Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-27 Planning & Zoning MinutesCITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS October 27, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. 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. *October 13, 2004 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. OLD BUSINESS: a. PZ04-43 (a) - An application for an Encroachment Permit for a side yard setback encroachment for the property known as Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision, Addition No. 3 (406 South Forest Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by F. DeWayne and Diane E. Craig, 406 S. Forest Drive, Kenai, Alaska. -- Motion to reconsider by Commissioner Bryson. b. PZ04-44 - An application for a Conditional Use Permit for condominiums for the property known as Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision, Addition No. 3 (406 South Forest Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by F. DeWayne and Diane E. Craig dba Bluff View Condominium Association, 406 S. Forest Drive, Kenai, Alaska. -Tabled from October 13, 2004 meeting. 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. *PZ04-46 - An application for a Home Occupation Permit for a daycare for the property known as Lot 3, Block 1 Mattfield Subdivision (1217 Lawton Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Pat Reilly, 1217 Lawton Drive, Kenai, Alaska. b. Vacation of 33-foot Right-of--Way, Government Lot 33, Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Section 34, Seward Meridian. Discussion and Recommendation. S. PENDING ITEMS: 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT: 1 10. REPORTS: / a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration ll. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: ` 12. IN a. b. c. d. FORMATION ITEMS: Kenai City Council Roster "Zoning Bulletin" - 9125/04 & 10/10/04 December 22na Meeting Cancellation Memo Requirements for Home Daycares 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: X4. ADJOURNMENT: l CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 27, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. CHAIR CARL GLICK, PRESIDING MINUTES ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Glick called the meeting to order at approximately 7:01 p.m. 1-a. Roll Call RoII was confirmed as follows: Commissioners Present: J. Hammelman, B. Eldridge, N. Amen, J. Barrett, C, Glick, P. Bryson Commissioners Absent: J. Twait Others Present: Council Member Rick Ross, City Clerk Freas, City Planner Kebschull 1-b. Agenda Approval MOTION: Commissioner Eldridge MOVED to approve the agenda, including the following: ADD TO: Item 6a, PZ04-43(a), Memorandum from City Attorney Graves ADD TO: Item 6a, PZ04-43(a), Letter from Dr. Charles Bailie ADD TO: Item 6a, PZ04-43(a), Letter from Vernon Loftstedt REMOVE: Item 6b, PZ04-44, Conditional Use Permit application for condominiums/40~ South Forest Drive, Kenai.. Commissioner Bryson SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 1-c. Consent Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Amen MOVED to approve the consent agenda as presented and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Commissioner Eldridge SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- October 13, 2004 Approved by consent agenda. ITEM 3: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -- None. ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF PLATS -- None. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS -- None. ITEM 6: OLD BUSINESS fi-a. PZ04-43 (a) - An application for an Encroachment Permit for a side yard setback encroachment for the property known as Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision, Addition No. 3 (406 South Forest Drive, Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by F. DeWayne and Diane E. Craig, 406 S. Forest Drive, Kenai, Alaska. -Motion to reconsider by Commissioner Bryson. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: Commissioner Bryson MOVED for immediate reconsideration of the petition far the encroachment permit on the southerly property line of the subject property and Commissioner Amen SECONDED the motion. Bryson explained, the motion he attached to the prior motion was determined to be an inappropriate requirement of the adjacent property owner and he wanted to address that issue. VOTE ON RECONSIDERATION: Hammelman Yes Eldridge Yes Amen Yes Barrett Yes Glick Yes Bryson Yes Twait Absent MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson MOVED to recommend the approval of the encroachment permit of the southerly property line of Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision, Addition No. 3. Commissioner Eldridge SECONDED the motion. Asked if staff had anything more to add, City Planner Kebschull asked if the motion included the staff s recommendations. Bryson stated he wanted to add those separately as an amendment. MOTION TO AMEND: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 2 Commissioner Bryson MOVED to amend the motion to require the staff recommendations be a part of the conditions, i.e. that an updated as-built be submitted to insure there are no additional encroachments resulting from the recent construction and that the permit may not be issued until all encroachments are approved. Commissioner Hammelman SECONDED the motion. Verbatim begins: Glick: Would you like to speak to the amendment? Bryson: In general, this is a lot where we've had encroachments on all four sides of the property at this point. Those have been encroachments prior to approval of the construction and I just believe too much is too much and it's had an impact on the neighbors, minor in some cases, and significant in others and I'm not in favor of the motion. Of the main motion. Glick: But you're in favor of the amendment. Okay... Nelson: I have a question as far as procedure on the old business, do we also go out for a public comment with those or not. Glick: No, we had the public hearings and we closed the public hearings. We're not changing anything significant. Right Carol? Kebschull: That's right. You did hold a public hearing. It would be at the Commission's determination if you want to open it to the public. Glick: Yes, so, unless we change something significant, we didn't have to have another public hearing and we didn't. We're looking at the same thing we looked at before. Barrett: Mr. Chairman? Glick: Mr. Barrett. Barrett: I would say reconsidering it is a change enough to ask for public comment. Glick: It's only reconsidering what we already heard the public hearing on. If we changed it, and we're not. Even the amended motion is only putting in the comments that staff put in here before. There's nothing different. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 3 Bryson: I would like to speak to that. Glick: Yes. Bryson: I feel the motion reduces the restrictions on the petitioner. In that regard, it has less effect on them rather than more. It may be that the public would like to comment. I can't speak to that. Amen: Chairman, I would also concur that possibly the public may have a chance to comment because in essence, we have done that already by allowing these lay downs which are additional information that were not available to us prior. Glick; Well, I would allow the public comment, but not as a public hearing. If they want to comment... Amen: Oh, I'm sorry. I used the wrong language. Thank you. Eldridge: Okay, yeah, having read the lengthy verbatim testimony from last week, it appeared to me that you did two things, finished up two things. You granted the rear encroachment and you granted the side encroachment with the provision that the neighboring land owner or their court case or whatever was going to be settled, would be satisfied. It appears to me, and I'm not sure why you did that because normally I would think when you go out far a encroachment, you pass out the information to all the parties and the neighbors and they have the opportunity upon that notification to come in to make a complaint if they have a problem with that side yard setback. Tonight we do have, in fact, a notice of waiver from the adjoining property owner that he's not concerned about that side yard encroachment which has been there with the original footprint of the building since 1982. So, I'm not sure where we're headed with this when we've already satisfied the adjoining property owner, both adjoining property owners, and we've, and he's already provided us with a notice of waiver he's not going to protest. And yes, he's in some litigation but that doesn't have anything to do with what we're doing here. We're just granting an encroachment from the original footprint of the building that we, the city and the various building inspectors have been down to and looked at for a multitude of years. So I'm not sure where we think we're going with this so I'd like to have some idea, you know, what we think we're doing with this. Glick: Well, we're either going to grant an encroachment permit or we're not. Eldridge: Okay, what, what conditions are we using? Aren't the conditions for PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2Q04 PAGE 4 granting encroachments to go ahead and notify the neighbors and then make a determination, if the neighbors come in and say yes, it's fine with them, then it's fine. If the neighbors come in and protest, then we look at it and evaluate it, and we determine whether or not that's, you know, do we want to grant an encroachment in that particular circumstance. In this circumstance, the neighbors have said they don't care about the encroachments and, and they've gone along with the encroachments and all of our, all we have to do then, particularly since this is an original footprint since 1982 that we've looked at for years, I, I just don't understand why we're getting hung up on, on doing whatever we're trying to do other than, you know, we've got the input we need, let's go with the vote. Glick: Okay, at the last meeting, we did pass the one because the adjoining neighbor didn't have a problem. But the one to the south, over the bluff, we didn't have the same information we have tonight... Eldridge: But from the record, we passed it, if the adjoining neighbor would grant a waiver and he's done that. Glick: Now. Barrett: Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to point out to Commissioner Eldridge, that's on the, on the west side two weeks ago. The west side of the property. Eldridge: Well, yeah, I know which one is which. I know you granted the, whatever, two-point-eight feet in the rear setback and this is the side setback where he's within a little over five feet of the property line, but from what I read of the verbatim testimony, what, what you agreed to was that, you agreed to that side setback with the proviso that Loftstedt, the adjoining property owner, would grant them a waiver far that and not protest it. Actually, you were, you were not a protest, but you wanted him to grant the waiver and he has done that so as far as I can see, it should be an automatic, you grant the side waiver. Not granted, there's another encroachment that we still have to deal with if the last as-built is correct and that's a one-point-three foot on the front on Toyon Way. Glick: But that hasn't been asked for yet... Eldridge: No, I know that. I'm just trying to deal with this issue and I'm trying to figure out where we're going, It looks to me like... Glick: Well, basically, with this amendment, if we pass it, we're going to be taking off the restrictions we put on last week and only put on what the staff has PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 5 already recommended to be on there. Eldridge: Okay. Glick: Okay, that's the amendment. If we pass that and then if we pass the main motion with that, but we have to do the procedure. Okay. Is anybody in the public want to speak on this. It's not a public hearing, but if the Commission seems to feel that if you have any additional information you want to come speak, feel free. Amen: And, and, this is, the clarification, the topic we're talking about right now is the bluff-side encroachment, correct? Glick: Yes, that is correct. Amen: And the variance granted for that. Glick: It's just the bluff-side encroachment. That's, that's what we're dealing with. Okay? Anymore discussion on the amendment? Okay, let's vote on the amendment. Clerk: Hammelman? Hammelman: Yes Clerk: Eldridge? Eldridge: Yes. Clerk: Amen? Amen: I'm sorry, once again I've gotten confused. Glick: Just the amendment now... Amen: And this amendment is for... Hammelrnan: Adding staffs... Glick: Adding the inclusions... Unidentified: This stuff... PLANNING 8v ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 6 Glick: the original... Amen: To layer it on top of it, right? Okay. No. Clerk: Barrett? Barrett: Yes. Clerk: Glick? Glick: Yes. Clerk: Bryson? Bryson: Yes. Clerk: The motion passed...the amendment passed. Glick: Okay, so, the amendment motion passes, so that's added to the main motion now. If we vote yes on the main motion, we will be granting the encroachment permit on the south side, the bluff side, with this amendment, which is what staff had recommended is required before it is issued. Any discussion? Amen: Discussion here. Glick: Yeh, okay. Amen; I agree with Commissioner Bryson that it's a fact that we do have encroachments, what would appear to be encroachments on all four sides of this property which, to me, show a clear abuse of this portion of land by the landowner and I would be voting against this. Glick: Okay, let's vote on the main motion as amended. Clerk: Main as amended...Hazx~melman? Hammelman: Yes. Clerk: Eldridge? PLANNING 8w ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 7 Eldridge: Yes. Clerk: Amen? Amen: No. Clerk: Barrett? Barrett: Yes. Clerk: Glick? Glick: No. Clerk: Bryson? Bryson: No. Clerk: You have three no's, three yes's. The vote fails. Glick: Okay. The motion failed. Okay, then the next item under Old Business is PZ04-44... ~ Clerk: The appeal... Kebschull: Advise of the appeal process for the record. Glick: The applicant has fifteen days to appeal to the city over at the city clerk's office, the decision on that. End of verbatim. 6-b. PZ04-44 - An application for a Conditional Use Permit for condominiums for the property known as Lot 1, Block 6, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision, Addition No. 3 (406 South Forest Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by F. DeWayne and Diane E. Craig dba Bluff View Condominium Association, 406 S. Forest Drive, Kenai, Alaska. -Tabled from October 13, 2004 meeting. Item was removed from the agenda. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 8 1 Charles Bailie, 1503 Toyon Way, Kenai -Thanked the Commission for delaying the issue from the last meeting. He added, he was confused at the last meeting; he thanked the Commission for granting time for him to collect his thoughts; he and Craig have had a good relationship over the last 20 years; he wanted the Commission to know the issue has been very difficult; and, he wanted to protect his property. ITEM 7: NEW BUSINESS 7-a. PZ04-46 -- An application for a Home Occupation Permit for a daycare for the property known as Lot 3, Block 1 Mattfield Subdivision (1217 Lawton Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Pat Reilly, 1217 Lawton Drive, Kenai, Alaska. Approved by consent agenda. 7-b. Discussion/Recommendation -- Vacation of 33-foot Right-of-Way, Government Lot 33, Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Section 34, Seward Meridian. MOTION: Commissioner Barrett MOVED to grant the vacation of the 33-foot Right-of-Way, Government Lot 33, Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Section 34, Seward Meridian and Commissioner Eldridge SECONDED the motion. Kebschull explained, the Borough Planning Commission had reviewed the issue and recommended approval. The Kenai City Council has the right to veto the Planning Commission's action. If possible, vacations are brought before the Planning & Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. Kebschull added, the city staff concurred with the approval of the vacation. VOTE: Hammelrnan Yes Eldridge Yes Amen Yes Barrett Yes Glick Yes Bryson Yes Twait Absent MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 8: PENDING ITEMS -None. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 9 ITEM 9: CODE ENFORCEMENT -None. ITEM 10: REPORTS 10-a. City Council -Council Member Ross noted, the action agenda from the October 20, 2004 council meeting was included in the packet. There were no questions. 10-b. Borough Planning -Bryson reviewed actions taken by the Commission at their October 25, 2004 meeting. 10-c. Administration -Kebschull reported the following: • The draft Borough comprehensive plan had been placed on the Borough's website for review. She requested the Commission rraembers let her know of any corrections they note. Kebschull reported she noticed one of the maps used to identify land use was called "Soldotna area" which included Soldotna, Kenai, Nikiski. She stated she felt it would be more appropriate to call it the Central Peninsula Area and she would pass that comment on. • The condominium issue had been discussed with the City Attorney who suggested, as a minimum, adding a definition and perhaps a footnote to the Land Use Table to identify condominiums are permitted uses as long as they meet the density requirements. Kebschull added, a draft document would be brought forward for a public hearing. • The December 22, 2004 Commission meeting was canceled. Hamrnelman questioned why Item 6-b had been removed from the agenda and Kebschull explained, she had requested the City Attorney to review the state statute to determine whether the city should not be requiring the conditional use, which was based on Mr. Osterman's testimony. Attorney Graves reviewed the issue and his comments were distributed to the Commission and added to the agenda. Kebschull noted, the city attorney noted, though there was not a clear identifying case, it should be handled as a permitted use as long as it met the density, i.e. if it's permitted as a six-unit apartment, it should be permitted as a six-unit condominium. ITEM 11: PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED John Kwietniak, 1504 Toyon Way, Kenai -Stated he had nothing against the individuals living on the corner property, but he believed it is a dangerous area due to the off-street parking, amount of traffic on the side street obscuring the line of sight for on-coming traffic on the bluff side road. He added, the property was also becoming a gathering place for vehicles, equipment, etc. which also block the view of PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 10 on-coming traffic. He requested the Cammission, when looking at use of property, they consider those things. Kwietniak added, it can be very dangerous there. DeWayne Craig, 406 South Forest Drive, Kenai -Craig asked, even with the letter from Loftstedt, the Commission voted down the encroachment permit? Glick answered yes, it was athree-three vote, and the motion failed. Craig noted the building had been there for 25 years and asked what he should do with it. Glick noted, Craig could appeal the decision to the city council and he had fifteen days in which to file the appeal with the city clerk. Craig noted he had acquired the letter from Loftstedt which satisfied what the Commission requested, and suggested the Cammission changed the rules. Glick noted, the motion failed and his next recourse would be to go to the city council and present his case to them. Craig suggested the reason why the Bailie home was not selling as quickly as the owner may want could be because the asking price was well above the assessed value. Craig asked what the parking requirements were for a property such as his. Kebschull stated, it would have to have sufficient off-street parking for the use and thought to be two per principle structure. Craig noted that was what Kebschull had told him in a previous discussion. Craig noted, in the driveway two cars could be parked and then the garage parks a third car. He added, technically speaking, three cars for each apartment could be parked and he didn't understand why parking was a problem when there were three off-street spaces for each apartment/condominium. Glick stated, it was not being said he was not meeting the code, but there had been complaints there were many cars parked on the street in the area which impedes the vision. Craig asked if he was being told he could not park on the street and Glick explained, no, unless they were parking in violation of the city code for snow removal, etc. Craig noted, his tenants/owners have visitors who might park on the street and the they themselves have as much right to park on the street as anyone else. Glick noted, because his property is on the corner, the vehicles parked in the area can impede vision for people stopping at the stop sign and is apparently what the complaints had been about. Barrett noted, the comments about the parking came after the vote and the decision was not based on any part of the parking discussion. Craig noted, it is an ongoing comment in written material received from Kebschull. Craig suggested a sign be placed to indicate no parking at the corner and noted there are people who visit the park and the beach who park in that area as well. Craig also noted, with more owners (of the condominiums), there may be mare requests to him to clean up the area, etc. and he had already done so because of requests of new owners. ITEM 12: INFORMATION ITEMS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 11 1 12-a. Kenai City Council Roster 12-b. "Zoning Bulletin" -- 9/25/04 & 10/ 10/04 12-c. December 22nd Meeting Cancellation Memo 12-d. Requirements for Home Daycares ITEM 13: COMMISSION COMMENTS 8a QUESTIONS Barrett -- Stated he based his decisions on the issue before them and felt calling up past issues is punitive for denying someone an encroachment permit. He added, he hoped Craig appealed the decision to the council and hoped the council would overturn the Commission's decision. Amen -- • Agreed they review each case on the merits to make a decision. He added, he felt one of the main challenges is to protect the public trust/interest and in this case, interpreting and applying the intent of the code placed before them. Under that instance, someone who has requested variances after variances basically is stepping outside the intent of the code and laws the .Commission is there to enforce. • He believes the Commission's other charge is to guard the rights of the residents and neighbors and his fallback position on decisions like this one, is to ask himself if he was a neighbor in the area, how would he feel about the action and would act in that manner. Amen noted, in this case, he lives fairly ciose to the property and had come to the opinion that what had been transpiring on that property is wrong as there had been discrepancies, i.e. what's been called a two story is actually three stories, statements made in the past have been false, etc. and he was tired of playing the game and had no hesitancy in moving as they had on that particular issue. Bryson -- Stated this was not a request for a variance as a variance is a before-the- fact of events and in no case had a variance been requested for any one of the four. All were after-the-fact and the term then is an encroachment. He added, the most recent one was noted in the as-built submitted during the last Commission meeting and the building had been an issue of discussion for some time. The previously proposed size forced the footprint of the property to exceed the allowed area coverage so there was a great deal of thought going into the size of the building and then it turned out to be an encroachment as well. Bryson added, he believed all had an effect on the property and the neighbors and are cumulative. Glick -- Reported he would not be at the next meeting as he would be attending the AML meeting. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE 12 ITEM 14: ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Barrett MOVED for adjournment and Commissioner Amen SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:44 p.m. Minutes transcribed and prepared by: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk PLANNING 8v ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2004 PAGE I3