Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-10 P&Z MinutesL ~ .• KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Aoril 10. 1985 Kenai Citv Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman Joint Planning Commission/Council Worksess.ion - OId Towne St~udv - 6:30 - B: 44 PM AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. PERSONS PRESENT 5CHEDULED TO BE HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ85-18: Landscaping Ordinance b. Resolution PZ85-22: Conditional Use Permit - PURp - Pines S/D - McClure (Preliminar;v Plat that accompanies is item 7-a) c. Resolution PZ85-26: Rezoning, Lands Within the Cinderella/Princess/ McCollum Area to Rural Residential One (RR-1) District 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 27, 1985 Minutes will be available at the meeting 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Lease Application: Lots 3&4, Blk 2, FBO S/D -Machine Shop/Offices Storage - Kline 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Preliminary Plat PZ85-25: Silver Pines SlD (This item accompanies 4-b) b. Resolution PZ65- Amending. Existing., Street Names Within City Limits 8. PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Paae 2 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. 8orouah Plannina e. Citv Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO 8E HEARD 11. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Council Aaenda 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS i3. ADJOURNMENT 1 KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 10. 1985 - 6:00 P.M. Kenai Citv Hall Lee Lewis. Chairman 1. ROLL CALL All Commissioners Present 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda approved with no chanaes 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ85-18: Landscaping Ordinance This ordinance comes back with revisions sugoested at the last public hearing. The revisions put in flexibility and retains an overall 5°b coverage and changes the review board. Chairman Lewis opened the meeting, to the public. Mr. Fred Braun came forward and stated that although he does not reside in Kenai.. he does own property. specifically a business, and asked to have the .perimeter requirements explained. Mr. Braun was satisfied with the answer and voiced no ob.iection to the proposed ordinance. There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Lewis brought discussion back to the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Carig_nan moved to adapt PZ85-18, seconded by Commissioner Smalley. Commissioner Smalley voiced concerns with the makeup of the review board. At the last meeting, Mayor Wagoner had discussed difficulties with finding and selectinq..members for Commissions and Committees and asked that there be no less than 7 members. Jeff Labahn stated that it was written so that the Council would be allowed to set the number. ~ Chairman Lewis noted that there were no members of the Beautification Committee indicated and felt that a member from that body would be even more appropriate to serve on the review board than a Planning PLANNING COMMI5SION April 10. 1985 Page Z Commissioner. Jeff Labahn stated that it had not been discussed. Commissioner Brvson also referred to Mayor Waponers comments at the last meeting. and agreed. Kenai is too small a community to suq_.gest specific fields of expertise from the general public. Chairman Lewis stated that it was his feeling, that this wording did not limit the Council to these choices. MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Brvson moved to amend paraq_.raph E item 1, modify 5 to 7, reference made to members and strike the sentence "one member should be a licensed ,professional architect, landscape architect, engineer. or surveyor; one member should be a licensed general building contractor; one member City Council; one member of Kenai Advisory Planning & Zoning Commission; and one member of the general public" seconded by Commissioner Osborne. Commissioner Carignan expressed concern for striking,the entire sentence because the membership should have some expertise. Commissioner Smalley. felt that a specific limitation with a community this small "we might not be able to came up with members with a group of volunteers that could meet this criteria. The intent would still be left." Jeff Labahn asked if Commissioner Bryson's intent was to firmly. establish 7 members or to read "not less than 7 members". Commissioner Bryson stated, "not less than 7 members". VOTE AMENDMENT: Motion passed unanimously. VOTE MAIN MOTION: Motion ,passed unanimously. b. Resolution PZ65-22: Conditional Use Permit - PURR - Pines S/D - McClure Jeff Labahn explained for the audience, that this to be considered as a brand new application. Grant McClure came forward and detailed his proposal., outlining the differences between this proposal and the one presented at the last meeting. There is no reserve for multiple units in the future, the community recreation is preserved, and the RV storage space is moved.Mr. McClure felt there is a need in the future for this type of housing,, that the alternative,. under the present zoning.code, would be to build multi family units such as condos or apartments. As the first units are sold it is hoped that alternate access and egress points would be created and cited Central Heights as an example where it is more dense and has only one access. The housing. units will be about ,~ PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 10. 1985 Paae 3 the same size as those in the area. the only difference being. in the size of the lots. The yards are to be maintained by property owner aq.reements. There is a greenbelt added to buffer the residents of Northgate and the rear lots of the pro.iect. Chairman Lewis explained the procedures and opened the meetinq_ to the public. John Williams,, a resident,. developer, and realtor came forward to state opposition to the ,pro.iect based an the lot sizes. Mr. Williams felt it was not the intent of the Planning Commission at the time the PURD was implemented to allow a method whereby substandard sized lots could be developed. We have long tried to keep away from the idea of very small lots, we know that we have had develppments here in the past such as Central Heights that do have substandard lots and at the time the addition to Central Heights was developed, the Planning Commission insisted that all lots be at least 7200 sg. ft. Now we have an area,, regardless of what you call it,, is squeezing in multiple numbers of lots that are goinq.to be 5400 -- 6,000 sq, ft. On the basis of that I am adamently opposed to it. The traffic ,pattern has been mentioned and we all know we have had problems with traffic coming. in and out of Central Heights and here again we have a one way traffic situation involving, some 48 lots within a 10 acre and a yet to be developed 10 acre .,.parcel to be added to that so I see nothing but more problems. I agree that the oriq_inal intent of the Northgate developers was for all of those lots to be of reputable size. It is truly sad that economics of the situation did not allow the oriq.inal developer to do..iust that. Arlis Miskinis, resident of Northgate,, stated that Alaskans moved here to get away from crowded conditions, some moving from Anchorage for the same reasons. "I am aq_ainst small lots and packinq.us in like sardines. There is enough land available we would like__vou to look elsewhere to create this type of development. We have no ob,iections to developing that area with lots of 7200 sq. ft. Ms. Miskinis is representative of Mr. & Mrs. Garnand and Mr. Langston also of Northgate who are also opposed to the development for the stated reasons. Yvonne Meek of Northgate states that nearly every residence in Northgate has children, most of whom attend Sears Elementary. Reference was made by Mr. McClure to Walker Lane.. that it is more dense and works with only one egress and access,, please note that Walker Lane does not flow directly adacent to an elementary school. There are traffic problems right now on Forest,, Pine, Redoubt,, and the Spur without includinq,48 more units or possibly 80 more cars. Mrs, Meek is in the process of selling her home and was told by a realtor that the planned development would considerably lower the value of her home. PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 10. 1985 Paae 4 Walt Koerber of 1513 Pine addressed the drainaa.e problems in Northaate and that there were no visible .plans to alleviate the problem. Mr. McClure's statement only indicated that he hoped the problem would be taken care of at the time of development. No mention has been made to taking care of the snow, again Northgate has alot of problem with snow removal. Again the traffic,prablem is bad now, what will 48 units do to us. There are children all over Northgate and Woodland from the elementary school. Why do we have to create another Walker Lane. Jeri Koerber of 1513 Pine also addressed the drainaq_e problem indicating that the water table is such in the area that there is a large pool behind the school. As for the recreation area,, there is a fine .playground at Sears. Colleen O'Donnell,. 1505 Pine and representative for Mr. & Mrs. Davis of 1503 Pine., ob,iects to the zero lot line concept and the crowding of small lots. Ms. O'Donnell also voiced concern over the traffic stating that maybe 5 years down the line it may get better if another access is found,. but in the mean time,. it would create hazardous conditions. "Please do not repeat the mistake of Central Heights and Walker Lane". Chris Swan of Northq_ate stated that she came from Valdez where this type of development was done and stated that she was sure when the developers put this in the intent was the same as Mr. McClures' however the result was a community that quickly got out. of hand. Mrs. Swan and her husband moved to Kenai from Valdez to get away from lust this type of crowding. In theory, "pride of ownership" should work but does not in a setting that is crowded. Rich Landesehe of Northgate is opposed to an_v type of crowding development for Kenai. There is enough land available that it is unnecessary. Lorraine Orsatti of Northgate cited the number of homes and apartments that are standing empty indicating that there is no need for either the small lot development or that there is a market far 48 more units. Chairman Lewis entered a letter from Vivian D_ye for the record. Mrs, Dye voiced opposition to the project. Jeff Labahn pointed out that the Silver Pines projects deviates from the standard zoning ordinance by: smaller than minimum sized lots, under the zero lot line concept, eliminating one of the side yards or building up to the lot line creates a problem with the existing, code, a narrower lot than is required by the ordinance, all in a traditional development, and last, the development is suctgestinq a somewhat greater density than what would normally be allowed for single family PLANNING COMMISSION April 10. 1985 Page 5 development. Councilman Wise asked if the common areas, greenbelts and rec center were governed by the Narizantal Regimes Act and are not actually requires a homeowners association to be responsible for them and the proposal to be approved by this Commission. Answer from Mr. Labahn, Yes. M07ION: Commissioner Smalley moved to approve PZ85-28, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. Commissioner Smalley asked Mr. McClure if the greenbelts were to be clearcut, answer no. Commissioner 5malle.y stated that one of the requirements is that drainage be shown and it is a problem and if you remove a substantial amount of trees for development you are causing further drainage problems, how is drainage to be handled. Answer from Mr. McClure, there is no plan, having discussed with Mr. Labahn that a plan probably wouldn't be needed until the plan was approved. Commissioner Smalley stated that it was his understanding that the intent of the PURD was not to suggest substandard lots which is something this body has worked hard to stay away from resulting in the 7200 sq ft minimum figure; the egress and access in that area is a problem causing a considerable amount of congestion and again, future development perhaps may provide another access, however, at this point it time it can only cause potentially hazardous problems. It is not in harmony with the existing development as far as lot sizes. Commissioner Bryson stated for the record that he will be abstaininq_ from voting due to financial consideration with his firm. Commissioner Smalley - under section 14.21.70 (a)(1), designates this as a medium density area, with the smaller lot sizes and number of dwellings, is that an indication of a high density area? Jeff Labahn gave his personal opinion which is the change in density that is being proposed, the 48 units vs 44 units, would npt be a substantial _. increase in density, recognizing that under the RS zoning, a denser development using multi family units could be an even higher density. Commissioner Smalley asked if having only one access and egress makes an impact on density,, answer no. Commissioner Smalley pointed out ~k3 which relates to health, safety, and welfare,. with no existing drainage in the area and given the problem that exists, the access traffic in the area, it appears to me that there does indeed exist a problem with health, safety, and welfare. "T believe the intent of the PURQ was not to create substandard sized lots, but to help off-set the costs involved." PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 1985 Page 6 VOTE: Motion failed unanimously with Commissioner Bryson abstaining. Jeff Labahn asked for specific finding of fact. Commissioner Smalley indicated his concerns were with item 1 & 3 as stated above. Commissioner Carignan disagreed with the comments that this is a medium density development, "I've seen Central Heights and how crowded that is and I think that this would have an effect on the general welfare, health, and safety, of the area. As Commissioner Smalley indicated, at the time the PURD was developed, this was nat the intent." Jeff Labahn reitterated to the public,. comments regarding alternate avenues of development. A member of the audience asked for other alternatives to stop this type of development in the city. c. Resolution PZ85-26: REzoninq_ Lands Within the Cinderella/Princessl McCollum Area to RR-l Jeff Labahn indicated that the petition was received and is validated as to required number of registered signatures. Chairman Lewis opened the meeting. to the public. Mr. Rick Baldwin, spokesman for the petition group came forward, and explained that the main purpose of the rezoning is one of City water & sewer being proposed for the area. The residents being aware of the fact that with City utilities comes haphazard development of the type preceedinq and the residents of the area wish to preserve the residential atmosphere, i.e. open and uncrowded and at the same time pursue the assessments which is kind of "a new animal" for the City because we are willing to pay for a portion of the water & sewer. For the price of the assessment we want to have a say in how its developed in the future. At the present time its RR in character and has 2 „potentials, if we do not rezone it then I see a patchwork type of development,, almost a Spenard-like type of development with people who want nice residential lots being slowly squeezed out or chased away by haphazard multi family development. We can also make it probably one of the nicer open residential neighborhoods in town and nearly everyone who lives back there opts for this. We are not looking to make slot of money off of it. l understand that the City Comprehensive Plan calls for such an area in the City,. one with larger lots so that .people can actually live close in to town without having to live on smaller lots. We are aware of some people who have property fronting on the highway that do not wish to be rezoned and that is fine, we would like to exempt them from the rezoning,. PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Howard Beck,. property owner along the Spur Highways came forward and stated that he was against the rezoning,, however, with the exemption of his property by the other owners,, he is all in favor of it. Peter Hansen came forward, also a property owner along, the Spur Highway, stated that the property was ,purchased with the intent of putting a 4 Alex or 2 duplexes on it, and is opposed to the rezoninq_ however,, if his property is exempted., then he is in favor. Mr. Walt Ward,. 708 Magic, is in favor because of the low density. Because of some of the comments that came up at the last public hearing, I think that you can see that what we are trying to do in this area will alleviate slot of that problem in the future. I have a 2.5 acre parcel which could be divided up into small lots if the profit motive was high,, however., with 2.5 acres I can still put 6 houses on it, make some profit and still have elbow room and a nice community. There being. no further comments from the public, Chairman Lewis brought discussion back to the Commission. MOTION; Commissioner Carignan moved to adopt PZ85-26, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Bryson moved to amend to delete those properties lying north of the Kenai Spur Highway, between McCollum Drive and Linwood Drive fronting, on the Kenai Spur Highway as denoted in "Exhibit B", seconded by Commissioner Smalley. VOTE AMENDMENT: Motion passed unanimously. VOTE MAIN MOTION Motion ,passed unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OE MINUTES of March 27, 1985 Minutes were approved as submitted 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Lease Application: Lots 3&4, Blk 2, FBO S/D - Machine Shop/Offices Storage - Kline ~ _ _ _ --- This application returns with revisions to the site plan that were suggested by the Commission at the last meeting. All items appear to PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 1985 Page 8 have been satisfied. Mr. Ken Cusack, representing Mr. Kline came forward to answer any questions. Commissioner Smalley asked if drainage had been properly addressed, it was found that there is a natural drainage on the rear of the F60 lots that flows to the end of the future N. Willow extension. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of lease application for Lots 3&4, Blk 2, FBO SID, seconded by Commissioner Bryson. VOTE: Commissioner Smalley asked, as a point of interest since the landscaping ordinance has not yet been passed,, if this lease would be in conformance if the ordinance were passed, answer yes, it would exceed the requirements. Motion passed unanimously. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Preliminary Plat PZ85-25: Silver Pines SID This plat sets out the circulation .pattern and individual development tracts. The developer would have to come back and resubdivide any of the tracts at a later date. Commissioner Smalley noted that there was no pedestrian access on Pine and felt there would be a need since there would be a quantity of people going to the school. There are no sidewalks along Pine and the street is narrow. MOTION: Commissioner Osborne moved approval of PZ85-25, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. Jeff Labahn noted that there is a small portion which appears to be a small lot between Pine and the property adjoining it which is a 20' dedicated walkway which was dedicated at the same time Northgate was established. It would be possible to establish a walkway to the west, however it would enter beyond the school playground. The other alternative would be when Tract 1 comes back for review, a walkway could be established in the middle at that time. MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Osborne moved to include staff comments, seconded by Commissioner Carignan ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 1985 Page 9 It is assumed that the staff comments indicated were #9 on the resalution rather than the comments regarding the walkway. VOTE AMENDMENT AND MAIN MOTION: Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bryson abstaining. b. Resolution PZ85-27: Amending Existing Street Name Within City Limits Jeff Labahn explained that when the last resolution went to Council, the Council approved the resolution exclusive of the "Beaver Loop Road" designation and returned the item to the Planning Commission. It is the personal recommendation of Mr. Labahn that the road be named the same thing from the Spur Highway to K-Beach Road. Councilman Wise suggested East Main Street. There are some businesses that border Beaver Loop Rd that would be affected. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of PZ85-27, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion failed unanimously. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved that the road which presently runs from Kenai Spur Highway to Kalifornsky Beach Road be named Bridge Access Road, seconded by Commissioner Smalley. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 8. PLANNING None 9. REPORTS a. City Council Chairman Lewis asked Councilman Wise why the Petty lease was tabled. it was unknown. b. Borough Planning Commission There were no items of business other than plats. PLANNING COMMISSION April 10. 1985 Page 10 c. Citv Administration Jeff Labahn reported that the lease for Fred Meyer would very likely be on the next agenda as will a variance for a sign in both size and height for NBA. There will be a joint work session with Council before the next meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bryson asked about the "growing sign" at Lowry's 7-11. He had been given a variance for a particular site and height and there presently are "tack ons". Jeff Labahn has spoken with Howard Hackney and upon his return from Anchorage they will be contacting Mr. Lowry. 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 11. INFORMATION ITEMS There were no questions or comments ~ 12. COMMI5SION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Commissioner Osborne asked for an update on his "ditch problem". There was no report. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was ad.~ourned at 10:25 pm Janet Loper Secretary ,, ~~,~ N ~ o~ S ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~~ Chairman Lee Lewis , ` N ~ [yJ "Phil Bryson ~` ~~ ~ Richard Carrignen ~ Bob Oleson n ~ V~ I\\ Ozzie Osborne ~ ~ ~ n` 1v Hal Smalley A 1 IV ~ Bill Zubek - ~ ~ ~ - ~ TO DO ~m aa` PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION