Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-11 P&Z Minutes., j ~ KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April lI, 1984 Kenai City Ha11 lee Lewis, Chairman AGEit/©A 1. ROLL CALL 2, AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD a. Mr. Lem Putnam represent/i/ng/Howard, Garner, S~ hc. 4. PUBLIC HEARING5 a. PZ84-17: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of 12 Townhouse Units on Gov't Lot 115, Sec. 34, T6N, R11W,S.M. Hanson S/0 - Walter Church (Plat for Hanson S/D under Item 7-c) ~ b. PZ$4-18: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of Z Townhouse Units on Gov't Lot 68, T6N, R11W, S.M. - Lots 1-4 St.Patricks S/D - Tony Doyle (Plat for 5t. Patrick S/D under Item 7-d) c. PZ84-25: Rezone Tract A, Park View S/D, Sec. 6, TSN, R11W, S.M. from Conservation to Urban Residential - City of Kenai d. PZ84-26: Amend Land Use Plan on PZ84-26 from Conservancy to High Density Residential 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 28, 1984 6. OLD BUSINESS a. PZ$4-22: Conditional Use Permit Application for Portion of Gov't Lot 5, Sec. 2, TSN, R11W, S.M. - for Extraction of Gravel - Olson & Beaudoin b. PZ84-21: Conditional Use Permit Application for Gov't Lots 1-4, Sec. 3, TSN, R11W, S.M., Excluding NW 1/4 Gov't Lot 4 - for Gravel Extration - City of Kenai c. Lease Application: tract A, GAA S/D No. Z - Aviation Center ~"~" Kenai Air Alaska PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 Page 2 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion: Vacation of 3 0' Utility Easement within Tract A, Swires S/D, Sec. 35, T6N, R11W, S.M. - Bill Zubeck b. Lease Application: Tract B Gusty S/D No. 2 -for Parking - Jesse & Catherine Wade c. Preliminary Plat PZ84-18: Hanson S/D d. Preliminary Plat PZ$4-20: St. Patricks S/D e. Preliminary Plat PZ84-23: Sprucewood Glen S/D No. 2 f. Preliminary Plat PZ84-24: VIP Country Estates Part 4 8. PLANNING a. Discussion: Vacation of Section Lines Within the City of Kenai b. Discussion: Zero Lot Line Development c. Discussion: Ordinance Requiring Landscaping an All Commercial Property Within the City of Kenai d. Section 36 - Subdivision and Street Name e. Disicussion: Rocky Point Acres - Draft Sale Brochure 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 11. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Draft Sign Code Ordinance (Submitted by Howard Hackney - Set Work Session) b. Mema from Parks & Recreation Commission -- Conservation Zones c. City Caunc~l Agenda ~ 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & gUESTI0N5 13, ADJOURNMENT ~~ N-b ~°~~e KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ April 11, 1984 ! Kenai City Hall ~ Lee Lewis, Chairman 1. 2. 3. ROLL CALL Present: All Commissioners Present AGENDA APPROVAL Agenda approved with the deletion of 6-c PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD a. Mr. Lem Putnam Representing Howard, Garner, Smith, Inc. Mr. Putnam was in Kenai but was called back to Juneau, Mr. Labahn presented the landscape/site plan. This item returns at the request of the Council to review a more detailed landscaping plan and return a recommendation. A letter from Mr. Putnam was read into the record which indicated a few more specific points: the three lots not indicated for immediate development would not be cleared until development plans are ready and will be reviewed by the Commission; remain flexible to amend the plans to the wishes of the Commission and Council; Mr. Putnam included some stateside requirements for consideration. The Cammission agreed to consider this item at the end of the agenda items in order to get the public hearings aut of the way. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PZ84-17: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of 12 Townhouse Units on Gov't Lot 115, Sec. 34, T6N, R11W, S.M. Hanson S1D - Walter Church Chairman Lewis opened the hearings to the public, reminding those present that the time limit is 5 minutes one time only. Patricia Nault came forward and identified herself as a property owner on the next lot to those considered for development. Ms. Nault stated that the positive comment is that it is better than apartments. The concerns are on the density, 8 houses or 4 double units facing Dolly Varden on less than 300' of street frontage. The other houses along the same street have 105' each for single family houses. The land is not expensive and the rationale for zero lot line homes is generally when land is either expensive or a limited amount available, neither of which exists. Second concern is the use of Dolly Varden for traffic, the street is only 21' wide with sand and ditches on either side. There are 5 driveways on a small, block long street; this would PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 2 raise that number to 13 which would impact greatly. The street is not slated far upgrading in at least the next couple of years. During breakup the street is impassable. There is a puddle from the highway to the rear, about 250' long and 6" to 8" deep. The next concern is the traffic at the corner of Spur Highway onto Dolly Varden. The highway curves right at the intersection and the speed limit is 55 making the corner dangerous. There are a number of people using the turn now, with this development, there would be a radical increase. The townhouses are slated to look exactly alike per the builder, Mark Passe, and are to be built for Farm Home financing. Ms. Nault's home is also Farm Home financed and is aware that Farm Home will not allow this type of building concept, ie, building identical houses in a row with no staggered setbacks from the street. Some builders in the area are inclined to level wooded lots which would leave a 1.5 acre field with 12 houses standing bare. If the Commission were to approve this development, the only hope the people living in those houses have for any feeling of separation from their neighbor is some type of landscaping, trees, or some type of vegetation. The houses are slated to be 30' apart which is the minimum allowable under the zoning ordinance which is not very much and with the propensity of homeowners to collect cars, boats, trailers, snowmachines, etc. will make these 12 houses more than crowded. The specific request I am making to the Commission is that you turn down the plan as it is submitted. I have no philosophical objection to zero lot line houses, but there is no need to do 12 of them on 1.5 acres. If the plat could be redrawn to fit 8 houses on the same amount of land it would be a much more livable arrangement. Mr. Joe Lee came forward, a resident of Kaknu entered a petition for the record protesting the construction of 12 houses. The area is currently single family dwellings and the owners feel that the greater density created by the development would cause overcrowding of the land, decrease property value, detrimental to the neighborhood, cause an added loss of space, quiet, and privacy associated with single family homes. The petition requests Mr. Church develop single family dwellings, one to a lot. Mr. Pete Lyse, a resident of 1010 Steelhead Court came forward to state that he also protests the proposed development and agrees with all comments before mentioned. Mr. Steve Crites, a resident of Kaknu Way, stated that he agrees with the last three speakers and asked what effect would the ~ proposed project have an property values, what the plans are for the parking problems that will be created. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 3 Mr. Dave Schwartz has a rental unit on the corner of Dolly Varden and stated that he wished to reitterate the statements of the person addressing traffic. Dolly Varden is one of the worst turnoffs on the Spur Highway with deep ditches on both sides, getting onto the Highway is even worse with high speed traffic, dense traffic, and congestion created by school buses. The addition of that many residents/road users would be a detriment to the area. Mr. John Williams, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that he was pro-development and while there is no objection to the construction of townhouse units, this type of development may be premature. "As the Commission looks for development and planning for future years; if the Planning .Commission in its choice in issuing CUP's does not look towards the development of the surrounding services for those areas then they are doing a disservice to the entire community. If the Council and Com- mission does decide to allow multi-family units of this nature then they must also accept the responsibility of designing, engineering, and providing for streets access, water & sewer, curbs & gutters, etc. One of the long standing problems in that area that is just now trying to be remedied is the streets and storm drains situation. The entire area from Dolly Varden on towards Candlelight was finally engineered so that it does not have "Lake Kaknu" and "Lake Candlelight". We are moving away from the center core of the City and we must be mindful of the fact that we must make plans for better development of utilities to serve these developments or we are definitely going to wind up as a ghetto town." Mr. Allen Jones of S&S Engineers representing the developer, Mr. Church submitted a letter from an assessor, Mr. Frykholm, stating that this is a new concept in construction; costing approximately $70,000; that the project would fit in with the neighborhood in that it presently consists of mobile homes and smalller houses of the Farm Home type; it would appear that there is not good precedences in the market to give an idea of strong positive or negative impacts on value; the project appears to be double density with 2 units per 9,000 sq. ft. rather than 1 unit. The letter was entered into the record. Sue Calhoun came forward to voice objection to the project as it is now. There were several questions from the public concerning the concept, all were answered by the Commission or Mr. Labahn. } Commissioner Zubeck stated that most of the houses and apartments in the City now are built on paved streets with curb & gutter, water & sewer are all in, these proposed tonight are not. They ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 4 are on an unimproved road with sewer & water only. Commissioner Smalley quoted 21.76.140 the section addressing pubic utilities being adequate to serve townhouse development; health, safety, & welfare will not be jeopardized; with indications of the density of population, the street itself, the access off the highway, etc. would make it appear facilities would not be adequate. Comissioner Carrignan stated that he is very concerned with the high density problems and would like to see something such as a development plan to see if this is a concept the City would like to adopt, i.e., do we want to see this type of development and the long range effects. Need to have perimeters to say no more townhouses in a certain area. Chairman Lewis stated that he shares the same concerns, that the opinions of the adjacent property owners weigh heavily, and the public facilities must be taken into consideration as to whether townhouses are appropriate and from material submitted, it does not appear that it is adequate. Commissioner Bryson referred to the document concerning townhouses from Sitka that were reviewed by the Commission. Presumably Sitka was facing some of the same problems as Kenai where the low side of the density is being worked. At the time Sitka set 40' as minimum width and are being treated differently than a standard townhouse and requested Mr. Labahn's opinion. Mr. Labahn stated that these are not traditional townhouses but are zero Iot line duplexes. At the time of drafting, both were combined into townhouses and the Commission may feel a need to separate them out at a later date. Mr. Labahn agreed that Sitka's minimum lot width was 40' and a permit was required. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved, seconded by Commissioner Carrignan, to adopt PZ84-17, townhouse on Gov't Lnt 115, Sec. 34 by Mr. Waiter Church. Commissioner Bryson stated that to remove some objections, perhaps replace 8 lots with 6 with a variance of setbacks to alleviate the row effect and hopefully with the lesser density, more vegetation to be retained to break up the area. MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Bryson moved to allow 6 units to front on Dolly Virden Street with a variance of setback between 25' & 35', i.e., 1 house to be set back 35', seconded by Commissioner Oleson. A yes vote would accept the proposal only with the amendments. PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 5 This would make the width from 37' to 49' for each lot facing Dolly Varden VOTE AMENDMENT: Motion Amendment fails with Chairman Lewis and Commissioners Carrignan, Smalley, and Zubeck voting no; Commissioners Bryson, Oleson, and Osborne voting yes. VOTE MAIN: Main Motion fails with Chairman Lewis and Commissioners Bryson, Carrignan, Smalley, and Zubeck voting no; Commissioners Oleson, and Dsborne voting yes. Commissioner Smalley suggested the developers meet with the neighbors and work out some type of agreement. b. PZ84-18: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of 2 Townhouse Units on Gout Lot 68, T6N, R11W, S.M. - Lots 1-4 St. Patricks S/D - Tony Doyle Chairman Lewis opened the hearing to the public. Brenda Zubeck, a resident of 414 Swires, stated that the roads were a mess most of the time, not being upgraded. The fact that the units were aimed at low income was not mentioned in the letter informing the parties within 300' and feels that it should be. The area currently is entirely single family dwellings and not of the low income type and requests that anything that goes into the area be compatible with what is already there. Jim Butler, representing Tony Doyle came forward to explain the proposal stating that the City has E. Aliak slated for upgrading, widening it, and gravelling it all the way to Swires. Most of comments were inaudible from this point. Mr. Dave Schwartz is a property owner across the street from the proposed development. Mr. Schwartz' home sits on 1.5 acres with 150' frontage which could. be subdivided. Appraisal of his home is over $150,000 and does not want zero lot line homes in a $70,000 bracket right across the street which Mr. Schwartz feels would definitely detract from his home. Mr. John Williams addressed the conflicts in the existing zoning ordinances, reminding those present that in that zone up to 6-plexes are allowed. ~ Mr. Charles Woodcock, awner of 2 adjacent lots, stated that he wants to see good housing come into the area, welcomes Mr. Doyle into the area to develop, but requests Mr. Doyle develop some- thing that those living in the area can be proud of and is PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 6 against low income housing as it detracts from existing property values. Mr. Woodcock wants to see Kenai grow and improve but this is not the way to upgrade. Mr. Taylor commented that the area is goad for development, close to downtown and schools, a main highway. Commissioner Zubeck asked if input has been received by Administration to ascertain if Farmers Home Administration was supportive of this type of construction. Commissioner Bryson asked if Jeff Labahn would check on the suggestion that there may be a road project to include Aliak, and also if drainage had been addressed since the road was so level. Mr. Labahn stated that there was no project that he was aware of that might include E. Aliak that far down. It was not on the CIP list officially, that no engineering or design work had been done and probably wouldn't be done this year. Brenda Zubeck wished to make the Commission aware that this area is primarily custom houses, single family homes which would surround these townhouses. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved, seconded by Commissioner Smalley to approve PZ84-i9. Commissioner Smalley stated that under 21.76.155 b several items listed as needing to be submitted were not. "Because the City has not actually caught up, public services and facilities are not adequate". Commissioner Bryson stated that the case at hand is nat a radical change from the subdivision density, not the high-low aspects of it but what is actually developed out there. VOTE: Motion fails with Chairman Lewis, Commissioners Carrignan, Olsen, Smalley, & Zubeck voting no; Commissioners Bryson and Osborne voting yes. Commissioner Osborne stated that "we seem to have a big problem here with the ordinance. What seems to be good for a townhouse would be fine for a duplex or 6-piex. Somewhere in here we have a big problem we should come up with an answer, have something stricter." Chairman Lewis agreed. The Commission is protecting the neighborhood from overcrowding in this situation, but an apartment complex can come in and da the same thing with no restrictions, what's the point. Commissioner Smalley stated that this issue came up when we were working on the Comprehensive Plan with the initial plan being to look at the initial development of ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 7 the city. Oftentimes these big projects start to ga wheat he City facilities are not adequate to support the dense const- ruction. c. PZ84-25: Rezone Tract A, Park View S/D, Sec. 6, T5N, R11W, S.M. from Conservation to Urban Residential - City of Kenai Chairman Lewis opened the hearing to the public. Mr. John Williams asked for an explanation of this particular conservation designation, Mr. Labahn explained. Archpriest Targonsky stated that there was no objection from the church. There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Lewis turned discussion back to the Commission. Mr. Labahn advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission recommend no objection to the rezoning and use of the property > per the memo and the City Council recommends disposal of the land. Commissioner Bryson inquired as to the intent of use as the plat was previously intended to be disposed of for institutional purposes. At the eleventh hour the individuals who had requested the acquisition of that parcel, found another parcel so the City then had a subdivided lot. Commissioner Bryson felt that due to its nature and adjacent subdivisions, Urban Residential was inappropriate. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved adoption of PZ84-25, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. d. PZ84-26: Amend Land Use Plan on PZ84-25 from Conservancy to Nigh Density Residential Chairman Lewis determined that all comments from PZ84-25 address this resolution also and will stand as a matter of record. MOTION: ~ Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ84-26, seconded by Commissioner Smalley. PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 8 VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 28, 1984 MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of the minutes as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Smalley. VOTE: Minutes approved unanimously. 6. OLD BUSINESS a. PZ84-22: Conditional Use Permit Application for Portion of Govt Lot 5, Sec. 2, TSN, RI1W, S.M. - for Extraction of Gravel -Olson & Beaudoin Chairman Lewis recalled that this is a returning item, the Commission having requested that the petitioner work out an agreement with the adjacent land owners. Chairman Lewis opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Chester Cone came forward stating that fie is the present owner of the property in question. Mr. Cone stated that the notice in the paper is in error, that reactivation is inappropriate in that the pit has been in use for 25 years. Mr. Cone stated that many City people have been out and inspected his operation, that he has always been in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, that he has always kept a neat operation, that he has not dug deep for gravel but kept at the water table, keep the bottom of the pit level, and that the consensus of the public is that he has not been a nuisance to the community. Mr. Cone stated that last year contractors suffered severly in that there was no concrete plant available. With this season being bigger than last, there is a need for a concrete plant in operation as soon as possible. Mr. Cone stated that "after 25 years of operation, he sees no need for permits so long as he has been in compliance with all of the agencies concerned." "There has been some talk of asking the people to bond for the future to be sure that they would rehabilitate the pit when the gravel was used up, I don't see the need of this, it would be a costly venture that no one could afford, and I don't think that there could be a time table on the amount of gravel that would be used out of the pit yearly, this will all depend on the local construction, the pit consists of 30 acres and is one of hte most ~ desirable building locations in the whole country when a reasonable amount of gravel has been extracted, the land is too PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 9 valuable." We plan for development once the pit has reached its extent. Mr. Dave McKechnie came forward and is a property owner behind the pit in question. Mr. Cone had stated that the pit was well maintained which is not true; considering that the pit encroaches on several boundaries within 50', in particular his property, it cannot be in compliance; the pit has several ponds and lakes; Mr. Cone has promised, over the years, to reclaim or rehabilitate and to date nothing has been done except more removal of gravel; after walking over the area with several knowledgable people, it has beee found that the pit is very nearly unreclaimable which means that it is non-developable and is a loss. There is not enough material in the pit right now to reclaim it which means in order for someone to reclaim the pit they will have to haul in soil. In Mr. McKecknie's conversations with the people who want to operate the pit, "we came to an understanding that they want to use it for about 5 years, they were willing to reclaim it. Chester has decided to go against the wishes of the people who live in the area. This pit isn't in his back yard, its in mine. He has consistently, over the past ten years invaded nn privacy by allowing. operators in that pit that were unsupervised, that he was not aware of what was going on at all, I called him several times and he was not aware of the conditions or the type of operation that was going on so how can he make the statements that it is a well maintained pit". "I think its about time that the City of Kenai sit down and devise a comprehensive plan on gravel pits so that the condition does not lend itself to what we've got on Beaver Loop, i.e. a bunch of pits that are going to be eventually a real burden to someone else who comes along in the future to try to do something with them, including the City or future property owners of this community who are going to have to pick up the slab that is going to be left because these areas are undevelopable and will not be able to support the area with property taxes. The conditions are getting worse and worse. The City should begin looking at a reclamation law that faces gravel pits just like any other strip mining. Commissioner Carignan asked Mr. McKechnie if any agreement had been reached with the petitioners. Mr. McKechnie stated that after walking through the pit, the pit was not totally recover- able and because of Mr. Cone's objections to a bond they would not be able to bond because he was still part owner in the land. The property owners then said they would like to deal with the new people, want to see someone get in this pit who is going to do something with it and who we can have some faith or trust in, we as a group of homeowners feel alat more comfortable with these people than we do with Mr. Cone. We feel its a no-win situation for us, with way we go we have a definite chance of losing, but we feel its less of a loss to allow these other individuals to PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 10 make an attempt to use the pit for their purposes if they are going to go ahead and reclaim it, and we are stuck with that since Chester has been "blowing smoke" for five years and nothing has happened. Commissioner Carignan stated that the bottom line is that the property owners are still objecting, Mr. McKechnie stated that they are taking the "lesser of two evils" that the petitioners be allowed to go in and operate under the conditions that they promised the property owners, that they start reclaimation this year and several tenative time tables. At least now it is on public record that the petitioners have stated that they will reclaim the pit. Mr. Beaudoin came forwarding stating that he met with the residents on two different occasions and the discussion appear to be favorable, and Mr. McKechnie is correct, there is not enough waste in the pit to reclaim it, thousands of yards of gravel having been exptracted over the years. There is a berm pile that seems to be about 35,000 yards, but not enough to raise the pit floor. Mr. Beaudoin stated that since gravel was extracted to the property Iine he could make no guarantees but will work with individual property owners. The owners wanted a ZOA reclamation in the first year, then prorate over the next 3 to 5 years, but for financial reasons can't adhere to that but will work with what is being removed rather than the entire 30 acres at once, the rest to be done over a period of time. Commissioner Carignan asked about the North Kenai pit that was reclaimed, Mr. Beaudoin said that the work was done by Central Alaska Construction and was a state pit. There was a policy for reclamation on that pit before it was ever developed and pits can look that good, but on the Peninsula, there has been nothing done in the way of planning ahead for reclamation. What makes reclamation feasible now is that the demand for concrete is great but a few months down the line the situation will change. Jeff Labahn stated for the Commission and those present that the conditional use permit is essentially a contract between the City and the operator of this pit, this is going to be the binding agreement should it be approved, therefore if there is anything that needs to be changed, this is the time to do so. Commissioner Smalley brought attention to the item concerning hours of operation, change the hours of operation from 8 to 6, it should read 8 to 5. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved, seconded by Commissioner Zubeck to approve PZ84-22 as amended with the attached revised application. PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 11 VOTE: Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote with Commissioner Bryson abstaining. b. PZ84-21: Conditional Use Permit Application for Gov't Lot 1-4, Sec. 3, TSN, R11W, S.M., Excluding NW1/4 Gov't Lot 4 for Gravel Extraction - City of Kenai This item returns with more information from Public Works. In talking with both the City Engineer and the Public Works Director, given the activity projected this year, they could only get through this year by working out of the existing pit, essentially that is the life of the pit. What they suggest is the 20 acres be designated as expansion area for a new pit. The problem this that it is clearly in Tract B and the City would have to come up with some type of suitable replacement lands for the Parks & Recreational property being taken. The advantage is that it would free up the balance of the propery. The praposed site would be good for about 7 or 8 years. Hopefully, by that time, both pits would be closed down and another site could be secured. There is no other viable source of sand in the City other than purchasing sand which would be a high cost to the taxpayers. Commissioner Smalley asked if Parks & Recreation had had any input as to whether there would be any use for the land since it is designated as such. Commissioner Carignan stated that nothing can be done at this time until appropriate steps can be taken for trading what is now park & recreational lands and the State can be contacted regarding the exchange. Mr. Rex Bennett is a property owner on Lawton stating that he would Iike to see the gravel pit moved. Since the new sewer & water is in the area, the values are enhanced and the locale can do nothing but grow. Commissioner Smalley proposed an amendment to the resolution to include a statement to remand lots 1 & 2 for parks & recreation for determination for potential use. The resolution now includes lots 1-4. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved to postpone action on PZ84-21 until it can be discussed with Parks & Recreation Commission, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. Mr. Gary Bogue came forward, asking to speak before the motion was voted upon. Mr. Bogue stated that he also does not want to see a gravel pit open in the area, this is one of the nicest areas in Kenai. PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 12 VOTE: Jill Burnett read a letter from Steven Richards, a resident of Fiddler Road which requests no further pits be opened basing his request on the aesthics, natural beauty of the area, and wildlife. "Such a beautiful area should be a park for those who like to cross country ski and pick berries. Left as it is it's an area that will be enjoyed by the community for untold years for such areas are fast fading". Mrs. Burnett states she objects to the expansion of the pit wholeheartedly on the basis that immediately south of that peice is the property selected by the Burnetts as the site for their own home, they have invested considerable funds in buying the 80 acres south of the pit and more considerable funds in having it surveyed all of which will be a total loss if the City extends its gravel pit that direction. When the Burnett's bought the land it was with the understanding that it was a park. Mrs. Burnett stated that she is emphatically against the pit and would seek legal recourse. Motion passed unanimously. NOTE: On the deleted item - Kenai Air Lease - Mr. Labahn has talked with the Airport manager who stated that with the expansion that is going on now with airport parking, there will not be a greater need in the forseeable future, i.e., the parking area is not being jeopardized by the proposed lease. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion: Vacation of 30' Utility Easement within Tract A, Swires S/Q, Sec. 3S, T6N ~ R11W~ 5.M. - Bill Zubeck The Borough holds the public hearing on this issue, it comes before this body for a recommendation. This particular easement is never used and City Administration recommends approval. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of vacation of 30' utility easement as described, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Zubeck abstaining. b. Lease Application: Tract B Gusty S/D No. 2 - for Parking - Jesse and Catherine Wade Chairman Lewis reminded the Commission that this item was before the Commission approximately one year earlier. The property has been platted and an appraisal made. The potential lessee would like to pursue is a lease on Tract B which would be used for"` parking to support the business. It is zoned Conservation and PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 13 parking is the only thing allowed under the. ordinance. If the applicant were ever to expand the building, at that time there would be a need for additional parking. Chairman Lewis read the minutes from the last meeting which stated that a site plan had been requested and a time frame for construction. Commissioner Smalley stated that there still is no site plan which would include whether it is to be paved or gravelled, number of spaces, area to be included, clearing of snow, proper drainage to the highway, etc. Commissioner Bryson stated that, just for the record, the whole lot has been cleared. Mr. Labahn stated that at this point, the City is reluctant to commit themselves to a long term lease on something that has no predictability. Commissioner Bryson felt that the lease should have been reviewed by the Parks & Recreation Commission particularly after this length of time and that it should now go to that body. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of lease application of Tract B, Gusty S/D No. 2 for a period of 20 years and request that a site plan showing the proposed parking development be submitted, seconded by Commissioner Zubeck. MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Smalley moved that the approval of the referenced lease contingent upon no objection from the Parks & Recreation Commission, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Both Main Motion and Motion Amendment approved unanimously. c. Preliminary Plat PZ84-18: Hanson S/D This is the plat that accompanies PZ84-17. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ84-18 with correction of negative findings, incorporation of staff comments, and preliminary plat approval is subject to prio authorization of conditional use application, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. d. Preliminary Plat PZ84-20: St. Patrick's S/D ~ This plat accompanies PZ84-19. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 14 MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ84-20 with correction of negative findings and incorporation of staff comments that preliminary plat approval be subject to prior authorization of townhouse conditional use application, and that Aliak Street be the primary access, seconded by Commissioner Smalley. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously e. Preliminary Plat PZ84-23: 5prucewoad Glen S/D No 2 NOTE: Commissioner Zubeck asked if buildings were shown on lot 5 of PZ84-20, answer no. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved for reconsideration of PZ84-20, seconded by Commissioner Bryson. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Bryson moved to reitterate item 9 on the resolution to indicate the existing buildings be shown on the plat, seconded by Commissioner Smalley. VOTE: Motion amendment passed unanimously. NOTE: Return to item e. Mr. Labahn explained that this is a resubdivision of Sprucewood Glen S/D, taking Tract A and subdividing it into A-1 - A-4, or Partee Lease. Administration has no problem with trading out the smaller parcels, however, strong objections to relocating the rear lot line on existing Tract B & C to abut Sprucewood Road. Tract B & C are commercial properties and should not be double accessed off a residential access and in talking with the public works director, the City would have had superior standards for the construction and design of Sprucewood Road if it was to be used for commercial property from the rear. Recommendation is for existing property line at the rear of Tract B & C be retained. ~ Sam McLane came forward representing the developer, Lowry. Mr. McLane asked if access could be restricted to the Spur Highway. Mr. Labahn stated that some type of additional action would be PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 15 necessary to ensure that the access would not be used, it has to be enforced. Sam McLane stated that the intent of Mr. Lowry was not clear, to increase the size of parking or to use as access, however, and suggested some sort of screen could be used. Mr. Labahn noted that the original plat and the original lease had adequate parking so there is no real need for more parking. What this is doing is opening up additional problems for the City and the residents along that street just to be able to use that road for a service entrance. Commissioner Bryson stated that on the original lease, one of the requirements was to rezone and is not a part of this plat nor is there any indication on this plat of a continuity of flow of traffic to Tract F or if that parcel is being further subdivided. Mr. Labahn pointed out that the stipulation made by Council was that only if the lease was broken down into 3 individual tracts would the rezoning be accomplished, and this was never done. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of PZ84-23 as presented with the amendment of retaining the existing rear lot line on Tracts B & C, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. f. Preliminary Plat PZ84-24: VIP Country Estates Part 4 The primary question being raised by the City Engineer is if the existing street (Seine Court) aligns with the proposed Seine Street. Mr. McLane states that on the original preliminary these streets are shown to be straight and the intent is for alignment. The only change is for a dogleg lower down Seine Street. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ84-24, with correction of negative findings, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. NOTE: Portion of item 8-d (section 36) addressed at this time. Sam McLane presented the most recent update. The plats are now ready for finalization of name and street names. The staking is done and the plat is ready for recording. PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 16 8. PLANNING a. Discussion: Vacation of Section Lines withing the City of Kenai Mr. Labahn introduced this item stating that these section lines are not needed as primary access is available. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved to recommend approval of the vacation of section lines as indicated, seconded by Commissioner Oleson. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. b. Discussion:. Zero Lot Line Development There has been several discussions regarding whether or not the City should allow a townhouse development as a right within certain specified standards and feel that it was a wise move to retain it as a conditional use process in order to review them on a case by case basis. Because what has been submitted are not traditionally townhouses, perhaps the two should be separated out of the townhouse ordinance. Commissioner Carignan requested a work session as the issue would take more time than a few minutes, Commissioner Bryson requested the work session be at 6:00 P.M. one hour before the next meeting which is April 25th. c. Discussion: Ordinance Requiring Landscaping on All Commercial Property within the City of Kenai The City Council has requested the Commission to prepare a draft which would "get the ball rolling" for discussion. Commissioner Zubeck stated that what we are all after is to get something in force for these people who come here and promise to do landscaping and have not done so, something that would be enforcable. Commissioner Zubeck stated that there was a professional landscaper in the audience and would like to have his input. Mr. Bill Ward of Ward Landscaping Service and stated that since he had a vested interest in such an ordinance it would be a bit unfair to speak in favor of it, however, he would be more than willing to help in any way he could. Kathy Thomas stated that. she's knocking trees down and taking reside in the City of Kenai but the lady that gets paid for them away. Ms. Thomas does not grew up in Anchorage and finds PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 17 that the same thing is happening in Kenai and Soldotna that happened in Anchorage, i.e., building strip cities, doing away with existing and not replacing with anything. Ms. Thomas does mast of her shopping and commerce in the cities and would like to see something established that will say for example: for this development of so many square feet we will have a percentage of existing vegetation and a percentage of new vegetation (land- scaping). "I have found that some of the more attractive areas in the cities I have been in in other parts of the country have something along that line and is a very conceivable thing for us to do from this point forward". Chairman Lewis stated that this Commission, on many occasions has attempted to do this very thing, Chairman Smalley stating that "we have gone out and tied trees" Chairman Lewis stated then someone on administration tells him to take them all down. Commissioner Smalley does not know if that is the case on the strip down the road, but seems to be tied in with others. Mr. Labahn stated that it seems that the only time we get involved in requiring some type of landscaping is when there is a lease application involved which creates two sets of rules. If you are leasing city land you need approval but if you bought City property or if its private property the City has no control whatsoever. Commissioner Carignan suggested that directing Mr. Labahn to proceed with all deliberate speed to continue to research this and to check with the city attorney on the legal ramifications of requirments for landscaping. Commissioner Smalley stated he agreed particularly in the cases of violations and what the City can do for recourse. This body has taken a great deal of time and energy to request these items in leases, then either administration allows it or does not pursue legal recourse or anything, then the Commission gets complaints on what are you going to do about it. Commissioner Zubeck stated that when they come in in the first place and say they are going to present a professional landscape and present a plan, have an estimated cost, put that money in escrow to be used for that purpose, then give a time line for completion, and if the landscaping is not done, the money is there to proceed. The time should be realistic since should construction be completed in the late fall, them landscaping could not be done until the next spring and then if it is not done in a reasonable time, there would be recourse for the City to hire someone to complete the plan. ~ Kathy Thomas suggested that perhaps it could be incorporated into part of the building permit process where you could control all properties, when submitting your site plan for the permit the ~1 PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 18 applicant would submit a landscaping plan and the money far escrow at that time thus reaching those lands not now under City ownership. Your target of overall landscaping for the community would then be reached. Mr. Labahn stated that he is interested in researching other municipalities and will get back with some ideas. It is not uncommon down south, but not much has been done in Alaska. Bill Ward stated that in their talks with developers who have put up buildings is that their basic concern is the benefit to them. Mast of the owners base that concern on their competitors, i.e. if they are building an office complex they will look to see what the other office complexes are offering their clients and they want to at lease match that or offer a little mare to attract clients. In that respect if all their neighbors have asphalt from the street to the front door, then they will too. Usually those who are willing to spend the extra money and are concerned are those who have come from an area where there are restrictions and they are aware of the payoff. What the City needs to consider is not only the visual aspect, but the noise, wind, dust, control. Commissioner Carignan suggested that as an incentive the City might consider as a cost of the lease. Right now there is no standard set for businesses to go by. Kathy Thomas stated that she has seen areas where if it is a requirement, it becomes a part of the building appraisal, the land appraisal, the financing, and there is compensation that way also, you are given credit for it in those aspects. d. Section 36, Subdivision and Street Names Chairman Lewis called upon Commissioner Carignan who had taken the assignment to the Quest program at Kenai Elementary. The students came up with several ideas, however, they chose Mountain View, but most of the names were already in use. Some of the choices of the Commission were: Whispering Winds, Migration View, or Migratian Point. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved to name the Section 36 parcel under consideration, Migration Point, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 19 9. REPORTS a. City Council Report Councilman Wise not in attendence, no questions on Council agenda as submitted. b. Borough Planning Report Commissioner Bryson reported that the townhouse plats were tabled pending decision by the Planning Commission. Recommended approval of the proposed timber disposal ordinance. Recommended an approval of a proposed ordinance to prohibiting disposal of Borough owned lands along anadromous fish streams except for exchange for other Borough owned lands along anadromous fish streams. c. City Administration Report 1) At this point, the Commission will review the landscaping plan submitted by Howard, Garner, Smith, Inc. Commissioner Carignan stated that if this plan articulates what they did in Juneau, then it is going to be nice. Commissioner Smalley pointed out that Mr. Putnam had indicated his firm had no problem with placing the estimated amount for the described landscaping in an escrow account to ensure that it will be done as described. Commissioner Smalley stated that he had talked with other people who have seen their facility in Juneau as it now exists, and the concensus is that it is a nice facility, and further that this is one of the first fairly well developed proposal that has ever been submitted to the City, and feels very comfortable with the firm. "Across the street we are sitting with an ugly eyesore and here we have something that we have never gotten before". The Commission agreed that they felt comfortable with the "integrity of the firm". MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved to approve the lease of Howard, Garner and Smith with condition that the landscaping plan as submitted on 4/11/84 be incorporated and further to state that the growth of the natural vegetation will remain on 3 undeveloped lots (future building sites), seconded by Commissioner Carignan. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 2} Jeff Labahn introduced a request from the Kenai Borough which was presented to the City Council for a co-incineration facility near the existing Snowshoe Gun Club near Beaver Loop Rd. } PLANNING COMMI55ION April 11, 1984 Page 20 This facility would aleviate the twa landfills in either Kenai or Soldotna. At this point, it is a study item. The Council voiced concern since this facility would sit very near the Beaver Creek water shed. Commissioner Zubeck asked if what they want to do is take the residue and inject it into the ground. Mr. Labahn did not know any details, but information will return to the Commission as it progresses. 3) A memo was given out concerning Mr. Lowry's lease violations which the Commission reviewed. Mr. Labahn stated that he had gone over the memo with the City Manager this date and he recommended that the memo be brought to the Planning Commission to either endorse the memo and send it on to Council or not. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to STRONGLY endorse the memo from the Land Manager and the suggestion of the City Manager, STRONGLY seconded by Commissioner Smalley. Commissioner Bryson asked if Mr. Lowry had not wrongly cleared out the state ROW also, Commissioner Smalley asked if the state would object along with the City. Chairman Lewis asked, "whats the point, they already did the same thing up the road". Commis- sioner Oleson asked "haw do you stop this, people doing what they want not matter what they promise" The Commission agreed that an ordinance is at least a beginning. Mr. Labahn stated that "the credibility of the whole leasing system is at stake. If the City is not going to stand behind the requirements of any lease application then you are spending slot of unnecessary time", the Commission agreed. Commissioner Zubeck stated that, "its not just our feelings, I think the whole City would like to see something done". VOTE: Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote with the words emphatically requested to be included. Commissioner Zubeck asked if a copy of the memo had been sent to Mr. Partee, Mr. Labahn stated no, Commissioner Zubeck requested that he also be sent a copy with the same stipulations. Mr. Labahn stated that he was made aware of the same violation verbally, with the response being "what problem". 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None `~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1984 Page 21 11. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Draft Sign Code Ordinance This item will be a work session item for April 25th at 6:00 P.M. b. Memo from Parks & Recreation Commission - Conservation No action at this time. c. City Council Agenda No action I2. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Commissioner Smalley noted that the Uptown Motel Addition with no building permit posted that is showing and asked that it be brought to the attention of the Building Inspector. Commissioner Zubeck noted the sign which does not appear to be ~ legal (large yellow sign in front of Uptown Motel) and asked to contact the Building Inspector. Commissioner Smalley stated that since there have been so many violations in that area, feel an inspection into the matter would be warranted. Commissioner Osborne noted the cars for sale along the Spur, asking if the Council had not requested they be moved at one time and if the Council should be requested again about moving them, the Commission concurred, Commissioner Osborne suggested that perhaps to put some teeth into the request, the Council could post a parking time limit and if the cars are not moved by the end of that time, they could be towed. With the area posted, the car owners would have no excuse for "not knowing". 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Commission is Mednesday, April 25, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. The work session is scheduled for 6:00 p.~. prior to the meeting. ~ Janet Eoper Secretary PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Ro11 Call rod ~- ~ 1 ' ;~ d~ ~' ~ G~ 4~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~7 ~.~" ~~v _~ ~ ~~ _~ - Chairman Lee Lewis ` In`,-~' I N ~, ~, ~v ~ ~ ~ f y ~ ~ / y ~ ` f `~ " Phil Bryson ~ ~\ `l ~I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~) I / Richard Carrignen 1 ~ ~ I `-~ ~ I ~- 1 1. ~ I ~~ ~ Bob Oleson \ ~ \' ~. `~ ~ Ozzie Osborne _ ` ~ \I ~ ~I ~ ~ l Hal Smalley ~ ~ / i v ~ ~ ~ y II ~ ~ J 1 ~~ Bill Zubek - ~ ~ J~ i ~ ~ ~ I a~° ~I a 7 ~. _~ TO DO ~ YG~'~Zc-ear ~~' ~%! ~~ C, (J ~- ~ ~~ I~,~~~ ~ ~~~c! ~~~ ~ C~ /t( ~~n. r ! = ~~ ~~ / , %~ a ~ J ~~ ~ ,. j; J, (,L C~ -~- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Roll call v~ v , ~ ~ ~~ a uL,ir / ~~////// Chairman 'Lee Lewis ~ \ J `fit- ,~\ I -Phil Bryson ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~` Richard Carrignon ~ ~ ~ ~I `t ~ \' y Bob Oleson ~ ~ \~ I Ozzie Osborne ~~ I Hal Smalley Bill Zubek - u r TO DO