Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-23 P&Z Minutes~ _._'_~ RENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION i June 23, 1993 - 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA Amended* 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINIITES - May 26, 1993 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Res PZ 93-23: Conditional Use Permit - 8-plexes in RS Zone b. Res PZ 93-24: Variance Permit - Minimum lot size for 6-plex 6. PLANNING a. Res PZ 93-25: Preliminary Plat - Evergreen S/D b. Res PZ 93-26: Replat - Thompson Park Lot la, Block 16 c. Res PZ 93-27: Rhodes S/D 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition to Vacate - Baily *b. Development Review in Townsite Historic Zone - Forget-Me-Not Senior Daycare Center *c. Development Review in Townsite Historic Zone - Ladd 8. OLD BUSINESS a. Resolution PZ 92-26: Rezone - See (Tabled 10/14/92) 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS a. Quandt Property b. Kenai One Hour Photo - Sign c. Rainbow Bar - Sign d. Don Baker - 1010 Alaska Avenue 10. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED 12. INFORMATION ITEMS 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS ~ 14. ADJOURNMENT c E ~~~~~ ~. ~:-: ---- RENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ,~I' A3~ 26, 1993 - 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Chairman Phil Bryson 1. ROLL CALL• Commissioners present: Duane Bannock, Kevin Walker, Ron Goecke, Lori McComsey, Phil Bryson Absent: Carl Glick (excused) (1 vacancy) Also present: Jack La Shot, City Engineer, and Kathy Viall Administrative Assistant 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: Goecke MOVED approval of Agenda. Walker SECONDED. PASSED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - May 12, 1993 MOTION: Walker MOVED approval of minutes as presented. Bannock SECONDED. PASSED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Resolution PZ 93-17: Kcherita Katering Bryson This is a continuation of a public hearing that was initiated at the last regularly scheduled meeting. At this point I would open that public hearing up for public comment. If you testified at the last meeting that testimony is part of this record, if you have additional things to say you are welcome to add these comments. **PUBLIC HEARING - VERBATIM** Myrna Davidson, I believe my husband testified at the last meeting. We were the original subdividers, um, we also built the house that the proposed catering service is going to be at and as he told you before, the house is not a very large house and it's not really adequate for, um, an inn, well or dining facility. Also, along the back of it, I don't know if anyone said anything or not, or you'll notice in your packet where they have indicated there is a second access from the Spur Highway onto this property. I need to let you know that access is not a legal access off the highway and, um, if KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 2 you'll go back to the original records when we subdivided it states in there that there shall be no access onto the property that borders the highway other than the approved roads in the subdivision and that is not an approved road. That was originally put in there years ago before it was ever subdivided when my husband, uh, granted a right-of-way to the adjoining property owner and that right-of-way was vacated when we subdivided so you need to know that is not a viable option. Uh, the traffic that we get down through that road, we live at the end of that road, and we get a lot of traffic down that road in the summer time from people looking for the river, even though it says not a through road there. Um, I don't think that this would be real compatible with the area around there, one thing we've got strict covenants on the subdivision and that's the very reason we put them on there to begin with because we did not want this area to erode into a business area. We wanted it strictly for single-family dwellings and, you know, that's what we'd like to keep it as and let you know that we strongly object to any other use of that property. Bryson does anyone have any questions for Ms. Davidson. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? Sherman Jones I live at 520 Robin Drive, I live on the adjacent property, right next to it, lots 14 and 15. Uh, uh, on this access road there they're talking about, that access road is actually on another mans property it shouldn't even be on this map. The state gives very clear where it's at back on my property and uh, also the, where they plan on putting the uh, parking lot in the front where it's over the water well that infringes over my property there also. And uh, I went over and talked to Bob at the Dept. of Environmental Conservation and there has not been anyone there to ask about any DEC approve or have filed a contingency plan and without that they can't even open it, it has to be approved before they can even ask for a permit from the commission. Uh, and it says the operator Section 18 AAC 31.210 "The operator of an establishment shall dispose of sewage and liquid waste into a public sewer or a sewage disposal system built and operated in accordance with 18 AAC 72," which is commercial. Uh, that is not in this book or I would read it, to you, but uh, before anyone can, I would think ask for a permit they would have to make sure that it could be approved by DEC. You have to have approved plans and specifications and that you are not allowed to do anything without those, (inaudible) approval from the regional supervisor or the designed, which would inspect it. I ask that this commission turn it down on that basic fact alone. .~ KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 3 Uh, and also, that you don't break the covenants of our subdivision, maybe think about how you would feel if someone wanted to start something like that in your subdivision, or by your residence. Also the very next day after the May 12th meeting, I was working out in the shop and there was a little 1 i year old girl walking up the street all by herself headed for the highway, it could happen again, but I picked her up and took her home, her mother happened to be asleep so I'm just glad I'm there, that kind of thing does happen in our neighborhood, not very often but it could possibly happen again. We certainly wouldn't want that kind of traffic coming in there and as I spoke last time they will be serving alcohol and they will be impaired. That's another reason I ask the commission not to pass this. That's all. Bryson Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this resolution? Tom Rhyner I live at 505 Robin Drive. Because we do have covenants, I think it would be real important anyway for you, if you're seriously considering granting this to check with the City Attorney at least and see what the City's responsibility is to abide by covenants that subdivisions have inside the city. The fact that Jim and Myrna both came and told you the reasons the covenants were put in was to make sure that businesses didn't move into the neighborhood and I'm sure that's the intent of single family dwellings only, doesn't mean a house that you run a business out of, it means a house that you live in, period. And, uh, since that's the intent and they told you the intent, I think it would be real important at least to make sure that the City Attorney would feel that, if you were to grant this, that it wouldn't be placing the city in a (inaudible) position. That's all I have. Bryson Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to speak. Hearing and seeing none we will come back to the commission far action. Wishes of the commission. **END VERBATIM** Goecke I would like to ask Jack if there has been anything more that he has heard? La Shot No. Bryson If there's a motion to be made I think it might be (inaudible). KENAI PLANNING June 23, 1993 Page 4 MOTION: AND ZONING COMMISSION Meeting Bannock MOVED of Resolution PZ 93-18. Walker SECONDED. Bryson Discussion on motion. Bannock Mr. Chairman this past week I have been going over some of this and my thoughts on this particular issue are, it really looks to me that in this weeks packet we don't have as much information as we did last week, but it really looks to me like there is two separate requests here. With permission of the commission, I would like to address both of those requests individually. Request no. 1 being the catering, request no. 2 being the reservation only fine dining. Perhaps I would like to make a motion that we could address those each as separate issues. Bryson If you wish to address those separately I would, you want to segregate the issues. Walker I would like to offer an amendment to the motion that we have before us on the table I think we can probably do that, rather than split the question. I don't think we can split the questions legally. At this time the. amendment I would like to offer would be to delete the fine dining portion of the business as requested on the permit, that would leave only the catering portion on this permit. Goecke Second. Bryson Discussion on the amendment. My comments are there's been a request specific for catering and fine dining, as far as the conditional use permit I don't know that we have leeway where we can delete one from consideration. Might (inaudible) one of them, but as far as delete from the application I don't think so. If we had someone to rule on that I would feel more comfortable, but that's my opinion. Walker I fully realize that they may very well desire only the permit as stated and if they were represented here they could answer that specific question, I do not see a representative here so I chose to enter that. We can vote it up or vote it down, I don't think it would be appropriate to split the question in one way or another so we can vote this up or down as this group chooses. If they decide that they don't want that type of permit that would be certainly their option. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 5 Bryson Further discussion. Vote on the amendment. AMENDED MOTION AND VOTE: Walker moved to not split the motion, Goecke seconded. Vote: Bannock - yes, Bryson - no, Goecke - no, McComsey - no, Walker - no. Bryson Motion fails due to lack of quorum. We have the main motion before us right now, at this point represented by the original Resolution. I guess addressing the general concerns expressed during testimony, I guess I am quite uncomfortable approving a use that flies in the face of the intent of covenants, even though they're not highly specific on what uses, they do somewhat infer that business issues are not one of the things they intended there. I don't necessarily feel that the DEC situation is an issue because I think that is something before they operate they will have to conform to the permits for a class c well and a sewage system capable of serving the area and I believe they would have to get a waiver from the conditions to fit on the lot any way. They have their chores set out for them. At this point I stand opposed. } Bannock I feel in a box about this because, as a conditional use permit perhaps we can get out of it. I don't have a problem with the catering part of it for a couple different reasons. Like you I'll not really weigh the DEC because that's a problem between the applicant and the state, it's not something the City of Kenai is really involved with. In regards to the question of covenants, I did specifically ask that question last week and to see if the City of Kenai has a responsibility to uphold covenants. As reflected in the minutes, the city does not. I do think however, the code can cover for that where it says "such uses must be in harmony with the intent of the zone." I find it, I think that the catering portion could fit in there, not that much more different than the previous business that was going on in there. I know that there is a covenant here that says there will be no commercial business going on here, but a commercial business is a commercial business and there was a commercial business operating out of this particular spot before. I don't see that the catering business, I wish Mr. Morrison were here so I could be a little more specific on it, my views of the catering and my idea of what would go on in the catering portion of it would be that the food would be assembled, packed, and arranged then carried to someones party. That is what I see as the catering business. Not people coming to the house to eat, not people coming to the house for dining, but rather the trays and that effect. So, as a conditional use permit, I really think that we have the ability to offer that to the Morrison's I'm ~ just not sure of the right language to put it into a positive and if we have to vote on exactly what is requested or not. If we have KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 6 to vote on the whole thing or nothing then I'll have a no vote. I'd like to figure out a way that we could get the catering part in there because I would be willing to offer a positive vote on that. Bryson Other discussion? I personally don't feel a separation of the issue is the problem, Kevin thinks it is and I stand corrected if I am wrong. As long as both issues are at rest per the original application, I would think it would be reasonable to, if it was interpreted as a motion made originally then there was no seconds. Bannock Would then a motion be appropriate that said something like approving the catering business and denying the fine dining business? Bryson I would say that flies in the intent of the original motion. An amendment cannot change the intent of the original motion. If they were taken as separate issues for approval I would think that they would be concurring. Goecke Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to make a motion addressing only recommending approval of catering, and then making ~ a motion for, that' s kind of what we just talked about . I' m trying to figure a way to.... Bryson We have a motion before us to approve the resolution the way it was written. It needs to be, is they need to be split apart so they can be voted on separately, if that's the intent of the commission. Goecke In other words, what we need to do now is to remove from the floor the original motion and second? Bryson No, all you have to do is request a segregation of the question. MOTION AND VOTE: Goecke made a MOTION to move to have a separation of these two items. Bannock Second. Bryson Discussion on approval of the catering. Walker I call for a question on that one. Bryson Any further discussion. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 7 Vote: Bannock - yes, Bryson - no, Goecke - yes, McComsey -no, Walker - yes. Bryson Motion fails due to lack of quorum. MOTION AND VOTE: Bryson The second issue is the fine dining proposal. Discussion... No discussion, call for vote. Vote: Bannock - no, Bryson - no, Goecke - no, McComsey -no, Walker - no. Bryson The second half of the motion failed. For the information of the applicant, they have I believe 30 days to appeal this decision. If the applicant wishes to appeal this decision they can contact the City Administration to find out the appropriate procedure. Chairman Bryson requested a five minute recess. ~ b. Resolution PZ 93-20: Evergreen Re-Zone Bryson Staff report please. La Shot I mentioned to you at the last meeting that the City is in the beginning stages of possibly doing a project in the area north of the Spur Highway and west of Forest Drive. It's proposed that this project pave all the gravel streets in that area. The project was initiated by residents in that area by a petition to form an assessment district whereby the adjoining property owners would pay 25o and the city would pay 75% of the improvements. In the process of the administration looking at the possibilities of this project we decided to consider subdividing some city lands bordering Evergreen Street. At this time we have water and sewer lines in that street, it would be a simple matter to stub out service lines to potential lots before the paving takes place. Also by selling the lots the city would be able to recoup some of the 75% that the general fund would be paying for on this project. In order to do this we have to rezone from the present rural residential zone to a suburban residential zone. All of this may be moot, depending on what council decides to do with the project. The portion that's RR now is bounded by the Spur, Evergreen and Redoubt, with exception of one square there. Normally it's been fairly routine to rezone a RR to RS when water and sewer is present. The minimum lot size then can go down because you don't have to accommodate water and sewer systems. The adjacent zone is also RS. Any questions? I KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 8 Bryson Any questions at this time? At this point I would like to open this resolution to the public for comment, is there anyone that would like to speak? **PUBLIC HEARING - VERBATIM** Nancy Gourley I live at 1802 4th Avenue which is evidently further than 300' away because I didn't get notice of this. I am, realizing the reasoning behind the rezoning, in order, because the city does own that piece of property there, they want to go ahead and put in the stubs before the pavement's laid down in order to save costs later so they don't have to tear the pavement up and redo it. I can understand that with the exception that the pavement we're talking about is strip paving. We're not talking about any sidewalks, gutters, nothing like this. I don't imagine it's going to be too long a period of time before, well actually, hopefully, it would go through and be done properly the first time. But, to rezone this, I'm majorly opposed to rezoning, I' 11 fight it tooth and nail all the way, I don't want it rezoned just so the city can recoup their cost. I think they can probably do that eventually when they sell the property. Uh, the value of that piece of property there is not going to down um, even if it remains vacant. I think that property will continue to grow, the value. Now what's going to happen to our area in the event that it is rezoned? There's a possibility of six-plexes going in there. (inaudible) six-plexes. I, no, is my answer. Primarily because already we have an enormous amount of traffic on the road. We have a nice subdivision back in that area now, most of the people in the area take pride and ownership in their properties and I think that if you begin putting six-plexes in there, unless you have an opportunity to buy and take some pride in ownership, um, I think the value of my property is going to go down due to the enormous amount of people that would be there, the traffic, I think it's going to take away from my home and area. The only thing that I would, be suitable is, to have that remain single family residential up to duplex, if indeed you are going to even consider changing that to suburban, I think it ought to be done with some type of stipulation that these lot lines do not change, that they remain the same in order to be able to effectively (prevent) six- plexes from going up because I do object to having that rezoned. RS would have the opportunity, a builder would have to put in six- plexes. Bryson Are there any questions for Ms. Gourley? Is there anyone else that would like to 4comment? 1 KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION i June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 9 Roqer Murphy I live at 1806 4th Avenue. Uh, my question is, evidently the gentleman over there, they already have a project in mind for that area to rezone it. Uh, he stipulated that by June 2, or so, at the meeting there they would, whatever the council's answer would be would give them the go ahead. I would like to know what that project is, as to what buildings they are going to put in. La Shot Uh, I am talking about the assessment district project to pave the streets in that area. Murphy So you're saying that right now all you're interested in is putting the stub outs in and probably the streets that are going to be adjacent to Evergreen will (inaudible) is that basically what you're saying? La Shot Yes. Um, Murphy What's the long time purpose of rezoning to RS? La Shot It would allow the city the develop the lots smaller than 40,000 sq. ft. that the zoning presently allows and it would actually rezone it to a comparable zone where the project is now, that is all RS. Murphy Okay, in doing so, keeping the lots smaller I am with the present speaker, Nancy, that uh, it would allow the purchase of that land which would give the revenue back to the city of course but then, um, in the long term, we're looking at the area there, we already have a few duplexes in the area which the biggest is a four-plex in our immediate area there and uh, uh, I think any thing larger is going to start degrading our land in the area getting so many duplexes and such, four-plexes and such in the area and six- plexes in the area I would like to see it stay down to RR area where, then our property value stays up then the city then with larger pieces being sold off makes a better looking community in the long run and we don't get so crowded. That would be my objection to it, to let them get the pieces in smaller chunks and it starts getting packed up and real crowded. Bryson Thank you, are there any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Other persons that would like to testify. Marlena Murphy I live at 1806 and I would like it to be known that I did not receive, get a notification of this meeting or this rezoning at all and I live immediately across the street from this project. Um, I am really concerned about the value of our property going down, we get, uh, low cost housing in there and it can't do anything but go down, we're all concerned about that I can speak KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 10 for everyone here on that. Um, I just don't approve of the six- plex. If the city could put in a covenants that the uh, they made smaller lots, maybe duplexes in there, that ownership would be pride in owning it and keep the quality of the neighborhood up. We have some pretty nice places in there and as we said before we would like to keep it that way. We've already established a nice neighborhood there and if you want to put in a low cost housing somewhere put it in where a neighborhood isn't already developed and it would not degrade the value of that neighborhood. Um, um, and if it's the selling of the property to be able to get us a black top road in there, as much as I hate that dust around there, I would rather keep the dust than have low cost housing in there. And I am really set against dust, not only would, it would just make a less quality neighborhood around there and that cheapens the quality of the city and we have enough of that around already. That's all that I have to say. Bryson Thank you, any questions? Thank you Ms. Murphy. Other persons that would like to comment. Kimberly Jackinski I live at 1803 4th Avenue. I agree with Marlena as far as the rezoning goes, I would prefer that it not be rezoned. If the city finds that they do have to rezone it in order to recoup costs, some of their costs in the paving, I would like to see restrictions on the land that nothing above a duplex be built, that way our neighborhood can stay the way it is. My fear is that if they don't do that and six-plexes become an option, that low income housing will move in. The biggest problems that we have now in that area are from larger four-plexes, um, at the end of Evergreen Street, um, adjacent to 4th, that is all single-family homes that are built in there. Um, it may be zoned for larger but that's not what was built there and is now established as single family residences and that is what is in there and that's the way we would like to see it stay. Bryson Any questions? Thank you.. Other persons that would like to testify please. Dawn Barnett I live at 1804 4th Avenue and I agree with everything that's going on here in the neighborhood we've all gotten pretty close because of this rezoning thing, you decided to do and most of us are very well established. We've all been in our homes at least ten years, at least, and we all know each other and we all take pride in where we live. But when you're going to start throwing extra things at us, we're not ready for this yet. Whether it be black top or not, and I hate gravel also and like I say, I've lived in my house for ten years and I've put up with gravel and I have put up with everybody else getting paving but I would much rather have the gravel than to have six-plexes, four-plexes, dozens of KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 11 kids that we already have around there, adding up to the traffic that we will be getting in there, um, I am just not happy with it. Thank you. Bryson Just for the record, when you stated that you agree with everything, you agree with the previous testifiers... Barnett I agree with what they're bringing up right now. Bryson Other comments from the public. David Hales I live on 404 Evergreen Street, Kenai, and these are my neighbors here tonight. I simply feel the same way that they do. We would all like see to see the neighborhood paved and get rid of the dust but when we moved into our house, and they're all single-family dwellings, uh, they were pretty much, all in our area have remained single-family homes with the exception of a few duplexes and a couple of four-plexes. What we're all afraid is going to happen is we're going to see, in the long run ten years down the road, homes for abandoned vehicles right on our main street, another home for junk yard (inaudible), another Larry's Club type of establishment across on the other side. Low income housing up and down one side of the street, more cars, traffic, itinerant fishing people, we'll watch our property values go down. Some developer can come in and develop this, make his money, and get out of town, subsequently leaving it all in the hands of the City of Kenai, who in the long run will have to take care of it. We're not against building in the area, I'm not at least, it's just that I want to see a nice quality of neighborhood. Everybody wants to live in a nice neighborhood. Everybody wants their property value to increase, so do I. I used to live in Anchorage on 5penard. I don't think we need a Spenard type development there. Unless it's rezoned and there are covenants regulating development to this property to the extent it's kept at single-family dwellings or duplex only, and a builder couldn't come in and buy an entire block of lots, get it resurveyed, (inaudible) lot lines and (inaudible). So if the city wants to (inaudible) otherwise I don't see a problem with a rezone. Bryson Anyone else with comments, last call. Jay Ship From 313 Haller and uh, I would like to concur with the previous testimony, and the only thing I would like to say is if we have to have an expansion and change this zoning the density should be limited to no more than, is it R2 for duplexes? Bryson For suburban residential zoning there's three classes, one of the three is restricted to duplex but that's not the one that's been proposed. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 12 Ship So, could you define to us what this zoning is, uh, what they're changing. La Shot Actually the zone that we're proposing is exactly like the zone you're living in. At this time, the entire area there is suburban residential, and that zone does allow up to six-family dwellings if you have a 12, 000 sq. ft. lot. We don't feel this rezone would be detrimental to the area or we had no real thoughts of multi-family uses, but, to create lots that were reasonable size for development and actually, we're thinking to be marketed now, what people are asking for are single- or seem to be single-family lots. (Inaudible) unless there were special restrictions on the sale of the property and it was rezoned to RS exactly like the land there in that area. Ship So you're saying in our area right now there could be possibly up to six or eight-plexes put in here? La Shot Six. Ship Again, I concur with my neighbors. Bryson Are there any questions? like to testify? Is there anyone else that would Gourley Can I speak again? Bryson Are there any objections to a second testimony? Ms. Gourley. Gourley What troubles me here is, I heard it said a couple of times, the zoning is what you have. The proposed change is the zoning that you have. That may be the zoning that we have but there are very few lots to develop on. It may be the zoning that we have but there isn't room to be able to do this, um, I just wanted to make that clear to the members here that aren't in the area, don't know the area, that the area is developed, there is very few lots, the lots that are undeveloped are very tied up, the owners are uninterested in selling and evidently are holding onto them themselves in order to deal, I would imagine later. So I just want to make it clear that there isn't very much area back there to develop and um, what is there is fairly tied up and will remain tied up. Walker I have a question. Have you by chance, in your last comment you said that that area is very tied up, very developed, um, I too as you are well aware, live in that area and I find many, many, many lots available, lots for sale and for that matter, Larry's Club's there, the Spur Motel, there is eight apartment KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 13 buildings I can think of right off the top of my heads just going around the various corners in about a four block region. And a lot of four-plexes and duplexes like that, still, like my back lot, Irene Anderson's property across from me, and a lot of properties there, there's a lot of property to be developed so I understand your desire for the duplex maximum, but I have to take exception as to whether or not there is very much property there to be developed, there is a lot of property there... Gourley In what area do you speak, off of Evergreen or... Walker No, I'm talking about a four block radius. Gourly So you're talking all the way up basically to Forest Drive, so you're talking Eadies and all those back into, towards Sears. Walker There's a lot of property available all in through there. And it's all in the same zone and it's basically the same neighborhood, uh, and the same kind of, type of atmosphere, basically, small children, young families, things like that, and I definitely don't disagree with you on the amount of development that you're requesting. My one disagreement would be that if, I believe if we're going to have stripping and strip paving put in, then it's time to put in the stub outs now. Gourley I can see the city doing that but I can't see uh, doing that against the homeowners in the area. And I can see the city wanting to recover the cost of that so they keep it separate. Sell it as a package deal, ok we're going to sell you this but, however you have to pay this assessment we did for the road and you also need to pay for the stubout. Charge them, it's in the city's hands, it is a nice piece of property, I think you should get a fair, a little chunk of change for it and if you really wanted to rezone it and the city really wanted to make some money for it, maybe what they ought to do is rezone it commercial. It'd be a good commercial location. I mean it extends the city just a little farther out. How about sticking in a park, you know for the many children that are already in the area, push the city out just a little bit. Bryson Okay, we're in public hearing and we've probably gotten a little too informal here, uh, are you done with your comments. Bannock From what I seem to be picking out from the conversations here, what I'm looking at when I drove down this street, I found it a little bit odd, personally, that there were two different zones on one side of the street I don't see that the street is that big of a divider (inaudible) but let me ask you a personal question, if those lots were just like your lot, what would you like to see KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 14 there? Gourley Single-family homes. Bannock In relation to your home, bigger, smaller, taller, deeper, more duplex, triplex, you know, what... Gourley Single-family home. Uh, comparable size, large would be okay. Bannock How about smaller, would smaller be okay? Gourley Smaller would be okay. I don't see a problem with a single-family home being smaller, on the lot, um, I think what's important here is ownership, pride in ownership. You know, that's what keeps it up. Bannock Do you think it should be a different zone than the zone that you're in, do you live off, what was your address again? Gourley On Haller Street, just off Evergreen. Bannock Okay, so right across the street, should that be a different zone than the zone you're living in? Gourley At this point, yes I think it should be, in order to be able to, um, to be able to have the flexibility to keep six-plexes out. Because with the zoning the way it is, am I correct in assuming that the way the proposed change would allow six possibly eight-plexes to go in there? How large can you go? La Shot Up to six-plex. Bannock And a six-plea would be okay on your side of the street, I mean right now that could happen. Gourley Except (inaudible)..... Bryson I'd like to keep this a public hearing and she has the floor. Gourley There is not in the area that these families are the people that are here to testify, there is not, contrary to what Mr. Walker says, there is not the area in order to put up a six-plea. Now the area that he's talking about is further away from us, we're talking another 2 - 3 blocks and I imagine that if we got wind in the sails that a six-plex was going in down there, that you would ~ see us again in here or somewhere, whoever, in order to be able to stop that because of the amount of duplexes, four-plexes that we KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 15 have back there now. Behind me on Haller Street we have three duplexes and a tri-plex. We have nine families in an area that if it was divided for residential single-family homes there would be four, so there's an enormous amount of traffic, enormous, with very little regard to traffic signs, condition of the streets is very, usually very poor, in the winter time, you know, if this is what we have to do to get paving, keep the gravel. Bryson Any further questions for Nancy? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to comment? We would like to bring it back from public hearing back to the commission. **END OF VERBATIM** Walker I have a question for Jack first. Jack is there a provision in our zoning code that would allow us to zone that, and what is that designation. La Shot We could go with an RS-1. Walker And that would limit us to... La Shot Single-family, duplex. It's similar to the zone across from the high school. Walker I have property there and they're very happy with that zone. La Shot Except an RS-1 would allow us to go down to 12,500 sq. ft. lots that we're thinking, that would make a decent size lot. Bryson The intent of that RS zone originally was to overlay districts like Woodland if they ever wanted to protect themselves other than with covenants. Walker I haven't heard anybody tonight really speak against the zoning change, they don't want multiple family housing, I don't blame them, that area will get crowded. I have talked with a number of these people prior to this meeting and I haven't heard of anybody other than, if we could get the speed of the traffic in that area under control that would help too, but that's another matter entirely. I don't think that anybody here is against developing that strip that we're addressing tonight, as long as it's developed more in keeping with the RS-1 rather than the six- plex thing. I just wanted to point out that there's a lot of multiple housing there and there's problems with it. I think the whole neighborhood wants the closer zone. Personally I am in favor of that. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 16 Bryson I'm not sure what leeway we have because it's been advertised as a zoning to RS whether we could reasonably modify this to RS-1. I suppose we could try it and see what happens. Bannock Jack, from the city's position in wanting it to be RS, what would that do if we went to RS-1, an RS-1 would limit out more than duplexes, what would that do to the city's project. La Shot I don't think it would hurt a thing. Bryson It appears as though, the statement was made that you were going to make available 15 lots, if you split seven per block, about 86 or 87' width on the lots and it's over 12,000'... La Shot We set the dimensions to provide a good size, single- family residential lot, similar to Inlet Woods. Bryson Your intent for hook-ups was for residential hook-ups. La Shot Yes. Bryson We still don't have a motion before us. MOTION AND VOTE: Bannock Made MOTION to approve the proposed zone change to the City of Renai from Rural Residential to Suburban Residential - Resolution 93-20. Walker Seconded. Bryson Discussion. Bannock Could we AMEND that MOTION to make the new proposed zone be RS-1. Walker Second. Bryson Discussion on the amendment. Bannock Is there anyone that would speak against that, specifically. Bryson Hearing and seeing none.. Jay Ship Could you define RS-1. La Shot In our development table RS-1 would allow 12,500 sq. ft. lots if water and sewer is available. It would not allow multi- family housing except for duplexes. ~ Ship If the water and sewer were available... ,i KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 17 La Shot And it would be available. Ship It would. Walker Jack, what size would be allowed if water and sewer were not available. La Shot 20,000 sq. ft. Walker Water and sewer would only be available only after the improvements were complete. Barnette If there was a possibility of someone deciding that they didn't want the water and sewer, are we guaranteed that they have to have it anyhow? We've all been stipulated in our area that we can't have wells, we can't have septic tanks, okay, because we're in the city, now if somebody over there decided I'm going to buy 20,000 sq. ft. of property and I'm going to do without the water and the sewer, can they do that? La Shot No. We'll be selling them as individual lots. We will 1 provide water and sewer stub outs to the lots. We also have an ordinance that says that if they are within 200 feet of water or sewer they have to hook up. Barnett Thank you, that's what I wanted to hear. Bryson Jack, do you have any opinion as to whether we should continue the public hearing to the next session for modifying the requested zoning. The general category is the same, although it is different. La Shot Our land sale, proposed land sale, it shouldn't hurt to push it back. If it's continued and it doesn't pass this meeting it might have some bearing on the council's decision on this project. June 2, should the council say go with the project, we'll start spending money. Bryson I live on a government lot on the other side of the gulley. This has always been a district I wish, I wouldn't mind be incorporated in, of course it takes more effort to do than not to do because one body owns this property it's easy to do. It wouldn't be so easy if you found people have diversified opinions on it. Barnett By the sounds of it you already have a buyer for this ~ land. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 18 La Shot No, we're just preparing it for a public sale. By our ordinances it has to be a public sealed bid auction. Barnett Okay. So on this June 2, meeting are we just deciding on the paving? La Shot Yes. Bryson Considering the appropriate time to put in water and sewer, I feel this very definitely the time to put in water and sewer services, regardless of which zoning is utilized. Is there any objection to continuing this public hearing to the next meeting. Walker Before stating any objection or non-objection I would like to hear from administration on the necessity of the change, I don't want to get in the way of the council. Personally I feel if we can handle it this evening fine, if not, I have no objection to continuing if it's necessary. Bryson Further discussions on the amendment. Call for question on the amendment which, being to amend the original motion ~ substituting RS-1 for classification RS. Vote: Bannock - yes, Bryson - yes, Goecke - yes, McComsey - yes, Walker - yes. MOTION PASSED. Bryson Further discussion on the main motion, no requests, call for question. vote: Bannock - yes, Bryson - yes, Goecke - yes, McComsey - yes, Walker - yes. MOTION PASSED. 6. PLANNING a. Proposed City Land Sale Bryson The next issue has already been discussed at length. Jack do you have anything further? La Shot We pretty well covered it. We're simply running it by to see what you think, if any of these parcels should be retained for any reason. Bryson Comments? KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 19 Goecke I concur with what the city's planning to do, get some of this property out of city hands. At this point in time we could get some housing going, get some energy as far as residents are concerned moving in this direction, I think we'll all be better off. The more building that you have in an area it seems like you get a good push from the whole area. I think that's what the city needs. Bryson There is pressure for small lots on water and sewer. Builders have been looking for these. Walker This property, as noted, is good level property, reasonable water table, adjacent to road, easy to develop, I can't think of a better spot in town because of access and water and sewer are easy to stub out. Do we have to take any action on this? Bryson No, I think this is more of an informational item. La Shot Unless you find or recommend another purpose for this land. j Bryson Is this in conformance with the land use plan? La Shot Yes. Bryson I am glad to see an area upgraded to this zoning level because that's the first time it's been used. The other area was R1. I think RS-1 has a good purpose, it just hasn't been utilized. La Shot It seems like there's been a scurry of people inquiring about lots. Several builders are looking at Inlet Woods but of course they're tied up. Bryson Any other comments? On to the next issue. b. Coastal Management Program Consistency Reviews Residential Floating Dock: Beaver Creek 13 - Bailey Bryson Any comments? Bannock Is this draft from the City Administration or Borough Planning. Bryson Kenai Peninsula Borough. Bannock What kind of action are we looking for on this? Are we looking for an approval or what? KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 20 Bryson This came before the Borough Planning Commission last Monday. Mr. Bailey had requested to speak on the issue. His intent was to respond to any questions that were asked. His comments were accepted by the Planning Commission and the project was recommended for approval so at this point the city could comment on this, the comment period is only open until today, I guess. Doesn't give any time. There was a concern on the Borough review staff on the type ax (?), but the planning commission did not have a concern. MOTION AND VOTE: Bannock made a MOTION of non-objection to approval. Walker SECOND. Passed by Unanimous Concent. 7. NEW BUSINESS None 8. OLD BUSINESS ~ a. Resolution PZ 92-26: Rezone - See (Tabled 10/14/92) Bryson Has he been contacted? I would expect him back in town soon. 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT a. Quandt Property Bryson There's no update in this issue? La Shot I haven't looked in the past few days. The state was giving them until June 1 to try for a CUP or remedy the situation. Bryson It looks like they're being moved around a little. Any further comment? No City Council or Planning Commission report. The one issue that concerned the commission was the Beaver Creek Floating Dock, it was recommended to be approved. The other item that drew a lot more comments was a complicated platting issue further up the Kenai River, Sterling area, granting a permanent easement to a property owner. City Administration, any comments. 11. PERSONS NOT SCHEDULED None ~ KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 21 12. INFORMATION ITEMS None 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS La Shot I think our new building inspector will be here in a couple of days, several capital projects we're bidding and getting ready to bid the Evergreen area paving if Council approves. McComsey Over on Walker Lane and Lawton there has been a garage sale going for the last month. Has anyone else complained about that? La Shot I'll add that to my list. I don't think they're supposed to go for more than a few days. I'll check it out. Walker Jack, Councilman Smalley's not here, could you provide any information regarding the Courthouse building. What is it's supposed to be completion date? ~ La Shot July 15 or August 1. At this point it looks like it's going to be later. Walker Any more on the piles of dirt? La Shot I don't know, I'm not as close to the project as Keith is. Bryson Have you looked into testing it since it's been aerated? La Shot I think there'll be less contamination now than at first. Bryson Commission questions. Goecke I heard today that Clint Hall has bought 50 or so of the lots in Inlet Woods, yesterday. La Shot I don't know if that's true or not. Goecke The city does not have all of those lots tied up because there is still payments coming due and when the payment comes due they attach them a few more lots. They've not ever gotten to that point. Right now the city is talking about this settlement thing, basically letting them off the hook for a high dollar number. La Shot I haven't heard that Clint was trying to get in there. He has come to the city several times asking if there was a way to do such a thing, but I haven't heard that he actually pulled something off. If he did it's with the McLanes. ~ KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 - Meeting Page 22 Bryson The title to those are solidly clouded and it all the legal parties will know at the time if there is a sale. La Shot The deal we read about in the paper whereby McLanes are offering a certain amount and using personal property as collateral maybe a future deal will allow them to be sold. There are a few lots there that are privately owned. Walker Doesn't the city outright own a few lots in that area and didn't we have a sale concerning some of those. La Shot There was about eight of them. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted 1 ~GZ~I~ ~(Gc-~-~ Kathy Viall for Loretta Harvey Administrative Assistant ~ KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ' June 23, 1993 - 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers Chairman Phil Bryson 1. ROLL CALL Members present: Phil Bryson, Duane Bannock, Ron Goecke, Lori McComsey, Kevin Walker Members absent: Carl Glick, (One Vacancy) Also present: Jack La Shot, City Engineer Loretta Harvey, Administrative Assistant 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Additions to the agenda were as follows: 7. b. -Development in TSH Zone -Forget-me-not Senior Daycare 7. c. -Development in TSH Zone -Clarence Ladd MOTION AND VOTE: Goecke MOVED approval of agenda as amended and asked for unanimous consent. Bannock SECONDED. PASSED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 3. APPROVAL OF 1~~IINUTES -May 26 1993 There was one change to minutes as follows: Page 15. under La Shot's statement should be 12,500 s.f. not 500 s.f. MOTION AND VOTE: Walker MOVED approval of minutes as amended and asked unanimous consent. Bannock SECONDED. PASSED BY UNANIIVIOUS CONSENT. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Res PZ 93-23: Conditional Use Permit - 8-plexes in RS Zone CI~U~MAN BRYSON introduced item and asked for a staff report. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 2 LA SHOT -reported this project will be in Ahlstrom Subdivision. The applicant will combine 3 existing lots in three locations to put 2eight-plexes on each site. If the Conditional Use Permit is approved they would combine three lots to make two lots. They will move the buildings from Wildwood, renovate them and make them rental properties. There has been some concern over lots that were supposedly designated Parks. They were vacated for park use. ***PUBLIC HEARING -VERBATIM*** MARY KECK - I live at 1201 Lilac in Bush Lane subdivision. And I have some concerns regarding eight-plexes going in. I read the information, I got a copy of the information, and I read it as being 3eight-plexes and he just said it was 6eight-plexes. Maybe I misunderstood the way it was worded. But that would make 48 units instead of 36. What I read was three eight- plexes and two six-plex units what the other variance permit is for. Hmm, that would make 48 units. My question is, will the Iliamna Road and the Gerdine Way which shows on the map be put in prior to the buildings being moved in? Because Cook Inlet View Drive is not a sufficiently heavy enough street to handle real heavy load traffic. Do they plan to have the main access to these new buildings off of the Kenai Spur Highway by Iliamna, or will it be through Cook Inlet View Drive? And also, where will the water mains and the sewer lines for these units be connected? Ahh, are they going to come from the Kenai Spur Highway down Iliamna Road or were they going to come over to Cook Inlet View Drive? Our water pressure, at times, is very low into Bush Lane Subdivision already. I don't think the water lines are sufficient and I would certainly hate to see our streets torn up again for that to be done. We've had them torn up several times. Another question is, if they put in these units are they going to have sufficient off-road parking for two cars per unit, since most families now have two cars? Will the area be clear cut, or will some trees be left? And is there going to be a designated playing area? With that many more families moving in, most of them will probably have children and our streets now are very heavily traveled and we have alot of children playing on the street, riding their bikes in the intersection at Cook Inlet View Drive and Lilac Place, or Lane as some people call it, is extremely dangerous at this time. In fact, I have had to go out and remind kids to not throw their bikes in the intersection and not to lie down in the street and play there. Because cars ignore, alot of cars ignore, the speed limit signs and they come down and whip around that, we know, we've had our fence taken out and we've had cars run up into our yards. Those are the main things that I'm concerned about. I know that progress is going to go on and people are going to build and if they have land they want to do something with it. But I would certainly like to see some very careful planning done and some very careful planning brought into this as well as environmental. Thank you very much. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 3 BRYSON -Thank you. Jack aze you able to address any of those at this time? LA SHOT -Unless we had a requirement from Planning and Zoning Staff would probably have them improve Iliamna Road from Cook Inlet View Drive to the Spur Highway and a short piece of Gerdine Way, as faz as roads. The sewer would most likely come from Cook Inlet View Drive, in fact it would just about have to. It would come down as faz as it needed to, to serve the buildings. The water would come from Cook Inlet View Drive down Iliamna and loop to a stub we have on the Spur Highway. I wanted to have a loop there. Actually it may improve the water pressure out there. As faz as the off-street pazking they'll have to meet that (requirement) when they apply for a building permit. Play or park azea, that's something that probably P&Z should address. Did I miss anything there? BRYSON -Yes, Ms. Keck? KECK -Question - I didn't understand, when you say the water and the sewer will come down Cook Inlet View Drive, you don't mean that you're going to hook on there at ...Right now those buildings that aze facing Cook Inlet View Drive on the Ahlstrom side get there water from across us, down Lilac. LA SHOT -There's water mains stubbed past the paved azea there on Iliamna. The developer would tie into those so we would not have to tear into Cook Inlet View Drive. KECK -Yea, but the water line would still be coming, the one that's coming down Lilac Lane? That's were it comes from. LA SHOT - We would make a loop from that water line back to the Spur Highway to another water line. BRYSON -They would continue the routing through he undeveloped azea with the water. Other questions from the Commission? Other persons who would like to speak? Mr. Keck? EDWARD CALL - My name is Edwazd Call, the question has been in our subdivision, has been quit a few yeazs ago, was is that five inch line that we had big enough for our subdivision, when we gave our system to the city? And now all of a sudden that seems to be big enough, now its going to be continued on. I' m for progress but I have some questions on these recreational facilities for that amount of people. Like the letter come to us it said three eight-plexes which is a total of 24. And now it's 6eight-plexes total of 48. Now these playground azeas that the gentleman stated have been depleted. We had the same thing happen in our subdivision. We had it dedicated playground area, people with a big purse, and what have you had it re-surveyed and eliminated and they have asix-plex on there now. And, ah, some of these dedicated lots were from old man Ahlstrom, I guess he's still in Florida, he was for progress, but he was for ~ families too, kids. And he did alot of dedication for play azeas. And it behooves me that people KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ? June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 4 with big money, or big ideas otherwise, come in and change the whole thing. Yes, they had a hearing on taking our kids playground now that we're wall-to-wall kids on that road out there. And I don't think that they should allow anymore construction out there until we get some public use park for the children because it's dangerous out there. Another question I have, this outfall from the gathering line, what have you, that was repaired maybe eight years ago, the concrete head gate down there or what have you, all new pipe put in. First year it started deteriorating. The head gate is probably 150 to 200 foot from where the outfall of the pipe is and it's just continued running right up there and it's my understanding that that's the area where these eight plexes, these eight-plexes are going to face toward that area. But my biggest concern, really is the play area for that amount of children. Forty-eight more units in that area would what, triple what the whole subdivision is right now? And we akeady have problems with kids playing in the street and (inaudible) automobiles. I think this should be looked into, and a place designated and built before these units are ever opened up. Because it is dangerous out there and like I say the water system that we had, that we gave to the city years ago, is five inches. It was rebuilt and put fire hydrants in, but than the big, I think this gentleman was part of the engineering on it (refemng to La Shot) was a big contention was it big enough for a subdivision? Well, we fought like the devil to get it and we did get our water in there. But now all of a sudden that system is big enough for a whole bunch more. BRYSON -Thank you. Is there anyone with questions for Mr. Call? Anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Yes, please. AL MOONEY, I'm a foreigner I live all the way over in Soldotna. I have a couple of lots here, lot 16 and lot 9, which would appear to be surrounded by this project. Lot 9 would be surrounded on three sides .. . BRYSON -Could you give your name? MOONEY - Oh, yea Al Mooney, sorry about that; 35935 Forerunner, way over in Soldotna. Ahh, I bought these lots just to kinda hang on to them for awhile, since my money was not doing any good in the bank. Is this going to run my taxes up considerably when all these improvements go in? And are the eight-plexes going to depreciate my property? How much, what difference are they going to look across the Spur Road from how they look where they are now, are they still going to be military barracks or what? That's about all. Thank you. BRYSON -Are there any questions? Other persons who would like to speak? Seeing and hearing none we will bring it back to the Commission. Wishes of the Commission? PUBLIC HEARING OVER 7:25 P.M. END VERBATIM KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION } June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 5 MOTION: BANNOCK MOVID APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RESOLUTION PZ 93-23 LOT Cr8 AND LOTS 10-12 BLOCK 14 AND LOTS 4-6 BLOCK 15 CARL F. AHLSTROM SUBDIVISION. WALKER SECONDID. DISCUSSION BRYSON -asked La Shot if he felt the system was adequate for this development? LA SHOT -said he actually felt the water system would be improved if the loop was completed back to the Spur Highway. BRYSON -Would the road system need to be paved? LA SHOT -said that the city would probably not require that street be paved, but it might be best to have it paved since it will connect into a paved road. P & Z could also make a suggestion to complete Iliamna to the Spur Highway to help alleviate traffic on Cook Inlet Drive. Walker agreed with La Shot but did not feel that Gerdine Way would need to be paved. AMENDID MOTION WALKER ANIII~iDID THE MOTION TO REQUIRE PAVING OF ILIAMNA AND TO EXTEND THE WATER TO THE SPUR HIGHWAY. BANNOCK SECONDED. Bannock Bryson. >~ Glick Goecke Walker McComsey Vacant YES YES ABSENT YES . _ YES YES VACAN T MOTION PASSID UNANIIVIOUSLY. MAIN MOTION BANNOCK MOVID APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERNII'r FOR RESOLUTION PZ 93-23 LOT Cr8 AND LOTS 10-12 BLOCK 14 AND LOTS 4-6 BLOCK 15 CARL F. AHLSTROM SUBDIVISION. WALKER SECONDID. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION i June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 6 Bannock Bryson '.Glick _ Goecke Wallrsr McComsey Vacant YES YES ABSENT YES YES YES VACAN T MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Res PZ 93-24: Variance Permit -Minimum lot size for 6-plex LA SHOT -reported that according to the Development Requirement Table the minimum lot size for six-plexes in the RS zone is 12,000 sf. Lots 9 & 10 are 11,250 sf which is 750 sf below the minimum. BRYSON -opened the meeting to public hearing by asking if anyone in the audience wished to address this Variance permit. PUBLIC HEARING -VERBATIM IDWARD CALL -Could we have the City Engineer get up here and show us on this board these areas which have been depleted that were designated play yards? Because I imagine the general public decides itself, I know of one that was already thrown out, years ago. BRYSON -Asked if Call would make his presentation so the Commission could ask questions. CALL -Edward Call, 1202 Lilac. I' m asking, I guess the Engineer to come up here and get on this board lay out where we can see where these lots were designated as play areas at one time. Now they've been depleted or thrown out or what have you. And they've thrown all the kids out on the street for a play area. I know one of them and, according to him, there are others and I think the public should know just what is going on. BRYSON - Well I suspect unless he's been asked the question in the last few days that he couldn't be able to come up with an answer to the question. I believe there was .. . LA SHOT - I believe they were lots 15 and 16. CALL - I have no idea where they are at, sir. Is this a new survey? LA SHOT - No this is not a new survey. This was put together by the surveyor of the existing ~ plat just to show where the lots are. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 7 CALL -From the original surveys of Ahlstrom subdivision there has been one play area that was dedicated and it was eliminated by the City of Soldotna, or Kenai, excuse me. And it's my understanding, there must have been more the way he's talking. There were other play azeas dedicated, or designated, or whatever your terminology is. But I think you people are not doing justice to our subdivision there by not letting us know. I checked the City Hall the other day and they said this was the latest survey 1991. Well, as faz as the general public's concerned last one I remember was probably about 1980 somewhere out there. If I remember right, like I say, there's something going wrong here. The letter that I got said three eight-plexes now you push it through here, six-plexes. I think there's some scumgaldrin going on. Now mark my word. BRYSON -Jack, are you able to further address the question? LA SHOT -Well we have here minutes from back in 1977. There were evidently two lots, one in block 15 one in block 16 that designated for park, or had some pazk designation. Those were vacated back in ' 77, they went to the Borough Planning Commission, June 6th, 1977. BRYSON - In some cases, I can't speak to the item because I' m not looking at the original plat. The plat itself was kind of a general plan and was accepted by the platting authorities and some of the areas that were proposed may not have had a specific designation for public use and sometimes that clouds the title. In the past at times the municipality has felt it didn't specifically dedicate it for public use. That's kind of the rationale that's been used on at least one of the recreation azeas on the Ahlstrom Plat. But I don't think, in the distant past as far as (inaudible). CALL - Well I think we ought to put afour-way stop light up there or some dang thing if this goes through, this subdivision. Forty-eight more units we will need some traffic control. BRYSON -Other persons who would like to speak on this item? Hearing and seeing none I would like to bring this item back to the Commission for action. Duane? PUBLIC HEARING ENDED 7:35 -END VERBATIM MOTION BANNOCK MOVID APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PZ 93-24. GOECKE SECONDED. ***DISCUSSION*** BANNOCK -asked if the example of what would be sitting on the 11,250 sf lot would meet the requirements for setbacks, etc? LA SHOT -said they would not know for sure until a plot plan was submitted, but it would appear to meet the requirements. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 8 BRYSON -asked about the parking for the proposed activity. LA SHOT -said until the city receives a plot plan and building plan they can't look at these issues in detail. GOECKE -asked if it would be in the scope of P&Z to suggest that the developer provide a play area for the development? BRYSON -said he didn't know if it would be legal but it would be good planning. He wasn't sure the Commission had authority for that. Called for question. VOTE: Bannock Bryson Glick Goecke Walker McComsey Vacant YES YES ABSENT YES YES YES VACAN T MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BRYSON -explained the appeal process to the audience. MARY KECK - requested a copy of the minutes when they are ready. 6. PLANNING a. Res PZ 93-25: Preliminary Plat -Evergreen S/D LA SHOT -reported that this plat was related to a rezone which was passed so the City could develop RS-1 lots along Evergreen. These lots will be sold to help with revenues required for the paving of Evergreen, Haller, etc. _ MOTION AND VOTE: WALKER MOVID APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PZ 93-25: PRELIlI~IINARY PLAT - EVERGREEN SUBDIVISION, KIM ADDITION. GOECKE SECONDED. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 9 Bannock Bryson Glick Goecke Walker McComsey Vacant YES YES ABSENT YES YES YES VACAN T MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Res PZ 93-26• Replat -Thompson Park Lot la Block 16 LA SHOT -reported that this plat removes the a lot line separating the two lots and a 20' utility easement to make a combined lot. The City has no problem with this and the Utility companies will have a chance to comment on this also. MOTION AND VOTE: GOECKE MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PZ 93-26. WALKER SECONDED. Bannock -Bryson Glick-` Goeeke 'Walker McComsey Vacant YES YES ABSENT YES YES YES VACAN T MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. c. Res PZ 93-27: Rhodes S/D LA SHOT -reported that this was a 2 1/2 acre parcel in the new project off 3rd and North Gill Street. The owners wish to make three residential lots from this parcel. Water and sewer is available and the minimum lot size in this zone is 7200 s.f. so there is adequate area available for this zone. MOTION AND VOTE: WALKER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PZ 93-27. GOECKE SECONDED. Bannock ' Bryson Glick Goecke 'Walker McComsey Vacant YES YES ABSENT' YES YES YES VACAN T 1Y1V 11V1V rHa7JL'.L U1~IHIVIMVU-7L I . KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 10 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition to Vacate - Baily LASHOT -reported that this item is the other half of a vacation that has been before the Commission before, as a vacation of a utility easement for Padgett in Lot 13, Caro Subdivision. The Commission approved that vacation but Council overturned the P&Z decision, because of objections from State and Federal agencies regarding access to the creek. These problems have been worked out, the owners have agreed to give some type of public access to the creek. MOTION: BANNOCK MOVED TO RECONIlVIIIVD APPROVAL OF PETI7~ON TO VACATE FOR NATHAN AND GLORIA BAILY. MCCOMSEY SECONDID. ***DISCUSSION*** WALI~R -Said he didn't anticipate changing his mind on this item. He knew that the people had worked out the problems with the concerned agencies but I can't see the applicant removing a right-of--way and than providing access. Once you remove that section line easement and that section line requirement these people are going to be able to close the access. That was the reason the Federal Government set up these section lines so there would always be access to these properties. He felt that in future years if adjacent areas are developed there won't be access to these properties. He was against removing this section line easement and urged the Commission to vote against it. VOTE: Bannock Bryson '.Glick Goecke 'Walker McComsey Vacant YES YES ABSENT NO NO NO VACAN T MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF MAJORITY VOTE. 7b. Review of Development in TSH Zone -Forget-Me-Not-Senior- Daycare Center LA SHOT -reported that the next two items were received by the Planning Department too late to be included in the packet. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 11 La Shot referred to the letter from Kluge and Associates which explained that the Daycare Center is in the process of acquiring the Bailey Building in Oldtown. There will be renovation inside and out and according to the code anything requiring a building permit must be approved by P&Z. BRYSON -suggested that the Commission take five minute recess and review the large set of plans which Kluge had submitted. ***MEETING RECESSED FROM 7:55 TO 8:00 P.M.*** MOTION AND VOTE: WALKER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN TSH ZONE FOR FORGET- ME-NOT SENIOR DAYCARE CENTER. BANNOCK SECONDED AND ASKED UNANIMOUS CONSENT. PASSED BY UNANIlVIOUS CONSENT. c. Development in TSH Zone -Clarence Ladd CLARENCE LADD -explained that he was wanting to restore the utility room on the log cabin on Main Street and Riverview Drive. The entrance will be replaced, a door added, and the corner cleaned up. He said he may live in the cabin eventually. WALKER asked what the addition would be built out of? LADD -Said it would built of regular lumber, 2x6's for the floor, studs, and rafters. He had not pursued this project previously because there was an old building next to this cabin which was a fire hazard. The building has been removed so now he wants to renovate the cabin. MOTION AND VOTE: GOECKE MOVED APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT IN TSH ZONE FOR CLARENCE LADD. BANNOCK SECONDID. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. OLD BUSINESS a. Resolution PZ 92-26: Rezone - See Tabled 10/ 14/92) KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 12 9 CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS a. Quandt Property Doug Hanke is in the process of removing these vehicles. A car crusher should arrive on site around the first of July. The City feels the lessee is making an attempt to come into compliance. b. Kenai One Hour Photo -Sign A letter has been sent to this business to remove a car sign from the premises. c. Rainbow Bar -Sign This sign has no permit and does not meet the code. The owner has been asked to come into compliance. d. Don Baker - 1010 Alaska Avenue Baker has been notified by Richard Beck, Building Official that his building permit may have expired and to contact the City. Baker has responded and should be coming in to talk to the Beck soon. e. Unauthorized Sign - Covle's Landin There is also an unauthorized sign for Coyle's Landing on the Bridge Access Road. Staff will send another notice certified and regular mail since the owner has not responded to original certified letter. The sign appears to be in the ROW and the city can remove that sign within 10 days of receipt of the notice. The Council will reschedule a work session for the Townsite Historic Zone review which had been scheduled for tonight but was canceled. BANNOCK had some questions about item 9. Starting with the One-Hour Photo, he had read La Shot and City Attorney Grave's letter. The last paragraph of Grave's letter reads: "Although the code is somewhat ambiguous on this point, assuming the information I have on the vehicle's use is accurate, the FOTO-QUICK car appears to be functioning as a portable advertising sign" using the city's definitions. If the photo people came to you and paid the sign permit fee would you issue them a sign permit? LA SHOT - No. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 13 BANNOCK -Based on what? LA SHOT - It does not meet the requirement of a portable sign that is not a flashing electric, which is apparently all the code allows. BANNOCK but a portable sign according to the code "is a sign other than a temporary sign that is not attached to any building or structure. It may readily be moved from one location to another." That's not even close to that situation. So even though the title "portable sign" may be close to what that situation is, by definition that situation is not even close to a "portable sign". If we're going to use our own definitions. I think it's ironic when the City Council can say that our sign code is fine, yet our own City Attorney says it's somewhat ambiguous, so we just interpret it to whatever the situation needs to be. Now I don't like the sign but I've never advocated the position that my personal taste come into the decision making when it comes to signs. Bannock felt that the same thing applied to the Rainbow Baz sign. He asked La Shot if he would be granted a sign permit if he came in for one? LA Shot Only if they could show me that the sign was designed properly so it wouldn't fall off the building and that they were maintaining it. BANNOCK - If the Council is so concerned about signs, let's look at the sign code. Councilman Measles seems to thing that the answer to all Kenai's sign problems is in granting variances and I think the problem is in the sign ordinance. And in regazds to Mr. Baker some of the items that Mr. Beck noted in his letter surprised me because I remembered it being for atwo-story building and approximately the same size, etc. LA SHOT I believe this body did review the two-story building but the permit was issued for one-story as Baker was building in phases. 10. REPORTS a. City Council -Not Available b. Borough Planning BRYSON -reported on Agenda Items, including: Several hearings had been held azound the Borough about the classification of Borough owned lands. An azea near Seward has been designated for recreation use, which does not preclude forest management, either. Various azeas have been designated for resource extraction to prepare these areas for state reforestation plans. c. City Administration - As discuss in Item 9. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 23, 1993 -Minutes Page 14 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED 12. INFORMATION ITEMS 13. C011~IlVIISSION CONIlVIENTS & QUESTIONS BANNOCK I was concerned when I received the notice in the mail that the TSH work session had been canceled. The paper recently reported that the RV Park in TSH had been developed because the code has not been changed. He said he would be very happy when this process was finished. 14. ADJOLfI~]PTMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 retta H Administrative Assistant