HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-13 P&Z PacketCITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
**AGENDA**
Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo
December 13, 1995, 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Kevin Walker
1. ROLL CALL:
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 21, 1995
4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD:
5. PLANNING:
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. NEW BUSINESS:
8. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Comp Plan Update
b. National Flood Insurance Program
9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:
a. Kodysz Home Business Letter
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council
b. Borough Planning
c. Administration
11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED:
12. INFORMATION ITEMS:
a. Work Session-Shkituk' Village Site-January 23, 1996 at 6 p.m.
b. Letter appointing John L. Booth to Commission
c. Planning & Zoning Commission Roster
d. School Zones Memo
e. Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board Minutes of
November 16, 1995
f. KPB Planning Commission Action from November 13 & 27, 1995 meetings
g. Kenai Habitat Restoration and Recreation Enhancement Project
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
14. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
**AGENDA**
Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo
~~ November 21, 1995, 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Kevin Walker
1. ROLL CALL:
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 8, 1995
4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD:
a. Lisa Parker, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Planning Director
5. PLANNING:
a. Subdivision Plat Approval, Beaver Loop Acres, Add. No. 1, PZ95-60
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Rezoning Application, J & S Enterprises, Lots 31 & 32, Section 33, PZ95-59
7. NEW BUSINESS:
8. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Comp Plan Update
b. Reconsider PZ95-56, Subdivision Plat, Bailey Estates
9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council
b. Borough Planning
c. Administration
11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED:
12. INFORMATION ITEMS:
a. Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board, Minutes, October 5,
1995
b. Robbins' Retirement Communities Letter dated November 13, 1995
c. Public Meeting Notice
d. Memo for Parliamentary Procedure Work Session
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
14. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 21, 1995
APPROVED
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Teresa Werner-Quade, Ron
Goecke, Karen Mahurin, Kevin Walker
Members Absent: William Toppa
Others Present: Councilman Hal Smalley, Robert Springer-City of
Kenai Building Official, Marilyn Kebschull-
Administrative Assistant, Lisa Parker-Planning
Director KPB, and approximately 25 city residents
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairman Walker asked for a motion to approve agenda. Phil Bryson asked that prior
to approval of agenda, that Item 8b, Old Business, Reconsideration of PZ95-56 be
added to the agenda and BRYSON MOVED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF
AGENDA WITH ADDITION. MOTION SECONDED BY RON GOECKE.
Karen Mahurin requested clarification of PZ95-56. Chairman Walker noted in the
minutes that PZ95-56 was listed and asked if Mahurin would like a moment to review.
Item reviewed. Mahurin stated not objection to addition. Walker asked if any
opposition to unanimous consent for approval of agenda. None noted. AGENDA
APPROVED.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 8, 1995
CARL GLICK MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER
8, 1995. MOTION SECONDED BY PHIL BRYSON.
Chairman Walker asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes. None noted.
Walker asked if anyone opposed unanimous consent. None noted. MINUTES
APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD:
Lisa Parker, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Planning Director-Ms. Parker stated she
wanted to discuss borough lands within the City of Kenai. Parker noted that a couple
of years ago the Borough Assembly passed a resolution and ordinance adopting a
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 1
Borough Land Code. Parker stated that within that code it stipulated that prior to
disposal of any borough lands that those lands must be classified. Parker stated there
are 14 classifications that the assembly designated as classifications for borough
owned lands. Parker noted they range from agricultural down to waste handling and
include a variety of subjects. Parker stated she had brought a copy of the borough
code to provide to the Planning Department. Parker also stated she had brought a
couple of maps, one that shows current zoning within the City of Kenai and another
map showing land ownership status. (Maps were hung.)
Continuing, Parker noted that earlier this fall the borough had received a request
from the City of Kenai to transfer borough properties to the City of Kenai along the
Spur Highway where the City of Kenai is putting a future well site and it has also
been designated as a potential site for a fire station. Parker noted that Kenai has also
requested that the Borough assist them in transferring some lands that are held by
the Mental Health Trust transferred from the Mental Health Trust to the borough and
then on to the City of Kenai. Currently within the city limits (Parker noted on the
map where the city limits were delineated.) the only land that is currently classified
under this ordinance is a small parcel near Wildwood Correctional Center. This is a
40 acre parcel that is classified as resource management with another classification
under that of residential. Parker noted that before the borough can assist the City of
Kenai in transferring the lands that they would like to have from the borough to the
City of Kenai, all borough lands need to be classified. Parker noted the borough lands
on the map are shown in red. Parker advised the lands in purple are State of Alaska,
green are City of Kenai, blue are private residential. Parker noted the code on the
map showing the designations. Parker stated the map shows a good idea of the land
ownership patterns in the city.
Parker noted that the borough is starting the process within the borough of classifying
borough-owned lands. Parker stated that where there is an existing Planning &
Zoning Commission as in Kenai, Soldotna, Seward, and Homer, the borough would
like to work with the local Commissions in determining the designations. These
classifications would then be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Borough
Assembly.
Ms. Parker stated that was the thrust of her comments and asked if there were any
questions. Parker stated that she had noticed the Comp Plan Update later on the
agenda and that she was unaware of the status but that this classifying could be
addressed under the Comp Plan. Parker drew attention to the second map showing
the existing city zoning.
Chairman Walker asked for questions. Ms. Werner-Quade asked Ms. Parker if copies
of the maps would be made available. Parker stated the maps she had brought were
for the city. Parker added that the borough feels it is important to work closely with
the local governments to make sure that the classifications conform within the
existing zoning requirements that the cities have. Walker stated that he felt it would
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 2
be appropriate to schedule this request for a future meeting to allow time between the
} Planning & Zoning Commission and staff to analyze the properties and then provide
the borough the information. Ms. Parker stated that the borough would make staff
available from the Borough Planning Department to work with staff from the city if
the city should so desire. Parker stated she knew that the city manager is anxious to
get the parcels along the highway classified. (Parker showed on the map the parcels
in question.) Parker noted that some parcels will be easy to classify and others that
will be more difficult. Chairman Walker thanked Ms. Parker for her information.
PLANNING:
Subdivision Plat Approval, Beaver Loop Acres, Add. No. 1, PZ95-60
CARL GLICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PZ95-60. MOTION
SECONDED BY RON GOECKE.
Chairman Walker asked for additional staff comments. Mr. Springer noted no
additional comments. Walker asked if anyone in the public wished to speak to PZ95-
60, asubdivision plat approval. Member of the audience asked where this was noting
she did not have a copy of the agenda. Advised Beaver Loop area. Walker noted no
comments and brought PZ95-60 back to the Commission for discussion.
~ Mr. Bryson went on record noting his intent to abstain because his company has been
contacted by the developer to provide engineering services on this subdivision. No
further discussion noted, Chairman Walker called for question.
VOTE:
GLICK YES BRYSON ABSTAIN
WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES
MAHURIN YES WALKER YES
MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Rezoning Application, J & S Enterprises, Lots 31 & 32, Section 33, PZ95-59
RON GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PZ95-59, REZONE
APPLICATION, LOTS 31 & 32. MOTION SECONDED BY CARL GLICK.
Chairman Walker asked if additional staff comments. Mr. Springer noted no
additional comments.
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 3
Chairman Walker opened public hearing and asked if anyone in the public wished to
speak to this item. Walker instructed audience to come forward, sign in, and state
name for the record.
Vesta Leigh advised she lives in what was called the Maps area. Leigh stated she was
one of the original people who got the area zoned. Leigh stated there was multiple
housing coming in that was turning "pretty shitty" already by then and they wanted
the area residential. Leigh added that here comes somebody and no one knows what
he wants and even if she did, she still wants it residential. That is why the residents
asked to have it zoned. Leigh advised she would like to speak to the 300 feet
notification policy stating that she felt it was bizarre and that you could spit that far.
Leigh noted there was a lot bigger area that got together to begin with for the Maps to
start with and feels that she should have been notified. Leigh noted that only one
interested party found out because he lived within 300 feet and came by neighborhood
doors. Leigh stated this seemed like an arbitrary 300 feet. Leigh asked if the 300 feet
is in the books and is it a rule.
Chairman Walker advised there is one issue to be addressed, the potential rezoning of
the property. Walker advised the 300 feet is a matter of city ordinance and that
Planning and Zoning cannot address it and that it must be addressed by the city
council.
Leigh stated she does not want to see the zoning changed and that is why they asked
to have it zoned. Leigh stated she assumes it is the petitioner who has already
"uglified" that area with a cat and shoved materials off into the drainage ditch. Leigh
noted the City of Kenai had paid a lot of money to have the ditch installed in the first
place. Leigh stated the trees, slash, and dirt is still in the ditch well over her head
and it will be there unless someone rushes out tomorrow and moves it and when water
tries to run down there it will have no place to go. Leigh stated she feels this is
indicative of what could happen if allowed to go commercial in that area. Leigh stated
she does not want this approved.
Linda Engel of Kenai. Engel stated she is vice-president of the Parent Advisory
Committee {PAC) at Kenai Central High School. Engel stated that on behalf of the
PAC officers she would like to state that they are strongly opposed to the proposed
zoning changes in the residential area in the vicinity of Kenai Central High School.
The PAC feels the safety of the children is at stake. Commercial business in the area
would cause increased traffic congestion in the area that is akeady potentially
hazardous.
Barbara Anderson an employee of Kenai Central High School and the vice-president of
Kenai Central High School Improvement Committee, asite-based decision committee.
This is composed of parents, staff, students, administrators, and community members.
Anderson stated they had their first meeting last week and the first order of business
Planning & Zoning Minutes 11 /21 /95 Page 4
was to have Anderson speak on behalf of the committee. Anderson stated the
} committee is opposed to the permit and have several areas of concern. First, the
applicant does not specify the nature of the commercial business and they are
concerned that it may target the nearly 1000 students that are at Kenai Central High
School and Kenai Middle School noting that something like a convenience store or a
video arcade would be a definite draw to the students. Anderson noted that they are
concerned about the safety of the students crossing the streets particularly in the
morning hours before school starts which is when they have the most freedom to do so.
Anderson stated that although Kenai has aclosed-campus policy we know that
teenagers don't always make good choices and even the best students could be enticed
to leaving school during hours, between classes, during lunch, or before school.
Concern is that this would add to school truancy as well as tardies. Anderson stated
that whatever the nature of the business in these lots, there is concern about the
traffic hazards for a commercial district for the school buses, student drivers, and the
employees, turning in and out of Kenai Central High School. Additionally, a
commercial district draws more non-students and non-residents to the area and there
is concern about unwanted visitors or intruders that may come into Kenai Central
High School.
Dave Spence, principal Kenai Central High. Spence stated he would like to reiterate
and strongly voice support of what has been said in opposition to this proposal. In
addition to the safety of the students, in addition to traffic congestion, and all of the
other problems that can be seen in changing this from a residential to a commercial
zone, one of the things that the high school and middle school like to pride themselves
on is the atmosphere at the schools. Spence stated they are a rural school having a
relaxed atmosphere. Spence stated they have what they think is a very cordial and
friendly atmosphere. Spence noted that having worked in other schools that have
undergone changes similar to this, when you rezone the areas outside of high schools
and middle schools from a residential, family type surrounding to a commercial and
urban or business type of surrounding, you also have an impact on the schools. Not
only the safety issue of drawing kids out of school and students possibly making some
unwise choices and the possible elements coming into that school, but it seems to have
an effect on the whole community. Spence stated they are very strongly opposed to
this sort of measure even though no one knows what the contractors or developers
have in mind for this. Spence stated he thinks the impact would be obvious and it
would happen very soon in our school. Spence added that with all of the problems
surrounding our communities and society in general, he thinks it would be a step in
the wrong direction.
Ramon Rogers stated it is his neighborhood too. Rogers stated the property in
question is already an eye sore and he doesn't know what the plans are and added t
will be a problem during break up. Rogers stated that speaking for the land owners in
the area that no one wants the zoning changed from residential and he urges to keep
it residential.
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 5
Dennis Dunn of 118 Wooded Glen, Kenai. Dunn stated he was here in two capacities,
one as a resident and as a representative of the school district. Dunn noted that he is
the assistant principal at Kenai Middle School. Dunn stated that first when you talk
about the adjacent property owners, to be honest, his family, wife, and children come
out of Tinker Lane and hit the highway every day and he feels like he is an adjacent
property owner as well. Dunn noted that he feels that there are many who feel that
way. Dunn stated he echoed the sentiments of Mr. Spence and Ms. Anderson in terms
of the potential negative and adverse impact on the quality of the atmosphere at
Kenai Central High School and Kenai Middle School. Dunn stated that he is also
concerned with this moving as rapidly as it is without having more people involved
that he gets a sense from the people in the audience that there is a panic that this is
going way too quickly than it ought to go. Again, noting the issue of a traffic hazard,
Dunn stated it only takes one incident of a kid doing something crazy like running
across the street. And, if it's to run across the street to get a big gulp or something
else it could be avoided. Dunn stated he didn't have information regarding what is
going to be developed but it only takes one child, one moment in time for us to look
back and say boy was that a bad decision. Dunn stated he really hopes that we don't
find ourselves in that situation. Dunn stated in looking at the City of Kenai and as a
proud member of the City of Kenai, he does not see positive impact from rezoning this.
Dunn stated it is not the kind of flirtation that we want to place in front of our
children. Kids are impulsive at this age and he cannot see anything positive. Dunn
stated it is also his understanding that the city's engineer is recommending denial of
the rezone and he would urge the commission to heed the advice of the city engineer.
Dunn stated he feels there is a tremendous quality of life in the City of Kenai and he
trusts that the commission will act accordingly in maintaining that quality of life.
Dunn strongly and respectfully suggested that this rezone be denied.
Glen McCollum, Sr. Stated he lives on lots 25 and 26, has a duplex on lot 30, duplex
on Cinderella Street, and a house on lot 20 on Magic Avenue. McCollum stated there
are five families who live in this area and we don't want a commercial unit next to it.
Lots 31 and 32 are directly across the street from these homes. McCollum stated there
have been other attempts to change the rural residential zone which have failed and
we are determined to stop this one. This not only effects Cinderella but effects the
schools too. McCollum stated he feels this should be free of any commercial
establishment and will add to traffic and insecurity to that area.
Ralph Ash stated he first moved to Kenai with his employer Star Airlines in 1941.
Ash stated he has resided at his present location on Cinderella Lane going on nine
years. Ash stated that prior to that his son lived there for approximately three years
and that he stayed with him frequently during that time. Ash stated that
professionally he has a doctorate in outdoor recreation. Ash advised that he had
served one career as a civilian advisor for the headquarters of the Alaskan Air
Command at Elmendorf. His title was chief of recreation services and facilities
division. He served 26 remote sites throughout Alaska and two main air bases,
Elmendorf and Eilson. Wildwood Air Force Base was also included. Ash stated he is
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 6
firmly opposed to the changing of the present zoning of rural residential to general
j commercial. Adding congestion to a main arterial highway directly across from the
high school exit is not an example of good planning or zoning. This should be
considered an accident waiting to happen. Ash stated it is also in near proximity to
the Kenai Middle School exit on the Spur Highway and it will only contribute to the
accident potential in this area. This same thing applies to the entrance to the Kenai
High School. Continuing, Ash stated that no mention has been made to what
commercial venture is to be placed on this property. Additional multi-housing will
adversely effect the present rural residential environment of the area. It will bring
the usual problems associated with multi-family facilities. A commercial zone and
multi-family dwellings will totally change the rural residential character of the area.
Ash stated he is absolutely opposed to such planning and zoning. The propriety being
clear cut and leveled before the rezoning is in question. Ash stated that if necessary
he will obtain a court order prohibiting the use of his driveway as a turning around
facility. It should also be noted that students use Cinderella Lane as a walkway to
and from school. Added traffic congestion is not good planning. Ash suggested that
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission take a look at the residuals left
across the street from his residence. Ash asked that they notice the size and age of the
trees which were cut. Only a few of the total remain on the ground. Ash quoted, "The
commission recently reviewed commercial zoning along the Spur Highway. No
additional zones were recommended. The Comprehensive Plan discourages
commercial rezones in neighborhoods that can be adversely impacted. In light of
recent history of the area and other attempts to spot zone along the Spur Highway,
recommend denial. Ash stated he firmly agrees with these comments and firmly
oppose any rezoning.
Laurel Pickering stated she resides on Cinderella. Although, not a property owner,
she stated she has lived there approximately four years. Pickering stated she would
like to see the neighborhood preserved as it exists now.
Sherry James who stated she also is not a property owner, rents from Mr. McCollum,
and lives right next door to Mr. Ash. James stated she woke up one morning and
looked out the window and by that afternoon the area across the street had been clear
cut. James stated she lives less than 300 feet from this lot. As Mr. Ash stated, James
noted that she has people turning around in their driveway all of the time. To bring a
business in will not do them any good. They will have to put up a fence to keep the
people out. James stated that the day they cut down all the trees and left them the
workers were parking in their driveway.
Note: Problem with tape-public comments from this point are brief and from notes
only.
James noted that they had left a large pile of debris which by spring will have all
kinds of bugs. James commented on the clear cutting and how her building is
completely open to the highway now. In addition, felt that things happened too fast
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 7
and the owner didn't let anyone know what they were doing. James quoted the city
engineer's comments against the rezoning request.
Joanne Buzzell stated that ten years ago she and Ingrid Manzek went door to door
getting signatures to get the area rezoned. Buzzell stated Rick Baldwin had donated
legal help with the rezone. She indicated she hoped that all their work would not be
set aside and was against the rezone.
Pam Lazenby resident and parent of a student at Kenai Middle. Lazenby stated she
was strongly opposed to the rezoning request and that the safety and welfare of the
kids should be considered. Lazenby stated the school district doesn't bus the kids in
that area and they must cross the highway to school. In addition, stated there was
talk that it may be a convenience store which would provide unnecessary access to
tobacco products to students. Lazenby requested the Commission not allow this to
happen.
Tracy Lee lives adjacent to lot 20. Has a daughter who will be going to Kenai Middle
School. Stated they are hoping to purchase the home in the next year but that if the
rezone occurs, they will not buy the home. Against the rezone request.
Kathy Godek, resident with two students at Kenai Central High School and one at
Kenai Middle School. Concerned with safety for those students who will skip out if a
business opens that draws kids. Godek noted she did not know what kind of business
may be developed. Against rezoning request.
Debbie Sonberg a resident of Cinderella. Stated she has one child. Sonberg stated the
highway plan had little consideration for the schools. Stated there was difficulty
getting those that planned the highway to add consideration for the children because
there are so few that live on that side of the highway; however, Sonberg stated they
are very precious few. Noted that there is no bus for the children. Sonberg does not
want any commercial development to add to an already difficult problem. Asked the
commission to consider the effects on the neighborhood.
Colleen Ward of 708 Magic Avenue. In addition, stated she owns a lot off Crystal.
Encourage the Commission to consider and review the Comprehensive Plan. Ms.
Ward read several sections from the Comp Plan including information from page 15
and 22.
Tape begins again.
Ms. Ward continues reading sections......"No direct service relationships to the needs
of residents of the neighborhood. Protect established residential neighborhoods from
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 8
intrusion by incompatible land use." Ward asked the group to bear with her, she only
had a few more statements to read. "Amend the zoning code to preserve the integrity
and enhance the character of the neighborhoods. Neighborhoods along the Spur
Highway," it lists a few, including East Kenai, "have small commercial districts which
do not necessarily serve the needs of the immediate neighborhoods. The zoning for
these commercial areas is general commercial, the same zone as the downtown area.
But, the residential neighborhood setting is quite different than the downtown. Land
use regulations should better reflect the differences between downtown commercial
use serving the region and smaller commercial sites in the neighborhoods along the
Spur Highway." And the final thing Ms. Ward stated she would like to read from the
City's comprehensive plan is on commercial land use strategies. This suggests that we
concentrate commercial development at strategic locations along the Spur Highway
where traffic turning movements can be controlled and impact on adjacent
neighborhoods can be minimized. Ward stated, to rezone the particular strip of land
that we are talking about tonight, would be adversely opposed to the city's
Comprehensive Plan. Ward stated she is here not only as a land owner but as a
parent. Ward noted she has three children and combined they will spend 18 years
making the crossing over from one side of the Spur to the other right at the critical
intersections that are being discussed. Ward asked that on their behalf that the
Commission reject this appeal or variance to rezone this property. Ward added that
she knows the Commissions job is difficult and thanked the members for undertaking
the job. Ward asked that the Commission consider the overwhelming plea of the city
~ residents. Continuing, Ward asked that the Comprehensive Plan be considered and
think of the work that was invested in getting this neighborhood zoned as it is. Ward
stated that in spite of the fairy tale names like Cinderella and Magic and Princess,
please keep in mind that the residents are grounded in reality and know the
implications of such a change. And, please keep the implications in mind.
Chairman Walker asked for further input.
Hugh Chumley, petitioner. Stated he too was a resident of the neighborhood being
discussed. Chumley stated he lives on Princess Avenue. Chumley stated he came to
the area in 1968 and the area being discussed was the area of his first home site in
Kenai. Chumley noted that when he first came to the area his step-dad and granddad
worked for McCollum and he also went to Mr. McCollum looking for work. Chumley
added that McCollum's business was on the corner where McCollum now lives. He
noted that it seemed then like they lived out in the country and things have changed
since 1968. What seemed to be a journey into town now is right downtown, a five lane
road going through there. The road will go clear out beyond the area being discussed.
Chumley stated he is here to say he shares some of the same concerns expressed by
the public tonight. Chumley added that he has been in business on the Peninsula for
17 years. Addressing, Mr. Dunn, stated that his business has employed many high
school students in fact today some of their key employees are children who have been
brought up through the work co-op program. (At this point introduced himself and
noted he was the petitioner.) Chumley stated he was not here to degrade the
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 9
neighborhood and community and apologized for the delayed construction that took
i place. Chumley noted that he had done so to get aggregate from the Spur Highway
construction project. Chumley stated he would like to assure the Commission as well
as his neighbors and friends that he is not there to degrade the neighborhood.
Chumley added that he builds here, has children and grandchildren, and a business.
He apologized for the lack of information in the Commission's packets noting that the
hope was to put a beauty shop and video rental store which would have been open in
the evening. Chumley stated that one member of the public had noted that one child
would not be worth anything that would happen there. Chumley added that whether
the Planning and Zoning Commission approves this or not, the city is expanding and
he believes that some day that businesses will be there. Chumley noted the huge
addition on the church off Princess a few blocks from his home. The five lane highway
will bring change. Chumley asked the Commission to consider this rezoning and
Chumley wants to assure the Commission and the neighbors that the intent is not to
degrade the neighborhood.
Chairman Walker asked for others wishing to speak to the item.
Jim Montgomery, 535 Wortham Avenue. Stated he came as a parent of two students,
one at Kenai Middle School and one at Kenai Central. Montgomery stated he was
concerned about any traffic changes in that area. Montgomery noted the exit, as has
been stated by Mr. Spence from Kenai Central, and entrance off Tinker to KMS, and
that any type of further traffic would cause a lot of problems. Montgomery stated he
spends a lot of time going to and from the schools doing volunteer work, hauling kids.
There is a lot of traffic. There is a little jog there now where they put up a barricade.
It will all be in that area and he doesn't think any student's life or one accident is
worth it. Montgomery urged the Commission not to vote for this.
Chairman Walker asked if any other persons wished to speak to this item. Seeing and
hearing none, Walker closed the public hearing. Item brought back to the Commission
for discussion.
Ms. Mahurin stated it is strange for her to be sitting on this side of the audience as
most of those speaking tonight are part of her school community. Mahurin commented
it is a different role for her tonight and noted her appreciation for all of those who
came and testified. Mahurin stated she agreed with all of the comments made
tonight. Mahurin added that she appreciated Mr. Chumley sharing his intent for the
property. Mahurin stated that as being part of the school community she is very
aware that the parents in that neighborhood have tried very hard to get the school
district to designate that area as a hazardous bus route and the school district has not
done that. The parents in that area and the various PTA's have also tried to work
with the state to get some type of lights or a crossing over the highway because
students who live on the McCollum side of that highway are crossing that highway in
the dark. Mahurin stated she is very aware of the hazards and shares those concerns.
Mahurin added she does not believe in spot zoning and very disappointed that the
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 10
property was totally cleared of every tree. Mahurin commented on the church addition
project and stated that she felt that is different than a commercial venture. In
addition, Mahurin stated she is concerned and would like the city to check into if there
is debris in a drainage ditch and what sort of a problem that may be. Mahurin stated
she had looked through the zoning code to see what could be done and she is not aware
of any direct orders but she would like this pursued. For all these reasons, Mahurin
noted she will be voting no on this request.
Ms. Werner-Quade thanked all of the people who came tonight for taking their time to
come. In addition, noted she is a neighbor to most stating her address as 409
McCollum. Werner-Quade stated the highway configuration is a mess. Continued,
noting she enters the highway to the right and has had difficulty with the darkness
finding herself driving on the shoulder without realizing that she was not on the
highway. Werner-Quade noted the highway is not marked, there are no lights, it is
not clear, and the property has been cleared. The configurations between Tinker Lane
and Princess needs something and noted it would be nice if that happened before
winter.
Mr. Bryson stated that several items came up during testimony. One focused on
comments made and supported by the land use plan and the land use map. The area
is very clearly identified as appropriate for medium density residential. Bryson stated
he understands the land use plan was done prior to the voluntary petition and
rezoning of the property by the individuals. Bryson commented that to him the
existing land use being low density residential is still within the general intent of the
land use plan. He stated he feels to rezone the area to general commercial would be a
spot zoning situation and inappropriate. For those reasons, Bryson stated he will be
opposing the approval. He added that he would like to reiterate that this is a
neighborhood that is the largest situation that he knows of where a group of
individuals in a large area petitioned and modified the zoning on their own. Bryson
stated he feels that it is very clear at the time what their intent was and it was tied in
to providing water and sewer for that area.
VOTE:
BRYSON NO WERNER-QUADE NO
GOECKE NO MAHURIN NO
GLICK NO WALKER NO
MOTION FAILED.
Chairman Walker thanked the audience for coming and testifying. Walker noted the
decision can be appealed to city council and that would be up to the council scheduling
as to when it would be heard. Someone from the audience asked if they would be
notified if the decision is contested. Walker stated that those persons within 300 feet
would be notified. The audience noted only one person was within 300 feet and
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 1 1
questioned the 300 feet. Walker noted he understood the concern but the 300 feet
notification is required by city ordinance. An individual asked if it could be put in the
paper four times. Walker noted it is advertised as it is a public hearing and it was in
fact advertised.
Mr. Bryson requested a brief recess.
OLD BUSINESS:
Comp Plan Update-Chairman Walker noted what was is in the packet as the memo
issued from Pat Porter the Director of the Senior Center. Walker stated he believed it
was her intention that these comments be added to the Comp Plan update. Walker
asked if there were questions from administration on this. Mr. Springer stated he had
none. Ms. Kebschull advised she was new to the process and was only familiar with
the method used by herself and Ms. Werner-Quade noting the other sections have
been read through page and page making the changes. Kebschull stated she didn't
know if that was what the Commission wanted to do with the remaining sections that
needed to be reviewed or how they wanted to proceed. Kebschull noted that by
reading them it may be evident that some changes needed to be made or deletions or
modifications made.
Ms. Werner-Quade asked how much of the Comp Plan is left to be reviewed.
Kebschull advised the Senior Citizens, the library, the health sections. In addition,
Kebschull noted she had received today from EDD a book that may contain most of the
figures for the tables; however, she has not had time to clarify that. Kebschull noted
that Mr. La Shot is on vacation this week and he needs to review his sections.
Werner-Quade stated that essentially under Public Utilities and Services, Section H
Senior Services needs to be reviewed. And, also Section D Health Care. Kebschull
agreed and added the library information needs to be reviewed.
Kebschull suggested that she could ask Pat Porter, Senior Center Director, to read
through the Senior section to update or suggest changes. Walker advised Ms.
Kebschull to ask Ms. Porter to do that.
Walker stated that judging from the memo written by Pat Porter, most of their goals
are the same as what is in the current Comp Plan so it hasn't changed too much.
There may be some numerical updates.
Walker directed the group to look at Item B, Health Care & Social Services, Page 47.
Walker asked if there are any changes or additions to this section. Werner-Quade
asked if Walker was referring to all of D, Walker stated yes. Werner-Quade stated she
had just read the first paragraph and did not see any changes in that paragraph.
Werner-Quade asked if that is how the Commission wanted to proceed? Walker stated
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 12
that it was such a short section that the group should take a moment to review it and
if any changes that anyone wants to make they can then be addressed.
Commission changes to page 47 as follows:
Paragraph 1-No changes.
Paragraph 2-Check and update figures.
Paragraph 3-No changes.
Paragraph 4-Check proposed figures for 1995.
Changes to page 48:
Paragraph 4-Check Kenai Care Center for number of beds.
Paragraph 7-Vocational Rehabilitation number of employees.
Paragraph 9-Change last sentence to read, "...Kenai was completed in 1992.
The facility provides 40 housing units for seniors and is located next..."
Paragraph 9-Add statement, "Discussion has occurred with the city for a
proposed senior citizen condominium facility to be located adjacent to the present
facilities."
Chairman Walker asked for any other suggestions or changes. Werner-Quade asked if
the goals were the same. Walker stated they were the same. Werner-Quade asked
under item a, where the Central Peninsula Mental Health Center was located.
Mahurin stated she didn't feel it was listed as Mental Health anymore and it may
need to be checked. Goecke stated it was on Lake Street. Walker stated he believed
that this is speaking to a Central Peninsula Mental Health C4enter that is proposed
and still is proposed to be built with Mental Health trust funds moneys and there is
potentially three or four facilities that may be built on a statewide basis of which
Kenai may be the site of one. Walker stated so he felt the statement should remain as
it is. Werner-Quade questioned item b. Walker stated that he felt that was speaking
to state funding for staff who are trying to deal with convicted perpetrators. Walker
stated that is still a goal.
Ms. Mahurin stated she will have the library section for the next meeting.
Councilman Smalley noted on Page 67 to change Nikiski Junior/Senior to
Middle/Senior.
Reconsideration of PZ95-56-Bailey Estates Subdivision Plat Approval.
PHIL BRYSON MOVED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PZ95-56. MOTION
SECONDED BY RON GOECKE.
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 13
Chairman Walker noted this was a motion to bring the item back to the table which
simply allows the Commission to reconsider it and does not change the Commission's
prior action.
VOTE:
WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES
MAHURIN YES GLICK YES
BRYSON YES WALKER YES
MOTION PASSED.
PHIL BRYSON MOVED TO APPROVE PZ95-56 CONTINGENT ON THE PLAT
STIPULATING BY NOTE THAT NO NEW STRUCTURES BE PLACED
WITHIN THE WESTERLY 85 FEET OF THE WESTERLY LOT. MOTION
SECONDED BY RON GOECKE.
Chairman Walker stated that he believed Mr. Bryson's motion as stated rescinds the
Commission's previous action or negates the Commission's previous action and would
have this motion stand in it's stead. Bryson stated that was his intention.
Bryson stated that after the Commission's action two weeks ago that he was
supportive of and initiated, he looked at the original tract. Given the depth and the
small frontage, it appeared that the right of way dedication, that Bryson stated he had
insisted upon, was incorporating approximately 25 to 35 percent of the entire tract at
presumably no compensation to the owner. Bryson stated he does feel that the
roadway should go through that area and that Inlet View needs another access to the
subdivision. However, Bryson stated he feels the person should receive reasonable
compensation. Bryson stated his purpose in the motion is to preclude the construction
of structures in that area and if the city wants to purchase the property or negotiate
for the sale of the property it provides a situation wherein they can do that. Bryson
noted he was not approached by anyone and this was something he had determined on
his own by rethinking his actions.
Mr. Glick asked Mr. Bryson is the street could be jogged along the edge of the property
and then come out to Lawton. Bryson stated yes. He that the road could swing to the
edge and with a double curve situation the right of way could be moved to the west of
the lot. Bryson stated he would add that Jack La Shot had mentioned at the last
meeting that the property owner was either going to or had held back a structure.
Bryson asked if there is a structure on the property. Mr. Springer stated there is now
but not on the portion being discussed. Bryson stated then that this is a possibility if
there was an interest for the council to acquire the property.
Walker noted a comment he would like to make. Walker stated he did not support the
last measure because he felt it was the taking of the land and unsatisfactorily cut into
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 14
the lot. Walker noted this motion does seem to alleviate that situation and he will be
\~ supporting the motion.
Mr. Goecke added that he had also voted against the motion at the last meeting and
he will support the new motion. Goecke stated he did want it as a matter of record
that the only way that he will feel comfortable with the city entering into any
negotiations with the property owner should the city want to push Normal Street to
Lawton would be that it drop down to the west property line. Goecke stated that by
this method the city would not be indebting themselves to a major portion of that
property. Goecke stated that his concern is if the city wants to push the street
through the lot, the individual in question could hold the lot for a long time in court.
Goecke expressed his hesitance at allowing something like this to happen.
Bryson stated his logic in the 85 feet was providing a 60 foot right of way and a 25 foot
building set back. The building set back would be presumably on the easterly side of
the right of way if it were negotiated and this is standard.
Note: Mr. Springer was called from the meeting by the KPD dispatch.
VOTE:
GOECKE YES MAHURIN YES
~ GLICK YES BRYSON YES
WERNER-QUADE YES WALKER YES
MOTION PASSED.
REPORTS:
City Council-Mr. Smalley noted there was no council meeting and that a meeting
will be held tomorrow night. Smalley noted he did attend the AML meeting and that
Mr. Glick was in attendance. Smalley stated that of the last seven years this is the
best AML he has attended. There were outstanding sectionals one of which was on
the taking of land and the new federal and state laws and the impact on
municipalities. Smalley noted the new laws require substantial financial
commitments which in some cases make it prohibitive. Smalley advised there were
sectionals on the impact of funding of school district budgets, public officials and
ethics, legislative updates, and new funding proposals and revenue proposals that
state funding will be headed towards in the next two to three years (noted a minimum
of $524 million cuts with loss of revenues). Smalley commented that revenues would
be very limited in the near future and they will be tapping into other sources such as
tourism, fishing, etc. Income taxes were mentioned. A proposal to reduce the dividend
fund check $100 per year for at least three years and use that money to create an
investment area like another permanent fund that acts as a supplemental to the state
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 15
budget. Smalley noted that the 14,000 banks in the country now will be reduced to
} 1000 banks by the year 2000. Smalley closed by reiterating it was an outstanding
AML attended by 25 to 30 delegates, 150 presenters and board members, a total of
approximately 500 people in attendance. Smalley commented that the Valdez facility
is an outstanding facility which is several years old and cost approximately $5 million
to build.
Mr. Goecke asked Mr. Smalley how he and council feel regarding the Daubenspeck
property. Goecke noted the letter in the packet and that the developer is against
allowing a commercial corridor along Bridge Access but they don't address the 50 foot
wide area where they stop to the corner. Goecke asked what Smalley felt council's
feeling would be about making the developer take that strip. Goecke noted he felt the
strip would be worthless for anything else. Smalley commented that he had presented
the information at the council meeting. He noted that the Mayor had spoken and
stated it was his impression from the minutes that the P & Z Commission wasn't dead
set that there should be a commercial strip there because of a comment in the minutes
by a Commissioner, "If that is all they are going to give us, then they might as well
just forget it." Smalley noted he had stated that was not the intent of the message,
the message was that it is believed by the Commission that a larger commercial strip
is needed. That the strip needs to go the full distance of the corridor. That there is
concern about the access egress at the end at the top of the hill. There is concern
about blocking off property on the back side. Smalley stated that if the Commission
wished for him to take the message back that it does in fact want to see commercial
development in a bigger parcel, he will take that message to council again. If the
Commission wants him to suggest that if there isn't any enlargement of that
commercial area, that it be vacated and the petitioner be held accountable for the
entire piece, he will take that information back. Smalley noted that lease is between
the city and the petitioner which council will have to approve. Smalley stated he
personally thinks that the council will want them to incorporate the entire parcel and
not include any commercial development.
Goecke noted he would have no problem with that if council also said that the
developer be required to take the property described as the little handle that goes to
the corner of Frontage Road and Bridge Access along the football field. Smalley
questioned where he was talking about and Goecke clarified the area. Goecke noted
that the map as was presented to the Commission that the developer had stopped at
the edge of the football field and the strip that runs along there is nothing. Goecke
stated if the developer wants the rest of it to make them pay for that piece too. There
is nothing the city can do with that piece. Smalley noted this was not a problem and
that the minutes would be read. Walker noted that in the minutes from that meeting
that both of Smalley's statements were very true and that the Commission had in fact
urged commercial development there. And, noted that if there wasn't going to be a
commercial development, the Commission would like them to take the whole parcel.
Walker noted that many of the Commission members do believe there should be
commercial property there and that what is indicated on the map is much too small.
Planning & Zoning Minutes 11 /21 /95 Page 16
Walker stated the Commission would be very happy to see Smalley take this
} information back to council. In addition, Walker noted that some of Councilman
Smalley's peers have indicated that he does in fact take the best reports back to
council adding that he believed Councilman Smalley deserved a pat on the back.
Borough Planning-Mr. Bryson referenced the agenda in the packet for the November
13th meeting and noted there were several items that had created a great deal of
discussion. One being a public hearing on item F1. Bryson explained this was a
petition to vacate a bulldozed road. Bryson stated this parcel is located across
Kachemak Bay and it is a trail that was used for accessing numerous properties and
wanders across several lots. One of the individuals proceeded to construct an access
other than along that trail along one side of his lot and then closed off the other trail.
It was indicated through the courts that he wasn't quite able to do this because the
individuals did not have equivalent access to the new trail he had constructed. Bryson
stated he is now in the process of trying to legally vacate it through the platting
process. This hearing is being continued. Bryson noted there were quite a few people
who had arrived from Anchorage and Seldovia. Under item H1, Blueberry Hill.
Bryson explained this was a special consideration request to plat a tract of property
without surveying being done. Bryson stated there are provisions in the borough
ordinance for doing this. The stipulations generally are a maximum of four tracts, at
least ten acres in size, and the tracts have to be readily identifiable, most commonly
by spare parcels or tracts. This was a 40 acre tract and they were petitioning to break
it into 4 acre tracts. The Planning Commission voted against this. Bryson stated he
was in the minority on this decision. Bryson added that this was a tract that had
already qualified for the survey waiver when it created the 40 acre tracts from 160
acre tracts. Bryson stated the one tract owner was requesting the same consideration
again. Bryson noted it was not an appropriate situation. All plats were approved.
Administration-No report.
INFORMATION ITEMS:
Walker noted an item provided tonight marked as 7a; however, he did not address it
under new business. Walker noted that the Commission has the opportunity to
participate in a work session for lessons on parliamentary procedure. Walker noted a
list of dates to choose from: January 18, 22, 25, 29, or 31, 1996. First or second
choice. Walker asked if anyone wished to suggest a choice. Mahurin stated she would
choose the 18th, 29th, or 3181, being a Thursday, Monday, and Wednesday respectively.
Bryson stated he would agree with any and Mr. Glick agreed. Walker recommended
the first choice as the 31st a Wednesday which seems to be a good meeting night.
Second, choice as the 18th.
Planning & Zoning Minutes 11 /21 /95 Page 17
COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
Ms. Mahurin thanked Mr. Bryson for being conscientious and working on one of the
items from last week that was uncomfortable for the Commission. Mahurin would like
the city to check and see if there are any truths to the complaints mentioned during
the public hearing that some of the property that was cleared may be in the drainage
ditch.
Mr. Walker stated he would like to make a comment on this. Walker stated it is
common practice for the city at times to come in onto person's property, perhaps in the
right of way and perhaps exceeding the right of way, to dig drainage ditches with or
without their permission. Mahurin asked Walker to repeat his statement. Walker
stated it is a practice of the city to do that. Walker noted he has property that has a
drainage ditch dug on it without his permission and he has seen other properties in
this area with the same thing. Walker stated that if this drainage ditch has been
filled or partially filled, it may be well within that person's right to do so. Walker
stated that perhaps the city could check in and see if the owner of that property has in
fact breached any laws or regulations.
Mahurin stated that was the intent of her comment. Walker stated that he had
property that they had dug a huge ditch on without consulting him.
Bryson stated that if it is in the highway, it will end up right back on the property
when the contractor starts working. He will not haul it away free.
Mahurin stated she would like to agree with comments made earlier by Ms. Werner-
Quade indicating she had come from a school board meeting last night on the Spur
Highway and it is difficult to see where the road is, particularly on a wet night.
Mahurin stated she wasn't sure where she was; however, notes she doesn't think there
is anything the Commission can do about it except mention that something has to
happen. It is very difficult to see along that section of highway.
Mr. Goecke stated that he feels the Commission is throwing things where they don't
necessarily belong. Goecke stated that he had talked to the city and the contractor of
the highway project and had the utility companies that serve the area done their job,
the highway project in all likelihood would have been completely finished this year.
But, because the utility companies did not get their act together, the contractor
couldn't start where he was supposed to. He ended up starting in town which was
supposed to have been done last. Goecke agreed that the project is messed up but it is
nothing that anybody is going to be able to do anything about. Mahurin stated that
she wasn't suggesting that the Commission necessarily do something about but just
commenting that she does have a concern that it is difficult to see where you are
going. She stated she understands it may not be the contractor's fault. But, strictly
for the people who travel that road, she feels it is hazardous and it is very difficult to
see.
Planning & Zoning Minutes 11 /21 /95 Page 18
Mr. Glick asked if the Commission should recommend that the staff bring a
recommendation on the borough land classification request. Mr. Walker stated that
was on his list and felt it would be appropriate and with permission of the body would
ask administration to look at the maps and bring their recommendations back to the
Commission.
Mr. Glick stated he had attended AML and would like to mention a couple things since
it had been said that nothing took place that affected planning commissions. He
stated he did attend some sessions that he feels were applicable to planning
commissions. The opening session presentation was very good for not only elected
officials but any official who does public work. A session regarding the long-range
financial planning for the state had a lot of valuable information. Gail Phillips was a
speaker there. Glick stated he attended another session on new leadership realities
for officials which he felt was a very good seminar. A resources economic development
and land use seminar which included information on regulatory takings was very
informative. This session was put on by the American Planners Association. There
was a session on municipal land entitlements and the speaker for that session was
Senator Torgerson. Glick stated he attended a round table discussion that had to do
strictly with planning and zoning. Glick stated he learned some very interesting
things at that session. A man from Kodiak stated their comprehensive plan, even
though Title 29 says it should be updated and looked at every two years, has not been
looked at since 1968. A gentleman from Valdez told him their plan had not been
reviewed 1978 because they can't agree on it. A woman from Fort Yukon did not know
what a comprehensive plan was. Glick stated he attended a leadership institute called
"Unite Your Community with Strategic Planning & Setting Goals." Glick stated there
were a lot of items that planning commissions would be involved with in setting goals
and they looked at comprehensive plans. Lt. Governor Fran Ulmer spoke at a lunch
regarding state/municipal partnerships. A federal update was given. Glick stated he
attended a land use planning and regulatory takings session and the laws are
changing and the courts are ruling in favor of land holders when planning
commissions place regulations on land which keep property owners from using their
'property. Glick stated he also attended a session called the "Council from Hell." This
was a session on using Robert's Rules and Glick stated this was a very good session on
parliamentary procedures. Glick ended by stating there were a lot of good speakers
and a lot of good information gained and he was happy that he went and feels he
learned enough to make it worth the money he spent.
Mr. Goecke commented on an article in the paper regarding East Kenai about housing
in a residential area for group housing. He stated he saw where this was okay in this
particular neighborhood and thought that the Commission had discussed something
similar. Goecke stated he felt in light of that that the Commission should be prepared
for something like that to come before them to test the waters. Goecke stated if he
remembers right this all came about during the halfway house discussions.
Planning & Zoning Minutes 11 /21 /95 Page 19
•~ Ms. Werner-Quade wanted to thank Mr. Bryson for his conscientious attention to
detail in bringing PZ95-56 before the Commission again. Werner-Quade stated that
as far as the "NIMBYS" that Mr. Goecke was just speaking about, those are not in her
back yard. Werner-Quade noted that last spring she had attended a conference that
sounds similar to what Mr. Glick just attended and it is the Alaska Chapter of the
American Planning Association in Anchorage. There was an excellent forum dealing
with planners. They encourage cities to get certain ordinances on the books before and
not after the "NIMBYS" come before you and those can range from halfway houses to
toxic waste dump sites, adult video theater houses, the types of establishments that
you don't really want to live next door to or have families interacting with. Werner-
Quade stated she felt anything that the Commission can do to get those wheels
turning would be to the city's advantage for protection further down the road.
Werner-Quade added that just because there is a need for something doesn't
necessarily mean that our city has to support that need. And, it is a need according to
maybe a select group of people. Also, noted she will be attending the seminar in the
spring even if she has to pay to attend and encourages anyone else to attend.
Chairman Walker noted he had a couple comments and a request of staff. Walker
requested staff poll a few other municipalities to see if they have a school zone and by
that he means a specific type of building zoning requirement or set of laws or
legislation that would be in an area where there are a large number or singular school.
Stated he was looking for something such as was dealt with tonight. He stated it
appears that school administrations are taking an active role in keeping the sanctity
of the area in which their schools reside. Walker asked Mr. Smalley to see if council
could look at some temporary lighting situations in the Spur Highway corridor to
rectify some of the extremely dangerous intersections that we have at this point. If
you are heading towards Soldotna, the signage is terrible, confusing, and difficult.
Walker stated he did not know how to describe it being nearly at a loss for words.
Walker stated he was looking for better signage, better barricades, reflectors, arrows,
and some temporary lights at least throughout the winter until we regain some
visibility. Walker stated he fully believes the lack of snow is not helping this but even
so we have break up to face and a long, cold, hard winter to face. Walker asked
Councilman Smalley to take that request to council.
Smalley responded he would be more than happy to take it to council. Council would
be most likely willing to draft letters to DOT since they have created this situation.
Smalley noted the city and DOT don't have a good standing working relationship with
each other with regard to lighting. This is because at one time they put up the
lighting in Sterling and then stated it was the city's responsibility for lighting.
Smalley noted there was a significant reduction in lighting, hearings were held,
adjustments to the project were made, and they came up with additional lights.
Smalley reiterated he will be more than glad to take that message; however, he does
not think the city will put temporary lighting in that area. Nor, will the city do
anything with regard to barricades, etc. The city can help create signs because the
city has signs or can get them made. Signage and barricades have been discussed
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 20
with the state already but he will do it again. Smalley stated that another part of the
` ~ problem with lighting is that it is not completely relocated and he thinks that is why
you see the stub right across from the east exit of Kenai Central High School's parking
lot. Walker stated there are the portable, saw horse type flashing lights and anything
at all that would assist people in being able to see would be helpful. Walker noted
that the lanes were not painted this fall so it makes it difficult to see. Werner-Quade
reiterated her frustration at not being able to see where the road is in relation to the
shoulder of the road. Smalley stated that the requests would be passed on. Walker
noted there would be a public outcry if somebody gets killed. Smalley noted that the
city has had numerous calls about "our" road project and it is not a city project only in
the sense that it is our community. Walker noted it is within the city of Kenai so it is
up to the council to rectify the situation. Smalley stated no, that it is up to the council
to make requests. Walker stated he disagreed that it is up to the council to rectify it
with whatever it takes. If it is requests, that may be.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:35 p.m.
Resp ctfully Submitted:
~I
Marilyn Kebschull
Administrative Assistant
Planning & Zoning Minutes 1 1 /21 /95 Page 21
7
DEPARTMENT OF COMMiJNITY AND
REGIONAL AFFAIRS
MUNICIPAL & REGIONAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION
0 333 W. 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 220
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-2341
PHONE.• (907) 269-4500
FAX.• (907) 269-4539
~ P.O. BOX 112100
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-2100
PHONE: (907) 465-4750
FAX: (907) 465-2948
0 P.O. BOX 348
BETHEL, ALASKA 99559-0348
PHONE: (907) 543-3475
FAX: (907) 543-4152
O 209 FORTYM/LEAVENUE
FAIRBANKS,ALASKA 99 70 1-3 1 10
PHONE: (907) 452-7126
FAX' (907) 451-7251
0 P.O. BOX 350
KOTZEBUE, ALASKA 99752-0350
PHONE: (907) 442-3696
FAX: (907) 442-2402
0 P.O. SOX 790
D/LL/NGHAM, ALASKA 99576-0790
PHONE: (907) 842-5135
fAX: (907) 842-5140
November 28, 1995
Honorable John Williams
Mayor
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Suite 200
Kenai, AK 996 1 1-7794
Dear Mayor Williams:
TONY KNOWLES, GOVFQNUR
g~
0 P.O. BOX 1068
NOME, ALASKA 99762-1068
PHONE: (907) 443-5457
FAX: (907) 443-2409
On September 27, I accompanied Carl Cook, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region X, to meet with the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission to explain the merits
of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
I again want to encourage the city to consider the wise management of floodprone lands
within your city limits by adoption of a flood damage reduction ordinance. NFIP
participation will also trigger the availability of flood insurance for sale for anyone within
the Kenai city limits.
From discussion with staff and my quick tour of the areas mapped by FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, flood-related erosion impacts to properties in the Angler Drive area
appeared to be the only direct flood impacts within the Kenai City limits. Low lying
properties off Barbara Drive (Horseshoe End at River Bend Subdivision), and Cone
Circle area properties may also have been impacted by flood-related erosion. ~,
~ ~~
~,,,
~~ N
'fir .~o/
21-P4LH
Page Two
November 28, 1995
Mayor Williams
Flood insurance purchase for these property owners, or for anyone within the Kenai city
limits is not available unless the city joins the NFIP. Furthermore, federally-secured
loans, flood disaster mitigation funds, and some individual and family disaster grants may
not be made within flood-prone areas unless the city joins the NFIP and agrees to regulate
future floodplain development.
Enactment and enforcement of the federal minimum floodplain management ordinance
requirements should be relatively easy for the City because of the limited number of
properties impacted. The city may want to consider additional, more appropriate
standards such as setback distances on erosion prone lots.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council or city staff should have any
further questions regarding the ordinance or requirements for participation in the NFIP,
feel free to contact me at (907) 269-4567 or Carl Cook at (206) 487-4687.
Sincerely,
~ ;;
y
Christy L. biller
Planner /NFIP Coordinator
Enclosures: FEMA letter to Mayor Williams (1/10/92)
NFIP Application, resolution & model ordinance
cc: Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission
Thomas Manninen, City Manager
Jack La Shot, City Engineer
Carl Cook, FEMA Region X
~~Csy' M~N9
C
m~~~~~~~
.: ~:
e a'
d ~ ~ ~°
v~jyy ~ , o r~
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
JAN ! 0 1992
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURNED RECEIPT REQUIRED
The Honorable John J. Williams
Mayor, City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Dear Mayor Williams:
REC~~VE
D
JQ N 2 4 1999
apt. of
av. of My
This letter is to clarify the status of
regards to the National Flood Insuranc
understand that there has been some confusi
is eligible for participation in the NFIP
the City can purchase flood insurance. P1E
City of Kenai has not participated in the N
and NFIP flood insurance policies should n~
the City since that date. Let me explain.
n~cipal $ Reg, A~ ~
the City of Kenai in
e Program (NFIP). I
on over whether the City
and whether citizens of
:ase be advised that the
FIP since March 18, 1980
~t have been sold within
Prior to March 18, 1980, the City of Kenai participated in the NFIP
as part of the Borough of Kenai Peninsula. However, on that date
the Borough of Kenai Peninsula was suspended from the NFIP for
failure to adopt floodplain management regulations that met minimum
NFIP requirements. In 1986 the Borough of Kenai Peninsula adopted
compliant floodplain management regulations and applied for
reinstatement into the NFIP. On November 20, 1986 the Borough was
reinstated into the NFIP and remains eligible. At the time of the
Borough's reinstatement, it was determined that each of the cities
located in the Borough had independent land use authority and each
would have to adopt their own floodplain management regulations.
The Cities of Seward, Kachemak, and Seldovia adopted compliant
regulations and were reinstated as part of the Borough's
eligibility. The Cities of Kenai, Soldotna, and Homer chose not to
adopt compliant regulations and were not included as part of the
reinstatement. A Final Rule was published in the Federal Register
on Monday, December 29, 1986, which lists the communities which are
included in the Borough's eligibility. A copy of that notice is
enclosed.
In summary, NFIP flood insurance is no available within the Cities
of Kenai, Soldotna, and Homer. I encourage you to adopt compliant
regulations so that flood insurance can again be made available
within the City of Kenai. In order for the City of Kenai to
participate in the NFIP under the Borough of Kenai Peninsula's
application, compliant floodplain management measures must be
2.
-adopted and forwarded to the State Coordinator's Office in Alaska
for review. If the measures are compliant, they will be forwarded
to the FEMA Regional Office in Bothell, Washington for processing.
If the City of Kenai desires to participate in the NFIP under its
own application, you must submit an application, a compliant
adopted floodplain manage ordinance that meets the minimum
requirements of Section 60.3(d) of the NFIP regulations and a
resolution indicating your co unity's desire to participate in the
NFIP. This scenario assumes that Alaska's State law enables the
City to have zoning authority in a second class Borough; an
assumption will need to be confirmed with the State.
It must be emphasized that NFIP participation by communities is
voluntary. If a community chooses not to adopt and enforce
compliant floodplain management regulations, flood insurance
protection is not available for individuals in that community.
In addition, Federal financial ,assistance for a 'sition or
construction purposes is n
floodplains in a commune
by the Department of
Administration, or Farmer
at their own discretion c
loans. It should be
participation.
ns~acked
community
-Housing
lenders
mortgage
_ Your community's adopted measures should be forwarded for review to
=~- the NFIP State Coordinator for the State of Alaska, MS. Christy L.
Miller, at the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 949
East 36th Avenue, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4302, or as
stated earlier, you may submit the enrollment requirements to the
Regional Office for review at FEMA, Region X, Federal Regional
Center, 130 228th Street, Southeast, Bothell, Washington 98021-
9796.
If you need assistance in adopting the required measures, please do
not hesitate to contact our Regional Office staff at (206) 487-
4687.
Sincerely,
C- ~-~. 5~...~-~--
C. M. "Bud" Schauerte
Administrator
Federal Insurance Administration
.he deslanated
Enclosure
s Home Administration. However,
an continue to make conventional
noted that FEMA encourages
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM OMB NO. 3087-0020
Expires December 1989
APPLICANT (City, Town, etc.) DATE
COUNTY, STATE ~
2. OFFICIAL, OFFICE OR AGENCY WITH OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY TELEPHONE
ADDRESS (Street or Box No., Ctty, State, ZIP Code)
3. PROGRAM COORDINATOR (Official, if different from above, with responsibility for implementin8pro8ram) TELEPHONE
ADDRESS (Street or Box No., City, State, ZIP Code)
FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION INFORMATION WILL BE RECORDED BY: TELEPHONE
ADDRESS (Street or Box No., City, State, ZIP Code)
5. LOCATION OF COMMUNITY REPOSITORY FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION OF FIA MAPS
ADDRESS
6. ESTIMATES FOR ONLY THOSE AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOOD AND/OR MUDSLIDE AS KNOWN AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION
AREA
POPULATION NO. OF 1-4
FAMILY
STRUCTURES NO. OF SMALL
BUSINESS
STRUCTURES NO. OF ALL
OTHER
STRUCTURES
7. ESTIMATES OF TOTALS IN ENTIRE COMMUNITY
~~,
POPULATION NO. OF 1-4
FAMILY
STRUCTURES NO. OF SMALL
BUSINESS
STRUCTURES NO. OF ALL
OTHER
STRUCTURES
e '
FEMA Form 81-64, FEB 87
.
,~ (Applicable to Flood-Prone Areas)
Resolution Number
I
( B-I
..
SAMPLE RESOLUTION TO BE USED TO INDICATE THE BUILDING PERMIT SYSTEM
WHICH THE COMMUNITY HAS ADOPTED AND THE
~'~ REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR THE SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the (NAME OF COMMUNITY) has adopted and is enforcing (CITE BUILDING CODE,
~ ZONING ORDINANCE), and
~ WHEREAS, Section
of the aforesaid prohibits any person, firm or corporation from erecting, constructing, enlarging, altering,
repairing, improving, moving or demolishing any building or structure without first obtaining a separate
~~ building permit for each building or structure from the (TITLE OF OFFICIAL), and
;, WHEREAS, the (TITLE OF OFFICIAL, OFFICE OR AGENCY) must examine all plans and
specifications for the proposed construction when application is made to him for a building permit.
~~, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the (NAME OF LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY) of
(NAME OF COMMUNITY) as follows:
l
1. That the (TITLE OF OFFICIAL, OFFICE OR AGENCY) shall review all building permit
applications for new construction or substantial improvements to determine whether proposed building
.sites will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a proposed building site is in a location that has a flood
hazard, any proposed new construction or substantial improvement (including prefabricated and mobile
homes) must (i) be designed (or modified) and anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral move-
( ment of the structure, (ii) use construction materials and utility equipment that are resistant to flood
' dama a and
g , (iii) use construction methods and practices that will minimize flood damage; and
,~
'; 2. That the (TITLE OF OFFICIAL, OFFICE OR AGENCY) shall review subdivision proposals and
~ other proposed new developments to assure that (i) all such proposals are consistent with the need to
minimize flood damage, (ii) all public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water
`1 systems are located, elevated, and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and (iii) adequate
,' drainage is provided so as to reduce exposure to flood hazards; and
3. That the (TITLE OF OFFICIAL, OFFICE OR AGENCY) shall require new or replacement
water supply systems and/or sanitary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration
of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters, and require on-site
waste disposal systems to be located so as to avoid impairment cif them or contamination from them
_ ~ during flooding.
>l
Date Passed Certification
~~ - ;
,.;~: ~_ HUD-1650 (4-73)
~4;~.'
NGY M'~ N
~~V .`, .O ' ,'C~'li
~.~ ~,~ ~. ~:~`:~ Federal Emergency Management Agency
;~
~ ~ '~~~~~, Region X Federal Regional Center Bothell, Washington 98021.9796
~Jy ~ ~~ 1-
MEMORANDUM FOR: COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP)
SUBJECT: DECEMBER 1986 REVISION OF MODEL FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
ORDINANCE
In September 1986 communities participating in the NFIP were notified by
FEMA's Washington D.C. Office of the need to revise local ordinances to
incorporate new Federal Regulations that went into effect on October 1,
1986. This notice indicated that communities had until April 1, 1987 to
incorporate the new provisions in order to retain eligibility in the NFIP.
The last major NFIP regulation change occurred in October 1976. Our
office followed with a suggested model ordinance in 1977. There have
been minor changes to this model ordinance through the years, but never a
major change; such a change is now necessary in view of not only the
October 1, 1986 revisions, but also to reflect substantial regulation
changes that occurred on October 1, 1984 and January 1, 1986. Attached
is a revision to our 1977 model ordinance that incorporates all changes,
for use in reviewing your existing ordinance and making appropriate changes.
~_.. __ _ _
USE OF MODEL ORDINANCE. As before, the model is not mandatory, but
provides a convenient bridge between language in the Federal Regulations
and language suitable for local ordinances. Adoption of the ordinance as
is will obviously meet all NFIP requirements; but any community may
_ alter the format or language as it sees fit as long as mandatory Regulation
requirements are met. The requirements that are mandatory for FEMA
approval are denoted throughout with an asterisk(*).
FORMAT. In this document we have taken an original model and marked it
up to show actual changes, since most communities adopted all or portions
of our original model ordinance. Thus, additions reflecting new regulation
equirements or clarifications are in bold print; language that is
superseded is either crossed out with slash marks (////) or denoted by
the term "delete"; or both. The exception is Coastal High Hazard Area
Attachment 2, which is an entirely new section; changes here were of
such a nature that the "cut and paste" method would be difficult to use.
We also have straight-typed versions of the model ordinance which can be
provided to any communit
MANDATORY SECTIONS. Mandatory sections are those that must be in the
ordinance in order for FEMA to approve it (although language can vary).
They are denoted in the Outline and throughout the ordinance with an
asterisk(*). Note that you do not need to incorporate new requirements
denoted by bold face print if your measures are more restrictive.- You
are encouraged to retain more restrictive standards. An example is the
original mobile home anchoring standard [Section 5.1-1(2)]. Also, some
of the additions (bold print) merely clarifye and are not mandatory. An
example of this is the changed definition of "A.rea of Shallow Flooding;"
however, certain definitions may be required if they are specifically
cross-referenced in the ordinance (e.g. the definition of "Development").
2
ATTACHMENTS/FEDERAL REGULATION SECTIONS 60.3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
We have set up a single model which can be used to cover all circumstances
by either adoption of the model, or the model with attachments. The
basic ordinance relates to a community participating under Section 60.3(d),
which addresses flood elevations and floodways. Following is a summary
of the categories of participation, together with what that category
means in terms of maps, zones and pertinent model ordinance attachments.
60.3(a): A community participating under Section 60.3(a) has no
maps, and an ordinance change is not necessary.
60.3(b): The community has no flood elevations or floodways, but has
flood boundaries and unnumbered A zones on its maps; at
least the mandatory (asterisked) provisions of the model
ordinance are required, but the Specific Standards at Section 5.2
will normally not apply (unless base flood elevations are
available from another source, or are generated).
60.3(c): The community has flood elevations but no floodways, and
should incorporate the Encroachment Standard referenced in
the NOTE following Section 5.3, Floodways, in the
last page of the ordinance.
60.3(d): The community has flood elevations and floodways. Adoption
of the model, as is, will meet all requirements.
60.3(e): The community has coastal high hazard areas (V zones) and
must incorporate the special construction standards in
Attachment 2 in addition to the basic model.
AO zones: Any (c), (d) and/or (e) community can have AO zones denoting
shallow flooding. These zones are depicted by flood
depths, not elevations and the community must adopt AO
zone standards in Attachment 1 in addition to the basic ordinance.
Any community may have a combination of categories. The model is flexible
in that it will accommodate all combinations.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES. The regulations specify that an ordinance must
be legally enforceable. Many of the non-mandatory measures in the model,
though not specifically required for FEMA approval, are administrative
provisions aimed at making ordinances legally enforceable and are,
therefore, recommended (e.g. the variance provisions, penalties for
noncompliance, etc.).
Since failure to make the required changes by April 1, 1987 could lead to
suspension from the program, we urge you to respond as quickly as
possible. Draft ordinances should be sent to this office or to State
Coordinators for review prior to final adoption if there is any question,
or if there is a major discrepancy with the model. If assistance is
desired, you should contact either the State Coordinanting Agency for the
NFIP, or this office. Appropriate State and FEMA Regional Office contacts
are listed below.
3
As soon as the ordinance is adopted
that it can be reviewed and a formal
appreciate your cooperation.
it should be sent to this office so
compliance letter can be sent. We
~~~
Charles L. Steele, Chief
Natural and Technological
Hazards Division
(206) 483-7282
FEMA REGION X STAFF/GEOGRAPHICAL BREAKDOWN
ALASKA: Carl Cook (206) 483-7285
IDAHO: Herb McElvaine (206) 483-7286
OREGON: Carl Cook (206) 483-7285
WASHINGTON: Bob Freitag (206) 483-7301
STATE COORDINATORS:
ALASKA: Christy Miller OREGON: Jim Kennedy
Department of Community Dept. Land Conservation
and Regional Affairs and Development
333 lN. ~+h pve.~+aa.U 1175 Court St. N.E.
Anchorage, Alaska 9'950 -23~{I Salem, Oregon 97310
(907) ~2~9-`'1$(0'7 (503) 378-2332
IDAHO: Lotwick Reese, P.E. WASHINGTON: Jerry Louthain, Chief
Dept of Water Resources Flood Plan Mgt Branch
Statehouse Dept of Ecology, M/S PV-11
Boise, Idaho 83720 Olympia, Washington 98504
(208) 334-4440 (206) 459-6791
OUTLINE OF PEMA REGION X
MODEL PLOOD DAMAGB PREVBNTION ORDINANCE
Revised December 1986
SBCTION 1 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT. PURPOSE
AND OBJECTIVES . 1
1.1 Statutory Authorization. 1
1.2 Pindings of Fact. 1
1.3 Statement of Purpose. 1
1.4 Methods of Reducing Flood Losses. 1
SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS. 2
SECTION 3 GBNERAL PROVISIONS. 3
3.1 Lands to Which This Ordinance Applies. 3
3.2 *Basis for Establishing The Areas of Special Flood Hazard. 4
3.3 Penalties for Noncompliance. .. 4
3.4 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. 4
3.5 Interpretation . 4
3.6 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. 4
SBCTION 4 ADMINISTRATION. 4
4.1 Establishment of Development Permit. 4
4.1-1 *Development Permit Required. 4
4.1-2 Application for Development Permit. 5
4.2 Designation of the Local Administrator. 5
4.3 Duties and Responsibilities of the Local Administrator. 5
4.3-1 **Permit Review. 5
4.3-2 *Use of Other Base Flood Data. 5
4.3-3 *Information to be Obtained and Maintained. 5
4.3-4 *Alteration of Watercourses. 5
4.3-5 Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries. 5
4.4 Variance Procedure. 6
4.4-1 Appeal Board. 6
4.4-2 Conditions for Variances. 7
SECTION 5 PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION. 7
5.1 *General Standards. .?
5.1-1 *Anchoring. 7
5.1-2 *Construction Materials and Methods. 8
5.1-3 *Utilities. 8
5.1-4 *Subdivision Proposals. 8
5.1-5 *Review of Building Permits. 8
5.2 *Specific Hazards. 9
5.2-1 *Residential Construction. 9
5.2-2 *NonResidential Construction. 9
5.2-3 *Manufactured Homes. 10
5.3 *Floodways. 10
* Required for Approval by FEMA.
** Only applies to Subsection 4.3-1(2)
. Additions are in Bold Face
. Deletions are dt`b~~kd/bdf or noted by the term "Delete"
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
SECTION 1.0
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE, AND OBJECTIVES
~ 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION
The Legislature of the State of (State) has in (statutes) delegated the
responsibility to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to promote the public
health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the (aovernin~ body) of
(local unit) (State) does ordain as follows:
1.2 FINDINGS OF FACT
(1) The flood hazard areas of (local unit) are subject to periodic inundation which
results in loss of life and property, health, and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and
governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and
impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
(2) These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special
flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities, and when inadequately anchored,
damage uses in other areas. Uses that are inadequately floodproofed, elevated, or otherwise
protected from flood damage also contribute to the flood loss.
1.3 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions
designed:
(1) To protect human life and health;
(2) To minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects;
(3) To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally
undertaken at the expense of the general public;
(4) To minimize prolonged business interruptions;
(5) To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric,
telephone and sewer lines, streets, and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard;
(6) To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of
special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas;
(7) To ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood
hazard; and,
(8) To ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for
their actions.
1.4 METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES
In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes methods and provisions for:
(1) Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water
or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or
velocities;
(2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be
protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
(3) Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters;
(4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood
damage; and
(5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert
flood waters or may increase flood hazards in other areas.
~c Required for approval by FEMA.
SECTION 2.0
DEFINITIONS
.~
Unless specifically defined below, words.or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to
give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable
application.
"APPEAL" means a request for a review of the__ (local administrator's) interpretation of any
provision of this ordinance or a request for a variance.
"AREA OF SHALLOW FLOODIN " means a designated AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel does not
exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and, velocity flow may be
evident. AO is characterized as sheet flow and AH indicates ponding.
AREA OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD" means the land in the flood plain within a community subject to a
one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on maps always
includes the letters A or V.
"BASE FLOOD" means the flood having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given
year. Also referred to as the "100-year flood." Designation on maps always includes the letters A or
V.
"DEVELOPMENT" means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate,. including but not
limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or
drilling operations located within the area of special flood hazard.
i''~~S(~P~I~/~~'BI'LF/h~TPYIYN~/lAA/R~/OYR/~GIOY[xyyF/,T,TrnyyrziQVVn~vrx»acra..,~~~ (Delete)
71~~PA~&I,C7D'DQ/IU0/AIDQ/ ~iSiT/t~d IIY~FCD ~!~/I~CDME/hI'AI~I~/,tDRI/I~'~~B~L~'/I~t~MJ St~JR'DI~~iSip'DQI' (Delete)
"FLOOD" or "FLOODING" means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of
normally dry land areas from:
(1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters and/or
~~ (2) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source.
~,
"FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM)" means the official map on which the Federal Insurance
Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones
- applicable to the community.
"FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY" means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration
that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of
the base flood.
"FLOOD~VAY" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface
elevation more than one foot.
"LOWEST FLOOR" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished
or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an
area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such
enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design
requirements of this ordinance found at Section 5.2-1(2).
2
":MANUFACTURED HOME" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the
required utilities. For flood plain management purposes the term "manufactured home" also includes park
trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 consecutive
days. For insurance purposes the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers, travel
trailers, and other similar vehicles.
"MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided
into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
')1~GY0,$~fiilE/I~OdYIiB"/ (Delete)
"New Construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the
effective date of this ordinance.
'`'^QiF~W/~RiL/p/IR~ME/P/aFIKf~OPtl~/1 BdL/A/I`i~J11<dFJ~rdBJ1I~ISdfD'PQY (Delete}
''3'TA'RIP/0~-i',QOi~d$7L/~tzlfClQym~T'Y (Delete entirely and replace with the following:)
"START OF CONSTRUCTION" includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit
was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other
improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement
of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the
installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the
placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land
preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets
and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundation or the
erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory
buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure.
"STRUCTURE" means a walled and roofed building including a gas or liquid storage tank /q'rJ,fplb,C~iXe
Kb~~ that is principally above ground.
- "SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT" means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost
of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either:
{ 1) before the improvement or repair is started, or
{2) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the
purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first
alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences,
whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure.
The term does not, however, include either:
(1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living
conditions, or
(2) any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State
Inventory of Historic Places.
"VARIANCE" means a grant of relief from the requirements of this ordinance which permits construction in
a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this ordinance.
SECTION 3.0
GENERAL PROVISIONS
3.1 LANDS TO WHICH THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES
This ordinance shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of
(local unit)
3
3.2 ~c BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD
~ The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a
scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for the (local unit) "
dated 19_ ,with accompanying Flood Insurance Maps is hereby adopted by reference
and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The Flood Insurance Study is on file at
(address)
3.3 PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE
No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered
without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations.
Violation of the provisions of this ordinance by failure to comply with any of its requirements
(including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions) shall
constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this ordinance or fails to
comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more
than or imprisoned for not more than days, or both, for each
violation, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Nothing herein
contained shall prevent the (local unit) from taking such other lawful action as is
necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
3.4 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS
This ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or
deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or
deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall
prevail.
3.5 INTERPRETATION
In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be:
(1) Considered as minimum requirements;
(2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and,
(3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under State statutes.
3.6 WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY
The degree of flood protection required by this ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory
purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will
occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This
ordinance does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted
within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create
liability on the part of (local unit) ,any..officer or employee thereof, or the Federal
Insurance Administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or anv
administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
SECTION 4.0
ADMINISTRATION
4.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
4.1-1 * Development Permit Required
A development permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any
area of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2. The permit shall be for all
structures including T~'d~~k manufactured homes, as set forth in the "DEFINITIONS", and
for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in the
"DEFINITIONS".
4
4.1-2 Aoplication for Development Permit
Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the local
administrator) and may include but not be limited to; plans in duplicate drawn to scale
showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or
proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the
foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required:
(1) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
structures;
(2) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed;
(3) Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing
methods for any nonresidential structure meet the floodproofing criteria in Section 5.2-2;
and
(4) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result
of proposed development.
~.2 DESIGNATION OF THE (local administrator)
The (local administrator) is hereby appointed to administer and implement this ordinance by
granting or denying development permit applications in accordance with its provisions.
~3.3 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE (local administrator)
Duties of the (local administrator) shall include, but not be limited to:
4.3-1 Permit Review
(1) Review all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this
ordinance have been satisfied:
(2) ~(c Review all development permits to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained
from those Federal, State, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is
required.
(3) Review all development permits to determine if the proposed development is located in the
floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment provisions of Section
5.3(1) are met.
4.3-2 * Use of Other Base Flood Data
When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 3.2, BASIS FOR
ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD, the (local administrator)
obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data
available from a federal, State or other source, in order to administer Sections ~.2, SPECIFIC
STANDARDS, and 5.3 FLOODWAYS.
-1.3-3 ~(c Information to be Obtained and Maintained
(1) Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood Insurance Study or
required as in Section 4.3-2, obtain and record the actual elevation (in relation to
mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially
improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement.
(2) For all new or substantially improved floodproofed structures:
(i) verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level), and
(ii) maintain the floodproofing certifications required in Section 4.1(3).
(3) Maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this
ordinance.
5
4.3-4 ~c Alteration of Watercourses
(1) Notify adjacent communities and the (State coordinatine aQencv) prior to any
alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to
the Federal Insurance Administration.
(2) Require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of said
watercourse so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished.
4.3-5 Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries
Make interpretations where needed, as to exact location of the boundaries of the areas of
special flood hazards (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped
boundary and actual field conditions). The person contesting the location of the boundary
shall be given a reasonabie opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in Section
4.4.
4.4 VARIANCE PROCEDURE
4.4-1 A~~eal Board
(1) The (ao~eal board) as established by (local unit) shall hear and decide
appeals and requests for variances from the requirements of this ordinance.
(2) The (anneal board) shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged there is an
error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the local
administrator) in the enforcement or administration of this ordinance.
(3) Those aggrieved by the decision of the (appeal board) , or any taxpayer, may
appeal such decision to the (name of a~orooriate court) , as provided in
(statute)
(4) In passing upon such applications, the (anveal board) shall consider all technical
evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this
ordinance, and:
(i) the danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
(ii) the danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
(iii) the susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and
the effect of such damage on the individual owner;
(iv) the importance of the services provide by the proposed facility to the communit};
(v) the necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
(vi) the availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not
subject to flooding or erosion damage;
(vii) the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
(viii) the relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain
management program for that area;
(ix) the safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergenc}•
vehicles;
(x) the expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of
the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the
site; and,
(xi) the costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions,
including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as
sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges.
(5) Upon consideration of the factors of Section 4.4-1(4) and the purposes of this ordinance,
the (anneal board) may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it
deems necessary to further the purposes of this ordinance.
(6) The (local administrator) shall maintain the records of all appeal actions and
report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request.
6
4.4-2 Conditions for Variances
(1) Generally, the only condition under which a variance from the elevation standard may be
issued is for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of
one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing
structures constructed below the base flood level, providing items (i-xi) in Section
4.4-1(4) have been fully considered. As the lot size increases the technical
justification required for issuing the variance increases.
(2) Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of
structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of
Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in this section.
(3) Variances shall not be issued within a designated floodway if any increase in flood
levels during the base flood discharge would result.
(4) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum
necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
(5) Variances shall only be issued upon:
(i) a showing of good and sufficient cause;
(ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship to the applicant;
(iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create
nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public as identified in Section
4.1-4(4), or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
(6) Variances as interpreted in the National Flood Insurance Program are based on the
general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are
not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or
financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densly populated
residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from the flood elevations should be quite
rare.
(7) Variances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited circumstances to
allow a lesser degree of floodproofing than watertight or dry-floodproofing, where it can
be determined that such action will have low damage potential, complies with all other
variance criteria except 4.4-2(1), and otherwise complies with Sections 5.1-1 and 5.1-2
of the GENERAL STANDARDS
(8) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the
structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest floor elevation below the base
flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the
increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation.
SECTION 5.0
PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION
* 5.1 GENERAL STANDARDS
In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required:
* 5.1-1 Anchorin¢
(1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation,
collapse, or lateral movement of the structure.
(2) A~l~/~b'~~~l~bX~~~'~XM~fa~a'~~~`~~/Yd~k,~Xs`~/~l'dt~a~~d,~/a'd4~~p~~l~l~~P~'i'~/~'dY~~t'e`~Y,~S/
(i) O~~k~F,~61~f,I~l~/X~/~k/t~~b~d~kA/AX/e'a'v'1X/d#~~J`>~Jtb,~'/¢~~tik~X/dt~~
dXb~X~I X,~~/v~driX /4~~/~~AdC~4~/t~k/~,~,~/~~',~t/~'dt~'~~Ad;~Xe'
Yo'a'~t~bX~L/v~,~~/~b~b'~~l~~X~~~A~~~t'l~4'~',~,~,t/~b~~/~'~i~X~1 ~~
~dA~X~b~'a~/1~b',b~'/~~'d~;
1
(ii) ~~~'~',Il~'s/~',f~,4Y'/d~/>~;istti/¢bfbk~/~~/,~/~W~~/~~y~/~'d~,it~b/Y~,~fi/>~~t`
~~#'~'l~/i~l~ihibAd~X~'/v~d~t~,~/~dX~/d~~w/~b~~s'Ab~~'f'150'~',~,~llb'd~/>~'~ld b'h~
~~ b~ /~d ~ ir~~/ ~~/ bbd l ~~;
(iii) At1~/ddb'1ddl~~b~~~l~X~,~/;ib~b,~1~3~>fY~'d1/,~1,~b~blk/b~/~~~r/Y'/~l~'b~bb/~~l~r$~'9'
(iv) ~~lb~K,ti'dd~~;~11~~/~b/Yib~¢/1~¢/~'~'X~/~'~stbb~bi~l`~~fb~~~t'g'~b~'df~'d'd~bb~
~~11~/~i~'~;
(ii) ~l'~~~~e's~~',(~',4'~'f~/¢~¢Ml¢b~`Fibs/S~~/4~'d1~W~a`~/~~~~1~'d~~y`~b,/Yk1i/t~~~`
~~Xe;
(iii) ;ik1/¢bb~l~bNfil~~ltfi'~'ld~'a11~d~1~'g'~i~,t¢b~Mdk7~d~Ye'~bf'lb,~fl6~dgl~l£~i'/,dif/A,(~9J9~
b~~v~'4s',/~t~i;
(iv) ~>~/)'dd~~b/X~¢/~1b/Kb~¢/1~b/~d~'X~/~'~d¢Kb~I~A,(
(3) t~/~'1,~~~`~~>~~I'~'~~,bbd/b~/~~bX~M'drill~d~%~YdYY'~',~/~~~t'e'~/,d~dgb~d/,~~/~'b,~~~~d/a'/Y~'~v~b/~¢,rFe
bX/9'0/~1~'~'~'e'~~,~1,~'k~,tit',l/~~~~,~~d~/d/bb/b~b~d~,~A/~~/ti'e'/1L!/
~dt~ti'n'i~,t~~~ddi ii,l,~H~~f/~d~d/d~fi'e'e'd /d~+tl
(2) All manufactured homes must likewise be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or
lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood
damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or
frame ties to ground anchors (Reference FEMA's "Manufactured Home Installation in Flood
Hazard Areas" guidebook for additional techniques).
~k ~.1-2 Construction Materials and Methods
(1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and
utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
(2} All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and
practices that minimize flood damage.
(3) Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service
facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from
entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding.
~k 5.1-3 tilities
(1) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the system;
(2) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharge from the systems into flood
waters; and,
(3) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination
from them during flooding.
* 5.1-4 Subdivision Proposals
(1) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;
(2) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage;
(3) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood
damage; and,
(4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another
authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed
developments which contain at least 50 lots or S acres (whichever is less).
~k 5.1-5 Review of Building Permits
Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study or from another
authoritative source (Section 4.3-2), Applications for building permits shall be reviewed to
assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of
reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks,
photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above
grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates. 8
* ~.2- SPECIFIC STANDARDS
In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set
forth in Section 3.2, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD or
Section 4.3-2, Use of Other Base Flood Data, the following provisions are required:
* 5.2-1 Residential Construction
(1) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure s all have the
lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above base flood elevation~~" ~~'J.~';~
(2) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or
shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by
allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must
either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed
the following minimum criteria:
(i) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square
inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided.
(ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade.
(iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices provided
that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.
~k 5.2-2 Nonresidential Construction
New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential
structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level of the
base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall:
(1) be floodproofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
(2) have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and
effects of buoyancy;
(3) be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods
of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting
provisions of this subsection ~~~~~~d based on their development and/or review of
the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to
the official as set forth in Section 4.3-3(2)
(4) Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same standards
for space below the lowest floor as described in 5.2-1(2).
(5) Applicants floodproofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance
premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the floodproofed level (e.g. a
building constructed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot belo.v that level).
5.2-3 P~d15dNa'd3btd~s'
(1) ~~~~~'k~h~k,~/~1~~~1/~b/~t~,~bfk,~'d~/~~¢~~`~,:k/~W~1~/~,~~,~i'd~/9,~/~!
(2) ~,G~'lt~~/~b'~~¢/~~~~llia~~~/~X~/~¢/l~~~d~/s~~~Y~b~k~'~',b~lk~s~b,~/~~/~~~~~g/~;~
l~b~¢1~~~`~~/a'~d~/~t'4'~i~;~/nb,~¢/~'~~Ad>b~~',~~Y'~b~X~A~~~'e'~~s~,'~X~lh~~~'e'
~>d~A~~X~~~~`~/'~ktart/~dQ'o'd~~'r~,~it~~~/~~1~15~b~k~,~~/~~/t~'e'~,~l~~dt~//~~~~~F~l,'
t`~r~~~r//t`~~~li1;Y~dt~b~l,/~f l~rs~b~kk~~~l~~~/a'dk~/;it~4/f~~`/~'q~r~k/Kb,~¢~/~~~k,W dr~l~
(i) ~t~'d~'~b'~'/~~YS/,~'~/~~'1/~'t~#'~b~'X17`~~1,~/~'~/fit`/did/1~~~~/s'9'/tl~t/~~/1,4~~~Y~'X~~z`
>3X/Gh'e'~b~X~l~d~'~'~~1~~/~Y,b~/;~~,b-ti~',~Y~/~,~~/~bb'~'~k~,~d'/
(ii) ~411~~/~1~~`~~'4'~`~3'~`~',/~'9'9/~f~~/~'~/~~¢/(~~`9i~'~~>~~1~fd'~'Sl/ ..
(iii) ~/t~'dti~Y~'tilt/d#~kik~,~,t~'d>~/d~/t~~ll~t1'
9
-- ~lYl~~'b,~t'd'a~t~A~v~/~~~lt~k`3'h~V~X~k~',~b~Y~t'd~~';~1~~~1X~1~~~'V,~(~'~,~f~~'¢
-- ~~~`fld~~'U~'s~~~b~l~',b1'lt~dY~~~`~/Gh~'~lfJ~kfitl~~b~,~/~#ibl~~`¢>~~Vd~;~;~X•
(3) P~NdM~,b-~~~/~~~dXM~'/r,~d~s/~/t~bb'd'w~/,/~~~;~IS~/i~ia~'/a'~~,~i~~/~t~'~1~,~¢~~e'/d~c~b~/dd
* 5.2-3 Manufactured Homes
All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within Zones Al-30, AH, and AE shall
be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or
above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation
system in accordance with the provisions of subsection 5.1-1(2).
~k 5.3 FLOODWAYS
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2 are areas designated as
floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters
which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply:
(1) Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvments, and other
development unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided
demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the
occurrence of the base flood discharge.
(2) If Section 5.3(1) is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply
with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 5.0, PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD
HAZARD REDUCTION.
TE• Where base flood elevations have been provided but floodways have not, Section 5.3 should read as
follows:
5.3 ENCROACHMENTS
The cumulative effect of any proposed development, when combined with all other existing and
anticipated development, shall not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than
one foot at any point.
~(c Required for approval by FEMA.
~0
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment for Shallow Flooding CAO Zones
~)
REGION X MODEL FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
December 1986
If the FIRM has AO zones depicting shallow flooding, the following section
must be added in order to address the depth designations in these zones,
vs. the base flood elevations that are provided in other areas of detailed
study. In the model ordinance, this section will appear as either 5.3,
5.4 or 5.5 depending on whether or not the flood data in a particular
community includes floodways and/or coastal high hazard areas.
5.4 STANDARDS FOR SHALLOW FLOODING AREAS (AO ZONES)
Shallow flooding areas appear on FIRM's as AO zones with depth
designations. The base flood depths in these zones range from 1 to
3 feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, or where the
path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be
evident. Such flooding is usually characteried as sheet flow. In
these areas, the following provisions apply:
(1) New constrution and substantial improvements of residential
structures within AO zones shall have the lowest floor (including
basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade of the
- building site, to or above the depth number specified on the
~ FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified).
(2) New Construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential
structures within AO zones shall either:
(i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above
the highest adjacent grade of the building site, to or
above the depth number specified on the FIRM (at least two
feet if no depth number is specified); or
(ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities,
be completely flood proofed to or above that level so that
any space below that level is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with
structural components having the capability of resisting
hydrostatic and and hydrodynamic loads and effects of
bouyancy. If this method is used, compliance shall be
certified by a registered professional engineer or architect
as in section 5.2-2(3).
(3) Require adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to
guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment for Coastal High Hazard Areas CV Zones
REGION X MODEL FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
December 1986
If the FIRM has V zones (V1-V30, VE, V) depicting coastal high hazard
areas and invoking Section 60.3(e) of the Federal Regulations, two
definitions and the following section must be added. In the model
ordinance this section will appear as either 5.3, 5.4, or 5.5 depending
on whether or not flood data in a particular community includes floodways
and/or AO (shallow flooding) zones.
1. SECTION 2.0 DEFINITIONS. Delete the old definition of breakaway wall
and add the following:
"BREAKAWAY WALL" means a wall that is not a part of the structural
support of the building and is intended through its design and construction
to collapse under specific lateral loading forces, without causing damage
to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system.
"COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA"
means the area subject
to high velocity
or tsumanis. The area
waters, including but not limited to, storm surge
is designated on the FIRM as Zone V1 V30, VE or V.
2. Add the following section for Coastal High Hazard Areas. Note that
this is an entirely new section from the original model ordinance
attachment. This is because the changes are such that it is almost
~ impossible to mesh the old and the new requirements. For informational
purposes, the old coastal flooding attachment is reproduced at the bottom
of the second page of this attachment.
- 5.4 COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section
3.2 are Coastal High Hazard Areas, designatd as Zones V1-V30, V E
and/or V. These areas have special flood hazards associated with
high velocity waters from tidal surges and, therefore, in addition to
meeting all provisions in this ordinance, the following provisions
shall also apply:
(1) All new construction and substantial improvements in Zones V1-
V30 and VE (V if base flood elevation data is available) shall
be elevated on pilings and columns so that:
(i) the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of
the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is
elevated to or above the base flood level; and
(ii) the pile or column foundation and structure attached
thereto is anchored to resist flotation, collapse and
lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water
loads acting simultaneously on all building components.
Wind and Water loading values shall each have a one
percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any
given year (100-year mean recurrence interval);
A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop or review
the structural design, specifications and plans for the construction and
shall certify that the design and methods of construction to be used are
in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions
of (i) and (ii) of this Section.
2
(2) Obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the
bottom of the lowest structural member of the lowest floor
(excluding pilings and columns) of all new and substantially
improved structures in Zones V1-30 and and VE, and whether or
not such structures contain a basement. The local administrator
shall mainain a record of all such information.
(3) All new construction shall be located landward of the reach of
mean high tide.
(4) Provide that all new construction and substantial improvements
have .the space below the lowest floor either free of obstruction
or constructed with nonsupporting breakaway walls, open wood
lattice-work, or insect screening intended to collapse under
wind and water loads without causing collapse, displacement, or
other structural damage to the elevated portion of the building
or supporting foundation system. For the purpose of this section,
a breakaway wall shall have a design safe loading resistance of
not less than 10 and no more than 20 pounds per square foot.
Use of breakaway walls which exceed a design safe loading
resistance of 20 pounds per square foot (either by design or
when so required by local or State codes) may be permitted only
if a registered professional engineer or architect certifies
that the designs proposed meet the following conditions:
(i) breakaway wall collapse shall result from a water load less
than that which would occur during the base flood; and
(ii) the elevated portion of the building and supporting foundation
system shall not be subject to collapse, displacement, or
other structural damage due to the effects of wind and
water loads acting simultaneously on all building components
(structural and nonstructural). Maximum wind and water
loading values to be used in this determination shall each
have a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in
any given year (100-year mean recurrence interval).
(5) If breakaway walls are utilized, such enclosed space shall be
useable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or
storage. Such space shall not be used for human habitation.
(6) Prohibit the use of fill for structural support of buildings.
(7) Prohibit man-made alteration of sand dunes which would increase
potential flood damage.
All buildings or structures shall be looted landwrd of the mean h1gA t1de.
2 1 buildings or structures shall be eterated so that tM lowest supportin
1s iouted no lower than the base flood elevation level. with all ace
helot a lowest supporting header open so as not to tepeds the star rater.
eaeept f reakaway rails u provided for in Section 5.4(8).
3 All Buildin r structures shall be securely anchored on pit or coluens.
4; Piltngs or col used as strutturel support shall be des ed and anchored so
'" as to withstand a Dplled loads of the base flood fi
(5) Caegltanu rtth prove s of Settloe 5.4(2). (3) a 4) shall M artlfied
to by a re stered profs oral engineer or arch ct.
((6) There sMii be no f111 us r struttuni s rt.
(7) There shall be no alteretlon and d ich wouid increase potential flood
dosage.
(!) Breakaway calls shall be adored be the base flood eleratlon prerided they
are not a part of tM structurel the building and are designed so
of t0 breakaway under abno htggA tide r rave action. without daeagt to
the structural inttgr/ty a Ouildlnq on h they are to be used.
(9) If breakaway calls are used. such enclosed s shall not M used for
huaan hablLtton. ..
(10) Prier to sorest an. plans for amt structure that wt ave breakawy w11s
eaatt be s to the ~oeai adeinistntor) for a
(11) Prohibit placeaent of a oaas. exept ~n an extstlnq~ tie bast paMc
or hat subdtrlstan.
(12) M tension. repair. reeonstructton or ta~r'owaent to a street farted
r file enatLant of th/s ordinena shall not enclose tM space bet •
lowst floor unless Oreakarey wits an used as prov/dad for in Settlon 8)
aaw (q).
~.
CITY OF KENAI
~ 210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794
TELEPHONE 907-283-7535
_ FAX 907-283-3014
1~1
III'®
1992
December 1, 1995
Lawrence Kodysz
Designs
P.O. Box 3306
Kenai, AK 9961 1
Dear Mr. Kodysz:
The city has been advised that you may be operating a business out of your home.
If you are in fact operating a home business, you may be in noncompliance with
KMC 14.20.150. This code requires you to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to use
a residence for other than it's principle use.
If you would like information on the process for obtaining a permit, please contact
me at 283-7933.
Sin rely,
._ ,
Marilyn Kebschull
Administrative Assistant
IDa
AGENDA
RENAI CITY COIINCIL - REGIILAR MEETING
DECEMBER 6, 1995
7:00 P.M.
RENAI CITY COIINCIL CHAMBERS
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered
to be routine and non-controversial by the Council and
will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council
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.
B. SCHEDIILED PIIBLIC COMMENT (10 Minutes)
1. Bill Coghill - Mikunda Cottrell/City Financial
Statement and Audit.
~ 2. Ron Rainey - LID Preliminary Request/Intervention with
the Habitat Divisions of Fish & Game and Parks for
Placing Structures Below Mean High Tide in the Kenai
River.
C. PIIBLIC HEARINGS
~/~~~ ~, 1. Ordinance No. 1669-95 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code,
Chapter 8.05.010 to Adopt the Latest Editions of the
National Fire Codes and the Uniform Fire Code.
2. Resolution No. 95-73 - Transferring $2,500 in the
/"~~~ ~' General Fund for Additional Money to Complete the
Repair and Replacement of Christmas Decoration
Transformers.
3. Resolution No. 95-74 - Authorizing the City Manager,
~~~~~ Thomas J. Manninen, to Submit to the State of Alaska an
Application for a Federal Grant for a Historical Public
Preservation Education Project for a Signage Project in
the Townsite Historic District and the Shkituk' Village
Site of Kenai, Alaska.
-1-
3. Attorney
4. City Clerk
5. Finance Director
6. Public Works Director
7. Airport Manager
J. DISCUSSION
1. Citizens (five minutes)
2. Council
R. ADJOURNMENT
-3-
KENAI PENINSliLA BOROUGH
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
ASSEMBLY CHAMBERS
SOLDOTNA. ALASKA
NOVEMBER 27, 1995 7:30 P.M.
Tentative Agenda
join Haruuein•~n
Cuair:aan
Ae.~ide
. e~~n EX~ir°s 139
. ^iiip E~ysan
`J.ce Ce;8lriaF,
{enai ot,~
"~ et;n EXrrires 1998
.4:en `~/hiYr;:ore-~2inEer
• e'riia_'i:en° :Tian
P~oase bass Area
~`g~~'+ . ~oscccri
i-C Pf^: pct
,...~ovia %i:~
_ °a:r EXv~ es .997
~C F~e;^~er
.,v'N?'~ C'1'~
m°rr_ vxo=rss 199
o`v~..~ Cl~a s
_ ~ ~~.~pa ;yer
fi~C::O~ ~^v,rEt
_ ern EXsires 1933
wes ca;ernan
13y Me~n~er
Sul Ll~itri? ~.._i~
..,..._ ixe.- _, _,95
very ^:_..~~~.;~~;~
lfir;r~er
:-1~~:~er ~.t~
Tern Expires 1993
Ellis Hensley, .;r.
^C Pvlemser
Ni:si$lci
dean Exn:res 139E
ire:*.t . oa :son
PC Pliember
Kasilof Area
Term Expires 1997
Tom Knock
~ PC Member
Caoper Landing
Tetm Expires 1998
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF
CONSENT AGENDA
All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and noncontroversial by the Planning
Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public so requests, in which case the
item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the
regular agenda.
If you wish to comment on a consent agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public
hearing, please advise the recording secretary before the meeting begins, and she will inform the
Chairman ofyour wish to comment.
1. Time Extension Requests
a. Forest Creek
[Seabright Surveying]
KPB File 93-106
Location: Knob Hill road easterly of North Fork.Road
b. Beluga Shores Subdivision Geoffrion Addition
[Swan Surveying]
KPB File 94-170
Location: South shore of Cabin Lake
2. Plats Granted Administrative Approval
3. Plats Granted Final Approval Under 20.04.070 -None
4. Coastal Management Program
a. Coastal Management Program Consistency Reviews
1
II
I J.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Hylen 1984 Addition No. 2 Amended, Tract A, Building Setback
Exception; KPBPC Res 95-27: Granting an exception to the twenty
. foot building setback limit for a portion of Tract A, Hylen
Subdivision, 1984 Addition No. 2 Amended (Plat 85-37 HRD),
Section 34, T1S, R14W, S.M., AK
KPB File 95-192
CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
1. Eagle View Subdivision .
east of Soldotna, south of Sterling Highway
Preliminary; Integrity Surveys
KPB File 95-166
2. Miller Loop Tracts Addition One
Miller Loop Road; Preliminary
Swan Surveying
KPB .File 95-177
3. Fleming Giles Estates No. 2
Seldovia City; Preliminary
Johnson Surveying
KPB File 95-183
4. Loon Subdivision No. 2
west of Crooked Creek; Preliminary
Johnson Surveying
KPB File 95-184
5. Marina Subdivision No. 2
Seward City; Preliminary
Johnson Surveying
KPB File 95-185
6. Forest Acres S/D Cox Addition
Seward City; Preliminary
Johnson Surveying
KPB File 95-191
7. James H. Cowan Estates
Kenai City; Preliminary
Whitford Surveying
KPB File 95-186
3
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOROUGH ADMII~TISTRATION BUILDING
ASSEMBLY CHAMBERS ~
SOLDOTNA, ALASKA
DECEMBER 11, 1995 7:30 P.M. _ ,,r
Tentative Agenda
John Hammelman A. CALL TO ORDER
Chaimnan
preawide
Term Expires lass B. ROLL CALL
Philip Bryson
price Chaimnan C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF
Kew city
Temp Expires 1996 CONSENT AGENDA
P,nn Whitmore-Painter
Parliamentarian All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and noncontroversial by the Planning
e P Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
Thm
~~a97
~ unless a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public so requests, in which case the item will
be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the regular agenda.
Peggy G. Bosoaccl
PC ~~
Seldovia City If ou wish to comment on a consent
Y agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public hearing,
Term ~~ 1997 please advise the recording secretary before the meeting begins, and she will inform the Chairman of
your wish to comment.
Wayne Carpenter
Ps~rd ~
ay 1. Time Extension Requests
Temp Expires 1996
Robeert cluas a. Maranatha S/D No. 5
Pc ~ KPB File 93-167
/4nchor Point
Term Expires 9996
Location: East of Parsons Lake, west of Lamplight Road
Wes Coleman
PC Member
50~~ cKy b. Iola Subdivision
Term Expires 1996 KPB File 94-142
Leroy Gannaway
PC Member
Hamer city
Location: Birch Drive and Third Avenue within City of
Temn Expires 1996 Kenai
Ellis Hensby, Jr.
Pc He'r'der c. Thompson Park Subdivision -Wallingford Addition
Nikisld
Term Expires 9996
KPB File 94-172
Brent Johnson
Pc Mlember
Location: Eisenhower and Spruce Streets within City of
Kasibf Area Kenai
Term Expires 1997
Tom Knock 2. Plats Granted Administrative Approval
PC Member
Cooper Landing
Term Expires 1996
I H. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. P/W Thomas, Kelly A
KPBPC Resolution 95-28: Granting a platting waiver for certain
lands within Section 24, T1N R13W Seward Meridian, Alaska
KPB File 95-193
2. P/W Phillips, Grant
KPBPC Resolution 95-29: Granting a platting waiver for certain
lands within Section 23, TSN, R11W, Seward Meridian, Alaska
KPB File 95-197
I. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
1. Eagle View; east of City of Soldotna;
Preliminary; Integrity Surveys
KPB File 95-166
2. Chamberlain & Watson S/D Uminiski Replat
Homer City; Preliminary
Johnson Land Surveying
KPB File 95-194
3. Kenai River Salmon Run S/D Addition No. 1
Salmon Run Drive; Preliminary
McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 95-195
4. A. Murto Lot, 1995; Anchor Point
Preliminary; Mullikin Surveys
KPB File 95-196
J. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS -None
K. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance 95-38, An Ordinance Establishing an Advisory Planning
Commission in the Area Along the North Shore of Kachemak Bay
Excluding the Cities of Homer and Kachemak
L. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS
M. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
N. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
3
3oiin Harnmeimsn
Cuair:nan
A:eawiae
""err ~ moires 1995
~~Yli.~ ~ny'SCn
•Ji~e U:;31ra;la;;
{ei3a1 amity
Tern Expires 1998
A.;:n ~rahitz. are-?sinter
Pariiamcntariaa
T~oase Pass A°ea
",ar E .,,.. 1y9/
~e~,&"l ~. ?oscawci
rC 2fier uer
edovia Ci`r
..:sr: ~XY• es .;97
"?J _yre Car°;enTer
ScNZrw Ci;•~
. °:;r ~xDrr,S 1995
:CGe.: C,L'tS
~~ :~1Pr. r.
r". C ~: ~DSuI
"err: Exg$es 1;38
Wes Coier^.an
PC Niem~er
~oi~e°rs Ci~~
......_ Ef°•r°s :995
..~_~~ ...,...away
C'fam~er
:~ oracr ^ty
Term ExpireW 1993
fillis Hcnslcy, ~r.
?C Member
Nikiski
Tern Ex;fires 1996
Brea*. , oaason
PC Pdember
Kasilof Area
Term Expires 1997
Tom Knock
PC Member
Cooper Landing
Term Expites 1998
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOROUGH ADMNISTRATION BUILDING
ASSEMBLY CHAMBERS
SOLDOTNA. ALASKA ~,~,'19~2922 ~
NOVEMBER 27, 1995 7:30 P.M. ~"~ ~ was
~ ~V~
Tentative Agenda N
~ ~ m
ono '~' ow`O
A. CALL TO ORDER ,rp
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF
CONSENT AGENDA
All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and noncontroversial by the Planning
Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public so requests, in which case the
item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the
regular agenda.
If you wish to comment on a consent agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public
hearing, please advise the recording secretary before the meeting begins, and she will inform the
Chairman of your wish to comment.
1. Time Extension Requests
a. Forest Creek
[Seabright Surveying]
KPB File 93-106
Location: Knob Hill road easterly of North Fork.Road
b. Beluga Shores Subdivision Geoffrion Addition
[Swan Sun~eying]
KPB File 94-170
Location: South shore of Cabin Lake
2. Plats Granted Administrative Approval
3. Plats Granted Final Approval Under 20.04.070 -None
4. Coastal Management Program
a. Coastal Management Program Consistency Reviews
>;on Gilman, May°r 1) Cook Inlet; Draft Cook Inlet General National
T.isa Parker Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
'~iag Director Permit for Oil & Gas Exploration, Production and
Maria sweppy Development; U.S. Environmental Protection
A~'i°• Assistant Agency; AK 9509-020G
,~, •3..~.' ~~ b. Conclusive Consistency Determinations Received from
l :'~~ DGC -None
~i.%-
J +.+4{
,~ 4~ ~
c. Administrative Determinations
,1 5. Commissioner Excused Absences
. ~;,.~
} .;,
~~
n
~"""" a. No excused absences requested.
6. Minutes
a. November 13, 1995
D. COMMISSIONERS
1. Annual Election of Officers
E. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PRESENTATIONS
(Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited to three minutes per speaker unless
previous an angements are made.)
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Petition to (1) Vacate "bulldozed" trail as shown on U.S. Survey
3373; and (2) Vacate a trail within Lot 1, Nubbleof Hill
Subdivision; and (3) Vacate all utility easements within said Lot 1;
and (4) Vacate unused portion often foot wide pedestrian and
ATV access easement within said Lot 1. Also within Section 24,
Township 8 South, Range 14 West, Sewazd Meridian, Alaska;
KPB File 95-167 (Postponed to 12/11/95)
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Petition to vacate the entire of Creech Circle public right-of--way
and associated utility easements as dedicated by Miller Loop
Tracts (Plat 78-160 KRD). Being within Section 2, Township 6
North, Range 12 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska.
KPB File 95-177
H. VACATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING -None
z
I. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Hylen 1984 Addition No. 2 Amended, Tract A, Building Setback
Exception; KPBPC Res 95-27: Granting an exception to the twenty
foot building setback limit for a portion of Tract A, Hylen
Subdivision, 1984 Addition No. 2 Amended (Plat 85-37 HRD),
Section 34, T1 S, R14W, S.M., AK
KPB File 95-192
J. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
1. Eagle View Subdivision
east of Soldotna, south of Sterling Highway
Preliminary; Integrity Surveys
KPB File 95-166
2. Miller Loop Tracts Addition One
Miller Loop Road; Preliminary
Swan Surveying
KPB File 95-177
3. Fleming Giles Estates No. 2
Seldovia City; Preliminary
Johnson Surveying
KPB File 95-183
4. Loon Subdivision No. 2
west of Crooked Creek; Preliminary
Johnson Surveying
KPB File 95-184
5. Marina Subdivision No. 2
Seward City; Preliminary
Johnson Surveying
KPB File 95-185
6. Forest Acres S/D Cox Addition
Seward City; Preliminary
Johnson Surveying
KPB File 95-191
7. James H. Cowan Estates
Kenai City; Preliminary
Whitford Surveying
KPB File 95-186
3
8. Bailey Estates; Kenai City
Preliminary; Whitford Surveying
KPB File 95-187
9. Spur S/D Senior Citizen Addn. Ryan's Creek Replat
Kenai City; Preliminary
Integrity Surveys
KPB File 95-188
10. Warehouse Subdivision
Kenai City; Preliminary
Integrity Surveys
KPB File 95-189
11. Westview Hills; north of Jim Dahler Road
Preliminary; Integrity Surveys
KPB File 95-190
K. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS -None
L. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS
M. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS
N. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
P. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Q. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is
December 11, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers at the Borough
Administration Building in Soldotna.
PLEASE NOTE: The December 11 meeting is the only Planning
Commission meeting that will be held in December.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
NO ACTION REQUII2ED
1. Homer Advisory Planning Commission
November 1, 1995 Minutes
2. Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission
November 8, 1995 Minutes
4
~i
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH b7 ~ ~"'
PLANNING COMMISSION ~Ir~
BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ~'"
ASSEMBLY CHAMBERS ~ ~~
SOLDOTNA, ALASKA ~
DECEMBER 11, 1995 7:30 P.M. °~8,. _ ,,~
Tentative Agenda
John Hammelman A. CALL TO ORDER
cnalrman
a
reawide
Term ~~ ~~
B. ROLL CALL
PhAip Bryson
vie Chairman C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF
~~ ~~ CONSENT AGENDA
Ann Whltrnore-Palmer
Parliamentarian All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and noncontroversial by the Planning
Moose Pass Arse Commission and will be a roved
pp by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
Terra ~~ ~ ~~ unless a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public so requests, in which case the item will
be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the regular agenda.
Pep®y d. Boscscci
PC Memher
~~ Cily If you wish to comment on a consent agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public hearing,
Term ~~ 1997 please advise the recording secretary before the mceting begins, and she will inform the Chairman of
1 your wish to comment.
Wayne Carpenter
P~M°"'~ 1. Time Extension Requests
Term Expires 1996
Robert clutcs a. Maranatha S/D No. 5
PC Memher KPB File 93-167
Anchor Point
Tenn Expires 1996
Location: East of Parsons Lake, west of Lamplight Road
Wes Coleman
PC Member
soaot~ cry b. Iola Subdivision
Term Expires 1996 KPB File 94-142
Leroy Gannaway
How ~ Location: Birch Drive and Third Avenue within City of
Term Expires 1996 Kenai
Ellis Hereby, Jr.
Pc ~~ c. Thompson Park Subdivision -Wallingford Addition
T ~~ ~ 9ss KPB File 94-172
Brent Johnson
Pe Member
Location: Eisenhower and Spruce Streets within City of
ICasilot area Kenai
Term Expiros 1997
Tom Knock 2. Plats Granted Administrative Approval
PC Member
Cooper Landing
Tsmf Expires 1998
+~~` Lss P,~
~.
~~~~
~i~~:.
4~`.~''v~~rt
~.
3. Plats Granted Final Approval Under 20.04.070
4. Coastal Management Program
a. Coastal Management Program Consistency Reviews
1) Port Dick; Spawning Channel Enhancement;
ADF&G; AK 9508-10AA
b. Conclusive Consistency Determinations Received from
DGC
c. Administrative Determinations
5. Commissioner Excused Absences
a. No excused absences requested.
6. Minutes
a. November 27, 1995
D. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PRESENTATIONS
(Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited to three minutes per speaker unless previous
arrangements are made.)
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Petition to (1) Vacate "bulldozed" trail as shown on U.S. Survey
3373; and (2) Vacate a trail within Lot 1, Nubbleof Hill
Subdivision; and (3) Vacate all utility easements within said Lot l;
and (4) Vacate unused portion often foot wide pedestrian and
ATV access easement within said Lot 1. Also within Section 24,
Township 8 South, Range 14 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska;
KPB File 95-167 (Carried forward from 11/13/95)
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Petition to vacate a portion of Tisher Avenue public right-of--way.
Vacate the easterly 205 f of the northerly 30 feet of Tisher Avenue
lying south of Lot 2, McSmith Subdivision No. 2 (Plat 84-85
KRD). Being within Section 26, Township 5 North, Range 10
West, Seward Meridian, Alaska
KPB File 95-166
G. VACATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING -None
z
H. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. P/W Thomas, Kelly A
KPBPC Resolution 95-28: Granting a platting waiver for certain
lands within Section 24, T1N R13W Seward Meridian, Alaska
KPB File 95-193
2. P/W Phillips, Grant
KPBPC Resolution 95-29: Granting a platting waiver for certain
lands within Section 23, TSN, R11W, Seward Meridian, Alaska
KPB File 95-197
I. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
1. Eagle View; east of City of Soldotna;
Preliminary; Integrity Surveys
KPB File 95-166
2. Chamberlain & Watson S/D Uminiski Replat
Homer City; Preliminary
Johnson Land Surveying
KPB File 95-194
3. Kenai River Salmon Run S/D Addition No. 1
Salmon Run Drive; Preliminary
McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 95-195
4. A. Murto Lot, 1995; Anchor Point
Preliminary; Mullikin Surveys
KPB File 95-196
J. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS -None
K. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance 95-38, An Ordinance Establishing an Advisory Planning
Commission in the Area Along the North Shore of Kachemak Bay
Excluding the Cities of Homer and Kachemak
L. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS
M. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
N. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
3
O. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is January 8, 1996 at
7:30 p.m. in Conference Room B at the Borough Administration Building in
Soldotna.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
NO ACTION REQUIRED
1. 11/27/951etter from Ed Martin
2. Information from Cooper Landing Advisory Planning Commission
3. Homer Advisory Planning Commission
November 15, 1995 Nfinutes
4. 11/22/951etter from Representative Gail Phillips
5. 11/27/95 memo from Assembly President Drew Scalzi
rzw
Memorandum
Date: 12/08/95
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Parks and Rec Commission
Beautification Committee
From: Townsite Historic District Board
RE: SHKITUK' VILLAGE SITE--PHASE TWO
Townsite Historic Board would like to invite you to a work session planned for
January 23, 1996, at 6 p.m. to plan for future development of the Shkituk'
Village Site. In addition to these city Commissions, the Kenaitze Indian Tribe will
be invited to attend this work session. We hope that you will be able to attend
this session and look forward to continuing with this worthy project.
/mk
~~
November 30, 1995
John L. Booth
P.O. Box 1176
Kenai, AK 99611
CITY OF KENAI ~~ ~
., cat ~ ~ >a~~~.
~ 210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794
TELEPHONE 907-283-7535
FAX 907-283-3014
__ ~~
1III~1
,~~
RE: APPOINTMENT -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
City of Kenai
At their regular meeting of November 22, 1995, the Kenai City Council confirmed your
appointment to the City of Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission.
The following information in regard to your appointment is enclosed:
1. KMC Chapter 1.90 entitled, "Standard Procedures for Commissions and
Committees."
2. Policy regarding boards, commission and committees needing Council
approval to request donations from the public and businesses.
3. KMC Chapter 14.05 entitled, "Planning & Zoning Commission."
4. KMC Title 14 entitled, "Planning & Zoning."
The Planning & Zoning Commission meetings are held on the second and fourth
Wednesday of each month, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Meeting agendas and
packets will be mailed to you prior to each meeting.
Also enclosed is a 1995 Conflict of Interest Statement which you are required to
ycomplete and return to this office as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please contact this office. Thank you for your interest in
serving the City of Kenai.
CITY OF KENAI
Ca L. Freas
City Clerk
~ clf
Enclosures
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Meets Second and Fourth Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.
} Kevin M. Walker, Chair 1997
311 McKinley Street
Kenai, AK 99611 Telephone: 283-5626 (home) 283-4471 (work)
Carl Glick, Vice-Chair 1998
P.O. Box 528
Kenai, AK 99611 Telphone: 283-7644 (home) 278-1611, ext. 4303 (work)
Phil Bryson 1998
P.O. Box 1041
Kenai, AK 99611 Telphone: 283-4428 (home) 283-4672 (work)
Teresa Werner-Quade 1996
409 McCollum Drive
Kenai, AK 99611 Telephone: 283-5423 (home)
Karen J. Mahurin 1996
P.O. Box 1073
Kenai, AK 99611 Telephone: 283-4697 (home) 283-4826 (work)
Ron Goecke 1996
P.O. Box 3474
Kenai, AK 99611 Telephone: 283-9436 (home) 283-7070 (work)
John L. Booth 1997
P.O. Box 1176
Kenai, AK 99611 Telephone: 283-4744 (home) 776-3599 (work)
Ad Hoc: Hal Smalley
~ 105 Linwood Lane
Kenai, AK 99611
Telephone: 283-7469 (home) 283-7524 (work)
(11/30/95)
/~ ~
Memorandum
Date: 12/04/95
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Marilyn Kebschull, Administrative Assistant ~.
RE: ZONING IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS
I contacted the city and boroughs of Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage.
Fairbanks advised that schools are built in their area under the conditional use
process. Juneau advised they do not have a special school zone. Anchorage
was unclear as to whether or not they have a special zone but stated they will
send the information. When this information is received, it will be provided to
the Commission.
In talking with the other cities, I was reminded of the Alcohol & Beverage
Control Board and the State Statute (04.11.410) which restricts licensing a
package store or bar within 200 feet of a church or school. The person I spoke
with at the ABC Board advised that cities can extend the 200 feet to fit
community need. This information may be helpful for future rezoning requests
in areas where schools are located. For the Commissions' information, I have
attached a copy of the statute. It did not copy very well; however, it gives you
the basic information regarding the 200 feet restriction.
/mk
Attachment: Alaska Statute 04.1 1.410
A STATUTES ' "
~: -.
god to the traveling p
blic convenience wiU
~t~;
a transfer of location of '
phis section shall be gran
le new location is less
,.~~,~°
is under AS 04.11.340(
premises is necessary;
r rental agreement; ;::."
mixes; 3r
~n of the premises by,''''
.e issuance or transfer of
Anse in a municipality. yqi
~ finds that issuance or .
blic convenience. ~ f ~~
~f this section, within an
,,
organized borough, a new
on of an existing club li j
~rd,
of - ~b .licenses under thg,
.hi. bsection has been~ap
~porated city, unified manic
:h the club license Is to,l~
f~.
n there would not be, insl~d~e
ality, or inside the orgaiztzE
ties located within the bo~c
1,500 population or fractia
s~:: ~:
.:~ ,-~
opulation" includes only, the
later than the date the apj
arlier than 60 days before: t
;tion, "population" includes
stablished village, into
zed borough as of Decem
plication. ,=~ T~'<.`
jeans the circular area or '
it line originating at the
outward. (§ 2 ch 131 S .,
-16 ch 93 SLA 1985; am ~
~~
40
7.
~ p1.11.410
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES § 04'11'410
rs notes, -Subsections (d)-(h)
t~° erly (g)-(k)~ roapectively; subsec-
~(0 and ~) were formerly (e) and (f);
subsection (k) was formerly (d). Relettered
in 1994, at which time internal subsection
references were also changed.
NOTES TO DECISIONS
limitations and zoning limitations. Queen
of N., Inc. v. LeGrue, 582 P.2d 144
(Alaska 1978), decided under former AS
04.10.210.
~~ation and zoning limits must
The Alcoholic Beverage Con-
r M ~~ is prohibited by atatu ulation
;*
.mnR licenses except as meet pop
foUa~ral references. - 45 An-• Jur.
~ Intoxicating Liquors, § 138.
~'didity of statutory classifications
~.;
,~.
i-
~;
R :,;
f
bra e :u
ben
~,ti :.:.
T ~P~TO
L~~M
~;.
1'
'~ ,~--
,.;
based on population -intoxicating liquor
statutes. 100 ALIi,3d 850.
geC, p4.11.410. Restriction of location near churches and
rchools. (a) A beverage dispensary or package store licen t be t alls-
xissued and the location of an existing license may
erred if the licensed premises would be located in a building the
public entrance of which is within 200 feet of a schlarl conducted,
;hunch building in which religious services are regu
ateasured by the shortest pedestrian route from the outer boundaries
the school ground or the public entrance of the church building.
However, a license issued before the presence of eith be renewedror
striction within 200 feet of the licensed premises may
transferred to a person notwithstanding this subsection.
~b) If a beverage dispensary or package store license for premises
'orated within 200 feet of a school ground or church buildingre wo is s
religious services are regularly conducted is revoked, exPr ackage
transferred to another location, a beverage dispensary P
'tore license may not be issued or transferred to the formerly licensed
premises until the cessation of either cause of restriction. (§ 2 ch 131
SLA 1980)
Opinions of attorney general. - Bor-
:ugh ordinance requiring a Protest where
'Ac location of the premises would be
•uhin 500 feet of an already established
.ci~ool, playground, or church was not in-
~sistent with subsection (a) because the
ordinance did not restrict a right created
by state law, state law did not prohibit
local regulation of the subject, and the lo-
cal ordinance was stric A~ttha~nate law.
August 18, 1987, Op. Y
NOTES TO DECISIONS
Legislative intent. -The intent of the
RKialature in enacting former AS
'H 15.020, covering the subject matter of
~u section, must have been the desire to
:rotect children attending school from di-
'nt exposure to some of the demoralizing
°numstances which, by the authority of
Ammon knowledge, seem incident to the
traffic in intoxicating liquor. In re
Wakefield, 10 Alaska 599 (1975), decided
under former exercise0d scretion and
Board may
refuse to issue license even though the
proposed location complies with the re-
quirements of this section. State, ABC Bd.
v. Decker, 700 P.2d 483 (Alaska 1985).
41
~,~
-- § 04.11.420 ALASKA STAT
vTEs
,,.~
Mere proximity to school beyond constitute good caul
200 feet. - Where a proposed liquor store
z ~ some additional e~,ide
is to be located near a school but beyond tential threat to the '^
the 200-foot limit of this section
th
~' ~
' ~ M ,
e mere be shown. State, ABC
fact of proximity to the school would not P.2d 483 (Alaska 1985
~
c
S ~
~
~
~
o i
g
- ~ z •
p . ~)~
Collateral references. - 45 Am. Jur, within a ecified .~~p
2d, Intoxicating Liquors
§§ 140-146
~~ i ~ ~ ,
. ALR2d 1103. `~~
48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 96, "Church" or the like
97.
'' ,
hibiting liquor sales wi
Reasonableness of statutory or local fence thereof. 59
regulation, prohibiting license for sale of ~R2d ~,
M
~
~ F
i easurement of
intoxicating liquors within prescribed dis- of enactment prolubi
fence from church, school or other in
tit
'
?~ ~ ' s
u- for sale, of intosica "
tions. 119 ALR. 643.
given distance from ch ~ "
"School
" "schoolh
"
,
ouse,
or the like school, or other instit '`
within statute prohibiting liquor sales base. 4 ALR3d 12501
0
ao
~~s,~ ~
~~
Sec. 04.11.420. Zoning limitations. (a) A person~'~~
:.. ao sued a license or permit in a municipality if a zoning
~ o ordinance prohibits the sale or consumption of alcolio
unless a variance of the regulation or ordinance' has
'Gee
s .
(b) The municipality shall inform the board of zoning~'e
ordinances that prohibit the sale or consumption of a~coho
ages. (§ 2 ch 131 SLA 1980) ~~
~:
,.r,
~~'.
~-~•° NOTES TO DECISIONS 't ~_ tss
j Population and zonin ~ ~ Y~
g limits moat limitations and zoning ]imita4
be met. -The Alcoholic B
~
~ everage Con- of N., Inc, v. Le(;rUe, ;;fig
trol Board is prohibited by statute from (Alaska 1978)
decided und
~
i
I ,
e
ssuing licensee except as meet population 04.11.420. ; ~'+~,
Collateral references. - 48 C.J.S., In- eating liquors. 9 ALR2d 877;
toxicating Liquors
§ 95
i ,
.
655. -fi
Zoning regulation in respect of intoxi- a:~: ~:=~r
~ . ~~: a
Sec. 04.11.430. Person and loc
ti
„..
~ a
on. (a) Each lice
issued to a specific individual or individuals, to a partnership
~,
~ ing a limited partnership, or to a corporation. If the license is i
~'~ ~ a corporation, the registered agent of the corporation must be
vidual resident of the state. ~ - ;h
~ (b) Except for a license authorizing the sale of alcoholic
~,
~ on a common carrier, a specific location shall be lndicat~e~
license or
i
er perm
t as the licensed premises, the principal ad
4 ~ ~ which shall be indicated on the license or permit. The mailing
„o of a licensee or, if the licensee is a corporation
the addrea
,
registered office of the corporation must be kept current and o'
w
42
`a,._ .
tai
~:
21.40.020 PLI (Public lands and institutions) district.
_~=
The following statement of intent and use
regulations shall apply in the PLI district:
A. The PLI district is intended to include areas of
significant public open space, major public and
quasi-public institutional uses and activities and
land reserves for which a specific use or activity
is not yet identified.
B. Permitted principal uses and structures:
1. parks, parkways and greenbelts, land reserves,
open space, and related facilities;
2. public recreation facilities, including public
golf courses, playgrounds, playfields, public
recreation centers, public equestrian arenas,
and the like;
3. zoos, museums, libraries, historic and cultural
exhibits, and the like;
4. educational institutions, including public,
private or parochial academic schools, colleges
and universities;
5. cemeteries, subject to the standards set forth
in Section 21.50.140;
6. police and fire stations;
7. convents, monasteries and administrative
offices of religious organizations;
8. headquarters and administrative offices of
charitable and similar quasi-public
organizations of a non-commercial nature;
h
~,~
AMC 21.40.020 21.40-7 (Supp. #56 9/30/91)
9. governmental office buildings;
C.
10. placer mining operations subject to a
wastewater discharge permit issued by the State
Department of Environmental Conservation;
11. churches, to include any place of religious
worship along with their accessory uses,
including (without limitation) parsonages,
meeting rooms and child care provided for
persons while they are attending religious
functions, but excluding day care uses which
shall be permitted only if they are otherwise
allowed in accordance with this title. Use of
church building other than the parsonage for
the purpose of housing or providing shelter to
persons is not permitted except as otherwise
allowed in this title;
12. day care and 24-hour child care facility;
13. ski tower and loading/off-loading facilities;
14. public greenhouses and nurseries; and
15. housing for the elderly.
Permitted accessory uses and structures:
1. crematoriums and mausoleums as accessory uses
to permitted cemeteries;
2. uses and structures which are necessary or
desirable adjuncts to permitted principal uses
and structures, where such accessory uses and
structures are under the management or control
of the. organization or agency responsible for
the permitted principal use or structure;
3. keeping honey bees, Avis mellifera, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of all titles
of this code. Colonies shall be managed in
~~~~ such a manner that their flight path to and
from the hive will not bring them into contact
ith people on adjacent property. To
complish this, colonies shall:
AMC 21.40.020 21.40-8 (Supp. #60 9/30/92)
a. Be at least 25 feet from any lot line not in
common ownership , or
b. Be oriented with entrances facing away from
adjacent property, or
c. Be placed at least eight feet above ground
level, or
c1. Be placed behind a fence at least 6 feet in
height and extending at least 10 feet beyond
the hive in both directions.
No more than four hives shall be placed on lots
smaller than 10,000 square feet.
D. Conditional uses:
Subject to the requirements of the conditional use
standards and procedures of this title, the following
uses may be permitted:
1. Natural resource extraction, except for placer
mining operations, on tracts of not less than five
acres;
2. Radio, microwave, satellite dishes or television
j transmission towers not part of a principal permit-
ted structure;
3. Commercial recreational uses, including commercial
and residential uses associated with such commer-
cial recreation uses, for a period of time to be
determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission;
4.- Vocational schools, trade schools, manual training
centers. and the like;
5. Correctional institutions, reformatories and the
like;
6. Quasi-institutional uses;
7. Governmental service shops, maintenance and repair
centers and equipment storage yards;
8. Off-street parking spaces or structures;
9. Incinerator facilities;
10. Animal control shelters;
~ 11. Heliports, airstrips and airports, and uses direct-
ly related to or within the area occupied by such
facilities;
21.40-9 Supp. No. 64
12. Utility and transportation facilities;
13. Equestrian facilities;
14. Motorized sports facilities;
15. Snow disposal sites;
16. Health care facilities, health services;
17. Homeless and transient shelter;
18. Hospitals.
E. Minimum lot requirements:
Lot width 100 ft.
Lot area 15,000 sq. ft.
F. Minimum yard requirements:
1. Front yard: 25 ft.;
2. Side yard: a minimum of 25 ft. or not less than
the adjacent use district, whichever
is the greater;
~ 3. Rear yard: a minimum of 30 ft. or not less than
the adjacent use district, whichever
is the greater.
G. Maximum lot coverage by all buildings: 30~ or the lot
coverage requirement of the adjacent use district,
whichever is less.
21.40-10 Supp. No. 64
H. Maximum height of structures: unrestricted except:
1. Where buildings exceed 35 feet in height
- adjacent to a residential use or district, the
minimum yard requirement established by
subsection F shall be increased one foot for
each 1.5 feet in height exceeding 35 feet.
This provision shall only apply to the yard
adjacent to the residential use district. More
restrictive height limits may be imposed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission for uses under
section B and D.
2. Structures shall not interfere with Federal
Aviation Administration Regulations on airport
approaches.
I. Signs. Signs may be allowed in connection with any
permitted use, subject to the supplementary district
regulations and the IIniform Sign Code.
_~
J. Parking.. Adequate off-street parking shall be
provided in connection with any permitted use and
shall conform to the minimum requirements set forth
in 21.45.080. The number of required parking spaces
shall be that specified in 21.45.080 unless it is
demonstrated to the building official and the
traffic engineer that the patrons and/or employees
of the land use will generate a lower parking demand
than anticipated by the supplementary district
_ regulations. The burden of proof and demonstration
of the lower parking demand lie with the property
owner. Information that could demonstrate the
lower parking demand may include: mass transit
routing, car pooling, joint parking arrangements or
other parking and transit means as set out in a
written parking and transportation impact plan
submitted to the traffic engineer for approval.
Variances to Section 21.45.080 (minimum off-street
parking requirements) may be granted by the building
official in this use district upon the
recommendation of the traffic engineer. Any
change in the land use to which the variance was
granted shall automatically terminate the variance
granted by the building official. Any variances
granted shall be executed by the recording of a
standard parking agreement.
AMC 21.40.020 21.40-11 (Supp. #43 6/30/88)
R. Loading. Adequate off-street loading area shall be
provided in connection with any permitted use, the
minimum of each use to be as provided in the
supplementary district regulations.
L. Landscaping. All areas not devoted to buildings,
structures, drives, walks, off-street parking
facilities, usable yard area or other authorized
installations shall be planted with visual
enhancement landscaping. The landscaping shall be
maintained by the property owner or his designee.
M. Refuse collection and outside storage screening.
Refuse collection facilities shall be screened on at
least three sides either by a wall, fence or
landscaping in accordance with the supplementary
district regulations. Outside storage shall be
visually screened from the street and adjacent
properties by a fence, wall, landscaping or earthen
berm.
N. The procedures stated in Section 21.15.015 shall be
followed. for all permitted uses allowed by this
Section, regardless of their nature. (Adapted from
GARB 21.05.050A, AO 7?-355, am AO 79-25, AO 81-67S,
A0 81-1785, AO 82-24, AO 83-78, AO 84-34, AO 85-18,
AO 85-28, AO 85-78, AO 85-23, AO 85-91 (as amended)
(effective October 1, 1985) .(expires December 1,
1987), AO 86-19, AO 86-90, AO 88-7(S) (effective
July 4, 1988, Revisor's Note: The zoning map shall
_ be revised so that all current or future parks, open
space and greenbelts within PLI district are
designated by use of a lower case letter 'p'
following the term "PLI" on the map: (i.e.
"PLI-p"), am AO 90-152(S), AO 92-93).
AMC 21.40.020 21.40-12 (Supp. #60 9/30/92)
~~
KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA
} ADVISORY HOARD
Thursday, November 16, 1995
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association Building
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
Members Present: Pat Bower, Jack LaShot, Ted Wellman, Robin Nyce,
Duane Harp, Tom Knock, Lance Trasky, Jim H. Richardson, Barbara
Jewell for Ken Lancaster, Jim A. Richardson, Jeff King, Irv
Carlisle, Mark Chase.
Members Absent: Peggy Mullen, Ben Ellis.
B. Approval of October 5, minutes. The minutes were
approved as written.
C. Agenda Changes and Approval.-Under New Business three
items were added; E. Salamatof Acquisition, F. Review Board of
Fish proposals, G. Discussion of Nationwide Permit 29 being
considered by COE.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Bylaw Committee Report. The Bylaws committee met at
1:OOpm. Each member is given a draft developed by this committee
to review. The bold and underlined items are new, and some
sections which are crossed out indicate deletions. Ted Wellman,
Chairman of the Bylaws Committee, reviewed the draft for the
full board.
Ted makes the motion to adopt the Bylaws as drafted.
Discussion ensued by board members. Irv Carlisle suggests
voting on adopting the bylaw changes at the next meeting to allow
each member to digest the changes. Tom Knock asks about page 2,
#11, the mention of "standard designs" as it is uncertain if Fish
and Game wants docks and boardwalks.. Tom also questions the
Conflict of Interest, pg. 9. Tom.~al~o corrects the mention of
two (2) newspapers on pg. 10, item 3 to one (1). Irv refers to
two items in this draft. One is on pg. 2 item #10 where there is
mention of the development of "standard designs for board
walks..." as he feels it has not been established that there is
scientific data demonstrating that boardwalks or docks are good.
The other item is on pg 6-7 item F which deals with Public
Comment and Irv suggests limiting time for public comment to ten
minutes for all whether it be a single voice or a group.
Another correction brought up by Pat was to finish the sentence
on pg. 8, item H, at the end "and 4) reports from the
committees".
RENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA -_3
l ADVISORY HOARD - November 16, 1995 ~-
vote.
The issue of agency voting will be addressed at the December
meeting.
B. Permit Committee Report (includes Jim's Landing update)
This committee met at 2:00 pm on this date. Suzanne presents the
committees report. Mark Chase apologizes that he was unable to
do the presentation on Jim's Landing but he was statutorily
prevented to conduct business. Mark advises he will present this
at the December meeting.
Suzanne says the Grant Lake hydro project renewal was discussed.
The Committee will generate a letter to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission asking them to keep us informed of the
process. The Committee had a brief update on the Beaver Creek
Anglers Acres bank erosion and the situation of the homeowners on
site. Based on that discussion it was recommended that the
Committee generate a letter to the Governor advising him that
there are many precedent setting situations that are going on
right now the river in relation to flood damage. This letter
would ask the Governor to support the AG's office in providing
DPOR and the Dept. of F&G with legal advice as we move forward.
The next meeting of the Permit Committee will be at 2 pm on
December 7th at CIAA.
Jim A. Richardson asks
asking for "intervenor
level of info provided
that the Board write a letter to FERC
status". He says this will change the
to this board on the Grant Lake project.
C. Kenai River Comprehensive. Management Plan Revision
Committee Recommendations. This committee met at 3:00
pm this date to begin the process of reviewing the 1986 Kenai
River Comprehensive Management Plan. The Committee which is made
up of all board members follows a 6 page list of the major topics
from the 1986 KRCMP. Jim states the board went through most of
Chapter 2 of the handout at the co~hmittee meeting. It is
suggested to continue to work through the rest to familiarize all
members with the plan.
Suzanne then continues the discussion with Chapter 3 under "Water
Quality". Lance says to add sewage waste, hazardous materials,
materials in flood plain being vulnerable to this section.
Jim asks if discharge of processed waste does damage to the smolt
in the lower river. Lance says it is not known. Lance says we do
not know alot about the water quality in the Kenai River.
In the next section "Recreational Activities and Facility
KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA
ADVISORY BOARD - November 16, 1995
-y-5
Ranch, Irene Girves, John Kobylarz, and Chester Cone properties:
Irv poses the question of what is to prevent Salamatof from
buying this land back. Lance answers that issue has been
anticipated and there will be terms and condition as well as
covenants to prevent this.
There was unanimous consent to support this and a resolution will
be completed and sent to Mark Chase by COB Friday, 11/17/95.
F. Assign and Review of Board of Fish Proposals. This
• request comes from Pat Bower that this board review the BOF
minutes. After quick discussion it is decided that this be
referred to the Legislative Committee to review and bring to the
full board. Ben Ellis will be informed of this as he is the
Chairperson of that Committee.
G. Nationwide Permit 29 by Corps Of Engineers. Jim H.
Richardson informs the board this would allow homeowners to fill
in up to 1/2 acres of wetlands on their property. It would
preclude the owner from going through the regular COE process. It
is designed to be an expedited and relaxed method of permitting.
The problem he sees with this is along the Kenai River the
wetlands that are contiguous of the river are part of the
habitat. Many of the parcels are small parcels however the
cumulative effect of each landowner could be magnified greatly.
Some of the areas are river overflow areas. What is determined a
wetland may actually be a flood channel which would impact the
adjacent land owners. Jim recommends that this board pass a
resolution to exclude the Kenai River watershed from this
process. This would mean landowners would still have to go
through the regular process of permits.
The board gives unanimous support for this resolution. Jim H.
Richardson will develop the wording for the resolution for DPOR
staff to submit. A copy will be sent to the Governor and
Commissioner Shively.
~' .
IV. ADJOURNMENT ,
A. Board Comments.
IRV: states Chris and Suzanne did a very nice job on the KRCMP
outline.
JIM H.: feels the board made a good start at the KRCMP.
DUANE.: Would like to address what is going on with the Kenai
~ River Summit and the December meeting.
.~.,.
November 17, 1995
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 1995
RE: ~ Valhalla Heights Subdivision Preliminary Plat
~~\
~~-'
i
The proposed preliminary plat was conditionally approved by the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Commission. The conditions of approval are stated in the attached draft, unapproved
minutes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning
Department.
This notice and unapproved minutes were sent November 20, 1995 to:
City of City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Street, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Survey Firm: Wince-Corthell-Bryson, 609 Marine, Suite 250, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Subdivider/Petitioner: Tim & Terri Wisniewski, 5839 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai,
Alaska 99611-8432.
KPB File Number: 95-178
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Department
144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669-7599
(90'~ 262-4441, extension 260
FAX (90'~ 262-8618
AGENDA ITEM I. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
12. Valhalla Heights Subdivision (Preliminary)
~ Wisniewski Addition
KPB File 95-178
Staff report as read by Maria Sweppy. PC Meeting 11/13/95
Location: City of Kenai
Use: Commercial
Zoning: Commercial General ,
Sewer/Water: On-site
Supporting Information: The submittal letter states that "because of planned building expansion" these two lots are
being replatted "to eliminate potential side-yard problem." This replat moves the lot line common to Lots 5 and 6
approximately 20 feet to the northwest, resulting in a 2,000 square foot change to the two lots. Lot 5 is now Lot 5-A
with an area of 16,000 square feet. Lot 6 is now Lot 6-A with an area of 29,050 square feet.
The Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat at their meeting on October 25, 1995.
No exceptions have been requested.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to any above recommendations,
and the following conditions:
REVISE OR ADD TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
KPB 20.12 AS FOLLOWS:
j 1. Correct or add to the legal description/location/area. The parent plat is Lots 24 Thru 35 of Block 1 and
Block 2 of Valhalla Heights Subdivision No. 2. The title block should reflect the correct parent plat name.
2. Provide name/address of owner(s).
3. Vicinity Map -Show city limits of Kenai.
4. Identify adjacent land status to the north and west with the appropriate Valhalla Heights subdivision name.
5. Number all blocks and/or lots.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
TITLE 20:
6. Boundary of subdivision must be wider line weight.
7. Survey and monumentation to meet Ordinance requirements or an exception having been granted.
8. Place note on plat "No access to State maintained rights-of-way permitted unless approved by State of
Alaska Department of Transportation."
9. Conform to conditions of KPB Planning Commission Resolution 78-6.
10. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation requires their approval on the final plat and
recorded instruments in accordance with 18AAC Chapter 72 Article 3.
11. Compliance with Ordinance 90-38 (Substitute) -Ownership.
END OF STAFF REPORT
MOTION: Commissioner Carpenter moved, seconded by Commissioner Coleman, to grant approval of the
preliminary plat subject to staff recommendations.
Vice Chairman Bryson said that he was going to abstain from discussion and voting due to a conflict of interest.
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 1995 MEETING PAGE 31
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous consent with one abstention.
HAMMELMAN BRYSON WHITMORE-PAINTER BOSCACCI CARPENTER CLUTTS
YES ABSTAINED ABSENT ABSENT YES YES
COLEMAN GANNAWAY HENSLEY JOHNSON KNOCK EIGHTYES
YES YES YES YES YES ONE ABSTAINED
1W0 ABSENT
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 1995 MEETING UNAPPROVED MINUTES PAGE 32
~~~ .. .
November 29, 1995
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Department
144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669-7599
(907) 262-4441, extension 260
FAX (907) 262-8618
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995
RE: ~ Spur S/D Senior Center Addition Ryan's Creek Replat Preliminary Plat
The proposed preliminary plat was conditionally approved by the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Commission. The conditions of approval are stated in the attached draft minutes.
815'
If you have any questions, please feel- free to contact the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning
Department.
This notice and unapproved minutes of the subject portion of the meeting were sent
November 29, 1995 to:
City of: City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Street, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Survey Firm: Integrity Surveys, 605 Swires Drive, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Subdivider/Petitioner: City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Street, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska
99611.
,~g29303~
p
N ~c v
~ ~'
~ .~1
KPB File Number: 95-188
AGENDA ITEM J. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
19. Spur S/D Senior Center Addition Ryan's Creek Replat
KPB FILE 95-188
Staff report as read by Maria Sweppy.
Location: Senior Court and Spur View Drive, within the City of Kenai
Proposed Use: Residential/Recreational/Commercial
Zoning: General Commercial
Sewer/Water: City
(Preliminary)
PC Meeting 11/27/95
Supportinq Information: This replat of Lots 26 and 3, Spur Subdivision Senior Citizen Addition, also includes a
portion of an unsubdivided remainder. -
The Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on October 25, 1995.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to any above recommendations,
and the following conditions:
REVISE OR ADD TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
KPB 20.12 AS FOLLOWS:
1. Provide date of this survey.
2. Indicate approximate location of area subject to inundation by storm or tidal flooding. If applicable, cite
study identifying flood plain.
1 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
TITLE 20:
3. Identify existing easements and label use; or cite record reference.
4. Survey and monumentation to meet Ordinance requirements or an exception having been granted.
5. Show acreage of the unsubdivided remainder.
6. Conform to conditions of KPB Planning Commission Resolution 78-6.
7. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation requires their approval on the final plat and
recorded instruments in accordance with 18AAC Chapter 72 Article 3.
8. Compliance with Ordinance 90-38 (Substitute) -Ownership.
9. Note 1 on Plat -Correct to read Development of this Lot is.......".
10. Note 2 on Plat -City lots are generally subject to setbacks on all lot sides and are not always ten feet or
greater. Clarify where the easements are.
END OF STAFF REPORT
MOTION: Commissioner Knock moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitmore-Painter, to grant approval of the
preliminary plat subject to staff recommendations.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous consent.
HAMMELMAN BRYSON WHITMORE-PAINTER BOSCACCI CARPENTER CLUTTS
YES YES YES ABSENT YES YES
COLEMAN GANNAWAY HENSLEY JOHNSON KNOCK TEN YES
YES YES YES YES YES ONE ABSENT
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING PAGE 19
~~ ..
November 29, 1995
Kenai Peninsula Borough
P Planning Department
144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669-7599
~ (907) 262-4441, extension 260
FAX (907) 262-8618
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995
RE: Bailey Estates Preliminary Plat
The proposed preliminary plat was conditionally approved by the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Commission. The conditions of approval aze stated in the attached draft, unapproved
minutes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning
Department.
This notice and unapproved minutes of the subject portion of the meeting were sent
November 29, 1995 to:
City of City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Street, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Survey Firm: Whitford Surveying, 1902 Wyatt Way, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Subdivider/Petitioner: Marvin & Sonya Bailey, 215 Fidalgo, Suite 201, Kenai, Alaska
99611-7776.
KPB File Number: 95-187
tioti'~2a~~42s~s
~~~
A ~~ 0 Nw
r
~ ~~ '~
~1 ~' ~-
~~~ ~~
~~~
. ~$~'L ~,s ~~. ',sr
AGENDA ITEM J.
CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
8. Bailey Estates
KPB File 95-187
Staff report as read by Maria Sweppy.
Location: City of Kenai on Lawton Street
Use: Residential
Zoning: Residential Suburban 2
Water/Sewer: On-site
(Preliminary)
PC Meeting 11/27/95
Supporting Information: This plat subdivides an existing deeded parcel into three lots ranging in size from 1.08
acres to 2.35 acres. The original Inlet View Preliminary (recorded in 1962 K-1102) showed that the intent was to
include this parcel and the parcel to the west in the future subdivision. That design indicated that Norman Street
dedication would extend through to Lawton. The combination of the two above mentioned parcels would allow
four lots to be platted to the west of Norman Street. The parcel to the west is now Tract A of Inlet View
Subdivision Second Addition.
The Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Bailey Estates (Resolution PZ 95-56) at
their meeting on November 8, 1995 contingent upon the Norman Street dedication being extended through this
subdivision to Lawton Drive.
On November 21, 1995 the Kenai Commission reconsidered the November 8th action. The approval
recommendation has been changed to not require the dedication to extend Norman Street but to restrict Lot 1 to
"no development within the west 85 feet of Lot 1." Kenai has requested a note to this effect on the final plat.
The Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of another preliminary plat (Inlet View
Subdivision Resubdivision of Tract A, KPB File 95-159) showing further subdivision of Tract A into two lets at their
meeting on October 13, 1995. The KPB Planning Commission granted preliminary approval of the subdivision on
October 23, 1995. A plat of that subdivision has been submitted to the KPB Planning Department for final review.
This design is not consistent with the original Inlet View Preliminary and would therefore prevent the subdivision
being submitted as Bailey Estates from being consistent.
Both Tract A, which is in the process of being subdivided by the above mentioned plat, and the deeded parcel
being subdivided by Bailey Estates are under different ownership. In reviewing the further subdivision of Tract A,
the City of Kenai was informed by the owner of Tract A that the adjacent parcel would probably never be
subdivided and, if it was, there was no possibility of an extension of the Norman Street dedication due to the
existence of a house on the lot.
The location of the. existing house as shown on the preliminary plat shows that the dedication of Norman Street
would fall approximately 10 feet from the house. In addition, such a dedication would create a lot to the west that
would not comply with the Borough Code of Ordinances both for size and dimensions. The lot would meet the
minimum size under the Kenai Zoning Code; however, with a 50' depth it would not be useable due to the building
setback requirements.
Placing a "no development within the west 85 feet" restriction on Lot 1 does not appear to resolve the future
access problem the City of Kenai apparently has. The eastern boundary of the no development area would be
approximately centerline of Norman Street, which would prohibit extension of Norman Street.
Staff cannot concur with the recommendations of the Kenai Planning and. Zoning Commission and recommends
approval of the preliminary plat as submitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to any above recommendations,
and the following conditions:
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING PAGE 16
,- r° ~ -
REVISE OR ADD TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
KPB 20.12 AS FOLLOWS:
1. Correct or add to the legal description/location/area. Show total acres being subdivided in the title block.
2. KPB Assessing Department records indicate that Lawton Drive adjacent to this subdivision is a separate
tax parcel owned by the City of Kenai. Include within this subdivision and formally dedicate or clarify
status.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
TITLE 20:
3. Identify existing easements and label use; or cite record reference. If 50 foot section line exists, show
additional 10 feet.
4. Survey and monumentation to meet Ordinance requirements or an exception having been granted.
5. Conform to conditions of KPB Planning Commission Resolution 78-6.
6. Show Recording District in or near the title block.
7. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation requires their approval on the final plat and
recorded instruments in accordance with 18AAC Chapter 72 Article 3.
8. Compliance with Ordinance 90-38 (Substitute) -Ownership.
9. Compliance with Ordinance 90-43 -Easement definition.
END OF STAFF REPORT
MOTION: Commissioner Clutts moved, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, to grant approval of the
preliminary .plat subject to staff recommendations.
Chairman Hammelman recognized Roy Whitford, surveyor. Mr. Whitford said he was representing his client and
urged the Commissioners to approve the plat as submitted without the restrictive note. Even if the note was
)placed on the plat, the City would still have to negotiate with the property owner to purchase the right-of--way to
develop the extension of Norman Street. All the note would do is severely restrict the use of Lot 1 even if Norman
Street is not extended. Mr. Whitford did not think that the negotiation process between the City and the property
owner should be addressed by a plat note.
Vice Chairman Bryson said that the City of Kenai had recently taken two actions on the subject parcel and the
adjacent parcel. He understood that Tract A, the subject parcel, and Inlet View Subdivision were under separate
ownership. Until recently he did not know that Inlet View Subdivision had proposed an access directly to the north
several years ago. Vice Chairman Bryson understood that Tract A was platted into two lots several months ago.
The southern lot had access via a flag lot configuration. At some point the owner of Tract A and the owners of
Bailey Subdivision discussed a plat that used a different design. The City's action on November 8 requested that
Norman Street be dedicated straight through.
Vice Chairman Bryson advised that the intent of the reconsideration motion at the November 21 meeting was to
create a situation in which structures would not be constructed in the area in case the City (through negotiation
and a fair market purchase) was able obtain the property. The plan was to have the City acquire the property
through a fair market purchase rather than a forced dedication. The intent of the 85 feet was to prevent structures
from being placed in this area so that aright-of-way could be dedicated at some point in the future. Vice Chairman
Bryson recalled that the Borough had taken similar action several times on East End Road when there was a
dispute between property owners and the State over the width of the right-of--way. The solution was to create a
building setback that prevented structures from being placed in this area until the State and the property owner
could reach agreement through negotiation.
Vice Chairman Bryson said that Norman Street did not need to be extended straight north. It could be shifted to
the south. The size of the setback was determined by adding the 60-foot right-of-way with a 25 foot building .
setback, which is the City's standard. Norman Street would leave a triangle on the southwest comer, which would
have to be part of the negotiated price if the City purchased the property.
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING PAGE 17
Commissioner Gannaway asked Vice Chairman Bryson if he agreed with placing the note on the plat. Vice
Chairman Bryson thought it was good planning to keep buildings out of this area if it will be aright-of--way. He
i deferred to staff regarding whether a note should be placed on the plat.
Mr. Whitford pointed out that the plat note would give the City the option to wait to begin the negotiation process,
which could encumber the property for many years.
Commissioner Clutts agreed with Vice Chairman Bryson in theory. However, Commissioner Clutts understood
and concurred with the surveyor's concerns. Commissioner Clutts could not agree with encumbering private
property at the discretion of City officials who may or may not take action in conjunction with the right-of-way.
Commissioner Coleman asked if Norman Street was constructed. Ms. Parker pointed out the constructed portion
of Norman Street on a map. Vice Chairman Bryson said it was constructed to the edge of Bailey Subdivision.
Norman Street does not extend across Bailey's property. He thought that the subdivision should have another
access. There are approximately 60 lots in this area, and the road is not wide enough to accommodate two
vehicles.
Ms. Parker asked if the owner of Lot 1 reached his lot through the 85-foot no-development zone. She inquired if
the intent of the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission was to restrict access. Vice Chairman Bryson replied
that the original motion required an 85 foot building setback with no new structures allowed in this area. He was
uncertain about the final decision but thought no new improvements were allowed. Vice Chairman Bryson
understood Mr. Whitford's concern.
Commissioner Johnson thought that 85 feet seemed excessive since Norman Street could be configured to follow
the southern border and then follow the western border. Vice Chairman Bryson explained that the 85 feet included
the City's building setback as well as the right-of-way width.
I Chairman Hammelman re-stated the motion. He pointed out that staff recommended against placement of a no-
development note on the plat.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous consent.
HAMMELMAN BRYSON WHITMORE-PAINTER BOSCACCI CARPENTER CLUTTS
YES YES YES ABSENT YES YES
COLEMAN GANNAWAY HENSLEY JOHNSON KNOCK TEN YES
YES YES YES YES YES ONE ABSENT
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING PAGE 18
~' •- -
November 29, 1995
~3p31-- t?
~~,
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ~~ 8t LL9v
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995
RE: ~ Warehouse Subdivision Preliminary Plat
The proposed preliminary plat was conditionally approved by the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Commission. The conditions of approval are stated in the attached draft minutes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning
Department.
This notice and unapproved minutes of the subject portion of the meeting were sent
November 29, 1995 to:
City of: City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Street, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Survey Firm: Integrity Surveys, 605 Swires Drive, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Subdivider/Petitioner: Clint Hall, P.O. Box 2829, Kenai, Alaska 99611-2829; Vivian
Swanson, c/o B.L. Ball, 6548 5th Avenue, NW, Seattle, Washington 98117-5010;
National Bank of Alaska Trustee, P.O. Box 100600, Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0600.
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Department
144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669-7599
(907) 262-4441, extension 260
FAX (907) 262-8618
~~
ea
.~
0
...
..~
KPB File Number: 95-189
AGENDA ITEM J. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
j 10. Warehouse Subdivision (Prelimina.ry)
KPB File 95-189
Staff report as read by Maria Sweppy. PC Meeting 11/27/95
Location: City of Kenai
Use: Residential, Recreational, Commercial
Zoning: General Commercial/Suburban Residential
Sewer/Water: City
Supporting Information: This subdivision replats two government lots and an adjacent subdivision lot into three
lots. The plat also dedicates the 33 foot easements associated with the govemment lots.
The Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the plat on October 31, 1995. They recommended.
approval contingent upon submittal of a new site plan and verification of no building encroachments. Their
concern was that in the replatting to facilitate some land swaps, the previous site plan had been negated and
some encroachments had been created.
Planning staff concurs with the concern regarding encroachments and requests that existing structures be shown
upon the preliminary plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to any above recommendations,
and the following conditions:
REVISE OR ADD TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
~ KPB 20.12 AS FOLLOWS:
1. Provide date of this survey.
2. Correct adjacent land status to the east - Letzring 1985 Subdivision.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
TITLE 20:
3. Survey and monumentation to meet Ordinance requirements or an exception having been
granted.
4. KPB base maps show Spruce Drive instead of Street. Please correct.
5. Place note on plat "No access to State maintained rights-of--way permitted unless approved by State of
Alaska Department of Transportation."
6. Conform to conditions of KPB Planning Commission Resolution 78-6.
7. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation requires their approval on the final plat and
recorded instruments in accordance with 18AAC Chapter 72 Article 3.
8. Compliance with Ordinance 90-38 (Substitute) -Ownership.
9. Compliance with Ordinance 90-43 -Easement definition.
END OF STAFF REPORT
MOTION: Commissioner Clutts moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitmore-Painter, to grant approval of the
preliminary plat subject to staff recommendations.
Commissioner Coleman inquired about the possible encroachment and if it would be considered before final
' approval is granted. Ms. Parker advised that aerial photographs indicate structure(s) or something similar is on
the parcel. Commissioner Coleman asked if it appeared to be encroaching. Ms. Parker replied it was possible.
Commissioner Coleman asked for confirmation that staff would research this matter before final approval. Ms.
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING PAGE 20
Parker replied yes.
~~ VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous consent.
HAMMELMAN BRYSON WHITMORE-PAINTER BOSCACCI CARPENTER CLUTTS
YES YES YES ABSENT YES YES
COLEMAN GANNAWAY HENSLEY JOHNSON KNOCK TEN YES
YES YES YES YES YES ONE ABSENT
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING PAGE 21
" Kenai Peninsula Borough
~ P Planning Department
d 144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669-7599
~ (907) 262-4441, extension 260
FAX (907J 262-8618
~~ .. ~
November 28, 1995
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995
RE: ~ James H. Cowan Estates Preliminary Plat
The proposed preliminary plat was conditionally approved by the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Commission. The conditions of approval are stated in the attached draft, unapproved
minutes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning
Department.
This notice and unapproved minutes of the subject portion of the meeting were sent
November 29, 1995 to:
City of: City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Street, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Survey Firm: Whitford Surveying, 1902 Wyatt Way, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Subdivider/Petitioner: James H. Cowan, 29243 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu,
California 90265.
KPB File Number: 95-186 '
ti6~1~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
N ~
N ~ ~
r ~~
N Qept ~-;
~~ :~%
Gl
~j~y ^,
~.....
AGENDA ITEM J. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
7. James H. Cowan Estates (Preliminary)
KPB File 95-186
Staff report as read by Maria Sweppy. PC Meeting 11/27/95
Location: City of Kenai, off Beaver Loop Road
Use: Residential
Zoning: Rural Residential
Sewer/Water: On-site
Supporting Information: This plat subdivides the remaining portion of Government Lot 11 into six lots. All lots front
on an existing 60-foot right-of--way, Angler Drive. In addition, there is an existing unnamed 33-foot right-of--way
dedication along the section line easement to the north of Lot 1. Aerial photographs indicate that both rights-of-
way are built.
Approval of the preliminary plat of Anglers Acres Subdivision Addition No. 1 expired on August 22, 1995. This
preliminary plat is to the south of the subdivision currently being proposed by James H. Cowan Estates. The
design showed dedication of a half right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary of Lot 6 of James H. Cowan
Estates. Several time extensions had kept the Anglers Acres preliminary plat active since 1977. Staff
recommends that no matching half dedication to an expired preliminary be required. Any development within the
area covered by the expired approval will require a new submittal to comply with current adjacent existing
development.
Aerial photographs also indicate that a portion of this subdivision may fall within a marshy area. If so, this should
be shown on the plat.
The confluence of Beaver Creek and the Kenai River lie to the southeast of this subdivision, which was not
affected by the recent flooding. Research indicates that all or a portion of this subdivision may lie within a Flood
Hazard Zone. Development may be subject to the requirements of Chapter 21, Borough Code of Ordinances. A
note is to appear on the final plat per Resolution 87-13.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to any above recommendations,
and the following conditions:
REVISE OR ADD TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
KPB 20.12 AS FOLLOWS:
1. Correct or add to the legal description/location/area. Show total acres being subdivided in the title block.
2. Gov't Lot. Show right-of--way easements, if any exist.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
TITLE 20:
3. Provide or correct dedication and/or approval statement(s) with notary's acknowledgement as needed.
Correct spelling of Approval
4. Survey and monumentation to meet Ordinance requirements or an exception having been granted.
5. Place note on plat "No access to State maintained rights-of--way permitted unless approved by State of
Alaska Department of Transportation."
6. Conform to conditions of KPB Planning Commission Resolution 78-6.
7. Show Recording District in or near the title block.
~ 8. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation requires their approval on the final plat and
recorded instruments in accordance with 18AAC Chapter 72 Article 3.
9. Compliance with Ordinance 90-38 (Substitute) -Ownership.
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING PAGE 15
While reading the staff report, Ms. Sweppy made one correction and one addition.
CORRECTION TO THE STAFF REPORT
Development is not subject to 21.06 of the Borough Code of Ordinances within the City of Kenai.
A note is to appear on the final plat stating that a portion of the subdivision may fie within a flood
hazard zone.
ADDITION TO THE STAFF REPORT
Under ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH TITLE 20, the following was added:
10. Indicate approximate location of area subject to inundation by storms or tidal flooding. If
applicable, cite the study identifying floodplain.
END OF STAFF REPORT
MOTION: Commissioner Coleman moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitmore-Painter, to grant approval of the
preliminary plat subject to amended staff recommendations.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous consent.
HAMMELMAN BRYSON WHITMORE-PAINTER BOSCACCI CARPENTER CLUTTS
YES YES YES ABSENT YES YES
COLEMAN ~ GANNAWAY HENSLEY JOHNSON KNOCK TEN YES
YES YES YES YES YES ONE ABSENT
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING PAGE 16
CITY OF KENAI ~~9
` ~ 210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794
TELEPHONE 907-283-7535
_ _ FAX 907-283-3014 ~
~~~
'VIII
iv~z
Via Fax:(907) 267-2464
Mark N. Kuwada
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599
Subject: Kenai Habitat Restoration and Recreation Enhancement Project
Thank you very much for considering the attached grant requests. (1) Kenai Beach
Dunes. (2) Cunningham Park Upgrade and Expansion.
I appreciated your time earlier today when I explained these projects to you over the
phone. Thank you for presenting the projects to your evaluation group.
The Council of the City of Kenai, on December 6, 1995, unanimously and enthusiastically
endorsed these projects. The administration and council have spent a lot of time in the
='~ past, including public hearings, discussing and planning these projects.
Acceptance of this grant would be the answer to our funding problem for these projects.
We are very much aware of the vital need of these projects but up until now had no
solution to how we could pay for them.
I apologize for the hurried completion of the applications. If any further information is
needed or if you would like a presentation of the projects by the city, please do not
hesitate to call me. We believe these projects are extremely important to not only the
city, but the State of Alaska, the Kenai River, and the environment.
Sincerely,
.~~-~`f
eith Kornelis
Public Works Director
KK/kw
cc: Mayor Williams and City Council
Tom Manninen, City Manager
Kayo McGillivray, Parks & Rec. Director
Parks & Rec. Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
C:\WPDOCS\MISC\GRANTS.FRM
December 8, 1995
PROJECT NOMINATION FORM Site #
Kenai Habitat Restoration & Recreation Enhancement
Brief Project Summary: Recently the State of Alaska has opened a subsistence and
personal use dip net fishery at the mouth of the Kenai River. Thousands of "dip netters"
come from all over the state to take advantage of this very productive method of obtaining
salmon. The Kenai Beach Road and Spruce Street are packed with vehicles. Thousands
of people are now trampling the environmentally sensitive dunes and its vegetation. This
project is to: (1) provide boardwalks for access from the road through the dunes and to
the beach for fishing; (2) provide educational signs and interpretive displays at various
locations; (3) provide an elevated stair, walkway, and deck for access from the River View
Parking Area at the end of Forest Drive to the Kenai Beach.
Common Name: Kenai Beach Dunes
River Mile: 0 -Kenai River Mouth
Township Range Section: T5N R11 W Section 6
Managing Agency: City of Kenai
Site Characteristics: Presently trampled dunes with trails and no signing. No stairway
from the Kenai River View Area at the end of Forest Drive resulting in eroded trail which
is steep and unsafe.
Nature Extent of Damage: Fishermen are destroying valuable dunes and vegetation.
_ This makes it much easier for wind and water erosion thus causing environmental plant
and animal damage.
Need for Enhancement: Without this project the dunes and access trails will continue
to cause damage. Eventually the road and adjacent wetlands will be in danger of
destruction.
Restoration Endpoints: Provide information about dunes and vegetation, its importance,
and how to protect it along with history and requirements for area use. Provide
authorized trails and access points helping to prevent erosion.
Method: Possibly aluminum driven posts with custom fabricated aluminum grating
for walkways, boardwalks, stairs, and landings. Waterproof signs. Provide
structural sound facilities that are safe and convenient for users plus vandal proof.
Project Size: Estimate - 4 boardwalks, stairways, decks, and 8 signs.
Duration: Project would allow continued use of the area.
Protection Measures: Guardrails, barriers, and signage would direct users to
boardwalks, stairways, decks, and walkways.
PROJECT NOMINATION FORM
~ Kenai Habitat Restoration & Recreation Enhancement
Estimated Cost: $185,000
Monitoring Method: Dunes and its vegetation would be monitored to see how fast it can
recover. The eroded areas that would be repaired around and under the boardwalks,
stairs and decks would be monitored. The heavy public use would be monitored to see
the best methods of restoration.
Post Project Management: The popularity of this area is dramatically increasing. This
grant to the City of Kenai would greatly help in managing the area.
Additional Notes: None
PROJECT NOMINATION FORM Site #
Kenai Habitat Restoration & Recreation Enhancement
Brief Project Summary: The area is very heavily used by bank fisherman. The City of
Kenai proposes to construct a boardwalk from a parking lot to the rivers edge and back.
Access stairs from the new boardwalk would be added so that anglers can reach the
fishing area without walking on the bank. The City of Kenai also proposes to make
necessary improvements to the existing boatramp.
Common Name: Cunningham Park Upgrade and Expansion
River Mile: 8, approximately
Township Range Section: T5N R11 W Section 26
Managing Agency: City of Kenai
Site Characteristics: Parcels are currently developed and undeveloped, located on the
outside edge of a turn in the river.
Nature Extent of Damage: Bank erosion and damage to natural vegetation due to heavy
foot traffic.
Need for Enhancement: Cunningham Park is used heavily by tourists and locals for
bank fishing. These improvements would help alleviate the erosion and damage to
habitat while also increasing the public's awareness to the importance of protecting our
environment.
Restoration Endpoints: Provide access to fishing areas without damage to the bank.
Improve existing boatramp for anglers.
Method: Construction of a boardwalk from the parking lot to river bank. Attach
stairs to boardwalk for access to fishing area. Improve existing boatramp.
Project Size: Approximately 900' of boardwalk and 3 access stairs.
Duration: This grant would allow continued use.
Protection Measures: Fencing and interpretive signage
PROJECT NOMINATION FORM
Kenai Habitat Restoration & Recreation Enhancement
- Estimated Cost: $300,000
Monitoring Method: The City of Kenai would monitor the return of the habitat and
vegetation. We would also monitor the reduction of bank erosion.
Post Project Management: City of Kenai Parks and Recreation Department will
maintain.
Additional Notes: None
a
December 13, 1995
Karen Carson
Sales Associate
170 N. Birch Street
Soldotna, AK 99669
Dear Ms. Carson:
CITY OF KENAI
-- G~ ~ y4~~~ --
~ 210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794
TELEPHONE 907-283-7535
_ _ FAX 907-283-3014 bC'~
~w.~~rar
'III~1
~~~
This letter is in response to your inquiry of December S, 1995. As you know, the
Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request for an encroachment permit on
October 11, 1995. The effect of the denial is that the home cannot be completed
without an encroachment permit unless the home is moved or modified in such a manner
as to not violate the setback requirements.
Whether financing is available for the home is a matter for potential lenders to
determine rather than the City. As far as building a fence fora "fire barrier", to my
knowledge that is not a possible option. Whether or not a permit would be issued in the
future is a determination to be made at the appropriate time by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, not this office.
I disagree with the statement that the Planning and Zoning Commission has not treated
the applicant fairly. The building permit clearly stated the appropriate setback
requirements. The setback requirement in the rural residential (RR) zone is 1S' feet.
The encroachment is 9.S'. That is not a minor encroachment.
If the City's policy were to uniformly forgive code violations of a contractor provided the
owner was unaware of the violation, there would be no incentive for contractors to
follow the requirements since there would be no consequences for failure to abide by
setback requirements. It would be to an owner's benefit to not check up on contractors
since errors not caught by the owner would be simply forgiven. Such a policy would
encourage code violations, not deter them.
-,
S
The two private parties most effected by the encroachment are the owner and Katherine
Godek, the nearest property owner to the encroachment. Ms. Godek testified at the
public hearing that the encroachment was detrimental to her property. Why should Ms.
Godek suffer because of the encroachment? She is in no way responsible for it. My
understanding is that the Planning and Zoning Commission felt of the two parties, Ms.
McKenzie was ultimately responsible for the encroachment and should bear any hardship
rather than Ms. Godek. That seems to me to be a reasonable determination.
I do sympathize with Ms. McKenzie as I am sure the Commission does. However, it is
the property owner's responsibility to hire a contractor who will construct the building
according to code.
I think the best person to talk with about completion of the home according to code
would be Robert Springer, Kenai's Building Inspector. However, I would be glad to talk
to you on the telephone or in person here at City Hall if you wish.
Sincerely,
ry R. Graves
City Attorney
cc: Robert Springer
r,/Planning and Zoning Commission
CRG/kh
C:\WPDOCS\CRG\CARSON.LTR
D
1+11
a
z
r a
~c o ~ a
c a
a a
H ~ ~ a
~ a
a ~ °
c
n s c
ti
D
m
a
z
e~ o w ~ w a
N ~ ~
~ W
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
D
m
qw
p
a z
v z
°w a
z as
v a
a°~c ~
~
~ m ~
D
a4
b
a
z
:+~ o ~ ~ ~
°4
~ ~ ~ ~
a ~
~ o
v ~
D
ao
a
z
z a w a H
° v ~ o
v ~ z
C7 GO ~ t9 ~
7
m
z
W
D
a
a
s~ o e
a ~ ~ ~
~ ~ °
a o ~ ~