Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-24 P&Z MinutesKENAI PLANNING & ZONING CgMMIS5ION April 24, 1985 Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. PERSgNS PRE5ENT SCHEDULED Tq BE HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ85~24: Variance for Sign Height & Area - Lots 2&3, Aleyeska S/D - National Bank of Alaska 5. APPROVRL OF MINUTES of April 1q, 1985 ~ 6. OLD BUSINESS ~. NEW BuslNESs a. Concept Lease Application : Tracts B-1 & B-2, CIIAP 5/D #4 - Retail Ma11 - Fred Meyer Real Estate Properties, Ltd. b. Discussion: Uacatio~ of 3 q' Easement - Gov't Lots 34 ~ 35 - Catholie Church c. Preliminary Plat PZ85-29: Baron Woods S/D ~2 d. Preliminary Plat PZ85-30: Inlet View S/D Third Addition e. Preliminary Plat P~85-31: Mommsen S/D #4 f. Preliminary Plat PZ85-32: Mammsen S/D - Nelson/Kluge Add, q. Preliminary Plat PZ85-33: Woadbriar S/D 4~2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 23, 1985 Page 2 8. PLANNING a. Resolution PZ85-34: Amend Zoning Code for Interior Lot Lines b. Resolution PZ85-35: Amend Zoning Code for Signs & Advertising Devices Note: No action necessary at this meeting. Both items to be public hearings at the next meeting. 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 11. INFORMATION ITEMS ~ Council Agenda Letter from League of Women Voters 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 13. ADJOURNMENT KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Aril 24. 1985 - 7:00 P.M. Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis.. Chairman 1. ROLL CALL All Commissioners present 2. APPROVAL OE AGENDA Howard Hackney, creator of the two amendments to the zoning code asked that these items {8-a&b) be removed from the agenda Agenda approved with the deletions 3. PERSONS PRESENT SGWEDULED TO BE HEARD None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ85-24: Variance for Sign Height & Area -Lots 2&3, Aleyeska S/D - National Bank of Alaska Mr. Bogue Morgan,. Manager of the National Bank of Alaska - Kenai Branch came forward to speak to the application. Mr. Morgan first described the sizes of the sign and then referenced the portions of the sign code pertaining to the request, specifically the definition portion, and "interpreted it to mean that the square footage of our sign is 55 sq. ft." Mr. Morgan next addressed the height requirement, quoting the 16' pole limitation and the 8' above the roof limitation. Mr. Morgan stated that the top of the roof to the ground is 20' therefore, if you add the 16' and the 8' you come up with a requested 3' for the variance. Mr. Morgan compared the requested sign with the sign in Sterling and that it will be in front of the front door. Commissioner Osborne asked for clarification of the criteria used to reach the 55 sq. ft. conclusion. Mr. Morgan explained that the panel behind the described letters or numerals is not mentioned and by not including the .panel size of the 2 panels the sign is under the required square footage. Commissioner Garignan referred to the 3 conditions under which variances are granted and asked Mr. Morgan to address them. Addressing the criteria for "exceptional ,physical circumstances" Mr. Morgan felt a problem existed with visibility of the siq_ns. There are 2 "fairly small" signs on each end of the lot that have virtually no PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24. 1985 Page 2 visibility on the highway until a motorist is upon the building itself creating the need to have the sign abpve the roof line, the ideal being to be able to see the sign from Z or 3 blocks away. Addressing "material damage", there would be no material damage nor be detrimental to health, safety, and welfare, The present sign is directly beneath the power lines and would be detrimental. The sign will be constructed sa as to withstand high winds. Chairman Lewis asked if this was a standard sign for the company, answer yes, in the approximate size. Commissioner Oleson asked as a sample case, if Carrs, Union 76, and Texaco puts up a sign the same size as yours, would ,you then come back for a larger sign? Answer no. Commissioner Bryson asked how far the building was situation from the property line; the plat shows a 50' frontage road which is a state ROW and asked if the existing sign was in the frontage road, answer yes. Chairman Lewis opened the discussion to the public. Howard Hackney came forward and stated that "the last 2 applicants for a sign variance stated that they wanted the variance because they were too far back from the road, now they say they need a bigger sign because they are too close to the road. As far as the square footage of the sign, a-7 which gives the building inspector authority to determine the area of a sign - if he wants to cut his letters out of the sign I'll accept 55 sq. ft. otherwise its still 176 sq. ft. The relationship of the height to the pale sign to the height of the roof has nothing to do with each other". John Williams came forward and asked that the Commission be aware of the fact that there are 3 banks, Z savings and loan institutions, and a credit union within the city. All 6 would have the right to come in and ask for a variance far the same size sign based on the fact that the competition has one. "We passed a sign ordinance to keep the size of signs dawn to prevent proliferation of large signs. Its a very beautiful sign but its too big and I am opposed to a large sign. NBA is the largest bank in the state and it is not difficult find. Based on the sign itself I am opposed to it". There being no further public comment, Chairman Lewis brought discussion back to the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved adoption of PZ85-24, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. Commissioner Bryson stated that "I don't feel that items a and b are met and possibly item c. It has a potential to block adjacent signs, i.e., Carrs from one direction and Union 76 from the other. I agree with Howard Hackney on the interpretation of the square footage." _.~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1985 Page 3 VOTE: Motion fails; no; Lewis, Bryson, Carignan, Oleson, Osbarne, Smalley yes; Zubeck Commissioner Smalley explained to Mr. Morgan that he has the right to appeal before the Council. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 10, 1985 Minutes were approved as submitted 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Concept Lease Application: Tracts B-1 & B-2, CTIAP S/D #4 -Retail Mall - Fred Meyer Real Estate Properties, Ltd. ~ Chairman Lewis asked if there was anyone present to speak to the item. No persons came forward. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved to table the concept lease application as stated above to the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Bryson VOTE: Motian passed with Chairman Lewis and Commissioners Bryson, Oleson, Osborne, Smalley, and Zubeck voting yes; Cammissioner Carignan voting no b. Discussion: Vacation of 30' Easement - Govt Lots 34 & 35, Catholic Church No discussion necessary - for review only c. Preliminary Plat PZ85-29: Baron Woods S/D ~,~2 This plat resubdivides 2 smaller lots into 1 larger lot. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ85-29, seconded by Commissioner Carignan VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. d. Preliminary Plat PZ85-30: Inlet View S/D Third Addition PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 19$5 Page 4 MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved approval of PZ85-30, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. Commissioner Smalley asked that members of the public be allowed to comment, Chairman Lewis and the Commission agreed. Greg Daniels, resident of Inlet View came forward and voiced concern over the traffic patterns that will exist after the subdivision gets started. Rogers Road is a single lane street running from the Spur Highway ending at the end of the subdivision with one feeder street from Lawton. Egress and access in that subdivision are on Rogers Road. The plat shows 44 new lots which doubles the size of Inlet View. During the winter there are cars parked along Rogers increasing the problem. The main concern is for the safety of the children with the large increase in traffic on an already overcrowded narrow street. Mr. Daniels asks for the Commission to consider asking the developer for an alternative route for some of the traffic through Tract A which adjoins Lawton Drive and is owned by the same developer, "we're not here to stop development, just careful planning, one street with 88 lots is too many". Commissioner Bryson stated that "there was a similar situation at the last meeting (reference Northgate SID) where the developer came in and proposed a layout to the City. At the time the City did not know what the Borough was proposing. The City approved the plat as it was submitted, during Borough review it was recommended that a ROW be platted along the west side of the subdivision. At the Borough Planning meeting last night, the developer abutted by saying the City didn't require it. All this power lies with the Borough as far as the platting is concerned. On the basis of that, the Borough modified their staff recommendations because the City had not addressed future ROW's for the area. If the City is concerned about future ROW's they need to make their desires known and the Borough will accomodate if it seems reasonable but if there is no comment, they will withhold. Presently, this plat has been approved at the Borough level subject to City input. It would appear that if the developer owns the property to the north, it would be reasonable to require a plan for future access. Commissioner Carignan shared the concern, and cited a similar situation in the Townsite. Jerry Hansen, resident of 107 Paula, Inlet View, stated that when he saw the dump trucks full of trees there was something dreadfully wrong. Mr. Hansen reitterated what Mr. Daniels stated and further that not only is traffic heavy on Rogers already, but that the traffic on Lawton is heavy but at least it is a "feeder" street. The subdivision has alot of children, and since there is no playground closeby, they play, ride their bicycles, play ball, etc., in the street. Traffic through the subdivision now is pretty quiet, most residents are aware of the narrow streets and the children at play, ) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1985 Page S however, putting 44 more houses, perhaps 88 more cars on the one road will endanger the neighborhood. "I would ask that the road be shaped in such a way as to encourage traffic to go out equally between Rogers and the other access. MY plea is that you require the developer have another access perhaps out to Lawton Drive as described through Tract A". Bill Osborne, resident of Inlet View, informed the Commission that he was one of the first families to move into Inlet Uiew in 1969 "so when it comes to concern for children, my children are grown and gone but I see the children in the neighborhood playing in the street which is not bad since they are supervised by their parents, and since there are no playgrounds closeby, this is the only alternative for them. I would like to echo the other comments and add my concern. During snowfall, I have to be especially careful backing out of my driveway, its almost impassible to see traffic coming any direction. The road is narrow and there already is plenty of traffic. Chairman Lewis entered letters from; Don Oberg and Faith Chase, both residents of Inlet View and both expressed concern for the 1} trees, and 2) traffic which would endanger the neighborhood. Each requested a second access paint for the addition. Commissioner Smalley expressed concern for the large influx of traffic and asked if the Commission could request an added ROW of the developer. Commissioner Smalley suggested a ROW through Tract A to Lawton or extend Norman St. to the edge of the northerly property which would not solve the problem, but may alleviate it somewhat. Councilman Wise suggested the Commission table the plat until the developer can be contacted. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to table action on this resolution and request administration research this matter and come back with recommendations at the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. Commissioner Baryson reminded the Commission that the Borough does have a deadline to work under and will need to act on it. The street issue was not addressed. Councilman Wise suggested that the motion to table should be followed by a motion to request the Borough to postpone action an the plat based upon what appears to be inadequate access, and the Borough will probably accommodate your wishes. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1985 Page 6 MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved that City Administration contact the Borough Planning and request postponement of action on this plat until it is resolved regarding the issue of ownership of Tract A for potential, access to Lawton, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. e. Preliminary Plat PZ85-31: Mommsen S/D 464 This plat resubdivides a previous zero lot line plat back into one standard lot. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ85-31, seconded by Commissioner Osborne VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. ~ f. Preliminary Plat PZ85-32: Mommsen S/D - Nelson/Kluge Add. This plat moved existing lot lines in 3 lots of varying size to create 3 lots of uniform size. MOTION: .Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ85-32 with incorporation of staff comments, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. g. Preliminary Plat PZ85-33: Woadbriar 5/D 462 This plat resubdivides a previous zero lot line subdivision into a standard subdivision. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of PZ85-33, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. $. PLANNING Nane PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1985 Page 7 9. REPORTS a. City Council Councilman Wise reported that the Landscaping Ordinance was amended on introduction to delete the 5°b. "My personal comments are that I felt that 1) it gutted the ordinance as to guidance and 2) equally important that without guidance, it is a harrassment to the developer since now there are no standards." Commissioner Carignan agreed, Commissioner Smalley stating it gives the review board the ability to accept or reject a flower pot. Councilman Wise stated that the big problem I have the way it stands right now, the developer comes in with a landscape plan which may or may not be acceptable because of his inability to devine a standard and the tragedy that might develop is that the developer could now be bouncing back and forth, resubmit- ting repeatedly to please the board and is very detrimental to the City. There is nothing that destroys a cities reputation any mare than uncertainty. Chairman Lewis referred to the newspaper article quoting the vote and since it was not unanimous asked if it was binding, Councilman Wise explained the vote, that an absolute majority is necessary to pass on adoption. b. Borough Planning Commissioner Bryson informed the tonight were heard and approved. an island in the Kenai River be defeated. Commission that the 3 plats presented A sport fishing group had proposed named Monument Island and it was c. City Administration None 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 11. INFORMATION ITEMS No questions 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Commissioner Carignan expressed concern over the Petty lease since it was defeated in favor of the Fred Meyer lease. I would like it to go on record that we are concerned about it. Commissioner Carignan asked if anything had been done as regards any other lands available to him, no one present knew. Commissioner Bryson asked if Fred Meyer had proposed a use for the property other than that it would be nice for them to have use of all the property. I see no justification other __ ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24,, 1985 Page 8 than they have a higher and better use just because they are proposing a larger project. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Smalley, addressing the Fred Meyer lease, noted the incomplete package. "One of the things that Jeff Labahn has helped establish is the duties and responsibilities of this body and it concerns me that city adminis- tration, the mayor, and Council ignores this particular group when they go out seeking businesses and discussing the planning of this city. That is part of the function of this body, to be a part of planning. Commissioner Carignan stated that there are two indicators of that right now, one the Petty lease and the other the landscaping ordinance. Commissioner Smalley agreed with Councilman Wise, gutting the landscaping ordinance is not a solution, thats exactly what's been done and I would encourage anybody to go to those meetings and speak against the change. Commissioner Qleson addressing the Fred Meyer lease stated .that what we dp for one we have to do for a11, example the sign code. Chairman Lewis felt it would serve the Commissionea purposes if someone representinq the Fred Meyer lease be at the next meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 PM. The next regularly scheduled meeting is Wednesday, May 8th. Janet Loper Secretary PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION r~ Chairman 'Lee Lewis -Phil Bryson _ 1 =~ ~ Richard Carri nen ~ P ~ j'~ g , • Bob Oleson Ozzie Osborne IV Hal Smalley ~~ - ) Bill Zubek ~_ ~ ,-.4 ~~, TO DO / ~~ ~V ~ J i ~~ '`' <~ ~ .i /~~' J'~ ~;~1 ,~ ~~ ~( ~, ~~ ~ ~ /