Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-22 P&Z MinutesCITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION } AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Apri122,1998 - 7:00 p.m. http://www.Kenai.net/city 1. ROLL CALL: 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Apri18,1998 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ98-17-Encroachment Permit for Side Yard Setbacks-Lot 1, Beaver Creek Estates (925 Ames Street), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Bill Bryant, 925 Ames Street, Kenai, Alaska. 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. Ordinance 1779-98-Amending KMC 14.20.150 to prevent the same or substantially similar conditional use permit applications from being considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission more than once in any nine month period. 8. OLD BUSINESS: a. PZ98-18-Amending KMC 14.20.230 to Require Permits for Home Occupations 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: a. Lot 12, Block 3, VIP Ranch Estates 10. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. Planning Commissioner's Corner - "Giving Due Process" b. KPB Administrative Approval Buffalo Run S/D Phase 1 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 14. ADJOURNMENT: Approved CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 22, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Chairmaa: 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, Karen Mahurin (arrived at 7:02 p.m.) Others Present: Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull, Contract Secretary Barb Roper 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA ADDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BEFORE THE MEETING AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN. Note: the information provided before the meeting was the KPB Notice of Public Hearing -Petition to Vacate a Section Line Easement and a Road and Utility Easement. AGENDA WAS APPROVED WITH THE ADDITION. Mahurin arrived at 7:02 p.m. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -April 8, 1998 CHRISTIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 1998 AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY MAHURIN. Nord requested the following paragraph be added after the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 4. "That would eliminate 16 feet and it would put it very close to the variance given two weeks ago. The applicant is asking for 34 feet and 16 feet taken away from Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 1 Approved that would bring it down to 18 feet. Nord thought a variance was given for 14 feet." Roper stated that item b on page 2 should read PZ98-16 rather than PZ98-15. This required correction in both the first and second paragraph on page 2. MINUTES FOR APRIL 8, 1998 WERE APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE NOTED CORRECTIONS. 4. PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: None 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: -None 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ98-17 -Encroachment Permit for Side Yard Setbacks -Lot 1, Beaver Creek Estates (925 Ames Street), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Bil Bryant, 925 Ames Street, Kenai. Alaska. MAHURIN MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-17. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WERNER-QUADE. Bill Bryant, 925 Ames Street, Kenai, Alaska, indicated that he is asking for the permit and had attended the meeting to answer questions should there be any. Christian stated he was looking at the design attached to the application and noted the house was sitting very close on one side. Christian asked if the other side was 50 feet. Bryant confirmed that it was 50 feet. Christian asked if there was any particular geographical reason why it was not centered. Bryant replied, there is a well to the right of the house and also the old homestead house is fairly close to the property line. Bryant continued, the lot was purchased as 3 '/2 acres and it was subdivided with his partner. Bryant pointed out his house was pushed too far to the left as he and his partner wanted to give each other some room as the lots are very narrow. Bryant also pointed out that the encroachment was his oversight, he was the builder. Christian asked if the house is complete. Bryant confirmed that it was, it was built 4 1/z years ago. Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 199$ Page 2 Approved Goecke asked if an as-built was done when building. Bryant answered, when he financed it, for whatever reason, they just requested a plot plan and it never got caught. Bryant stated when he went to refinance an as- built was asked for and the surveyor caught the encroachment. Glick asked what was on the other side of the property line. Bryant replied, it's an empty lot at this time, Mick Miller is the owner. Bryson asked if the front corner was off the property line. Bryant answered, it's about 13 feet. Bryson confirmed that he was asking about the other end. Bryant continued, the position of the house matches the line of the bluff and there is probably 20 feet or more from the corner of the house. Goecke asked, when the house was built, if Bryant wasn't really sure where the corners were in relationship to the property line. Bryant stated he had corners but it was an oversight, he thought he got the corner far enough and he thought the property line was further over than it actually is. Glick closed public hearing after hearing no further questions. Mahurin stated the house is already built so she isn't going to vote against it and on a humorous note since it leans to the left rather than to the right it makes it much more palatable to vote yes. Bryson asked staff if the adjacent property owners were notified. Kebschull replied they were and were not present at the meeting. VOTE Bryson Yes Werner-Quade Yes Goecke Yes Nord Yes Mahurin Yes Christian Yes Glick Yes Motion passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 3 Approved 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. Ordinance 1?79-98 -Amending KMC 14.20.150 to prevent the same or substantially similar conditional use permit applications from being considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission more than once in any nine month period. Kebschull reported this item was on the Council agenda but was not discussed as Council wanted input from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Kebschull also noted this is a result of recent Conditional Use Permits under review, however, the two for the Papa Joe Subdivision would not fall under this case because they were not similar as they were for different uses. Glick asked who determines what is "substantially different". Kebschull stated that she had the same question and it is assumed that each case would be determined by the legal staff. Goecke indicated the issue is a major sticking point for him at this time. Goecke reported that he discussed this with the Councilman who was instrumental in bringing the issue forth. The Councilman is also not clear as to who makes the determination of what is substantially different. Goecke continued, until a definition of what is substantially different he isn't sure that he would vote for the item as it sits. Goecke thought perhaps the Planning and Zoning Commission should make the determination and if it is then it should become part of the Ordinance. If that cannot be done then Goecke definitely would not be in favor of the 9 month waiting period because that period of time can really cause problems due to the short building season. Goecke reiterated that until such time as a determination is provided as to who is going to do what then Planning and Zoning should not approve or disapprove the Ordinance as it is written unless it can be approved with a footnote that says that Planning and Zoning should in fact make the determination as to whether it is substantially different. Mahurin indicated she has the same question with the definition, it should not be considered whether it is a significant change, a substantial change, those are different types of words. Mahurin agrees with the concept as she thinks that this is a reaction to what was just dealt with. Mahurin continued, she was quite distressed to learn that Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 4 Approved the Ordinance allows for someone to change their permit from the time it is denied and to when they appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustors. Mahurin pointed out this bothered her as it doesn't seem like a fair rule in that the players involved on either side don't know those rules, she didn't know those rules and she doesn't think that's right. Mahurin continued, either there are rules for conditional use permits or there is not and if it's going to be appealed it should be appealed as the way it came to Planning and Zoning originally. Mahurin agrees that this language, to a person who negotiates contracts, is open to a lot of discussion and interpretation and she isn't comfortable with that unless Mr. Graves has some sort of a legal definition for substantially/similar that the Commission doesn't know about. Christian commented that if something were substantially different he thinks a shorter time would be more appropriate, however, he also would like to see a certain minimum time passed before any new proposal is presented so that it can't come back one month later or even one meeting later with a new proposal. Perhaps some type of period of 3 to 4 months be established before anything new could be proposed. Christian stated that if it is substantially different perhaps 3 months would be enough but if it is similar then maybe a 9 month period should be established. Christian continued, he doesn't like the term "substantially" as it is too difficult to define. Bryson indicated that he is opposed to what is proposed as he feels that if something is substantially different why does it have any constraints unless the purpose is to just slow down construction during the better part of a construction year. Bryson does not know of a situation where this would have ever been applied in the time that he's been around. He didn't feel it would be appropriate for the last conditional use because it was essentially different. Bryson continued, he doesn't know of any other time that it would have applied to in an unbiased interpretation of what was being requested. Nord agreed with Bryson and feels there shouldn't be any constraints on substantially different permit applications. Nord indicated that she hasn't been around long enough to know whether this would apply or not but she trusts Bryson's input. Werner-Quade stated it seemed to her this came out of the Chumley affair but then she hears it wouldn't even be applicable if it were in plce Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 5 Approved at present to that situation so she feels the whole Ordinance is unnecessary. Mahurin asked Goecke if he knew what the rationale was behind the Councilman's recommendation for the new Ordinance. Goecke answered, he really didn't know and didn't ask, however, he agrees that this would not have entered into the past issue because there was substantial differences between the two applications. Goecke felt if there were substantial differences there should not be any waiting period due to the high construction costs. Mahurin pointed out she was not disagreeing she was just wondering why the originator put nine months as the clarification could help if the Commission knew why it was written the way it was. Kebschull confirmed that the 9 months came from the amendment procedures in the Code for rezones. Kebschull read the Code, "the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance which is substantially the same as the any other proposed amendments within the previous nine months shall not be heard." Christian stated that discussion is taking place on conditional use not principal use. Usually in a conditional use it is not the typical use for that property so maybe putting a little more of a obstacle in a persons way would be beneficial. If this isn't a principal use then why would the Commission bend over backwards to help the person come up with a use for his property other than what the land is zoned for. Although nixie months seemed like a long time that restriction might limit the nuisance proposals the Commission has to continually deal with and the public would have to comment on. Goecke stated in theory that sound great but at the same time he sincerely believes that putting too many restrictions on anything would kill any development in the City. Goecke thinks the conditional use permit process that is in place has and will continue to meet the criteria and expectations. Goecke also believes that if anyone wants to kill development in town then keep on adding restrictions. The neighbors to the east will get considerably larger and the taxes in Kenai will go up considerably higher than what they are now. Glick asked for clarification that Council just wanted comments from Planning and Zoning. Kebschull confirmed that was correct and will Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 6 Approved assure the minutes will be included in the Council meeting packet. 8. OLD BUSINESS: a. PZ98-18 -Amending KMC 14.20.230 to Require Permits for Home Occupations. The revised Ordinance, KMC 14.20.230 was reviewed. Bryson noted the proposal meets the concerns expressed at the last meeting. Nord was satisfied with the changes. Christian had no objections. MAHURIN MOVED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, PZ98-18 TO AMEND KMC 14.20.230. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE. VOTE Werner-Quade Yes Goecke Yes Nord Yes Mahurin Yes Christian Yes Bryson Yes Glick Yes Motion passed unanimously. 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: a. Lot 12, Block 3, VIP Ranch Estates Kebschull reported that Administration hasn't heard anything back on the issue. If nothing comes back within 30 to 60 days then the legal staff would be contacted regarding a course of action. Kebschull noted for the record that a lot of calls are received in the spring. Glick requested that discussion take place on the hand out prior to the meeting regarding the KPB Public Hearing. A 5 minute at ease was called at 7:29 p.m. Meeting was called back to order at 7:34 pm. Glick asked if staff had any comments on the subject. Kebschull replied the City Administration is familiar with the concerns of the residents. The information was received late and it was asked that it be brought to Planning and Zoning so their Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 7 Approved comments could be provided to Bryson who would take them to the Borough Planning Commission. After the Borough's Planning meeting the issue will come back to City Council for final review. Kebschull reported that one concern from Administration is that the petitioner states they will construct access in place of the right-of--way easement to be vacated. The City would like to request that they be required to construct access. The second concern is that there not be a charge to the public to use that access, the access should be constructed for public use. Kebschull also reported the City Engineer believes the proposed access would be a better access than what is currently in place. Goecke felt the same way that the petitioner be required to construct access to eliminate people crossing private property to get to the beach. Bryson reported several years ago the same easement vacation was petitioned and it was approved by the City and Borough but was turned down by the State. Bryson thought the family who petitioned was Dutweiler and their concern (this was north in the City of Kenai side) was a lot of partying was taking place, it was used for access, it wasn't maintained or cleaned, etc. Bryson pointed out the sketch doesn't show how far it goes as to whether it goes down to the public portion of the beach and this will undoubtedly be a question the Borough would ask. Bryson addressed one of Goecke's concerns, the Borough requires equal or better access to be provided. The existing easement is probably a sand road. The concerns, however, will be relayed. Mahurin thought perhaps she wasn't understanding the issue and asked if the person on the easement was not the person petitioning that the easement be moved. Mahurin stated by moving it there is a concern of assuring public access as far down. Mahurin also wondered about the adjacent property owners because if property is bought that doesn't have an easement and suddenly it has public access that increases what happens to nearby properties. Mahurin indicated that she doesn't quite understand why the issue is before the Commission, what is the reason or rationale is, who it helps and who it doesn't help. It was noted that there are three petitioners, Mary Ellen Perrizo, Salamantof Native Association and The Kenaitze Indian Tribe. Perrizo is a property owner and Kebschull thought that part of it affects where people cross her property. Bryson indicated the Borough would research the property owners in the easement area. It is possible the people have been notified and will show up for the hearing. Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 8 Approved Glick thought if they were proposing a new right-of--way then it would have to be on their property, they couldn't propose it on somebody else's. Bryson noted the relocated right-of--way is probably on one of the petitioner's property because the other request for vacation is adjacent and provides alternate access to the same location that is being vacated to the south. Mahurin stated since someone is petitioning that the right-of-way be moved, which obviously then would be a benefit to them but she has a concern. Even though it's a right-of--way and has to be public, Mahurin would like to know more about the issue; she would like to have someone come in and explain why they want to do it and why it should be done and she doesn't know why the Planning and Zoning Commission is dealing with it. Glick responded by stating the Commission is dealing with it in order to give input to Bryson so that he can take it to the hearings. Glick pointed out that people have been complaining for years about the right-of--way crossing their private property, access is made through their property and not on the right-of--way. Mahurin stated those people are not the ones that made the petition. Bryson stated the adjacent property owners, Lots 1 and 2, Waterfront Estates, has no request to vacate the right-of--way, there are some lines left out of the sketch. There is a dedicated right-of--way on Cannery Road and Royal Street, these are not easements. There is an underlying section line easement along that Cannery Road (Bryson doesn't think that is the name of the road). Vacation of the easement will not deny access to either one of the lots because there is already a dedicated right-of--way. Bryson thought the question probably is access to the beach not the utilization of the road. Goecke stated the road used to be the old Cannery Road and it was gravel and the petitioners want to eliminate that road and bring a new easement or right-of--way from the new, paved Cannery Road back over to the beach. Glick thought that was correct. Bryson asked Kebschull if the comments could be summarized. 10. REPORTS: b. City Council - No report due to the budget work sessions. b. Borough Planning - No report as Bryson did not attend the meeting. Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 9 Approved c. Administration: Kebschull reported the draft Development Requirements Table should be available for review at the next meeting. The Townsite Historic District Board will kick off their walking tour on May 9, 1998 at 1:00 p.m. at the Visitor's Center. A tour of the buildings in Old Town will be conducted. Commissioners were invited to attend. It was noted the following week was Preservation Week. The Fruichante and Burger King appeals will go to Council at their May 6 meeting. Kebschull reported that she attended the Planning Commission training and a lot of information was provided. Kebschull will provide copies to the Commission. 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: Verbatim Begins: Debbie Sonberg, 410 Cinderella Street, Kenai, Alaska- I did a little calling today on a time limit on permit type situations and I just wanted to share what I found; it's not ah... real consistent, you know, with different places. Some of it was similar to ah... what you now have, you know, what you now have or what you're proposing and some of it was quite different. Some places I couldn't get a hold of that I wanted to but when I called Palmer, I had a hard time getting across the idea that we were discussing a time limit fora re- application. When she finally understood what I was asking for she said, "why would you have a re-application for a same, and I'm not talking about a different, different process right now, but for a same permit, they don't have that, um... they feel that if their ah... Commission and Council have followed and they have... they have very well structured guidelines and you may not have guidelines that are as clear to follow but she says that they follow well structured guidelines ah... it's well supported to go through the legal realm and they just don't have re-applications. Um... they also don't do limited use permits in the City of Palmer. The Borough handles it for Borough properties, the City has very rigid ah... zoning areas, very well defined, and they simply don't have limited use permits in areas that are not specifically zoned for that, um....that's the information I found out ah... from Palmer. Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 199$ Page 10 Approved Ah... when I talked to the Mat-Su Borough she said that they didn't really have limited use permits either but they did consider variances. Ah... and then on a rezone they would have a 9 month waiting period ah... they would accept anything earlier if they considered it substantially different, so substantially similar or substantially different are viewed as distinctly different issues with them. Ah... on the other hand, they said that if somebody came with an application that had a site plan that basically didn't change and was simply called something different they would treat it according to... if ah... if things were the same that they were calling it something different they would consider it the same, ah... if the parking lot was the same, the storage, the building used, and so one was the same but it was called a different name, they would consider it the same and not hear it, ah... that was Mat-Su Borough. Um... and again they thought the findings would be well supported and that a re- application for a same permit wasn't really, this doesn't really happen with them. When I talked to Fairbanks um... they have a six month period and it can't be brought unless it's substantially different. Any application that they consider substantially different could be brought before them again. And... in... in their case they said it's a very subjective decision as to whether it is considered substantially different or not. Ah... I think it goes to their legal department but I didn't write that part down so I can't say for sure; and they look at the application and they simply decide it's substantially different, it can be heard, or it's not then it can't. Ah... those were just ah.... some of the things I found just calling around trying to get a feel for how similar we are or what your proposing to do is to what other areas are doing, um... basically if it's very similar to what other areas are we probably oughta do it and if it's not then we need to give it some um... extra thought. And... um... along that same line, um... Colleen had put together some figures for me that we gathered over the last couple of days from the neighborhoods. Just to let you know, if you did consider a proposal from the Chumley's substantially similar and I know there will probably be disagreement as to whether these two were or not, but if they were considered substantially similar from the last proposal forward, not going back to January, we estimate that were spent between 3 and 4 hundred hours, ah... of our neighborhood residents, commenting or responding to the Chumley's most recent application. This includes doing some legal research at the library on the Internet, canvassing the neighborhood, researching comprehensive plans, municipal Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 11 Approved codes, commissioner's handbooks, counting traffic, making phone calls, collecting signatures, neighborhood organizational meetings, studying meeting records, and writing and re-writing materials to re... be presented both you and Council and that the collaborative efforts have been intensively involved a core of 15 to 20 people with many other participating as a supportive but less involved capacity. I realize you're not making a decision per se on that tonight but I did want to ah... share that with you and then I had um... one question regarding the home office occupations, you voted to have a public hearing on that, is that automatically at your next meeting, is that, or does it get scheduled and... and posted? Just wondering when that's coming up. Glick: Marilyn? Kebschull: Um... it will be at our next meeting because we have enough time to advertise it and that's how we determine when it's scheduled. Sonberg: Okay, and... I like the changes Ike seen on the Web Pages, Ibe been enjoying going to the City Web Pages and I look up what's, what's coming up and...I've seen some changes lately so somebody's been working hard in that area, but anyway... just wanted to share some of those things with you. Glick: Sure, we appreciate that and we appreciate the efforts you put into this. Thank you. Verbatim ends. 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. Planning Commissioner's Corner - "Giving Due Process" b. KPB Administrative Approval Buffalo Run S/D Phase 1 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS: Commissioner Nord reported the Planning Commission training was about 6 to 8 hours. The session was similar to the one Nord attended approximately a year ago. Some great handouts were provided but the Regen's report, which Nord thought to be the best, was incomplete so a complete copy was requested. Findings of Fact was discussed in great detail and Nord noted that most Planning Commissions do Findings of Fact, especially on controversial issues. Kebschull agreed the training was good and a lot of good information was Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 12 Approved shared and it was nice to have those people who have been doing this for years share their knowledge. Variance processes were discussed and the type of criteria to be used. It was noted the same criteria should be used for all applications and not viewed individually. Kebschull noted this was a good opportunity to touch on things that are often missed. Nord thought the idea of Commissioner's changing places all the time was interesting, which could have been more for voting than anything else. Commisasioaer Christian noticed that Ms. Sonberg was mentioning the terms "substantially different" and "substantially similar" and he wondered if that doesn't mean that this is a term that lawyers use frequently and that's why is showed up in the Ordinance. It would be interesting to see if they have questions in their area when they~e used the terms, has it been challenged recently or not, that would be a good thing to look into. If they already have the term in their Ordinance, they would know if it's a problem or not. Commissioner Werner-Quade reported that she attended the City Council meeting, the last one where they heard the appeal before the meeting on the conditional use permit for Chumley. Werner-Quade's comment was that there was a very united group from the MAPS area in the audience and they had a presentation that was pretty well put together. For a group of citizens having to come together again they did a pretty thorough job. It's nice to see a person from the group at this meeting to share some more information. Commissioner Mahurin stated having been out with her Dad when he was so ill, she asked about the status of the assisted living center that came before the Commission. Kebschull replied, the lease was just reviewed so it is assumed the plans continue. Mahurin was pleased to hear that the Historic District Board has the walking tour complete as it's been in the mill for a long time. She would like to make the tour on May 9. Mahurin commented on changing seats, she assumes that people sitting next to you would influence you and obviously they haven't sit in on this group, the most independent voters. Mahurin also commented on when getting into terms like "substantially similar" and "substantially different", that means you hire attorney's to translate it for us. Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 13 .~ Approved Mahurin also asked about the heating system as it was very warm in Chambers. Kebschull reported the system is being worked on. 14. ADJOURNMENT: MAHURIN MOVED TO ADJOURN. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, d Barbara Roper, Contract ecretary Planning & Zoning Commission April 22, 1998 Page 14