Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-12 P&Z Minutes4. KENAI PLANNING & ZONTNG COMMISSION '` December 12. 1984 Kenai City Hali Lee Lewis, Chairman Work session at 6:00 p.~. on Proposed R1&2 Zoning District AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ84-96: Amending Kenai Zoning Code to Establish R1&2 Zone * b. Conditional Use Permit for Extraction of Natural Resources - ~ Foster - S. Ames Rd. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 28, 1984 6. DLD BUSINESS a. Conditional Use Permit Extension for Day Care - Sheeran ~/~ (no material presented at packet time) * b. Lease Review: Lot 3, Blk 1, Spur 5/D ~1 - for Bowling Alley -Church/Paxton 7. NEW BUSINESS * a. Lease Application: Tracts B1 & B-2, CIIAP S/D - Retail Mall - John Howard {Reapplication) b. Preliminary Plat PZ84-97: Richka Creek S1D 8. PLANNING a. Comprehensive Plan Update b. Commission Goals & Objectives 1985 PIANNTNG COMMISSION ~ December 12, 198G Page 2 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 11. INFORMATTDN ITEMS a. Council Agenda b. Commissioner Terms of Expiration 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 13. ADJOURNMENT * Indicates material will be available at the meeting p KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December I2. 1984 Kenai Citv Hall lee Lewis. Chairman 1. ROLL CALL A11 Commissioners Present 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Delete items 6-a and 7-a. Agenda approved with two items deleted. 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PZ84-96: Amending Kenai Zoning Code - R1&2 Zone ~ Chairman Lewis opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Fred McCollum came forward and stated that he is a resident of Princess and McCollum which is slated for upgrading. The availability of this type of zoning would make a direct affect on how this area would be developed and feels with examples like Treetop apartments, he is definitely in favor of the proposed Rl&2. Jahn Williams asked haw areas would be designated, answer, by a group of the property owners. Chairman Lewis brought the discussion back to the Commission. Chairman Lewis indicated the work session regarding this issue just prior to the meeting and informed the public that it is the consensus of the Commission that rather than propose one single new zone, work it into the two existing zones so that lot sizes would conform with those existing zones. Example: in an RS zone, break it down further into RS1 and RSZ with the same 7200 sq. ft. minimum lot size but would restrict only the number of dwellings to single and duplex.. The same would hold for RR, i.e. break it further into RR1 & RRZ with the same minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. or 4p,000 sq. ft. again restricting only the number of dwellings to single and duplex. Jeff Labahn clarified the statement by adding that we are not talking about adding a zone on a map but allowing an option for property PLANNING & ZONING COMMI5SION December 12, 1984 Page 2 owners to rezone. Commissioner Carignan asked if a motion to adapt would be in order, Jeff Labahn recommended the Commission take no action at this time, but a motion to draft an ordinance which satisfies the concept and schedule a public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to direct ordinance incorporating all comments hearing on the new draft for the next seconded by Commissioner Smalley. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Administration to draft an and further to schedule a public regular meeting, January 9th, b. Conditional Use Permit for Extraction of Natural Resources - Foster - S. Ames Rd. Steve Faster came forward to address his application. At the last meeting, the Fosters had been asked to obtain a contour map and report on test holes. A contour map was presented to the Commission and Mr. Foster reported that he was only able to obtain (from the State) test hole cores from adjacent property as the State had not done test holes at his site. The test holes are the ones done by the Fosters as deep as they could reach with a backhoe which about 10'. All the test holes turned up either sand or gravel. There are neighboring wells in the area that have logs showing gravel as deep as 80'. Chairman Lewis opened the meeting to the public for comments. Mr.Nick Miller, adjacent property owner came forward and stated that "we have had a couple of meetings with the Fosters and have discussed their plans. The fact is that we already have a gravel pit there that doesn't look real good and their plans on developing it and cleaning it up as they use it, if they have a permit and clean the gravel pit up year by year and fill out their yearly plan that says what they're doing, how much they're taking out, and what they're doing, I have no objection." Chairman Lewis asked if they had gone over the Fosters plan, answer, "they have had a meeting at our house with some of the neighbors down the road, we've talked to them in great deal on what they plan to do, of course get the permit, fill out the yearly report saying what they're going to do, how they're going to do it and how they are going to, at least at this time, the 2-1 backslope with the gravel pit, they propose to do a 5-1 slope to their lake when they develop it, that's not totally pertinent to the pit, if they're doing at least the gravel pit part by cleaning up around it as they go, I don't see any problem with it. I'm not opposed to it if they go by the book like they say they will". PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 12, 1984 Page 3 Paula McKeehnie, an adjacent property owner reitterated what Mr. Miller said. "The subdivision idea is wonderful, but the Fosters have said that they will bring it up to gravel pit standards. We would like to see them do that first of all. All we ask is that the City follow its own ordinances, check them from year to year to make sure that they do that and I'm sure if they don't you'll hear from us". There being no further comments from the public Chairman Lewis returned discussion to the Commission. Commissioner Bryson stated that right now the proven gravel is approximately 1S' elevation range, answer 10' below the floor of the pit or below water level. Total 20' below the water table. Commis- sioner Smalley asked if the hours of operation had changed, answer 6 days per week, 7 - 5;30 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to grant a conditional use permit to the Fosters for extraction of natural resources located on referenced property, seconded by Commissioner Bryson. Jeff Labahn commented that a letter had been received from Mike Pe1ch regarding the gravel pit. The Commission recessed for 5 minutes. VOTE: Jeff Labahn informed the Commission that Mr. Foster had indicated that a survey of the property had been done although he was still waiting for the information. Commissioner Carignan asked if there was any objection to approving the permit, Jeff Labahn answered no. The Commission voiced concern far safety as the pit goes below the water table, questions of access, fencing, and slope were asked, Mr. Foster answered that safeguards were being taken, there would be no public access. Jeff Labahn asked about hauling restrictions; only the ROW entering onto Beaver Loop will be used. Motion passed unanimously. S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 28, 1984 Minutes were approved as submitted b. OLD BUSINESS j PLANNING & ZONTNG COMMISSTON December 12, 19$4 Page 4 a. Lease Review: Lot 3, Blk 1, Spur S/D 4~1 - for Bowling Alley - ChurchlPaxton This comes to the Commission at the request of Council as a result of a lease violation wherein the building was not constructed in such a way and of materials not approved. The Council asks for a recommendation after the Commission has reviewed alternatives from the lessees. An artists rendering and blue line drawings were handed out depicting the alternative desired by the lessees. Mr. Fred Paxton stated that "what we have here is a steel structure with a convex roof. What has been recommended by some people is that we put up a false roof that would hide the convex roof. In doing so, we decided that we would cover the exterior of the building as well. The false roof on the side is roughly 80° slope which will be covered with shakes and that comes down 1' below the eave of the building and 1' above the highest part of the roof, then all 4 corners of the building will be covered with stone and then around each door. In trying to eliminate any additional snow load that would acquire that so it is build away from the roof 18"." Commissioner Smalley asked if it was the intent to continue with the existing structure and then place the facade, answer yes, it will be done in 2 phases, the construction of the building as it is, then the second phase would be to place the facade. Commissioner Smalley asked if the second phase would be done prior to the opening of the business, Mr. Paxton answered, "it all depends on if the City Council requires that we do that thats fine, otherwise we would do that during the time that the building was open, because it is all exterior and has nothing to do with the calculations of the structure itself". Chairman Lewis asked for Mr. Paxton's timetable on opening the doors, Mr. Paxton answered the last of February or first of March, depending upon ice and snow load. Jeff Labahn asked if the crown of the existing building be visible from any angle once the building is put up, answer no. Absolutely no portion of the roof will show at any angle. Commissioner Carignan asked for an estimate of time of the completion of the facade after the structure is completed, answer without engineers calculations, a maximum of 30 days. The Commission noted the time tables on the lease, it was agreed the Council would be looking at those factors. Jeff Labahn stated that Council might be looking for some type of guarantee on the city's behalf that all of the facade work be completed before perhaps a certificate of occupancy is issued and asked far a reaction from the Commission. Mr. Paxton stated that if that was required, however, being the time of year it is, looking at it from a safety standpoint, it could be hazardous if there is excessive ice and/or snow, keeping that in mind, if it would please the Commission, we would like to be able to do it when the weather presents less hazards. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 12, 1984 Page 5 MOTION: Commissioner Bryson stated that there appears to be substantial concrete and masonry work and that presumably will have to be done at a time when there is non-freezing weather so you are talking about April or May, Mr. Paxton agreed, it would have to be after breakup or at least above 42°. Mayor Tom Wagoner (speaking for himself) stated that "1 would not feel comfortable letting them occupy the building without a certificate of occupancy. I think if you are going to allow them to occupy the building, you should allow them the certificate. The only other thing to do would be to have them post a band payable to the City in the amount to do the additional work to the building after the certificate is issued. I have not talked to the attorney on this yet. I would not feel comfortable unless we did have either a withhold of any occupancy at all until completion of the project or at least a cash bond in the amount of the facade". NOTE: Commissioner Oleson will be abstaining, he is a subcontractor on the project. Commissioner Carignan stated that looking at the artists rendition and the blue lines, I think I could live with that kind of building, once we have some guarantee that it will take place. Further, are we not to review the plans and let the Council handle the legal ramifications? Commissioner Carignan moved that we recommend to Council the approval of the structural changes to the plans of the structure. Commissioner Bryson requests that Commissioner Carignan incorporate the drawing and the rendering as part of the plan, Commissioner Carignan agreed, MOTION AMENDMENT: to include as part of the approval, the incorporation of the drawing and the rendering, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. Commissioner Smalley asked if the Commission needed to incorporate any stipulations on occupancy. Jeff Labahn stated "what i think I'm hearing is a desire to pursue some avenue to ensure we are reasonably protected, that that structure is going to be completed as proposed and whether it takes a bond or some other method to assure that and we can deal with that administratively. MOTION WITHDRAWN WITH CONSENT OF SECOND. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 12, 1984 Page 6 MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to recommend that we approve the concept of the renovation of the structure and that the lessee follow through with all the facade work as planned and that the City take steps to ensure that all phases of construction takes place", seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Preliminary Plat PZ84-97: Richka Creek S/D This is Government Lot 11 which has been requested to be released far sale several times. This is the preliminary step towards preparing the portion which is not in the gully for sale. The property is currently all zoned conservation and Lot 11A will have to be rezoned to RS. Commissioner Bryson asked about the water project the City has proposed running through 5th Street, is there ample ROW for its construction, the water line was supposed to be extended across the gully, Scott McLane surveyor answered that there is a 33' provision. Commissioner Bryson asked "the City is not proposing to vacate either one of the easements? answer no. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ84-97, seconded by Commissioner Carignan VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 8. PLANNING a. Comprehensive Plan Update Jeff Labahn presented material that has been drafted in conjunction with the Borough. The reason it is before the Commission is because the Borough still retains the planning powers and alI groups need ample opportunity to review the general outline that is being proposed. This will go on to the Council at the next meeting. If there are any questions, comments, or suggestions, now is the time. Commissioner Carignan stated that this project is awfully important because sometimes we make decisions that are somewhat "shotgun" decisions in that there is no criteria for making some decisions. A good example is the zero lot lines. This should be the foundation on everything we do. The consensus of the Commission supports the efforts as outlined. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSTON December 12, 1984 Page 7 b. Goals & Objectives for 1985 The Council is doing a similar long range goal setting. Commissioner Bryson expressed concern over the "gymnastics" that Mr. Church has to go through with his building because it is on leased land as opposed to private property. I'm not suggesting we should go back to the former situation, but I think development programs should be balanced. What we are applying on a lease parcel that is available to sale should be similar to what's required under normal circumstances. It would have been much simpler for Mr. Church to purchase the property then to pay out $40,000 for face work. Commissioner Zubeck asked if the option had been presented to him, Jeff Labahn answered that he had. Councilman Wise suggested expanding the landscaping ordinance to include the facade to apply to both public and private, commercial and industrial zones included. Councilman Wise further suggested a subcommittee of this group to go over all aspects of development, site plans especially. There was an article recently regarding the adjoining property and it was quite clear that by that sale, we have lost all control over it. The Commission and Jeff Labahn agreed that there were inconsistencies in the review process by the Commission, there being a great dichotomy of level of performance between lease lands and private. Commissioner Bryson stated that trying to address the architectural issue is a very difficult one because I don't feel there is anyone here that is qualified to evaluate the situation. The area does not have any architectural history to draw on for large buildings. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to add ~7 to the recommended list of goals Evaluate the Apparent Differences in Development Requirements Between Private and Public Property and that we adopt these 7 goals for the calendar year 1985, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 9. REPORTS a. City Council No questions or comments - agenda under 11-a b. Borough Planning No meetings PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 12, 1984 Page 8 c. City Administration None 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None lI. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Council Agenda No questions or comments b. Commissioner Terms of Expiration Commissioner Smalley wished to pass along to the Council the request and recommendation that in order to continue with consistent philosophy and with projects and policies in the process of being drafted, that Lee Lewis and Bob Oleson be reinstated. Their input has been most valuable and their efforts have been appreciated. The ~ Commission agreed unanimously. 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & 4UESTIONS Chairman Lewis informed the Commission that he had been contacted by Marv Royster, Planner for the City of Soldotna who stated that Neal Johanssen of Dept. of Natural Resources is anxious to meet with both the Kenai and Soldotna Planning & Zoning Commissions regarding the Kenai River Special Management area. The tentative date set is January 10th in Soldotna. Commissioner Smalley stated that he has received phone calls both for and against the golf course. It would be hoped that on any major expenditure the City would have a general election. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Commission is January 9, 1985. Janet Loper Secretary PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION R c, , l Call. ~~0 V~ ~ Chairman •Lee Lewis ~ J r _ -Phil Bryson `I x ~ 'I Richard Carrignen ~ ~ fi ~' Bob Oleson Ozzie Osborne \I ~ ~~ Hal Smalley y ~{ Bill Zubek TO DO may,- 9~ ~~ ~~,~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~Q~ ee~n