Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-05-25 P&Z MinutesAGENDA Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission i Regular Meeting May 25, 1977 City Manager's Office 7:00 p.m. Roland Raymond, Chairman Presiding 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC HEARING } A. Ordinance 77-18: Amending Chapter 21.76 of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinances Pertaining to the Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code B. Petition to Vacate the Restriction "Park" in Blocks 15 and 16, Carl F. Ahlstrom Subdivision, Located within the SW 1/4 Section 25, T6N, R12W, S.M. and within the City of Kenai 3. AGENDA APPROVAL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 11, 1977 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Representative to the Kenai Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Lease Application: Parcel on Corner of Beaver Loop Extended and Kenai Spur, on North Side of Spur 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. City Council Report: Betty Glick B. Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Report: Betty Glick C. Administrative Report 8. ADJOURNMENT Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 25, 1977 City Manager's Office 7:00 p.m. Roland Raymond, Chairman Presiding ~ 1. ROLL CALL Present: Roland Raymond, Ron Malston, Nick Miller, Cliff Heus, Sharon Loosli, and Milton Stasek Absent: None Ex-Officio Member Present: Others Present: 2. PUBLIC HEARING Betty Glick City Manager John Wise, Tom Ackerly, Patrick O'Connell, Ruby Coyle, Waldo Coyle, Dick Mueller, Fred Eshenower, Betty Warren, Gary Barrier, Loretta Knackstedt, Robert Holt, Emily DeForest, Margaret Ragan, John Ragan, John Williams, Sharon Williams, Junetta Call, Art McComsey, Elsa Weiler, Sandra Builderbac, Douglas Builderbac, Kathleen Powell, Harold Powell, Jeff Hassler, Bill Hinricks, Nick Poppin, and Bill Quandt A. Ordinance 77-18: Amending Chapter 21.76 of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinances Pertaining to the Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code Mr. Raymond stated the significant changes proposed by Ordinance 77-18 and then opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Wise pointed out the tentative changes that had already_ been made to the proposed zoning change. Mr. Williams' testimony was in the form of a letter addressed to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is attached and hereby becomes part of the official transcript of the proceedings of this meeting. Mrs. Knackstedt stated that she felt that the proposed changes in zoning were unfair to the people of Kenai. Mrs. Knackstedt also stated that too many things were removed from the original zoning code and changed to only be allowed by a conditional use permit. Mrs. DeForest stated that she was in favor of granting approval of Ordinance 77-18, amending Chapter 21.76 of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinances pertaining to the Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code. Mr. Hinricks stated that he felt that the strict zoning in Kenai is driving people out of the City and forcing them to buy land outside the City limits. Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Ma_y 25, 1977 (Item 2-A continued) Page 2 Mr. Coyle stated that there were too many changes proposed in Ordinance 77-18 that would require conditional use permits. Mr. Coyle also stated that if the City made the zoning code too strict that the City would not be allowed to grow as it should. Mr. Mueller stated that he was opposed to all changes in the City Ordinance because they do not permit further growth of the Kenai area. Mr. Hassler stated that he was in opposition of this ordinance because the changes requiring conditional use permits .would put property into an unsure stature and bring down the value of property. Mr. Eshenower stated that he was in opposition of Ordinance 77-18, amending Chapter 21.76 of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinances pertaining to the Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code. Mr. Holt stated that the ordinance was in discrimination of property owners and apartment dwellers and does not allow for the future growth of the City. Mrs. Coyle stated that she was opposed to changing the zoning code because the City has a very good zoning code at the present time. Mrs. Coyle also stated that she was opposed. to the ordinance because it would mean a decrease in property value. Mrs. Warren stated that she felt that the ordinance was unfair to the property owners and developers of the Kenai area. Mrs. Warren also stated that she has sold several pieces of property to people in the Kenai area where multi-family dwellings are presently permitted and if this ordinance goes through they would be required to obtain a conditional use permit in order to develop their property. Mr. Ragan stated that he felt that some of the changes should be made to the zoning code such as the portion which includes Day Care Centers in the zoning code. Mr. Poppin stated that he was opposed to Ordinance 77-18 at this time. Mr. Poppin also stated that he felt that the zoning code should require orderly growth in the Kenai area but not stop the development of the area. Mr. Williams stated that many people do not want to move into the City of Kenai because of the restrictiveness of the zoning now. Mr. Coyle stated that he felt that the ordinance would make the zoning code too restrictive and that the Commission should review these changes and the problems of the City more closely. Mr. Quandt stated that he was in opposition of Ordinance 77-18 because he owns several pieces of property in the City of Kenai and it would decrease the value of his property. Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 25, 1977 (Item 2-A continued) Page 3 Mrs. Knackstedt stated that instead of worrying about multi-family dwellings and requiring conditional use permits, she felt that the Commission should think more about the requirements regarding what can be placed on a lot according to its square footage. Mrs. Coyle stated that when you change the criterion for a Rural Residential Zone and limit it to single family dwellings, it is also being limited as to what might come into the area which would also limit the tax base for the City. Mrs. Warren stated that it is hard to acquire financing for water and sewer additions so Ordinance 77-18 would be doing a great injustice to the buyer because they have already invested in some of these multi-family unit lots. Mrs. Coyle stated that these changes would change the criterion for each zone and she didn't feel that the Commission had the legal power to do this. Mr. Hinricks stated that instead of changing the zoning code, he felt that when new subdivision plats came through, some of them should be desiginated as "single family subdivisions only" at that time. Mr. Poppin stated that loaning institutions do not seem to want to give out money for development in this area at this time because of many of the zoning restrictions. Mr. Poppin also stated that these changes in the zoning code need more work and study put into them. There being no further public input, the hearing was brought back to the Commission for further consideration. In the best interest of all concerned,, the Commission felt that they should review all comments made at this public hearing before proceeding any further with Ordinance 77-18. MOTION: Mr. Malston moved, seconded by Mrs. Loosli, that the Commission table Ordinance 77-18 until the next regular meeting of the Kenai Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission and set up a work session in the meantime to review Ordinance 77-18 and all comments made at the Public Hearing pertaining to same. Motion passed unanimously. B. Petition to Vacate Carl F. Ahlstrom S T6N, R12W, S.M. an the Restriction "Park" in .Blocks 15 and 16, bdivision, Located within the SW 1 4 Sect-ion 25, w of Kena Mr. Raymond explained the petition to the public and then opened the hearing to the public. Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Regular .Meeting May 25, 1977 (Item 2-B continued) Page 4 Mrs. Call stated that her husband and she owned the land directly across from one of these parks and they did not want to see multi-family units put up right across the street from them. Mrs. Weiler asked if these were dedicated parks. Mr. Wise stated that these parcels of land were not deeded to the City as parks, so they remained in the hands of the owners. Mr. Quandt stated that he had bought these lots specifically for multi-family dwellings. MOTION: Mr. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Heus, that the Commission recommend approval of this petition to vacate the restriction "Park" in Blocks 15 and 16, Carl F. Ahlstrom Subdivision, Located within the SW 1/4 Section 25 T6N, R12W, S.M. and within the City of Kenai. Motion passed by roll call vote. Voting yes: Raymond, Miller, Heus, Loosli, and Stasek. Voting no: Malston. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: } Mr. Malston moved, seconded by Mr. Miller, that the Commission approve the agenda of the May 25, 1977, meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 11, 1977 MOTION: Mr. Heus moved, seconded by Mr. Malston, that the Commission approve the minutes of the May 11, 1977, meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Barrier asked to speak to the Commission for a moment so that he could catch a plane back to Anchorage. The Commission gave their approval for Mr. Barrier to speak. Mr. Barrier stated that he had just bought a lot across from Kenai Realty and the Elks Lodge on Togiak Street. Mr. Barrier stated that these lots were zoned general commercial along the Spur Highway up to his lot and he would like to see about getting his lot zoned general commercial also. The Commission advised Mr. Barrier to apply to the Kenai Peninsula Borough for rezoning and explained the procedure to him. Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 25, 1977 Page 5 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Borough Planning and Zon Kenai Advisory Planning Commission Zonina Com resentative to the ssion MOTION: Mrs. Loosli moved, seconded by Mr. Malston, to re-elect Betty Glick to the position of Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Representative for the Kenai Advisory Planning-and Zoning Commission. Motion passed unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Lease Application: Parcel on Corner of Beaver Loop Extended and Kenai Spur, on North Side of Spur Mr. O'Connell explained what size lot they required for their franchise and he also explained that this franchise would be much the same as a McDonald's franchise. Mr. O'Connell then proceeded to show the Commission his plans for this lot. MOTION: Mr. Malston moved, seconded by Mrs. Loosli, to recommend approval of the concept of use of this property and tentative approval of the lease when more acceptable plans were received. Motion passed unanimously. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. City Council Report Councilwoman Glick stated that at the meeting of May 4, 1977, a public hearing was held on Ordinance 336-77, the City Personnel Ordinance. Ordinance 336-77 was passed by City Council. Council also reconsidered Ordinance 334-77 "Dedicating Certain Bond Funds". This was originally intended to use Civic Center Bond monies for Water and Sewer Improvements. Ordinance 334-•77 did not pass. Instead, Council decided to break it into categories such as Water and Sewer, Streets, Recreation, and Capital Equipment Improvements - Ordinance 338-77. Ordinance 338-77 had its first reading on May 18, 1977, and will come up for Public Hearing at the June 1, 1977, meeting of City Council. City Council also approved the expenditure of $30,000 for engineering for water and sewer projects and the expenditure of $120,000 for engineering for street projects. Peat-Marovich and Mitchell were approved for the 1976-77 audit. Councilwoman Glick stated that at the meeting of May 18, 1977, permission was granted for the Kenai Volunteer Fire Department to put on a Circus in July or August. Council also introduced and passed several resolutions. The item of most controversy was Ordinance 338-77. Also, it was announced that there are presently vacancies on the Planning and Zoning Commission, Harbor Commission, and the Mayor's Council on Aging. Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 25, 1977 (Item 7-A continued) Page 6 Kenai Baptist Temple was instructed by the Judge to come to a settlement with the City of Kenai. Kenai Baptist Temple offered $500 in a counter offer to the City's asking price of $2,750. After Council received the $500 offer they asked for $2,250. The latest offer from the Kenai Baptist Temple is $1,000. B. Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Report Mrs. Glick stated that at the meetings of the Borough Planning and Zoning Commission on May 9, 1977, and May 23, 1977, the main item of interest to the City of Kenai would be the Public Hearing on the rezoning of Killen Estates, Addition No. 1. The Commission recommended no objection pending information received from the Public Works Director and City Attorney by the Kenai Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission. Both this ordinance and the ordinance for Northgate passed approval at the Borough Assembly. There was a report at the May 23, 1977, meeting from the Land Management Consultant. It was lengthy and informative. It was suggested that this report be condensed and put into a useable form so that the Borough could make use of the information. Also, the new Planning Director, Phil Waring, is on the Board now and in his first summary of comments he appears to have some good ideas if they can be implemented. C. Administrative Report Mr. Wise stated that regarding the dedication of Civic Center funds the City needs recommendations as to which project to work on first. Mr. Wise also stated that if the Commission members had any recommendations regarding Ordinance 77-18, amending Chapter 21.76 of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinances pertaining to the Kenai Municipal District Zoning Code, to please let the Administration know and the Administration could make a rough draft for the Commission members to use at their work session. Mr. Wise also discussed development in the lower Cook Inlet in regard to the growth in Kenai. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mr. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Malston, that the Commission adjourn the May 25, 1977, meeting. Motion passed unanimously. ~ There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paula A. Kidd, Planning Secretary May 24, 1977 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: We come before you again this evening in reference to our present zoning ordinance in order that we might present our. views concerning the changes to be made. We all recognize the fact that change is necessary and in order for our community to grow we must accept change. However, I am sure we must all agree that change should come about in an orderly fashion and should be for the bet- terment of our entire_area-and to the detriment of as few as pos- sible. You of the Planning Commission are charged by your peers and the citizens of this community with the orderly development of our neighborhood, commercial areas, and recreational zones. I am sure that we all agree at times much input is needed in order to accomplish these ends. The Planning Committee sets as a body not only to protect the development patterns of the City but also to protect the rights and values of the property and the property owners within their area. We must not lose sight of the fact that equity for all is an absolute necessity. It is to these ends that I speak this evening. There have been suggestions made as to possible methods that might be used to better protect our neighborhoods and areas. Some suggestions are that we change the types of buildings built in those areas, either by size or by the number of habitable dwelling spaces within them. These points I feel must be discussed more fully. Let us take for example the Rural Residential or RR zoning. Page Two Consider now the fact that 70~ or more of our City lies within this zone area. The Planning Committee believes that zoning should be such as to preclude the construction of multiple family dwell- ings in the area and is asking that only single family dwellings be allowed. I say to you quite pointedly that this is absolutely unnecessary. The-rural area is filled with very large tracts of ground. To say that the property owner in this area does not have the right to build a duplex, triplex or fourplex is to deny him rightful '.access and use to his lands. To take away from the rights of the individual property owner is to take away his rights guaran- teed as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as a section of the zoning ordinance states he has the right to come before you for a conditional use permit. I say to you that to force a property owner to seek out permission to use his own land as long as it does not interfere with the rights of his neighbors, is secondary .only to dictatorial policy.. In addressing another area, that of the RS zoning or Suburban Residential, we heretofore have allowed for the development of mul- tiple family dwellings up to and including sixplexes. Under the new change you would have the entire Suburban Residential zoned to single family dwellings and at the request of the City manager we have included a possible conditional use permit for multiple fam- ily dwellings. As a major property holder within the City of Kenai, I object strongly to this method of zoning. May I point out to you that in each and every one of our present subdivisions within the City of Kenai, covenants have been written specifically calling out certain lots that are to be used for multiple family dwellings. I point specifically to Redoubt Terrace and Lots 43 and 44 of Block Page Three developers of these areas? The people who purchased homes in these areas did so with full available knowledge that multiple family housing could be a.possibility in their area. Are you going to say now after development has already occurred, "I'm sorry, we've changed our minds?" We are all concerned with the lack of property being served with water and sewer. The City of Kenai in no way is able to help in its own orderly growth and development .because it has abso- lutely no way of offering available utility services to promote this growth as we know it is entirely the developers responsibi- lity to extend utility services into new areas. I point out the fact that during the week of May the 18th over $100,000 was spent by private individuals to prepare the utilities of this City for expansion into new areas. Wouldn't it be worth considering that multiple family housing can serve a great need and at the same time utilize our utilities to their fullest in concentrated areas without undo expenditures for very limited expansion. In dollars and numbers it is an absolute and undeniable fact that a sixplex can produce more revenue for a single piece of property that can be contributed directly to the tax base of the Ctiy than any other smaller type of building. These services cost the City less to install and to maintain than if you were to spread six families over six lots. You cannot dispute the fact that road maintenance, fire protection, policy protection, and water & sewer service to a situation such as this is more economic. Remember, you must dis- count any fact of cost leading to education and schools, because this is not a function of the City. One might say, well where do we begin? I say, you do not Page Four For example, if one is disturbed about the aesthetic subtrac- tion due to multiple family dwellings being concentrated in resi- dential areas, why can't we consider a change in the overall size of lot to build upon? Why deny the man with an acre of ground the right to build an apartment house and force him to be consumed in red tape and paperwork in the request for conditional use permits and variances? This Planning Commission certainly has a more valuable u~efor its time than to set continuously as a Board re- viewing conditional use permits. Consider the fact that under our present zoning law our smallest residential lot allowable is 7200 square feet. Consider the fact also that we are allowing for the development of a duplex on the same size lot. I point out the fact that a lot of 9600 square feet is more applicable to a duplex and yet the present zoning would allow up to a fourplex. Wouldn't it be better if in our ultimate drive to preserve the equity and aesthetic value of a neighborhood, we considered the spacing of larger buildings in order to preserve green areas between, rather than the total elimi- nation of those buildings that could add so greatly to our tax base. I also point to the fact that by increasing the required lot size, you increase the cost of property so as to eliminate additions of single family dwellings in certain areas, and these areas would lend themselves conducively to apartment houses. I would suggest in areas served by water and sewer, we might consi- der increasing lot sizes to approximately the following examples. Let us require 10,000 square feet for duplexes; 12,000 square feet for fourplexes; 14, 000 f_or fiveplexes; and 16, 000 square feet for sixplexes. I might also suggest that we add for the capabilities Page Five designed to please the eye and complement the neighborhood moreso than to eliminate the possibility of them ever being built. I would therefore suggest that we consider this possibility before making a major decision. I would therefore petition this Planning Commission to con- sider these aspects. Do not eliminate the possibility for orderly development and growth by acting hastily to a situation that can be classed as nonexistent. I fully believe that this commission has overreacted to a situation that does not exist. I might further point out that the development of multiple family housing will be controlled by the economic returns to the owner and developer, and I doubt seriously that we will see along range overdevelopment of this type of housing because the financial interest of the developer is not going to show returns from a situation that is not equitably feasible. In closing, I ask that you consider the points that I have made; please do not overreact. Remember the responsibility with which you are charged and consider the rights of all property owners as well as the need for the City to grow. Thank you very much for your time in this matter.