Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-24 P&Z MinutesCITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 24,1999 - 7:00 p.m. httb://www.ci.kenai.ak.us 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. Approval of Minutes: March 10, 1999 d. Consent Agenda *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: 3. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. Discussion--Determination if lands required for public purpose -Lot 3, Block 2, Salty Dog Heights Subdivision, Part 1; Lot 6, Block 1, Salty Dog Heights Subdivision, Part 2; Lots 2-5, Block 1, Salty Dog Heights Subdivision, Part 7 b. Discussion/Schedule Public Hearing -Building Setbacks -Administrative Exemptions 6. OLD BUSINESS: 7. CODE ENFORCEMENT: 8. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 10. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. Ordinance No. 1813-99 b. KPB Administrative Approval -Grace Brethren Replat No. 2 c. Letter from KPB regarding Habitat Acres Addition No. 1 extension d. KPB Notice of Planning Commission Action of 3/8/99 e. Public Notice of Application for Permit f. "Zoning Bulletin" Volume 47--February 25, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: Page 2 March 24, 1999 12. ADJOURNMENT: '~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF KENAI PLANNING 8a ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1999 - 7:00 P.M. KENAI CITY HALL CHAIRMAN CARL CLICK, PRESIDING *** MINUTES *** 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Glick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. a. Roll Call Members Present: Ron Goecke, Donald Erwin, Robert Newbry, Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Barb Nord Also Present: Councilman Duane Bannock, Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull, Contract Secretary Victoria Askin b. Agenda Approval BRYSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. GOECKE SECONDED AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. AGENDA WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS WRITTEN. c. Approval of Minutes: March 10, 1999 BRYSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1999. GOECKE SECONDED AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS WRITTEN. 2. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -None 3. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS -None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS -None 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion -Determination If Lands Required for Public Purpose -Lot 3, Block 2, Salty Dog Heights Subdivision, Part 1; Lot 6, Block 1, Salty Dog Heights Subdivision, Part 2; Lots 2-5, Block 1, Salty Dog Heights Subdivision, Part 7. Glick asked if Administration had any further information. Kebschull noted the memo from Ms. Howard and the lands in Planning 8s Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 1 "~ question were off Scout Lake Road. She added, code requires the Council determine the disposal of lands be made when they are not required for public use. Therefore, the Commission needed to make a recommendation to Council. GOECKE MOVED THE LANDS PRESENTED BE DISPOSED OF, AS THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE CITY TO OWN LANDS THAT FAR FROM ITS CITY LIMITS. NORD SECONDED. Discussion Bryson asked if the land was acquired because of foreclosure or in lieu of outstanding debt. Bannock stated he believed it was Mr. Bradford's part of the McLane Partnership and involved the City's judgment in the Inlet Woods litigation. Bradford declared bankruptcy and assets were now being dispersed. Vote Goecke Yes Bryson Yes Newbry Yes Nord Yes Erwin Yes Glick Yes b. Discussion/Schedule Public Hearing -Building Setbacks - Administrative Exemptions Glick noted this had been discussed, resulting in an ordinance being drafted. Glick asked Bannock if he had any comments. Bannock stated the ordinance came from Council action at its last meeting. An ordinance similar to this had been before the Council and the Commission in the past. Bannock stated he asked the ordinance come before the Commission because they will actually be using the ordinance. He asked for comments/suggestions to take back to the Council before action is taken. Glick stated past discussions indicated reluctance to put an actual figure in the ordinance. Bryson stated he was concerned the measurement of inches was being used instead of feet or fractions of feet, as is typically required in plat terminology by the Borough. On the substance of the ordinance, Bryson stated he was never supportive of modifying the side setbacks; however, that is what the ordinance would do and would potentially allow a person to target that modification if his intent is to gain an extra foot. His intent was to eliminate the pesky problem of insignificant deviations. Bryson added, he felt Administration's original proposal did that but allowing a floating one-foot Planning 8s Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 2 encroachment wouldn't change anything. He stated he is in favor of what Administration had originally proposed and was not in favor of a blanket one-foot deviation. Building Official Springer commented it would be a problem if people were intending to take that foot. He added, he generally felt people who had encroachments had accidents during the course of construction and usually the proposed building got moved slightly. He felt Administration was trying to solve the accidental movement problems during construction of the building. Granted, they could possibly use that to try to take a foot but didn't see that as being the intent. Bryson stated he had no reason to believe the intent was always to conform to the setbacks. Problems could arise from casual measurement or lot corners measured inaccurately. That could happen as easily with the ordinance in effect as not. The Commission taking the time to address each of these issues was not the problem, but the steps an owner has to go through to clear up a 1 / 10~ foot encroachment is cumbersome and time consuming. For that reason, he thought a percentage approach addressed the situation more effectively. Nord stated she was uncomfortable with the 12" leeway. With a 1' encroachment on a 5' setback, it would be a 20% encroachment. She stated she preferred the 10% recommendation. Perhaps a solution was to make a different percentage for each type of setback. Bannock asked Springer what would be the worst case scenarios for minimum setbacks. Springer answered, R/ S zones have a 5' side setback for a single story structure, 10' for a daylight basement, and 15' for a two story structure. In R/R, it is 15' side setbacks on all structure; the front setback is 25' and rear is 20'. Bannock suggested the ordinance be changed to read "one foot, not to exceed 10%" or "10%, not to exceed one foot" because this was a very valid concern. Glick clarified this was for comments only from the Commission. Bannock answered affirmatively and asked for any further suggestions or comments. Bryson stated, in disregarding relative distance on setbacks, the side setbacks affect neighbors and the front and rear don't usually significantly affect neighbors. He felt the side setbacks were more important to address. Kebschull noted if the Commission wanted to schedule a public hearing, she needed to know. The ordinances, as they stand, Planning & Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 3 would go to Council. She added, she understood Council wanted to hold public comment and then modify the ordinances as recommended after the April 7+~ meeting. She added, the resolution has to be published, along with changes to the ordinances, ten days before Council's meeting. She asked for direction on how the Commission wished to proceed. Goecke stated he is in favor of the percentage versus inches wording as suggested by Bannock. Erwin noted his agreement with the percentage versus inches wording and thought it a reasonable suggestion. Glick asked Erwin if he felt a public hearing should be held at the Commission level. Erwin stated he felt a public hearing could be held, giving the public two chances to express their concerns. Goecke disagreed and stated he didn't believe a public hearing was necessary as a public hearing would be held at the Council level. The Commission should pass their comments on to Council. Bryson stated he suspected an ordinance like this probably would not draw many people to a public hearing at the Commission level and thought it would be better served at a Council meeting. He asked Administration if, in a 5' setback situation, the entire 1' were taken off that side creating a 4' setback plus the eave, does it affect how the building code is applied to the construction of the building? Springer answered, it would by allowing only a 1' eave because up to a 3' eave can be built. Nord stated she thought public comment was not necessary and felt Council would hear and consider Commission's recommendations. She added, she was in favor of some sort of ordinance to eliminate public hearings for 1" encroachments. Newbry stated he didn't feel a public hearing at the Commission level was necessary. He added, he felt Council would duly note the Commission's comments, as they have in the past. 6. OLD BUSINESS -None 7. CODE ENFORCEMENT -None 8. REPORTS a. City Council Councilman Bannock reviewed agenda of the March 10, 1999 Council meeting, noting the following: Planning 8v Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 4 ,~ Item C-1, Ordinance No. 1813-99 was adopted with no changes. Item C-2, Ordinance No. 1814-99 -Appropriating $4,000 for Improvements at Cunningham Park was in conjunction with Item C-4, Resolution No. 99-13 -Approving Cunningham Park Habitat Restoration and Site Improvements for $103,497.50. Both were passed. He added, the Kenai River Sport Fishing Association upped their donation to $135,000 so more improvements will be completed than originally anticipated. Item C-3, Resolution No. 99-12 -Transferring $1,750 from Airport Land Special Revenue Fund for Increased Communication Costs was approved. Item C-5, Resolution No. 99-14 -Supporting S. 25 was passed. Bannock explained, S. 26 regarded how federal monies are divided. If the Act becomes law, it would filter more water and conservation funds into local governments. The money is split 50/50 between the state and federal government, then the State of Alaska's 50% is divided among local governments. This is a focused plan to assure money got to where it is really needed. Item H-C, Memorandum of Agreement -Bannock explained, this was the beginning of a formalized agreement between Challenger Learning Center of Alaska and the City of Kenai. The Agreement was approved. Item H-4, Assignment of Lease/Kenai Municipal Airport Restaurant was approved. Item H-5, Discussion -Kenai Coastal Trail Reconnaissance Study -- Council reviewed the study and its suggestions regarding management to slow down bluff erosion. Bannock explained, the study mainly involves a trail type system being placed along the bottom of the bluff that would go from the old Kenai Packer Plant up to approximately the Sewer Treatment Plant. Bannock added, it was a concept that showed atrail-type toe at the bottom of the bluff with three different access points from the top of the bluff. The intent is to provide access to the trail, thus reducing foot traffic abuse of the bluff. He added, the study also discussed using abuilt-up riprap as the surface to build a trail on and act as an anchor. Goecke asked for the cost estimate. Bannock answered he believed it was $1 million and felt that number was very optimistic. Goecke expressed his strong feelings that if the $1 million number was even close, then someone in the City should Planning 8v Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 5 ,i be taken to task for not having addressed this concern sooner. Bryson noted the number he saw in the paper was $5 million. b. Borough Planning Bryson reported there was a plat meeting March 22 before the regular Borough Planning meeting. There were five plat considerations presented at the Plat Committee and all were approved. Bryson noted the following information: •Consent Agenda was approved. .E-1, Vacation of a 33' roadway on Marysville Too Subdivision was postponed further at the request of the Petitioner. Additional testimony was taken. •F-l, Vacation of a 33'section in Ness Subdivision failed. •F-2, Vacation of a 66' section in C & H Estates was approved. •F-3, Ordinance 99-17 -Authorizing acquisition of land in Anchor Point was postponed upon request of Administration. •H-1, Correcting plat note was approved - Kasilof River, White Water Way and Pollard Street. •H-2, Request to remove a note on plat in Questa Woods Estates No. 3. Bryson noted, the staff recommended against removing the note. The Commission addressed concerns the note was written negatively and preference of the Commission was to modify the note to read more positively. •H-3, Time Extension Request -Anderson Development Consultants was approved. c. Administration Kebschull reported Administration was continuing to work on the gravel pit reports. The City Manager was planning to schedule a meeting with the pit operators in mid to late April. The meeting would probably be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but she had not been formally informed yet. Kebschull added, the site work for the Challenger Learning Center and Multi-Purpose Facility had been put out to bid. The bid opening was scheduled for April 14. She noted, as soon as Council approves a bid, work would begin on that site. Kebschull also reported several other smaller projects would be starting soon and it looked like it would be a busier building season than anticipated. Building Official Springer explained the building code changes adopted by council. He noted, a plot plan would still be required by the builder or homeowner but it would not have to be drawn by Planning & Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 6 a land surveyor. Upon initial inspection for footings, if the Building Inspector cannot determine at that time they are meeting the setback requirements of the Planning and Zoning Code, then they will be required to have a land surveyor plot where the building is going to be located. He noted, this should cut down the cost to a potential building by about $200 on average. In addition, Springer explained, a portion of the fee for a building permit had been lowered. Currently, a plan review fee is charged for residential structures based on the percentage of the building permit. With adoption of the new Code, it will drop from 65% of the permit fee to 20%. This will result in approximately $100 savings on a $100,000 house. Bryson asked if an as-built after the fact is still necessary to complete the building process in both residential and commercial endeavors. Springer answered affirmatively. Bryson noted the pipe types were being deleted for water lines and asked if ABS could be used for sewer systems. Springer answered it could be and is just for building water services from the street to the building. Bryson asked if the State has approved the use of ABS. Springer stated he didn't know if the State had approved its use, but it is allowed in the Uniform Plumbing Code. 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED -None 10. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Ordinance No. 1813-99 b. KPB Administrative Approval -Grace Brethren Replat No. 2 c. Letter from KPB regarding Habitat Acres Addition No. Extension d. KPB Notice of Planning Commission Action of 3/8/99 e. Public Notice of Application for Permit f. "Zoning Bulletin" Volume 47 -February 25, 1999 11. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS /QUESTIONS 12. ADJOURNMENT GOECKE MOVED TO ADJOURN. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Victoria Askin Contract Secretary Planning 8v Zoning Commission March 24, 1999 Page 7