Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-23 P&Z Minutes'~~ ~~ KENAI PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION April Z3, 1986 - Z:OO p.m. Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman &:QQ PM Mork Sesaitm - Qverall Zoning Code Revisions AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPRQVAL OF AGENDA ~. PERSDNS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO 8E HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ86-1~: Conditional Use Permit - "New" Kenai Elementary Schaal - Tract 1, Swires Elementary S/D ~~ b. Resolution PZB6-14: Rezone Lot 6, Blk 2 ~: Lot 2, 81k 1, Sprucewaad Glen S1D #2 - to General Commercial c. Resolution PZB6-15: Rezone Block ~, Thompson Park S/D and Lot 1, Blk ~, Valhalla S/D - to Suburban Residential d. Testimony: Closing Municipal Park and Cuningham Park to Overnight Camping 5. APPRQVAL OF MINUTES of April 9, 1986 Available at the meeting 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Vacation: Two 50' ROW's in R.M. Thompson S/D - E. Henderson 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Preliminary Plat PZB6-1&: Baron Park #5 b. Preliminary Plat PZB6-17: Schorr S!D #2 c. Discussion: Faster Gravel Pit - Change Hours of Operation ~ d. Discussion: Questionnaire from Corps of Engineers~'Baraugh PLANNING COMMISSION AGENQA April 2~, 1986 Page ~ 8. PLANNING 9. REPORTS a. City Counoil h. Borough Planning c. City Administration 1O. PERSONS PREBENT NOT SCHEQULED TD OE HEARQ ll. INFORMATION ITEMS Letter from Tim Rogers: Robert Jac~san 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS ~ QUESTION5 1~. ADJOORNMENT ~ KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMI5SION April 23, 1986 - ?:00 PM Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman 1. ROLL GALL Present: Bryson, Oleson, Osborne, Smalley, Zubeck Absent: Lewis, Carignan {excused) 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Move item 4-d to beginning to accomodate audience Agenda approved with the change 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 4, PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Testimony: Closing Municipal Park and Cunningham Park to Vice Chairman Smalley opened the meeting to the public. Kayo McGillivray, Parks ~ Recreation Director. This issue is before you this evening because it has been discussed by the Council who have been approached by citizens in the close proximity of the Municipal Park especially with problems concerning campers. Two years ago the ordinance was changed from allowing 10 days of camping to a maximum stay of 72 hours. Tn discussion with Police Chief Ross and with our own parks crew, T belive the problems have diminshed a great deal, however, it is the desire of the Council to have the issue come to public hearing for further comments before any decisions are made. While the discussion is concerning Cunningham and Municipal parks, I think the Council is thinking of including all Kenai parks. Sue Carter, Manager of the Kenai Chamber of Commerce. In cooperation with the-City of Kenai, the Visitor Information Center and Chamber place a large add in the Milepost, one of which is camper availability and with the tourist season just beginning with a fairly large group already entering Kenai, it is hoped that the City would not consider closing the parks until something else is provided. We do not have adequate facilities at the present time for campers. Councilman Wise asked if Mrs. Carter was referring to just the Municipal Park or all parks, answer the parks that are advertised are the two under consideration. People want to be by the river and of those people ~ coming into Kenai, not all are coming in to fish they just want to be PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 198b Page 2 by the river. The Cunningham Park is overcrowded. The State has indicated that they will not be funding any more parks in this area. They will be leaving that up to private enterprise or municipalities. Richard Hultberg, Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission. I would like to remind the Planning Commission that the Parks & Rec Commission had made a recommendation that until we could find an alternative we feel overnight camping should be allowed to continue. Further, we feel that more information is needed and any closing should not occur until after this season. Councilman Wise - we have two different types of users, we have the tourist and the cannery workers and i think we are not addressing either very well. Richard Hultberg stated that a concentrated effort has been made to maintain those parks better. If used the correct way, there may not be any problem, its hard to say. Michael Dooley, Kenai. I would suggest that alI members of Council and Commission take a look at the Municipal Park before anyone has a chance to clean it up now that the snow is melted. It is a mess. I do not believe that overnight camping in the park is the real problem, I think it is the neglect of the City to maintain the campgrounds. Under the garbage that is strewn all over the camp ground and the half destroyed and the non-useful barricades to prevent ATV's from making ruts out of the walking trails, mud holes, and ruining the natural cover (underbrush) which will never grow back in one season if ever. The broken fire places, the filthy latrines, and one of the worse problems is the maurading bands of teenagers who go there to drink at night whether the grounds are closed or not. Yau can hear them tearing up and down the roads in trucks and ATV's with all the damage they are doing. With all this attention that is being given the campgrounds will be constructive in that it will inspire the City officials to see for themselves what a gem of a campground it could be if maintained closly. The fact that the beach area inter-ties with the campground could be utilized to further advantage. There are so many people that come to this town and one of the first things they do is go to the beach and see the whales and we offer them a dirty ruined campground. Overnight campers being present are actually a deterrent to the destruction and abuse of the campground. People who are true campers police themselves for the most part. If properly managed, I believe the campground could even pay for itself, both in drawing tourists to the City and perhaps in the use of a small fee. Councilman Wise stated that his wish is that we could have an answer on how to deal with ATVs. We all agree with you, we just don't have a solution other than a 24 hour walking armed guards. Mr. Dooley, On the beach you have a sign directing "no vehicles this way" but you ~ don't have one for the other way and I think it is certainly proper. Esp. in the campground I feel there should be a sign that states "No ATV's". Councilman Wise stated that we put a barricade at the foot of Forest Dr. and now we have people taking all kinds of vehicles running ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 3 the wall coming up from the beach. I don't know how to reach these people, they see something and have to challenge it. Mr. Dooley stated that, sure it will cost a couple bucks, but to be able to get the message across that the City now claims control of that territory and the renegades are not allowed. Right now they feel it is "their turf" because no one makes an effort to stop them. Campers are going to come here and if there is no where to camp they will head down to 5oldtona and they will eat, buy their fishing gear, everything there. As there is no decision requested, only testimony taken and passed on to Council, the testimony is closed. Commissioner Bryson asked if it would be acceptable to hold the hearings over to the next meeting and readvertise. Councilman Wise stated that he felt sure the Council would agree. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved to postpone and hold another public hearing at the next regular meeting, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously b. Resolution PZ86-13: Conditional Use Permit - "New" Kenai Elementary School -Tract. 1, 5wires Elementary S/D Vice Chairman 5malled opened the meeting to the public. There were no comments. Planning Specialist Loper introduced the resolution explaining that under the Land Use Table of the Zoning Code a conditional use permit is required for elementary schools. The preliminary plat has already been approved by bath City and Borough, the site plan has been approved by the Borough also. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ86-13, seconded by Commissioner Osborne VOTE: Motion passed unanimously c. Resolution PZ86-14: Rezone Lot 6, Blk 2 & Lot 2, 81k 1, Sprucewood Glen S/D #2 to General Commercial. Vice Chairman Smalley opened the item to the public. There was no ~ public comment. } PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 4 Commissioner Bryson asked if the total area zoned urban residential owned by the same person, answer from Planning Specialist Loper, the area is owned by either Tommy Partee or Edwin Lowry with some properties owned jointly. Together they own all 10 lots. Commissioner Bryson asked if there were any objections received by adjacent property owners, answer no comments were received at all. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved to recommend approval of PZ86-14, to general Commercial, seconded by Commissioner Zubeck Commissioner Osborne asked if a similar rezoning request had come up a year or so ago, answer not this exact parcel, it was F-1 which was rezoned from Urban Residential to General Commercial to allow for the planned mall to extend. VOTE: Motion passed yes; Commissioners Bryson, Olesan, Zubeck and Vice Chairman Smalley no; Commissioner Osborne c. Resolution PZ86-15: Rezone Block 3, Thompson Park S/D and Lot 1, Black 9, Valhalla S/D to Suburban Residential (RSA Vice Chairman Smalley, at this point in time, I like to open it up to public hearing and I think that it's probably going to be lengthy so let's try to limit your comments to no more than five minutes per person please. Spencer De Vito, Box 3I7 Soldotna. "I would have this council tell me here, how can we put a petition an appeal through after following all the due process as instructed to us and still have a building permit issued. I think it's just something I haven't been able to interpret as I was sent to the code, according to your attorney, and spent hours going through that, can anyone on this council tell me how a group can appeal something, follow the petition procedure and then still have a building permit issued?" Is anyone equipped to tell me that? I would like to further address the fact that the growing pains of this City has caused a great deal of hardship on many residents and we are residents that have been caused that hardship. Let me show you haw we've been caused a hardship. In today's Clarion article, Mr. Boyd claimed that the area had been zoned commercial for more than twenty years, what Boyd omitted to tell you and the newspaper, is that in 1962 it was zoned commercial, but in 1970, zoning and planning groups collected fees and accepted a ~ petition requesting to rezone the property From commercial to residential. At that time the zoning and planning committee recommended in writing, that the property now in question be zoned residential because as the zoning and planning committee put it, it is ~ PLANNING CDMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 5 quality residential property. It goes on to state that permitting additional commercial zoning would be incorrect and in err. This is especially true when such provisions are in direct canflict with the peoples and planning commissions intentions not to permit strip commercial developing along the Spur and residential areas. The developed quality residential character of the petitioned area, protection of considerable personal investments and the tax base and the accomplishment of the public goals to limit strip commercial development demands the area to be zoned residential. I have that from the zoning and planning commission. This zoning and planning commission recommended the petitionbe tabled until the comprehensive plan was developed. That's why nothing happened. Residents assumed that it was being dealt with by the zoning and planning commission. To me it now appears unfair and unexcusable to not deal with this issue especially when it was the recommendation of the zoning and planning and that it was never acted upon as citizens awaited the comprehensive plan and some notice and some direction as this group is awaiting, direction. I think we have an issue that must be dealth with. A building permit should not have been administered and a citizenary should not have been instructed by the City Attorney to take the issue across the street to the courthouse. The City's growing pains indicate good intentions, but show some inconsistency, to say the least. This group is not going to sit by and allow a gas station, a liquor store, a grocery store of that nature to be built in this particular location without a hard long fight that has just begun. That type of business will not enhance the community. No liquor store, gas station in any obvious subdivision of that nature has ever enhanced any community in any state anywhere in the United States. It will enhance a drug and crime situation. I would like to go on further since you've given me five minutes. Boyd keeps referring back to the comprehensive city plan of 198D and Boyd is trying to make some people believe that the intent of that plan is to place a commercial venture such as he plans in the residential area. Please be advised that to not respond to the 1970 March 16 plan and to now respond to the desires of the local residents requests are inexcusable. They strongly indicate insensitivity. And they show lack of responsibility by all of you who are trying your hardest to meet the needs of the citizens. That plan suggests residential only. To cut this short, what does all this mean? It means we really have a city with growing pains. It means that concerned residents are requesting something more than a city attorney's interpretation and ruling. It means that the zoning ~ and planning committee as well as the landscape committee and the council have shown concern for meeting our requests, but are met with roadblocks and interpretation problems. Thank you. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 6 Alice Johnson, 320 Thompson Place. I would like to read a letter to you written by Sheila Phillips, she is in Seattle, Washington, on business with her job this week, The letter was read and entered into the record. Briefly, the letter stated, "There are two items that I would like to address in regard to the rezoning of Block 3 in Thompson Park. First, I would like to remind the Commission that Thompson Park is the oldest subdivision in the Gity of Kenai and that many of its residents have been living there for over ten years and several for over 20 years. Rlso, of the larger subdivisions, it is one that does not have City water and sewer, nor paved streets. But realizing the cost to the City because of our distance from the City center, the residents have been quite patient. The two arguments I would like to have in support of rezoning all of Block 3 from Commercial to Residential, are first dealing with safety and second, the devalued property. In regards to the safety, a high-volume business in this Block 3 would cause a traffic hazard. There are already too many roads leading from or to the Spur Highway in this immediate area. The use of lupine Drive, which is a graveled road with sharp and dangerous curves, is an access to an active business place. It will cause unsafe conditions for the many pedestrian children and for the passengers in vehicles on the roads of Thompson Park. A high-volume business that is open much longer than the normal business hours would cause undue noise and road traffic at odd hours. Combine that with business that has a liquor license and the problems multiply. We are 5-1/2 to six miles from the City center and the police department. Armed robbery of these businesses is common and when this type of business is surrounded by residential homes, the lives of those residents are at stake. Some types of commerce are just not compatible with residential zones. Three of the four landowners in this Block 3 of Thompson Park, have large pieces of view property. A certain type of commercial business on the fourth piece, which is Lots b, 7, and 8 would greatly devalue these three properties. Also, the fourth piece is too small to provide adequate space, screening, or protection from itself and these three homes. Mrs. Johnson, I would like to add that I live next door to the Phillips and this will be in my immediate front yard and we Iove our location. In fact, we just went and spent $4,000 to refinance our house at a lower interest rate, and I just think of what we invested there and then the value of our property going down, doesn't make us feel good. And, I ~j would just like to reiterate what Spence said, that if we had known this and had a hearing, we would have been there at the proper time ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 7 and we wouldn't be in the mess that we are today, and I say this. Thank you. Clancy Johnson, 320 Thompson Place, Kenai, Alaska. I came to this area in 1960. I left the military in 1962 and came back to Kenai and I brought my family, which was six children, with the idea where I was going to live. We looked at a lot of places. We wanted a place that had a view, where the children could play, where we had some activity, where people weren't going to build right next to us. The frontage gave us some seclusion. That's why we selected the place that we selected. Mr. Boyd didn't come and ask us whether we wanted a liquor store or a 7-11, QuikStop, or whatever. And his reply to me was, right here in this building the first time we got here, was that he knew that we wouldn't want it. Completely disregarding the peoples' views, my family's views, my lifestyle, the things that we hold pretty dear to ourselves, he completed disregarded them. Devaluating my property. The item about the notice of where the sign for the liquor permit, putting it in the middle of the trees where no one could see it. This is not the act of an honorable person. And yet we can, and yet the council, or the City, or whoever deemed it necessary to allow the man to have a permit without allowing the citizens to take part in a hearing, based on our investments, I think that they need to take another look before any buildings dune, because we're not going to sit by and let our property be devalued, change our life- style, and then change our families. Thank you. July Devito. I suppose I am going to be a bit redundant, but I think that it needs to be stressed and stressed and stressed. first of all I have some questions that Spence brought up. Back in 1962 the land in Block 3 was zoned commercial, however in 1970, the residents in that area did request rezoning. It was tabled. So my question is, was that rezoning petition acted upon? And I feel that's your area to look into that. If it was acted upon, then it could be residential, Mr. Boyd could be actually putting his building up on some residential property. If it wasn't acted upon, it was tabled, how were the petitioners wishes met? Did they pay a fee? Was there fee refunded? Those are some questions I have. Also I'd like to point out something else that maybe hasn't been brought up. In that 1970 staff report from the Borough and Planning Commission, they stated that our property was quality residential, and I consider that it still is. It's bluff property, it's quiet, lots of kids live there, lots of happy families. If we want a loaf of bread or a bottle of whiskey, we da have to run to town, but when we moved there we knew that. i am concerned about the children in that area. I'm concerned that somebody put a park, Beaver Creek Park which you were just discussing, just down the road. Kids are going there all summer long and they are going to have to go across the driveway of Mr. Boyd's OneStop and that is going to be a very dangerous spot. We just had a child killed vn a faun-wheeler this winter, and all he was doing was trying to cross the rflad. I hope that you do reconsider that zoning petition way back in PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 198b Page 8 1970, or at Ieast look up and find out what happened then for our sakes anyway, and I do request a zoning change from commercial to residential. Thank you. Peggy Gill Thompson, 4010 Lupine. I hadn't planned to speak, but I noticed that the people who have already spoken are trying to get a paint to you, they are the people who will be immediately affected. Their lots, their property is really close to this lat. Now i live at the corner of Lupine and Fern and there is great concern over the traffic. This is a new, what we call the new Thompson Park. J.W. Thompson subdivided this land after he subdivided this. This is the subdivision that has these little I00 ft. x. 100 ft. lots and so what we did, a lot of us, we bought two lots and eventually three lots to protect our property. Children play in the streets over here, where this street goes across. They play ball games, when you drive around, you're dodging kids. This is a blind street. In the summer time children are riding on their bicycles, and believe you/me, I'm apprehensive. One of these days same of these kids are going to get hit. This right here is what they're talking about, they're dangerous corners. People come in this subdivision, they come for some reason, they like to come this direction through here and out to the Spur Highway. It is not just the people who live an Lupine who go out this to this highway and ga wherever they go, but they came here and out. There are fourplexes over here so it's quite a few cars that make the quick area over here. We expect if there's a business over here to get bread or whatever, there'll be a lot more traffic coming this way and out and then Gaming back in and out. Dale Sandahl, 4040 Lupine Drive. I'm one of those people who isn't directly adjoined to that property as well, and I think Peggy spoke very well to the safety problem that results from that particular property. i would gn so far as to say that if you went dawn the road just a little bit where the EAGLES club is, you really have no traffic problem. There's adequate access to that establishment, in and out, and does not interfere at ail, to any great degree. If you use that road, day in and day out, like I do several times a day, its already a safety hazard. It already has blind corners as Peggy has pointed out. If this establishment is allowed to ga in there, there are going to have to be significant improvements made to Lupine Drive, or there are going to be some dead bodies along there. The trees present a problem, the blind corners present a problem, and if you look at the whale Thompson Park situation, there are really about three accesses into the entire property. We have on several occasions asked that, please somebody, if you need ,~ support on a safety problem, turn it over to your own city police, Realizing that the Chief of Police lives in Thompson Park, he said he would turn it over to somebody else in his department so that he would stay out of it. The Chief of Police signed the petition and so he PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 9 doesn't want to make that particular decision, but somebody in his department certainly would and if you can't, you know, go to Soldatna and ask those police and come out and check it out. Thank you. I forgot something. I'm Peggy Thompson, 4010 Lupine Drive and I forgot to mention something a little bit earlier. Again referring to something that Spence DeVita mentioned of where that sign was put saying that there was going to be a business, I never saw it either. I declare, I was shocked to hear that it was posted, Lord I never saw an iota of a piece of paper and I come in that turn many times. I did see the far sale sign and I think it's still up. It was just the other day. But, I'd like to ask a question. If a person is going to show the public that there's something that's going to be constructed, shouldn't it legally be big enough sa that the public can see? It must have been about a 4 x 6 card someplace., because I never saw anything that denoted that there was going to be a business. Only a for sale sign, and that was visible, anything else was not visible, just the trees. Vince Devito. As Mrs. Thompson stated, a new far sale sign was placed on the property after he applied for a permit, because at six o'clock any morning of the week, if you'll drive up that road, you'll find me running on the highway. I do it daily, and I know exactly when those are there because there is Doberman Pincer across the street and I have a big club there that awaits that dog. I know when that sign was placed. Roger Boyd, P.O. Box 4233, Saldotna. I'm not going to try to answer all the issues and questions that have been raised. It's obviously real emotional but this is what we came down to. I would like to just read a letter that you may have in your packets that I presented today to the Planning and Zoning. It says: "As the legal owner of Lots 6, 7, and 8, Black 3 Thompson Park Subdivision, I respectfully request that the above-named lots be withdrawn from the proposed rezoning of Block 3, Thompson Park Sub. Presently the property is zoned General Commercial. I have been granted a building permit by the City of Kenai to build a commercial building an this property. Construction will begin by May 1, 1986. in order to protect my substantial investment in this commercial property, it is necessary for the zoning to remain in conformity with its use. If left in the CG zone, my lots would remain contiguous to the existing CG zoned lots in Thompson Park an the Kenai Spur Highway. I support the petition to rezone the remaining lots in Block 3 to residential, as this would bring the zoning into conformity with the owners current use." Dale Sandahl. I believe the request for rezoning includes all of Block 3, which would include thane lots. Is the P&Z able to answer the questions that Judy Devito asked? Are you in a position to please enlighten this group as to what may have taken place in 1960-1970? We don't know and we have some limited documentation from the archives ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 10 that was gathered by Van Phillips, but beyond that, it said that it was going to be postponed, I believe, until 6th in that same year but we don't know what took place with that petition after that, so if you can shed any light on that, I think it's a relevant question. Councilman Wise, to review the procedures, in 1970 the Borough had the planning and zoning authority for the entire borough. The Gity only had an advisory capacity in responding to the advisory of the borough planning commission. This body had a petition in front of it and tabled it waiting the comprehensive plan, the body at that time should have reactivated it after the camp plan was completed and done something with it. But action on a rezoning was done then by the Borough Assembly. Why it never gat to Borough Assembly or what happened to it if it did get to the Borough Assembly... Planning Specialist Loper, It wasn`t tabled by the City, it was tabled by the Borough. Sandahl, the archives show that it was tabled by two groups and I believe there was a person by the name of Kurtz. Planning Specialist Loper,as Councilman Wise explained this body is only advisory. The final decision would be up to the Borough when the Borough had the power ar Council from July 1984 to the present Sandahl, so what you're saying is that at that particular time, those questions need to be addressed to the Borough? Councilman Wise, but the enacting body is, was at that time would have been the Borough Assembly. Why it fell through the crack back in 1970, I don't think you'll ever find a answer. The Commission and those present went over the documentation held by the group and determined that the material was from Borough records. Councilman Wise, the only information that we have right now substantiates that it was tabled, period. Nothing else. And that it was still then commercial. Judy Devito, Mr. Boyd gave you a letter today asking that he be left out of the zoning change, it was our understanding when we started aII of this that someone should designate a block and that 51~ of those people could petition for a zoning change. Nis area certainly fits into that black. Clancy Johnson, does this mean that his lots can be exluded and he can still build? Vice Chairman Smalley, We can deal with your resolution and get it going, and this is my interpretation I believe if your resolution passes and there is a rezone, Mr. Boyd can still build his facility because he was granted his permit prior to any enactment here. Well, could I ask, who, and I guess I'm try to identify one person ar one body, who gave permission PLANNING COMMIS5ION April 23, 1986 page I1 to issue the permit knowing that we were were actively trying to have the thing restricted because it just doesn't seem, there's no justice in this particular sensus. Vie Chairman Smalley, the ordinance governing landscapingis quite specific. It says that once the paperwork is in order, there are up to 14 days with which that commission has to respond to it. If they da not, the City is obligated by the ordinance to issue the permit. Your appeal is to the Landscape Review Commission, that has nothing to do with us. We review none of that because it never came to us. Councilman Wise, let me...stick my neck out. The building permit is issued under the authority of the chief administrative officer of the City which is the City Manager. Ne is responsible for every member of the city administration. presumably they were, and I can only guess, presumably when the landscape board approved the building permit as modified it went to the building inspector who issues the permit. Me presumably, knowing that an appeal was forthcoming, went to his boss, which ends up being the City Manager, and the City Manager, you know, I'm only guessing, I presume went to the City Attorney for infor- mation. I'm only surmising because I don't know, but the thing is is that a building permit is issued by the administration. And the individual who is responsible for the administration is the city manager. I presume that the City Manager was aware of the appeal. Why the building permit was issued presumably was an advice of counsel. I don't believe the City Manager would have, you know, issued the building permit had he felt that the appeal should stop it at that time. Spencer Devito. did this committee realize, that the group of citizens out at Thompson park would in deed go through a procedure to get this appeal in time to stop this kind of a building. I guess we jumped lots and lots of hoops. I'm getting the feeling that we really couldn't have made this accomplishment right from the beginning. Did this committee realize that there were not enough days to get this done. In other words, we have gone right along as prescribed from Day One when this started and now a building permit has been issued, all of this work is in vain. Blood pressures are up, aspirin bottles are empty....It just seems like it is in vain. Councilman Wise, what you are proposing to do here tonight, is what I would call a collateral or companion action, but it is not directly related to the action by the Landscaping Commission and what these people are doing is simply hearing a rezoning request which takes certain steps and certain procedures. They are aware of the comments that have been made, of the other factors, the building permit and so forth, but let's say that if they approved your request, it would only be meaningful if approved by the City Council as well. If there was no construction, then it would be meaninful. Spence Devito, but then the time frames might mean that even though you approve by ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 12 the time we are able to get through City Council, it's a possibility that there might be a structure up. Vice Chairman Smalley, Seeing no further public input, I bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson, "I would like to propose a motion recommending the approval of Resolution PZ86-15, in accordance with staff comments" seconded by Commissioner Zubeck MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner 8rysan, "I would like to propose an amendment excluding Lots 6, 7, & 8, Blk 3 for the proposed resubdivisionc seconded by Commissioner Zubeck Commissioner Zubeck, in other words you're going along with this letter we have from Mr. Boyd, is that correct? Commissioner Bryson, right now the major motion has been seconded and an amendment has been proposed to exclude Lots 6, 7, and 8. voTE: Motion passes yes; Commissioners Bryson, Osborn, Zubeck, and Vice Chairman Smalley no; Commissioner Oleson VOTE MAIN MOTION: Main Motion fans yes; Commissioner Bryson, Osborne no; Cammissioner Dleson, Zubeck, and Chairman Smalley NOTE: Vice Chairman Smalley passed the gavel to to Commissioner Bryson MOTION: Commissioner Smalley moved for reconsideration, seconded by Commissioner Osborne VOTE: Motion passes unanimously VOTE MAIN MOTION: Motion passes yes; Chairman Bryson, Commissioners, Osborne, Smalley no; Commissioners Oleson, Zubeck NOTE: Gavel returns to Vice Chairman Smalley ? Devito, so in other words, you have nat responded to this group. Is that correct? Shall I interpret it that way or not? What you're saying is yes, we will make those commercial lots so that he can go ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 13 ahead and build them. Councilman Wise, leave them commercial lots. OeVito, well, I think you'd save an awful lot of time by taking my commercial lot and not adding it in there until I can bring this back to Council. If you leave his commercial, then I want to leave my front lot commercial too, it will just save you a lot of paperwork. Okay? Unless I can keep it in there and keep the 51A and its going to go back to Council. Somewhere I'm really confused the way the law works. 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Vacation: two 50' ROWs in R.M. Thompson S/D - E. Henderson Fr. Targansky came forward and stated that he was representing the petitioner. He explained that the desire of the property owner is to create a private driveway to the rear of Tract A to provide access to several proposed residences on Tract C. The first residence indicated to be constructed would be directly behind an existing auto shop that was built last year. The Commission had indicated a concern over the status of Tract C, one plat showing subdivided lots and another showing one large tract. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved, "to recommend approval of the reversion of acreage of Tract A including lots 1,2, and 27-31 also recommend the vacation of the northerly 20' of the eastlwest ROW that lies on the south side and the vacation of Ninilchik road which runs parallel to the Spur Hwy leaving a 30' road dedication. At the time of platting the plat must show conformance with the "Development Requirements Table -Additional Requirements A" which sets out guidelines far buffers between residential and commercial and industrual zones", seconded by Commissioner Zubeck VOTE: Motion passed unanimously 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion: Foster Gravel Pit - CHange Hours of Operation Mr. Steve Foster came forward and stated that his company would like to extend the hours of operation for the summer. MOTION: Commissioner Osborne moved approval of the request to extend the hours ~ of operation to: 5:00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday through Saturday from May 1 to Juiy 31, 1986, seconded by Commissioner Bryson. PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1986 Page 14 VOTE: trucks or equipment, answer no, there would be no more than 6 trucks operating at one time. Councilman Wise asked if he had discussed the matter with the neighbors. Vice Chairman Smalley stated that he had. received phone calls from many residents of the areas voicing concerns about the traffic on the roads. Those trucks are hard to get past now. Mr. Foster stated that the traffic is not going to be any heavier with the extension of hours. The intent is not to be hauling but rather for the preparation of the pit. Commissioner Zubeck stated that those hours are acceptable in Anchorage where contractors are able to haul at those hours to avoid traffic. Commissioner Bryson asked if the operation would entail rock crushing, answer no. Vice Chairman Smalley asked there would be additional Motion passes yes; Commissioners Bryson, 0leson, Osborne, and Zubeck na; Vice Chairman Smalley b. Preliminary Plat PZ86-16: Baron Park #5 Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer explained that this area is planned for the antenna farm and includes the dustbowl ball park. Councilman Wise asked if Mr. Baldwin had been notified, answer no, no one had knowedge of the request. Councilman Wise stated that Mr. Baldwin had requested to be notified if this area were ever platted and further he felt that Mr. Baldwin would object to the road being put through to Magic. Councilman Wise voiced objection to the road extension also. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson maved to postpone pending notification of Mr. Baldwin and any individuals who indicated a desire to be notified, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously c. Preliminary Plat PZ86-17: Schorr S/D #2 This subdivision is being replotted combining two Iots into one large lot. Notes were attached from the original platting which indicated an existing structure that was within the ROW of E. Aiiak and indicated that the structure be maved prior to construction of any additional buildings. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved approval of PZ86-17 including staff comments, seconded by Commissioner Zubeck. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1496 Page 15 DOTE: Motion passed unanimously d. Discussion: Questionnair_from Corps of Engineers/Borough This memo concerns feelings of residents on the erosion of the shorline of the Kenai River and is sent by the Corps of Engineers to the Borough who forwarded the questionnaire to the Planning Commission as the river does run through the city limits. No further information is available. 9. PLANNING None 4. REPORTS a. City Council Councilman Wise reported on Council activities. ~ b. Borough Planning None c. City Administration None lO. PERSONS PRESENT NOfi SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 11. INFORMATION ITEMS Nv comments or questions 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS The Commission asked if there was any progress on the Quandt property adjoining the Spur Hwy. Answer no. The Commission requested Planning Specialist Loper report. 13. ADJOURNMENT ~ Janet A. Loper Planning Specialist Roll Call AT ATTTTTTTC A. 7(1NTN(, f'(1MMTRCTf1N ,^ Chairman •Lee Lewis -Phil Bryson Richard Carrignen Bob Oleson ~, `~ ~ ~ J ~ A ) ~ Ozzie Osborne ~ ~~ `J Hal Smalley ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ Bill Zubek - ~ /~ P„~ ~°°°" 3 ~~ ~~ a ~~vr~ 4~~n~/~G„~