Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-11 P&Z Minutes} CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS February 11,1998 - 7:00 p.m. http://www.Kenai.net/city 1. ROLL CALL: 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 28,1998 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ98-OS-Variance for side yard setbacks-Lot 6, Block 5, Inlet View Subdivision, Third Addition, Part 1, 312 Rogers Road, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Dennis & Kelly Gifford. ~ 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ98-06-Home Occupation Permit (Daycare~Lot 7, Block N, Woodland Subdivision, Part 3, 712 Maple Drive, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Rachele Martin. b. Request to Purchase Lot 12, Block 2, Mooring by the River SD -Richard Swarner 8. OLD BUSINESS: 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: 10. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. House Bill No. 154 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 14. ADJOURNMENT: Approved CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 11, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Carl Glick *** MINUTES *** Chairman Glick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Teresa Werner-Quade, Ron Goecke, Barb Nord, Michael Christian Members Absent: Karen Mahurin Others Present: City Engineer Jack LaShot, Councilman Hal Smalley, Contract Secretary Barb Roper 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH TWO ADDITIONAL LETTERS PRESENTED PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. CHRISTIAN SECONDED THE MOTION. AGENDA WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -January 28, 1998 CHRISTIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 1998. CHRISTIAN SECONDED THE MOTION AND ASKED OF UNANIMOUS CONSENT.. Nord requested the first sentence of paragraph one on page 5 be changed to read "Nord reported that she attended the first Kenai River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Work Group meeting and now has a better understanding of what the purpose is." It was noted that "Watershed" is to be omitted. THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 1998 WERE APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE NOTED CORRECTION. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: None Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 1 Approved 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: -None 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ98-05 -Variance for side yard setbacks -Lot 6, Block 5, Inlet View Subdivision, Third Addition, Part 1, 312 Rogers Road, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Deanis and Kelly Gifford. GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-05. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY NORD. Kelly Gifford, 1620 Tanaga, Kenai, Alaska -The reason the variance is requested is because the lot is very narrow and most house plans considered exceed the lot size. Rather than build a very narrow home they will ask for a variance to widen the lot. Bryson asked if by looking at the house from the street would one side be lower than the other, i.e., one side two story, the other one story. Gifford provided a sketch of the home design and confirmed that one side was a little lower than the other. Christian asked if both Lots 6 and 7 were undeveloped. Gifford confirmed there are three lots in a row that are undeveloped. One is owned by Charlie Ross, the middle owned by the Giffords, and the other owned by Nelson Amen. Nord asked if a home was built on Lot 7. Gifford reviewed the plat and confirmed there is no home on Lot 7 which is owned by Nelson Amen. Goecke asked if the home itself was 62' or was it measured from roof overhang to roof overhang. Gifford could not answer the question but thought the 62' included the set backs. After further review of the sketch Glick indicated it could not be determined if the roof overhang was included in the 62'. Goecke stated the reason he asked was if it is approved at this meeting and it does not include the roof overhang then the Giffords will either have to ask for a variance again or cut the roof overhang off. Goecke indicated the building inspector will not allow occupancy if the roof overhang was not included. Gifford reiterated that she really did not know if the roof overhang was included. Bryson stated that side setbacks were measured from the foundation or Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 2 - - Approved the side wall to the property line, not from the eave line. LaShot confirmed that statement was correct, he continued, as-builts normally measure from the outside of the foundation. Nord commented for financing purposes the roof overhang may be a consideration so if the variance is approved as written with an additional one foot it won't cover the roof overhang. Glick pointed out the variance was actually for five feet on both sides but the roof overhang would probably be more than that. With no further comment the public hearing was closed. Bryson stated in the past the building department interpreted the height in two different ways for 1-story and 2-story structures. Recently, strict criteria was used that a 2-story building had to conform to the 2-story requirements on both sides. Bryson pointed out this was not the case in the past, it was interpreted that if there is a 1-story side it would need to conform to 1-story requirements. In the case of a situation where there is a low side on one level and 2-story on the other side, they would require a 5 foot and 15 foot setback. Bryson indicated he would be uneasy in approving the encroachment on two sides for 10 feet each in light of the objections from the adjacent property owners and recent history where a variance in Deep Wood Park was approved and then overturned by Council because of the objections from neighbors. Gifford asked for a copy of the objections. A copy of both letters were provided to her and it was pointed out they were from the owners of Lot 5and8. Christian asked if a variance of this type was approved in the area in the past. A general discussion ensued and it was determined that variances were approved in the area for different reasons. Goecke stated there was a variance approved for an addition on the opposite side of the street. Bryson noted there were two other variances issued in the area, one for height and the other for a side setback. Glick reported there was a variance awarded after construction because the home exceeded the variance and they had to come back for another one because the foundation was off about a foot. Bryson stated his concern is less with what has been done specifically in the subdivision but more with how Council has viewed objections from Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 3 Approved adjacent neighbors. Bryson continued, the objection from Lot 5 is a significant aspect, however, he would support a placement of the structure where the low side of the house is set at 5 feet and the other side is set at 15 feet. Bryson was comfortable in believing the builder can put it where it is supposed to go even though it differs somewhat from the legal interpretation of what a 2-story house is. It would be compatible and consistent with other structures in the subdivision. Goecke concurred with Bryson in moving the structure. Goecke asked Gifford if the structure could be moved in order to facilitate these requirements. Gifford replied, it doesn't bother her at all as long she is given 20 feet, it doesn't matter that it is 5 feet on one side and 15 feet on the other. When asked for comments from staff, LaShot answered, in this circumstance it is probably the appropriate thing to do. The current interpretation is that if any portion of the home is 2-story then the entire home is considered 2-story. That hasn't always been the interpretation. LaShot also suggested, in reference to the building officials comments regarding leaving the variance at 5 feet and 15 feet, the builder should be cautious the house does stay within that. Since he would be working in close tolerances he may want to consider trimming back the width of the home. LaShot recommended the two objection letters become part of the record. Goecke noted he felt comfortable in handling the situation in this manner as the same type of variance was granted on Toyon Way. Christian commented about the size of the lot which is 16,000 sq. ft. and thought the petitioner was asking a lot when there is a large amount of square footage. A different designed home could take advantage of the footage on the lot and still be in compliance. Christian believes that people who buy into a subdivision and knowing what the requirements of the setbacks are should not expect Planning and Zoning to support those. Gifford responded, they had the lot for seven years and had searched for house plans for the same amount of time trying to find one they liked that would fit on the lot. There choices were narrowed down to two and neither one would fit on the lot within feet. Christian indicated that he was reluctant to approve this especially since the closest neighbor objects to it. Bryson stated the situation he intends to make a motion on will provide Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 4 Approved the objecting neighbor on Lot 5 with a 15 foot setback, which would conform to requirements. The owner of Lot 7 is silent at this time and that side would have a 5 foot setback. Bryson added, he wasn't sure when Administration began interpreting the 2-story as it is done now but this is the first one he has had to handle. BRYSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND REQUIRING A 15 FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE LOT LINE COMMON TO LOT 5 AND LOT 6; AND LOT LINE COMMON TO LOT 6 AND LOT 7 PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY GOECKE. Bryson noted the intent of the 5-foot set back on the lot line common to Lot 6 and Lot 7 is because that it the single level side of the house. Glick stated for the record there were two letters received prior to the meeting from people in the subdivision, one on the adjacent lot and the other a block away. Both letters opposed the variance request. VOTE (ON AMENDMENT) BRYSON YE3 GOECKE YE3 MAHURIN ABSENT GLICK YES WERNER-QUADS NO NORD YES CHRISTIAN NO FOUR YE3 VOTES, TWO NO. MOTION PASSED Werner-Quade stated she has been liberal in her voting in the past on granting variances of almost any kind. However, the reason she is opposed to this variance is because of the opposition that has been provided by the neighbors. Werner-Quade continued, staff recommendations are to consider public input. She also voted against it because it is a large variance. Bryson responded by adding that one year ago this situation would not have come to the Commission. The issue is before the Commission due strictly to an administrative interpretation. Werner-Quade asked if this was the 1-story, 2-story issue. Bryson confirmed that it was. It was confirmed that one year ago if the petitioner had the same house, same lot, etc., they would not have had to come before the Commission if they proposed it at 5 feet and 15 feet. Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 5 -- Approved } Goecke commended the applicant for coming before the Commission before building. He continued, he gets upset about the ones that build and come in after the fact to ask for a variance. VOTE (MAIN MOTION) WERNER-QUADS YES GOECKE YE3 NORD YES MAHURIN ABSENT CHRISTIAN NO BRYSON YES GLICK YES FIVE YES VOTES, ONE NO. MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED. Gifford thanked the Commission but also asked, in the future, if there are any letters of opposition that they be given to the applicant prior to the meeting. Gifford thought that she could have gone to somebody to set their fears aside and maybe that would have changed their mind. Glick responded that it appeared the letters were just received. ?. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ98-06 -Home Occupation Permit (Daycare) -Lot ?, Block N, Woodland Subdivision, Park 3, 712 Maple Drive, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Rachele Martin. NORD MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-06. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE. Staff recommended approval of the home occupation permit. Christian thought the applicant had done babysitting at the location before and asked if this was now going to be a formal service. LaShot replied that he had no knowledge that she has done babysitting before but this would be a formal attempt to have a business there. Christian asked if she would be required to get a day care and business license. LaShot indicated that it may be a requirement but it would not go through the City. Christian noted that she had a certain completion date noted and a certain number of children and wanted to know if the Commission was approving it with those stipulations. LaShot stated the applicant had requested 1 to 4 children and if there was any question in the future the City would refer to the code to determine what is allowed. It was unclear why the applicant specified a certain date which was Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 6 Approved } 2001. LaShot thought it may be appropriate to amend the permit to abide by the code for the number of children and take away the temporary limitation. Christian indicated that was why be brought the subject up because the house is not big enough to have 10 children and without knowing who was regulating her daycare the Commission should probably approve to what she has included on her application. Bryson concurs the code allows a situation dependent upon circumstances of the structure, traffic, etc., but because she has requested up to 4 children the Commission should approve it up to 4. Bryson confirmed the owner is Rachele Martin and asked if she would be the person operating the home occupation. LaShot pointed out that Martin mentioned a substitute daycare provider in her correspondence so apparently another person is involved. Bryson asked if that was the only other person employed. LaShot stated there is only one other person allowed. VOTE GOECKE YES MAHURIN ABSENT BRYSON YES CLICK YES NORD YES CHRISTIAN YE3 WERNER-QUADE YES b. Request to Purchase Lot 12, Block 2, Mooring by the River SD - Richard Swarner. Glick reported the Commission had to determine that the property is not required by the City for any public purpose before allowing a sale. NORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE SALE OF LOT 12, BLOCK 2, MOORING BY THE RIVER SUBDIVISION. MOTION SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN. Bryson indicated that he did some research and found the parcel was acquired two years ago as part of a bankruptcy declaration associated with McLane's problems in Inlet Woods. The parcel was owned by one of the partners and was considered an asset when he declared bankruptcy. The property has been on the City's tax records for several years and a relative of the applicant noticed it was owned by the City of Kenai. The applicant then expressed interest in purchasing it. Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 7 Approved Goecke asked if the property now ends up in an auction or would it be a direct sale to the applicant. LaShot explained the applicant has just initiated the process and if the Commission recommends the property not be kept for public purpose and Council concurs then it would go out for competitive bid. The person who made the inquiry has the right to meet the highest bid. LaShot continued, all competitive bids must be at or above appraised market value. Nord thought it was an unfair advantage for the person that made the inquiry and the City should consider revamping the sales ordinance. Bryson made the comment that he also thought it was an unfair advantage situation but opposite of Nord's interpretation. The person that proposed to buy it would only have to bid fair market price. If someone else bids $10,000 more they decide at that point if they want to pay that much more. Nord stated she has been in this bidding process before where property has gone for above fair market value and she felt it would be to the City's advantage regardless of who made the request for the purchase of the land to go back and forth, they may get more than fair market value. Glick reminded the Commission that this was City code and it can't be changed. What needs to be decided is whether this parcel should be sold or kept for public use. VOTE NORD YES CHRISTIAN YES WERNER-QUADE YE3 GLICK YES MAHURIN ABSENT BRYSON YES GOECKE YES Motion passed unanimously. 8. OLD BUSINESS: -None 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: None 10. REPORTS: a. City Council: Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 8 Approved Smalley made the following report based on the agenda included in the meeting packet. A Board of Adjustment hearing was held prior to the regular meeting as a result of the Chumley appeal of the Planning and Zoning decision made on January 14, 1998. There was a request by the petitioner for a modification. The Board of Adjustment is reviewing this matter and the decision will be made within thirty days. The variety of things that can come from it could include reversing the Planning and Zoning decision; go with the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission; approve or disapprove the modification; or send it back to Planning and Zoning. Item C-1 was postponed as Barry Norwood, the young boy who is making a cash donation of $116.01 to the animal control shelter, was not present. Norwood would be the guest of honor at the grand opening of the animal control shelter to be held on March 7, 1998 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The new City well grand opening will also be held on March 7 at 3:00 p.m. The Mayor is at the Board of Fish meeting to discuss the dip net fishery. The City has requested a change in the BOF agenda and was given approval. The City is requesting that a portion of the river be closed to dip net fishing. This may help control the bank erosion problems. Fish and Game will provide dumpsters for fish waste, possibly provide more enforcement, and signage to help keep the area clean. LaShot reported the city attorney was notified that the amendment at the BOF failed. Items H 4 and 5 were approved. Smalley reported he attended the Parks and Recreation meeting and the Bernie Huss Trail was discussed as a girl scout group expressed interest in cleaning it up. This girl scout group will do the work in an effort to achieve a gold award through their program. They will ask for assistance from others within the community. The Eric Hansen Park design was discussed. Smalley gave a brief explanation of the layout and what was planned for the park, i.e., parking in front, ahard-packed pathway around the perimeter to allow for handicap accessibility, a boy scout statue in the center, and signage Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 9 Approved giving a historical timeline of Kenai. Werner-Quade pointed out there were five Planning and Zoning Commissioners at the Board of Adjustment hearing. The actual date the Board of Adjustment would have their decision was discussed. It was confirmed the date is March 4, 1998. b. Borough Planaing Bryson reported a meeting was held on Monday, February 9, 1998. There were no changes to the agenda. A habitat class will be held at the college next semester if anyone is interested in attending. The professor tested previously in a wetlands issue. Item E-l, a request to vacate a cul-de-sac in the Cooper Landing area because the church had placed a well in the cul-de-sac right of way. The adjacent property owners objected to the vacation. The end result was the church property relocated the cul-de-sac further into the property rather than cutting it off so it removed the encroachment situation and provided the adjacent property with the access they wanted. Item E-2 -the North Pacific Volcano Learning Center group attended the public hearing and described their project. The Planning Commission recommended participation in the purchase of the property. The issue will go before the Assembly. All special consideration items were approved. Item N -members were given a memo regarding judicial proceedings on public hearing issues. The decision on the wetlands fill situation which is referred to as the Carter project was being returned to the Planning Commission. The conditions of the return have not been explained and the intent of the memo was to assure Commissioners did not discuss the project publically or in an open forum on the issue. Apparently there were people that had made comments to the newspaper. c. Administration: LaShot reported that staff was currently working on the development Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 10 Approved requirements table and a draft should probably be available at the next meeting. Kebschull requested that the City attorney review the section on home occupations and whether there is actually a permit needed. This arose out of the Chumley appeal as one of the people making comments has a home occupation in the area and didn't realize a permit was needed. The code isn't really clear on the issue. Christian asked about the sign code and whether or not a person is allowed to attach a temporary sign to one that is permanently placed. Christian reported that MAPCO had placed a cardboard sign on their permanent one. Goecke didn't think this issue should be pursued due to the many garage sale signs, etc., that are placed around town. LaShot asked if the Commission wanted staff to research the issue. Christian requested that it be done. Goecke asked if the City attorney had defined "business" with regard to home occupation. Goecke felt a permit was required to operate a business from the home. A group discussion took place on various types of home occupations. It was again noted the City attorney is looking into the issue. 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. House Bill No. 154 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS: Commissioner Bryson requested that Administration consider modifying the definition of setback to determine between 0 to 15 feet on the side lot lines for each separate side of the building in question. The definition needs to be clarified from the attorney's prespective. Commissioner Werner-Quade stated the entire variance issue had her going tonight. She intended to vote No on the main motion because of the letters submitted by the neighbors. Before she saw the letters, Werner-Quade indicated she was going to vote to approve the variance as she is user-friendly with regard to building and knowing that exceptions can be made, although Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 11 Approved this applicant was asking for a lot. Werner-Quade reported the opposition letters persuaded her to vote No but then the comment was made that the issue would not have come before the Commission a year ago because of the 1- story/2-story issue. That changed her mind again and she decided to approve the variance. Werner-Quade added, she still has some hesitation about it and has a problem with being called to vote first when she doesn't really know how she wants to vote. This has happened twice with difficult issues. Additionally, Werner-Quade expressed concern with her fellow Commissioners having such an ease in approving or disapproving some of the issues that seem to her to be terribly difficult. Werner-Quade continued, maybe I'm the only one, she stated is not unintelligent but she is mixed up on this issue. She can see both sides and tries to vote using the best mind that she can but she still has some hesitation. Commissioner Nord indicated that she wasn't sure how to vote on the issue either until Bryson brought up the point that a year ago this issue would not have been before the Commission, she was then a little more comfortable on voting on it. Werner-Quade commented on the adjacent property owner stating they are against the variance and wanted to know why the applicant didn't offer to buy their lot if they wanted to build a big house. Werner-Quade reiterated she came into the meeting to vote for the variance even though she felt it was quite a large variance being asked for then she read the letters from the neighbors. She continued, she was on a fine-line between voting to approve or disapprove. Werner-Quade also reiterated that her voting on the variances have been very liberal. Commissioner Nord remembered that in that particular subdivision people have come before the Commission for encroachment permits after construction. Nord stated she was glad to see the applicant come in before construction. Nord asked if the neighbors can appeal the decision made at this meeting. Councilman Smalley asked if it was customary for the City to contact the two property owners who wrote letters of opposition to inform them of the action. There is a specific time line for appeal. LaShot indicated it is not customary to contact people who comment but had the decision gone the other way then the applicant would be informed of the appeal process. Commissioner Nord reported that the Water Quality Monitoring group met on Monday for another three hours to go over site selections. At this point there Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 12 Approved isn't much money to begin testing but there are about thirty different sites selected to monitor using different matrix levels. Nord explained, Matrix Level 1 would be done by students; Matrix Level 2 would be volunteers from the public and Matrix Levels 3 and 4 would be extensive testing and Fish and Game would be involved. These areas would be extensively studied. The next plan of action is to put it all together and decide where they would get funds and grants. Commissioner Bryson stated he also came into the meeting with concerns about the property and that was why he asked to see the front view of the building from the street. The sketch indicated that the one side was single story and the other side 2-story. If it was to be a 2-story structure all the way through it would have been a huge house. Another aspect that came up in discussion were eaves. Bryson pointed out that eaves are not considered part of the encroachment in side yard setbacks, eaves are not to trespass. Commissioner Werner-Quade asked if Chairman Glick would review the procedure for reconsideration. Glick responded, if a reconsideration is for the next meeting it has to be requested at this one. Werner-Quade clarified it was not for this but she wanted to know what the procedure was in general. Glick stated the person requesting reconsideration would have to be on the prevailing side and would have to give notice to reconsideration before the end of the meeting. A general discussion took place on reconsideration and it was determined that an interpretation would be obtained from the City attorney. 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: -None 12. ADJOURNMENT: NORD MOVED TO ADJOURN. SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Barbara Rope , ontract Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission February 11, 1998 Page 13