Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-14 P&Z MinutesCITY OF KENAI .. PLANNING AND' ZONING COMIV~ISSION AGENDA ~ ,, , KENAI CITY CQUNCIL CHAMBERS January 14,.1998 - 7:00 p.m http://www.Kenai.net/city 1. ROLL CALL: 2. ELECTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 10,1';997 5. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO B~ HEARDc .:: 6. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: a. PZ98-02-Buffalo Run Subdivision -Phase 1 b. PZ98-03-Tanglewood Subdivision-A subdivision of Tract Oz~e-A Parson's Homestead No. 3 c. PZ98-04-Leo T. Oberts Subdivision Ross Replat ~~ ~ 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ98-O1-Conditional Use Permit for Business/Consumer Services and Retail/Wholesale Business for the property described as Lots 6 & 7, Papa J`oe's.Subdivisic~n,'9520 and/or 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Hugh Chumley and Joe Chumley, P.O. Box 753, Sterling, Alaska 9'.672. 8. NEW BUSINESS: a. Kenai River Water Monitoring Plan Work Group b. Assignment of and Amendment to Lease-Ronald Yamamoto, Lot 3, Block 1, Gusty Subdivision c. 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission Goals and Objectives 9. OLD BUSINESS: 10. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: 11. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 12. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda ~f 13. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. 1998 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Schedule b. KPB Planning Commission Action of December 15, 1997 c. Letter from Kenai River Center dated December 15, 1997 d. Letter from Kenai River Center dated December 16, 1997 e. Planning Commission Roster f. Historic District Board Minutes of December 15, 1997 14. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 15. ADJOURNMENT: January 14, 1998 Page 2 t ~ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Carl Glick *** MINUTES *** Chairman Glick called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Teresa Werner-Quade, Ron Goecke, Barb Nord, Karen Mahurin, Michael Christian Others Present: City Engineer Jack LaShot, City Attorney Carey Graves, Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull, Councilman Hal Smalley, Councilman Duane Bannock, Contract Secretary Barb Roper 2. ELECTIONS Glick called for nominations for Chair. BRYSON NOMINATED CARL GLICK AS CHAIR. NOMINATION SECONDED BY MAHURIN. BRYSON MOVED TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. SECONDED BY GOECKE. MAHURIN MOVED BY AFFIRMATION THAT CARL GLICK BE REAPPOINTED TO CHAIR. SECONDED BY BRYSON. With no objections noted, Glick was reappointed as Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Glick called for nominations for Vice Chair. GOECKE NOMINATED PHIL BRYSON AS VICE CHAIR. NOMINATION SECONDED BY WERNER-QUADE. WERNER-QUADE MOVED TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN. Planning 8s Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 1 °~ MAHURIN MOVED TO REAPPOINT BRYSON AS VICE CHAIR. SECONDED BY GOECKE. With no objections noted, Bryson was reappointed as Vice Chair for the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH THE ADDITION OF THE HANDOUT PRESENTED BEFORE THE MEETING. GOECKE ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN. AGENDA WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITION INCLUDED. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -December 10, 1997 CHRISTIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 1997. GOECKE SECONDED THE MOTION AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Werner-Quade requested that the second sentence in the last paragraph on page six be changed to read "When the first Commissioner Werner-Quarde was asked... Werner- Quade also asked that "to use Kristine Schmidt's term" be inserted before "politically correct" in the third sentence of the last paragraph, page six. The minutes were approved with the above additions noted. 5. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: None 6. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 1. PZ98-02 -Buffalo Run Subdivision -Phase 1 GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-02. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY NORD. Bryson noted for the record the firm for which he works and is part owner of did the water, sewer, storm drains, and street design on the original subdivision and as a result requested a determination by the Commission concerning a conflict. Bryson confirmed that he was not presently doing any work for the project. After Planning 8v Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 2 a brief discussion it was determined a conflict did not exist. 2. Kebschull stated that staff had nothing additional but noted the surveyor was present should there be any questions. Christian asked if this was a part of the original plat or is it a new segment. Cliff Baker, Integrity Surveys -Tract 1 had an additiona181ots across the north of the public easement and then 4 or 5 lots south. It is still the plan to do those. Per the engineer's statement in the front, he is needing to use this as collateral so that he can do the rest of the development. This will be done later and is all part of phasing. Christian asked if what was really being done was eliminating the two lot lines. Baker confirmed that it was but it would be temporary. Baker continued, the reason this parcel was selected was due to a lot of controversy and problems with the easement across the north side of the particular piece. Once the City has gone through and completed the final approval of the easement vacation there is only one year to get it recorded. Christian asked if Tract 1 is a similar situation. Baker replied, Lot 1 was always intended to be one lot. Goecke called for question. No other comments were made. VOTE BRYSON YES GOECKE YES MAHURIN YES GLICK YES WERNER-QUADE YES NORD YES CHRISTIAN YES Motion passed unanimously. PZ98-03 - Tanglewood Subdivision-A subdivision of Tract One-A Parson's Homestead No.3 WERNER-QUADE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-03. MOTION SECONDED BY NORD. Staff had nothing additional but noted the City Engineer and the surveyor were available to answer any questions. ~ Planning 8v Zoning Commission y January 14, 1998 Page 3 ~ Bryson noted that his firm has not been asked for a proposal, however, a representative did come in and talk to an employee concerning the project. The question concerned whether soil tests were required. Bryson indicated the firm may be asked to submit a proposal in the future. This may happen because they have worked with the contractor with other projects. Bryson confirmed that they were not currently doing any work for the contractor. Goecke stated that he felt Bryson would vote the way he feels is correct regardless of whether he was or was not doing any work for the contractor. Goecke had no problem with Bryson voting on this item. Mahurin stated since there was an audience and this is the second time Bryson brought up this subject, it probably needed to be noted that whenever there was a conflict Bryson has never hesitated to state it and, if necessary, abstain. It is appreciated that Bryson would bring it before the Commission and she felt very confident to his integrity and is comfortable with him voting. With no objection from Commissioners, Chair ruled there was no conflict at this time because Bryson's firm was not doing any work for them. Goecke commented on naming the streets in the subdivision but felt it could be handled at a later date. Mahurin asked if the main motion was just to approve or were the City Engineer's recommendations included. It was confirmed that the main motion was just to approve. MAHURIN MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO INCLUDE -THE CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH STATE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE RE-ZONE TO INCLUDE PAVED STREETS; WATER AND SEWER TO ALL LOTS; ADEQUATE STORM WATER DRAINAGE; SEEDED BACK SLOPES; AND STREET INTERSECTION LIGHTING. MOTION SECONDED BY GLICK. During discussion on the amendment, Christian asked the City Engineer if curbs and gutters were not allowed because the water is supposed to drain into the ground. LaShot replied, the developer's plan is to not have curbs and gutters but to have ditches, although it was not clear whether DEC would allow adry-well type infiltration. Christian asked when paving the street if it would be the same basic level as the lot? LaShot answered, until the final design is presented it is unknown if the Planning 8v Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 4 streets would be paved, strip paved with ditches, or if they would have to be l raised. Christian indicated that he was trying to picture what would happen if there was a wet fall and wondered where the excess water would go if it was not designed to drain. LaShot replied, in that case proper ditch storage would be required. Christian asked if DEC would determine the depth. LaShot answered it would be determined by the engineer who does the design. DEC regulates whether dry well or infiltration systems could be used. Christian asked if these would be added to the recommendations once DEC comes up with a determination. LaShot stated that he left it simply requiring an adequate storm drain system. Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 5 Christian asked where the water in Inlet Woods drained to. LaShot confirmed it was a dry well. Christian expressed his desire to make some positive comments toward the plat. The first being this Commission has had plats submitted by this developer before and questions were raised about them. In this particular plat he has brought some of those concerns to include multiple access to the subdivision. Christian noted there are three streets that access the subdivision from Redoubt and one that accesses from Inlet Woods, this is a real plus for the subdivision. Christian also stated that he liked the size of the lots, they are very large, 15,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. Christian understood this was too large a size for a developer to consider last year and yet there are 161 in this subdivision. Christian also noted there is water and sewer to all lots and he liked the paving. Christian asked if the developer would make these large size lots single, two, three, or four family dwellings? It was noted the developer was not in the audience and Glick asked Administration if they knew what his intentions were. Kebschull replied that staff did not know what his intentions were but this zone would allow for up to a six family dwelling. Christian expressed many concerns with the developer's plan to include whether or not he would develop from Redoubt in or do spot development and whether or not he will strip trees and bury the excess wood on the properties, which he had done in the past. Christian stated there were a lot of unknowns with regard to what the future holds for this subdivision. Cliff Baker, Integrity Surveys indicated that he may be able to answer some of Christian's questions. Baker stated that he has already been out to survey the subdivision to centerline the roads. This piece of property and Inlet Woods has a very large beetle kill problem. Baker reported that a wind storm blew down 4 or 5 trees in that area so there are a lot of hazardous trees the developer will probably want to take out due to the liability. Baker also stated the developer had completed a subdivision in Soldotna called Redoubt Haven which is pretty much developed with half acre lots. He left 60 to 70 percent of the trees and would prefer to do that as it sells the lots much faster. Baker continued, he couldn't answer as to how many per lot, he knows what it is zoned for and evidently this Commission and the City has determined that it is not an adverse impact with that size of lot. The developer is considering phase development and is planning on two or three years to do the entire project. Christian asked if he was planning on starting with Lots 1, 2, 3, 4? Baker replied, the developer will try to plan around what is available for water and sewer and the existing facilities. There are some Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 6 ~--~ facilities available off of Redoubt Avenue and coming in off of Inlet Woods so these are probably the areas the developer would try to develop first to make the connecting loop. Baker continued, there is also the possibility that the developer would have to put in a lift station and that would probably be in a later development due to the big expense. Werner-Quade asked that staff state for the record who "he" the developer is. Kebschull replied, Clint Hall. Mahurin stated that she was going to save her comments until the main motion but since Christian brought some things up on the amended motion she would as well. Mahurin expressed her concern about the amount of trees that would be cut down and whether or not they would be buried on the property. Mahurin also expressed concern with the street names and understands how confusing those names are. Mahurin stated, however, that with checking with the City Attorney, this Commission has no authority to make a request on trees or burying them. Mahurin continued, this brings out an interesting point that the Commission should think about because discussion is taking place on property between Redoubt and Inlet Woods Subdivision. The Commission has no control over what the landscaping and that is a great concern. Mahurin further stated, had this Commission had any power to make some of those requests she would have included them in the amendment but, like Christian, she has many concerns which she wanted in the minutes so that the developer continues to hear them. VOTE - (Amended Motion WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES NORD YES MAHURIN YES CHRISTIAN YES BRYSON YES GLICK YES Amended motion passed unanimously. Discussion on the main motion. Christian commented that it was just one month ago when the subject of changing this zone from RR to RS was brought up. At that time the Commission was told that the developer was not going to do any work on platting until the zone was changed. Christian wanted to commend the developer's work over the Christmas vacation and holiday season to come up with this very large plat in such a short amount of time. Christian continued, it would have been nice to be able to see the Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 7 preliminary plat at that time but apparently it was not complete. Christian pointed ~ out he had a problem with the fact that the plat came so quickly. He wasn't sure how many people are aware of the development plan except for those within 300 feet and the fact that the Commission got the plat and only have a couple of days to review it. Christian stated he would like to see this postponed for two weeks until the next meeting to allow for public input as there aren't too many people aware of what might be going on due to vacations, etc. Bryson stated that assuming the re-zoning has already occurred the developer's responsibility is to develop to the zoning standards and platting requirements. Bryson felt the developer is doing that and if there are any other aspects of the City code that they haven't addressed they should be discussed now but otherwise it should be approved without delay. Mahurin stated that after looking into it, only the immediate property owners are required to be notified, not the entire city of Kenai or people who live further down in Woodland or Inlet Woods. Mahurin continued, there again that's something that is not in the current zoning code and there is a couple of areas this subdivision has brought up that the Commission hasn't really addressed or thought about. Glick stated that the Commission has no legal reason not to approve this plat. VOTE (Main Motion GOECKE YES MAHURIN YES BRYSON YES GLICK YES NORD YES CHRISTIAN YES WERNER-QUADE YES 3. PZ98-04 -Leo T. Oberts Subdivision -Ross Replat GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-04. MOTION SECONDED BY WERNER-QUADE. Staff had nothing additional except that this removes the lot line and the surveyor was present to answer any questions. VOTE NORD YES MAHURIN YES Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 8 CHRISTIAN YES BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES GLICK YES 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PZ98-O1 -Conditional Use Permit for Business/Consumer Services and Retail/Wholesale Business for the property described as Lots 6 & 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 9520 and/or 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Hugh Chumley and Joe Chumley, P.O. Box 753, Sterling, Alaska 99672. GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-O1. MOTION SECONDED BY NORD. Glick opened the meeting for public hearing and requested that testimony be limited to three minutes. Goecke was appointed time keeper. Exceptions would be if there was something in writing that would be read. Verbatim begins Glen McCollum, Sr. 399 McCollum Drive -Chairman and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Ladies and Gentlemen my name is Glen McCollum Sr., I live at 399 McCollum Drive and I've lived there for 39 years. I worked in the oil industry most of my life and have a company Northern Oil Operations, it was incorporated in 62. The reason I'm here is to ask you to not let the developer, Mr. Chumley, change this neighborhood from rural residential to commercial. We have two duplexes and a single family dwelling on Cinderella Avenue, just across the street from this proposed development. They would be seriously disrupted if those families living there had to face a commercial business right from their front door. The proposed site plan the developer presented is just a well engineered sketch or picture, the suggestion that the wood frame buildings included there could house a dental office or a beauty parlor is just a mere possibility, engineered to quell our objections. Therefore, I strongly suggest you do not grant this permit, now or ever. We just met in 96 over this same issue. We had to point out how detrimental it would be. This is not, or ever will be, prime commercial property. It's proximity to the public schools and large auditorium, athletic track, football field, hockey rink, make it a prime area for family homes or rental units. That area would not safely support a traffic of conditional use, whatever that might be. Thank you. Glick: Thank you, anyone else wishing to speak to this item. Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 9 Vesta Leigh, 610 Magic, Box 905, Kenai, Alaska - I'm out of the 300' zone but was here two years ago to object to this and I am again tonight because we got together as a small community there years ago and asked to have that zone. We came before the Commission, we did our paperwork, we had an attorney to have it zoned for just people and families, and now we have to go back every time and say, (Sigh) "Why this again?" Now, the owner bought that and cut the trees down first of all and I remember when they cut the trees for where Carr's and K-Mart is now and left it sit for a couple of years, baby-butt naked, the wind blew that dust all over and I could hear stuff coming out of the fire department that I never heard before, as far down as I am there because of the trees being gone. So, now you have a piece on the highway that the trees are all gone but I don't think it's right to change it now and this... this thing of... um... permit for business/consumer services and retail/wholesale... why not just say... Hey, I don't want any zoning there at all because that's what this amounts to. I mean, just leave it open to whatever anybody wants to do with to it. Then those people living there are going to be like in a fish bowl and then it's going to be done across, right across the street from me. When the fire hall started going in, it's right... I mean... it's out of my area, I'm about half way between this proposal and where the new fire... um... school is... 24 hours a day, month on month, went on, the noise... the... sounded like boulders grinding in a rock tumbler, night after... and that's down the other direction with a bunch of trees blocking that off so I don't want to see any commercial go in here, or any retail, or any wholesale because it's going to break us up and first thing you know there will be a dog kennel over there and then there would be something over here and guys working on motors, revving them all night long. Also, one last thing, that school, if you put any retail there that a kid wants to go get a bag of popcorn or anything that is bad because you can't tell me that any feisty, female, freshman or football player is going to wait and go down to Tinker and stop and use the light to come down, he's going to try and cross four lanes of traffic. Thank you very much. Glick: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to this item? Karen Rubsman, 307 Cinderella - I'm here to speak regarding this... um... I'm opposed to any commercial building in this residential area. Um... the name of the street... I really don't... really know the history of how those streets got the name, but I will tell you that... um... something happens when you turn on Cinderella that once the pavement stops, it only goes for about a half a block and you hit that dirt road, it becomes, it's very serene, it's very quiet, and it's uh..., it's ah... really, I just find it so pleasant to be able to live so close to town but still be able to enjoy some of the aspects of Alaska. Um... I don't like to drive a long distance to work and yet I could come home and I can leave the city, which is only five minutes away, behind. Um... I think having a commercial business Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 10 right there, that close... um... would disrupt... um... this peacefulness. ~ And that's on a personal level and as far as the community goes, I just oppose a commercial facility that close to the high school... ah... Kenai Middle School... um... and the high school... ah... adjoin each other and I feel that's very detrimental to that kind of school community. I think schools belong in residential areas... Um... we need to keep that kind of theme. I don't know what the... ah... um... the plan... I don't... I don't know what your goals are... um... as a committee but I feel like we need to keep our city not looking like California. I don't want businesses... I think the car dealership on that side of the road is the last business and then we have that sign that says "Welcome to Kenai" and that's when I feel like I'm starting into the city. I get that sense of... I'm in the Town... and um... we would need to move that sign and I just feel like we'll just have businesses across there and we've built that beautiful... um... bike path that I feel would be disrupted. Um... I'm just opposed to it. I think we need to preserve our residential areas. Thanks. Glick: Thank you, anyone else wishing to speak Debbie Adams, 606 Laurel Drive, Kenai - I am the PISA President at Kenai Central High School and... Um... as a PTSA our sole goal is to... whatever is going to work to the betterment of our, of our kids at the school. That's the only the... our only agenda and we really oppose any kind of commercial business across the street for several reasons. One is, if it is a successful business you would have to increase the traffic on Spur. You have inexperienced drivers, you have just mom's and dad's, if you're coming out from the high school onto Spur, it's difficult at the best of times with an experienced driver. If you put a business across the street then you're complicating on already very complicated... ah... situation there and... and then if it's a business that, at all our students want to go to, then you have a real mess. Ah, we do have a closed campus. We don't want anything that's going to encourage our kids to cross the street. Like it was brought up before, they're not going to go down to a light to cross a street, it's not gonna happen. The other thing is, we don't want any excuse for people to be loitering in the area that we don't want in contact with our kids. The parents send the students to an environment they expect to be protected. Um... I don't want my child to be able to cross the street and go to someplace to become in contact with someone who is trying to sell them drugs or anything else, we just don't need to be there. This is supposed to be residential. I'd like to see it stay that way. Glick: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to the item. Margie Campbell, 402 Birch, Kenai, Alaska - I'm before you as the President of the PTA at the Kenai Middle School and Deb's already stated the feelings of myself and our Board. We've met and discussed it and we Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 11 are... um... opposed to any change in zoning there for the same reasons that she's saying. We... we really don't want an increase in, ah... traffic. We don't see... ah... we are certainly are opposed to anything that would be drawing students away from the campuses there. Ah... I.. I would like to point out to you that parents are really crummy lobbyists, you know, we haven't... it was today when I finally got the last signature from our Board on a letter that I had prepared for you, so I didn't get it to you early. Parents are busy doing a lot of other things to take care of our families and so you know we aren't here in numbers, there are just a few of us but, ah.... I think we stand fairly united in believing that this is not the right thing for that school area. (Campbell handed the letter to Chairman Glick who in turned provided it to other Commissioner's to review -the letter was given to Kebschull). Glick: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Sherry James, 303 Cinderella, Kenai, Alaska - I have a letter to from a friend, I don't know if you want me to give it to you or me to read it, I'm not sure. Glick: Do you want to read it? It's okay. James: She had to go out of town. Okay, (James reads the letter) "Members of the Kenai City Council, my name is Tracy Lee, I live on Cinderella Lane in Kenai. I'm writing to you in regard to the application for a Conditional Use Permit for Business/Consumer Service and Retail/Wholesale Business filed by Hugh and Joe Chumley of Sterling. My concerns are mostly for my child and the students of Kenai Middle School and the Kenai High School. I am also concerned for the city and it's residents. My family moved (pause) my family moved here when I was younger and I can tell you from a student's point of view a business of those sorts is only asking for truancy and trouble from the students of these schools. James: And then her concerns are the same, I mean, we're all.... here basically saying, I guess, the same thing. I'm.... I'm the one right there, I'm 303 Cinderella, I'm right after you turn on the Spur. I'm 150 feet from where he wants to put a business. I have a ten year old daughter, we have a nice little yard, I don't want any business across the street from me whether it be a beauty shop or ah... a dentist office this year, last year it was a beauty shop. Um.... we have one to two people a day, that I see, I have a job, my husband has a job, we have one to two people, at least that turn in our driveway right there and it's more traffic, it's more everything, it's more noise. I already got my buffer cut down because they clear Gutted it right there. Nobody could see our little place hardly from the Spur until now it's open view. You know, and again, I Planning 8v Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 12 -1 have a ten year old daughter who I like to let go outside and play in the yard and you don't know... you know, who is going to come to what business, and so my family and I are very much opposed to it, and, I would have one question I guess at the end when Mr. Chumley comes up to speak and is it.... is it going to be every year, are we going to have to come do this every year to.... to take time out and come fight for what's already been zoned. The way it is people fight a long time ago for it and we would just like to keep it that way. Thank you. Glick: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to the item: Jo-an Buzzell, 1103 Aliak, Kenai, Alaska -Twelve or thirteen years ago, when this all came up when we wanted water and sewer in our neighborhood, I was, along with ah..... Ingrid Manzek, who was my neighbor at the time, ah... went over this neighborhood several times because we had to keep going over and people would sell property and new people would move it and in order to get the correct number of... of... names on the petition, that...it meant several trips around the neighborhood, lot of....er...telephone calls and writing letters to people who own property in this area, I would state, um....everybody at that time was very anxious to have this, and they still are, to have this zoned rural residential, and ah.... I'm sure people that are far away even now would be unhappy if they knew that this was going on. Almost everybody had to be notified. It would be nice if they could so that they would have a chance but I would hate to think of all that work going to waste um..... and have this go back to the ah.... commercial use. Thank you. Glick: Thank you. Anyone else? Debbie Sonberg, 410 Cinderella Street, Kenai, Alaska - I just want to go on record as to agreeing with the things that have been said so far. A lot of it doesn't necessarily need to be repeated. One thing that I don't understand is how something can be considered for re-zoning, or conditional re-zoning when it's supposed to fit in with the area. All the way around is housing, the other side is schools. That's the whole area is residential in... in nature and I think it needs to stay that way. I cannot see how putting a business in there is going to, in anyway, enhance the neighborhood. Ah... I've lived there for nearly 20 years now, my husband's lived there longer and we have a daughter going to Kenai Central High School and I think it would be a big problem having a business in that neighborhood with the high school and the roads the way they are. I think it would drastically change the neighborhood and the rules that you have go by state that it can't drastically change the neighborhood. But it's.....and I don't have the wording, I just got home from work before we had to come in here but I know if you look up your rules that you need to go by, whatever goes into conditional zoning has to fit in with the neighborhood, enhance the neighborhood and I don't see Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 13 that putting a commercial business here would enhance the ~ neighborhood. It would drastically change the atmosphere. I just want to go on record as agreeing with.... with what people have been saying and encourage you to follow those guidelines that are in your rules. Thank you. Glick: Thank you, anyone else wishing to speak to this item? Ralph E. Ash -Good Evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Ralph E. Ash and I resided at my current address going on 15 years. It is directly across Cinderella from the proposed project. I first flew into Kenai from my employer, Star Airlines in 1941. Professionally, Ihave adoctorate degree in Outdoor Recreation from Indiana University. At one time I was a civilian advisor for the Headquarters Alaskan Air Command at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. I was Chief in the Recreation Services and Facilities Division. I was responsible for 26 remote sites and two main air bases, Elmendorf and Eielson. Wildwood was one of the remote air force stations. Now I'm going to reference my comments I made before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 21, 1995. I'm firmly opposed to the changing of the zoning from residential to general commercial, adding congestion to a main arterial highway between an entrance and exit of Kenai High School is not an example of good planning and zoning. It should be considered an accident waiting to happen. It is also near the entrance and exit of the Kenai Middle School. It will only contribute to the accident potential in these two areas. No mention has been made about the type of commercial venture which is to be placed on this property. Additional multi-housing will definitely adversely affect the present rural residential environment of the area. It would bring the usual problems associated with multi-family facilities. A commercial zone and multi-family dwellings will totally change the residential character of the area. I'm absolutely opposed to such planning and re-zoning. The propriety of clear cutting and leveling before the re- zoning is in question. Okay, this evening I'm going to reiterate and say some of the things I said before plus a few extra. I'm adamant about the thought of changing the classification of rural residential and granting a conditional use permit for who knows what. No mention has been made on the application. I do not believe there is a demand or a need for any business ventures in this area, especially across from the Kenai High School. The intent of rural residential zoning is to provide for a low density residential development in the form which creates a stable and an attractive residential environment. Granting the conditional use permit will do the exact opposite. I am firmly opposed to changing the present zoning and granting a conditional use permit for some unknown business venture. Adding traffic congestion to a main arterial, four-lane highway is not an example of good planning or zoning, especially when it's between the exit and entrance of the Kenai High School. Again, it will only Planning 8v Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 14 ' contribute to the accident potential of the area. The entrance and exit on Cinderella is suicidal traffic planning. Some students now use Cinderella as a walkway to and from school Can you imagine what it would be like if 500 students wanted to cross the Spur Highway. We all know what congestion is. When there is a special event at the high school that will tell us something about congestion. If necessary, I will get a court order to prohibit the use of my driveway as a turnaround point. It's bad enough the way it is right now. Added traffic congestion isn't good planning and zoning. I believe the comprehensive plan discourages ah... commercial re-zones in neighborhoods which can be adversely impacted. Glick: Sir, are you about.... Ash: Pardon? Glick: Are you about ready to end there, are you about ready to wrap it up? Ash: Yes. Glick: Okay. Ash: I'm totally against the granting of a conditional permit for some unknown business venture. I do.... I do not believe there is a demand or a need for a business venture in this particular area. I highly recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission refuse this unknown business request. I recommend the current rural residential zoning remain and not be changed. There is no need to adversely affect a comfortable rural residential area. Thank you. Glick: Alright, thank you. Sam Stewart, 306 KIM N' ANG, Kenai, Alaska - I'm also Principal at Kenai Central High School. I'll be real brief. I would just like to register my concern with the application as written where it says Business/Consumer Services Retail/Wholesale. If that is opening the door for business to come into the area that would be an attraction to our students, that does cause a severe supervision problem or us. We are a closed campus, we try to keep our eyes on what's happening. Kids crossing the street by foot there would be a problem. If you do... ah... decide to grant a conditional use permit, I'd at least ask that you grant some kind of conditional use that doesn't allow for that type of business, anything that would be an attraction to our students. Glick: Thank you Sir. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Paul Sorenson -Good Evening, I live at 36790 Chinulna Drive, Kenai, Alaska. I'm the principal at Kenai Middle School. I had an opportunity to Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 15 talk to ah.... my PTA member parents and as we look back into the past when we started to build the road along Spur Highway and they expanded that particular road, we were concerned about the traffic at that time for our kids. And ah.... we've looked at a cross way for the kids, an overhead cross way, there wasn't any business projected across even, and to do some compromising they looked at the traffic and they put a traffic light at Tinker and that allows our kids, early in the morning, when I come to work, even at 7 o'clock, I have kids meandering along the road and at that stop light and it's very difficult to see them. And ah.... that stop light does help in that process but when they were planning the overhead passage for kids the cost was prohibitive. The fencing that would take place along there to prohibit kids to cross that road and the safety was the issue for kids and if we start putting businesses along that particular road, I think we have some real issues and there should be a buffer zone to protect those kids; and when I look at my closed campus I notice that kids do not make good decisions at times and ah.... as they can... pass through the woods there and go across the road. Right now I find kids... some of my kids do venture out and I find them at K-Mart and that's a ways, so that's two or three. Once you start establishing businesses along the Spur Highway it's not going to be K-Mart. I'm going to be searching for kids across the road and I would appreciate you... to look at this issue. Thank you. Glick: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Colleen Ward, 708 Magic Avenue, Kenai, Alaska - I own parcel, Lot 5 in Cinderella Subdivision and I would like to request an time extension. Glick: You have a written proposal? Ward: Yes Sir. Glick: Anybody opposed. (No objection) Okay. Ward: Councilman Smalley, Chairman, Commissioners, I do not want to stand before you tonight and say the things that I have to say. I find myself in the position of opposing a former and potentially future neighbor and a man I have a lot of respect for. Mr. Chumley, I wish you no ill will but I am compelled to represent what I strongly believe to be true. I would like to begin tonight by commending the Commission for their action regarding the new Land Use Table. Although I'm not in complete agreement with the new table I believe the action of the Council last Wednesday night in passing this Ordinance was a step in the right direction. True planning and zoning success, however, will be tested on a case by case basis as we implement the theories and principals behind such table as we have the opportunity to do here tonight. Planning 8v Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 16 ~ First, I would like to address you from the perspective of a resident of the area impacted by this conditional land use permit application. The history of this neighborhood, and I'll regress just a minute to thank you again for giving us... neighbors, an opportunity to gather. This is a very familiar gathering place for us because the history of this neighborhood and it's interaction with both the Kenai City Council and this Commission demonstrates a highly collaborative effort of the majority of the property owners to preserve and maintain the low density residential character of this neighborhood. In other words, we do not now, nor have we in the past, wanted or needed commercial enterprise in our rural residential neighborhood. Although there is much support for the rejection of this and future applications in both the Kenai.... the City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan and the Kenai Municipal Code, I've limited my extractions due to time limitations. The comprehensive plan states, "support development of neighborhood serving commercial use such as grocery stores and Laundromats in commercial zones." I suggest that, in congruence with our City's own comprehensive plan you support commercial uses in commercial zones. This area is in close proximity to commercial properties that provide ample support for a developing neighborhood. Not only do those commercial zones already exist, they have high vacancy rates. The Kenai Municipal Code, 14.20.150 as quoted on page 2, number 3 of the staff report pertaining to this application states, "Conditional uses may be permitted providing the following conditions are met: 1. Uses be similar to principal uses permitted in the zone, which in this case are one to three family dwellings, churches with 30 foot set back lines, essential services, and general agricultural. Commercial enterprise unquestionably is not similar to any of these primary uses. The second condition is, "Uses must be in harmony of the intent of the zone," residential zoning is simply is not intended commercial. I submit to you that neither of these conditions have been met. The Kenai Municipal Code, 14.20.080, #2 as quoted on page 2, #4 of your staff report states, "Ushes.... Uses should be prohibited which would, violate the residential character of an area, generate heavy traffic in predominantly residential areas. The staffer who compiled this report then states their opinion that "it does not appear this would generate heavy traffic uses with ingress and egress off the Spur Highway." If you look closely at this schematic, and if your not doing so, I encourage you to do so, what you will find is two separate lots; one of which that has ingress and egress to the Spur Highway and one, which as presented, will use Cinderella Road access. At first glance we might assume both lots will share and entrance/exit, however, for all practical purposes we must not assume these lots will be sold. We must assume these lots will be sold separately and dependence on shared usage is a law suit waiting happen. Therefore, I must disagree with the opinion stated by the author of your staff report, traffic uses as currently described in this application will in fact violate the residential character of this main area. In the interest of time, I will move out of the Kenai comprehensive plan and the Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 17 Municipal Code to another significant factor and that is surrounding schools. Whether you support development along the Spur Highway or not, I suggest this area be considered unique. Several hundred students may be impacted by your decision tonight. The safety of these students is somewhat contingent on the lure of a commercial enterprise, somewhat contingent on responsible development of traffic patterns must be paramount in your decision. One accident is one too many. Please consider setting this issue... settling this issue once and for all by creating a well designed, responsible and compatible buffer zone surrounding the schools that ensures safety in all future development so we don't find ourselves standing before you year after year. Secondly, I would like to address you from the perspective of a member of this community and someone who is concerned about the economic development of this community. I've been hearing a lot of anti- development, pro-development debate as Ike discussed this debate with councilpersons, commissioners, realtors, neighbors, etc., over the last week and although we differ in where we fall on the development continuum most of us have a common interest, the economic vitality of the City of Kenai, that is our common ground. So Ike tried to remove myself from my residential bias and approach the issue for a purely economic perspective. The reality is that this condin... conditional land use permit application transcends this particular applicant, it transcends the surrounding residents and it even transcends you in your positions here tonight because it sets a precedent, the action you take will set a precedent that, for years to come, will serve as a measure of accountability for the City of Kenai. Sometimes economic vitality is best achieved through new development and sometimes it is best accomplished through wiser use and nurturing of existing infrastructures and resources. The challenge presented tonight is to discern the difference. The intricate economic balance between supporting new development along a commercial corridor lining the Spur Highway as stimulating new business and the old commercial hub of the City is a critical matter. The former commercial hub along the Spur west of the Carr's is a ready resource of high vacancy and established commercial zoning. In it's current state, this section of our City is very vulnerable. It can become a vibrant part of our economy of a burden to the City. Commercial growth along the Spur is one of it's greatest hazards in equivalent to the proverbial nail in the coffin. Allowing another balance that we have to look at is allowing a single, or a few land owners to benefit at the cost of many surrounding land owners. This could become a problem in terms of cost benefits but also a legal liability. I believe we unanimously agree that commercializing alot increases it's market value, however, most City officials, elected or otherwise, in current conversations I have had with them, have been reluctant to admit that such commercialization also devalues surrounding residential properties. Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 18 =) So, I have called realtors to try to move outside the realm of my bias. fiery realtor I have talked to have stated they felt that commercializing a residential lot does definitely impact the value of surrounding residential properties and often in a very negative fashion, not always but often. They also went on to tell me of several documented cases where such devaluation has resulted in successful land suits by those property owners who suffered the devaluation. I'm not presenting this as a fact, I'm not the suing kind and I'm presenting that simply as ah... what has happened in other areas, I mean, as a threat, but that is something that has happened. The impetus behind developing this Spur commercial corridor is to attract revenues to offset declining Municipal Assistance Revenue, ah.... Sharing that we receive from the State and our sluggish rev..... local revenues. The balance that must be achieved is to do just that, attract through desirable, attractive, and responsible development and to avoid inappropriate, unsightly, or incompatible growth that detracts from what the City has to offer. I do not want the Spur to look like the Sterling Highway at some point in time. That is not attractive for the City of Kenai, or economically acceptable. The balance between honoring the needs of the schools and satisfying the wants of developers is also critical to economic vitality because the schools are one of the top rated selling points of most communities. When someone is moving to a community that is one of the things on the top five lists they will check out. The exception might be retirement communities. A balance I believe we are struggling with tonight, and bear with me I'm getting close the ~ end, is the immediate pressure to increase City revenues and the time required to resolve remaining issues that ensure responsible development that, I believe will ultimately will result in stronger, longterm generation of revenues to the City. When we're looking at economic vitality we also have to look at the long term implications and there are three that I will quickly address. What will in... occur if there are violations in fractions of this permit, and I'm not suggesting the current land owner will do this, but I do anticipate the current land owner will at some point in time sell and we are assured by members of the Council, we have been, that if this happens and conditions of the permit are violated, then the permit is pulled. Okay, so you have two buildings with businesses in there that are violating the code, you pull their permit, lets take that the next step, then what? Quite frankly, the City does not have an established track record of enforcement policy and the track record they have is a little shaky for a neighborhood to put their confidence in at this point. Quite frankly, this is a major concern to me and my neighbors. The second long term implication I'd like you to consider is some of the Spur frontage parcels are much larger than the two lots that we are discussing tonight, approximately 2.5 acres and could amount to a sizable enterprise. How will we discern who can and can't set up shop? How will we protect the residential traffic flow while providing safe, which in the Department of Transportation language, is often synonymous with limited Spur Highway access. The only alternative, as undesirable as it is, is to use your Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 19 residential roads as proposed in this application. The third long term implication relates back to a statement made in your staff report. The staff report states, "Commission may identify these lots as no longer appropriate for residential development based on their proximity to the Kenai Spur Highway. How many of my neighbors would agree with that? (Ward addressed this question to the audience) That they would no longer be suitable for residential, we live there, we don't agree with that, that is a matter of opinion. As the schematic shows, the developer is attempting to use trees as a buffer zone, or buffer lines, the same thing could be done with residential properties. Proximity to the schools is often very desirable in residential properties. So in reality the truth of this statement is dependent on what you determine tonight. It is not a truth that already exists other than in the minds of the author and those who agree with it. The last thing I'd like to speak to you about, and it.... ah... is the issue of compromise. I will reiterate, I believe any compromise will come ultimately at a great cost to the City, however, it if there must be compromise should the Commission disregard the desires of the majority land owners, I would like to recommend the application be approved with the following conditions: Require the City honor Mr. Chumley's informal offer to change the designated use from that of Business Consumer Service and Retail/Wholesale Business to that of Professional Offices. A designated use alloted in the newly adopted land use table. 2. The second condition is to provide expanded definition of professional offices to outline the parameters between professional and business consumer services. For example, if a doctor or lawyer's offices are professional and hair salon and video rental are business consumer services, where does an architect, an engineer, a graphic designer, a photographer, or for that matter, a massage therapist fall? If you follow my line of reasoning, the ambiguity of the definition for the listing of designated uses provides ample concern for me and my neighbors. So that would be the second condition. 3. The third condition relates to aesthetic considerations. The Kenai Municipal Code, 14.20.080 as recited in your staff report, under analysis, page 1 states, "The intent of the rural residential zone is to provide for low density residential development outlying in rural areas in a form which creates a stable and attractive residential environment. I suggest the conditions of approval specify as Mr. Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 20 Chumley as indicated informally, his willingness to conform with a ~ residential appearing, therefore, aesthetically compatible structural design, decor and landscaping. 4. The fourth condition relates to traffic violation to the residential character of the area which must be prevented by requiring Spur Highway ingress and egress only. The application must be revised to remove the Cinderella driveway. I cannot stress to you the importance of this condition. I believe it is a precedent setting move, long term implications and balancing the needs of the residents and the desires of the Department of Transportation are somewhat mind boggling. In closing, I am opposed to the approval of Mr. Hugh and Joe Chumley's conditional land use permit application. In spite of the overwhelming oppostion, should this application be approved, I urge you to approve only with the clearly defined conditions I just outlined. I would like to suggest or recommend future action of the Commission be that they pursue a buffer zone around the school, involving the school in the process of what that buffer zone should look like. Secondly, that they set up a task force to specifically research the Spur Highway corridor. In my discussions with a number of people, our City is headed in a million different directions when it comes to that stretch of land. And thirdly, extend notification parameters from the existing 300 feet to one mile of the location of conditional land use permit applications. I thank you for your patience, for the extended time and I urge you to carefully and wisely make your decision concerning this application. Thank you. Glick: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak to this item. Anyone else? Mr. Chumley, you care to speak about what your doing? What your intentions are? Members of the Commission and Ladies and Gentlemen of the audience, thank you once again for your time. Ah.... I ah.... I will not respond to some of the things that were said tonight Glick: Would you state your name and address for the record. Hugh Chumley, P.O. Box 1356, Sterling, Alaska - I did reside on Princess Lane in Kenai, still own property there as well as this property. I will not respond to some of the comments that was made tonight for I feel it was totally inappropriate Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 21 and inaccurate on some of it. Ah.... I have faith in the process, I will admit, as one gentleman mentioned here, a year or so ago when I appeared before this Commission, it was out of ignorance. I come in and applied for re-zoning. I did not know that... that... that was not going. I had no idea so I apologize for that, I apologize for taking up your time. The only thing... I have faith in the system, ah... that you folks will make the right decision and make a good decision whatever that may be. Ah...as far as the question that will we have to keep doing this time and time again. It's my understanding there is only one other time after this if this is unsuccessful, so... but again, thank you for your time, I appreciate it, I thank all of you residents for your time and your concerns. Thank you. Glick: Thank you. Mahurin: Question for Mr. Chumley. Glick: Mr. Chumely? Mahurin: Do you wish to share with the Commission what your intentions are for a business consumer, retail/wholesale business? Chumley: Yes Mam, when I appeared ah... here a year or so ago we had ah, ah... one lady that owns a beauty shop in Kenai that wanted to lease one of the spots as well as buy a lot behind it. Ah.... since then, just here recently that has gone away because she's had to do something else. We had an insurance agent that was interested in one and since then that's gone away. Something along these lines as we've stated to some of the concerned residents ah...this is what we want to do. There was not a place on the application to state that so we did not state it, we simply tried to follow the guidelines and list what we felt would cover that category. Mahurin: So at this point you don't know what businesses exactly would go in there. Chumley: No Mam, I don't, something like the... the professional services as Mrs. Ward had mentioned and..... and we did, as she stated, agreed to... to change the application if that would help. Mahurin: Thank you for answering my questions Mr. Chumley. Chumley: Pardon? Mahurin: I appreciate you taking... answering my questions, thank you very Planning 8v Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 22 much. Glick: Anyone else? Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak to this item? Seeing or hearing none I will bring this back to the Commissioner's, public hearing is now closed. Verbatim Ends When asked if staff had anything else to add to this, Kebschull responded that she had a couple of items she wanted to clarify from the staff report. The code requires, under the new land use table, that this property must have ingress and egress off the Spur Highway to allow this conditional use. This is one problem that does not exist. The second clarification Kebschull made was in regard to the statement Ward read from the comprehensive plan which states "the City support development of neighborhoods serving commercial uses such as grocery stores and laundromats in commercial zones". That statement is taken from the section on residential land use strategies so by looking at that in context, that is a strategy that the City is supposed to use as far as development for residential land use. Kebschull stated that when she looked at this application, the zone, and the intent it became very confusing because the intent in the definition for the rural residential zone doesn't appear to fit that zone. Kebschull continued, it is difficult to look at that zone as being outlying and rural when it's within walking distance of the city. So that's a problem staff has because the code is sometimes outdated when we look at these things. Another problem is that the land use table allows for a conditional use in this area but when you look at the conditional use section of the code it says that uses may be allowed as long as they are similar to principal uses, so why would we have a "C" in the land use table if the only principal use is the zones of residential. Kebschull further stated that all staff can do is bring these conflicts to the Commission's attention. Kebschull pointed out that the City Attorney was available to answer any questions. Christian reminded the Commissioners that they had gone through the land use table and it was thrown back during the work session to reconsider and in fact there was very strong pressure to change that. Christian stated he can see a rural residential area and the group of people with a strong intent on what they want there and it's apparent they don't want anything commercial anywhere in that zone. Christian indicated that he would have to agree. Planning 8v Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 23 Mahurin reported that she voted against this the last time and will vote against it again. Mahurin agrees with what Christian said about the land use. Mahurin stated the Commission had a hot and heavy work session with City Council over several of these areas and what will happen with the Spur Highway corridor is one of the areas where she personally have a disagreement with many of the City Council members. Mahurin felt the green strip, bike path and walking, at least from east Aliak into town, is just a wonderful feeling to drive into and she would hate to give that up when there is a lot of commercial openings around town. Mahurin stated she doesn't want to take away the right of property owners but she also understands how strongly the surrounding property owners feel. Mahurin apologize to Chumley for not voting to allow a conditional use permit, particularly when the type of business has not been identified. Mahurin continued, she trusts what he may have in mind but she cannot vote for an unknown and can't vote for a business contrary to what some may feel. Mahurin feels the area should remain a green strip and buffer zone. Nord wanted to go on record by stating that she will also oppose the conditional use permit application for several reasons. Normally when a conditional use permit is approved the type of business is stated. In this case the type of business is not known. Nord continued, the opposition from the residents in the area leads her to believe this is not what they want and it was not their intent when they purchased their property. Nord stated, as a realtor she has agreed to protect the rights of the private property owners. However, on the other hand Nord felt that Chumley has a right as a private property owner as well but the code does state that the uses must be similar to principal uses permitted in the zone and the use must in harmony with the intent of the zone. Nord further stated that perhaps the cart is before the horse here because there is some discrepancies in the code which have been brought out tonight that the Commission will need to look at in the near future. Nord indicated that at this time she will vote against the application. Goecke reported that he does not feel the same way as the other Commissioners because he thinks there should be a complete commercial zone from city limit to city limit, bordering the Spur Highway and that should be one block or 200 feet deep. Goecke also felt the bike path or walking path can coexist with a commercial zone. Goecke stated he did not personally use the bike path but this year with the snow the State was keeping it cleared for residents to use in the winter. Goecke also addressed the existing vacant commercial property. He stated that it would be nice to see everything full but what is vacant today may not work for the business that wants to operate. Goecke did not feel a person should be expected Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 24 to open a business in an existing building that is not suitable. Goecke also addressed the comments with regard to the schools. He heard the concerns about kids going to these businesses during school hours. He heard from the educator that said that he finds his students at K-Mart during the day, in respect to that item, so much for the closed campuses. Goecke asked what is a school other than a place of learning for kids, in a loose, liberal sense it could also be construed as a business. Goecke continued, not in the true definition, but is can kind of be construed as a business because we are paying people to educate our children. You pay employees to work for you to sell goods, so in the loose definition, a school can be called a business. Goecke asked that this not be taken completely out of context but sometimes people get out to left field and need to back up and take a better look at things. Werner-Quade reported that she will be opposing the conditional use permit because she agreed with what Mrs. Sonberg said that it is not in harmony with the zone. Werner-Quade said she also agreed with Mr. Ash who said the 45 mph speed limit around a business is an unwise decision. Werner-Quade further stated that she agreed with the two principals that it is unwise to allow a business that may attract kids away from school. Bryson indicated that he had several areas of concern. The location has several areas that are desirable to a business. First being the access to a street. Encouraging access to a street is a much better and safer situation that a driveway with a guaranteed visibility; a visibility that is maintained by the agencies. Bryson also felt it was appropriate in a conditional use situation to define what the proposed use was going to be. Bryson expressed concern with the vicinity of the school being directly across the street. Again it depended on the type of business that would go in. Bryson stated with the four lanes of traffic it is awkward at times to get across the highway. Bryson indicated that at this time he will vote in opposition of the re-zone but also feels there are areas that can be worked out. Mahurin pointed out that people also walk their dogs along the bike path. Bryson also commented on the area being referred to as being a green belt and as a buffer. He reminded the group that it is not a green belt nor a buffer, it is a residential zoned area. VOTE MAHURIN NO CHRISTIAN NO Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 25 BRYSON NO WERNER-QUADE NO GOECKE YES NORD NO GLICK YES MOTION FAILED Glick informed Mr. Chumley of his right to appeal to Council should he so desire. 5. NEW BUSINESS: Kenai River Water Monitoring Plan Work Group Glick directed attention to the memo in the meeting packet from the City Clerk requesting a volunteer to participate in the activities of the work group. It was pointed out that Kornelis, the Public Works Director, already attends the meetings. Nord asked what the commitment was, what days the meetings are held, how long is the work group going to last, and what is the intent of the work group? Smalley answered, it could be up to two meetings per month but did not know the date and time. Nord asked how can the Commission commit to something where the intent is not known. Kebschull stated that Kornelis went to the first meeting and it lasted from 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and another meeting was scheduled in two weeks. It appeared the meetings will be held very two weeks and there was no indication as to how long this would go on. Nord stated that she read their goals and she still couldn't determine what they were trying to accomplish. Nord asked what Council intended by sending someone from Planning and Zoning to the meetings. Smalley replied, this particular group will be responsible for monitoring the different aspects of what's going on within Kenai with regard to the Kenai River Watershed. Nord asked if this is something that came from the Watershed Task Force? Smalley confirmed the invitation came from them. He continued, in the past there has been a lot of decisions and discussion about the watershed within the city limits of Kenai with very little input from the City. Council felt this might be an opportunity to give individuals from the City some responsibility for regulations, etc. Smalley directed attention to the first, second and third aspect on the monitoring plan which focuses on what the goal areas were. Nord felt that perhaps it was necessary to have the Kenai River Water Monitoring group attend a Planning and Zoning meeting to explain what the commitment and goal is. Smalley stated the City already monitors the water quality because of the sewage treatment plant but it is not monitored in upper river. Nord asked if Council wanted Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 26 -- this Commission to take the position of being a watch dog to this committee. Smalley replied by reading a portion of the memo from the City Clerk which stated, "Council encourages a member of your Commission to participate in the activities of the Work Group", so a volunteer will be a participant and will report back to this body, or directly to City Council. After more discussion Nord volunteered to attend the meetings on behalf of the City and requested information on the date and location of the next meeting. Glick volunteered to serve as back up to Nord should she not be able to attend a meeting. 2. Assignment of and Amendment to Lease -Ronald Yamamoto, Lot 3, Block 1, Gusty Subdivision GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE FROM YAMAMOTO TO NATASHA LOTT AND NINA MARION. MOTION SECONDED BY MAHURIN. Staff had nothing additional. VOTE CHRISTIAN YES WERNER-QUADE YES NORD YES GLICK YES BRYSON YES GOECKE YES MAHURIN YES Motion passed unanimously. 3. 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission Goals and Objectives Mahurin asked who drew up the goals and objectives. Kebschull replied that she did with input from the City Engineer. Kebschull also pointed out the list was rather extensive so the Commission may want to prioritize it. Christian requested that a couple of things be added to the list. One item was notifying property owners more than just through public hearings. An example Christian used was home occupations. People around the business should be aware that this is being considered as a conditional use. Christian stated he realized this was expensive but was unsure if the people were being served properly if they don't know something was being considered other than a notice in Planning & Zoning Commission . ~ January 14, 1998 Page 27 the newspaper. Mahurin shared the concern with Christian and that some time should be devoted to discuss the topic. Glick asked that this topic be added to the goals and objectives list. Kebschull noted there are many inconsistencies that need to be looked at. What happened at this meeting is an example of such differences and since these are so vast it's difficult to clarify. It was noted that one section affects another section. Kebschull further stated that Soldotna was going through the same thing as a result of a similar problem and had hired someone to assist them. Kebschull briefly went through the list and explained what needed to be done with each item. Kebschull noted that the subdivision design standard is an area where the City Engineer would need to be involved because the code is non-specific. Kebschull continued stating she thought all items on the list were important and by starting on any of them would be a step in the right direction. Kebschull also pointed out the landscape site plan issue was not included on the list but is an item that has been of concern. Nord thought perhaps more concentration should be given to the definitions as it was difficult at this meeting to define harmony or what some may consider harmony. It makes it very difficult when looking at the overall picture. Christian suggested the RP zone be reconsidered with input from the Commission. Christian reminded the group that the main objection was the size of the lots and that's one of the reasons it was voted down. Christian felt it was necessary to find a zone category that has single family dwellings only where people can buy into this particular zone and be assured they are not going to have duplexes, etc., going into their neighborhood. Goecke stated the only way he would even think about an RP zone is if it was only available to a new development and it was what the developer wanted. Goecke indicated that he would not vote for this if this was for an existing development, regardless of where it was in this town. Christian clarified the zone would be for new developments only. Mahurin indicated that she wasn't ready to fight the fight again with zones. Glick asked how many Commissioner's wanted the item added to the list. No Planning 8s Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 28 show of hands so the item would not be added to the list. a Christian suggested that an applicant be required to attend the meeting when their application is before Planning and Zoning, whether it is for public hearing or consideration. Christian stated it is difficult to determine what a person's intent is and staff should not be expected to try to explain their plans. If the applicant could not be present then the item should be postponed until he can be present. Kebschull pointed out that would have to be stated in the Code as at this time it is not required. She also stated it was the same with the Use. After more discussion it was determined that the items suggested were already included on the list. GOECKE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES LIST AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. SECONDED BY MAHURIN. NO OBJECTION -MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. OLD BUSINESS: -None 10. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: Smalley stated that Blockbuster Video is entering and existing on the bike path at the west entrance off the Spur Highway. This area is even being plowed. Glick noted that Subway was doing the same thing. Graves confirmed that this was a code violation and he suggested a letter be written advising them of the violation. It is possible to get volunteer response and Graves expects that would probably happen. Goecke asked if the State would pursue something like that since the bike path is on State property. Graves was unsure if they would or not but since it is in the City it is a code violation. Christian suggested they place their dumpster there to block access. 11. REPORTS: 4. City Council: Smalley gave the following report (1/7/98 Council Meeting) A number of individuals came to speak about the issue of the land use table that was being approved. These individuals wanted to specifically talk about the issue that was discussed tonight. The group was encouraged to attend this meeting as this is where the issue would be voted on. Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 29 Smalley asked Council if they would be interested in changing code with regard to notification of new development. The City Manager is going to do some research to identify the cost that came up in the past with regard to notification. This will vary due to location. Smalley noted that public hearings are advertised in the newspaper ten days prior to the meeting, the agenda is advertised generally the Monday of the meeting week, it is on the City's web site, and it is also posted on the bulletin board at City Hall. Smalley added that the City does an admirable job and is meeting code with the contact being made. Public Hearings: Items 1 through 6 passed. Item 6 deals with lighting replacement at the library. This is an ongoing maintenance project the City will be doing at a number of their facilities. The figure noted is lower than what was budgeted. The cost savings once the project is complete will be approximately 40%. Old Business -Item 1 -The issue was encroachment of a pad and partially constructed building on City property in Cunningham Park. Confusion came when the City installed the fence which was well inside the City property. Garcia originally thought it was the property line. Garcia contacted the Cunningham family and they sent back some proposals. At this point the City is pursuing a land sale to eliminate a right of way problem. Nord asked if the City allows Garcia to purchase the property would the funds from the sale go back towards Cunningham Park. Smalley confirmed that would happen and it was a request from the Parks Department. Nord asked if there was any chance of a new boat ramp. Smalley reported the boat ramp was put in illegally. The Airport Manager position is being re-advertised. The two individuals that were seriously considered did not accept due to the salary. As a result, the City Manager is looking at the job description and salary. Department heads are working on their budgets. Council and Administration will be involved with the Board of Fish meetings that start on February 4, 1998 in Soldotna. The issue to be discussed is the dip net fishery at the mouth of the Kenai River. The City would like to get the State to change the boundary line. The State will provide more dumpsters and post signs for litter and fish remains. The Forest Drive completion date is now 2000. There is a reconsideration for curbs and gutters. A meeting is scheduled for February 17 to discuss the project. Senator Ward is on the Transportation Committee and will attempt to get this Planning 8v Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 30 project moved up to an earlier completion date since it has been engineered. Mr. Wehrstein in Homer requested the City consider a 20 year lease to put a Kenai Visitor Center on the Homer Spit. Council declined. Smalley will not be at the next meeting as he will be in Juneau attending the Alaska Municipal League meeting. Councilman Bannock will attend the meeting. b. Borough Planning -Bryson made the following report: Two meetings were held since the last Planning and Zoning meeting. The most recent was January 12, 1998. There was one item that drew the greatest comment which was item F-1 -Proposed classification of approximately 20 acres of land in the Homer area for a single, residential use. The determination was the property had to have reasonable access to be reclassified and this did not. The application was turned down. All plats were approved. December 15, 1997 Meeting: The item that drew the major amount of comment was item K-1, Kenai River road construction in the wetlands area. This is referred to as the Carter project in the Big Eddy area. There is a subdivision along the river that did not have dedicated or developed access. The owner of several. of the lots along that area proposed construction of a road to provide access to the subdivision. He went through the Corp permit procedure and the determination is not yet known, however, the project was found to be in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Plan. c. Administration: Kebschull drew the Commission's attention to the two reports included in the meeting packet regarding; the 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission Report and the Summary of 1997 Building Permit Activity. 12. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 13. INFORMATION ITEMS: 1. 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission Meting Schedule 2. KPB Planning Commission Action of December 15, 1997 3. Letter from Kenai River Center dated December 15, 1997 Planning 8v Zoning Commission _~ January 14, 1998 Page 31 , 4. Letter from Kenai River Center dated December 16, 1997 5. Planning Commission Roster 6. Historic District Board Minutes of December 15, 1997 14. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS: None 15. ADJOURNMENT: GOECKE MOVED TO ADJOURN. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Roper, Contract Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission January 14, 1998 Page 32