Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-11 P&Z Work Session MinutesCITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 1 1, 1997 LAND USE TABLE-WORK SESSION * * *MINUTES* * * Members present: Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Barb Nord, Karen Mahurin, Michael Christian Members absent: Ron Goecke, Teresa Werner-Quade Others present: City Engineer Jack La Shot, City Attorney Cary Graves, Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull LAND USE TABLE-DISCUSSION: Bryson suggested reviewing the zoning requirements for each zone and then going through the draft that was sent. Mahurin asked if they are to assume the N's are ordinance mandated. Graves stated there are some that are not ordinance mandated. Graves stated for example, in the conservation zones. Bryson suggested separating the residential dwellings at 2/3 family dwelling and then 4 family dwellings. Christian asked if Bryson was suggesting a separate line for three and four family dwelling? Bryson stated yes and Christian commented that he agreed. Bryson stated that would make the table split where the ordinance does. Agreement to split at 2/3 family dwellings and then another category at 4 family dwellings. Glick asked how the group would like to proceed with the review. Mahurin stated it is easier for her to deal with one zone before proceeding to another. Bryson asked the group to keep in mind that if a use was potentially considered a CUP and they make it not permitted (N) that it could be viewed as a taking. Bryson stated he would defer to the attorney on this subject. Graves stated it could be argued as a regulatory taking. Graves stated that in the past to be viewed as a regulatory taking, you must take all economic use of the property. Graves added there are attempts in the legislator now to lessen that standard so any restriction on a property would have to be compensated. Graves advised that when the administration first reviewed the table, they were going to put N's where it showed no use. Graves noted 1 the only other N's added were gas manufacturing and storage noting it is Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 Land Use Table Work Session Minutes April 1 1, 1997 obvious you don't want a liquid gas plant in a residential zone. Graves commented that the administration had been very restrictive about placing N's on the idea that it is the Commission's job to weigh whether a particular conditional use is appropriate in a particular instance. Graves noted this was the administration's philosophy when going through the table. Mahurin asked if it is a correct premise if there is a C, in essence P&Z should approve the use unless there is evidence or public outcry to the contrary. Graves stated not in every case. Graves added he feels it perfectly appropriate for instance, if no one shows up for a hearing, if the Commission feels it is not appropriate, it is within the Commission's authority to deny based on the record. Graves noted this is even if the neighbors are not in opposition. Christian commented that at the same time if it is turned down and they appeal it becomes a political decision. Graves noted the council, when hearing appeals, is not acting as political body. They are aquasi- judicial body. Christian commented that political moods can affect decisions. Christian noted he would like to see not too many C's based on the intent of zone. Christian added that a person who doesn't agree with an N can appeal. Graves clarified that an N doesn't allow for an appeal. Graves stated if they decide on the N, there is nothing to apply for and nothing to appeal. Graves noted they would have to change the zone which would require a code change. Graves noted that is why administration put few N's because it eliminates any possibility of allowing the use. Christian questioned if a variance wouldn't allow for the use. Graves advised that variances are not a land use table mechanism instead it is more for land development issues such as side yard setbacks, etc. La Shot commented that the C designation leaves the power with the Commission. La Shot noted that more N's make administrations job easier but that it is probably not appropriate. Glick noted that council will have to approve the revision and may look and decide they don't like all N's. La Shot noted the way the table is presented it gives some latitude where there is a use that could be compatible. Christian noted then that technically before they added the N's there has always been a chance for the use but placing an N does not allow for the use. Graves clarified that is the correct assumption. Glick asked how would the Commission like to proceed. Mahurin recommended taking each zone in total before proceeding to the next. CONSERVATION ZONE: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 Land Use Table Work Session Minutes April 1 1, 1997 Discussion on whether or not any development should be allowed in the Conservation zone. Mahurin stated it was her opinion that the conservation zone was for preservation and she didn't feel any housing development was appropriate for the zone. Christian concurred. Bryson stated that there are areas with that zone designation that are private property. Bryson asked if the Commission was prepared to not allow development on private property. Graves stated he felt that if they planed N's all the way down the column that it would be a taking. Graves further explained the takings law again. Christian asked if the land could be rezoned. Graves stated they could do that but if the rezone was denied, then they would have a case. Christian commented he felt at this point the option to rezone would still be available to them. La Shot stated there are several areas where the conservation zone does include private property. Nord stated she believed it would be a taking. Mahurin asked what the concept of conservation is? La Shot stated he has found the boundaries of the zone to be somewhat arbitrary. La Shot stated if he knew the boundaries were clear cut from uplands to wetlands, he wouldn't have a problem. Christian commented that a person looking at the table and seeing all the C's would view the restrictions light on conservation. Christian added that they may think that, "sure it's conservation but you can do anything except commercial businesses with Commission approval." Bryson stated that perhaps the Conservation zone should be government land only. Bryson noted that the original zoning map was painted and didn't follow property lines and nominally followed topography. Christian suggested a C for private property and N for public. Graves stated he felt that would be appropriate. Commission decided that all the C's under conservation for Residential section be noted with a footnote stating conditional use only allowed on private property. No other changes on first page of draft. On page 2, Conservation, agreement that Churches be denoted as "C." On page 2, Conservation, agreement that Crematories, Lodges/Fraternal Organizations, Nursing/Convalescent/or Rest Homes, Private Clubs, Social Halls, and Union Halls be denoted as "N." No other changes noted. Note to Legal: Correct "exists" to "exits" on Footnote 12, Page 14-69. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 Land Use Table Work Session Minutes April 1 1, 1997 RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE: Discussion on multi-family dwellings and compatibility with Land Development Table. Decision to change Rural Residential Zone 5/6 Family Dwelling and 7 or more Family Dwelling to "N" to reflect Land Development Table requirements. LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT TABLE DISCUSSION: Christian commented that the RR1 zone is supposed to be more restrictive than the RR zone. Christian stated the implication is that they don't want four family dwellings or more in the zone. Nord agreed. Christian stated he felt the intent was to keep the large size dwellings out of that zone. Nord stated that she felt with the minimum square footage in the development table that it should at least be conditional. Bryson commented that he felt that as you get into the larger lot sizes that five, six, and seven family dwellings become less objectionable as far as impact unless you just don't want them in the RR zone. Christian that since the RS and RR zones are larger lots they are suited for larger size buildings. Christian added that the RR1 and RS1 and RS2 are smaller lots. Nord noted that the RS1 are larger lots. Christian noted that is correct but that it was supposed to be a more restrictive zone and not as congested. Christian stated he felt the blanks were in the Land Use Table because they hadn't wanted something there. Nord noted that when she completes a contract if she doesn't want something, she runs a line through it. Nord drew attention to the Land Development Table and the lines that are in it. Group discussion on how the Land Use Table and Development Table had developed over time and opinions as to how it was interpreted at various times. Bryson noted that RS1, RS2, and RR1 didn't exist at one time. Bryson added that there was a difference between RR and RS. Discussion on the Development Requirements Table. Graves asked La Shot what he would tell someone who requested a CUP for the RR zone (how many square feet)? La Shot noted they would need 40,000 square feet minimum unless they had city water or sewer according to the table. Graves noted the table being blank for five family dwellings in the RR zone. Kebschull drew attention to Footnote C3 . La Shot stated it would require the number of dwelling units times the 7,200 square feet required in the RS Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 Land Use Table Work Session Minutes April 1 1, 1997 zone. Mahurin noted she felt that they all agreed that the requirements of the Land Development Table should be reflected in the Land Use Table. Christian commented that he wondered if they would need to allow for separate two and three family dwelling categories when they look at the other zones. Bryson stated that the development criteria is noted in the Land Development Table. Christian questioned the table noting it does not specifically list one, two, or three family dwellings. Bryson commented he didn't feel they should start changing the table other than what is interpreted as the original intent. Agreement from the other Commission members. Commission returned to review of the RR residential section. Glick asked if they needed to change the designation for four family dwelling. Bryson noted that the four family dwelling required 40,000 sq. ft. without water and sewer. Glick stated then it would be the five, six, and seven that would need changed. Kebschull asked if Footnote C3 took care of the requirements for development. Glick stated he thought it may cover it. Discussion again that this would require the number of dwellings times 7200 sq. ft. Graves noted this would be less than would be required for a four plex. La Shot asked Graves if he would interpret it as five times the 7200 or if you would go down to the five family dwelling in the table for the RS zone which requires only 10,000 sq. ft. Review and discussion of the Land Use Development table. Graves stated he would interpret it as the five times the 7200 sq. ft. Kebschull noted they could change the footnote to reflect whatever they wanted. Christian commented that it seems appropriate that 40,000 without water or sewer is appropriate in RR, but 9,600 for RS without water and sewer does not seem appropriate. Christian stated he felt that needed to be changed. Christian stated if they changed the Land Development Requirements Table to something more appropriate, then the footnote may fit. La Shot stated that perhaps the footnote needs to be clarified. Christian noted they would probably need a footnote to clarify if it was with or without sewer and water. Kebschull noted they could have two development requirements, one with water and sewer and one without. Glick asked if that would be agreeable with everyone. Glick clarified that Kebschull was recommending an additional footnote. Kebschull commented they could have one listing the requirements for water and sewer and one with square footage requirements without water and sewer. Kebschull noted that Footnote C3 also requires that water and sewer facilities meet all health regulations. Kebschull asked what DEC would require? Discussion on what may be required. Bryson stated he felt that the physical area requirements would not be that much different for the sewer system. Bryson added the same buffer would be required for the well. Bryson noted they could probably satisfy the requirements with 40,000 sq. ft. Kebschull offered the Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 Land Use Table Work Session Minutes April 1 1, 1997 suggestion that they could make it conditional where water and sewer is allowed and not allowed where water and sewer not available. Graves noted that water and sewer is required within 200 feet of all mains. Graves asked if there is any place in TSH zone that is not on water and sewer. La Shot stated he thought perhaps in the back behind the church. Christian suggested they have the Land Use Table reflect N's for now and it could be reviewed later. Mahurin stated she agreed that the Table should reflect the Land Use Development requirements. Note, at this point, decided to place the N designation in 5/6 and 7 or more family dwelling categories for the RR zone. Bryson asked for clarification if they were going to make changes on the Land Development Requirements Table. Agreement that they would not make changes at this time. RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1: Decision to place an "N" in the 4, 5/6, and 7 Family Dwelling sections. Christian commented that if they didn't want four, five, six, or seven family dwellings why would they want a townhouse. Mahurin read a portion of the code relating to townhouses. Graves noted that Section 160 is a separate ordinance for townhouses. Christian questioned how they could allow a townhouse when don't allow a four plex in the RR1 zone. Kebschull commented that townhouses are privately owned which may make a difference. Graves noted the code stated that total lot coverage should not cover more than 30 percent of the lot in the RR and RS zones and 40 percent in the RU zone. Bryson asked what the code would require for the remaining zones. Bryson commented it may have been written before those zones were created. Graves stated they could amend the code to include all zones. Bryson asked if that would be reasonable. Graves stated he felt it was consistent noting they will need to have ordinance to clarify. NOTE: Clarify Section 160 by ordinance to include all zones. OTHER CHANGES TO RR1 ZONE: Commercial all N's Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 Land Use Tabte Work Session Minutes April 1 1, 1997 Kebschull questioned the footnote under the RR section for restaurants. Agreement that it is unnecessary. Agreement to remove C8 footnote from Restaurants. Industrial all N's. No changes under Public/Institutional. Crematories - N. Radio/TV Transmitters - C. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion on how to proceed with completing the review of the table. Agreed to continue scheduling work sessions until review is complete. Work session scheduled for 6 p.m. on April 23'd prior to regularly scheduled meeting. Mahurin noted she would be unavailable. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m. Resp ctfully submitted: Marilyn Kebschull Administrative Assistant