Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-25 P&Z MinutesKENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 24, 1987 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. Amend KMC14.20.185 by Adding New Section Pertaining to Encroachment Permit 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 14, 1987 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. PLANNING a. Amend Zoning Code: 14.20.240 Pertaining to Mobile Homes & Recreational Vehicles 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 11. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Supreme Court Decision Regarding Robert Jackson b. Borough Planning Agenda c. Council Agenda NOT AVAILABLE BY PACKET TIME 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 13. ADJOURNMENT KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 1987 Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman 1. ROLL CALL All Commissioners Present 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda approved with no additions or corrections 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Amend KMC14.20.185 by Adding New Section Pertaining to Encroachment Permit This ordinance has been revised by the legal assistant and sent back to the Commission for public hearing. While some verbiage has been changed, the intent remains the same. Chairman Lewis opened the meeting to the public for comment. Mr. Howard Hackney, Building Inspector came forward. Mr. Hackney asked what the Commission would do if a house were built over a setback line this summer. According to the ordinance as it is now written, the house would have to be moved. Commissioner Smalley answered that about two years ago the Commission discussed that one way to avoid mistakes is to require property corners be flagged prior to construction. This would involve some money, however, if they built into the setback, it would be their fault. Chairman Lewis asked if what he meant was that encroachments would be impossible to enforce, answer, there is no recourse whatsoever for those encroachments after the effective date of this. Is that what you want? Chairman Lewis answered that it would be hoped that it would never get to that, but that was the idea. Commissioner Smalley agreed stating that most likely if that builder had to move a house he wouldn't make that mistake again. Mr. Hackney stated that at one time the Commission was thinking about a fine. Commissioner Smalley stated that would not remove a cloud from a title, however. Councilman Wise asked if there was a fee, answer no. Councilman Wise listed the fees for activities including borough and state as well as cities. This may be appropriate in this case rather than a fine. Mr. Hackney agreed. ,~ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 1987 Page 2 This ordinance would be of benefit to the current builder as well as those existing encroachments and fees should be applied to both as both will benefit. Commissioner Smalley suggested adding a sentence which would read, "any unauthorized encroachment after the date of the enactment of this ordinance shall be subject to a fee for an encroachment permit". Councilman Wise opposed suggesting that any that exist should pay it also, Mr. Hackney agreed. Councilman Wise suggested deleting "which are in place on the effective date of this ordinance". Then add a section relating to an application fee of $1,000 which does not guarantee approval. Commissioner Smalley asked for a survey of fee scales of other cities that have such an ordinance in place, answer, there are only two municipalities that have such an ordinance and they do not charge a fee. Commissioner O'Reilly asked if the $1,000 fee was reasonable, Mr. Hackney answered that it might be a little high. Commissioner Smalley remarked that a survey would certainly be cheaper. Commissioner Mishou asked if this was a one tie fee and will it clear a title, answer from Councilman Wise this is a one time fee and is similar to a variance but not to be confused with that term, and yes, it will clear a title. Commissioner Mishou commented on the difference in cost for a survey versus a $1,000 fee. Commissioner Smalley stated that this is the entire point, we are still pushing for the property to be surveyed and the four corners staked prior to construction to save having to go through this, ~ however there still is the possibility of an encroachment. I could live with the idea of a fee. It does not guarantee that it will be accepted, it only allows them to go through the process. Commissioner Bryson asked the purpose of a building setback line, is it something that we want to encourage or is it merely advisory. We are setting a time period, anything that is prior has the potential of being waved but from this period forward nothing can. Why was the 25' setback of little importance, why not adopt the 20' setback the borough has. We may create a mechanism for anyone that has done anything in the past but no one in the future can. Along the same lines, the definition for the word encroachment required that it took place in the past what is the encroachment in the future going to be called. Planning Specialist Loper asked Commissioner Bryson if he agrees that the permit should be for both, answer no, they should not be waived. Chairman Lewis, indicating the proposed deletion would that not do away with the distinction that you are objecting to, answer I think we should eliminate building setback requirements or not pass this. Commissioner Smalley, or adopt the Borough's? Commissioner Bryson, well the Borough has a 20' setback requirement but you still have the same thing. If someone comes in and builds within the Borough's 20' setback, what is the city's position on that? Mr. Hackney answered that that would be in the Borough. The Borough regulations would not apply in the city. Mr. Hackney stated that portions of the zoning code pertain to both public and private land, why is the wording in the first section PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 1987 Page 3 eliminating municipal lands. The Commission decided that no reference to lands at all is necessary. The Commission next discussed side yard setbacks and asked how they were to be handled. Should you deny something because it is a financial burden on the person next door even though it exists. Chairman Lewis asked what would bring it before the Commission initially, answer from all Commissioners, sale of the property. Councilman Wise made reference to houses built in 1959 which predate the code and stated that they would fall under the nonconforming use section. Commissioner Bryson felt that a high figure for a fee on an existing encroachment is inappropriate. The purpose is to encourage the builder to ensure themselves of where they are when building. Granted they want to work at the 25' point because it is expensive when they set it back and we want to encourage them to be careful when establishing the 25'. Commissioner Smalley suggested a $500 fee for existing and $1,000 for those after the enactment of this ordinance. Commissioner Bryson also suggested deleting a portion of paragraph (b) "existing at the date of this ordinance". This would make it all inclusive. The Commission agreed that the appropriate place for addressing fees would fall under section {c) "Permit Application". MOTION: Commissioner Bryson moved to extend the public hearing on this ordinance to the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner O'Reilly VOTE: Motion passed unanimously 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 14, 1987 Minutes were approved as submitted 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS None 8. PLANNING a. Amend Zoning Code: 14.20.240 Pertaining to Mobile Homes & Recreational Vehicles This item returns with the recommendations of the attorney with a redraft incorporating those recommendations. Commissioner Smalley addressed Mr. Roger's memo and stated that if we are dealing with municipal property it would not apply. Cannery PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 1987 Page 4 workers should not be sleeping on municipal property. However the case of the camper trailer in Thompson Park in which someone is living is not addressed. The problem that the City runs into is that they do not have adequate space for over night camping and this happens in many communities. Some cities have provided areas. That area on Marathon Road that the city was considering at one time may be very appropriate. The Commission agreed that what the proposed ordinance says now is that no one can come into the city and this is like the caravans that come and stay at the Chamber. That is not the goal. Commissioner Church asked if this had been discussed last year, answer yes. Councilman Wise indicated that both the Planning Commission and Council have debated over locations for campers parks and that Council had not made a decision by the end of the camping season and the issue was dropped. Commissioner Mishou stated this is addressing parking in unauthorized areas, would that not cover the issue, answer not entirely. The Councilman Wise and the Commission agreed that by including the mobile homes ordinance with the recreational vehicles might endanger the mobile homes intent. Commissioner Smalley suggested a permitting system for bona fide campers which would give an avenue for those folks are not in violation and this ordinance can still cover those in violation. Commissioner Smalley also stated that I do not wish to refer to a recreational vehicle as a boat or boat trailer or snowmobile trailer, etc., but a camping type vehicle for ~ overnight sleeping purposes. Granted some people sleep in their boat. Commissioner Church stated that means that someone could come in and apply for the permit and still park on a dead end street. Commissioner Smalley stated that it would have to be a designated area by the City. The Commission requested this go on to the attorney with comments. 9. REPORTS a. City Council Councilman Wise reported on progress of Flood Plain Insurance Program and that it should be coming to the Commission. b. Borough Planning Commissioner Bryson referred to an item on the agenda of Bolstridge and Partee who propose a cyanide leeching process for extraction of gold from gravel over on Beluga River. This is still open and if there are comments Commissioner Bryson will bring them to the Borough. c. City Administration None 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 1987 Page 5 a. Father Targonsky Fr. Targonsky read from a letter from the Kenai Peninsula Borough to Mrs. Henderson regarding the replat and vacation of RM Thompson S/D. The letter stated that the item would be on the agenda for the Kenai Planning & Zoning meeting for March 25th. Fr. Targonsky's complaint is that the item did not appear on the agenda and questioned the authority of which entity has the power over agendas. Fr. Targonsky, the matter was brought up last year and there was some incorrect action by our City Attorney, which Mr. Hugh Malone explained was not proper. What he tried to do was hold up any consideration or replat or vacation matter until the violation of trailers had been settled. And Mr. Malone explained to him that these are two different matters, they have nothing to do with each other. The replat can go on and what ever Planning & Zoning decides is separate. It seems like now this is going to happen again the second time. The replat was approved by the City and the replat contained, at that time, the vacation plus 5 lots. It has to go back to the Borough because of DEC regulations, it would require an engineer's report. She wanted to save money so she went back to 4 lots rather than 5 lots. One lot line has been removed and this is why this matter had to come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission and nothing else is supposed to be involved.. Now any violation is separate from, whether you approve a plat or do not approve a plat. So we would like to have this replat approved by the Planning & Zoning. Commissioner Smalley stated, I would think that anything that Mr. Malone would say as a surveyor should be taken strictly as a comment rather than a legal consideration unless of course he represents legal counsel, it is strictly a recommendation. Fr. Targonsky, well he, as you know has expertise in subdivision plats and so forth so he is well acquainted with this you know maybe more so than the city attorney in this matter. I suppose both are competent in the matter of planning & zoning. This was holding her up last summer when she was trying to sell that's why she has 6 months deadline to sell, and they discussed this Mr. Malone with the legal department and they agree with him that he was correct and then it went on for your approval and which you did approve last summer. Commissioner Bryson referenced the attorney's memo stating that it addresses the trailers virtually entirely and not the plat itself. Based on that, I'd like to have considered introduction of approval of an ordinance for Thompson S/D. Planning Specialist Loper, do you want one drafted for the next meeting? Commissioner Bryson answered no, I'd like it now. Planning Specialist Loper, I'd like to wait on action until the legal department has reviewed it. Councilman Wise, if the Borough sent the plat back for this Commission to review in time to make the agenda it should be on the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 1987 Page 7 like to have on there a statement contingent upon removal. Even though perhaps it is a separate issue." Commissioner Bryson, "I have a question, what if he only proposed one lot being broken out of that would you approve that." Commissioner Smalley, "you mean the whole thing is....." Commissioner Bryson, "no that front long lot that includes the old club, no trailer encroachment or anything else, do you have a problem with that." Commissioner Smalley, "probably not." Commissioner Bryson, "I had that come up on my own." Commissioner Smalley, "I understand that. That would probably eliminate because she would still be the property owner of the parcel that has the violation on it. I probably would not have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with it now, with the exception of the violation." Commissioner Bryson, "it's my preference to separate the issues to a platting and a violation of a different part of the city zoning ordinance." Commissioner Smalley, "may I ask a question of Mrs. Henderson. The purpose of the replat is to sell that front lot. " Fr. Targonsky answered, "yes that is the purpose to do that yes. It also saves money, engineer's report costs well over a thousand dollars and we kept the other plat. But the purpose was to be able to to sell the entire property if you would have more parking area next to the structures, then the 5 lot parcel because that gives almost limited space around the structure for parking and expansion." NOTE: Motion below taken verbatim from tape and is_unedited. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson, "I would like to recommend that approval of RM Subdivision, replat.... submitted September 1986 or the checks by the surveyor January 1987 one contingent item be that the plat itself does not violate any ordinance, city ordinances," Commissioner Smalley, I would like to second that motion." Chairman Lewis, "Please explain that." Commissioner Bryson, "again, as I stated before my intent is to separate the two issues. The plat be addressed on its own merit and not tied into a violation of another ordinance of the city. By not, if it conforms to the platting requirements and the zoning requirements, that are inherent in the platting process, I feel we should go ahead and act on it." Commissioner Smalley, "the reason why I seconded it is that in fact there are other violations which affect other lots then again I agree that is a separate issue. And will probably still be pursued by the City." Commissioner Smalley, "and again it is contingent upon the fact that the replat does not in fact, is not in violation of any zoning codes." VOTE: motion passed unanimously Planning Specialist Loper, "your instructions to the attorney is going to be to pursue zoning violations, Commissioner Smalley answered yes, the three that have been specifically identified as being in violation. But as far as the document, it is approved PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 1987 Page 8 .~ contingent upon the fact that the replat does not constitute any violations. 11. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Supreme Court Decision Regarding Robert Jackson b. Borough Planning Agenda c. Council Agenda NOT AVAILABLE BY PACKET TIME 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Commissioner Smalley informed the Commission about a meeting with the Solid Waste Commission he had attended. He informed the Commission. that the meeting was not attended by officials from the Kenai/Soldotna area. One of the discussions that came up was the Cannery Loop drilling mud which is still setting out there 700' from my house and apparently it is being pursued out of court. If it does go to court it takes a long time. It is possible because it is being resolved out of court, they could open up those pits and take it out by this summer. I think that is good news for the city. They are trying to convince cities that they should provide various areas for disposal of glycol antifreeze which is extremely toxic and most service stations in this town, when the flush a radiator, just hook up the hose and drop it into the drain and system. I would like to see the city pursue something where toxics can be dumped safely. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting is April 8th. Janet A. Loper, Planning Specialist Secretary to the Commission PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Roll Call ~'~o U¶~~ Chairman 'Lee Lewis ~. -Phil Bryson ~~ ~._ ~. \ Ozzie Osborne ~~~ Hal Smalley ~ `y ' TO DO