Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-25 P&Z MinutesKENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 Kenai City Ha11 Lee Lewis, Chairman AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ84-63: Variance from Off-Street Parking Requirements Lots 4B, 4C, & 4D; Aieyeska S/D, Merit Add - Kenai Merit Tnn b. Resolution PZ84-52: Conditional Use Permit for Townhouse, Lot 14, Central Heights S/D, 1st Add - Clint Hali c. Resolution PZ84-62: Conditional Use Permit for 40 Townhouse Units, Parsons S/D, Inlet Woods Add. - McLane & Assoc. d. Resolution PZ84-67: Rezone Lots 1-24, Lawton Acres S/D from RS to Conservation e. Resolution PZ84-69: Recommending Adoption of Signs & Advertising Devices Ordinance f. Resoslution PZ84-68: Recommending Adoption of Landscaping Standards Ordinance 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of Jun e 13 and June 27, 1984 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Lease Application: L ots 9&10, FBO S/D - Aviation Support Facilities - Parker & Black b. Resolution PZ84- Amending Street Names far Dena'ina Point Estates S/D 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Preliminary Plat PZ84-64: Selhay-Wilhelm Deed of Record J PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda July 25, 1984 Page 2 b. Preliminary Plat PZ$4-65: Anglers Acres Part 4 c. Preliminary Plat PZ84-66: Enchanted Forest No. 2 d. Preliminary Plat PZ84-53: Central ,Heights SID lst Add No. 2 (Townhouse PZ84-52) 8. PLANNING a. Discussion: Establishing an Effective Time Limit for Conditional Use and Wariance Permits 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 11. INFORMATION ITEMS Council Agenda Kenai Zoning Code 14.20 KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 `~ Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman 1. ROLL CALL Present: Lewis, Bryson, Olesan, Osborne, and Zubeck Absent: Carignan and Smalley both excused 2. AGENDA APPROVAL Agenda approved with no deletions or additions 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS }}- b T ~~i ~~. ~.M ~~~ ~ a. Resolution PZ84-63: Variance from Off-Street Parking Requirements Lots 4B-4D, Aleyeska S/0, Merit Add - Kenai Merit Inn Jeff Labahn explained the need for the variance; the rear of the parking area will be encroaching onto a ROW that being Attla Way. Granting the variance will allow a portion of the parking area to be in the ROW. Chairman Lewis opened the hearing to the public. George Bradford of McLane & Assoc. came forward representing the owners of the Kenai Merit Inn. Mr. Bradford stated that due to the height of ground above Attla Way would prohibit placing a building closer to the ROW. This appears to be the only way to position a building of this size on the iot and the only alternative to the parking requirements. With the past office relocating some of the traffic congestion on Attla Way to be relieved. Commissioner Bryson stated that the site plan indicates that any traffic pulling out of the parking spaces will back directly into the ROW. Mr. Bradford answered that they slanted the parking spaces as much as possible hoping to avoid vehicles actually sticking out in the roadway. Commissioner Bryson stated that the backing situation is definitly a negative factor especially in the winter when rear windows are fogged. Chairman Lewis asked who would pass policy on backing ordinances, Jeff Labahn stated that Chief Ross had reviewed the plans and there is nothing in the code that prohibits this type of situation. Mr. Bradford painted out that this type of parking is similar to the Frontage. Road area; Chairman Lewis stated that the traffic is probably heavier on Attla Way even without the post office. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Sam McLane came forward and stated that a traffic signal is going to be placed on the corner of Willow and Spur Highway eliminating some of the traffic flow. Commissioner Bryson stated that his major concern is the moderate to high volume of traffic that flows on Attla regardless of signals and the post office. This is a fairly new subdivision, why was the traffic flow not evaluated; probably because there were no buildings on the plat at the time of approval. MOTION: Commissioner Zubeck moved Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: approval of PZ84-63, seconded by Motion passed with Chairman Lewis, Commissioners Oleson, Osborne, and Zubeck voting yes; Commissioner Bryson voting no. b. Resolution PZ84-52: Conditional Use Permit for Townhouse, Lot 14 Central Heights S/D, 1st Add - Clint Hall This is a lot split. A duplex was built and the applicant is requesting a permit for a townhouse. Mr. Clint Hall came forward and explained that this building was constructed to townhouse standards before the 45' limitation. Mauri Wilson came forward and stated that she has seen the townhouse and it is very nice looking. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. approval of PZ84-52, seconded by c. Resolution PZ84-62: Conditional Use Permit for 40 Townhouse Units Parsons SID, Inlet Woods Add. - McLane & Assoc. Jeff Labahn explained that this CUP is different from the others in that they are asking for approval in advance without seeing individual building plans. This would really fall under a PUD. The Commission really needs to take a look at some restrictions. Mr. Sam McLane of McLane & Assoc came forward and explained that what they want to do is designate areas within the subdivision for zero lot line construction. It would be very time consuming to come in and get 40 permits for each unit. Chairman Lewis opening the hearing to the public. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 Page 3 Cliff Baker with Dowling-Rice came forward to speak for the project. There being no further comment from the public, Chairman Lewis brought discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Osborne asked if the Commission had asked for a second access when this plat came before the Commission for review. Jeff Labahn answered that the developer intended to use the adjoining subdivision far the second access. The original concept was to file this plat and the adjoining plat simultaneously, however, this plat is being developed faster and the possibility of filing simultaneously is no longer valid. The developer has been made aware. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson, seconded by Commissioner Oleson, moved approval of PZ84-62. The Commission discussed lot sizes, recognizing that not ail lots were uniform in size. Jeff Labahn recommended the Commission take no action and requested the Commission allow him work with the developer, giving him guidelines to work with. Commissioner Bryson suggested that with the number of lots involved, an open area or playground would be in order. Commissioner Osborne and Commissioner Zubeck stated that it was their feeling that it was pretty much a consensus of the Commission that 45' is a standard for zero lot line develop. Chairman Lewis agreed, however, nothing has ever been placed in writing, Commissioner Bryson proposed that administration meet with the developer and submit a plan that would come up with a 45' width minimum. MOTION: Commissioner Osborne moved, seconded by Commissioner Bryson to postpone PZ84-62 as stated by Commissioner Bryson. VOTE: There were no objections. c. Resolution PZ84-6T: Rezone Lots 1-24, Lawton Acres S/D from R5 to Conservation Jeff Labahn explained that some time back, the City requested released of this property from FAA, a preliminary plat was done in 1983, however, there were serious problems with utilities in that the newly paved Lawton Drive would have to be torn up, and further that putting in the utilities would be cost prohibitive. Since that time, a request for purchase has been submitted for lots 1-16. It was the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission that Lawton Acres be rezoned to conservation. The Planning Commission had discussed PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 Page 4 retaining the treed corner, lots 25 through 29 for residential and the petition reflects this. Chairman Lewis stated that he did not believe that it was the intent of the Commission to reserve lots 25-29. Chairman Lewis opening the hearing to the public. John Wagoner, homeowner directly across the street from lots 25-29 stated it was his wish that those lots be included in the rezoning request and that he is in favor of rezoning to conservation. Lots 25-29 are heavily wooded and very beautiful, hame to wildlife, esp. the moose. Brian Shackleton, also a resident directly across the street from lots 25-29, also requests including these lots in the rezoning for the same reasons stated by Wagoner, and stated further that those lots are very small and he does not want to see that type of development. Jerry Hanson, resident of Inlet View far 4 years. At the time Mr. Hanson moved into the neighborhood, he spoke with neighbors about a recreation area for the children. He has submitted a petition to the Parks & Recreation Commission requesting a park for the strip in question, everyone contacted was in favor.. He is definitely in favor of the rezoning and stated that one need only to drive down the Spur towards the stripped area to appreciate green areas. Driving up the hill coming into Anchorage one can observe people's back yards. Don't think the people of Kenai want that type of development. The high school and junior high students take field trips to those corner lots. Mr. Hanson wishes to keep the subdivision quiet and peaceful. Jeff Sauer {sic) agrees with Mr. Hanson. While Mr. Sauer is not a landowner, he does live further down the street and is in favor of the rezoning. Many people use the streets in the area to get to the highway, also bicycle and foot traffic uses the bike trails, the area is pleasant to be in. Connie Keevil, resident of Pamela Court is in favor of the rezoning and including lots 25-29. Ms. Keevil feels that the strip enhances the development of Kenai and it would be farsighted of the Commission to keep areas through the community for greenstrips. Tom Wagoner does not live in the immediate area, however, wishes to state that he feels development can take place and still maintain the conservation aspect. Mr. Wagoner agrees that there is no recreation in the area for children, unless you consider the ballfield across the Spur Highway and will request the Recreation Commission take a look at the possibility. Mr. Wagoner feels the Commission should "make stringent recommendations to the City Couneil on cutting up pavement". Some pavement cuts were made on Birch, "the City can't afford to pave PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 Page 5 roads when lots are undeveloped". You need to take a look at how many trees can be saved, there are bare areas on that strip, and taking a drive down Lawton, there really isn't that much traffic. Terry Wagoner, resident of Inlet View, stated that she was in favor of the rezoning and the inclusion of lots 25-29. Realizing that the City would receive revenue from the sale of those lots which would offset the cast of constructing the utilities, there are lot of other areas that could be developed. It is very costly to tear up paving and those lots are very small and does not feel that it would be worth the loss of the conservation/buffer strip. Tom Thompson, a resident of Inlet View seconded everything stated thus far except for Mayor Wagoner. He is in support of the rezoning. Lots 25-29 became parents to 2 moose this year. As to development with the utility situation the way it is, just don't see it being beneficial at all, it would be extremely expensive. These lots are very small and the ones that would sit closest to the highway would suffer noise pollution to a large extent, living there would not be desirable. Request the entire strip be rezoned. John Williams stated that he is half in favor, half not. The City would gain revenues which would help defray the cost of the water & sewer expenses. Lots 1-16 do not have all that many trees and could be developed. Over the years slat of gas has been poured in the cleared area by the fire department for training. Jerry Wilson, resident of Inlet View, stated that there is slot of use of the strip area for bicycling and walking. To develop the property and remove the strip you would loose the desirability of the area. Mr. Wilson wished to go on record as approving the rezoning of the entire strip. Howard Hackney, resident of Inlet View, stated that he worked with the contractor who put in the subdivision, and decided to purchase a lot there himself. The contractor had promised to put in paving so that should not come as a surprise. There are alot of areas that have opened up with water & sewer such as NEM and LACK, Section 36, there is no need to push for development of an area already settled and quiet. Development would change the character of the entire area. The City does not need to develop every lot they own, some can be left For future with some trees. Ron Johnson, resident of Inlet View for 4 years stated that for 9 months out of the year, there is heavy traffic on Lawton due to the schools. The use of Lawton relieves alot of tension from the Spur Highway. Mr. Johnson requests for all the reasons already stated that the entire strip be rezoned to conservation. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 ~ Page 6 John Wagoner spoke to the issue of traffic stating that he has already lost a dog to the traffic on Lawton and agrees that at least for 9 months of the year Lawton is very busy. Tearing Lawton up for utilities would create more problems for the community. Further, if the state widens the Spur, that will decrease the strip considerably and bring the highway to the back door of any houses along there. Chairman Lewis brought discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Bryson noted that the water & sewer lines are buried deeper between lots 17 & 29 so would have to take out the entire roadway. Commissioner Zubeck stated that the water & sewer lines are buried 5' to 6' below the water table. Commissioner Osborne asked if, when FAA released the land were there restrictions, Jeff Labahn explained that the land was to be sold and the revenues were to be set aside for the airport. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved, seconded by Commissioner Zubeck to approve PZ84-b7. VOTE: Motion passed with Chairman Lewis and Commissioners, Bryson, Oleson, and Zubeck voting yss, Commissioner Osborne voting no. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved to amend the motion to include lots 24-29, seconded by Commissioner Zubeck. VOTE: Motion passed with Chairman Lewis, Commissioners Oleson, Osborne and Zubeck voting yes; Commissioner Bryson voting no. e. Resolution PZ84-69: Recommending Adoption of Signs & Advertising Devices Ordinance The City Council passed Ordinance 955-84 which takes a portion of the sign code verbatim, the intent to eliminate the flashing signs and restrict the use of portable signs as soon as possible. Howard Hackney recommended adoption of the resolution as the process has been going on for over 2 years. Chairman Lewis opened discussion to the public. Jerry Hanson came forward and stated that he was delighted to see something finally being done about the flashing and portable signs. It would appear the owners of these signs are vying for ugliest sign award. There are several signs that are not in compliance with the current code and the sooner something is done about them the better. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Hanson stated that he is not familiar with the enforcement procedure, but wants to see all that can be done as soon as possible. "I applaud the work that you have done". Connie Keevil "applauds the work the Council and the Commission have done and endorse your efforts" however, do not see a section for non-electric. The code addresses the current electric, changable letter, portables, but not non-electric. Jeff Sauer concurred with preceeding statements and endorses a strong ordinance. Must point out that not only are signs a nuisance, but an example of unsafe signs are the two in front of the two gas stations an the Spur. Vehicular traffic must look around the signs when entering a very busy highway. Councilman Wise stated that he felt signs should be measured and validated before the ordinance goes into effect so you would know who is in compliance. MOTION: Commissioner Zubeck moved approval of PZ94-69, with the amendment that under 8-12, changed to read electric and non-electric signs,seconded by Commissioner Osborne. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved to postpone the resolution to the next meeting, allowing administration time to consider the comments given at this public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Oleson. Commissioner Zubeck stated that he did not wish to withdraw his motion due to the fact that considerable time has been spent already in the drafting of this ordinance. Motion to postpone takes precedence. VOTE: Motion failed with Chairman Lewis, Commissioners Oleson, Osborne, and Zubeck voting no; Commissioner Bryson voting yes. VOTE Main Motion: Motion passed unanimously. f. Resolution PZ84-68: Recommending Adoption of Landscaping Standards Ordinance The appendix recommending desired materials from Mr. Ward has not yet arrived. PLANNING & ZONING C©MMISSIQN l July 25, 1984 Page 8 Chairman Lewis opened the hearing to the public. Connie Keevil asked if the ordinance was for city Iands only. Jeff Labahn answered that it applies to all commercial properties and that ownership is not an issue. Ms. Keevil asked if there was any assurance that after the landscaping and trees were in, that they would be maintained, in other words say 6 trees were planted, what would happen if they all died. There does not appear to be any teeth in the ordinance and Mr. Lowry is an example of going on trust only. Mr. Labahn stated that there was no assurance built into the ordinance, and it may be unrealistic, but if someone is going to invest in landscaping, then they are going to maintain it. Ms. Keevil asked, under buffers, it is not defined what kind of buffer. Jeff Labahn answered in most cases natural vegetation. Ms. Keevil asked if there were no vegetation or trees on a lot for buffer would they be required to place a buffer in and what type. Jeff Labahn answered that they would have the option. Ms. Keevil stated that with the exceptions pointed out, she is in favor of the overall ordinance. Jeff Sauer referred to item f: it addresses trees and space but no requirement that trees be planted at all. Item e: should the ordinance be Left with that much discretion. Mr. Sauer stated that he was "tired of the bulldozer mentality, the public has a right to a certain amount of aesthetics. When people come to Alaska they are struck by the awesome beauty and any place that man has touched he has made ugly. Most people have a pride in their community and are not blind. The City of Kenai has the power and have used it wisely. Asks that the City consider the grass parking lots space be increased to lq Q instead of 5%. Howard Hackney referred to the contractor bid portion of the draft stating that there is no guarantee that the contractor would get the job nor that it would be done, further, a builder would be tied up financially with the bonding approach. "I can see a contractor spreading rocks around and saying that's my landscaping, you are allowing an awful lot on a voluntary basis. If you are going to require all of this done before a building permit is issued that means it will have to be done at City Nall. We added another man and there still isn't enough manpower to carry out what we have." Councilman Wise agreed, stating that he does not care for the bonding approach, enforcement would mean going to court, the escrow approach would be preferable. Councilman Wise further stated that the Commission should not exclude residential areas. There are several areas where the Commission has permitted pretty dense multi-family dwellings to go in. An example would be Mommsen's and Walker Lane. PLANNING & ZONING COMMI5SION July 25, 1984 ) Page 9 John Williams stated that he was half for and half against, that he had spent several hundred dollars an landscaping and the moose ate it. Mr. Williams agrees with a need for a buffer strip, however, he has built a 24 unit apartment complex which borders a 65' buffer already and an additional 10` would be inappropriate. Mr. Williams disagrees with the standards stating that 2" is too small, local nurseries do not stock 2" trees. It was agreed by all present that more work with Council involvment was necessary. Marian Nelson, representing the Beautification Committee stated that it was the Committee's intent to make a document which would not be unlivable. MOTION: Commissioner Osborne moved, seconded by Commissioner Zubeck to hold a work session with the Council, Beautification, and Parks & Recreation Commission at the Council's convenience. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 13 and June 27, 1984 MOTION: Commissioner Osborne moved approval of both minutes as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Bryson. VOTE: There were no objections. 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Lease Application: Lots 9&10, FBO S/D - Aviation Support Facilities - Parker & Black Mr. Parker presented a new plan detailing the changes as requested by the Commission, including a fence with a gate on the ramp side. Commissioner Oleson asked if Mr. Parker intended to have an-site fueling facilities, Mr. Parker stated that they didn't like tanks and any fueling would be done by mobile trucks. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oleson, approval of the lease application with the inclusion of staff comments. VOTE: There were no objections (Commissioner Zubeck absent for vote PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 Page 10 b. Resolution PZ84-70: Amending Street Names for Dena'ina Point The current names far streets in Dena'ina Point are very hard to spell and pronounce. These names are suggested as substitutes. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ84-70, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed (Commissioner Zubeck absent for vote} 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Preliminary Plat PZ84-64: Selhay-Wilhelm Deed of Record This is the plat for the Anchor Trailer Court. Mr. John Williams asked to speak, Mr. Williams is representing the adjoining property owner which is the Catholic Church.Mr. Williams wished to remind the Commission that he had been before the Commission about one year ago requesting a boundary clarification and/or vacation. There is a vacation request on file at the Borough for the ROW running between the twa adjoining properties, however, the owners of the Anchor Trailer Court property have refused to sign or participate. The trailer court is encroaching into the ROW on those properties as well as the Spruce Street ROW. The Commission further discussed encroachments and vacation of the ROW. MOTION: Commissioner Osborne moved, seconded by Commissioner Bryson to postpone this plat until administration can look into the matter. MOTION WITHDRAWN By Commissioner Osborne. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved, seconded by Commissioner Osborne to approve Z84-64. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. b. Preliminary Plat PZ84-65: Anglers Acres Part 4 This plat requests exemption from the 3-1 since it is an addition to an already existing subdivision designed in this manner. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 'j Page 11 MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ84-65, seconded by Commis- sioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. c. Preliminary Plat PZ84-66: Enchanted Forest No. 2 Recommend rezoning for the size of the lots, installation agreement with the City, and the cul-de-sac to become street straight through following the already existing Chrystal Street. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, approval of PZ84-66 with inclusion of staff comments. VOTE: There were no objections d. Preliminary Plat PZ84-53: Central Heights 1st Add No. 2 This is the townhouse CUP 84-52 plat. 1 MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved, seconded by Commissioner Zubeck, approval of PZ84-53. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 8. PLANNING a. Discussion: Establishing an Effective Time Limit far Conditional Use and Variance Permits Kenai is the only municipality without a time limit on these permits. Commissioner Bryson stated that since most construction takes place in the summer if 6 months would be appropriate. Councilman Wise noted that what has happened in some cases is that a basement will be built then the people live in the basement for 3 years before finishing the house, if then. You need to be more definitive. Jeff Labahn proposed 18 months which would be 2 building seasons. Cliff Baker stated that he felt the Commission was going in the right direction, however, in the case of townhouses such as Inlet Woods, not all the houses will be done at once, what happens to those. Jeff PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 25, 1984 ~ Page 12 Labahn stated that it should not be a problem. It was the concensus of the Commission to extend the time limit to 12 months with a 6 month extension allowable. 9. REPORTS a. City Council No comments or questions b. Borough Planning No comments or questions c. City Administration No comments or questions 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 11. INFORMATION ITEMS No comments or questions 12. AD3OURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting will be Mednesday, Rugust 8, 1984. Janet Loper Secretary Roll (' a 1 1 PLANNING & ZONING . ~f ~n /,tX Chairman •Lee Lewis ~ ~ ~ ~ -Phil Bryson `~ ~ ~ ~- ~ y Richard Carrignon Bob 0leson ` ` ~ n l Iv ~. Ozzie Osborne ~1 ~ ` ~ ~ \I y' Hal Smalley Q Bill Zubek - X ' `-' ~, ~ ~ TO DO ~Q y ;~ ~e1ad,urn~ ~Ce-n-G~S~kf~~ ~~.~ ~ '~ ,c.~c., .~'.~._,~ , ~ G~ ~~ PLANNING & ZONING CQ~IM~SSION ~` S~(/// ~~ /a f y R o 11 v` Call ~ ~` Chairman •Lee Lewis -Phil Bryson Richard Carrignon - Bob Oleson Ozzie Osborne Hal Smalley Bill Zubek - `I ~~ TO DO