Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-11 P&Z Minutes1 CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION **AGENDA** Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo September 11, 1996, 7:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 28, 1996 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: a. PZ96-56-Ridgeview Estates Addition No. 1 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ96-58-Encroachment Permit-Front Yard Setbacks (Zimco)-Lot 10, Block 7, Inlet View Subdivision, Third Addition, Part 2 b. PZ96-59-Conditional Use Permit-Nightly Rental of Apartment (Craig), Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ96-60-Landscape Site Plan Review-Tract 4-B-4 (Pad "C"), Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park Subdivision 8. OLD BUSINESS: 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: 10. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. Joint Work Session Notice-September 16, 1996 at 7 p.m. b. Notice of Borough Planning Commission Action of August 26, 1996 c. Copy of letter sent to Kevin Walker d. Start of Review-Cook Inlet 246-City of Kenai Corps of Engineers Permit Information 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 14. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 11, 1996 **MINUTES** 1. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Teresa Werner-Quade, Michael Christian, Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Ron Goecke Members Absent: Karen Mahurin, John Booth Others Present: Councilman Hal Smalley, City Engineer Jack La Shot, Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Goecke noted the need to change a word under 6a, noting it should be front yard setback instead of side yard. GOECKE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AGENDA WITH NOTED CHANGE AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. BRYSON SECONDED MOTION. AGENDA APPROVED. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 28, 1996 WERNER-QUADE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 28 AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. GOECKE SECOND MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: a. PZ96-56-Ridgeview Estates Addition No. 1 WERNER-QUADE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF PZ96-56. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE. Chairman Glick noted that although this was not a public hearing he would accept public testimony. Megan O'Neill , 5450 King Salmon Drive. O'Neill stated they live next to the lot they are speaking about and maintain the road. O'Neill stated the road needs to be Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 Minutes September 11, 1996 ~~ updated if anybody else is going to be living there. When it is plowed sometimes and there is too much snow, they have to bring in front end loaders. It requires four wheel drive a few weeks out of the year. O'Neill stated she felt that if anybody is looking to have more than one or two houses if they will be building in that area, they need to upgrade the road. O'Neill added that this is the requirement of the land below them. Glick asked O'Neill which street they lived on and was advised King Salmon Drive. O'Neill stated they road they are talking about upgrading is their driveway. Bryson asked which of the easements or streets that appear on the plat itself, which is developed? La Shot stated King Salmon Drive. Bryson noted that King Salmon Drive and Chisik are shown. La Shot stated Chisik Street is a city maintained street and added that King Salmon Drive contains a driveway to O'Neill's house which is on Lot 1 of Reidel Subdivision. O'Neill noted that it is basically a driveway and two. cars couldn't use it at the same time. Bryson noted the property is not dedicating any ROW with action; they are splitting a lot without dedication of ROW. Bryson stated he would assume that the city doesn't require a road agreement on this. La Shot stated we do, and it doesn't necessary have to involve ROW dedication. La Shot offered the following history: When lots 1 and 2 of Reidel SD was platted, the entire 60 feet of King Salmon Drive was dedicated at that time from the Reidel property. Reidel wanted to subdivide off Lot 1 so he could sell it. The city did allow that without install agreement; however a note was placed on plat that further .resubdivision of Lot 2 would require an installation agreement. Now, across the street four lots are being formed which would enter the ROW dedicated by Reidel. It appears appropriate that they should be required to join into an installation agreement. Bryson asked who? La Shot stated the owners of the property that this is platting. Bryson asked which tract dedicated the right of way. La Shot stated it was dedicated by the Reidels. Bryson commented that they committed another property to an installation agreement. La Shot stated Reidel on the other side of the street dedicated a full ROW. Normally, they would dedicate half. La Shot noted that any further resubdivision of that property would require construction or half construction of the street. Chairman Glick asked if additional questions of Ms. O'Neill. None noted. Glick asked La Shot if he had additional comments. La Shot stated nothing but that he does recommend the installation agreement. Christian asked if there is anything proposed along Lot 5 adding that he sees lines on the plat. La Shot stated this plat will dedicate a half a right of way to match the existing half adding that is the normal procedure. Christian asked when you say that Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 11, 1996 ~ they need to get into this installation agreement, what are you saying. La Shot explained it means to improve the road. Bryson asked if we were done with public testimony. Glick asked if anyone had additional comments. None noted. Bryson noted that apparently the Rex Eagle homestead dedicated a 30 foot right of way. La Shot confirmed this. Bryson stated he wondered why they were being allowed to dedicate a 30 foot easement rather than a full dedication. La Shot noted that normally half a dedication is the way it is normally done. Then, when the property subdivides across the street, they dedicate the other half. Bryson noted they are proposing a ROW easement, not a ROW period. La Shot stated he is not sure whey they called it an easement. Bryson noted they retain use of that property. La Shot stated he is not as worried about that one due to the flag configuration. It may be appropriate to say further resubdivision of Lot 5 would require an installation agreement for M Street properties. Bryson questioned if the Rex Eagle property was outside the city limits asking if the limits are right on that line. La Shot stated yes and that further complicates it. At this time there is no street in there. Goecke asked what happens with this subdivision now and the installation agreement is that the developer on this plat must bring King Salmon Drive up to code even though it is on the Reidel property. La Shot stated that was right noting it was in a right of way. Bryson asked if the parent property of this addition number one was part of the Reidel property noting it is in the same quarter section. Bryson asked what created this quarter section? Was it transfered from the state? La Shot read the legal description adding it is all one property and he doesn't know where it came from. Christian asked when we are going through and we require installation agreement. Do we hold off approval until they do this or do we approve it and they are expected to do it. La Shot explained it is approved with the stipulation that there be an installation agreement. The borough will not file the plat until the installation is completed or there is an agreement. Bryson stating he didn't know where the city boundary is other than it lies on the solid line at the bottom of the plat. Bryson questioned if on the right hand side is also in city limits, between unsubdivided and Ridgeview Addition. La Shot stated he thinks the property line is on the north boundary. (The group took time for Ms. O'Neill and La Shot to look at maps.) La Shot advised that city limits run along the south and the east boundaries of this plat. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 Minutes September 11, 1996 Bryson stated he is uncomfortable with a nondedication of a 30 foot right of way on the north adding he doesn't know the access problem on the east. Bryson stated that particularly with the 30 foot ROW existing south of this property, it would seem appropriate to dedicate that 30 foot easement particularly since they are breaking this into a lot situation. Goecke commented making it a dedicated 30 foot ROW instead of an easement. Bryson stated that is what he felt was appropriate adding that the borough may comment on it. La Shot stated they may have done that to try to avoid an installation agreement. La Shot added that the surveyor had indicated they didn't plan to get into that with the city since they weren't dedicating on King Salmon Drive. La Shot noted his recommendation is to have an installation agreement. La Shot noted he is not worried about the M Street right of way because of the large Lot 5 configuration. They could enter from Chisik and if they further resubdivide La Shot noted at that time he would recommend an installation agreement. Goecke commented that he thinks it would be cleaner if we required the 30 foot ROW dedicated now and have it over with on the south side. Goecke stated if he is breaking it up, there is a chance he will continue and will just have to come back. La Shot stated that at that time we can require street construction on M Street. Goecke stated he would rather see the ROW on the south side of Lot. 5 a dedicated ROW rather than ROW easement. Bryson asked if they were to come in for a building permit on Lot 5, would their setback have to consist of 25 feet from the ROW edge or from the property line. La Shot stated from the end of the ROW. Bryson clarified from the ROW easement. La Shot stated they would take the easement line as the beginning point for the setback. VOTE: BRYSON YES GOECKE YES GLICK YES WERNER-QUADE YES CHRISTIAN YES MOTION PASSED. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ96-60-Encroachment Permit-Front Yard Setbacks (Zimco)-Lot 10, Block 7, Inlet View Subdivision, Third Addition, Part 2 GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL PZ96-60, AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK ON LOT 10, BLOCK 7, INLET VIEW SUBDIVISION. MOTION SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Page 5 September 1 1, 1996 Glick additional staff comments. La Shot stated nothing additional adding that they did obtain a variance to encroach in the rear yard previously. When they finished the house, found they were encroaching in the front yard. Had they moved house back one foot, for example, they would have been okay. La Shot stated he thinks they tried to give a little more rear yard to the house. Smalley asked Chairman Glick if it would be appropriate to ask a question of La Shot. Glick advised yes. Smalley asked what would prevent these encroachment requests in the future asking if there is something that the city can do to prevent these from occurring. La Shot stated he thought the closest thing would be to require that the house corners be staked in the field by surveyor. Now they are required to submit a plot plan from a certified surveyor and an asbuilt but it doesn't require them to physically stake the corners. Smalley asked if we had any idea of the cost to have those stakes done to identify the corners? La Shot estimated from $100 to $200. Smalley commented if an encroachment isn't granted, there is a cloud on a house and it can't be financed. Mark Zimmerman, Route HC, Box 755, Soldotna-Zimmerman explained he was the one who did it. Zimmerman stated he had gotten the permit explaining it was a tight lot and tried to maximize it. Zimmerman stated they could have gotten the house on the lot okay but would have had to have turned it and wouldn't look right with the other houses which are square with the street. Zimmerman explained they got permit to straighten the house with the street. Zimmerman noted they had the lot surveyed because it was so tight. When the concrete subcontractor came out Zimmerman noted they had a discussion about getting right and was assured it was right. Zimmerman stated they set the footings and laid the block. Zimmerman stated he checked it and the house ended up being turned a little, didn't go into the back as far as first thought. Zimmerman explained that there is a bedroom that sticks out on the front and when he checked the left hand corner it was okay, the right hand corner was 6 inches over the line. The house ended up with a little twist that put that bedroom over. Zimmerman explained they were trying to get it too tight. Zimmerman noted he could have just pushed the house back because he had permission to do that but were trying to get it right and missed. Zimmerman offered this as a point of explanation and added they did survey the lot because of the tightness of the house. Bryson commented that this, to him, is a typical situation. They attempted to do it right, followed rules on book, and at some point something relatively minor occurs. Bryson noted he thinks this is the appropriate use of this type of approval, after the fact and it is acknowledged at this time. Bryson stated he thinks this is the purpose of the ordinance rather than a violation. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 11, 1996 Goecke asked Chairman Glick if it would be appropriate to ask Mr. Zimmerman a question. Glick advised yes. Goecke asked Mr. Zimmerman if in his estimation with what they were talking about earlier with requiring the corners to be staked, would that additional cost be a detriment to you as a builder. Goecke added that we all know that would be passed on. In your case, if the city had required you to have your surveyor stake the corners of the house to make sure you are within the setbacks, would that $100 more. Zimmerman stated he has never heard of a surveyor staking corners of a house. Smalley commented he thought it was property corners. Bryson stated they are talking about putting about references for corners of the house. Zimmerman stated when they know it is going to be this tight adding they had to do the preliminary and that was why he had the surveyor locate the lot corners. Zimmerman commented that in some cases it might not be a bad idea adding that in some cases you cannot always find those corners. Zimmerman commented that if he hadn't surveyed it he might have been two feet off. Goecke stated his question was if had the city required the surveyor to stake the corners of the house prior to digging, and this costs from $100 to $200, would that cost extra to pay surveyor be a detriment to the sale of that house? Zimmerman responded it wouldn't but you have to dig afterwards and it is hard to keep the stakes there for the house. Zimmerman added that if you string the corners from the lot, you can measure off the strings. Zimmerman explained how the excavation makes it difficult to maintain the stakes. Zimmerman explained that he had gone back and checked and the left corner of the bedroom and it was okay but it was the right corner that was over. Zimmerman added you cannot keep stakes on the corners during construction. Zimmerman commented that he thinks when doing a certified plot plan, in some cases it wouldn't be a bad idea to say you need to survey this. VOTE: WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES CHRISTIAN YES BRYSON YES CLICK YES MOTION PASSED. b. PZ96-59-Conditional Use Permit-Nightly Rental of Apartment (Craig), Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision BRYSON MOVED TO APPROVE PZ96-59. MOTION SECONDED BY WERNER- QUADE. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 Minutes September 11, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. Jim White, 1509 Toyon Way-White explained his property is three lots away from this property. White questioned if a guide could come in and rent this and have fish fries every night, people drinking beers, and rattling coolers and throwing them in the boat at 5 a.m. Could that happen? White noted this is not a bed and breakfast if the owner doesn't live there. Instead more like a Comfort Inn where you rent a room and get a continental breakfast. La Shot noted the applicant indicated daily rental with breakfast service and/or dinner and didn't indicate if the owners would live there or not. White commented that next to his property there are two empty lots and asked what would keep someone from building another motel there? White asked if that could happen or would they have to go through someone. La Shot asked Glick if he wanted him to answer these questions. La Shot stated this Conditional Use Permit is specific to this property. If any other lots around it wanted to do something similar, they would have to go through the same process. White asked if it would it be easier since the precedent was set. La Shot agreed it may set some precedent. White stated that based on that this, he would be opposed to this separation of commercial versus residential properties. White stated that this is a nice property, expensive property on the bluff and wouldn't want to see my property damaged as by what I see as a motel. DeWayne Craig-Listed residence as Vancouver, Washington at present. Craig stated that when talking about how to fill out the application when talking to people upstairs they indicated that a bed and breakfast specifically designed for residential house. Craig stated that what he wants to do is operate a bed and breakfast adding he would live there and take all the pride that someone would take in their own home. Craig stated he feels he has demonstrated that over the years. Craig noted he has won a beautification award, put steps in to the beach, put bench there, planted the beach grass along the walkway, and planted the trees. Craig stated he feels he has shown pride and ownership. The concern about the lots next door that are vacant next to Dr. Bailie is specifically zoned in the covenants for single family. Craig stated his lot was specifically zoned for apartments adding the whole street all zoned for apartments and that there aren't any residents there on Forest Drive. Craig stated that right now the way it is being rented someone could have a beer party and it could last all night. Adding there is nothing keeping it from happening. Craig commented that he felt with a bed and breakfast situation there would be a lot more control as you would be living there and could evict them on the spot. In an apartment it takes weeks sometimes to Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 Minutes September 11, 1996 get somebody out of apartment. Craig commented that the apartment, the next one up street the gray one, was used by Louie for a couple summers as a nightly rental noting this was the overflow from Louies. Craig noted there has been some precedence set. Craig noted he wouldn't want to use it as an overflow but wanted to use it as a bed and breakfast. Christian asked Craig if his intention is to live in it. Craig stated absolutely. Craig noted he has been living outside, has grand kids here, and has been trying to figure out a way to come back four or five months in the summer. Christian asked what Craig's plan was for the other months? Craig stated it will be either vacant or as it always has been, rented as an apartment. PUBLIC H EARING CLOSED. Glick asked if there was an additional staff report. La Shot noted if the commission would like the owner to occupy the building when they rent it by the night, they should make a specific motion. La Shot noted this was not noted in either the application or the staff report. Chairman Glick drew attention to the items handed out tonight relating to this item. La Shot asked if there were any questions on handout. Werner-Quade asked if this handout 6b is in regard to this particular rental application? La Shot stated yes. Werner-Quade asked what the intent was and if it was to point out the regulations? La Shot noted the one memo is from the Kornelis'. Werner-Quade asked if that is the Public Works Director. La Shot stated yes and that he is attempting to show that this is a use not shown in the land use table. The other item is to show things that were done to allow uses that were not listed in the land use table. La Shot stated he thinks memo from Kornelis was submitted as a citizen. Werner- Quade asked if it is in opposition. L a Shot stated it appears to be. Werner-Quade concurred with that. Werner-Quade stated she would like to note this is an apartment and is not four separate cabins. Goecke noted he got as much as ever of calls from people in that neighborhood from people complaining although noted there is not one here tonight. Goecke noted it may be because he knows some of the people who live over there. Goecke stated they were not real happy when they got this letter and called. Goecke noted he has a problem with it adding he doesn't think that that neighborhood was ever thought to be designed for a nightly thing. This is not a commercial zone. Goecke stated he thinks that is the way it should be and think it should be left that way. Goecke stated that nightly rentals, to me, are a little more on the commercial side. Goecke noted that because of this he will be voting against this. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9 Minutes September 1 1, 1996 ~ Christian asked if Mr. La Shot indicated that if we wanted to make a specification that we do it in a motion. Glick confirmed this. CHRISTIAN MOVED THAT THIS B&B BE OWNER OCCUPIED AT THE TIME THAT IT IS USED AS A DAILY RENTAL. AND, AT ANY SITUATION THAT HE IS NO LONGER IN RESIDENCE THAT THE CUP BE WITHDRAWN. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Bryson stated the conditional use permit applicaton does not state that it is requested to be used as a bed and breakfast. Bryson stated he didn't see where he uses that word. So, presumably we cannot approve it on that basis. La Shot stated the reason the CUP was used because of them being apartments and the square footage being used would exceed that allowed for bed and breakfast. If you put a stipulation that the owner did occupy it during times of nightly rental it may amount to the same thing without it really having the definition of a bed and breakfast. Smalley stated that he thinks a number of years ago when serving on P&Z there was a situation in VIP where a four Alex that came to the same procedures. Smalley stated he thought this was right about the time that approved of B&B ordinance. This was an apartment complex that the owner lived in one of the units and the other units were then allowed to be used as B&B's, like La Shot was saying. Smalley noted so there is precedence on record. Smalley stated with Christian's motion that failed a concern that when it is not owner occupied that the CUP be completely gone which means he would have to apply again. There is a precedence in the city where conditional use for B&B's of such are on record in residential areas. Werner-Quade stated she did not have trouble with the amendment until if Mr. Craig isn't there then CUP would be revoked. Werner-Quade asked what if he had to go out of town suddenly for an emergency, what if he has a daughter or someone else who could oversee the B&B. Werner-Quade stated that is why she couldn't support the amendment even though supporting the basics and think someone should be there. Werner-Quade stated she would want that to be Craig but if someone should check and you are out of town the permit revoked. Bryson stated concerning the staff reference to difference general conditions how this proposed use affects the neighborhood and the area. Bryson stated he doesn't feel that the access problem where it might increase traffic is valid. Presumably the units are already created so the traffic count wouldn't modify that much. Bryson noted Forest Drive is the same width development on the north end of Redoubt Terrace as on the south. Virtually half the subdivision uses the north end and only Toyon Way uses the south end. Bryson stated he feels the infrastructure is adequate. As far as the affect on neighbors, I would think it would have an affect. Bryson stated you get into a situation Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10 Minutes September 11, 1996 that could the lot next to it justify the same use because their neighbors have that and at that point, where do you stop. Christian stated he agrees that there is so much traffic on Forest that he doesn't see much increase in traffic there. There seems to be adequate parking for numerous units. Craig noted that for the first year he just planned on renting one or two units. Christian stated it doesn't seem it will be that large a burden because Forest Drive is a very active street. Christian stated he would think impact would be minimal. Christian stated he would like to see something in there that would identify this as a bed and breakfast which says the owner would occupy building when it is used as a bed and breakfast. Christian noted he would like to make a proposal that would keep this from being rescinded as soon as he leaves. CHRISTIAN MOVE THAT THIS CUP WOULD BE WRITTEN AS A BED & BREAKFAST UNDER THE STIPULATIONS ALREADY IN THE CODE FOR B&B AND THAT ON A LONG TERM BASIS WHEN THE OWNER IS NO LONGER OCCUPYING THE BUILDING THAT THE USE AS A BED & BREAKFAST BE TAKEN AWAY EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENCY. BRYSON SECOND THE MOTION. Smalley noted he caught one thing when talking about the stipulations in the code in reference to bed and breakfast, it gives a specific square footage in a home. The precedence that has been set in apartment is larger than that 30 percent figure. Do you want to leave it at that 30 percent or make it a similar situation where it is more than the 30 percent. Smalley noted he believed the one in VIP is three of the four apartment units were rentals. Christian stated he has a problem if we go with the 30 percent either this owner or a subsequent owner could subdivide into numerous rooms that could make it into 8 or 12 units and noted he wouldn't like to see that either. Smalley stated the amendment could speak to the number of apartments that would be allowed for B&B in the facility. Werner-Quade asked for clarification of how many units there were and that the owner intends to occupy one. That would leave three units available for the nightly rental. Werner-Quade stated if amendment was changed to state that the owner would occupy one of the existing four units leaving three available for nightly rentals that would be an amendment she could support. Christian stated he would change amendment. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 1 Minutes September 1 1, 1996 AMEND AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT THE OWNER WOULD OCCUPY ONE OF THE FOUR APARTMENTS DURING OPERTION AS A BED & BREAKFAST WHILE THE OTHER THREE ARE RENTED ON A NIGHTLY BASIS. TAKE OUT THE CODE PART AND SAY THAT AS LONG AS THE OWNER OCCUPIES ONE OF THE FOUR APARTMENTS WHEN USED ON A NIGHTLY BASIS. BRYSON CONCURRED WITH MODIFICATION. VOTE AMENDMENT: GOECKE YES CHRISTIAN YES BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES GLICK YES AMENDMENT PASSED. VOTE ON MAIN: CHRISTIAN YES BRYSON NO WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE NO GLICK NO MOTION FAILED. Chairman Glick informed Mr. Craig of his right to appeal the decision. 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ96-57-Landscape Site Plan Review-Tract 4-B-4 (Pad "C"), Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park Subdivision GOECKE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PZ96-60, LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN REVIEW, PAD C, COOK INLET INDUSTRIAL AIR PARK. MOTION SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN. Glick asked if there was anything additional to the staff report. La Shot noted nothing as long as everyone understands that this is one of the small pads in front of Carrs. Bryson went on record as abstaining from discussing or voting on this as working on other phases of this. Christian asked if we are talking about the first pad on left or the second. La Shot stated the first pad as going east from the intersection past Dairy Queen. Christian asked if he understands this and that they will have a fence facing Spur Highway, a wooden gate to match fence. Christian stated he is wondering what fence adding it says a 6 foot high cedar fence and that is what will be facing the Spur Highway. La Shot stated it is hard to see but looks like a short piece of fence. Christian asked if it is to Planning & Zoning Commission Page 12 Minutes September 11, 1996 hide trash bins. Christian noted we are not being told what retail business will be in this. La Shot stated he didn't think it was a secret adding he thinks this is a pizza/video place. Christian stated the entrance is by way of the two parking lots on the side? La Shot stated he believes so. Christian added that the front that faces Carrs does not have entrances. La Shot stated he couldn't say for sure from looking at this. Christian stated his worry is that as we are driving through town and looking at the back end of a building adding he would object to that. Christian stated he would like to see the finished building. Christian stated it looks like it will be facing Carrs and all the landscaping on the side facing Carrs. Christian stated he realizes there is existing landscaping on the road side. Christian stated it doesn't give us as much information as I would like to have. Christian asked if it is possible Bryson could explain more. Bryson stated he was not familiar adding that his firm is doing the water and sewer. Goecke stated he is of the same opinion as Christian. Goecke stated he has a hard time with putting the fenced in dumpster and loading dock on the Spur Highway adding that he understands what the developer is wanting to do. The developer has the whole parcel and he is wanting it to be an all inclusive thing. Goecke stated that as long as the entrances are on the side, he would think that this would be better served if that building was turned 180 and that dumpster was next to a parking lot not out to the street. Goecke stated he was wondering adding that maybe it shouldn't even be brought up but asking the developer about that (noted he wasn't here). Goecke stated he would like to either personally or have someone ask him his intent. Goecke noted that consequently this would mean putting this on hold. Glick asked Goecke if he would like to make a motion to table to the next meeting. GOECKE MOVED TO TABLE RES PZ96-60 UNTIL NEXT MEETING OR UNTIL WE CAN ACQUIRE MORE INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPER WITH INFORMATION AS TO HIS CRITERIA FOR PUTTING THE BACK SIDE TO THE HIGHWAY. MOTION SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN. Werner-Quade questioned if under New Business 7a was it changed as on agenda it says 96-57 and questioned if it should be it 96-60. Kebschull advised it should be 96-60 as noted on the resolution and note the change on the agenda. Glick asked if the Commission was ready to vote to table it to the next meeting. VOTE: BRYSON GOECKE GLICK ABSTAIN WERNER-QUADE YES CHRISTIAN YES YES YES MOTION PASSED. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 8. OLD BUSINESS: 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: 10. REPORTS: a. City Council Page 13 September 11, 1996 Smalley advised he didn't arrive at the meeting until the Commission and Committee reports were being given. Smalley noted on the agenda you can see what was passed. Item 2 made arrangements to pay interim city manager just more than the highest paid city employee noting that is right at $7,000 a month. Smalley noted he is responsible for all taxes, etc. He gets no retirement, etc. During the committee reports a number of openings on different commissions were noted and you may have received letters indicating there are other openings. Smalley noted it is not because council thinks you should move on. Primarily other commissioners get it when openings on this Commission because this is a truly working commission. Smalley noted that not that the other commissions aren't but this one meets twice a month and does more business for the city. Old business, Item 1 and 2, set a meeting for the 16th on the Comprehensive Plan. You will be invited to meeting on Monday. Also information on FY98 capital matching grants programs will be presented beginning at 7 p.m. Top of page three, the Garcia building in Cunningham Park. Smalley noted that clearly the building is on city property. He has been at a stop order on his development and the city is wanting the problem to be remedied. Smalley stated he would suggest that by the evacuation of Mr. Garcia's work. Smalley added he didn't think those words were in the minutes; however, he felt that was the intent. New business, Smalley explained the reason why #4 pulled off, they wanted to deal with it and it was passed. The advertisement item for the new city manager identified publications that would be used for advertising. Those advertisements will go out November 1st with a closure the 15th of December. Smalley explained it has to go into November as some publications have minimum of 30 days pre-notice for advertising. Smalley advised the city will be advertising in journals in lower 48. Smalley listed the publications that will be used. Smalley stated they feel we will get a large number of applications. Already have received one application which was unsolicited. Council is looking at somewhere in January, February, or March being the date to expect a new city manger on line. Council will meet in October to go through expectations, duties, responsibilities of that position. Council is clarifying some of the issues from last time because there was some confusion because it wasn't specific. Council will make a Planning & Zoning Commission Page 14 Minutes September 1 1, 1996 decision if it will be reviewing the applications and holding interviews or if we will contract with another firm. Last time elected to do it because fees run $18,000 to $20,000 but when hiring someone who is basically CEO with salary of $100,000 small fee to pay. Inlet Woods subdivision lights put in seven light poles. Item 7, Smalley explained the city is purchasing an evergreen tree and memorial plaque and placing in Leif Hansen Memorial Park for a past councilman and mayor and teacher in the district for many years, Eugene Morin. b. Borough Planning Bryson stated there was a regular meeting last Monday. Prior to the regular meeting a work session on the borough's position considering ADEC's withdrawal from wastewater review in borough. That was the third work session and have one more set. On the regular agenda, Item C, all items approved without change. Item G, vacations not requiring public hearing, request for vacation of utility easement was approved. Special consideration items were all approved. Bryson noted an interesting one is number 5. Jake Ivanoff, prior to the borough selected lands from the state, he had made application to the federal government for a larger piece of property. That was lost by the agency handling it and this is an attempt to settle the claim that Ivanoff has on that property. It has been proposed and he would accept a five acre tract in that area. On plats nine were reviewed. One was tabled pending public hearing. Item J, Kenai River Habitat Protection, an individual proposed construction of a carport at River mile 15.2. The structure he has there was partially damaged by last year's flood. After going through the testimony it was indicated he was proposing to enlarge what he has rather than just rebuild. Action was to deny the request. He still would be allowed to reconstruct what he has there noting he doesn't need a permit for that. Werner-Quade questioned on the Kenai River Habitat, when he asked to expand and the commission denied. What was the reason for the denial. Bryson stated he thinks the sentiment was that the ordinance states that you cannot increase the development in those areas near the bank. Bryson noted he happened to be on the other side of the issue. The meeting before four situations that came up. He showed pictures of the way these subdivisions appear. Bryson stated he assumes it is much the same situation and couldn't conceive any impact than there is there already. Werner-Quade explained her reasons for asking is in case those issues should come to the city adding she knows the fragility of the habitat that may come into play. c. Administration Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 15 September 11, 1996 Did research on the zoning map and have answers to the industrial arts and Inlet View area, the two other areas Bryson was right about. La Shot asked the Commission to take note of the information items and the joint work session with Council regarding the Comp Plan Update and the Capital Improvements list. Smalley encouraged group to be there for the CIP list as in the past P&Z had been a part of that process. 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. Joint Work Session Notice-September 16, 1996 at 7 p.m. b. Notice of Borough Planning Commission Action of August 26, 1996 c. Copy of letter sent to Kevin Walker d. Start of Review-Cook Inlet 246-City of Kenai Corps of Engineers Permit Information 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: Christian asked La Shot if he had checked on the Birch Street ditch. La Shot stated it should be fixed soon adding it is a bad bump. 14. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Res ectfully Submitted: Maril n Kebschull Administrative Assistant