~ m ~ H °~' ~ h oa v ~ ~ w -d ~ "~ w. °' ~' ~ ~ H a~ o ~ ago caw ~ ~ . c~ +~ o ~ u .sa ~ ca ts' ' ~ ~ . ~ ~ u A a ~ a~i ~ ~ ° ~,,`" a~i ~ -~ ~ °+' -~ '~ ° . ~ awi ~,b~.~ ~`.d ~ ° ~ ~ `~ °' ~ ~ ~; ~ ryry~~' ~ ~ Nom; ~ ~a ° o ~ o o•v 7-a ~ `.~' N .--i y ~ O ~ Q1 F`+1 W U ~ ~ V ~ M rr'-I 4 ,~ v " Qt 0.7 ~.+ ~ _• a' '~ o ,-b° ~ ~ ~ . ~ ° try ,`^„ as 'C~ QJ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~-r 'C3 O ~ ~ ~ ~ bA O G i~ O art' ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ r~•~ (~ ~ ~ ~' ~ O ~ •~'' O '~ p O •~ O .~ `wd O °~ ~ ~ +°„ ~ op ~ ~"' „y ~ ~ a N V ~ a.> ti .~ '~ o ~ '~ O ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ o a. o ~, ~. ~ a-a ~ w ~ .a, N o ~ ~ wra v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cr o u ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ .w ~ U v, .-~ ~ u tB W ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ra O ~ ° ~ O M a O rn 0 0 N O C -~ c N oa a~ .~ c 0 N y~ U~+ .."-i ~ (d ~ I~ bA W .+r-~{ '6', W ~p 4.5 ~,,~ ,y~",~ '~ 1'.~~ ~ ~ i-+ ~ Y A tti ' M N R< ''-' U - ~ O c~iaS"-i N ~,' O y ~ v~ f y ~ ~i ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ O a ~ ~ ~ W ..v ~ ~ ~` °~~.~ 5 ~ ~ ~ a~ •~~, , --- cu '~ d ~ ~ Phi ~ ~ "~ -~ r-+ pl„ ~ .s ~ ~ O ,y a~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ -,'~ ~ ~ ' <tl ~ ~ ~ ~ O -~ ~ ~ -b • N v-. ~" '~ ~ vi ~, ~ yes °' ~ ~ O ,n V f~ ~ cd "b y ~ ay ?~ ;•~' ' w . ~ "d r-+ w ~ . O A ~ O -'~ " tip ~' • v, O ~ ? a~ a O "a ~` ~ `~' ~ +~ .~~.. . "~' O `". 7 'd " ,.~ bA v ~ ~~y ~ ~ ~ y O ~{"Y . v' t~-t vim-, `~ Oy~• . ~, aUi ~ ~` ~ ~ v ~ °) O N N ~ ~ '~ O cU N a~ ,..,.~ `'_' ^v, 'b rn ~ ~ `~ v~ O O cC ~ ~ 'a'=~ rd ~ f~ ~ O ~ v ~i y .~; ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ O t3, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.` ..~ d cn ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ as Q, U' ~ "C L1 ~ awi cd ~ ~ ~ ~ p '~ cd ~ ~-.~ O Vi ~ ~ ay "O ~-+ er a.., ~ ~ N y ~ ~] ~ ~ ~i w ~-' ~ O M V ~ ~ A ~ o" '+~. v" ~ ~ v] bA ~ ~ a~i O ~ .~ '~ w ~ ~ O ,~., • ~ ~ ~ "O o~ "- ~ ... `+- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+' . ~ ~ ..O ~ c~ cn •~ a~ s~ ~ ~' ~ ~ O '~ a"' 'd O ~ ~ ~, ~ O O,'~'J+ O ~ 0g, "C ~ .~ ~say.~~ ~ ~p ti ,~ ~ ~ c]e d d V,~ +' cv ~ +'~ '~..~~, '~s°-~-~rr ,p> d k O „~ '~'' ~ ~ ~, y ~ ~ ~ ' ~ i.., ~ ~ V a H . ~ R1 U ~ O ~ cV . ~ t'i a ~"+ ~ `.D ~ N `.+-i ~ . a '+--~ O ~ "' ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ro ~ ~..~ " °' .~.~ s, y ~ ~, o :~ ~ ~ o •~ o '~ are ~ ~ .d ~ ~ ~ ~ .M •~ a ~ '~ ~ ~_ .~ "~ ~ fn ~ QJ ~~j '~ +-' >~t ~ W -Ly ~ rn O Cd G+" "-' ~ ~ "C3 ~ R.a • ,.. '~ 4 ~ ~ s.~ 'r, N .~ 'C a.~ ~-.' G: O bA ...~ ' ~ iG" :.O ,~. ~ s-~ la. q~ ~` .s~+ . O c~ '~ Off,, ~ ~ +~s .sue Qy 4., t, a: in O ~ O ~` w ~ a-+ cd ~ `'' a~ ~ W '~ N . ~ ~ ~=+ ~' « l u y •~ R-' u cd ~ cci ..Q ~ p •-4' .*' ~ ~ .D O (d ~ U u (J7 a, +.+ ~ ..-i '.~ U a-+ b ..-i H U ti--i 0.1 ¢+ O ~ ~ y ~ .p ,,N q+'s O •~ m .~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ -~ '~ s~ ~ p ~ .~ i"'` a> ~' O `,~ a~ O ~ u ~ ~' ~ u ~' u ~ ~ ~' a q °' O R,'n ~ cd ~ •n O ~ -v, O ~ cd cn ~ cd ~, ~ ] O ~ •~ ~ ® O •.~. ~ ~` ~ ~ ~. ~"' ~ ;d O cd ~ . ~ ~ ~ u O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ s"' ~ L1e u cn N ~ y b.D cn cn ~ ~ ~r N ~ a~ ~ ~+ O P~ F" Cf +`~ *~ ~ ~ O ,.~ 0 'd O Qy "U ~ O 't7 ~ .~ O '~ .~ +~ O ~` ~ d, 'v O ~; a~ ~ ~ ~ 'CS ~n '+~ 'i'1 +-+ 41~ N a~ . ~ a~ ,A ~ She .n ,.t} H 4-, fae ~ ~i id .. '~ a-+ e--+ p" cd +.+ P 'may `~' ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ro H ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ iii~~~ r h H ~ ~.~.e ~ ~ a+U ~ ~ t ~ d ar V +~ CJ' p N T-s V ~ ~ ~ (~ U *' O ~ ~O n °' OHO ~'~~ ~ h o V ~+ ~ ~,' i,-~ rY- _ ~ -~ O e~ M o s ..~ ~ F+ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ q o .obi ~-~ o~ ~,~'~~ a ~, -d ~~~ „~ ~'~~~ ~ ~ o 0 v a~ a~ ~ a~ 1-i~ ,W W ~ C'~ [C ~ ~ as ~ -~ ~ o ~ ~- °A a ~ •~, ~ o ~, u ~ , -d ~ ~ y o . ~ ~ W ~' ~a a ,. ~ p ~ u~ ~ ^ rd w ~ ® ® ~ ~ ~ ~ yO~ ~ b°i0 O O ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W '~ cd ~" ate-' V ~ Ali ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~' ~ i •~ cad ~ .~ ¢` Rte-. ~' ~ y w ~ vi '~ ~ O Y c~~d ~ ~ ~ ~' cn •OR. ~ ~ ~ V+~~-, ~ ~ ~ e~ +a O '~ .'t7 ~~`S~' ~ N . W ~ '~' P '®~ ~ ~~ m ~ C7 ~~ b'n a o~ ~~ off ~~ ~ ~ °} ° ~ ~ °u' ~ ~ ® ~ a Q ~ ~ s aui ~ as ~~" o"'H •+~ 'y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ '~ a~ 'G TJ bA ~n O ~ a~ a.~ as bA N t-e --~ ~ bA a-' u~ ^< +.+ as ~ o! N ~; a~ a~ +~ .. as ~",~ a.1 a..7 ~- +-~ V ~ ,sy s-, O cd N O ~ fd ,•~' a~ cii ~' U ,Q; G' +-~ ~ r-+ ~ x -~~7 bA ..~ .~ w a~ ~ v 0 ' ~ N ~, ~, • ~ ~ ~ cn ~ o -~ °' '~ ~, ~ • 'K .~' o ~ ~ ~ Qy b N W O U N .+. di bA ~' ,-O ~ bfj ~" a~ }~0, ~ O ~ ~Q N O ~ ~ .~ w ~ ~ ~ GA ~ O 'd ~ as O '~ +-, '~ "~, ~ ~ U '~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~` • ~ . _ ~ +°~.,~ ,-d ~': ~ ,~ ~ •~y ~ . ,,.C~..~ ~i ~ ~ '~ cn a.> ~? ~ „~ ~ ~ s~-+ ~ - ~ v, bA ~~-+ a~ hA ~-+ A., c7 ~ ~' ~ M cd O i.•+ .~ O ~ id ~ v.. O ~ ~ ~ ~ a3 bA au ~ sM ~ ~w O •--< rn hA fn N . ~ Ci a) ~ ..~ 'd ~ O C? ~' ~ -~-~ 'L3 '~ ~ n~ ar "d ,A ~.+ V 'd cd ~ ~., cd ns ~ O N ~, a~ +-, a~ ~ ~! N ~ "C7 O "'a ~' =+ ~ ~'' '-' N v7 O ay "Cy a~ ~ ''' ^--~ cd P +~ `~' U c~ "~ p cv OJ k ~ ;~ ~ w ~ bA ~+ ~ ~` ~ a 1 ~ '~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~+' ~ ~'i P.~ ~ °~ ''' .~ '+3 ~ a'•' R~ M ~ , Q cd '~ gyp- ~ •.~ ~ ~ t"i ~ y ~ ~ '~ ~ ~-1 .~ ., a~ o'~ ~ O ~ °} O ~ ~° a~ n 0 '~ ,~ 'L7 -O ~ vi ~ ~ ~ '~' '~ ~ ~ '~- a~ 'N ,.d ~ -~ ~ -~ ce P-~ U ~ bq O O ~ U G`` ~ u fa+ ~ s~.~ O ~ ~ w ~'i O ~ ti ~ ~ a~i ' ~ ~ O bA -~' Ai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +, di ~ ~' ,~ O .~ z rd O p cd ~ ~ u bo ~, o c~ a~ M " ~ ~ w ~ .=` •~ ~ ~, d m as ..q cv ~ (~ ~ w `'' '~ -d ~ ~ a~ o ~ ~; ~ ~" ~ •~ x ® o .b . ~ ~~~yy -o i Q, ~ ~' . ~ ~r' o C7 ~` o ~ `~ .o ~ -~ :~ ~ ~ U o ~ o ~ ~ O ..-, nS '~ Qy a~ c~ a~ ~ ~ O id `n ~ ~ O p '~ ay O U ~' ~ ~ ~ w bA ~+' O a~ ti ,:.~ ~ ~ w 'q ~ ~. ~ ~ v' ~ ~ ~-'~ U U F--~ ~ '~ a ~ p"` ~ `~' a~ ~ ~ r~ a~i ~ "-` u c~ ~ a.~ ~ ~ ~ a> '~ ~ , ~ ~ cK O" ~ ~ a~ U as O ~ ~ O C7. ~ n a~ ~ U +~ cd '[7 H U ~ O ~ O C. c6 ~ O O ai +~ .~ O ~i ~' O N ~" ~ ~ ~ . ~ O cd id ° N Off. 2) ~ w '+~ ~ ~ cd U '-Cl U U '~ ~ ~ ~ w ..~ ~ Lk ~+ ~ [-t 'C1 ~ cd t--. cn W b O "C) ~i ,~" ~ ~ ..fl ~ O .W o ~ u ~ ~ u ~ o ~? ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ w a~ ~+ 'C1 , ~. v .~" M d- . ~0 O ~` ti ~'' ~ ~ ® ~' ~ ~, 'ice :~ Q =d s.~ p 4 ~ ~ a o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ° Z o 0 ,~ ~ of o o a b ~ ~ a n o ,.~ }' ~ •~ u °~ ~ .~ a ~ -~ ~ w ~ .~ o 0 +~ . ti ~ ° ~~., ~ ~" o c*'a v • ° a+ ~ `~ ..~ a'"i a~i ®~ (~ ai ~ o o ~ ° ~ c~ ~ 'd a a ~ N O `J y, .~ `n '~ t1- +-, _"` w ',~-- ~ ~ +. N +, U GZ, 1-r cd +-+ cn a-+ y ~ ~ ~--~ ~ ~ t` til ~ ~ P «~ M 4l 00 ' .-~ ;,,may C~ ~y Cd ~i ca, ~ ~--° o ~. ~ `~ 'LJ , w w cs1 4; ' ~ ~ N •~~' N b .sue.` . ~ N . ~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ `~` *' v ~ td ~ ~ ~' ~ N n) U bA .~., ti ..r ~ F,' ~ cad ~ ,_, ~ O v ..A "~ O ~' N y4; ~ ~ O V O a ~ ~ cv ~ a~ N ~ ,~ ~ Q ~ O 'd ~ ~ +' ~ O v U M a O M ~ ~ ~ U ~ U ~. U' Q C~ ~ ~ a~ u ~ O ~ -b *`S ~` as '~ ~ ~ ~ or ~ a~ ti ~ ~ O Oa ~ ® ~ 4~- ® ~ ~ ~ U` ~ N y ~ p ~' ,.~^, U cd •~ Cai P ~ v' .0 '+~ cn .H__. v~ ~' ~' U '~ ni rn ~ ~ ® ~ ~ U ~ cd ~ 'rte r-l N r'te`-.+ 'LI ~ +~ cd ~ P.. ~ O ~ s