HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-28 Planning & Zoning Minutes} CITY OF I{ENAI
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
July 28, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
a. Swearing in of Commissioner, Jeff Twait
b. Roll Call
c. Agenda Approval
d. Consent Agenda
*All items listed with an asterisk {*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by
the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as
part of the General Orders.
2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
a. *July 14, 2004
3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT:
4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS:
a. PZ04-25 -Preliminary Plat - FBO Subdivision No. $. Submitted by Whitford
Surveying, P.O. Box 4032, Soldotna, Alaska. Reconsideration.
b. PZ04-36 -Preliminary Plat - Mommsen's Subdivision Parish Replat. Submitted by
Integrity Surveys, $195 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. PZ04-31-Encroachment permit for rear yard setback and side yard setback for the
property described as Lot 2A, Block 4, Inlet Woods Subdivision (1545 Windward Drive},
Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Tracy Jones, P.O. Box 2749, Kenai, Alaska.
6. OLD BUSINESS:
7. NEW BUSINESS:
a. *PZ04-33 - An application for a Home Occupation Permit for a daycare far the property
known as Lot 2A Cerepa Subdivision No. 2 (1310 Kiana Lane), Kenai, Alaska.
Application submitted by Rase M. Wilshuson, 1310 Kiana Lane, Kenai, Alaska.
b. *PZ04-35 - An application for a Home Occupation Permit for a daycare for the property
known as Lot 16, Block 6 Redoubt Terrance Subdivision Addition 7, (1531 Toyon Way},
Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Diane Stockdale, 1531 Toyon Way, Kenai,
AIaska.
8. PIJNDING ITEMS:
9. COllE ENFORCEMENT:
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council
U. Borough Planning
c. Administration
11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED:
12. 1NrORMATION ITEMS:
a. PZ04-26 -Landscape/Site Plan - Snowder Chiropractic Clinic, 205 Bidarka Street
U. PZ04-34 - LandscapelSite Plan -Preferred Plumbing & Heating, 345 Main Street Loop
c, Zoning Bulletin (7110104}
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
14. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING 8a ZONING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JULY 28, 2004 - 7:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN CARL GLICK, PRESIDING
MINUTES
ITEM Z: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Glick called the meeting to order at 'T:00 p.m.
1-a. Swearing in of Commissioner, Jeff Twait
City Planner Marilyn Kebschull administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner
Twait.
1-b. Roil Call
Members Present: N. Amen; C. Glick, P. Bryson, J. Twait, B. Eldridge
Members Absent: J. Hammelman, J. Barrett
Others Present: Councilman Rick Ross, City Planner Marilyn Kebschull,
Department Assistant Nancy Carver, and Contract
Secretary B. Roper
1-c. Agenda Approval
Chairman Glick requested the following changes to the agenda:
ADD TO: Item 5a, Letter from David & Barbara Dickerson
MOTION:
Commissioner Eldridge MOVED to approve the agenda acknowledging the lay downs
provided before the meeting and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Commissioner
Bryson SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
].-d. Consent Agenda
Chairman Glick requested a change to page four, paragraph four, fourth line stating
he believed it should read, ... "construction of a road with a 30 foot width, with
pavement of 24 feet..."
MOTION:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve the consent agenda with the correction to
the minutes and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Commissioner Amen
SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
} ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -July 14, 2004
Approved by consent agenda.
ITEM 3: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -- None.
ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
4-a. P204-25 -Preliminary Plat - FBO Subdivision No. 8. Submitted by
Whitford Surveying, P.O. Box 4032, Soldotna, Alaska. Reconsideration.
MOTION:
Commissioner Eldridge MOVED to approve PZ04-25 and Commissioner Bryson
SECONDED the motion.
There was no discussion.
VOTE:
Amen Yes Barrett Absent Glick Yes
B son Yes Twait Yes Hamrnelman Absent
Eldridge Yes
} MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY,
4-h. PZ04-3fi -Preliminary Plat - Momrnsen's Subdivision Parish Replat.
Submitted by Integrity Surveys, 8195 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai,
Alaska.
MOTION:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve PZ04-36 and Commissioner Eldridge
SECONDED the motion.
Kebschull reported this was a replat to remove the lot line and indicated staff
recommended approval after the final plat verifies there are no encroachments.
VOTE:
Amen Yes Barrett Absent Glick Yes
B son Yes Twait Yes Harnmelrnan Absent
Eldridge Yes
PLANNING 8s ZONiNG COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
PAGE 2
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS
5-a. PZ04-31-- Encroachment permit for rear yard setback and side yard
setback for the property described as Lot 2A, Block 4, inlet Woods
Subdivision (1545 Windward Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application
submitted by Tracy Jones, P.O. Box 2749, Kenai, Alaska.
MOTION:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve PZ04-31 and Commissioner Eldridge
SECONDED the motion.
Kebschull noted a lengthy comment from staff was included in packet and advised the
issue was before the Commission previously. Kebschull pointed out two
encroachments existed, i.e. a rear and side encroachment, and suggested the
Commission consider separating the two items.
Glick opened the public hearing and advised there was athree- minute limit for
testimony.
Verbatim, Be ins
Mark Beauchamp, 206 Susleanna Lane, Kenai, Alaska - Thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you. I'm Mark Beauchamp. Ike been a resident of Kenai
since 1963. I currently reside at 206 Susieanna Lane, in the new subdivision. Ah, I
previously served as a member of the Zoning and Planning Commission back many
years ago and during that period of time I found that the decision making was often
very challenging. As a Planning and Zoning Commission, we saw them granted
encroachments but based our decisions somewhat on common sense and when we did
not have objection by landowners who owned land adjacent to the question in part. I
da not recall ever granting a waiver for a matter of this kind when the owner objected.
In this particular case, this is a major encroachment of some 15-feet on a 20-foot
setl.~ack and Mr. Janes should assume the responsibility of making certain that his
shed alas in place properly before placing it there. I ah, visited this site last year when
Mr. anal Mrs. Dickerson took me out and showed me and told me of their plans to
build and at that time there was no shed there at that time. Basically it was under
construction at the present time. They were very excited about building.
Consequently, now they are looking at the possible encroachment which would affect
them- property values and as we all would like to have our property values appreciate,
there's no question in my mind that this would be detrimental to the appreciation of
their property and would jeopardize it. This matter seems to me to be very basic and
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
PAGE 3
very simple; there is an encroachment, it is a major encroachment and should not be
} granted. Mr. Jones should assume responsibility to make sure that it was in the
prohcr place and I note that the staff has recommended against granting this waiver of
encroachment and I respectfully request that you consider the matter of Mr. and Mrs.
Dickerson moving in to their lots and building there. Those should not be treated as
vacant: lots, that is their future home and I respectfully ask that you deny Mr. Jones'
regizcst in this case. Thank you for letting me up here before you.
Glick asked if there were any questions of Mr. Beauchamp; there were none.
David Dickerson, 1508 FatEhom Drive, Kenai, Alaska -- My name is David
Dickerson and my wife Barbara is here. We live at 1508 Fathom Drive and we're the
owners of the two adjacent lots. We submitted a letter. We didn't do it until today but
we t.urzzed it in for your consideration and before I read that I would like to ask you to
malcc a couple corrections, there are a couple items that escaped me when I was
prool-ing it. On the first page, paragraph three, "the encroachment request on the
side setback should read seven and 1/4 inches." On the back of the page, minor item
there, on the top of the page, second line should be replatted.
Dickerson read his letter as corrected.
"We az-e once again respectfully requesting that you deny this encroachment request.
Your earlier denial of his request on January 14, 2004 was the correct decision we
belic~-c~ and was greatly appreciated. As owners of lots numbers one and thirteen of
block four in Inlet Woods it is our property that is being encroached upon and it is our
pro~~cz-ty that would be negatively impacted and reduced in value.
Mr.. ]ones' request for an encroachment of almost fifteen feet into the rear setback of
twenty feet is extremely excessive. Now that a legal survey has been done it is
established that the large tall building which was built without a permit, is only five
feet one and a quarter inches from the lot line when it should be twenty feet away from
the lot line.
The. encroachment request on the side setback of seven and 1/4 inches has been
reco~nznended for approval by the City administration. We will agree to the granting of
the ~ az-iince provided the rear setback is enforced to code. No problem with minor
item .
Mr.Tones has given numerous reasons why it is not his fault that the building
encroaches into the setbacks. First, he said he hired a contactor and relied on him to
kno«~ and follow the city rules. In later testimony Mr. Jones said he hired the
cont.ractor's relative (stepson; Mike Hill) to build the pretty good size little storage area
but ~~lr. Hill failed to do the job so Mr. Jones fired him and took it over and built it
himself. Mr. Janes said no one told him about the setback rules. I'm not sure whom
he r°~l~ected to take the initiative to guide him through this especially since he had not
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
~ JULY 28, 2004
PAGE 4
gone to the city for a building permit. In testimony to the City Board of Adjustment in
Febru~lry Mr. Jones complained that the city shouldn't even have twenty-foot setbacks
in oi.i r l~roperties as that is unreasonable. Also, it is not his fault because he did not
want to cut down any more trees and ruin the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
The salient facts are that Mr. Jones bought two lots. After purchasing the lots he had
thezTl z-eplotted into one large expensive piece of property. Then he hired a contractor
to brrild him a large 3,000 square foot home, which one might expect required some
planning and design work.
It seems to me that a reasonably prudent person who is spending this much money
wou 1 d have reviewed the City Land Use Table and been familiar with the rules.
Making a site plan considers the dimensions of the lot, easements and rules for the
home, the driveway and any other structures before beginning construction is the
responsibility of the owner. He had ample opportunity to become familiar with the
rule:;, they are not kept secret.
Ther ~~ ~tre two other points that need to be clarified. First, in Mr. Jones' testimony to
the c_:it.y Board of Adjustment he said we had recanted a little and that we were no
lon~;cr feeling the same way about the encroachment. That is not trueE We had
written a letter to the City Council dated February 4, 2004 stating our continued
objection to the encroachment. Secondly, Mr. Jones stated that he does not
understand why we have created such a problem for him. I'd like to please let the
recd r-d show that we have not broken any rules here and that all we have done is buy
sonic property with the expectation that it would not be illegally impacted and thereby
redr~c,ed in value or use. Mr. Jones is the one who has created the problem.
In ~,~ ~ mmary, the building can be moved and there is no good reason why it should not
be n~ oved. If in the process of moving the building some trees have to be removed Mr.
Jones can replace them, as he is responsible for this situation.
I just like to conclude by saying that I disagree with Mr. Jones regarding the 20-foot
setb~lck. I think the setbacks are very appropriate and important to provide everyone
with equal opportunity to use and plan their building and the way they would like to
ha~~c tl>.eir property look and used. And so with that I would just like ask you to
carcfcally consider this, determine as Mr. Beauchamp said, the decisions often aren't
eas~~ but I would hope that the responsibility could be placed where it should be in
this ~:ase, thank you.
Glicl; asked if the Commission had any questions of Mr. Dickerson. There were no
que~,tiorzs.
Tracy Jones, 1545 Windward Drive, Keaai, Alaska - My name is Tracy Jones and I
resi r I c' at 1545 the lots that we're talking about on Windward. As you know that... I'm
not ;ruing to dispute that I have a large house out there and Ike got a sizeable
PLANNING 8w ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
PAGE 5
invctit~nent and thank you for pointing that out sir, I appreciate that. As far as the
othc ~~ lots around no one's build on those lots, they just bought them to build later,
you iU7oW, that's good cause everyone needs to ah, have an opportunity to invest in a
nice ~lcighborhoad where other people have built very expensive homes. The only
th1T1~; chat I think that needs to be addressed today and I want to make sure that... it's
alre,.~d~~ been granted... the setback as far as the twenty-foot goes in the first appeal
than we had frequently. What we're requesting today is ... you... we have the
bui 1 c 1 i ~ ] g... building inspector go out because it was granted, everything was honky-
dor~ ~lnd everything was alright. He goes out and with shifting of, whether this
hap~~er~s or not, we did have a goad freeze and it's just sitting out there on the pylons
anc~ ~n~• pylons did get moved, you know they shifted quite a bit; so I gave what I was
askc~;l to give in the first meeting okay, is an approximate okay, there's no... nobody
saki i 11ad to have it exactly, just give us an approximate location of the building and I
did thc~ only thing I knew to do and I went out and I measured what I could see my
pro~acrty line where the stakes were and I give an estimate to the best of my ability,
what.cver it was and we had it on the old papers. So, when I gave that, that wasn't
instr~llc;d, that was an approximate so I thought when this was granted would only be
grad i ed as a... sort like a, well I don't know if this is the right term to... just an open...
wh~~ ~ ' s the word to ah... describe... variance can be within so many feet of what you
quoi cci, you know what I'm saying, you got ah... like the building inspector he's got a
foot ; o ah. , , maybe to approve if I'm not... am I correct in thinking that? He has a foot
to ~~ ~~i-l~. with...
Con,tnissioner Eldridge: Um-rnm; yeah, we can...
Jams: So, if I got it in 10--foot I would be alright... so I did, that's what I did. So I
turn ; rrl those numbers in, now ah, he comes out after the approval and everything and
he s;,ys, "well you're gonna have to ah... can you give me a better... can you put a set
of s; ~ ir~gs up so T can come out an get a better... measurement cause we have to do
this. ~=,~c're finalize the building permit. Okay, so I strung up the strings to the posts
than . 1]ave. He came out, measured and he got about 4 or 5 inches difference than
whr~: «•as approved in the first easement, okay, the encroachment when it got
app.-c~~•ed by the Mayor (illegible). So, now I'm in a dilemma, they're coming back and I
haci ... 1 came into the office and they said well, we never had this happen before so
were r ~~round and went around... the lawyer tells me, tells everybody, says, well we're
goi~] ~; ~ o have to... he's going to have to go right back through the system again to get
this ~~ i ~ inches on the back approved and the seven inches on the side approved and
ah... Sri I said well I... you know, I don't know where we're standing with this inches so
I'm i'c)~t7g to pay a surveyor, which cost me X400 to get a surveyor t0 come and replat
that ~~uilding to stop all this going back and forth, who should be where and all this.
So, ! ~r]id now $105 to do the first meeting, $400 to do the replatting and another
$1~:~ tc~ resubmit again to get 7 inches approval on the right and b or 7 inches,
whc~ ~ c~~cr it is, on the back, the extension, that's all this is all about. It's already been
gran; tcd that I got it and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to get an override
bec~ ~ c ~ ~e I'm coming back through the committee system of that first grant. You know
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
PAGE 6
I w~i~ltcd to make sure that that's not going to happen neither. And ah... I don't know
wh~• ~cc're having to do this, nobody could explain it to me; there's no rules, no bylaws,
not} ~ n ~ so I feel like I'm caught in a situation of just having to go all over the same
thin ~ ~, : ~ nd... and ah, whatever comments they want to make that's irrelevant right now
bec~ ~ n sc it's 7inches, it's not 20 feet anymore. That's done been granted to me, now
I'm asking for 6 more inches just because of the building could have shifted through
the ~~ i rater or anything could have happened, we had a 40 degree freeze and had
Simi ~ ~-, r earthquakes... my house shakes out there so I don't know how much it shifted.
Urn... i done everything that I was supposed to have done when we started this
strti ~ ~ t i-ice as far as the contractor but... long time ago that's... that's not even... we're
beyc~~~d it. They've ah... it was a shed, it's stated as a shed... on the new a... on the
ne« ;Tit. Ah, yes, it's a tall building but it's still not atwo-story. It does not fall in the
two :;try setback of 15 feet anyway. That's what makes it 7inches into the
encr+~~~chment on the right so there's no legal wording says that is' a two-story
buil ~' i ~ ~g, it's a story and a half if it's anything and that still does not constitute it... the
ah... in.it the surveyor said it was a shed with a loft and that's a standard good storage
bu i] ~'~ i ~~ g. But anyway, the biggest issue is the 7inches on the right hand side and the
b in ~ l z c: s encroachment on the back extending already what I been granted and L ..I
don i see what the big issue of it is. It's a beautiful building, it matches the property,
it a] • ... doesn't cause any aesthetics to anything. The 7inches from the side of the
prof c~rt}r where his house would be, when you got a corner section that sticks out right
herd ,E~ointing at a map on the wall behind the podium) his lot runs here, my building
sets ~n this corner section in here, it's about 30 feet of property that isn't even
infra . ~ #;cs on... it's not hurting anything so... thank you.
Vert ~t.im Ends
Glic!< asked if there were any questions of Mr. Jones. Bryson asked if the building
was I~ortable. Jones replied it's on pylons; it's on a 6 x 6 beam and he'd have to cut
his : I;.ids off.
Br}~:,C~i1 asked if the building was hooked to any utilities. Jones answered, no. Bryson
asks ; I i f there was power only. Jones replied there is temporary power to the building.
Br~r~ ~ ~ n asked if there were overhead power lines. Jones replied no, it was
unc3 ~r~round and comes out from around the corner of the house.
Con.»issioner Amen asked what the primary use of the building was and Jones
reel:~•d it is just a storage building, which contains boxes in the loft, a lawn mower,
etc. tones added it xnatched the home and provided photographs of the home and
star:: ~,c shed. Jones stated, if the building had to be moved, it would not look as nice
and ~ , ~.vould be expensive.
Br~~:;~~n, referring to Jones'statement that there was vegetation that screened the back
fro z~ ~ r 1 ~ c adjacent property, asked if there were indeed trees in the back. Jones
con' : need the picture was from the side. Bryson asked for clarification that it was not
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
PAGE 7
five it°ct from the building as it didn't appear there were any trees in the area. Jones
caz-z ~ i ~ need there were no trees behind or in front of it.
Jon; •r, painted out, in the building codes, he finally found says there couldn't be
anon i per structure within 8 or 10 feet of the other structure, so if the structure had to
be r. r~~'cd or turned it would literally be pushed up on the house and that's why he
was E pset about the 20-foot setback. Bryson asked what reference Jones was
refc; i-iny to other than the City adopted building code but with the property close to
Lot it has almost 15 feet so in either case it wouldn't be moving toward the building
at ~~I. Bryson continued, the frontage that has the 5-foot plus clearance is moving
pars, I ! cl to the building and it appears it's in excess of 20 feet.
Dicl t•rson (speaking from audience) stated the storage building is attractive and as
lorz~: ~ls his two lots are vacant it would look beautiful, but the question is when he
cho~:~es to build would he be restricted as to where he can build or would it look like it
wou ! c i be congested and placed close together.
Pula ic. hearing closed. Bryson stated, when looking at the location of the building, he
woz~ Ed interpret it to be a two-story building. Bryson added, presumably the side
sett. i ck s aren't to protect the person placing a building, but rather to not dramatically
affec t the neighbor. Bryson added, he has the same concern he had previously that
thee` is adequate room on the property to relocate the building near where it is and
stil l ~ ~~n i'orm to code. Bryson continued, the trees that would need to be removed are
insi: ;: ti ~ i cant.
Amf~i ~ asked staff if Windward Drive fronted the property. Kebschull confirmed it did.
Amy : ; asked if there were any stipulations provided when the appeal was granted.
Keb ~~. hull stated there were none. Glick pointed out the appeal was not unanimously
gray ' cd.
Con . ~ all ssioner Eldridge stated he agreed the tree removal would not be unreasonable
and ~ hnt.tght the structure should be moved.
Twr~ : ~~ asked if it was determined whether it was atwo-story building or not. Kebschull
repl ~~d, the Building Inspector had not yet entered the structure and a building permit
had ~~ot been issued. Kebschull continued, she spoke with the surveyor and he stated
he l ~c•lic~ved it was a full loft and could be constructed and used as a second story.
Bry .rn~ stated, the only issue pertinent to the height is the side setback as the rear
setl <<~ck is 20 feet. Twait stated, if the house was built with the driveway being on the
lee~~. ; ~ rd, the side setback would have been only five feet. Kebschull stated, if the
enc; ~arhzxl~ent is granted, it wouldn't stipulate usage. Kebschull continued, the
strzi ~ cure being discussed is a storage shed now but it is large enough to be converted
to rc~~;idcntial use. Kebschull added, anything over 200 square feet with sanitary
foci ~ ~; ic•s could be used for residential use, so the storage shed could became a
PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
PAGE 8
secc n d~c cy residence on the lot.
Amc i j asked if administration heard from the owner of Lot 4 and Kebschull confirmed
they 1i~ul not. Jones, referring to a booklet he had, stated it limits the size of a one-
stor~,~ ranch home to be 1,200 sq. ft. and atwo-story home to be 1,400 sq. ft. sa there
cou' ~; n'i be a dwelling less than 720 sq. ft. Kebschull advised the Commission the
boob:3et .7ox~es referred to was covenants and the City does not enforce covenants.
Keb:;c.h~.~ll added, the City would issue a building permit for that structure for
resirlcni ial use. Glick advised Jones the City's rules on covenants. Jones advised he
recc~.~ecl the booklet from the City's office and that it is what he goes on for the rules
on : ~ tb~ccks. Jones added, when he came in for a permit he was given the booklet and
was t olri that was what he had to go by. Glick advised Jones the public hearing was
clos~_~i.
VO''};:
Amc r i
Br : c~
Eldi~,
No Barrett Absent Glick No
n_ No Twait No Hammelman Absent
lgr No
MOT'(ON FAILED.
Glic).. advised Jones of his right to appeal within 15 days. Jones said he'd already
been g~ Hinted the first encroachment. Glick advised that it was technically null and
void ~~ec~ause it didn't meet the same setback that was previously requested. Jones
state L lie wasn't given anything and there was nothing in the rules or in the provisions
for h; ~~n to have a certain inch or anything. Jones added, if that was the case, then the
prole ~rt~~ should have been exactly surveyed and then that money would have been
spe~a: fog- nothing if it were denied. Glick stated, if the property were not surveyed,
then he wouldn't know where the lot lines were. Bryson added, the appropriate action
would he to appeal. Glick advised Jones that his only alternative would be to appeal.
iTL11'~ 6: OLD BUSINESS -- None.
IT~11'~: r~ : NEW BUSINESS
7-a. *PZ04-33 - An application for a Home Occupation Permit for a daycare
for the property known as Lot 2A Cerepa Subdivision No. 2 (1310 Kiana
Lane), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Rose M. Wilshuson,
1310 Kiana Lane, Kenai, Alaska.
Ap~~rcnTed by consent agenda.
7-b . *PZ04-35 -- An application for a Home Occupation Permit for a daycare
for the property known as Lot 16, Block 6 Redoubt Terrance Subdivision
PLANNING 8s ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 2$, 2004
PAGE 9
l Addition 7, (1531 Toyon Way), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by
1 Diane Stockdale, 1531 Toyon Way, Kenai, Alaska.
Approved by consent agenda.
IT~;N! 8: PENDING ITEMS
Kei~s~.hl~ll noted KMC 14.20.320, the modular home issue, was still pending.
iTEn~ 9:
Kel.~st.hi~ll reported that the code enforcement officer is working on the pending
vio I ai ioiz s.
ITJ[~,Ni Y 0: REPORTS
10-a. City Council -- Councilman Ross reviewed the July 21st agenda and
disci~ sscd actions taken.
10-b. Borough Planning -- Commissioner Bryson reported the Borough
Pl~:~~~r~in~; Commission held a meeting on July 19 and provided a report on actions
tal: e1z.
10~~c. Administration -- Kebschull reported the following:
• PZ04-02, preliminary plat for Wild Rase Subdivision will be heard by the
Borough Planning Commission on August 9; Mr. Merkes (the developer) reported the
ro~Ldwork was begun and will be built to standard; and, paving will be completed
witliit~ tl~e next year or two.
• The consultants are working on the airport supplemental plan.
• The Kenai cemetery is running out of space. Additional area has been
sty rvcycd and approximately 40 new plots are available. Other options are being
considered for when the current cemetery reaches capacity.
• The mobile home versus modular home definition issue is still pending.
A» e~.pl,~nation of the City's current procedure was provided.
IT~'.M ]. 1: PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED -- None.
ITN;[ 12: INFORMATION ITEMS
12-a. PZ04-2C -Landscape/Site Plan - Snowder Chiropractic Clinic, 205
Bidarka Street
12 h. PZ04-34 -Landscape/ Site Plan -Preferred Plumbing & Heating, 345
Main Street Loop
12-c;. Zoning Bulletin (7/ 10/04)
PLANNING 8s ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
PAGE 10
ITrM ~ 3 : COMMISSION COMMENTS 8s UESTiON3
Commissioner Eldridge welcomed Commissioner Twait to the commission.
Co~nmisioncr Amen asked what recourse the Commission had when an individual
pro~~iding public testimony refuses to stop after his alloted three minutes. Glick
replied, the chair could call a recess and if necessary call the police. Kebschull added,
the Cite has rules that could be read before a public hearing begins and added,
disr.ussion should not be allowed from the audience but rather from the podium to
assure the comments are recorded.
Amen ~~sked what recourse the Commission had when untrue statements are made.
Kcl3sch z ~Il replied there's a time limit on appeals and an individual would have an
opl~>orttzz~ity then to address an untruth.
Am cn ~z] so welcomeded Twait to P8vZ.
Commissioner TRrait stated he was pleased to serve on the P8vZ Commission.
Chairman Glick also welcomed Twait to P&Z.
IT~:M ] 4:
MOTIdN:
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Eldridge MOVED to adjourn and Commissioner Bryson SECONDED the
motiozz. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
The mec,ting adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.rn.
Minutes transcribed and repared by:
~~~
B~zrl~az-;t Roper, o tr t ecretary
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
PAGE l l