HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-10 P&Z MinutesCITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
June 10,1998 - 7:00 p.m.
http://www.Kenai.net/city
1. ROLL CALL:
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 27,1998
4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD:
5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS:
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. PZ98-21-An application for a variance for an over size sign with lighting for the property
described as Lot 4, Block 1, Parks Subdivision (102 Highbush Lane), Kenai, Alaska.
Application submitted by Bill Bradley Zubeck, 7983 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska.
Item postponed from May 27, 1998 meeting.
b. PZ98-26-An application for a Variance Permit for Principle Structures for the property
known as Lot 1, Block 10, Valhalla Heights Subdivision, Kenai, Alaska (310 Phillips Way).
Application submitted by Katherine Godek, 310 Phillips Way, Kenai, Alaska.
c. PZ98-27-An application for a Variance Permit for Side Yard Setbacks for the property
described as Lot 6, Block 5, Inlet View Subdivision (312 Rogers Road), Kenai, Alaska.
Application submitted by George O'Guinn, HAPCO Construction, P.O. Box 1501, Soldotna,
Alaska.
d. PZ98-28-An application to amend Conditional Use Permit PZ95-30 to include a crushing
plant and an asphalt plant for the property described as Tract 6, Horseshoe End at River Bend
Subdivision (approximately 2113 Beaver Loop Road). The original.. permit (PZ95-30) was
issued for Extraction of Natural Resources. Applicat~c~; submitted by foster Constructip~~,
P.O. Box 303, Soldotna, Alaska.
e. PZ98-29-A resolution of the Planning and :Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai Alaska,
amending the Kenai Municipal Code at 14.20 Kenai Zoning Code, Development
Requirements Table.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Vacation -Right of Way & Utility Easements, Governixaent Lats:.24, 44, ~. 45
8. OLD BUSINESS:
9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:
a. Lot 35, Block 2, Bush Lanes Subdivision (1237 Lilac Lane)
b. Lot 4, Block 2, Kaknu Corners
Planning & Zoning Commission
Agenda
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council
b. Borough Planning
c. Administration
11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED:
12. INFORMATION ITEMS:
a. Memo from City Clerk Freas Regarding Excused Absences
b. Information regarding the Historic District Board
c. Appeal Decisions (Fruichantie/Stock/Burger King)
d. Corps of Engineers Public Notice
e. City of Kenai 1997 Annual CLG Report
f. KPB File 98-092 Plat Waiver Information
g. KPB Notice of Public Hearing - KPB File 98-071
h. Planning Commission Roster
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
June 10, 1998
Page 2
14. ADJOURNMENT:
Approved
CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 10, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.
Chairman: Carl Glick
*** MINUTES ***
Ron Goecke 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, Karen Mahurin, Art Graveley
Others Present: City Engineer Jack LaShot, Building Official Bob Springer,
Administrative Assistant Jan Taylor, Contract Secretary
Barb Roper, Councilman Hal Smalley (arrived at 7:20j
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AND ASKED FOR
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY MAHURIN.
AGENDA WA3 APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -May 27, 1998
WERNER-QUADE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 27, 1998
AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. SECONDED BY GOECKE.
MINUTES OF MAY 27, 1998 WERE APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
4. PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: None
5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: -None
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 1
Approved
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. PZ98-21 - An application for a variance for an oversize sign with
lighting to the property described at Lot 4, Block 1, Parks
Subdivision (102 Highbush Lanej, Kenai, Alaska. Application
submitted by Bill Bradley Zubeck, 7983 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai,
Alaska. Item postponed from May 27, 1998 meeting.
NORD MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-21. MOTION SECONDED BY
GRAVELY.
No public hearing.
BRYSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REFLECT THE TYPE
AND SIZE OF THE SIGN WHICH IS 24 SQ. FT. FROM THE ORIGINAL
32 SQ. FT. MOTION SECONDED BY GRAVELY.
Vote -Amendment
BRYSON yeS
GOECKE Yes
MAHURIN No
GLICK yeS
Motion passed.
WERNER-QUADE yeS
NORD Yes
GRAVELY Yes
BRYSON MOVED TO SEGREGATE THE ISSUE INTO TWO ITEMS,
THE FIRST THE OVERSIZE SIGN AND THE SECOND THE LIGHTING
OF THE SIGN. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE.
Vote -Segregation
WERNER-QUADE Yes GOECKE yeS
NORD Yes MAHURIN No
GRAVELEY Yes BRYSON yes
GLICK yeS
Motion passed.
Glick requested the size of the sign, which is 24 sq. ft., be discussed
first.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 2
Approved
Mahurin stated she wanted to once again express the same concerns she
had the last time this issue was discussed. The sign is substantially
larger than what the Ordinance permits. Mahurin continued, the intent
of a home occupation is a more quiet, innoxious business in a home and
she cannot, in good conscious, agree to a variance of this type. Mahurin
reported she will also be voting against the lighting should the request
pass.
Goecke reported he had no problem with the size of the sign but he has
with the lighting.
Glick announced for the record that a letter opposing the sign was
received from John Wise who resides in Anchorage.
BRYSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A LIMIT OF
TWO YEARS ON THE SIGN. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE.
Bryson explained his reason for the amendment was he would like to
give the sign situation a chance and he didn't feel one season would
reflect the ability to create another building with the same marketability.
Bryson continued, the two year period of time will allow ample time for
evaluation and, if unacceptable, the neighbors would have time to
respond.
Vote -Amendment
GOECKE Yes NORD No
MAHURIN No GR.AVELEY yes
BRYSON Yes WERNER-QUADE Yes
CLICK yes
Five Yes, 2 No, Motion passed.
Vote -Main Motion
NORD Yes MAHURIN No
GRAVELEY Yes BRYSON yes
WERNER-QUADE Yes GOECKE yes
CLICK Yes
Six Yes, 1 No, Motion passed.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 3
Approved
Glick requested discussion on the lighting of the sign.
Goecke reiterated that he will vote against the lighting of the sign as he
doesn't believe the Commission should get into a lighted sign situation
for the type of business in a residential area.
Werner-Quade stated the Code states that no lighting is permitted on
any sign. Werner-Quade thought that allowing the oversize sign was fine
but she agrees with Goecke that a lit sign is taking it to far in a
residential zone.
Vote - Lightin
MAHURIN No
BRYSON No
GOECKE No
CLICK No
GRAVELEY No
WERNER-QUADE No
NORD No
Motion failed.
Glick reported the 24 sq. ft. sign will be allowed for two years and it shall not
be lighted.
b. PZ98-26 - An application for a Variance Permit for Principle
Structures for the property known as Lot 1, Block 10, Valhalla
Heights Subdivision, Kenai, Alaska (310 Phillips Wayj. Application
submitted by Katherine Godek, 310 Phillips Way, Kenai, Alaska.
MAHURIN MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-26. MOTION SECONDED BY
GOECKE.
Katherine Godek, 310 Phillips, Kenai, Alaska stated she was available
to answer any questions regarding her application.
Titana Wilson, 325 Phillips Way, Kenai, Alaska stated her main
concern was when she purchased her home, located across from Godek,
she also purchased another lot adjacent to her home. Wilson continued,
she maintains and pays property tax on this lot so she has the option of
building a second residence in the event she ever needs to have her
relatives live there or for future things she may need. Wilson also stated
that she feels Mr. and Mrs. Douglas should seek alternative living
arrangements due to their age and medical conditions. Wilson didn't
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 4
Approved
think it would be in their best interest to reside in a garage when there
are a lot of places available to assist elderly people in finding housing
and adequate places for them to stay. Wilson sympathized with the
situation Godek is in but she has a problem with allowing people to live
in garages.
Pat Knowles, Kenai, Alaska reported she is building at 320 Phillips
Way and it is her opinion that the lot Godek has is too small and is not
zoned for a two family dwelling. Knowles continued, the neighborhood
isn't fully developed at this time and if an exception is made now then
two-family dwellings will be built on lots that are too small to
accommodate the structures.
Public Hearing closed.
Springer added that if the structure was attached to the house Godek
would not have to apply for a variance.
GRAVELEY asked if DEC got involved with the limits. LaShot replied,
DEC doesn't get involved in such situations.
Mahurin stated this was a very difficult issue for her because if this
came before the Commission before the structure was remodeled she
would have said no based on the neighbors opposition. Mahurin did not
feel it was her place to judge health conditions of people and where they
live. Mahurin reiterated giving forgiveness instead of permission on
things such as variances, condition use permits, etc., is difficult but
Springer gave an answer to the problem. Mahurin shares the feelings of
the neighbors so will have to vote No.
Smalley arrived at 7:20 p.m.
Goecke asked if it would within the scope of the variance to have the
structures attached in order to be considered one structure. Springer
confirmed that was correct. Discussion took place on the exact distance
between the house and garage and Springer stated the distance was not
measured but he thought it could be as much as 15 to 20 feet.
Goecke asked if the variance is granted if the Commission could request
the structures be reverted back to their original use once the parents
were no longer residing there. LaShot replied, there was a similar
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 5
Approved
situation in Woodland Subdivision and restrictions were put on the
variance with regard to not allowing the unit to become a rental.
Mahurin remembered the variance in Woodland Subdivision but thought
the structure was attached. Mahurin agreed with Goecke that perhaps
the structures could be attached in order to be in compliance. LaShot
reported the Woodland Subdivision structure was detached.
Bryson stated he was less apprehensive about the request as it is
virtually the situation he grew up in except the kids were in the garage.
It was much later that the structures were connected by a breeze-way.
This was not an objectionable situation since there is an extended family
living there.
Werner-Quade agreed with Bryson and stated that sometimes things just
come to you that you have to deal with and it could be when your
children come back to live with you or it might be that your parents have
to come live with you. Werner-Quade was very sympathetic to the
situation and is in favor of allowing the variance.
Nord stated for the record that she to sympathizes with the situation and
will vote in favor of the variance.
Goecke stated that he hoped no one took him wrong as he is not going to
vote against it but he was just trying to find a way to make it a little
more palatable for everybody concerned.
Nord reported that she is not opposed to placing conditions on the
variance request if staff agrees that they should be placed.
NORD MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO LIMIT THE RESIDENTS
OF THE GARAGE AND THAT UPON THEIR MOVING OUT THE
PROPERTY WILL NOT BE RENTED. GOECKE SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Werner-Quade stated she is not in favor of the amendment because it
limits it to the people who are currently in the garage. If they passed on
and another family member wanted to reside there, they could not.
Mahurin stated in the spirit of consensus building she will support the
amendment and hope that her not supporting it certainly was not taken
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 6
Approved
as not being sympathetic and understanding having been in those
shoes. Mahurin continued, she has reservations but she understands
how it came about.
Bryson stated he was aware of the cost involved with creating the living
situation and it should not be wasted so he will vote against the
amendment.
Goecke stated he understands what Bryson stated, however, this is also
an after the fact variance request.
Nord asked, for clarification purposes, if there was anything that would
prevent the applicant from coming in for a new variance at a later time.
LaShot answered, he didn't think so, the applicant could come back if
necessary.
Vote -Amendment
GRAVELEY No BRY3ON No
WERNER-QUADE No GOECKE Yes
NORD Yes MAHURIN yeS
GLICK yes
4 Yes, 3 No, Motion passed.
Glick noted that if the main motion is approved the variance is limited to
the people who are in it and after they leave the structure cannot be
rented.
Vote -Main Motion
BRYSON Yes WERNER-QUADE Yes
GOECKE Yes NORD yes
MAHURIN Yes GRAVELEY Yes
GLICK Yes
Motioa passed unanimously.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 7
Approved
c. PZ98-27 - An application for a Variance Permit for aide Yard
Setbacks for the property described at Lot 6, Block 5, Inlet View
Subdivision (312 Rogers Road), Kenai, Alaska. Application
submitted by George O'Guinn, HAPCO Construction, P.O. Box 1501
Soldotna, Alaska.
GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-27. MOTION SECONDED BY
GRAVELEY.
Dennis Gifford, 1620 Tanaga, Kenai, Alaska stated he is the owner of
the property. Gifford noted he originally asked for a side yard setback
that was modified to a 15/5 by the Commission and it was appreciated,
however, he had to withdraw due to some opposition from the neighbor
adjacent to him. After trying different house designs they came up with
one which would require 6 inches on either side. Gifford noted he had a
conversation with the person immediately adjacent and he doesn't have
a problem with it.
Bryson asked if Gifford had talked to the individuals on both sides.
Gifford confirmed that both were notified and neither have problems.
Public Hearing closed.
Staff had nothing additional.
Bryson asked if staff had received any objections through phone calls or
the mail. LaShot replied, they have not.
Vote
WERNER-QUADE Yes GOECKE yes
NORD Yes MAHURIN yea
GRAVELEY Yes BRYSON Yes
GLICK Yes
Motion passed unanimously.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 8
Approved
d. PZ98-28 - An application to amend Conditional Use Permit PZ95-
30 to include a crushing plant and an asphalt plant for the property
described as Tract 6, Horseshoe End at River Bend Subdivision
(approximately 2113 Beaver Loop Road). The original permit (PZ95-
30) was issued for Extraction of Natural Resources. Application
submitted by Foster Construction, P.O. Box 303, Soldotna, Alaska.
GRAVELEY MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-28. MOTION SECONDED BY
GOECKE.
Glick asked that public testimony be kept to 3 minutes.
Verbatim Begins
Chris Garcia, P.O. Box 203, Kenai, Alaska; residence is 2528 Beaver
Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska - I am deathly opposed to this application.
That area does not need a crusher plant making noise and it does not
need an asphalt plant around there to ruin our neighborhood. I mean,
I... I realize people need to make a living but I also, in some of this
information Ike got about this particular thing, the permit says that its
to be... the gravel pit to be operated from ? to 7, for the last two years
theybe run 24 hours a day and Beaver Loop wasn't designed for that
heavy hauling. The road is a mess now. There's always been gravel pits
on Beaver Loop and there's always been hauling, but that road is
absolutely tore up and it's a mess and if we add more weight and more
garbage to that road it's just going to get worse, and I am absolutely
opposed to having that asphalt plant in. I... I don't know what else I can
say about it. I would like to ask that Council, I've received this letter
yesterday from Sue Wright. Did you guys receive a copy of this?
Glick: We have some letters from Sue Wright, I don't know if it's the
same one you have but...
Garcia: Well I assume we probably did, if its... I just wan... cause... in
the letter she stated she couldn't be here and if you guys hadn't received
it I was going to read it... but ah.... I don't know how I can be anymore
strenuous about that I am absolutely 199 percent opposed to it. Well,
thank you for your time.
Glick: Thank you, anyone else in the public wishing to speak.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 9
Approved
Lloyd Richardson, 495 Dolchok, Kenai, Alaska just off of Beaver
Loop. I oppose the construction of the asphalt plant and the rock
crusher due to the noise, the heavy traffic and in support of the
gentlemen before me, the road was not designed for it and has been
trashed over the last two years. Ah... in addition to that there is a lot of
young families that have moved in that area, a lot of bicycle traffic, kids
wanting to ride up and down the road and with trucks cruising up and
down there at 45, throwing rocks off the side, it's just an increased
hazard and... an additional concern that should be considered is a
potential environmental affect it would have on the river if there was a
breech of some contaminate that could go right through the gravel into
the river. Thank you.
Jim Krein, 365 Dolchok Lane, Kenai, Alaska I am also opposed to this
ah... for the reasons stated here ah... one touched on ah... by Lloyd
there was contamination to the river. I'm also concerned about the
ground water there. Ah... previous pits that have been dug there the
ground water level is at such a state that it is ah... above the ah... line
that they~e ah... excavated to at the present time. Everybody over there,
as you well know, is on ah... a well situation. If that ground water gets
contaminated, what are those folks going to do and if it does, I would
assume Foster would be liable for that. Are they able to withstand ah...
the liability for that situation? Has there been any thought of monitoring
the wells or air quality concerns with the plant? Ah... the product
they're using of course is the bottom end of the crude oil ah... screen, I'm
sure there are some ah... contaminates there that are known
carcinogens so I'm really concerned about this thing getting into the air
and the water in that area along with the lower portion of the river which
washes through there both upstream and downstream. Thank you.
Jeff Kohler, 4350 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska I've been there for
about 16 years and over those years I've seen the neighborhood really
improve, a lot of nice homes, young families coming in. Ah... I am very
concerned over the last few years the truck traffic is becoming
increasingly worse. Ah... additional sale of asphalt products and
crushed products out of those pits is going to increase that even more.
It's a narrow road, young families, lots of kids up and down it, ah... it's
just unacceptable to increase the industrial use in that area now. It's
turning into a neighborhood, it's not just a rural road anymore, it is
truly a neighborhood. I spent the last two hours racing up and down the
road letting people know who weren't aware of this and ah... quite a few
Planning & Zoning Commission
~ June 10, 1998
Page 10
Approved
of them are showing up. I hope that in the future when these kinds of
issues are considered, especially something with the gravity of ah... of
ah... asphalt plant and a crusher going in to an area like that, there's
better publicity in getting the word out to those affected beyond just
the... the 300 feet. Ah... again, I'm, I echo the sentiments of everybody
who's spoke up here and I'm really trying to keep the integrity of ah... of
ah nice developing neighborhood together. Those trucks going through
and the... and the... odors and the problems associated with those
plants, I just hate to see it. Thank you.
Chuck Tomlinson, 555 Dolchok Lane, Kenai, Alaska and I oppose the
ah... plant for a couple reasons. Ah... the first reason is ah... usually
plants of this nature will put out odors. I have worked in a refinery and
plants of this nature and they do generate a lot heat to... make the ah...
liq... the asphalt into liquid stage and there are certain hazards
associated with that and particularly in a residential neighborhood and
Ire been in this neighborhood for approximately 2 years and if
everything works right I should retire next year. I would like my
property values to be remained to a certain level that I can cover my
initial investment at least and if you put this kind of plant into a ah...
neighborhood, substantial degradation of the property value might
occur. So, the other part about it is that ah... rock crushing usually
associates with a certain amount of dust association and... at this point
we really don't know what the environmental controls are going to be
applied to this plant. So, all our concerns would be environmental
issues, the smell, the dust, and so forth. Thank you.
John Coston, 470 Dolchok Avenue, Kenai, Alaska I express the same
opinion as everybody else who spoke, I'm opposed to this ah... this pit
and asphalt plant. The road, as everybody knows, is fairly narrow and
Ike had ah... two broken windshields as a result of rocks ah... from
overloaded trucks. The other thing Ike notice is that my water quality is
ah... gone downhill since Ibe moved into that neighborhood and I don't
have anything else but other than I'm opposed to that ah... pit.
Victor Hett, 1507 Barabara Drive, Kenai, Alaska -
Glick: Sir, we need you to be signing that sheet there to...
Hett: Okay,
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 11
Approved
Glick: If those of you that spoke before would do that after the public
hearing I would appreciate it.
Victor Hett, 1507 Barabara Drive, Kenai, Alaska and I'm on
Horseshoe end, Lot #23 which puts me a half a mile from this crusher
they want to put in and asphalt plant and I'm... as the others, are very
extremely opposed to it. I have several concerns. One is the water
pollution since I'm just about directly down the water table from that
ah... gravel pit area... and a well of course. I'm more concerned about
the water table. If they start using a lot of water for this project. I'm more
concerned about the river pollution since that would be right up the river
if anything gets spilled. Traffic, of course, as mentioned is a very bad
problem. I just retired last year and I have a very unique place, it's very
quiet and I enjoy sitting there by the river watching the birds and...
peace and quiet and now if this happens I'm going to sit there and listen
to the gravel crush. I don't think I want to do that. Um... there as
another gentlemen stated, my house is completely paid for and I would
like to think the property value would increase but if this goes I'm... no
doubt in my mind it would decrease and I don't know who is going to
compensate me for that. I'm a little concerned about any vibrations
because I live on a very delicate river bank that at this moment is going
into the river and I don't think it could handle the vibration from that
plus the traffic vibrating on the road with those heavy trucks. Um... and
I just... completely reject the idea of any gravel pit ah... crushers or
asphalt plants. Thank you.
Glick: Thank you.
Pat Weller, 1540 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska -just right down
the street from the gravel pit and environmental issues are really ah...
has got me is ah... if you know the layout there at Beaver Loop there is a
bunch ah... fresh water little streams that come all the way across there,
gravel pits have already wiped out one already, they all go down there
feed the flats, it's basically right there at the flats. Caribou go through
there, owls, eagles, wolves, all kinds of wildlife, this is one of the
prettiest parts about Kenai is the flats and ah... people go down there
and they have that ah... bird watching deal there... and I don't think
anybody's going to want to stand down there looking at birds, smelling a
plant. That's basically all I got to say. Thanks.
Glick: Thank you.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 12
Approved
Gordon Gifford, 1509 Barabara Drive, Kenai, Alaska - I am also
opposed to as all the previous speakers are to this, and as Mr. Hett said,
I live right on the bank, it's delicate. Ah... the horsepower on the boats,
the reducing of that did help. I'm afraid the vibration from the crusher
is going be detrimental to it. I am also just retired and it's paid for and I
hate to lose that investment. Beaver Loop can't stand more traffic, it's
already over-used, in my opinion, over-weighted and I agree with all the
other speakers, we don't need this in our neighborhood. Thank you.
Glick: Thank you.
Bunny Swan-Gease, 4257 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska - I too am
opposed 100% to this construction. Ah... asphalt... ah... plant. I believe
that it is extremely detrimental to the environment especially of river and
ah... um... place ah... the Kenai and most certainly to be looked after
and respected. Um... Foster Construction has done some very nice work
for me with ah... landscaping and I appreciate that, however, (laugh)
there has got to be some other place where it wouldn't be such an issue.
I too have lost ah... a very young dog last season ah... with one of the big
trucks and they are not the best and the most careful ah... drivers
(laugh) they have a tendency to speed and there are many, many
children on that road. Ah... thank you.
Glick: Thank you.
Nolan T. Compton, 2785 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska - I live
approximately four tenths of a mile from the proposed asphalt plant. I
find it very objectionable as everyone has this evening. Ah... Beaver
Loop is known for its tranquility. We have tourists that visit up and
down Beaver Loop every summer. Cunningham Park is located in that
area. There's been a lot of hope and ideas for the Beaver Loop area to
stay as a residential area, not to have this type of development occur in
the area. Ah... I feel that the idea of a asphalt plant ah... gravel pit
crushing plant can lead to quite a few areas of problems such as, which
everyone has mentioned tonight, river pollution, odor, and air problems,
noise, ground water, traffic, fire protection, property values, just a whole
mirid of ideas of what Beaver Loop doesn't really represent, it is a rural
area, it is something that's not really for this type of development. It's
had gravel pits for years, I think everyone that lived there is pretty
understanding of gravel pits. I think the development of an asphalt plant
is something that everyone finds very objectionable. AH... especially
Planning & Zoning Commission
~ June 10, 1998
Page 13
Approved
hours of operation, ah... it is one of the quieter areas in the City here
and ah...there has been many times in the past where operating a ve... a
heavy trucks has run a lot longer than the 7 to 7 hours that were there,
you know, I just find it terribly objectionable to have this type of
construction going on in our neighborhood.
Glick: Thank you.
Dave Knudsen, 4460 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska - I have
concerns about the ah... similar concerns... the environment pollution
um... traffic on the road and thank you.
Glick: Sign in please.
Knudsen: Can I do it later?
Glick: As long as you do it. Anybody else wishing to speak.
Jennifer Richardson, 495 Dolchok, Kenai, Alaska - Um... I live just
off Beaver Loop and my concerns um... are... are similar to all those that
were already heard. The... the traffic has been really heavy, there are...
already two or three um... gravel pits in the area and the hours of
operation have been pretty much around the clock and they don't have
covers on... on these trucks and they tend to overload them anyway and
so there's rocks along the road and... and... and debris that's dropped
on the um... the trucks as they leave out of these plants and um.... and
they do throw rocks at the people trying to ride bicycles... there is not a
bicycle lane or any kind of ah... shoulder on this road and the road has
been damaged ah... significantly over the last couple of years. I also am
opposed to the noise and the environmental ah,.. impact of this
proposal. Thank you.
Glick: Thank you, anyone else wishing to speak?
Bud Lofstedt, P.O. Box 1616, Kenai, Alaska - I live on Beaver Loop
and I'm at P.O. Box 1616, Kenai, I too am opposed and I can't add much
to it other than um... I hate to get up against the Fosters because they,
they're ah... wonderful family of Kenai but I go.... I would... I can't add
much to ah... what everybody else said but I would be opposed to it.
Glick: Thank you.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 14
Approved
Curt Wilcox, 3329 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska - I'm also
opposed to this project. I see that the originally ah... got a conditional
use permit for the extraction of natural resources. Now if a ah... crusher
and bash plant is ah... quantum leap from the their main ah... permit
use. Ah... I'm opposed to the noise, it's acoustically ah... good at Beaver
Loop, I can hear ah... a lot of ah... I could hear the race track when it
revs up and I just know that this crusher is not good for our community.
And I see on this map here (pointed out areas on the map behind the
podium) that... you would have to zone this, I think, heavy industrial
and ah... that would be an orange spot somewhere in here and I say if
ah... if you want to do that why don't we put orange spots all over here
and ah... if we let people have their way and ah... go ahead and do what
they want to do. Now Beaver Loop is a nice place to raise a family ah...
it wasn't even a week ago a gravel truck went off the road right in front
of my house and ah... I don't know why, it just tilted over 45 degrees
ah... accidents happen.
Glick: Thank you.
Ted Knight, 1506 Rose Lane, Kenai, Alaska - I live just across from
where they got this ah... plant is to be put and I couldn't put anything
more that my neighbors have already said that I could say anything to it
but I sure oppose it. Thank you for....
Glick: Thank you, anyone else in the audience wishing to speak.
Don Moffis, 2241 Beaver Loop, Kenai, Alaska - I live directly in front
of the pit in (illegible) house there. I just wonder if maybe there could be
an amendment put to this or something in the form of the... I'd hate to
see them totally shut down but there might be a job come up and they
could set that plant up to do it on a job to job basis and it would be
feasible for everybody that way where you would just have... it will only
be used, you know, for that job. Just like the variance for when we did
the Spur Highway, they had a variance to run the truck for long periods
of time, they helped the community and I just thought I would bring that
up. I'm not real... I really don't want a asphalt plant right next my
house but I can live with it through a job, you know what I mean?
Thank you.
Glick: Thank you.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 15
Approved
Jack Foster, Kenai, Alaska - well I hope I can make it out of here alive
tonight. I'm Jack Foster (laugh) and ah... I think there is a
misconception about an asphalt plant. This particular asphalt plant, I
just moved it last week from downtown Wasilla and I have probably a 50
page ah... permit that DEC has... has ah... approved this particular
plant for clean air and clean water, so you know, I... I don't see that ah...
environmental hazard. Now I don't live in the area, I work in the area
and ah... I can understand and appreciate how you feel. The last thing I
want to do is make a whole town full of enemies. Ibe done a lot of work
for each and every one of you, but not everyone of you, but a lot of ya
and I... I appreciate the work. And my intention to put this asphalt
plant, is like Don mentioned, was more of a job, just to be able to do it,
have it... have it there for say the... the Bridge Access Road, when that's
gotta be repaved or maybe ah... Forest Drive or Redoubt, or maybe...
maybe somebody else's own personal driveway that they normally paying
a $1.75 a square foot maybe they can get it for a buck or a buck and
quarter or a buck and a half or something depending on the driveway.
That... that was my intention and ah... you know there was ah... there
was a piece of paper passed around here by ah... ah Sue Wright and I
got to answer some of these questions. You know one...one... number
one item was the safety factor and ah...and I have a permit and that
permit is number A00175-179, saying that this thing will not hamper
the environment, ah... asphalt will, in particular, you know, when it
dries it becomes very hard so if there is a spill it does not mix with the...
with the...gravel and... and...ah... so on and so anyway, it... it... the
Department of Environmental Conservation, which is pretty tough, has
not got a problem with this. Ah... as far as Beaver Loop Road not being
designed for heavy loads, it... the Department of Transportation owns
that road and maintains that road and they have an axle weight and as
far as trucks, when we did the Spur Highway, being overweight, it didn't
happen, it can't happen because if it is overweight we don't get paid for
that load of gravel, that's the way the computer is set up at the scale
house. The State does not pay for that load of gravel if you are one
pound over, they won't pay for the whole load, not just that pound but
the whole load and so, you know, the trucks were not, and... and... as
far as, you know, I heard a comment in here and I just got a few
arguments here is all, I heard a comment that.... that we've been
working around the clock out of the pit, I haven't even been in that pit,
well this year I've... I've been in it for ah... an hour here and an hour
there in the middle of the day, but it's been closed for two years so you
know, if there's... if there's a lot going on in the area it's not coming from
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 16
Approved
ah... the river bend pit and I think the neighbors can pretty well vouch
for that, the gates been closed on the pit, and that's it.
As far as truck traffic, again, you know when we did the Spur Highway
we did not get one single ticket that I'm aware of, any of the drivers, not
one speeding ticket, we didn't get any overweight tickets, we didn't have
any complaints from... from... from the City police, we didn't have any
complaints from the Department of Transportation, so, you know, we
tried to run a clean show there, and um... and... and... you know we do
so on... on each and every job we do. Ah... I guess... let me read... let
me read a couple of notes that I made for myself, these were just
answering some of Sue's problems, you know, and... and what... what
really offends me about... about some of the comments there... was the
fact that... that she ah...accused me of...of...of doing exactly what she's
doing right now and that is sell a piece of her property for ah... to create
a gravel pit. So there's one going on and I'm... I'm letting ah... the
gentlemen that's mining and gravel go in my gate and that might be the
action you see on my pit, it's... it's from Sue Wright's piece of property
because they gain access through my gate so that they didn't have to
clear a bunch of trees and get involved in the water table problems
with... with... over there so... you know, Ike... Ike... I've allowed... Ike
allowed them free access to my gate and in... in... in... what... and then
they are using the road which she claims is unsafe, that's the road
they're using to get in and out of there. Now when I had that pit set up
with DOT, I would go in that gate because I could get off the highway
quick, that was my entrance to the pit, I'd come out by Mr. Doyle's pit
because that's a nice straight edge right there, nice straight road, so
there's pretty good visibility, still... still not the best but alright.
That asphalt plant will never be... in fact you will never see that pit as
busy as what it was in 197... 19..96 and 97 during that Spur Highway,
that... it...it...for an asphalt pit that... that business going to be hit and
miss. We're going to batch up 80 ton in the silo, one... that's a half an
hour worth of running, maybe an hour, and that will last all day long on
driveways. Now if you had something like the Spur Highway or Bridge
Access, then... then, you know, that's a weeks worth of running and
then the plants idle, so it's not like the things going to be running day in
and day out, so ah... another thing we didn't have on that Spur Highway
job, which we moved 700,000 tons out of the pit, in fact that's with
contract, we ended up exceeding that amount by ah... probably 20%, so
ah... we moved close to 100,000 tons out of that pit and... and we had
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 17
Approved
not one automobile accident or truck accident, or pedestrian accident,
and never... we... we... might hit a dog... I... I didn't hear about that and
I...forgive... it's not funny, I don't mean to make joke of that because that
no... no... caribou, no moose, no wildlife, like that, and, last thing is if
there was some serious problems that come about then the City could
revoke my conditional use permit and ah... or at least I'd put down here,
tried to get a little humor, or at least invite me to another one of these
meetings, and that happens to end up in this.... so... with that, thank
you very much.
Mike Blair, 1445 Angler Drive, Kenai, Alaska - I have a place on
Angler Drive and I'm a little bit outside the immediate 300 foot area but I
consider myself to be an interested party. In relation to this project and
this idea, I'm adamantly opposed against it. I've had the opportunity to
operate crushing operations, batch plants at Shemya, King Salmon,
Galena, Elmendorf and Anchorage, and they are all ripe with problems.
They're noisy, they're dusty, they're smoky, the EPA and DEC permits
cover opacity, which is your particulate conditions, there is nothing for
odor. I think the critical aspects of what Mr. Foster bought up this
afternoon, he works it, he works in this pit, he doesn't live in the
neighborhood. The people that came up today do, and that's what we...
you should listen to.
Glick: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak to the
item?
Donna Tomlinson, 555 Dolchok, Kenai, Alaska - I'm highly opposed
to this asphalt plant. I didn't buy my house to live near an asphalt plant.
Mr. Foster said he didn't live near... didn't want to live... or did not live
near the asphalt plant, let him... there's a house being constructed
across from...road from me right now. Do you think those people signed
that...want...wanted apermit to build a house that's going to be near an
asphalt plant... does any of you want to be near an asphalt plant?
Beaver Loop is too small. You put children on bicycles up and down
that road, it's too small for that kind of traffic and... do we want a child
killed by a truck? I dodge those gravel every time I go up and down that
way. Those trucks do speed up and down there, maybe we haven't
enough police out there to find out if they, you know, speed up and
down there. I'm highly opposed to that.
Glick: Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 18
Approved
to this item?
Chris Garcia, 2528 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska - I didn't sign
and I have a couple comments to make.
Glick: Let's see, I think you have a minute left on your three minutes.
Garcia: well, I don't think you're being too fussy about that tonight
anyway. One comment I would like to make, if Mr. Foster, and I'm not
opposed to him making a living, but who... I've.... I've bought stuff from
him myself but ah... he said that that plants been shut down for 2 years,
well last summer and the summer before I can guarantee you it ran 24
hours a day. Now, maybe he wasn't there, maybe he was gone
somewhere, but that plant...that pit was running and there was trucks
coming out of it and as far as I've made the comment about ah... the
weight going up and down Beaver Loop and I'll agree with him. He
might not be over the legal limit but he stated they've hauled how many
hundred thousand tons out of there. Well that road wasn't designed to
have that steady weight on it every day, that's why the roads busted up.
It's not... his fault maybe that the road wasn't built better but all I'm
saying is we increase the heavy traffic on Beaver Loop it is just going to
wear that road out worse than it's already shot and I don't even know
exactly what his plans are if he's going to use the gravel in that pit to
run the crusher plant or he's going to haul gravel in from somewhere
else to make the asphalt, so if he was hauling it in, that would even
make the traffic that much heavier. So, I just can't express enough how
opposed I am to this particular project. Thank you very much.
Glick: Okay.
Phil Nash, 110 3. Willow, # 104, Kenai, Alaska - Mr. Chairman,
Commission Members, Madam Clerk, my name is Phil Nash and I don't
live there either, I'm a north roader but my law office is right across the
street over here at 110 S. Willow, # 104, and I represent Sue Wright, who
is in kind of an interesting situation. She is the beneficiary of the estate
of Waldo Coyle. She owns nothing, contrary to what you may have
heard about her selling some piece of property. She hasn't sold anything,
she doesn't have anything yet. She won't get anything until after the
taxes are paid and the administration is paid and all these things have
been happening since Waldo died in September 1991. My initial
comment relative to the application before you tonight, however, might
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 19
Approved
be that there's ah... at least a little minor flaw in the application and that
is it doesn't make any reference to the subdivision that's right there at
the corner of Barabara Drive and Beaver Loop Road, that one is called
ah... Ruby's Dazzling Scenic View Subdivision, Kenai Peninsula Borough
file number 94-012 as recorded in Kenai Recording District on March 3
of this year.
For those of you that have read your packet you probably recognize
there has been several communications back and forth between myself
and the City Attorney and other folks within the City and... and ah... all
that ended this afternoon with a telephone call and I guess I must
apologize to you and to Mr. LaShot as I have already to the City
Attorney, Um... you see the problem Folks, is that I just did not
understand what that application said when it said this term competitive
economic situation and benefit to the local community. You see, I didn't
understand those and I figured that that probably meant that there was
some kind of a study that the insiders had that nobody was giving to me
and that's why I was making my request but today after talking to Mr.
Graves and... and... he faxed back a letter ah... making reference to my
ah... doing some kind injunction it appeared that nobody understood
what anybody else was talking about so I called him up and... and I
said, You know my... my reference to an injunction had to be to
mandatory injunction requiring you to give me that study that you must
have. There was none. So now I think I understand what the terms
competitive economic situation and the term benefit to the local
community that are included in that application really means. They
mean, MONEY, who gets the money. Will one individual be permitted to
amend a special use permit to expand a special use of land that's zoned
rural residential which is already contraindicated to what it's zoned for
so that he can make more money at the expense of those who own lots,
plans, houses, people who live in the community of residence. Now the
community of residence wasn't identified in that particular application.
Will that one individual be permitted to amend a special use permit
again to expand a special use of land zoned rural residential, which
again is contraindicated by the zoning itself so that he can make more
money at the expense of those who own subdivisions designed for rural
residential and those who have plans to...to make future subdivisions.
Now, how do we define what is a benefit to the local community when
the benefit to the local community may be in conflict with the benefit to
the community of residence. That community of residence is made up of
folks living in houses, with babies, with puppy dogs, with bicycles, and
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 20
Approved
now screaming rock crushers and smelly asphalts plants. Is that a
competitive economic situation or is that just more money in the hands
of one individual at the expense of the folks who live in that community
of residence and who own home sites located in the area zoned rural
residential?
Now, Sue Wright presently lives on Lot 9 in Ruby Dazzling View, Scenic
View Subdivision. Lots 1 through 8 are currently for sale, have real
estate signs on them. If you walk down there and look at those lots and
walk on through them to the edge of this area that couple of the folks
talked about, the backside of those lots that overlooks what the State
apparently refers to as ah... caribou calving area or something of that
nature, and... and if you keep on looking you can look across the river,
you can look across the can.... canneries, you can look way up there at
that majestic snow-capped mountain. It may be perhaps the last truly
dazzling of the view lots inside the city limits of the City of Kenai and
those lots must be paid... and must be sold to pay the estate taxes, the
administrative expenses pending since September 1991 in order for the
sole beneficiary to even be able to continue living on the old homestead
house. But who is going to buy a building lot even if it has the most
majestic view available and even if overlooks a caribou calving area, if it
was located within a few hundred yards of a screaming rock crusher and
a smelly asphalt plant, EVEN if the land is zoned rural residential, which
is what this is. So, the question is right back where we started, who gets
the money? I would request that you look very carefully at the
Ordinance and match it up with the application. If you do, I submit that
the application does not comply with the Ordinance requirements, it
does not comply with the intent of the Ordinance, and it sure doesn't
comply with the theory of developing homes, families, babies, puppy
dogs, bicycle trails, and the stuff that makes up a rural residential and I
have, if I may, copies of the subdivision plat that was recorded in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough, I believe (illegible).
Glick: Okay, is there anyone else in the public wishing to speak?
Natalie Kohler, 4350 Beaver Loop Road, Kenai, Alaska -and Mr.
Foster I'm really sorry about that last (illegible) but I do oppose ah...
mostly for the traffic because when you have those big gravel trucks
which goes down the pit and honks their horns, but it was, it still made
it unavailable for my child to ride a bike. My main concern would be the
road is not designed for heavy traffic and for families that live on it.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 21
Approved
Um... we can't have the extra, more traffic than were already got.
Thank you.
Glick: Thank you. Anyone else in the public wishing to speak? Okay,
seeing none, bring it back to the Commissioners (public hearing closed
at 8:20 p.m.).
Verbatim Ends
Staff had nothing additional unless the Commission had specific
questions.
Bryson noted there was no submittal concerning the emissions of odor,
dust, noise, etc. Bryson asked staff if they've seen plant criteria that
addressed those issues. LaShot replied, the City doesn't have anything
to do with that as it is a DEC responsibility. Bryson thought it would
have been appropriate to include it with a variance request such as this.
Goecke asked if the criteria could be available at the next meeting.
LaShot answered, yes, if the Commission were to continue the hearing
until the next meeting.
GOECKE MOVED TO TABLE THE HEARING UNTIL THE DEC
INFORMATION I3 AVAILABLE.
Bryson stated, before seconding the Motion, that there may be other
comments that the Commission may want to make before the item is
seconded.
Bryson indicated he would like to find out if the applicant would be
willing to limit the use of the facility to the specific plant they purchased
and not make it a much larger facility. This could be addressed over the
next couple of weeks.
LaShot stated that if there were any other points which required
clarification the Commissioner's could contact him.
Werner-Quade stated that 20 people from the area was here and she
assumed that every one of them have a spouse, sister, or mother so that
would make 40 people opposed to the permit. Werner-Quade asked if
anyone thought that anything that DEC says would make a difference or
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 22
Approved
change the families minds about the gravel pit in their neighborhood and
rural residential area. Werner-Quade did not think so.
Mahurin pointed out a motion to table is not debatable and noted that
she was not comfortable with the proceedings with regard to
parliamentary procedure. Glick agreed but pointed out there was not a
second to the motion. Mahurin stated she understood that but there is
debate going on before a second was even made and that bothered her.
Goecke asked the applicant if tabling the issue for two weeks would
create any undue hardship. Foster replied, it would not.
BRYSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vote (Motion on table)
MAHURIN No GRAVELEY No
BRYSON Yes WERNER-QUADE No
GOECKE Yes NORD Yes
GLICK Yes
4 Yes, 3 No, Motioa passed.
Glick clarified that PZ98-28 was tabled to the next Planning and Zoning
meeting where there could be another public hearing. The next meeting
is scheduled for June 24, 1998. Glick continued, staff was asked for
some specific items.
A question was asked about whether public notice would again be
provided. LaShot confirmed that would happen and will include those
individuals in attendance.
Chris Garcia asked if public input regarding a variance was even
considered. Glick replied, he thought so. Garcia, from the floor,
expressed dissatisfaction with tabling the issue (illegible). Glick
reiterated the item was continued to the next meeting. Discussion took
place between members of the audience. Garcia loudly (from his chair)
stated it didn't make sense to have the members of the audience come
back to say the same thing. A lady stated they could bring more people.
Glick reminded those who did not sign in to do so.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 23
Approved
Glick asked fora 5 minute break at 8:35 p.m. Meeting was called back to order at
8:40 p.m.
e. PZ98-29 - A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the City of Kenai, Alaska, amending the Kenai Municipal Code at
14.20 Kenai Zoning Code, Development Requirements Table.
GRAVELEY MOVED TO APPROVE PZ98-29. MOTION SECONDED BY
GOECKE.
Jo-an Buzzell, Kenai, Alaska asked what the Table was being amended
to. Glick replied, it's a Development Requirements Table that is being
amended. Buzzell asked if it concerned the amount of square feet in a
lot? Springer answered, essentially the Development Requirements
Table was amended to provide better clarification, the requirements were
not lessened in any way and it is basically the same Table with better
clarification. Springer continued, side yard setbacks were also given
better clarification.
Buzzell asked if the Table would specify lot square footage required for
tri-plexes rather than a duplex. Springer confirmed the Table does.
Buzzell asked if that has already been decided? Springer stated the
requirement remains the same as it always was. After a brief discussion
it was confirmed that the new Table combines single, two-story and tri-
plexes on one line since the square footage of 20,000 is the same.
Buzzell asked if the Table remained the same then it means that a tri-
plex can be built on a 20,000 sq. ft. lot. Springer answered, in some
zones that is correct. Buzzell asked if that was correct for RR-1.
Springer confirmed that was correct. Buzzell stated that was not enough
footage for a tri-plex and would not be enough room when boats,
motorcycles, pick up trucks, a car, dogs, etc. Springer reiterated the
Table requirement remains the same as prior years. Buzzell continued,
tri-plexes just went in there last year, it was just duplexes up until then.
After another brief discussion it was reiterated the Table did not change
with regard to the square footage required for tri-plexes. Buzzell insisted
that could not be right and she opposed to having tri-plexes on 20,000
sq. ft. lots.
Glen McCollum, Sr., Kenai, Alaska -stated originally duplexes were on
RR-1 in the MAPS area and just before the Chumley deal the City had a
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 24
Approved
meeting and started to allow tri-plexes, that is the way he understands
it. McCollum continued, 2.5 acres and divided four ways would only
give 19,800 sq. ft., after taking 33-1/3 off for the right of way. A tri-plex
on 19,000 sq. ft. will be too small to hold 2 cars for every family or 6
cars, bicycles, a dog or two, and RV's. McCollum stated the Commission
had to go back and look at the requirement again because they are
trying to keep this from getting to be a ghetto. Townhouses were put in
the area and that woke everybody up to get on guard. It was agreed that
duplexes would be allowed and it only always said duplexes. McCollum
continued, it was last winter the Commission changed it, just before
Chumley come in. McCollum insisted he was not insinuating anything
but that's the way he remembers it and said the Commission better go
back and look at it. McCollum noted that he was speaking for another
group and they object to having tri-plexes.
Nolan Conklin, Beaver Loop, Kenai, Alaska asked if the change had
anything to do with the 1420 with the intent and application process for
conditional uses and if there were any changes in that coding. Glick
answered, no.
Public hearing closed.
Mahurin thought perhaps members of the audience were talking about
changes that were made in the Land Use Table which came first. The
Development Requirements Table came second. The change was made
with the Land Use Table which has already gone into place.
Nord noted the Development Requirements Table does not address
anything until it gets to four-plexes. It was also noted the change was
made on July 26, 1991 and it stated the minimum lot area in RR-1 zone
was 20,000 sq. ft.
Goecke stated that he especially like the last part of the Development
Requirements Table which addressed Administrative exemptions. Had
the Table been in effect the variance for the side yard setback would not
have had to been heard at this meeting. Goecke continued, he would
still like to have staff provide Planning and Zoning with a record
whenever anything is administratively approved.
Bryson stated he understood that an item with administrative exception
would be on as a consent agenda subject to approval by the Planning
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 25
Approved
Commission. Bryson continued, that would be his preference
GRAVELEY highly recommended to staff that when a Table is going to be
changed and included in a packet that it have "Draft" written on it and
the correct date be on the bottom. GRAVELEY noted the date on the
material included in this packet had the date of 7/26/91 and it leads to
a bit of confusion. GRAVELEY continued, if the Table was included in
the packet as a draft with a copy of the original a lot of issues could be
clarified. One thing that concerned GRAVELEY is if it is passed the date
on the lower left corner should reflect today's date (6/ 10/98).
Mahurin asked if the practice would be if there are administrative
exceptions the information would come to Planning and Zoning on a
consent agenda. Mahurin asked if this was also part of the Motion.
Bryson replied, it is not part of the Motion but is treated as directing
City to handle it in a certain way.
BRYSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE PHRASE
"SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION" TO THE
LAST SENTENCE ON PAGE THREE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS
REQUIREMENTS TABLE, ADMINISTRATIVE EXEMPTIONS SECTION.
MOTION SECONDED BY MAHURIN.
Mahurin noted, now that she seconded the Motion, that in essence it is
already coming to the Commission for major action so there can't be an
exemption given. If it comes to Planning as an automatic consent
agenda and the Commission could pull it if there were a problem is fine.
Mahurin noted the language didn't say consent agenda, so with the
approval of the maker of the Motion, she felt it needed to be re-worked.
Bryson stated unless Administration just wanted to slow it down it
would come to the Commission as fast as items that are submitted on
Thursday and it is seen the following Monday. It could be done in a
week as opposed to going through a public hearing.
When asked for additional clarification, Bryson reiterated how he would
like the last paragraph on page three of the Developments Requirement
Table to read, "The administrative official may reduce setback
requirements up to ten (10) percent subject to approval of the Planning
Commission based on submittal of a plot plan or an as-built survey."
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 26
Approved
Bryson noted that this allowed the Planning Commission or the public to
object to it if they read the public notices. Smalley asked if it would still
require notification to property owners. Bryson replied, that is not the
intent but it can still go through the same process but this is proposed
to be ratified at the Planning Commission if there are any objections.
Mahurin stated it was very interesting to have this discussion because
she recalls being the only one who voted against it originally because she
still wanted the Commission to have approval which meant notification
to property owners. Mahurin stated that is why she seconded Bryson's
Motion because the rest of the Commission voted to have an addendum
to the Table. Mahurin continued, she understands the intent was to say
that it's okay for the City to do it, draw up the paperwork and it would
come to the Commission. Mahurin indicated that she is confused and
doesn't know whether to approve or disapprove since she objected to it
in the first place.
Goecke thought that public hearing was not required on a consent
agenda. Bryson added, he could vote against his amendment and that
would solve the administrative problems if administration still feels that
public notification is a requirement. Springer stated it was
administration's intention to speed up the process and reduce cost by
eliminating the public notification.
Werner-Quade thought the entire point was so that the Commission
wouldn't see requests 10% or less at each meeting.
MAHURIN MOVED FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE MAIN MOTION. THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE SAYS "THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY
REDUCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS UP TO TEN (10) PERCENT
BASED ON SUBMITTAL OF A PLOT PLAN OR AN AS-BUILT SURVEY."
THE SUBSTITUTED AMENDMENT WOULD SAY "SUCH EXEMPTIONS
WILL BE ADDED TO THE NEXT PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING AS AN ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. "
SUBSTITUTE MOTION SECONDED BY BRYSON.
Vote -Substitute Motion (PZ98-29)
GRAVELEY Yes BRYSON yes
WERNER-QUADE Yes GOECKE yes
NORD Yes MAHURIN Yes
GLICK yes
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 27
Approved
Substitute Motion passed unanimously. The last motion is
substituted for the original motion.
Vote -Amendment of Main Motion (PZ98-29)
BRYSON Yes WERNER-QUADE Yes
GOECKE Yes NORD yes
MAHURIN Yes GRAVELEY Yes
GLICK Yes
Amended Motion passed unanimously.
Vote -Main Motion (PZ98-29j
WERNER-QUADE Yes GOECKE yes
NORD Yes MAHURIN yes
GRAVELEY Yes BRYSON yeS
GLICK yes
Main Motion passed unanimously.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Vacation -Right of Way 8~ Utilities Easements, Government Lots
24, 44 & 45
GOECKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY
AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON GOVERNMENT LOTS 24, 44 8~ 45.
MOTION SECONDED BY BRYSON.
Glick reported that the Commission will make a formal recommendation
to Council for the vacation.
Bryson confirmed this was before the Borough Planning Commission
and it was recommended for approval.
Staff had nothing additional.
Vote
GOECKE yes
NORD Yes
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 28
Approved
MAHURIN Yes
BRYSON Yes
GLICK Yes
GRAVELEY Yes
WERNER-QUADE Yes
8. OLD BUSINESS: -None
9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:
a. Lot 35, Block 2, Bush Lanes Subdivision (1237 Lilac Lane)
b. Lot 4, Bock 2, Kaknu Corners
LaShot reported that no response was received regarding the notices that were
sent out.
10. REPORTS
c. City Council
Smalley reported that City Council met at the Senior Center this evening
(June 10, 1998) and the budget was passed as finalized. The mill rate
remained at 3.5. This special meeting was held due to a slight error with
the notification in the newspaper.
The following report was given based on the copy of the City Council
agenda included in the meeting packet:
Ordinance 1784-98, requiring permits for home occupations was passed
unanimously.
Item C-4 the phone system for ARFF passed unanimously.
Items 7 and 8 passed. Resolution 98-38 was amended to $160,000 and
passed unanimously.
A new speaker system was approved for Council Chambers and will be
ordered soon.
A discussion on the work session with the Historic District Board,
Planning and Zoning and City Council will be held in August.
Items H-3 and 4 were introduced and will be voted on at the next
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 29
Approved
Council meeting.
Item H-5 and 6 were approved.
The evaluations for the City Clerk and City Attorney were discussed in
Executive Session. Council is very satisfied with the performance of
both the City Clerk and Attorney and recommended an increase in
salary.
The Board of Adjustment decisions are included in the packet. All three
appeals have been granted.
Council approved a $500 donation to the Aurora Dancers who will
compete in a national dance competition. The agreement with the
dancers is that they will work with the Parks and Rec Department for
the funds.
Mahurin reported she was very disappointed that the Continuum
Corporation was not going to continue with the facility. Smalley stated
they could not continue because of problems with funding.
d. Borough Planaiag
Bryson reported a Planning meeting was held on June 8, 1998. The Plat
Committee hearing had five plats to consider. All were approved.
Items that generated discussion at the regular meeting included 5. a, 1,
Anchor Point Road and Bridge Construction over the North Fork Anchor
River was requested to be removed from the consent agenda. It was
discussed and during that time the representative from the group in
Homer provided testimony. Basically the Borough staff made comments
and recommendations to the DGC based on coastal zoning criteria. The
criteria was approved by Planning. Bryson had a copy available for
review.
Item F-3, vacation of a portion of a 33 foot easement was described at
east of Bridge Access Road, north of Kalifornsky Beach Road. This
vacation would have provided access to Martin's property. Martin was in
favor of the vacation. This would have had to cross a moderately deep
gully and wetlands area. There was no objection to the proposed
vacation and the comments will be forwarded.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 30
Approved
Item F-4, Land Use Permit for a Gravel Site, Tract B, Anchor Point area.
The item was rather deceptive in its simplicity because there was a great
deal of testimony on it. The item was postponed to the next regular
meeting for the collection of additional information. The area has a very
high water table and the applicant is proposing to excavate into the
water table. People rely on shallow wells in this area, one well is only 6
feet to the bottom.
e. Administration:
Nothing to report.
11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: -None
12. INFORMATION ITEMS:
a. Memo from City Clerk Freas Regarding Excused Absences
b. Information regarding the Historic District Board
c. Appeal Decisions (Fruichantie/Stock/Burger Kingj
d. Corps of Eagineers Public Notice
e. City of Kenai 1997 Annual CLG Report
f. KPB File 98-092 Plat Waiver Information
g. KPB Notice of Public Hearing -KPB File 98-071
h. Planning Commission Roster
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
Commissioner Mahurin indicated her disappointment once again with Council
action on the signs. It makes her wonder who is actually doing the planning
and zoning. Mahurin also expressed concern about MAPCO having cardboard
things attached to their sign post and the 7-11 by Thompson Park has a sign
hanging off to the side. Mahurin asked if that is considered additional square
footage for signage and requested that staff follow up on it.
Mahurin asked if the City is going to open the gate at the commercial float
plane basin and if that was a function of City Hall. Roper reported that she
had asked Holland about opening the gate and was told it will remain locked to
keep ATV's from going in and doing damage. Mahurin reported that vehicles
are getting in anyway as tracks are seen in the ditches beside the gate.
Mahurin also reported fresh signs of moose in the area. Roper will mention it
to Holland again.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 31
Approved
14. ADJOURNMENT:
GOECKE MOVED TO ADJOURN. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Roper, Contract Secretary
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 10, 1998
Page 32