Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-25 P&Z Work Session Minutes'j CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 25, 1998 - 6:00 p.m. WORK SESSION AGENDA 1. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS TABLE a. Current Development Requirements Table b. Draft Development Requirements Table CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Carl Glick ***WORK SESSION*** Chairman Glick called the work session to order at approximately 6:10 p.m. Members Present: Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Teresa Werner-Quade, Ron Goecke, Barb Nord Members Absent: Karen Mahurin, Michael Christian Others Present: Administrative Assistant Jan Taylor, City Engineer Jack La Shot, City Attorney Cary Graves, Building Official Bob Springer, Councilperson Linda Swarner, Contract Secretary Barb Roper 1. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS TABLE a. Current Development Requirements Table b. Draft Development Requirements Table The packet included a copy of the current Development Requirements Table and a draft Development Requirements Table prepared by staff. La Shot reported the draft was hurriedly prepared and staff did not expect any results from this work session. This draft was basically prepared to clear up some ambiguities and fill in the blanks in the current table. La Shot indicated that some of the blanks had been filled in and some of the square footage was changed on the multi-family dwelling section on page 1, however, those changes may or may not be a good idea. La Shot also stated on the second page, which deals with. set backs, there was a problem with trying to differentiate the single and two-story structures and those with daylight basements. Bryson stated in going through the Development Requirements Table, which is page 1471 in the Code, there were notations for the side yard setbacks on RS, RS1, RS2, and RU. Administration, in their draft, had essentially taken out the notation and just required a 5 foot side yard setback for any story structure. Bryson believes a building should be held back further if it's significantly higher. Bryson continued, the problem is defining the word two-story but if a definition can be determined for two-story and greater and two-story and less Planning 8s Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 1 then the side setbacks should be evaluated separately for each side of the lot . If the 15 foot mark is two stories they have to conform to 15 feet; if the 15 foot mark is one story they can conform to the 5' requirement. Bryson indicated that he didn't have a problem with the rest of the chart. Springer stated he requested the 5' setbacks in an effort to make it as simple as possible. The 5 foot setback is required for any size structure. Discussion took place on setbacks and various situations within the City. Springer indicated this solution would eliminate the grandfathered situations. It was noted that regardless of what is said things will not go away, if it says 5 feet, they will be constructed at 4.9 and there will be errors beyond that. Goecke felt the 15 foot setback was a good idea until he considered the daylight basement situation, in that case then each side of the building should have its own setback. Goecke indicated that he can go either way, 5 foot or 15 foot. Nord felt an agreement was needed on the daylight basement interpretation before a decision is made. Nord's interpretation of a daylight basement is not 4 feet above ground, that would be a raised ranch home. Nord thought that considering both sides makes a difficult situation. La Shot asked if it would reasonable to eliminate the daylight basement designation and go with one-story or greater than. Werner-Quade asked why the daylight basement footnote was eliminated from the draft. Although the definition needs to be better clarified at least it was included in the old table. Bryson indicated that he could see a number of reasons why that footnote would cause confusion. If you are on a sloping ground who determines where the original ground is, one side may have full access to grade than the other side. Werner-Quade felt the footnote or something similar should remain in the table. Goecke thought La Shot's statement would make it fairly simple; if the main floor is at ground level it is a single story; if it's a raised ranch or a daylight basement or whatever then it should be considered more than one story. Goecke agreed with staff that the table needs to be simplified to make it easier on everybody. Goecke suggested that instead of 5 feet make it 10 feet regardless of the number of stories. Swarner indicated that she would like to see it stay at 15 feet in order to avoid going over the property line. Springer indicated that some of the lots in the RS zones are fairly small lots, some are only 80' wide and people attempt to put a 60' wide home on them. Planning 8~ Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 2 After additional discussion on the various size setbacks it was determined that staff would come up with something simple for both sides of a structure. Goecke asked Springer how difficult it would be to establish Bryson's suggestion of each side having its own setback. Springer replied in some cases it would be easy but a complicated design could cause some problems. It was also suggested that staff come up with definitions to clarify one and two story structures. Goecke suggested that staff work to develop a table that is simpler for them to use and if possible avoid footnotes as they can be interpreted differently by individual. Discussion took place on the zones with and without water and sewer and it was noted that before an issue comes before Planning and Zoning staff would have already determined what the DEC standards are. La Shot stated that staff will take the new Lands Use Table and attempt to complete the Development Requirements Table. Work session ended at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r ~ ~~ (- .' Barbara Roper, C ntract Secretary Lash Planning 8v Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 3