Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-28 P&Z MinutesRENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 28, 1993 - 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINIITES - July 14, 1993 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDIILED TO B8 HEARD 5. PIIBLIC HEARINGS a. Res PZ 93-33: Encroachment - Remax b. Res PZ 93-34: Variance - Erwin c. Res PZ 93-35: Encroachment - Erwin 6. PLANNING a. Res PZ 93-32: Home Occupation - Bel (The Greenery) 7. NEN BIISINESS ~ 8. OLD BIISINESS a. Resolution PZ 92-26: Rezone - See (Tabled 10/14/92) 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMB a. Coyle's Landing - Violation of B&B Code 10. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDIILED 12. INFORMATION ITEMS Townsite Historic Work Session - Minutes 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & OIIESTIONS 14. ADJOURNMENT ~ RENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ' July 28, 1993 - 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers ***MINUTES*** 1. ROLL CALL Members present: Phil Bryson, Duane Bannock, Ron Goecke, Lori McComsey, Charlie Pierce, Kevin Walker Also present: Jack La Shot, City Engineer Kathy Viall, Administrative Assistant 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bryson - Are there any changes for the agenda? Hearing none I entertain a motion for approval of the agenda. MOTION Goecke - I recommend approval of the agenda as submitted. Walker - I will second with the addition of item 9a as being added to the packet. Permission to make a Motion. Bryson - That's appropriate. Any discussion, any objection, hearing no objection MOTION PASSES. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 14, 1993 Bryson - Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions for the minutes of July 14, 1993? MOTION Goeke - I recommend approval of the minutes of the July 14, 1993 meeting and ask for unanimous consent. Walker - I second. Bryson - Motion for unanimous consent as presented. Discussion on Motion. Any objection to the Motion? MOTION PASSED UNANIMOIISLY. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Res PZ 93-33: Encroachment - Remax ~ KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 28, 1993 Page 2 Bryson - Is there a staff report on this? La Shot - This is for Lot 4, Block 3, Thompson Park No. I subdivision, it's in a RR zone. It involves an existing duplex that's in the process of being sold. On the one side yard for that zone there's a 15' setback called for the duplex is 9.7' from the property line so we have a 5.3' encroachment on that side. On the side adjacent to the street, since it's a corner lot, you have 25' setbacks on both sides adjacent to the street. One side is 24.8' so that's a .2' encroachment on that side. All of the conditions, requirements, in the code appear to be met for issuance of the encroachment permit. PUBLIC HEARING Bryson - Thank you, are there any questions for staff before opening the meeting for public comment? At this time we will go into public comment on this item. Is there anyone that would like to testify on Reso. PZ 93-33? Hearing and seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for action. MOTION Bannock - Move for approval of PZ 93-33. Walker - Second. Bryson - Discussion on the motion. Goecke - Is Remax the owner of record on this or do we know who the owner is? Bryson - There is a representative from Remax here, Dave, the question was does Remax own the parcel or are they agents? Dave Feekan - The parcel is owned by the U.S. Government. Bryson - Other questions? Walker - This is one of the older dwellings, is it not. Feekan - (nod). Bryson - The public hearing is now closed. The maker of the motion and the seconder re-acknowledge the motion as stated previously. Bannock - Yes Goecke - Yes ~ Pierce - Yes McComsey - Yes Glick - Absent Walker - Yes Bryson - Yes KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~' July 28, 1993 Page 3 Bryson - MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Res PZ 93-34: Encroachment - Erwin and c. Res PZ 93-35: Variance - Erwin Bryson - Staff report. La Shot - This is Lot 9, Block 4, Redoubt Terrace subdivision. Actually there are two parts to this. One being an encroachment permit for an existing structure and the next would be the variance for one that's planned. We'll take the encroachment first. In the RS zone for two story dwelling calls for 15' side yard setback. The house is within 7.3' on one side which creates a 7.7' encroachment. All the other conditions appear to be met. PUBLIC HEARING Bryson - At this time I would like to open the meeting up to public comment for this Resolution PZ 93-34. 1 Audience - (Mrs. Erwin) It is my understanding that the encroachment is (inaudible). Bryson - Would you like to come and testify? Audience - (Mrs. Erwin) I just want to verify that, we're supposed to be 10' from the property line? La Shot - For that zone, a two story house, it's 15'. Bryson - 5' for single family, 15' for a two story structure in that zone, side setback. La Shot - 10' for a story and a half, if a daylight basement. Audience - (Mrs. Erwin) That's what we have. La Shot - It is a daylight basement? Audience - (Mrs. Erwin) Yes. Bryson - Duly noted. Is there anyone that would like to testify. seeing none we'll close the public hearing and bring it back for Commission comment. Art Gravely - I have a question Mr. Chairman. Is the public hearing for both the encroachment and the variance, or just the encroachment. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 28, 1993 Page 4 Bryson - Jack is there a public hearing required for the variance? La Shot - (nod). Bryson - At this time I would like to invite comments on both items. Art Gravely - 1612 Fathom Drive, Kenai. Commissioners, I would like to address the encroachment that exists at this time. I urge you to approve that encroachment as it sits now. There is an encroachment (inaudible) it's been there for quite some time, uh, a lot of these buildings were built back in the late 1960's. Some of them were pushed to the corner of the lots or up against the encroachment lines, the lot lines, and I think there has to be some (inaudible) for these older buildings. In regards to the uh, I would also like to address the variance and the applicants applying for it, for a couple of reasons. My wife and I have ben Kenai city residents for in excess of 15 years, or 17 years, and we have resided at our current address for over 14 years. We have known the Erwin family .for 17 years and know them to be upstanding characters and excellent neighbors as well as being an asset to the community. I currently believe any construction which they wish to perform will be of excellent design and quality. Other than the encroachment itself that they would like to have the variance on, the approval on, I would like to see them be able to build their garage extension so they can continue to live and stay in that neighborhood. Most of the homes in Woodland subdivision were constructed in the late 1960's as I stated before, all of them have very small garages which were more of an after-thought than, an attachment, than a garage which makes them almost useless. That's one of the reasons for wanting to expand. I urge you to keep perspective, in the Webster's dictionary, an ordinance is "an authority to decree or direction. " I do ask that you give them consideration for their request. Thank you. Walker - I have a question Art. Is that your property they're encroaching, or would be encroaching? Art Gravely - I know their property, they live down the street from us, and there would still be ample room, for instance if there had to be, on the other side of their lot there's a utility corridor. The utilities go down that corridor. The lot, the side they're encroaching on or asking to encroach on (inaudible) is the utility corridor going down on that side. I really can't see where this should bother any future operations in that portion, corridor. Also, should there ever need to be an underground power line or gas line that needed to be run to existing homes, even with the encroachment, there is still room. Pierce - I have a question. You mentioned the utility corridor and KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1 July 28, 1993 Page 5 I don't see that on either of these two pictures here. Do you know which side that's on and possibly how big that utility... Art Gravely - You won't see it on the picture, looking at the picture it would be on the left hand side. It's really, I don't know for a fact that it's really, that I can really say it's a utility corridor (inaudible), I have nothing to base that on other than the fact that I know there are some lines in there. Bryson - I have a question for you Jack, the proposed variance is for the garage side which is a one story building and it's proposed to be extended as one story I believe. Is the City interpreting that as requiring a side setback for a 15', two story? La Shot - The code doesn't differentiate if the side on the, on one side is single story, it talks about the structure. Bryson - I just feel that the logic of the thing with the, would tend to infer that though, that if uh, a house can be two story on one side and one story on the other side as a living condition, which generally represents their impact on their neighbor just in height, and the height issue is a one story on that side. 1 La Shot - I wouldn't disagree with that logic, but the code isn't specific. Goeke - I have a question in that same line, I was thinking of this when I got this packet, I was under the assumption, and I know that there was a, an apartment, but this gentlemen was wanting to put on a carport and was told that the, from lot line, there was a 3' setback on a lot line for a carport and a 5' setback for a garage. La Shot - Uh, I couldn't tell you anything on that. Bryson - I don't know that it addresses carports specifically, it does address eves over hanging property lines. Goeke - It was also the same subject. Bryson - At this time I would like to continue with the public hearing, is there anyone else who would like to testify on this item? Jan Erwin - My husband and I own the property in question. Evidently our house is rated wrong. It's not a two story house, it's a daylight basement therefore, (inaudible) ... La Shot - Is any part of it two story? '' Jan Erwin - No. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION i July 28, 1993 Page 6 La Shot - Your as-built does say two story. I guess that's probably where we picked that up. Jan Erwin - We have a daylight basement and a garage. La Shot - We can adjust that in the resolution. Jan Erwin - That's all I really wanted to say. Bryson - Are there any questions for Mrs. Erwin. Is there any one else who would like to testify? Being none I would like to close the public hearings, bring it back to the Commission for action. I would like to keep the two items on separate motions. MOTION Bannock - Move for approval of PZ 93-34. Walker - Second. Bryson - Resolution PZ 93-34 requests approval of the variance from the required, as I read it, 93-34 is an application for variance, ~ is that correct. McComsey - On the agenda it says 93-35, on the application it says 93-34. Pierce - So the numbers are the opposite that's on the agenda. Bryson - Yes. 93-34 is the variance request. Comments? Walker - I have one question, if it's satisfied I would, in fact, be in favor of it. It does state in this resolution, marked PZ 93- 34, that under 4a, special conditions or circumstances are present which are peculiar to the land or structures involved, not applicable to other lands or structures in the same land use or zoning district. I would like to hear some of the special conditions, I haven't seen anything special or unusual in this to require a variance, just based on,the code is pretty clear, it says what the setbacks are. What I'm trying to find out here is what special reasons for using, what are we backing this up with, why are we approving this variance? That's the only question I would like answered. Bryson - Jack, do you have any other comments on that? La Shot - No. Bryson - Does our setback requirements specifically address story and a half structures. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 28, 1993 Page 7 La Shot - Yes. It's a footnote in the development table. Bryson - Is it in the ordinance? La Shot - It's footnote 1 in the development table; "For structures with a daylight basement the minimum side yard shall be 10' and for structures two or more full stories in height the side yard shall be 15'." It doesn't differentiate parts of the building being two story, one and a half story, whatever. Bryson - Just for the record, I would like to acknowledge that it's been testified that the structure is a one and a half story, there's a full daylight basement under the structure, living portion of the structure. Bannock - If the administration is good on the 10' setback, it completely changes my view of the variance permit and I don't know if Jack La Shot is comfortable with changing the comments on here from 15' setback to a 10' setback, it certainly changes this Commissioner's vote on the variance permit. At the 15' setback on both sides I had a problem with doing both of these. At a 10' setback on both sides I don't have a problem. Perhaps, I don't know if we can just "on the record" change the analysis here or if the administration is good on that 10' figure, then I don't have a problem. La Shot - I'll verify that. It is worth considering, like Phil said, the garage will still be one story on that side. The code doesn't differentiate but logic might dictate something else. If it was a one story structure the set back on that side would be 5' and they wouldn't need a variance. Bryson - I just feel that in interpreting, say if it were a two story building, interpreting the requirement for 15' on both sides is, you start talking about, these lots can be developed and these can't with that type of structure and it's a normal architectural layout. Particularly in a curved culdesac situation where the lots are narrowing down half way through the property. Other comments. Duane you didn't really get an answer. Bannock - I think Mr . La Shot answered that subject to verification to that, on the two story versus one and a half story or daylight basement, can we then go ahead scratching 15' to 10'? La Shot - Sure. Bannock - Ok, so for tonight's action we're going to use 10'. So basically our encroachment just dropped from 7.4', our encroachment just dropped down to 2.4'. Is my math correct? KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 28, 1993 Page 8 La Shot - It would be 2.7'. Bannock - 3' 4" . With the proposed garage we are 7' 8" away from the lot line. On the page titled "Planned Expansion." Pierce - 7.8 or 7.3. La Shot - You have to look at the back corner where it' s 6' 11" , it's a little closer back there. Bannock - Ok, at the bottom of the garage. La Shot - So you're really going to have a 3'1". Bryson - Are there other comments? Are we ready to vote on this? Pierce - Yes McComsey - Yes Glick - Absent Walker - Yes Goecke - Yes Bannock - Yes Bryson - MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. encroachment permit, address that issue. MOTION Goecke - I recommend approval of PZ 93-35. Walker - Second. In the case of the Bryson - Keep in mind the interpretation of the structure is a story and a half rather than a two story, this being the side that is two story. Comments. Glick - Absent Goecke - Yes McComsey - Yes Walker - Yes Bannock - Yes Pierce - Yes Bryson - Yes Bryson - MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. This concludes action on Lot 9, Block 4, Redoubt Terrace subdivision. 6. PLANNING a. Res PZ 93-31: Home Occupation - Bel (The Greenery) Bryson - Home Occupation Permit PZ 93-30, is this 30, Walker - 31 on the agenda. Bryson - Yes KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 28, 1993 Page 9 McComsey - 32 on the form. Bryson - We'll call it PZ 93-32, that's what's on the form. Staff comments. La Shot - H.O.P. at 311 Birch. The applicant plans to sell silk flowers and plants at the location. They have indicated that 500 sq. ft. would be used out of a total 1600 sq. ft., that appears to be less than the 30% requirement for the code. They have indicated that the other requirements are going to be met, that no more than one person is employed outside the family, and that the home occupation be carried on wholly within the principle building or the buildings which are accessory thereto. It appears the conditions are met, my only concern is that it be a fairly low key operation. The intent of the home occupation part of the code is to allow small businesses in the home that normally wouldn't be recognized or be a problem for the neighborhood. I believe the owners are here to answer questions. Bryson - Would you like to make a presentation separate from the application? Audience - (Mr. Bel) We have no presentation but we'll be happy to answer any questions. Bryson - Action by the Commission. MOTION Walker - Move for approval of Reso. 93-32 and ask for unanimous consent. Pierce - Second. Bryson - Motion seconded for unanimous consent, any objection? Discussion on the Motion? Hearing no request for discussion roll call. McComsey - Yes Pierce - Yes Walker - Yes Glick - Absent Bannock - Yes Goecke - Yes Bryson - Yes Bryson - MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Walker - Mr. Chairman, I asked for unanimous consent and it was seconded. Bryson - Duly noted. I apologize for that. 7. NEW BUSINESS KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ July 28, 1993 Page 10 8. OLD BUSINESS a. Resolution PZ 92-26: Rezone - See (Tabled 10/14/92) Bryson - Let's check that. This is Charlie See's application for a rezoning, I see no contact has been made with Mr. See at this time. 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS a. Coyle's Landing - Violation of B&B Code Bryson - This is just an acknowledgement of action. Staff comment. La Shot - I guess you received a handout on this matter. It's requested that no action be taken on revocation of the conditional use permit. Actually we were just putting it on the agenda for discussion. We've had some comments and some reason to believe that the permit holder for bed and breakfast on Barabara Drive does not reside at that property. You have a letter from her that says she does during the time of operation of the bed and breakfast. Bryson - If there are no further comments on this issue we'll move on. 10. REPORTS a. City Council - None b. Borough Planning Bryson - Other than the agenda I have nothing to add. Bannock - Mr. Chairman if we could back up for just a second regarding code enforcement items. There is two copies of minutes, dated August 28, totalling four pages, both marked D6. The two marked D6 are identical, the next two noted Page 2 are both marked August 28 and are clearly different pages. Bryson - The staff might want to clarify that for the next meeting. Bannock - Thank you. c. City Administration 1 Bryson - Jack do you have anything. La Shot - I have a general comment on code enforcement. I guess ~, KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ! July 28, 1993 Page 11 you noticed the bed and breakfast sign on Bridge Access is gone. I guess it's one of the reasons we have correspondence from the owner. The City removed the sign and it's in our City yard, the owner has 10 days to pick it up before we dispose of it. She has been notified. Bryson - Has she been verbally spoken to? La Shot - We mailed, certified mail, and regular mail, to the same address we used before. We may try some of the other addresses that she says she's at, but that is the address of the business, I assume the bed & breakfast is in operation at this time, she should receive mail at that address. Bryson - Just for the record, a phone conversation with her two days ago she indicated she didn't know where the sign was, apparently it's not reaching her. La Shot - Well at the time you had the conversation the letter may not have reached her yet. Walker - If I may, I notice we had 1412 Barabara Drive her license 1 shows 1401 Barabara Drive. She contacted me by phone as well and mentioned she hadn't received any letters, the only thing I'm curious about, is she going to be able to get her sign back. La Shot - She can pick it up. Walker - It's not something she can walk over and pick up by hand, will the City help her load it or does she need to bring help. La Shot - The City Manager said no. She can have it but we won't take it back. The City Manager told us not to deliver the sign back to her. Walker - I'm not talking about delivering it, if she goes to pick it up will the City help her load it or does she need to bring equipment? La Shot - I don't know, I would assume we would load it on a truck for her. Walker - Is that something I need to talk to the City Manager about? La Shot - It might be a good idea, he told us not to deliver it but he never said anything about loading it. 1 J Walker - Can she count on help to load it or should she bring help. ~ KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION s July 28, 1993 Page 12 La Shot - I don't have a problem with it, the City Manager does. I believe he had a conversation with her. Walker - I see, I guess I'll have to contact him then. 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED 12. INFORMATION ITEMS Townsite Historic Work Session - Minutes 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS None 14. ADJOURNMENT 1 Bryson - We stand adjourned, uh, persons present not scheduled. Audience - I assume I got here too late to get in on 93-33 which was, what, the first one. Bryson - Yes you did. That was approved. Audience - Was there any comments made on the off street parking? Bryson - There were none. Audience - That's what I thought. Bryson - We stand adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Kathy 1 for L etta Harvey 1