Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-25 P&Z Minutes CITY OF KENAI ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 25,1998 - 7:00 p.m. http://www.Kenai.net/city 1. ROLL CALL: 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 11,1998 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: ~~~ ~ h~,~~e n~ ° ~ ~s ~ ~~, y ~,y,1 r ~5 /~ - 5 ao C~~ em ~- ~ w,~¢ ~ ~ ~'~T cM- ~.~s ~ ~~, 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: a. PZ98-13-Preliminary Plat Horseshoe End at River Bend Subdivision, Garcia Addition b. PZ98-15-Preliminary Plat-Carl F. Ahlstrom Church of God Replat 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ98-07 (Continued from March 11, 1998~Variance Permit (Oversize Sign with Internal Lighting}-Lot 1, Grace Brethren & Beck Property Replat, 406 McCollum Drive, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Kenai Grace Brethren Church, Christopher A. Hay, Pastor, 406 McCollum Drive, Kenai, Alaska. b. PZ98-08 (Continued from March 11, 1998}-Variance Permit (Oversize Sign}-Lots 6, 7, 8, Block 3, Thompson Park Subdivision, 5455 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Spur Road One Stop, Reann D. Pitts, 5455 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. c. PZ98-12-Conditional Use Permit (Professional Offices~Lots 6 & 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 9520 &/or 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Hugh Chumley & Joe Chumley, P.O. Box 753, Sterling, Alaska. 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ98-14 (PZ96-38~Transfer of Conditional Use Permit, Bed & Breakfast From Olen & Andrea Moyer to Les and Susan Bradley-For the property described as Government Lots 83 and 84, 1101 Third Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. b. Review of KMC 14.20.230-Home Occupations 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: 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 14. ADJOURNMENT: Approved CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 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 Members Absent: Karen Mahurin, Michael Christian Others Present: Administrative Assistant Jan Taylor, City Engineer Jack LaShot, City Attorney Cary Graves, Building Official Bob Springer, Councilman Duane Bannock, Contract Secretary Barb Roper 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AND ASKED THAT THE ITEM PRESENTED BEFORE THE MEETING BE INCLUDED. GOECKE ALSO ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY BRYSON AGENDA WAS APPROVED WITH THE ADDITION. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -March 11, 1998 WERENER-QUADE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 1998. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE WHO ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Nord requested the third sentence of the first paragraph on page 8 be changed to read, "The shop would be run on weekends from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and possibly 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. during the weekdays." MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 1998 WERE APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE NOTED CORRECTION. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 1 t R Approved 4. PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: None 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: a. PZ98-13 -Preliminary Plat -Horseshoe End at River Bend Subdivision, Garcia Addition. GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-13. MOTION SECONDED BY NORD. Bryson stated he would abstain as he represents the surveyor on the plat. VOTE BRYSON Abstain WERNER-QUADE Yes GOECKE Yes NORD Yes MAHURIN Absent CHRISTIAN Absent CLICK Yes Motion passed unanimously. b. PZ98-15 -Preliminary Plat -Carl F. Ahlstrom Church of God Replat WERNER-QUADE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-15. MOTION SECONDED BY BRYSON. Staff had nothing additional. VOTE GOECKE Yes MAHURIN Absent BRYSON Yes CLICK Yes Motion passed unanimously. NORD Yes CHRISTIAN Absent WERNER-QUADE Yes Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 2 Approved 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. P298-099 (Continued from March 11, 1998) -Variance Permit (Oversize Sign with Iaternal Lighting) -Lot 1, Grace Brethren & Beck Property Replat, 406 McCollum Drive, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Kenai Grace Brethren Church, Christopher A. Hay, Pastor, 406 McCollum Drive, Kenai, Alaska. GOECKE MOVED TO BRING BACK P298-07. MOTION SECONDED BY NORD. Glick opened Public Hearing. Christopher Hay, 1509 Randy Way, Kenai, Alaska, spoke in favor of the variance as he did two weeks ago. Hay reiterated a few things mentioned previously and included an additional comment. The sign being asked for is a replacement of the existing sign. It is much more attractive, up to date and will enhance the church, the neighborhood, and the community. Hay reported he went out to measure the existing sign, which he thought was equivalent to the new one, but the current sign actually has an overall face, including all framing, of 70 sq. ft. The new sign is 40 sq. ft., so he is actually asking for a much smaller sign. Hay again reiterated that he was in favor of the variance. Kathleen Beck, 9200 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska spoke in favor of the sign. The existing sign, as mentioned two weeks ago, is old and needs to be replaced. If it is left the way it is it would become a danger so something needs to be done with it. The new sign, although different, will make a better presentation for our community, the visitors, and the residents. Janine Espy, 403 McCollum Drive, Kenai, Alaska spoke in favor of the variance being passed. Espy reports her home is directly across the street from the church so she drives past it several times a day. Espy thinks the new sign would be in keeping with the attractive appearance already there in the neighborhood. The church is always well kept and this is another way for them to keep the church in good condition. Espy asked that the Commission approve the sign variance. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 3 Approved Debbie Sonberg, 410 Cinderella Street, Kenai, Alaska - as a concerned neighbor to the Kenai Grace Brethren Church, Sonberg requested that the Commission approve the sign variance. Kenai Grace Brethren Church is active in the neighborhood and are concerned about their image. They have done a good job in keeping up on the building and grounds. Their current sign was beautifully constructed but is has gone through numerous face lifts and had to be reinforced several times. The current proposed sign will take up less than 60% of the square footage the current sign does and offers other desirable improvements. Internal lighting is easier on the eyes compared to the existing external lighting. The style and color will add to the aesthetic appearance. Sonberg reported a Commissioner at the last meeting suggested that this neighborhood's residents are sticklers on rules and that rules were the basis for their objection to another issue before the Commission. Sonberg believed that particular Commission member misunderstood the concern of the neighborhood's residents. The primary concern on either issue is preservation of the nature and integrity of their neighborhood. The sign does not threaten the nature or integrity of the neighborhood. If anything it will enhance the neighborhood's appearance and sense of harmony. The Kenai Grace Brethren Church is asking for an allowable variance that is not objectionable to the neighbors. It will be considerably smaller and more attractive than the existing sign. Glick closed public hearing and reminded everyone the variance request was amended at the last meeting to state the actual size is 40 sq. ft. Werner-Quade asked for clarification on the size going from 35 sq. ft. to 40 sq. ft. Glick confirmed the original measurement did not include the frame, etc. The actual size is 40 sq. ft. which includes the frame. VOTE NORD Yes MAHURIN Absent CHRISTIAN Absent BRYSON Yes WERNER-QUADE Yes GOECKE Yes GLICK Yes Motioa passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 4 Approved b. P298-08 (Continued from Marh 11, 1998) -Variance Permit (Oversize Sign) -Lots 6, T. 8, Block 3, Thompson Park Subdivision, 5455 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Spur Road One Stop, Reann D. Pitts, 5455 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. GOECKE MOVED TO BRING BACK PZ98-08. MOTION SECONDED BY NORD. No public comment. LaShot reported the second sentence of the staff report shows the zone allows for a square footage total of 84 sq. ft. That should read 81 sq. ft. in that zone. Glick asked if staff knew exactly how much variance was being asked for. Springer thought it was 212 sq. ft. total. The actual size of the Tesoro sign was discussed in detail and it was determined the actual size is 48 sq. ft. It was also noted that staff measured the sign as a rectangle and whoever manufactured the sign probably measured the sign as an emblem so there would be some difference in the square footage. Bannock asked for clarification on the total square footage including all signs. It was confirmed it was 168 sq. ft. total. Bryson stated the location is a different situation than in town. The service stations in town are in a 35 mile per hour zone and this is on the highway in a 55 mile per hour zone, they should have a slightly larger sign. Bryson will support the variance request. Glick requested the motion be amended to state the variance of 14 sq. ft. to avoid any confusion. NORD MOVED TO AMEND PZ 98-08 TO STATE THE VARIANCE IS FOR 14 SQ. FT. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE. VOTE (Amendment) BRYSON Yes GOECKE Yes MAHURIN Absent LICK WERNER-QUADE Yes NORD Yes CHRISTIAN Absent Yes Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 5 Approved Motion passed unanimously. VOTE (Main Motion) WERNER-QUADE No GOECKE yes NORD Yes MAHURIN Absent CHRISTIAN Absent BRYSON yes GLICK Yes Motion passed -one No vote. c. PZ98-12 -Conditional Use Permit (Professional Offices) -Lots 6 & 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 9520 &/or 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Hugh Chumley and Joe Chumley, P.O. Box 753, Sterling, Alaska. GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-12. MOTION SECONDED BY NORD. Glick opened the public hearing and requested that anyone wishing to speak to the item keep their comments limited to three minutes. Goecke would serve as timekeeper. Verbatim Begins Again my name is Debbie Sonberg, 410 Cinderella Street, Kenai, Alaska. Before I read my statement, I would like to have the Commission's responsibility on this matter clarified. I need to know if it's your responsibility to determined the appropriateness of this application as it relates to established City of Kenai Zoning Code and City of Kenai Municipal Plan? Or do you have the freedom to vote according to personal preference or political platforms, even if it goes against the Code and the Plan? Are you addressing this issue from the perspective of the Codes and Plan or is it from another perspective? Glick: Well, we have to vote based on our interpretation of the Code. Maybe we interpret it different that you do or somebody else does, or different Commissioners could interpret it different. Sonberg: Okay, as long you're going by the Code and interpreting, that's fine with me. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 6 Approved Glick: Okay. Sonberg: Okay Sonberg: Okay, my understanding is that public hearing is necessary prior to approving a qualifying application, that is an application that meets the criteria established in the Code and the Plan. If an application does not meet the criteria it should be denied regardless of public comment. This application does not even meet the criteria necessary to be considered for approval. I can see no clear difference between the appeal package presented to the Council Board of Adjustment and this new application present tonight before this Commission. The City council Board of Adjustment in Case No. BA-98-1, the appeal of Hugh Chumley and Joe Chumley, stated that we... stated, and I quote from the findings, " we cannot find that the uses in the conditional use permit application are similar to principal uses permitted in the zone", and another quote, "we cannot find that the development is consistent with the intent of Rural Residential 1 ". The Board of Adjustment has already ruled that this requested. land use does not meet the qualifications necessary to be ~~ granted a limited use permit. I am opposed to commercial development in residential neighborhoods. Joe and Chew... Joe and Hugh Chumley are again requesting a land use change from residential to commercial. It doesn't matter whether you call it rezoning or a limited land use permit, one end result remains the same -commercial development in residential neighborhoods. Arguments against commercial uses in this neighborhood have been heard by this Commission and by the City Council on at least three previous occasions. I request that these documents and arguments be added to tonight's discussions. They show a consistency of intent by this neighborhood to maintain the nature and integrity of our neighborhood. They will also show that this neighborhood has been pro- active and consistent in the planning and development of this neighborhood for over 13 years. With the initial 1985 documents requesting that this area be rezoned to Rural Residential 1, this neighborhood made it clear that we were rezoning so that we could have a say in future development of our Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 7 Approved neighborhood. Glick: Are you about to wrap it up Mam? Sonberg: Am I over three minutes already? Glick: Yes Sonberg: I'm close. Glick: Okay. Sonberg: I didn't think I'd take that long to read a page and a half. We do not want commercial development in our neighborhood. This desire was instrumental in the initial rezoning in 1985, and has been made clear over and over at each Commission or Council meeting regarding the development of this neighborhood. Duane Bannock stated that Mr. Craycroft was a visionary in commercial development. If commercial development were to continue as I understood his division... his vision to be described, in years to come '~ Kenai would in fact end up running neighborhoods out of existing areas, just as Ron Moore, who spoke to the Council on behalf of the Chumley's described in downtown and mid-town Anchorage. We neighbors were visionaries of neighborhood preservation and took steps necessary to maintain the nature and integrity of our neighborhood back in 1985. We believe the existing City of Kenai Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan support the preservation of our neighborhoods. I believe that in order for the Commission to uphold the City of Kenai Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, even in the absence of opposing arguments, the Commission would have to deny this application for a limited commercial use permit. Again, we have made our intents and our arguments clear over and over again. Please consider the consistency with which we have spoken throughout the year. Glick: Anybody else wishing to speak to this item? Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 8 J Approved My name is Joan Buzzell, I live at 1103 Aliak, Kenai, Alaska and I've been in that neighborhood for 19 years. The City was aware in 1985 that our petition for water and sewer was contingent on the validity of a rezoning petition our RR-1. If the City can break their agreement with us in this matter, by granting a Conditional use Permit to Mr. Chumley, then are we entitled to have our assessment money refunded? If the City can break agreements with residents who have done a great deal of work to obtain a change in zoning, going by the City's rules, because a corporation with more clout that we have applies pressure, what message is this sending to those of us who play by the rules? Please refer to the memorandum sent to the City by Colleen Ward, dated March 16, 1998 for more reasons for my objections to granting this petition. Thank you. Glick: Thank you. My name is Hugh Chumley, address P.O. Box 1371, Sterling, Alaska. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gen... Gentlemen of the Commission, I thank you once again tonight for listening to us again. I'm not here to tell you your job, I know that you know that so I don't need to try to tell you. I only want to present a few of the facts as we see them involved. As far as speaking to following the course we feel we followed the course. We followed the guidelines laid out by the City. Ah, the first thing we did was come in here and applied for a rezone on the whole four acres. That was a mistake and we moved on. The next thing we did was applied for Conditional Use Permit with neighborhood input. We moved on. The next thing, the only other thing that we thought we had before us, was we appealed the decision of this Council here, this body, with modifications addressing the concerns presented by the public. And now, here we are again tonight with the same amended request presented to you folks. Our personal plans for development of that property we, as I stated, we started off and was going to develop the whole four acres, that was a mistake. The next thing we did is we drafted a subdivision trying to come in without any driveways on Cinderella which was a big concern. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 9 `~ Approved That was not cost effective. The next thing we did was develop the current subdivision that is there now and then come to this body and request only two lots, only 40,000 sq. ft. approximately, or 50,000 out of the whole four plus acres. We did this as a business concern but.... wit...at the same time we had the concerns of the neighborhood in mind. We met kinda unofficially with some of them, we listened to their concerns and we tried to address them. According to the way the City Code or the way that the ah..... the way I understand it, there could be 53 home use businesses in this neighborhood without any input from the City. That is not conceivable but it is possible the way it operates now. On the same piece of property, and I'll try to hurry because I know I only have three minutes, on this same piece of property, the four acres that we're talking about tonight, only two lots of, according to the current City Code, we could put in 21 family dwellings there. Seven tri- plexes could be 21 families, that's not the best for the neighborhood. That's not what we wish to do. However, as a business, we... we have to be cost effective with our business dealings and to put in five, or seven residential dwellings there is not going get that. One of the strong dissidents, or one of the strong people ah... opposing this offered to buy our property. She said we'd give you what we.... what ~ ~ you get for it. I didn't think that was too bad ah... ideal under one condition, that those opposed would sell us their property for what they have it in. But they didn't want to do that and I don't blame them. We have addressed all... all previous concerns. We identified the business use, the schools have withdrawn their concerns, there is no access on Cinderella, it's been proven or been stated by professionals that there is no devalue of property upon the current development plan. The City Attorney said there was no deal in 1985. We've addressed the buffer zone and also the economic situation where there's other vacancies in, have been pointed out that that not be of concern. The public, the neighbors has had a chance to have input into the development of this property. If this Conditional Use Permit is died tonight... is denied tonight, the other options we as developers have to us will not leave the privilege for the neighbors. I want to thank you once again for your consideration and your time that all of you had put in on this project. Thank you. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 10 ~ Approved Glick: Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the public wishing to speak to this item? Vesta Leigh, I live in that area. (P.O. Box 905, Kenai, Alaska) First of all, reference that Mr. Chumley said, I have an objection with his permit. It says therein, he has initialed it, the third item down, please submit plans showing the location of all existing buildings, alterations, elevations, there is no place where it says how high he expects his buildings to go, he could put up under the professional 10-story building as far as that goes, there is no... nothing that says there. Okay, my comments tonight are, as I said several years ago, and I said in January and as I said in February this year, we shouldn't have to be here again. One of the first things I would like to ask for is a continuance of this ah.... a continuance for this matter. As previously predicted, although I know you guys are stuck under a certain time constraint for meetings... that... that ah.... many of the interested parties, property owners are gone due to spring break. ~ I'd like to state again that we feel we have a contract with the City ~ regardless of what... ah... your City Attorney has said and I just paid mine off last fall and here comes an applicant again asking the City to breach a contract it made with me and other property owners. Charlie Brown was the City official for many years. I would like to read a paragraph from his memo of March 25, 1985 from Charlie Brown to the City Council. Part of it...and... this is just a part... says, "in addition is with the first petition we received February 5, 1985 it is contingent upon the validity of a rezoning petition." Next paragraph, last sentence... "the petition appears to be valid pending the validity of the rezoning petition. So regardless of whether Mr. Graves agrees or not, the City administration at that time was aware of what the deal was and we still consider it that. It seems increasingly likely that this will eventually be decided by an Alaska judicial system. No matter what the commercial venture is proposed, that's a very dangerous section of highway. I live there, I have to come out there. I know that and a business drive in exit between the exit and egress of the high school is a potential tragedy. Furthermore, if the Planning and Zoning approves this request for a Conditional Use Permit against the express wishes, needs, guarantees of the citizens of that area it would Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 11 Approved indeed be a simple chore in the future to yet have another Conditional Use Permit to build a fast foods outlet, multi-pump station, or whatever. Or anything that would suck the kids from across the street and be lucrative to the owners. The Kenai Comprehensive Plan says in part, "protect established residential neighborhoods from intrusion by incompatible land uses". Granting this permit would fly in the face of that comprehensive plan. The plan also states "land use plan... is designed to respond to development trends, natural site characteristics and the community's attitudes towards future growth and it becomes apparent that the City, by applying this Conditional Use Permit could then later call it a trend and other Conditional Use Permits would then happen allowing anything one commercial applicant wants anywhere in the City. Nearing conclusion I'd like to say that granting this applications request for the Conditional Use Permit would violate 14.20.080 of the Municipal Code which states, "the RR zone is intended to provide for low density residential development in outlaying rural areas in a form which creates a stable and attractive residential environment." And later on the same chapter... "to prohibit uses which would violate the residential ~) character.." I submit that granting this Conditional Use Permit would in fact violate the City's own Ordinances. The last argument I would like to bring forth is that no one person should be allowed to make a substantial profit of the backs of others. This pur... proposal would do just that. It would in fact make the present owner deniably wealth...undeniably wealthier by changing the use from residential to commercial. The estimate has been that he would realize tens of thousands of dollars in profits from this maneuver and it is said that this same tactic is being used in other bodies of authority ah... with other properties in this State. And I should like to conclude with this statement. Unlike other people who have opposed this Conditional Use Permit, I'm not subject to pointed, or vague, threats of losing my job or livelihood if I continue to oppose this Conditional Use Permit and I shall continue to oppose it and that will also include writing to any future prospects or... or suspected prospects of that of a commercial entity to tell them how their neighbors feel. Thank you. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 12 Approved Glick: Anyone else wishing to speak to this item? Mark 3chrag, 312 Princess, Kenai, Alaska - I just, aside from my speech, I saw this...it's... their talking about opposed, unopposed, they have not cheap.... I don't know quite....I don't quite trust the figuring here because they show all these seller figures for these ah... 4-plexes that are there. I know that several of those are empty, so if you're talking about the owner of those being non-opposed, that's one thing, but I know that they're not.... lot of those are empty, right now, so... anyway... (not legible} I'm here to ask you to do the right thing tonight because it feels like... to me the right thing in this case is not put money in a couple pockets. The right thing is honor the previous, good faith agreement and whether that's binding or not, I guess it'll have to be determined yet or not, but it was a good faith agreement entered into by this neighborhood and it was fulfilled by this neighborhood. And the right thing also honors the wishes of the neighborhood. Whether or not it's a majority, there again, I can see they can fight over that, but there are a lot of people here expressing their...their wishes. The neighborhood entered the agreement ~ not just in words but in deed. They took money out of their pockets to back up their wishes. If any of you are concerned about integrity and in government, I guess I want to point that you now are a governing body and that I ask that you do not set aside the wishes of this neighborhood, but.... but that you ah.... honor wishes of this neighborhood. And I also ask you to consider whether this City would have it's all American designation if at the time of the designation it was ruled by a mind-set that puts commercial development above all else. We need development but it must be balanced with other quality of life issues. We can have healthy development without looking like a Wasilla. One of the reasons I came to... to Kenai... because I lived in Soldotna my first couple of years in this area, was because of the green space... the feeling of town that was over here and I know a lot people, people that I know myself, bemoan the fact that it is kind of, it moved out a little bit already and I would ah... prefer to see things done to try and encourage that... that sense of town... Thank you. My name is Janine Espy, I live at 403 McCollum Drive, Kenai, Alaska, I've spoke on this in the past and I've still stand that same. I would ask that you would not permit the passing of this Conditional Use Permit. I do not believe that it fits into the Kenai's Comprehensive Plan. It does... Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 13 } Approved is not similar in any way to the principal uses permitted in the zone, currently, and it is not in harmony with the intent of the zone as it is now and we would like to see it remain that way. We... I have always felt the same way, I do not want it to be rezoned for any purpose other than residential 1 and I know that um..... there's been efforts made to... to make the neighborhood happy with changing some of the way that is been presented but it remains the same that we want our neighborhood to remain residential one without the Conditional Use Permit being passed. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Ralph E. Ash and I reside at my present address for the past fifteen years. My residence is directly across from the proposed project. We, the residents of this area, are adamant about the proposal of changing a rural character of the area. This is the main reason we have resided here for so many years. Changing the classification of the area or granting the Conditional Use Permit will totally change the environment of the area. We are totally against this procedure and do not want this change to occur. We do not believe there is a demand or a need for any business ventures in this area, ~ especially directly across a five lane highway from the Kenai High ~ School. It is also close to the entrance and exit of the Kenai Middle School. Adding traffic congestion to a main arterial highway is not good planning and zoning. It will only contribute to the accident potential of the area. The Comprehensive Plan discourages commercial rezone in neighborhoods which are adversely impacted. We firmly oppose a changing from rural to general commercial. The same applies to the granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Multi-office facilities will definitely adversely affect the present rural residential environment of the area. It will bring the usual problems associated with these facilities. Who is going to be responsible for these problems. Granting this permit is in direct violation of the City of Kenai's zoning code. It states, "uses must be similar to principal uses permitted in the zone and uses must be in harmony with the intent of the zone." The specific intent in establishing the zone is to inhibit uses which would violate the residential character of the environment. We recommend this request be refused. Thank you. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 14 Approved Hello my name is Karen Ruebsemen and I live at 307 Cinderella Street, Kenai, Alaska. I'rn opposed to any commercial building in um... the area that I live in. I feel it is a detriment to our residential area for these reasons, number one, it's a safety issue. A vacated building at night poses a problem to my home which is about two blocks from this building. I think vandalism is on the rise in the Peninsula. I don't want it going into the residential area. We don't need a business in that area. Businesses invite patrons with a different attitude. I have a completely different attitude when I go into a business area than when I go into a residential area. I have a different attitude when I'm driving. When I park the car. When I'm getting out of the car I'm thinking of the business that I have at hand, I'm not considering the residential area of kids and families. I feel it serves no purpose to be put there. I would not make the assumption that the school district because they are not present are in support of a business across the street from their schools. I would like to apologize to Mr. Goecke. At one point in our first meeting I spoke um... and then you had talked about how businesses and schools should have a relationship, that it's important for education to participate in business, with business concepts being implemented ~ inside the school and I did not laugh, I....I wou... I did not laugh at that but um... but I was.... I felt like I was part of the group that um... that was laughing and I'm... I don't sup... you know, I don't feel that way. I definitely think that business principles and um... a relationship between schools and businesses is very important, I just don't feel that it's a physical relationship. Okay, I just wanted to make that clear and I know you spoke at the City Council meeting also on that and um... I had to leave in the middle of what you were saying and so I wanted to make sure that I made that clear. Ah... I think that were been here enough and I think that you~e heard enough from the public on this. Ah.... I... I just hope that you take those concerns um... when you chose to vote for this. Glick: Yes, Teresa? Werner-Quade: Mrs. Ruebsemen, may I ask you, how many times have you spoke to the City Council or Planning and Zoning regarding this issue? Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 15 j Approved Ruebsemen: I believe one time last year and then three times, this is my third time this year, around this issue. Glick: Anybody else in the public wishing to speak to this item? My name is Glenn McCollum, 3r. and I live at 399 McCollum Drive, Kenai, Alaska. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff, I request that...well, I guess we are fully seated... but I did prepare this in case, I had hear... I request that if the Commission isn't fully represented or seated tonight, March the 25th, 1998, we be granted a postponement until the next Commission meeting. This is a very important decision and should be only made when all members were present. I'm asking you not to propose or... not to approve this PZ98-012, Conditional Land Use Permit presented by Mr. Chumley of Raven Contractors or Chumley, Inc. for several reasons: ~ Granting of this permit would be contrary to the Kenai Zoning Codes, ~ 14.20.150 which you.... we keep saying this and saying this all the time, which outlines conditional use...uses as similar in principal to uses permitted in zone rural residential one or uses must be in harmony with the intent of the intent of the zone. Mr. Chumley's permit does not fit either of these requirements. I thought that CUP, Conditional Use Permit. Professional Offices are outlined commercial in the Land Use Table and do not fit the category of churches, gardening, agriculture or off street parking. We cannot believe professional offices adhere to the intent of the zone as stated in Kenai's Zoning Code 14.20.080 which states, "rural residential and rural residential 1 do providing for low density residential development, which is believed...we believe is the intent of the zoning. We also believe as stated in the Board of Adjustment Case BA-98-1, that the residents who petitioned the City in 1985 was to keep out our neighbors, MAPS, rural residential # 1. There isn't any need for private offices in this area. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 16 ~) Approved The Kenai Comprehensive Plan says the City of Kenai will support development of neighborhoods serving commercial uses such as Laundromats, grocery stores in commercial zones. The Commission's decision may be based on public input. A determination if proposed use is similar to the principal uses in the zone or the use would be in harmony with the intent of the rural residential # 1 if the use would provide a service to the neighborhood. And for these reasons, we cannot find that the development is consistent with the intent of the rural residential # 1 zoning. Thank you. Glick: Anyone else in the public wishing to speak to this item. Last chance. Bannock: Mr. Chairman? Glick: Mr. Bannock? Bannock: With the permission of the Chair and permission of the um.. ` Committee, I would request permission to step down to address the ~ committee. Glick: I don't see that as a problem since you are not an official Commissioner. Nord: Mr. Chairman? Glick: Yes Nord: Before he does that I would just like to make the statement that Mr. Chumley had come into my office today, Joe Chumley had come into my office today to see another colleague of mine and him and I did discuss certain things, we did not discuss this process tonight, ah... I had informed him that I could not talk about particular issues that are being discussed here tonight, though we did discuss other properties of his. Glick: Okay. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 17 ~) Approved Bannock: Thank you, my name is Duane Bannock, I reside at 1105 First Street, Kenai, Alaska. Um, first I would like to ask the Commission if they had all received a copy of the Board of Adjustment findings (it was confirmed all Commissioners did). I would like to speak to that just very briefly because I signed off on that and I would like to explain a couple of different items in there. Um... for starters the Council chose not to hear the amended appeal, um... at our Board of Adjustment hearing. We heard the exact same items that this Commission turned down on approximately 6 weeks ago. We chose not... we saw the information with regards to professional offices, we chose not to allow the appeal to be amended so what was turned down by Council was exactly what was turned down at this very same body. I know there was a little bit of question when I signed on to the affirmative of this because as a matter of fact I... I was... I am supportive of this project and was in the past as well. There were two very main reasons, actually three. When our Attorney, Mr. Graves called me, it was evident the appeal was going to fail based on the fact there are already four people that had signed up against it. There were two very long range effects though in our appeal that I chose to take the 1 affirmative issue on. We heard about both of those tonight. Um...one of them was a deal with the City of Kenai in regarding the 25% assessment. That was addressed on page 3 of the appeal where the City Council says, we don't see it that way and there was not a deal, and that was not something that was.... that was brokered there. The way this Councilman sees it, that neighborhood paid 25% assessment as opposed to paying a 100% assessment. Secondly, the Council addressed the issue of vacancies and should vacancies be considered as to whether or not another Conditional Use Permit or any type of action should be taken. That was rejected on page 6 of that... of the exact same thing. Those are the reasons why Councilman Bannock signed on the affirmative for that. As far as the intent of rural residential 1, it is in our... it's in our paperwork tonight, rural residential zone is to provide for low density, residential development in a way that creates a stable and attractive residential environment and to preserve the rural and open quality of the environment. I dare say that that particular piece does not meet RR-1 specifications, especially when you consider in 1985 when it was zoned Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 18 Approved RR-1 there were 4-plexes on there which are specifically not allowed in RR-1 zones. Also, in the fall of 1997, through a work session with Planning and Zoning and the City Council, this Council and this Commission adopted a new set of Land Use Tables which do allow for a Conditional Use Permit when acts in this particular zone when access by the Kenai Spur Highway. Thank you very much for your time. Glick: Thank you. At this time we will bring it back to the Commissioner's for discussion. Ah...staff have any comments on this before we begin our discussion? LaShot: I don't think we have anything additional. Werner-Quade: Um...I have this concern, we heard from four people ah... in the audience ah.... who were opposed to permit um... asked for voice a concern about some sort of ah....continuance on this particular um....hearing. Ah... now we also have a letter from Ms. Colleen Ward who was the unofficial, official spokesperson for this group. We all ~ heard from her before and it's nice to see a letter from her in the packet 1 also. I'm not sure about point of order but ah... I would like to make a motion for a continuance on this um.... issue because a few people are absent due to spring vacation and we have a few people absent on our own Board as well and ah.... to use Ms. Mahurin's words from the last meeting when she asked for a continuance on the sign Ordinance, which I don't feel is anywhere near a hurricane as this issue, ah... she says in fairness to the applicant they should have the benefit of a full Commission to have a more democratic process. Now some of these people in the audience have spoke to this issue up to five times now, either to Planning and Zoning or to Council, or to both. Um... you know, maybe, maybe some felt like they haven't been heard at all, but um... I think that some of these residents are willing to come to us on five different occasions to speak to this issue in the same fashion every time, then maybe we could hear it one more time. In that light I am moving for a continuance of this PZ98-12. WERNER-QUADE MOVED TO CONTINUE PZ98-12. MOTION SECONDED BY NORD. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 19 Approved Glick: Now, you are moving for a continuance, are you also asking to have us, another public hearing or just continue the.... I mean the public hearing has been closed. Werner-Quade: Right, I'm asking to continue this hearing to the next meeting when a few more of our Commission members will be present and also ah.... Bryson: Point of Order, this is essentially a postponing or tabling motion which is not debatable. Glick: Okay. VOTE: (Continuance) GOECKE No MAHURIN Absent BRYSON No GLICK No NORD Yes CHRISTIAN Absent WERNER-QUADE; Yes Glick: Motion failed. We shall continue. Okay, anymore discussion. Glick: I have a few comments so I'd like to turn the gavel over to Mr. Bryson. Bryson: Proceed. Glick: There were a couple of things said that weren't quite correct. The building height, whether it was a professional building or not, there is a limit on how high the building could be. Another thing, we build a highway, the State builds a highway through the City to handle more traffic, well they put, they lowered the speed zones since they put a four lane highway in there with a turn, to be able to handle more traffic. There's a possibility that the new Challenger Site Center is going to be basically right across from that, the two sites that are being looked at are. Ah...the other thing is people are not building residents along main highways. You can go back and look at the building permits issued in the City and you will find very, very few, if any, in the last ten years, issued directly on the Spur Highway. Pieces of property on the Spur Highway are not desirable to build a house on and at the same time, Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 20 Approved people don't want to necessarily live behind a 7-11, but some businesses, as I see it, being allowed by our Code, are compatible with residents who would live adjoined to or behind. That's all I have to say. Bryson: I'll turn the gavel back to Glick. Werner-Quade: I do have a comment, um...in the conclusion of staff says that the Commission's decision should be based on public input. Now, some public input that we heard comes from Mr. Chumley in the form of home occupation permits being somehow equal to a Conditional Use Permit for a business and my comment to that is build a house, come to us and ask for a home occupation permit. These are the kinds of parallels that you insist on making to us. That's it. Glick: Ms. Nord. Nord: My only comment was that in the fall of 97 we did go ahead and look at the Land Use Table and for some reason we put in the RR-1 a footnote that states that the property in order to issue a Conditional Use Permit, that the property must have egress and ingress through the Kenai Spur Highway and when I look at the zoning map up there I find ~ that only a certain area where that would possibly could even affect and that's in this particular area. So there was some sort of reasoning behind the City Council and this body that we did that and my feeling is that probably the reason that we did that was that we were looking at the future, looking at how the growth was going in the City of Kenai and looking at that particular area seeing the growth going out in that area. Ah... I feel that the highest and best use of that property is for something such as this, so, therefore, I'm going to be voting in favor of this. Glick: Okay, anymore discussion? Yes, Mr. Bannock Bannock: Mr. Chairman, if I could just expound on that particular issue in that why did the Council do that and I feel comfortable in speaking for the entire Council is that in an RR-1 zone we had no intention nor do we have any intention of allowing Conditional Use Occupations... Conditional Use Permits in an area, for instance, on the inside of a subdivision or in the back side of a subdivision that would require major traffic through that particular subdivision. I parti... I remember the night we were hung up on that particular point and it was ah.... Mrs. Kebschull that came up with that particular suggestion that said if that's Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 21 } Approved what your concern is then make a footnote, make an asterisk to it that says the only way that a Conditional Use Permit can be considered for such an item as this is to make it with access to or from the Kenai Spur Highway, and I... I think that goes a long ways to what the future intent is. We're not interested in taking and bringing hoards of traffic through any particular subdivision but rather making it on the front side, case in point, the Kenai Spur Highway. Glick: Okay, any other discussion? Phil? Bryson: Ah...make a statement... Ah... Ah... Mr. Barron Butler ah... came into my office several days before the meeting ahhh... we... we discussed the ah... results of the ah... Council action and the prior application, we did not address the proposal. Glick: Okay. VOTE: (Main Motion) NORD Yes CHRISTIAN Absent ~ WERNER-QUADE: No ~ GLICK Yes MAHURIN Absent BRYSON Yes GOECKE Yes Motion passed. Glick: I do thank you for all your input. Mr. Bryson? Bryson: Ah... I feel it is probably appropriate to assemble ah... findings of fact on this to support the decision. Glick: Okay Bryson: I don't necessarily have anything ah... at this time but I think it appropriate for the ah... situation. Glick: Okay, the secretary will work with the staff to... come up with the findings of fact or how do you want to proceed? Do you think it's necessary, Cary, to have a finding of fact? Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 22 } Approved Graves: I don't think it would hurt. I... I don't think it's going out on a limb by saying this case will go back up to the Board of Adjustment, it would have no matter how the vote turned out, so, I don't think it will hurt to have some findings of fact for the Board of Adjustment to review. Although, they will review it essentially all over again because of the No vote, but um... that's why the Board of Adjustment issues findings of fact to set out the rationale on their decision. Glick: So, while you're saying it wouldn't hurt we don't have to, er.... Graves: Traditionally you haven't but the staff will be glad to work with ah... the Chair and do findings of fact if the Chair wishes. Glick: Okay, Mr. Bryson... Bryson: I ah... feel like it's appropriate, yes. Glick: How do the rest of the Commissioners feel? Are you comfortable with it (question to Goecke. Goecke confirmed he was comfortable with it). Okay, I~1 get with you after the meeting to set up a time or ~ something. Okay, moving along, the next item is New Business, ah... Verbatim Ends 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ98-14 (PZ96-38j -Transfer of Conditional Use Permit, Bed & Breakfast -From Olen 8~ Andrea Moyer to Les and Susan Bradley - For the property described as Government Lots 83 and 84, 1101 Third Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. Nord abstained from voting on PZ98-14 as she sold the property to the applicants and also informed them how to handle the situation. Nord thought she could not be unbiased in the decision. GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-14. MOTION SECONDED BY BRYSON. Bryson stated the application is for the transfer of a bed and breakfast component of the original application. The other portions requested were not approved. Bryson continued, the reason he mentioned this is Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 23 \} Approved because it was addressed in one of the original staff recommendations. When asked if an amendment was appropriate Bryson replied, that it's clear enough when taking the cover sheet as the action that is being requested, the other sheet was dated 1996 and they would have to refer to the approval. Staff had nothing additional. VOTE BRY30N Yes GOECKE Yes MAHURIN Absent GLICK Yes Motion passed unanimously. WERNER-QUADS Yes NORD Abstain CHRISTIAN Absent b. Revew of KMC 14.20.230 -Home Occupations Glick explained that the Commission had to determine whether or not they want Mr. Graves to go forward with making some changes to the ~ Home Occupation section. Graves indicated a memo was included in ~ the packet. Graves stated that when he began looking at it he thought the answer was yes, a permit was required but the more he got into it the more he realized perhaps they did not for the reasons contained in the Code. It may well be that this Commission and Council would want those businesses to get a permit. There are other municipalities that require home occupations to get a permit, so it's not unknown that that happens. Also, there is a general housekeeping issue with a lot of the listed home occupations such as millenary workers, beauty shops, major computer and home offices. There may be some changes that could be made in these areas. Graves also stated that he would be glad to make whatever changes the Commission feels is necessary. Goecke pointed out that millenary work is sewing and there is probably more women in this town doing alterations and sewing for other people than what the City knows about. Goecke didn't think this item should be eliminated if everything is to be kept straight and above board. It was noted the home occupation permits have been issued in the past for that particular purpose. Goecke believes that the permit process should stay in place as it is because if the process was deleted now it would serve as Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 24 ~) Approved a great disservice to former applicants, especially those applicants that were turned down. Goecke reiterated that he would like to see the process stay in place. If a business is being operated from the home then a home occupation permit needs to be applied for whether it costs anything or not. Administration needs to know when a business is being run out of a home. Bryson stated this is a case of what goes around, comes around. In the distant past and in the early stages of his representation on the Planning Commission the interpretation was that there was no formal application for home occupations. Bryson wasn't sure if there were any modifications in the ordinance but there was in the interpretation which evolved into a full blown application process. Bryson expressed desire to have Mr. Grave propose something and wouldn't have any particular problem with eliminating home occupation applications. Nord felt that it would be unfair to people that have applied so the City should continue with the home occupation permit process. Nord continued, she would like to see the definitions less stringent as far as a permit process goes, especially when looking at home occupations that involves computers and doesn't generate any traffic in the area. i Werner-Quade stated she personally thought it is a good idea to review it in order to know what is going on in town. Bryson stated his only other comment is that home occupations need to pay the taxes and obtain other licenses if needed, primarily sales taxes. Graves stated there was one other issue, with staff issuing permits in some cases and Planning and Zoning Commission in other cases. Graves asked if it should be drafted so all permit requests come before Planning and Zoning. The general consensus is the requests will come before Planning and Zoning. Graves noted this practice would be good for sales tax purposes and he should have a draft available at the next meeting. 8. OLD BUSINESS: -None 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: Glick asked staff if there was any follow-up to the Beaver Loop situation where Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 25 j Approved there was allegedly businesses being operated that should not have been. LaShot replied that staff had no reports at this time but should by the next meeting. 10. REPORTS: c. City Council: Bannock made the following report from the Council Agenda of March 18, 1998: Item C-2 is the rent payment for the animal control shelter. The amount is for seven months. The gift shop at the Airport has a new operator. He is very excited about being there to sell his native arts and crafts and it should be a tremendous success. Item H-6 the Change Order for $147,000 to the Alaska Regional Fire Training Center. $120,000 of that was for a change the City requested for an on-site well. i The dates for the budget work session were noted. April 8 will be held at the Senior Center beginning at 7:00 p.m. April 28 and May 11 will be held in Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Bannock encouraged Planning and Zoning Commissioners to attend. Item H-9 came directly from the Planning and Zoning minutes which says, "Discussion -Ordinance for Moratorium /Reapplying for Conditional Use Permit After Denial." Bannock stated this came directly out of the Chumley issue discussed earlier. Bookey brought this as a discussion item. Bannock felt this is an incredibly dangerous thing to get into because of the varying Conditional Use Permits offered. The City has on the book a law that says if a rezone is applied for and the rezone is turned down you may not apply for a rezone for a period of 9 months. Bannock reported that he and Mr. Smalley were under the impression that you could not apply for Conditional Use Permit of the same thing for that same period, which is inaccurate. However, Bannock cautioned the Council on enacting an ordinance that would eliminate applying for a Conditional Use Permit for any particular time on any particular piece of ground because it is entirely possible that a person could apply for a Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 26 \j Approved Conditional Use Permit at one end of the spectrum and be denied then go all the way to the other end of the spectrum for something completely different and be handcuffed to a rule that states because you were turned down for one business you can't have another. Administration is going to bring something to Council. Bannock indicated that he asked that it come before Planning and Zoning first but the request was not taken kindly. Graves indicated the proposal he intends to send to Council is one which would put a moratorium on a substantially similar issue to avoid a situation where you apply for a hotel and get denied then you want a 7- 11, that would be different enough to where you can reapply within the moratorium. Bannock stated depending on how Council viewed it, that has a lot to do with it, for instance, as mentioned earlier, the Council determined that they chose not to hear the second version, the version approved tonight, of the Chumley appeal. Council felt they were different enough issues that they chose to turn down the original appeal in consistency with what Planning and Zoning turned down. Bannock stated he didn't think this was such a bad idea as long as it is crystal clear that just because a particular piece of ground and a particular applicant had been denied a Conditional Use Permit, that doesn't ~ eliminate them for the rest of the year. Bannock continued, he and Mr. Smalley would make sure Planning and Zoning is kept is posted as to what happens with this issue. There is some work going on in the Airport, both Hertz and Budget Car Rental had leased the vacant spaces adjacent to their existing spaces. b. Borough Planning: Bryson reported a meeting was held on March 23, 1998. The agenda is included in the packet and the following report made: The consent agenda was approved. Item E-1 an ordinance proposed to amend classification of Borough land was approved. This item was carried forward from last year. Item F-1 was a vacation of a turn around easement and it was approved. Item F-2 -the Borough had received six lots in North Kenai which were Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 27 Approved being leased and used through the State process, leased by Jess Wade as part of his business. The lots were reclassified as preferred contractors parcels. The next item is an ordinance proposing and authorizing the negotiated purchase of the six parcels at fair market value was recommended to be approved. Item F-4, reclassification of a ten acre parcel of Borough land in the Cooper Landing area. This is the same area where a previous application to reclassify this parcel was turned down at the Borough Planning Commission level then it was appealed to the Borough Assembly and was approved. There is a group in Cooper Landing petitioning to classify the parcel back to preservation as it is a viewing area for goats and sheep. The item has been postponed until May. Items F-5 through F-7 were all recommended for approval. Items G- l , H-1 and H-2 were approved. Item J, Kenai River activities, what is popularly known as the Funny River Bridge Crossing project was at the Borough Planning Commission ~ for a coastal zone review comments. The Administration proposed and ~ the Planning Commission concurred that the design request proceed to have a more concrete impact on the effects of the bridge cited at that proposed location. c. Administration: LaShot reported that the Forest Drive meeting with the State will be held on March 26, 1998. This meeting was delayed a few times. There will be a couple more sign variance requests before the Commission at the next meeting. The Beaver Loop business issue will be looked into. Bryson asked if staff made a report on the uniform sign ordinance information that was included in the last meeting packet. Nord clarified the information was provided at her request. Nord asked if the people who applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the Bargain Barn on Beaver Loop had appealed the Commission's Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 28 Approved decision. Graves replied that as of this time they have not, however, he did discuss the appellant procedure with the applicant. She indicated at that time that she would appeal but nothing has come through yet. 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: Leo Oberts, Chinook Court, Kenai, Alaska attended the meeting to inform the Commission that he is preparing his river front properties for sale. Oberts showed Commissioners photos of the lots that have lost frontage due to boat wakes. Oberts explained that he will be coming before the Commission in the future regarding this issue. 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: -None 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS: Commissioner Nord pointed out the reason she asked staff about the appeal is because she was having some problems with the decision. Not the decision that she said No because she would say No again based on what she knew. After that meeting she re-read the Planning Commission handbook and it says, if only a quorum is present, any one member could prevent matters before the ~ Commission from being adopted. This is because it takes a majority of the full membership, not a majority of the quorum. Councilman Bannock stated there are a few safeguards the City has in place and it requires four positive votes to pass an ordinance, not necessarily a majority of the four, but rather four positive votes. Bannock thought that sets it at ease a little in that if there was only four people who wanted to support something and they were the only four that were there, you had three people that weren't there that wanted to oppose it, your vote would still pass. That's a real important thing to note as we go down a very dangerous path if issues are put off based on attendance. The question is whether or not there is a quorum or whether there is enough members to vote. The key thing here is attendance and Council certainly preaches about attendance. Bannock urged caution in postponing based on attendance. Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 29 Approved 14. ADJOURNMENT: GOECKE MOVED TO ADJOURN. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Roper, Contract ecretary Planning & Zoning Commission March 25, 1998 Page 30