Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-12 P&Z MinutesKENAI PLANNING & ZONING GOMMISSTON March 12, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Kenai Peninsula Boraugh Landfill: Permit Renewal & Expansion (Carried over from last meeting} 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of February 26, 1986 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Vacatiancf Portion of Coral Street and Portion of 40' Utility_ Easement - Gusty S/D Add ~1 - City of Kenai b. Preliminary Plat PZ86-7: Beluga S/D, First Assembly of God Replat c. Preliminary Plat PZ86-8: Eventyr S/D ~2 d. Preliminary Plat PZ86-9: Sprucewood Glen 5/D ~5, Revision #2 8. PLANNING 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 10. PERSON5 PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 11. INFORMATION ITEMS 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTTON5 13. ADJOURNMENT KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 12, 1986 - ?:00 p.m. Kenai City Nall Lee Lewis, Chairman 1. ROLL CALL Present: Lewis, Bryson, Carignan, Olesan, Osborne, Smalley, Zubeck 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda approved as submitted 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Kenai Peninsula 8oraugh Landfill: Permit Renewal & Expansion {Carried over from last meeting} Chairman Lewis asked that representatives from the Borough come forward to address the issue. Tom Baedeker, Borough Attorney came forward and stated that certain questions had come up regarding the scope of the review and the question is not whether you like the landfill but the scope of your action in accordance with the ADEC is a determination of whether we are in compliance with your zoning code and that future plans or matters of operations violations were immaterial to the question. We felt we were in compliance, that this would be a non-conforming use and as such it would be grandfathered in and we are not in violation of that code. i have read the memorandum from your city attorney and I will answer any questions. Commissioner Bryson asked that the City Attorney review his memo. City Attorney Rogers stated, "What I tried to do is give you a historical perspective, I'm not sure that we have a total picture and I indicate in the memorandum that a title report on the property may be of some benefit. Refer to Exhibit A, which sets out that portion of Section 36 which is at issue here and I typed under the various diagrams of the property there what we ascertained to be the area where initially an easement was given to the Borough. Also, what DEC permit was issued in 1981 and other leases the state gave to the Borough covering what appears to be the same land. It raises some interesting issues tv which I have no answer. However, the question to me was generic insofar as dealing with this landfill. PLANNING COMMISSION March 12, 1986 Page 2 It became apparent in discussions at Council and others that there are those in the City that do not want the landfill to continue. Currently, as addressed fn the memo the Borough does want to continue it and in fact is talking about a substantial durational continuance with substantial expansion of the whole area. Some of the material presented to you previously shows some of the history and scope of the landfill. The question that we still have that is not addressed in the memorandum concerns the grandfather argument that they have a prior non-conforming use at a period of time that the city did not have planning & zoning powers, therefore even if the use was consistent with Borough planning and zoning, they're stated use or purpose for the property would in effect be tantamount to a change in that. T don't necessarily agree, although I am not going to state unequivocally that they do not have grandfather rights as it is termed by some people on that property. There are a number of issues that are unclear to me at this point, insofar as a legal status of that particular property. I am distressed as I indicate in the memorandum at the manner by which the property was conveyed, Without a durational limitation on its use specifically stated in an easement for purposes of a landfill or associated uses. I'm not sure what that means. I'm sure a court would have some problem deciphering what that specifically means sn I don't think it is perhaps as cut and dried as some would indicate, I dont think the City is without a defensible position in denying the Borough what they want, I think there are a number of options available which may lead the Borough to perhaps consider the possibility of negntiating a period of time less than what they are contemplating for that particular parcel. In reading some of the historical matter it became apparent to me that initially that landfill was opened up as a result of efforts by the highway department to extract material for the road, as a result of their extraction it was to be filled with landfill material and somehow I was led to believe in reading the materials that the durations, perhaps initially thought to be tied to that, that at the completion of the highway department operation, somehow the landfill operation would cease. That certainly is not evident from a reading the easement. As T state here, the easement proposes to give the Borough Carte Blanehe in the operation of the landfill without any durational limitations. As an attorney that bothers me. I have tried to paint out that 1) you have before you the permit issue and whether or not, in your opinion, they are in compliance with the planning zoning for the City. That determination is to be made in your judge- ment. 2) addressing the non-conforming use, T am not prepared to come down on either side after only two days of researching the issue, 3) what I felt are the ramifications of trying to close down the landfill ~ by various means, what defenses I felt the Borough would have available. That gets into the legal ramifications which does not concern you but I did want to touch on those issues because depending ,~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 12, 1986 Page 3 on your actions we are going to be proceeding along one avenue or another. Without a doubt the City and Borough are going to have a difference of opinion. I might add that courts are not to be feared. Courts exist to resolve controversies were different entities differ and it may come to that. It has been festering now for quite a few years. Councilman Wise stated that "their request is that we not object to their DEC request. My understanding was that the application was for approval of their DEC permit." Attorney Rogers stated that what they are asking here is a finding that they are in compliance with planning and zoning laws and piggy backing that onto your acquiescence perhaps with DEC. If I'm not mistaken, what the Borough is asking for now is a finding from planning and zoning that you are in compliance with that planning and zoning cnde. Tam Boedeker agreed, stating that the warding could give a misinterpretation. What is required to submit an application to ADEC on a site is a certificate from the local zoning authority as stated. That does not preclude that jurisdiction from objecting on ether grounds. We did not expect the City, by approving this at this stage, just carte blanche say we do not object and give up any right to raise issues with ADEC in the permitting process. Attorney Rogers stated that not giving approval would be tantamount to disapproval or denial of his request. Commissioner Bryson asked Attorney Rogers if approving the request for a period of time less than the 5 year period be interpreted as a denial, answer, an approval for any period of time would weaken the City's position insofar as maintaining non compliance with planning & zoning and it was not a legally pre-existing use. By approving it for any period of time you perhaps would be acquiescing that at some point of time it was a legal use unless you have a disclaimer with it. You're function tonight, if you disapprove it would be tantamount to finding non-compliance with planning & zoning. Councilman Wise stated that "for years, my position is that it is a non-conforming use and what they ors planning is to expand a non- conforming use." Attorney Rogers directed attention to the maps again painting out that the shaded area they are planning on going into is a new area and is expanding. NOTE: Chairman Lewis called a break in the meeting to check tapes. Chairman Lewis opened the meeting to the public. There was no public comment. Councilman Wise stated that he had asked two persons to be in attendance. Mr. Joe Arness, Chairman of Solid Waste Disposal Site Commission and Mr. Mike Luckey of ADEC. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 12, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Joe Arness came forward and spoke. Last year the Borough put forth a bond issue to construct an incinerator in order to eliminate these type of landfill problems and it was defeated in the polls. We are currently in the process of trying to rekindle the issue and are about to begin a site selection process to establish exactly how and where we would operate an incinerator if we got the bonding approval. It is my sense that Commission, Borough administration, Borough Assembly, are in favor of this alternative, however, it does not help your problem this evening. I hope that we can keep in perspective the fact that the Borough has its jab to do, the City has its job, we do the best job we can given the constraints of money available. The Commission recognizes that existing site for the landfill is probably not the best, however, the best interests for the short term are to keep the landfill where it is, allow it to expand, and until such time as we can take the step into the next phase, that of an incinerator. Councilman Wise stated that the proposal is to keep this landfill going into the year 2000, and if I read you right, that is not the intent of the Solid Waste Commission. Mr. Arness stated that he does not know why the documents state the year 2000 unless it is the potential is that we don't run into this again in 5 years. If the City would feel more comfortable for the permit to read a shorter duration, the bottom line is that we are doing what we can do to solve the problem. Chairman Lewis brought the issue back to the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved for denial of the permit on the basis of non compliance with the existing zoning code, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. 5. APPROVAL OF MINl1TES of February 26, 1986 Commissioner Smalley - on page 5, instead of "stated" insert "asked." Commissioner Bryson - concerning Mr. Hackney's statement, insert "i.e." home occupations. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved approval of the amended minutes, seconded by Commissioner Carignan DOTE: Motion passed unanimously PLANNING COMMISSION March 12, 1986 Page 5 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Vacation of Portion of Coral Street and Portion of 40' Utility Easement - Gusty S/D Add #1 - City of Kenai This is an accompaniment to the plat seen at the last meeting and presented by Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of vacation of portion of easements as stated, seconded by Commissioner Bryson. voTE: Motion passed unanimously b._Preliminary Plat PZ86-7: Beluga 51D, First Assembly of God Replat This plat removes a lot line combining two lots to allow probable expansion of the church. Commissioner Oleson will be abstaining from voting. MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved approval of PZ86-7, seconded by Commissioner Osborne VOTE: Motion passed unanimously c. Preliminary Plat PZ86-8; Eventyr S/D #2 This plat continues the name unto the adjoining government lot. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved approval of PZ86-8, seconded by Commissioner Bryson voTE: Motion passed unanimously d. Preliminary Plat PZ86-9: Sprucewood Glen S/D ~5, Revision ~2 This is the same satellite as the two previous plats, moved to the west. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 12, 1986 Page 6 MOTION: Commissioner Osborne moved approval of PZ86-9, including all staff comments specific to the City Engineer's comments regarding no access onto Walker Lane, seconded by Commissioner VOTE: Motion passed unanimously 8. PLANNING Regarding the draft Townsite Zone and Site Plan Review Ordinances, Planning Specialist Loper informed the Commission that the Landscaping Review Board had reviewed bath documents, found them to be acceptable to this point and will be attending the next work session with the Commission. 9. REPORTS a. City Council Councilman Wise had no comments b. Borough Planning Commissioner Bryson reported on several Borough issues. c. Cit~Administration Planning Specialist Loper gave a report on issues that will be coming before the Commission. 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 11. INFORMATION ITEMS None 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS None ~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 12, 1986 Page 7 l3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Commission will be Wednesday, March 26th with a work session beginning at 6:00 PM. Janet Laper SecretarylPlanning Specialist PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Roll Call 1 J ~~ ,~ ~ q - ~~ ~ ~ /// =f~ %// Chairman \ •Lee Lewis -Phil Bryson ~, ~ ~I ~ Richard ~ \~ ~ Carrignen Bob Oleson ~ \t ~ ~ Ozzie Osborne ~~ ~ Hal Smalley Bill Zubek ~ - TO DO