Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-08 P&Z Minutes CTTY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION **AGENDA** Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo November 8, 1995, 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kevin Walker 1. ROLL CALL: 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 25, 1995 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: 5. PLANNING: a. Subdivision Plat Approval, Bailey Estates, PZ95-56 b. Subdivision Plat Approval, Warehouse Subdivision, PZ95-58 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: } 7. NEW BUSINESS: 8. OLD BUSINESS: a. Comp Plan Update 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: a. Klondike Bed & Breakfast 10. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 14. ADJOURNMENT: } APPROVED CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 1995 ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Teresa Werner-Quade, Ron Goecke, Kevin Walker, Karen Mahurin William Toppa Councilman Smalley, Jack La Shot-City Engineer, Marilyn Kebschull-Administrative Assistant Chairman Walker advised two handouts to be added to the agenda: Comp Plan Update handout, Grants on Future Projects handout, and an excerpt from the Kenai } City Council meeting minutes. Chairman Walker asked for a motion for approval of agenda. RON GOECK RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF AGENDA AS AMENDED AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY CARL GLICK. Chairman Walker asked if anyone opposed unanimous consent. None noted. AGENDA APPROVED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 25, 1995 Chairman Walker asked if any corrections to minutes. Karen Mahurin noted to add to "Person's Present" Kevin Walker, Chair, and Mr. Smalley, council representative. PHIL BRYSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 1995 AND REQUESTED UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF AMENDED MINUTES. MOTION SECONDED BY CARL GLICK. Chairman Walker asked if anyone opposed unanimous consent. None noted. MINUTES APPROVED. Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 1 PLANNING: a. Subdivision Plat Approval, Bailey Estates, PZ95-56 RON GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PZ95-56, SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL, BAILEY ESTATES. MOTION SECONDED BY TERESA WERNER- QUADE. Chairman Walker asked for additional staff comments. Jack La Shot noted nothing additional. Walker noted no persons present in the audience today so brought item back to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Bryson asked if any passibility of allowing a road to pass through and not be blocked. Bryson stated he knew the answer but Norman Street dead ends and he assumes it is coming out of Inlet View. La Shot stated he could not speak for the owner. Continuing, he stated that the Norman Street dead end does come from Inlet View and it was put there for future subdivision of this property, if it needed to go through to Lawton. On Lot 1, the owner has placed his house such that at some future time he could resubdivide Lot 1 and still get the street through there. La Shot stated he felt that if this plat was passed, it is probably unlikely that would ever happen. Mr. Goecke questioned Mr. La Shot if he knew the relationship of the house on Lot 1 . Mr. La Shot stated he knew approximately where it was located. That it is placed just to the east of where Norman Street, if it was projected through, would be. La Shot continued stating that if Norman Street went an through it could be combined with a parcel to the west, there could be lots on bath sides of that street. The lot to the west is being developed also into a couple houses, one is under construction now. La Shot stated the two parties did not get together for any kind of a joint subdivision. Goecke stated the way the map is depicted one would have to assume this is close to a legal description as it is laid out; there is not any way they could build to the west of Norman-is there? La Shot stated not on this lot. La Shot stated he would have to work together with or acquire the parcel to the west. Chairman Walker asked if any further questions or discussions. Councilman Smalley added that those parcels immediately to the are west all the way to Lawton Road are owned by a gentleman. Smalley stated the subdivision was discussed at Planning and Zoning approximately two meetings prior. The utility easement comes in by Norman Street. Mr. Bailey allowed that to happen. His electrical comes one way but the gas comes in from Lawton. There is no plan to resubdivide. The way the one house was placed it killed the cul-de-sac idea that was being planned. That builder Bald the property to the west to another individual. His plan was to work with Mr. Bailey and one of the original owners to subdivide the entire area and it didn't work out. Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 2 Chairman Walker stated he had one question for Mr. La Shot. Walker stated you can see where Norman Street leads up to this lot. Walker stated he believed, and asked Mr. La Shot to correct him if he was wrong, that there is no dedicated right of way #or Norman Street across these lots, La Shot stated no. Walker stated Norman Street is a dedicated right of way for the adjacent property. La Shot responded yes, far Inlet View Subdivision. Walker asked far further discussion. Mr. Bryson added if the city desires that this road be addressed that now is the time to address it as you can't plan on anything else happening. Bryson stated it may be that they can work out something and that maybe they can`t. But, the city needs to make their intent known, if it if felt that another access aut of Inlet View is desirable. Mr. Goecke stated that Mr. Bryson brought up an item that has been a concern to him regarding this plat. Goecke stated he would have at one time have liked to have seen Norman come out to Lawton but at this point in time he feels the city should is make Norman as far as it is ever going to go. It will not be extended through. Mr. Goecke stated he had initially had aself-serving desire as he awned property in the area and would have liked to have seen an exit that was easier than Paula Street or coming back out on Rogers. Continuing, with this plat as presented, Goecke stated he felt that he personally felt that Norman should not ever be considered to go beyond where it is right now. Mr. Glick asked if Norman Street dead ending without a cui-de-sac caused snow removal problems? Mr. La Shot stated it was not the most desirable. La Shot stated there is a street, Susianna, that goes directly to the left that the blades can pull in and back and it is not tough to turn around there. Mr. Bryson stated he would like to propose an amendment. ADD THE STIPULATION THAT NORMAN STREET BE DEDICATED TO EXTEND PROVIDING ACCESS TO AND PROM LAWTON DRIVE. Chairman Walker asked Mr. Bryson to restate the amendment. BRYSON PROPOSED THAT THE DEDICATION FOR NORMAN STREET BE EXTENDED TO LAWTON DRIVE. AMENDMENT SECONDED BY CARL GLICK. Chairman Walker asked if Mr. Bryson wished to speak to the amendment. Mr. Bryson stated his supporting sentiment would be that he feels that Inlet View is served very paarly by it's access. As Inlet View has grown to the west there has been no access developed to an already poor situation. Bryson stated there is one roadway that is probably 32 feet curb to curb and the only access in and aut of that area. Bryson stated he did not feel that was a goad situation. Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 3 l Mr. Goecke stated he understood Mr. Bryson, that he was referring to Rogers 1 Raad going in and out. Goecke stated that Paula Street goes back out to Lawton off of Rogers. Mr. Goecke stated he did not feel this was appreciably different that Redoubt Subdivision; there are only two streets into it, Gill Street and Forest Drive. Continuing, it is no different that Inlet Woods, two streets in there. Both, of them coming out a block apart. Chairman Walker asked for further discussion. Seeing and hearing none, roll call on the amendment. VOTE ON AMENDMENT TO PZ95-56: GLICK YES BRYSON YES WERNER-aUADE YES GOECKE NO MAHURIN YES WALKER NO AMENDMENT APPROVED. Chairman Walker asked if any further discussion on the main motion as amended? Seeing and hearing none, called for question. Mr. La Shot asked to make one comment. La Shot stated that if they require the owner to dedicate a right of way extending through to Lawton that would require an installation agreement for construction of the street. La Shot stated the Commission may want to comment in this regard. Should the owner be required to construct the new street into Inlet View Subdivision? Mr. Bryson stated, as a paint of discussion, the owner has developed paved access to the lots that he fronts an and in no way could it be construed that this is serving his property. Bryson stated he would not feel, in this case, that having the owner go to the expense of developing the roadway would be appropriate. Bryson asked if not addressing an issue would take care of the situation or should direction be requested. La Shat stated it doesn't put the burden of constructing the street on the owner but it does put it on the city probably to construct a new entrance if it is dedicated. La Shot stated the normal procedure when a subdivision is filed and streets are dedicated is that the city require an installation agreement for construction of streets, water, sewer, or whatever is needed for the subdivision. La Shot stated that the city could wave that requirement, but then who would be constructing the entrance. La Shat stated he did not disagree that it is needed into that subdivision. La Shot stated this was a tough plat. The surrounding property around Inlet View was subdivided and the whole area planned as if this parcel would someday be apart of the development. La Shot stated if Inlet View is subdivided and Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 4 developed, this parcel never becomes a part of it and someone else takes ownership, it is a tough situation. Mr. Bryson stated he felt it more appropriately if it had been in common ownership with the land to the south. Bryson noted that that development should have supported the construction of it, but he does not think it is equitable for this small subdivision to support something that doesn't even provide frontage for them. Mr. Goecke asked Mr. La Shot, if the city tells them that the city needs to have that as a dedicated street at this point, does the land owner then have no recourse to get remuneration far that property for that street or where does it end up? Mr. Bryson stated he believed the Planning and Zoning Commissions' comments will go to the Borough as a preference on the street pattern and he assumes that they would probably have the same recommendation. That being, that the road be extended. Bryson noted if the city concurs an something like this, the borough will make it a condition of the plat approval which is not a city affair. Bryson added that this subdivision is giving up a fair amount of value in platting 1 that right of way. Bryson stated he felt they would be contributing their share l in a bad situation. Mr. Walker stated he would like to make a comment, due to the amendment, he will not be supporting this resolution, PZ95-56. Walker stated he personally feels that this person is merely trying to subdivide a couple of lots out of one parcel. As there is na section line or dedicated right of way running through this property at this point in time, Walker stated he cannot conceive of asking them to give up a road right of way through their property which would be a fairly large quantity of property. This is not even at the edge of their property but would be taking nearly a third of the lot. Walker commented that he felt very uncomfortable with that and would not support it at this time. Jack La Shat added that one other way that this could be considered would be a Hate could be put on the plat that says that further resubdivision of Lot 1 would require a dedicated access to Lawton. Then, if the owner did subdivide a row of lots along there and possibly got together with the adjoining property owner, it may be viable. La Shot noted this was just a thought. Mr. Goecke Hated he had one comment to add. Goecke noted that at this time he will not be supporting this resolution. He feels that personally the city should have the street right of way or easement cleared an this plat before it is approved. Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Bryson stated he would like to remind the Commission that they do not approve plats. The Commission makes recommendations to the borough. Mr. Walker stated he felt the Commission was cognizant of the fact that they are recommending approval or not recommending approval. Mr. Walker asked if any further discussion. Seeing none, called for question. VOTE ON PZ95-56, SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL, BAILEY ESTATES: BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE NO MAHURIN YES GLICK YES WALKER NO MOTION PASSED. b. Subdivision Plat Approval, Warehouse Subdivision, PZ95-58 CARL GLICK MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PZ95-58, SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL, WAREHOUSE SUBDIVISION. RON GOECKE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Walker asked for additional staff comments. Mr. La Shot stated nothing additional; however, would call the Commissions' attention to the recommendation that a new site plan and asbuilt be requested. La Shot stated property swapping has been done and he did not feel the landscapelsite plan, as submitted, had been followed. Walker asked if the maker of the motion would like to include those comments. Mr. Glick and Mr. Goecke concurred. Chairman Walker noted as no persons in the audience this evening, the item would be brought to the Commission for discussion. Ms. Mahurin noted she had a hard time trying to understand what was being asked in the plat request and if she could have a few minutes with Mr. Bryson or anyone else to explain it to her. Chairman Walker stated perhaps staff could explain it. Jack La Shot advised the best way to describe it is looking at the dotted lines shows the lot as it used to be, Government Lot 67. La Shat explained, some of the land to the north, 42 feet, has been sold to the neighbor. A distance, 25 feet, to the east had been acquired. The owner is the same on both of those lots. La Shot stated he thought the owners did a property swap. La Shot noted Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 6 l his concerns were that on Lot 3 there is an old house that looks close to where l they have cleared and there may be an encroachment created. There is a house on Lot 1 also. And, the new structure on Lot 2. Mahurin asked if Lot 2 is where Hall is building his new building. La Shot confirmed this. Mahurin stated the lot has been totally cleared of every tree in existence. Mr. La Shot stated that he thought the clearing comes out to the full extent of the new Lot 2 rather than the old Lot 67. Mahurin asked Mr. La Shot to restate this. Mr. La Shot stated that just from looking at the information available, not relying on any survey information, it looks like what is cleared probably include the swapped property. This clearing would be the full extent of Lot 2 past what was Lot 67 and what the previous site plan was submitted for. La Shot noted that is why he is asking for a new site plan and an asbuilt. Continuing, he stated there are three building involved and a previously approved LandscapelSite Plan. Walker asked if there was further discussion. Mr. Gaecke asked Mr. La Shot, that if where this plat approval is means that the site plan review that was done is history. La Shot stated that is haw he views it. La Shot stated the original site plan was submitted for Lot 67 which, if this plat plan is passed, no longer exists. La Shot stated he felt what has been done coincides more with the new plat rather than Lat 67. Goecke stated what is needed is a new site plan submittal. La Shot agreed and added a new site plan, landscaping review and l submission of an asbuilt be required before we allow them to finalize this plat. l La Shot stated he did not think this request was unreasonable. Mahurin stated she concurred with this request. Chairman Walker asked for further discussion. Ms. Kebschull advised the Commission that Mr. Hall called city hall today, He wanted to note that if this did come up for discussion tonight he wanted the Commission to know that he felt that he was doing what he had stated he was going to do in the original landscaping plan. And, that he was planning on planting grass and shrubs. Ms. Mahurin asked if Mr. Hall had called and offered the above information only if it came up for discussion. Ms. Kebschull confirmed this. Ms. Mahurin asked if the amendment covers the--Chairman Walker interrupted to note there is not an amendment before the Commission. Ms. Mahurin restated to ask to hear the motion. Kebschull read the motion, "Moved to approve PZ95-58." Chairman Walker noted an addition was made with agreement of the maker of the motion and the second to add the staff recommendations. Ms. Mahurin stated she would like to amend the motion. Mahurin stated she would like to have resubmitted a site plan and a landscaping plan. Bryson seconded the amendment. Chairman Walker asked if Ms. Mahurin was aware that this was part of the main motion? Mahurin stated probably not. She did Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 7 not understand that the Commission was asking that the site plan be resubmitted. Mahurin clarified that this was stated in the City Engineer`s report. Walker confirmed this. Mahurin stated, with the permission of her second, she would take back the site plan but would like to ask for a detailed landscaping plan. Bryson concurred. Chairman Walker for any discussion on the amendment. Ms. Mahurin stated she was getting frustrated. Mahurin stated she felt credibility was important when dealing with the same developer over and over. Mahurin stated she is, as a member of this Commission, beginning to have a problem and she would like to have the asbuilt and landscapelsite plan resubmitted so that she can verify the plans. Mahurin stated she would like the record to reflect that she will be very carefully looking at the submittals. Teresa Werner-Quade stated that some of the landscaping plans that have come before the Commission leave a lot to be desired. Werner-Quade stated she felt that as a Commission the plans have been routinely approved and she agrees better scrutiny should be given to the landscaping site plan reviews that come before the Commission. l VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO PZ95-58: WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES MAHURIN YES GLICK YES BRYSON YES WALKER YES MOTION PASSED. Bryson stated he had one question for the administration. Bryson asked if the requirement for the site plan is for a building permit approval and asked how this was appropriate to what he is proposing to do, other than updating what he said he was going to do. There were oral modifications at our last meeting. La Shot stated that it is true that the site plan review is required before the building permit is issued. La Shot stated he thought the site plan had probably changed but the city could not take away the building permit but could require a review of the landscape plan. La Shot stated he was not sure he had answered Mr. Bryson`s question. Bryson asked if what the Commission would be looking far is an updated site plan; La Shot stated yes, one that is approved by the Commission. Mr. Goecke asked La Shot if a site plan review is supposed to be done prior to issuing a building permit. La Shot stated yes far permits over $10,000 in an industrial zone. Mr. Goecke asked to be corrected if he was wrong but he felt that building was under construction before any permits had been approved by Minutes November $, 1995 Page 8 the Commission. La Shot advised that Hall had started construction and that sometimes builders get away with this by applying for a footing permit so that they can get started and that this happens quite often, l.a Shot stated he was not sure how to correct this problem. A lot of times builders are pushed by weather and the builder will come in and get a permit for the least amount so they can get started before winter and before they came to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Bryson stated that concerning the plat approval he believed the city has a requirement that any existing structures need to be shown on the plat. Bryson stated the plat is new as far as the Commission is concerned and that there is probably a statutory requirement there that needs to be met. Ms. Mahurin requested that when this request comes back that the administration supply to the Commission the previous action that was taken so it could be referred to. Chairman Walker stated he agreed that that would be a benefit to all Commissioners. Chairman Walker asked if there was any further discussion. Walker stated the amendment was approved. Before the Commission is the main motion as amended. Walker called for the question: VOTE ON PZ95-58: GOECKE YES MAHURIN YES CLICK YES BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES WALKER YES MOTION APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS: a. Comp Plan Update Chairman Walker stated the Commission had before them a handout of some of the updates that have been approved. And, a listing on public facilities of items that we have completed. A couple items are still missing and one that needs changes. Chairman Walker asked if Teresa Werner-Quade wished to speak to this item. Ms. Werner-Quade stated she had met with Jack and Marilyn last week to bring 1 the Cammissiion the information they had been given. Werner-Quade stated it appeared that Marilyn had worked hard to bring this to the Commission. Ms. Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 9 Werner-Quade stated she felt the Commission should attempt to obtain the missing information and change the parts that need to be changed. She suggested that Marilyn advise the Commission on how she would like to obtain the information. Ms. Werner- Quade stated she had her Comp Plan with all the changes that have been made and she is available to meet any time or offer the information now. Chairman Walker noted there are a couple of items he would like to address first. Walker stated he believed the Commission was on Section X. Walker stated he understood that Ms. Mahurin had actually completed her information; however, it is not in the written form. Mahurin stated she had given a verbal report. Mahurin asked if she could have the information in writing for the meeting of December 13t". Walker stated that would be appropriate with consent of the Commission. Wacker continued stating that on the subject of health he didn't feel that Mr. Toppa had completed that section as of yet and asked if anyone on the Commission would like to complete that section. Seeing none, Walker stated the Commission could review that section as a group. Walker noted that regarding Senior Services he had received a memo from the director, Pat Porter and there are some goals mentioned in this memo. Walker stated he believed the memo was in fact published for one of the Planning and Zoning meetings. The memo is very brief. It basically indicates goals would be to increase recreational activities, expand secretarial services, and they would like to see #unding for the additional 24 units to Vintage Point Manor. Walker asked if copies of this memo could be placed in the December 13`" meeting packet and as a group could decide an the Section X material as a group. Walker asked if there were any comments. Teresa Werner-Quade stated Mr. Walker kept referring to Section X and she is unsure what that is. Mr, Walker stated he thought it was Section X; however, it is Section V. Werner-Quade clarified that he would like to complete Section V. Walker stated yes, complete Section V and have any final discussion on that section. Walker asked what was left to be completed. Werner-Quade stated if the Commission could complete Section V, the review should be done except for getting the figures from administration. Then, the introduction could be amended with new Commissioners and any changes to that section. Walker stated that perhaps the Comp Plan could be finalized on the meeting of December 13"'. Mr. La Shot asked Karen Mahurin if she had stated she would have the information on the 13t". Mahurin stated yes. La Shot suggested the Commission review as a group the Health Care section at the next meeting which is the 215Y and then could compile a draft of the entire review for the first meeting in December. Mahurin stated she could try sooner if needed; however, she is a little remiss but would do whatever she could da. La Shot stated he thought that would probably be okay so a rough draft of everything could be pulled together. La l Shot asked if that was okay with Marilyn. Ms. Kebschull stated she didn't feel there was that much missing. Continuing, noted that when Teresa came in, the Minutes November $, 1995 Page 10 three of them went through the entire Comp Plan in less than two hours checking all of the changes that have been done and clarifying questions that she had. That is why the list for the update was made. Kebschull stated that pretty much the things that are missing the pages are not that much for the Commission members to look at and given them back for the changes to be made. The EDD information needs to be requested and we are not sure how much we will be able to get from them. We are not sure what the latest year's information EDD has compiled. Kebschull noted she felt the review was for the most part done. Chairman Walker asked if that met with the approval of the Commission? Walker asked if anything further needed to be addressed now, CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: a. Klondike Bed & Breakfast Chairman Walker stated he understood the party has in fact picked up an application for a Conditional Use Permit and do not intend on performing any business until sometime next spring. Walker stated he was hoping the ` Commission would see the permit prior to the spring. Chairman Walker asked if administration had any other comments on code enforcement. La Shot stated it may be a good time to mention that at one time there was a question regarding the Kenai Peninsula Counseling Services program wherein they rent rooms in single family dwellings to individuals in their program. One residence was in the Central Heights area, Sterling Court. The Commission, at one time, asked if we would look into that situation. It was the administrations` view that they were within code. La Shot stated he believed the city attorney had written a memo stating that type of activity could take place and cannot be restricted. One of their program directors have contacted the city stating that they are looking into the possibility of buying three homes in the city of Kenai. La Shot stated he had asked them to submit in writing to the city their proposal and what zone they were located in. The group would like verification from the city that what they are planning is within code. The information will be passed on as the city receives it. La Shot added that the subject of halfway houses has come up again but as yet no applications have been received. REPORTS: a. City Council Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 1 1 1 Councilman Smalley noted a copy of the agenda is in the packets. Smalley stated that halfway houses was discussed at the last council meeting. Linda Zaugg of the Department of Corrections spoke to the council. There were members of the audience from Anchorage and Nikiski. A gentleman from Nikiski had called most of the council people and insisted that the council require the DOC to put an RFP out in this area. He felt that he had a building that would facilitate such a need and that the city and state government should not be interfering with capital enterprise, private industry. Smalley stated the city has no control over what Department of Corrections is going to do or not do. Smalley stated they will probably file an RFP. They are looking at a facility on the peninsula in this general area to potentially house from 20 to 30 clientslinmates. Ms. Zaugg presented an elaborate package to display the number of felons and number of misdemeanants in the different facilities across the state and the ones that exist at Wildwood and Wildwood Pretrial. Zaugg suggested that 95% of the felons and misdemeanants that are released stay in the area where they live in some cases or where they are released and that these people are being released anyway. So, it would be nice to have a transition facility prior to releasing them. Chances of survival and staying out of prison is met with a much higher success rate after having gone through a halfway facility versus just being released. Smalley stated there has been discussions between the slate and city hall with regard the potential of building 1 a facility on Wildwood perhaps with the city assisting in the facilitating of this building through a building bond. Smalley stated this is different than a revenue bond. Smalley noted this was strictly discussion and that no decision was made. This is what promoted people from the community coming to the meeting and suggesting that the RFP be let so other private industry within the communities could possibly apply for it. Smalley stated he is very aware of the discussion that took place at Planning and Zoning and at city council. Smalley stated if you build it they will come, but they are going to come anyway whether it is built or not. It is something that this body and the city or the borough will have to deal with. Smalley noted that the property outside of the city off K Beach that had been proposed did not meet the criteria so it was turned down. Mr. Goecke stated the only thing that did not meet the criteria was who was going to operate the facility. Smalley stated yes. Goecke asked if the city was wanting to build, is Wildwood in the city limits. Smalley stated no. Goecke asked if the city would put city bond money into something outside the city limits. Smalley stated no. Goecke responded goad. Kevin Walker asked if the building bond being discussed would require voter approval. Smalley stated he did not think so as it is similar to a state revenue band. Smalley stated he did not have the legalese as to why the state just doesn't do it except it wouldn't qualify apparently for the funding. This would be similar to the FAA tower where the city built it and then leased it back. Walker added or } the courthouse. Smalley stated that is a similar project. It is not money out of the city coffers but strictly money from the state and the city acts as a pass Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 12 through agent with some control. This was only a discussion and it is going no where as he assumes the state is going to put out an RFP. Smalley stated that a counselor at one of the halfway houses in Anchorage talked about the need and impressed that there were individuals in the community who have an interest in pursuing a project on their properties. In addition, the gentleman who spoke from out North, the city received some other queries of the possibilities of applying for an RFP. Smalley stated he felt it was something the state would be considering. Ms. Mahurin stated she would like Mr. Smalley to remind the city council that she believed it cost $26,000 and some dollars to house a prisoner for a year and it only costs about $7,200 a year to educate a student in school. If the city is really eager to do bonding, she would rather see them put their money into a more positive avenue. Mahurin stated she would have a lot of concerns and that she was part of the audience during that discussion previously. When you talk about public dollars, she would like the city to be reminded of those figures. Smalley stated the city is definitely aware of that. Smalley noted that the city has virtually no impact at all on education funds nor Department of Correction funds. Mahurin stated except through lobbying and things like that. Smalley stated the city is aware of it but he will bring it to their attention again. Continuing, Smalley noted that under public hearings there were a couple of additions. Items 3 and 4. Dealing with the liquor license transfer from the Ariang to New Peking and an eating establishment license for the New Peking restaurant. Both approved. Item C1 was modified. An additional $500 was donated so the amount had to be adjusted from $1355 to $1855. Smalley noted that under Commission and Committee Reports there was a discussion on the position that Planning and Zoning took with regard the commercial strip down Beaver Loop Access and Bridge Access Road. The Mayor made a comment that it is nice to see that Planning and Zoning has come around to realizing that that really is not an appropriate use for a commercial zone. Smalley stated he called a technical and said that is not exactly what was reported, not exactly what they said. That they said that there definitely is a commercial need on that strip. They don't like the way the it is accessed and egressed. They would like to see that commercial zone larger. If there is an unwillingness to make it larger, then that the applicant would utilize the entire piece. That was construed as they should utilize it because the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn`t feel that commercial zoning is that important in that area. That was straightened out. Smalley stated he has no idea was is happening with this project as nothing else has come before council nor this body but he is assuming it will. Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 13 Smalley advised letters had been sent from the city clerk to committee and J commission members regarding attendance at meetings and the importance. if they are in violation of the code regarding their absenteeism, they are receiving a letter from the city suggesting perhaps if they are unable to attend the meetings as prescribed by code. The letter suggests they may want to reconsider their membership and perhaps apply again at a time that is more convenient and suitable far them. Smalley stated he thought a couple had received letters suggesting that they are in violation and as the code calls for it, their position has been ended. The letters have not come before council but he had just saw a rough draft of the letters that were going to be sent. Smalley noted that the council does get a copy of the attendance records far all the commissions and committees. When there appears to be a problem with attendance and in some cases they can't establish a quorum, then the city needs to try to get other personnel that would be conducive to attending the meetings. Under Item H6, council approved the expenditure not to exceed $10,000 in moving expenses to bring the new finance director and family to Kenai. His name is John Sweeney from Sitka. Smalley stated he brought up a concern if the city had in fact hired other employees in the past and brought them to the city and paid moving expenses. With the State of Alaska statutes and with city code, if an employee coming into the city is a resident of Alaska, we can pay l moving expenses. If the employee is a resident out of Alaska, we call it a sign on bonus because if you attach moving expenses to it, it creates problems if a person is no longer employed within a certain time, you have to pay for those moving expenses back. In most contracts with department heads, city clerk, city attorney, city manager, there are clauses in their agreements stating that if they fail to comply within a certain time frame and their employment ceases that portions of funds are returned to the city. Smalley stated he was a little concerned that the city was spending $10,000 to move somebody if it wasn't a common practice. He stated he had been taid that other employees had been hired, brought into the city, and portions of their expenses paid. However, no one could come up with a name. They said they were pretty sure that one had been paid for. Jack La Shot stated they had paid for a portion of his expenses but he had to sign a contract. Council approved an agreement to pursue the Challenger Learning Center and that proposal is being worked on by Kathy Scott and Associates. ft looks like the final project will be completed in March if not sooner. EDD couldn't handle the project; they felt the time crunch was too much for them. EDD was asked first. Smalley reported that the city received $57,380 in FEMA funds for the recent flooding of the Kenai River. This includes payment for debris removal of Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 14 approximately $15,000, stabilization working on water and sewer, $29,643, and Beluga $13,800. La Shot noted that was for storm outfall. Ms. Mahurin asked Smalley why the city contracted with someone else far the Challenger Center after giving EDD money. Smalley stated the city didn't give EDD money to do this. The EDD money that was given to them was under a different auspices. Smalley stated the city specifically went to EDD and stated the city had deadlines and asked if they could do it. EDD does not work for the city, they work for individuals. The city felt that may happen and that is why the city had other entities in mind that potentially they could contract far the project. EDD was up front in that they couldn't meet the deadlines. Smalley reported that on the capital projects, that water is the number one concern. This list will be taken on December 13th when Mr. Manninen goes to Juneau. He will give it to our representatives. There was discussion at council as to movement of items 2, 3, 4, and 5 and reprioritizing them. Councilman Bannock and Smalley both spoke in opposition to this and Councilman Bookey also stepped in. Juneau knows that our number one priority is water quality and water improvements. Obviously, it is the new well. Smalley reported it looks like the city will need $1 million even to get that project all finished up and on line next summer. Any money on top of that would be utilized for other l projects. Ongoing, the city put in ten or so street lights as has been done for l the last few years. Smalley stated it looks like the city will get 15 for the $30,000 that is set aside this time and there are street lights presently being put up throughout the city on lists that are updated all the time. The reason far leaving it like it is and not changing it, Smalley stated he didn't feel anymore money needed to be put into publications. They are very expensive to produce and the listing and priority down {2, 3, 4, 5) can be done with as the city wants to. The question that came up is the animal control shelter and it`s importance on this list. That is a facility and an undertaking that the city council feels is a responsibility of the city. The city will try to continue to get funds from the state and from the borough to assist in the development of this project. The number one priority going to Juneau is the well and water quality. Smalley stated he thought it was going okay and asked Mr. La Shot if he had a report on it. La Shot stated they are having some more problems but think they will have it soon. Smalley stated he thought he had brought the Commission's attention to the problems with the other well casing breaking. This well is being drilled at Mr. Kraxberger`s expense. Smalley added that the pumper truck sold in two pieces. One man bought both pieces and Smalley assumes he will put them together. Chairman Walker stated he had two questions. Was there any discussion as to the potential future funding for EDD since they are not available to do projects Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 15 l that may very well be needed by the city. Smalley stated no. Walker asked if } the city would consider to fund them whether or not they work on projects for the city. Smalley stated he didn`t say that. Also, Mr. Walker stated he was curious if there has been any further discussions on the restricted use of ATVs within the city. Smalley stated the city has not yet held a community meeting. It is something that is almost as controversial if not more than halfway houses. Smalley stated it is very important if we have those machines we just can't go anywhere. There will be public hearings held an that with the caveat in the paper suggesting that the city is looking into rewriting the codes governing the use of ATVs, etc. within the city limits. Mr. Walker suggested that Planning and Zoning be included in the adjusting of any laws. Walker stated some persons on this body may be against that as they may have motorcycles and snow machines. Smalley stated that what promoted this discussion is the strip of road on the Spur Highway that is under construction and the use of vehicles along the end tearing all the new green grass which has happened in the past and also with the vehicles traveling in lanes adjacent to oncoming traffic when all you see if a headlight coming at you causing some confusion for drivers. Smalley stated he thought the contractors had left signs out which could be easily driven around or under. Again, there will be public hearings and this body will definitely be involved in that. 1 b. Borough Planning Mr. Bryson noted that there had not been a meeting since the last city meeting so he had no report. Bryson stated he would like to bring the Commission's attention to two items that have previously been at the borough level and he had previously reported on that are hitting the headlines at this point. One is the mining leases again. Bryson noted the group may have read of the proposed modification of the state regulations concerning mining. The other is an item that the borough assembly had before them Tuesday night. Bryson stated he didn't know what action they took. It concerned river bank renovation on private property. This is a situation where a credit will be allowed for preappraved bank work. Bryson stated this to him, personally, is an effectively an unfunded mandate situation where administrative people can approve a project and the tax base just has to absorb it whether it is approved by the assembly or not. Bryson stated as he had read the draft, that is the situation. Bryson again stated he did not know what action was taken on this. c. Administration Mr. La Shot stated he had nothing to report. J COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Minutes November $, 1995 Page 16 Ms. Mahurin stated that she hoped Councilman Smalley wouldn't schedule the controversial hearing until after Christmas. Smalley stated he thought they would be in January or February. Mahurin added that she has been following the development on the corner of First and Spruce and have not been real happy about it and it is disturbing to her. Teresa Werner-Quade stated she wanted to read a comment, "About a year ago the Kenai public turned out in force and was adamantly opposed to halfway housing in this community. Is this "need" going to keep coming before us again and again until we are finally worn down ar simply not on guard so agree to this. Halfway housing can become a panacea for prison overcrowding, furloughing; and possible premature release of inmates to the community. And, yes Hal, I agree, if we build it, they will come." ADJOURNMENT Karen Mahurin moved for adjournment at approximately 8:30 p.m. Res ctf Ily Submitted: ... Marilyn Kebschull Administrative Assistant Minutes November 8, 1995 Page 17