Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-27 P&Z Minutes''" KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 27. 1985 Kenai Citv Hall Lee Lewis. Chairman AGENDA I. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ85-18: Landscaping Ordinance b. Resolution PZ85-19: Amend Zoninct Code - Variance Permits ~ e. Resolution PZ85-20: Amend Zoning Code - Heavy Industrial Zoning d. Resolution PZ85-21: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a PURD - McClure 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 13, 1985 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS a. lease Application: Lots 3&4, Blk 2, FBO S/D -Machine Shop/Offices/ Storage - Kline b. Lease Amendment: Lot 5, 8Ik 1, Gusty S/D - Car Wash Addition - Pat Doyle c, Preliminary Plat PZ85-22: inlet View S/D Second Addition d. Preliminary Plat PZ85-23: Sprucewood Glen S/D #3 8. PLANNING a. Comprehensive Plan Update PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 2 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Cit_v Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 11. INFORMATION ITEMS Council Agenda 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 13. ADJOURNMENT K.ENAT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 27. 1985 Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis. Chairman 1. ROLL CALL Present; Lewis. Brvson. Carignan, Oleson, Osborne, Smallev Absent: Zubeck, excused 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Due to request by Mr. Cusak isic), item 7-a will be moved to 3-a. Agenda approved with the move. ~. PERSONS PRE5ENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD a. Lease Application: Lots 3&4, Blk 2, FBO S/D - Machine Shop/ Offices/Storage - Kline Mr. Ken Cusak, representing Mr. Kline, came forward to answer questions. Chairman Lewis asked if there was any problem with the items listed in Mr. Labahn's memo; Mr. Cusak answered no, that then had plans far fencing. Mr. Labahn mentioned the item in the mama that dealt with the zoning reAUirements in the IL district referencing the fencing, which means a buffer or fence will be required. The parking, spaces are not defined.; whether .paved or gravelled is not indicated; on-site drainage is not addressed;, curb cuts and driveways are not indicated. Commissioner Brvson asked if this was an area that required airport uses,, answer no. Commissianer Smallev asked if Mr. Cusak could address the items mentioned by Mr. Labahn. Mr. Cusak indicated the parking would be paved., but could not answer to the curb cuts and drainage. Mr. Labahn suggested that if the Commission wanted thaw issues addressed, they could request the site ,plan return. Commissianer Smalley noted that landscaping was not addressed and felt a need to identify those areas which would be left with natural vegetation and those areas to be cleared and replanted, Commissianer Bryson, asked about addressing driveway widths, i.e. "will he be paving, right across the front." Councilman Wise asked if, "time was of the essence, the reason being,, if the Commission views this as a concept if the application is required to return to P&Z1 then q_,o on to Council,, it will be 5 to 6 weeks before the lease could be signed. } What the Commission could do is approve it sub,ect to resubmission PLANNING COMMiS5I0N March 23, 1985 Page 2 with correction of the negative findings, then the Council can approve subject to the Commission signing off which cuts off 2 weeks." Mr. Cusak asked the Commission to allow that suggestion. Commissioner Bryson stated that "like the driveway width,, I don't feel comfortable setting, a driveway width, I would like to have this delineated sa that we know the limits of paving. Chairman Lewis asked if Commissioner Bryson was asking that the site plan return. Councilman Wise stated that .you can approve it subject to review of the site plan which means the Council can approve it sub,j,ect to your "signing off". MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved to approve the lease application subject to submittal of a final site plan with incorporation of the negative findings,. seconded by Commissioner Smalley. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ85-18: Landscapinct Ordinance This resolution returns after modifications resulting, from the last public hearing. Jeff Labahn reviewed those changes for the .public. Chairman Lewis opened the meeting, to the public. Tom Wagoner, resident of Kenai± stated that one thing that bothers him is the way the 5°o is used and would like to see that reduced to 2,°b ar take specific lot sizes and graduate the ,percentage by the lot size. Some of the larger developments, example the proposed Fred Meyer which would be 26 acres, 5°0 of that is i 1/3 acre x $2+ ~ $80 to $120,000. Chairman Lewis asked For clarification regarding. the graduated scale, would 5.°o be graduated down by size of lot, Mayor Wagoner suggested this as an alternative. Ed Lowry asked far clarification of landscaping along lot lines. Jeff Labahn answered that originally the proposal was for perimeter landscaping where commercial uses abutted residential uses. as revised the buffer would still be required but expanded to provide a buffer along lot lines. Ed Lowry asked the Commission reconsider that. While it is a wise idea between commercial and other zones4 but if you require lot line buffers what you have is slot of skinny strips of trees down the middle of commercial parkinq..lots throughout town. It would seem to be more desireable to locate the strips in one particular spot on one lot where it would create a park-like setting. -~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 23, 1985 Page 3 Bill Ward, a local landscape contractor,, indicated there is information available bath an valuation and on percentages on areas to utilize for landscaping from trade agencies and will provide the addresses and phone numbers. Granted, these are based on lower 48 standards, but can be used in Kenai. Lorraine Orsatti, resident of Kenai, thanked the Planning Commission for drafting this type of resolution,, wished to pass on thanks to the parties responsible for the flower boxes. 1t makes us proud to live here. As our city q_,rows, I would hate to see it all become concrete and asphalt and as long as you are fair to the businessmen as far as the percentage as suggested, I think there are alot of citizens who feel this way who are not here,, but there have been so many comments on dust the flower boxes alone, that what you are planning will be that much better. Chairman Lewis informed Ms. Orsatti that the Beautification Committee was the responsible party. Sam McLane. 340 Cannery Road, stated that he was in full agreement of a landscaping ordinance, however, in the ordinance itself, it does not state a choice of perimeter, interior, and parking lot landscaping. Rea_,arding the zero lot line landscaping, on a particular tract of ground it may not be the perimeter of the parking lot and could prove disrupting t~o the lot and access. If the review Committee has flexibility as to choice and what is appropriate there would be na problem. Other than those small items, the ordinance appears reasonable. Peninsula Center in 5aldotna has about 6 lots involved. Commissioner Bryson asked what percentage of all 6 lots was landscaped, Mr. McLane did not have figures, however, some of the trees that were there were cleared before the land was developed, and then the area along the highway that was seeded with poppies and grass was in the highway ROW and when electrical lines were added the whole thing was dug up. Bill Brighton, City Manager, addressed the item pertaining to objectives, specifically the "flexibility".points. Mr. Brighton pointed out that there is no flexibility. in that the words state "shall". Mr. Brighton drew an example of how 3 lots together would relate to the wording. of the ordinance as it now reads. Using. the 5°6 plus the verbage requiring .perimeter landscaping, Mr. Brighton compared the footages to the cost of the landseaping.on a large scale. Commissioner Smalley stated that he felt the intent was that the 5°0 pertain to the overall landscaping..,. but understands Mr. Brighton's comments that the language does not say that. Commissioner Bryson pointed out that "on a 100' lot for example, we are lookinq.at 5' average on one width. Presumably, this could be .put in an area that is 10' minimum wide and be called landscaping but it certainly isn't going to be the depth of the lot or the width of the lot." Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION March 23. 1965 Page 4 Brighton suggested "each one of us needs to take an in-depth look at what the language is saying, then relate that to what our parking code says,, and put this scenario to test to determine the concept." Councilman Wise stated, "if this goes to another meeting, it should not go to Council with an effective date prior to next year. There is a reason for trying to get this over with tonight and to get something expedited. i would object to holding it over because then we're trashing it for another building season. Councilman Wise agreed that the comments presented by Mr. Brighton raised valid points and warrant discussing. " Mayor Wagoner referred to the last page of the ordinance which deals with the makeup of the Review Committee requesting that the members not be specific and stated that 7 would be a better number. Many times, in order to get a quorum, 5 is not enough. Mayor Wagoner suggested deleting the last sentence referring to appointments. Ed Lawry referred to the section regarding the review board and asked if it is correct that a building, permit would not be issued unless approved by the review board, and further, there does not appear to be a pravisian that gives the board the authority to approve the landscape plan. Chairman Lewis explained that the board would meet as needed. Jeff Labahn confirmed that the building permit would not be approved without board review. It would be possible to add verbage to state a definitive time for review. Commissioner Smalley stated that "I think we awe it to ourselves, after all the refinement taken place, to finish it up." Chairman Lewis read a letter FOR THE RECORD from Carmen Gintoli concerning the ordinance. Jeff Labahn noted that the Commission had not dealt with a minimum standard for trees used in landscaping. Chairman Lewis stated that it was his understanding that it was to be Left flexible enough to give the review board a chance to establish standards. Commissioner Bryson asked for a work session far further study. Commissioner Carignan agreed, a graphic representation certainly helps with the verbage. "We certainly are caught in a situation, we have been asked for something with some bite to it, but also some flexibility." The Commission agreed to hold a work session at the end of the meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved to reset the public hearing, to the next meeting, April 10th, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE. Motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION March 23, 1985 Page 5 b. Resolution PZ85-19: Amend Zoninq.,Code - Variance Permits Chairman Lewis opened the hearing to the public. Ed Lowry came forward and asked to define the portion pertaining to hardship, Commissioner Smalley answered that the intent was to establish that the reason for requesting the variance, an example is Ed Lowry's own variance request for a larger sign. The special situation was the setback requirement itself constituted a hardship. In this situation we're talking about situations caused by the applicant, not by physical circumstances. Ed Lowry clarified his questions "is there some other hardship involved or does this close the door to all variances because they all do cause hardship". Jeff Labahn directed Ed Lowry to C-2 and asked to compare that verbage with the intent statement. Commissioner Carignan felt that it was important to leave the verbage intact because someone should not come in for a variance ,just because it inconveniences them to put something in one place than another if it violates the code. Councilman Wise stated that, "if you adhere to this you will not be giving a builder, as the Commission has in the past, a variance far an improper setback. An i example is an application ,just a few months back where the builder was careless with measuring and ended up in the setback, he 'blew it'. Ne deprived himself of reasonable use of the property because he cannot sell it." Jeff Labahn pointed out that the example is not applicable because a variance is something is applied far and granted before the construction is actually begun. A variance is not the proper vehicle for "cleaning up" an existing problem, i.e. a variance is never to be used to correct something already done. Carmen Gintoli came forward and spoke on the process of a variance wherein it does not proceed to Council for final approval. It was explained that this is one of the powers granted by the Council to the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ85-19, seconded by Commissioner Osborne MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Bryson moved to delete the wording in section 14.20.180 C-2 "in such conditions and circumstances do not necessarily constitute pecuniary hardship or inconvenience", seconded by Commissioner Smalley Commissioner Smalley requested Commissioner Bryson reasons for the amendment, Commissioner Bryson explained, "I don't know that that is necessarily pertinent to the rest of the issue. It would be hard to differentiate between something that is monetarily oriented in a PLANNING COMMI55ION March 23, 1985 Page 6 development and something that is not." Commissioner Carignan stated "it doesn't say that, only that it cannot "merely" be pecuniary and that it is very important to leave it in there for people to under- stand that you ,just can't come in and sa,y if I can't have an extra 5' where ever its going to cost me so much money. Obviously that is the purpose of the variance, ie a developer could say if I ,just had 5' more I could add 3 more units, that's not something special, that is monetary gain. Jeff Labahn explained that whether or not the wording remains, the intent statement is still the guiding force far decision making. Commissioner Smalley felt that the statement helps clarify and is important. VOTE AMENDMENT: Motion fails with Chairman Lewis, Commissioners Carignan, Oleson, Osborne, and Smalley voting no; Commissioner Bryson voting yes. DOTE MAIN MOTION: Motion passed unanimously. The Chairman called for a break. Due to the large number of persons present, the agenda will be changed to take item 4-d next. d. Resolution PZ85-2I: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of PURD - McClure Grant McClure came forward and explained that the development was for 42, zero lot line, single, detached dwellings with a provision far condominium units. The dwelling units would have a 12' separation, the plan includes an RV parking area, a park setting, a club house, and landscaping along public ROW's. The units will all be l story. Chairman Lewis opened the hearing to the public. Arlin Miskinnis, resident of 607 Westwood Crt in Northgate S/D and asked for clarification of the distances between the houses and the lot lines, as these lots would contain just aver 5,000 sq. ft., not quite 2/3 the size of a city lot, and also are the houses to be sold or rented and if they would be subsidized. "I don't want law cost housing apartments or dwellings which would devalue our property and if they will be low income what would be the price range." I would like to say now that I am opposed to that density. Walt Koerber, resident of 1513 Pine, Northgate SJD, stated that he was under the impression that, at the time of sale homeowners were assured that that area was already subdivided for streets and lots approximately the same size as those in Northgate. The water line that services Northgate is 4" and the fire department has indicated that the fire hydrant at the end of the street is substandard. There _..~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 23 ,. 1985 Page 7 are no storm sewers in Northgate and if this many units are put in adjoining the subdivision what type of impact will be made, it means the City will have to upgrade Northgate. I am opposed to this plan. Colleen O'Donnell, 1SOS Pine, "we live in a real quite community, even though Sears Elementary is on the back side of my property is, we have alot of trees that buffer that noise level. Even though kids are out there, we can't hear it. My first thought, when I read about the is that they put the whole thing in high pear and mow everything down including all the trees and that noise level is going to be tremendous, the impact it is going to have on our community for the small amount of houses that are down there. Traffic is the other concern, they are going to be going back and forth in front of our homes. I don't mind the idea of the plan, and I know that the picture is nice, but it never looks the same once it is built. I think there is a whole Iot of difference between subdividing a portion of property like this 10 acres, having 1 or 2 developers come in and buy 4 or 5 lots and build their houses aver a period of time, the market is approached, and then gradually there are more people in the area, but when you are talking about this kind of density with 14 to 16 units at a time, even if its aver a period of 3 years, I just don't want that in my neighborhood, I think that with all the land that there is available in the outlying areas ar within the City, there is other land to be picked rather than at the end of our quiet street." Mr. Pat Dye, resident of Northgate 51D, sale that the land was already platted Northgate. I am opposed to this density significantly more dense than Woodland. is available this is not necessary, and not want my entire life style disrupted also understood at the time of in a similar style as of this development, With the amount of land that the third point is that I do to this extent. Lorraine Orsatti, resident of Westwood Court, stated that including the paints already mentioned, I feel we have an extremely heavy traffic load on Forest Drive right now, it is not uncamman to have 8 to 10 cars backed up trying to get onto the Spur Mighway, I do not believe that area could handle this additional traffic, there are problems now along Forest from damage which occured when the inter- secting streets were upgraded. Betsy Fortney, resident of Northgate, presented a letter from residents of Northgate, Swans, who are also opposed for all the reasons given. All residents in Northgate have youngsters at the age that are going to be playing outside. With 42 units creating 42 cars, and most people have 2 cars and with the addition of the condo units, the situation becomes impossible. I am opposed. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 23. 1985 Paae 8 The letter was entered into the records. Arlis Miskinnis, representing Bob & Peggy Garnand, passes along their opposition as well. The Garnands possess a home valued at X130,000+ and if this development goes in it will be directly behind their home, devaluing their property and making resale nearly impossible. Tim Conners, resident of Northgate, agreed with all previous state- ments, and further feels that this type of high density development lends itself to undesirable consequences, it is not. in keeping with the hiving standards already present, and these complexes tend to become an eyesore and an aggrevation to the community in a few short years. The greenbelts and recreation areas sound good, but in day to day lining they fall short of expectations of a peaceful neighborhood. Yvonne Meek, 603 Westwood Circle stated that she had just purchased her home and had she known this type of development was possible, would not have puchased the house. The planned development will also adjoin the rear of her property, in particular the ~V storage. Louise Culler, 1507 Pine, agreed with all comments previously. Ms. Culler feels the subdivision has been of high quality, being spaced even farther apart than the homes in Woodland. I can't imagine this many homes together in one area, I sure wouldn't want to live there and I don't want it to depreciate the value of my property nor disrupt the welfare of my children and my home. Vivian Dye asked for description of the zoned area and how this type of development could be allowed, Jeff Labahn explained. "I request ,you turn this dawn, I feel if we are setting zoning requirements we should stick to them." Kenna Meeks, 610 Westwood Crl, along with the other issues discussed, ie, density, depreciation of property values, Pine Street being the only access for a high traffic flow, the forest Drive traffic congestion, the fact that it does not meet minimum requirements for a RS zone, for the noise and general disruption caused by such a large construction project over a 3 year period. I too must oppose this project and I hope the Commission goes along with us. There are 19 homeowners in Northgate and all are here. Jim Handsaker, 612 Westwood, agreed with all statements and also felt strongly that he would not have moved into the area if he had known the area under consideration was not going to be a low density project. The project does not lend itself to attracting the kind of people that keep up property values and would not be compatible with the residents already in Northgate. This does not meet minimum requirements for an RS zone so in other words we are an experiment. I am against it. PLANNING COMMISSION March 23. 1985 Page 9 Julie Landeche, 606 Westwood, is opposed for all the reasons stated, and questioned if there was really a need for this many units in Kenai. There are apartments that are not rented, houses for sale, farm homes being built that are standing empty, does this not indicate we may have a bunch of empty units with the land stripped. I am opposed for what it will da to the traffic, safety, and what it will do to the value of our homes. Walt Kaerber addressed the fenced RV area. Most people who own homes have enough space to park their own. If you fence in an RV area ,you create problems for policing the area for vandalism. The average home in Kenai has at least 2 vehicles, according to the picture, there is no space far 2 vehicles for each unit. With na where else to park, they will be parking in the street and with 60' width, there will be more congestion, and then there's plowing in the winter. Ted Hughes, 1509 Pine, also objected to the misleading statements made concerning the platting of the area proposed far development. Mr. Hughes stated he is "solidly against it"'. John & Janice Davis represented opposition to the project. Jeri Koerber, 1513 Pine, were given to understand that the adjoining development was to be similar in nature to Northgate. Yau are talking about problems which would occur with this type of development, Northgate is experiencing ,problems now with it. During breakup, there is a flood in my front yard that is hip deep in water. There are no street lights, there is an open manhole there right now where kids can fall into it. Doug McClure stated that it appeared that the items that caused the most concern were the traffic flow and the lower property values. There are 2 other exits in the subdivision to channel traffic away as the subdivision grows. The project will start with 12 to 15 units. The northern 10 acres will also be developed as this portion is developed and the second access will be onto Redoubt. Doug McClure compared Northgate which is farm home subsidized and the size of the homes which should be close to the same square footage, ie, 1040' with a price range around $80,000. Mr. McClure stated that he felt his development would enhance the area and the drainage problem. Commissioner Smalley if the units were to be rentals ar saleable, answer we plan to sell, but there is nothing wrong with renting a house and if they cannot sell they would be rented. Chairman Lewis called the meeting back to order and to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION March 23 .. 1985 Page 10 Commissioner Bryson indicated he will be abstaining, due to a financial involvement. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to approve PZ8S-21, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Commissioner Smalley stated that," due to the increased high density; the reduced size of the Iats which are not compatible with the property surrounding it; the traffic impact and at this time there is only one access and egress, via Pine Street and granted there are others planned, they do not exist at this time, I believe a flow problem will be created; the increased security problems; safety and welfare problems in the existing area; the safety and welfare of the existing areas T think is a responsibility of the City to look at. I believe under the PURR there is a section dealing with the health, safety, and welfare. With the increased density, the limited access, I believe there is a potential for creating problems. Commissioner Carignan stated that he was against converting a medium density neighborhood into a high density neighborhood. Motion fails unanimously with Commissioner Bryson abstaining. c. Resolution PZ85-20: Heavy Industrial Zoning This resolution "cleans up" a mistake made during the transfer from the Borough to the City. The setbacks had been left out. Chairman Lewis opened the hearing to the public. Howard Hackney, Building Inspector came forward and stated, "we have our most restrictive zone, RR, with the largest lots, largest setbacks, largest minimum lot width, then going down the line for RS and UR, the requirements are relaxed, lots and setbacks get smaller, then come to commercial and there are no setbacks at all, then industrial, and between them they allow everything, then with this change we're back to setbacks again, the same as in the most restrictive. I don't see the rationale for having such restrictive setbacks in industrial zones. I feel they should be the same as commercial zones. I know this is ,just putting something back that was in the zoning before, but I've never been able to figure out why it was set up that way." Jeff Labahn explained that perhaps the setbacks were established where an industrial zone buffers a residential zone but does agree with Mr. Hackney that they are nat needed. Howard Hackney pointed out that the setbacks are already required in another part of the code, ie, the buffer between industrial and residential. Perhaps now is the time to eliminate some of the restrictions. Jeff PLANNING COMMISSION March 23 ,, 1985 Page 11 Labahn asked if Mr. Hackney would feel the same way about the IL zone, answer yes. Chairman Lewis brought discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Smalley observed that, with the setbacks, lot space is cut considerably. Jeff Labahn agreed, stating that setbacks from a, ROW are already addressed elsewhere in the code as are landscaped buffers. Commissioner Bryson noted that several industrial zones are evolving into commercial zones, example, Willow Street. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to approve PZ85-20, seconded by Commissioner Bryson MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Smalley moved to amend the side and rear setback in the IH and IL zones to zero Question arose as to legality of amending both the IL and IH since only the IH was introduced, Jeff Labahn answered that there would be no problem. Commissioner Smalley wished to restate the motion to read: change requirements for IH and IL to minimum setbacks side and rear to zero except for abutting residential zones, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. Commissioner Carignan, in trying to understand why the setbacks were originally established for an industrial zone, noted that perhaps the reason was to minimize the density, to keep from the wall-ta--wall industrial plants. Jeff Labahn explained that it is the same concept as commercial which have zero lot lines. Commissioner Smalley stated that industrial zones are looked at for utilization of available space and are placed in an area that does not conflict asthetically with other zones. VOTE AMENDMENT: Motion passed unanimously. VOTE MAIN MOTION: Motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OE MINUTES of March 13, 1985 Minutes were approved as submitted ~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 23. 1985 Page 12 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS a. taken under item 3-a b. Lease Amendment: Lat 5, Blk 1, Gusty S/D - Car Wash Addition - Pat Doyle Jeff Labahn explained that Mr. Doyle wished to extend the car wash and construct an island with gas pumps. The project should be done by August 1, 1985 including paving and landscaping. The Commission Hated that specific landscaping was not included, ie, what portion to be paved and what portion to be landscaped and suggested more detail. Mr. Labahn stated that this could be done on the present site plan. Mr. Doyle explained that most of the landscaping is done, what is left is hauling top soil, the paving is planned to go from the Spur to the building in a u-shape. Commissioner Bryson expressed concern over the location of the gas pumps and the next lot, should Mr. Yamamoto construct a building would the fire code allow the gas pumps so close to the lot line, Mr. Hackney stated that only the fire department could answer that. The Commission next discussed the location of the water lines, indicating that the water line does wander onto the property. It was determined that it is the responsibility of the developer, that if he builds over the water line and the line needs to be dug up at some point, it is at the risk of the developer. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of lease amendment to the car wash addition/gas pumps, Lot 5, Blk 1, Gusty, subject to resolution of any easement problems to a completion date of 8/1/85, projected building construction, parking, driveway, paving, and landscaping, site plan to be submitted specifying paving and landscaping prior to Council action, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. c. Preliminary Plat P285-22: Inlet View S/D Second Addition Jeff Labahn commented that the stub extension of Rogers Road will Hat be required to be constructed until further subdivision of either Tracts B or C. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 23, 1985 Page 13 MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of PZ85-22 including comment pertaining to stub extension, seconded by Commissioner Oleson. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. d. Preliminary Plat PZ85-23: Sprucewood Glen S/'D ~~3 Jeff Labahn explained that this plat, 1) makes interior adjustments and, 2) vacates a utility easement. The water line will be coming from Walker instead of Spur. Howard Hackney asked about the lack of a turn-around at the end of Sprucewood Street, most subdivisions are required to put a cul-de-sac at the end of dead-end streets. Sam McLane stated that they are in the process of requesting an LID for assessments which will eventually tie in both the water lines and access including the cul-de-sac with public works. Jeff Labahn explained that the plat will be approved contingent upon those items being approved. ~ MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved approval of PZ85-23, seconded by Commissioner Oleson VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 8. PLANNING a. Comprehensive Plan Update Jeff Labahn informed the Cammission that CCC Architects was selected by the Committee and has been submitted to the Borough for approval. 9. REPORTS a. City Council Councilman Wise informed the Commission of items of interest. b. Borough Planning Commissioner Bryson stated that only the plats on tonights agenda were heard by the Borough. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 23. 1985 Page 14 c. City Administration Jeff Labahn reported that a request for rezoning the Cinderella area will be at the next Commission meeting. Concerning the Borough street naming ordinance discussed by the Commission at the last meeting, the Council had problems with the concept of the Borough taking over that power. 10. PERSONS PRE5ENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 11. INFORMATION ITEMS There were no comments l2. COMMISSION COMMENT5 & QUESTIONS Commissioner Osborne asked if any progress had been made on his problem concerning the drainage ditch, answer from Jeff Labahn, no. Commissioner Smalley asked Bill Brighton if anything was being done by the City to compensate homeowners who own wells below the water table in those areas abutting the drilling mud site, answer no, however, the City has changed the code pertaining to disposal of drilling muds in the City. I3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 pm. The next regular meeting will be Wednesday, April 10th with a work session commencing at 6:30 pm. Janet Loper Secretary h Roll - Call PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~~ ~ / i~ ~°'~ ~ , ,~ 'CY/ 7~ Chairman -Lee Lewis ` N \ w '~ -Phil Bryson ~~ ~ ~I Richard Carrignen ~ ~ ~\ Bob Oleson I~ V , ) N I Ozzie Osborne I~ Y - Hal Smalley ~~ ~ ~ a Bill Zubek - - TO DO ~.~,