Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-22 P&Z Packetfnapproved KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ****May 22, 1991**** City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 8, 1991 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 5. PLANNING a. Resolution PZ 91-14: Spur Subdivision, Senior Center Addition - Replat b. Resolution PZ 91-15: Baron Wood Subdivision No. 2 - Replat 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Recommendation to City Manager Regarding Townsite Historical Zone 7. OLD BUSINESS S. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning C. City Administration 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED 10. INFORMATION ITEMS 1. Public Meeting Notice - Appeal, John E. Bannock, Nu -State Nursery 2. Kenai City Council Agenda - May 15, 1991 3. KPB Planning Commission Agenda - May 6, 1991 4. Western Planner Article - Tips on Conducting Public Hearings 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS & OUESTIONS 12. ADJOURNMENT *******COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SESSION******* with Kenai City Council 8:00 - 10:00 p.m. KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION May 8, 1991 City Hall Council Chambers Phil Bryson, Chairman I. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Bryson, Scott, Murphy Councilman: Smalley Planning Staff: La Shot, Harvey 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bannock, Rehm, Glick, Graveley, Chairman Bryson asked that 5c. Ron Rainey, Conditional Use Permit Application, be moved to the first item under New Business. Addition of 5g. Review of Application for Development in Townsite Historical Zone (TSH): Kenai Bicentennial Convention and Visitors Center. MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Glick moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner Graveley. Passed by Unanimous Consent. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.- April 24, 1991 MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Graveley moved for approval of minutes as presented. Commissioner Scott seconded. Passed by Unanimous Consent. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 5. PLANNING a. PZ 91-10: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) - Ron Rainev Ron Rainey explained to the Commission that the permit is for a Bed and Breakfast and Cabin Rental. There are several of these businesses already in the area. KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Page 2 May 8, 1991 Rainey addressed the letter of objection from Muhs. He said that this lot was currently for sale and had been for quite some time. The Muhs had also made reference to a septic system being inadequate. Rainey explained that the septic system which would be used for cabin number 2, was a neighbor's system which had been installed on Rainey's property. He allowed the system to remain, but will eventually help his neighbor locate a new system on their property and use this existing system for his cabin. Rainey said he felt this development would be an asset to the area, the one bedroom cabins would be log and the area would be well maintained. Commissioner Graveley asked if DEC approved of the septic systems currently on site? Rainey said that DEC had verified that the septic systems would be adequate for the proposed development. Commissioner Scott asked Rainey if he knew why his neighbors CUP (Riddles) for a cabin rental had been turned down? Rainey said that this was denied partially because of him, the Riddles were proposing to put in trailers, not cabins. Commissioner Murphy asked how far cabin 2 would sit back in the lot line? Rainey said that it would sit back 8.5 ft, within the prescribed set back by Code. Commissioner Murphy asked if the cabin could sit in another spot, so it would not obstruct the Muhs view of the river. Rainey explained that the Muhs cabin doesn't face the proposed cabin so this should not be a problem. Chairman Bryson opened the meeting to Public Hearing on the CUP. Seeing none he brought the item back to the Commission. MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Bannock moved approval of Resolution PZ 91-10, Conditional Use Permit, Bed and Breakfast and Cabin Rental, Ron Rainey. Commissioner Graveley seconded. Passed Unanimously. RENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Page 3 May 8, 1991 b. PZ 91-8: Resubdivision of Petersen Subdivision Addition No. 1 La Shot reported that this plat would establish lot lines on the parcel which James Arness is in the process of purchasing from the City. The Commission had approved sale of this parcel at a previous meeting. MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Murphy moved for approval of Resubdivision of Petersen Subdivision Addition No. 1. Commissioner Rehm seconded. Passed Unanimously. C. PZ 91-9: Resubdivision of Petersen Subdivision Addition No. 2 La Shot reported that this plat would eliminate the lot lines to attach the purchased piece of property to the existing Arness plat, making it one large parcel. MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Scott moved for approval of Resubdivision of Petersen Addition No. 1. Commissioner Glick seconded. Passed unanimously. d. PZ 91-11: CUP - Alaska Debartment of Fish and Game Jack La Shot told the Commission that this sonar site had been operating in the present location for five years. Due to concerns over fragile wetlands the City had required that Fish & Game submit proper permits this year, which they have done. Chairman Bryson opened the meeting to a Public Hearing. No one from the public wished to testify. Councilman Smalley expressed disappointment that no one from the Department of Fish and Game had attended the meeting, to answer questions the Commission might have, but he felt that the agency had fulfilled all the City's requirements for the Conditional Use Permit. KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Page 4 May 8, 1991 MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Rehm moved approval of Resolution Pz 91-11: Conditional Use Permit - Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Commissioner Murphy seconded. Passed: 4 Yes: 2 No: 1 abstention. e. PZ 91-12: Encroachment Permit - Nu -State Nursery and Flower Shob La Shot, City Engineer, explained that this permit was for an encroachment but after reviewing the Code, he felt that there were two issues involved. Bannock wants to leave a portion of an existing building in a setback, and also remove a portion, which would fall under an encroachment by Code. There is also a new building proposed to be built in the setback and this would fall under a variance. Bannock owner of Nu -State Nursery, referred to the site plan drawings submitted with the permit. When the property was purchased in 1966, the warehouse was existing, and where the new building is proposed there was a house, which burned last summer. Now they would like to remove the old flower shop and construct a building at the same setback level as the existing warehouse. This would leave more room between the new flower shop and warehouse to unload freight and display shrubs. If the new building is too far back it would shade the warehouse. Chairman Bryson asked if the property had been replatted. Bannock said that McLanes surveyed the property last fall, and established and staked the setback line. This showed that the old flower shop was about a foot into the street, and has been since the property was purchased. Chairman Bryson asked if there were persons present to participate in the Public Hearing, seeing none the Chairman brought the item back to the Commission. Commissioner Murphy asked what the distance between the buildings would be if the new building was moved back? Bannock said he felt that the distance would remain approximately the same. Commissioner Graveley said he felt that the new building could be contained within the property lines without undue hardship to the property owner. KENAI PLANNING & Page 5 May 8, 1991 MOTION AND VOTE: ZONING COMMISSION Commissioner Scott moved for approval of Resolution PZ 91-12, Commissioner Glick seconded. Passed Unanimously with one abstention. Variance Reauest: Nu -State Nursery and Flower Shob Chairman Bryson asked for Public Comment on the request for Variance, hearing none, he brought the item back to the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Glick moved for approval of Variance. Commissioner Scott seconded. Commissioner Glick said he would normally vote against a variance but this variance is on a deadend street where there is very little traffic. Also the existing warehouse is already in the street and the new building will be built to line up with the warehouse, so the Commissioner would be in favor of the variance. Commissioner Bannock asked to read Variance Code? Commission concurred. Commissioner Bannock read: "Variance means the relaxation of the development requirements of this chapter to provide relief when the literal enforcement would deprive a property of the reasonable use of his real property." Commissioner Scott asked what the life of the existing warehouse would be? Bannock said that the warehouse was unheated, but was well constructed and had a good foundation and roof. Commissioner Scott asked how the new building would be constructed? Bannock said it would have a full basement on a concrete pad. Commissioner Graveley asked Bannock if it would be an undue hardship to move the building back 12 feet? KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Page 6 May 8, 1991 Bannock said he could, but it would make it very crowded and he needs the extra space to display shrubs. Commissioner Rehm asked if the new building was move 10 feet closer to the existing Flower Shop, how would that effect the buildings? Bannock said it would cut down the space between buildings and he needs the space for shrubs from the warehouse which are displayed in this area. Commissioner Graveley asked Bannock if he had considered constructing the building horizontally, which would reduce the space between buildings by six feet, but still leave adequate space for trucks, etc. Commissioner Bannock said that if Bannock could do this he would not have to come before the commission. He is asking for a relaxation specifically addressed in the Code. Commissioner Rehm stated concern about the Commission being consistent as similar situations occur. VOTE: Yes -3: No -3: Abstain -1. Motion defeated due to lack of majority. Chairman Bryson informed Bannock that he could appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk. f. PZ 91-13: Encroachment Permit - Alaska Housing & Finance Corporation La Shot explained that the encroachment would be for property on Birch St., between 4th and 5th, to encroach 1.4 feet into setback, in a residential zone. The staff had reviewed the permit and applicant appears to have met all the requirements of the Code for the encroachment. Chairman Bryson opened the meeting to Public Hearing, hearing no requests he brought the item back to the Commission. Commissioner Rehm asked if a new as -built had been requested. KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Page 7 May 8, 1991 Glenda Feeken, Remax, said that the as -built had been done in 1990, and appeared to coincide original as -built. MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Murphy moved approval of Resolution PZ 91-13. Commissioner Glick seconded. Vote: Yes -5: No -2: Passed by majority vote. a. Application for Review of Development in TSH Zone - KBVCC La Shot presented the plans and specs for the Kenai Bicentennial Visitors and Cultural Center. Chairman Bryson told the Commission he would be abstaining from voting on this issue and he turned the gavel over to the Vice Chairman, Art Graveley. MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Murphy moved approval of TSH Zone Application for Development. Commissioner Scott. Passed Unanimously with one abstention. 6. NEN BUSINESS a. Application for Lease - Lot 4, BL 5, Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park and ROW La Shot explained that this business was currently leasing the lot since 1985 and the lease will expire June 30, 1991. The applicant, Jackson's Sales and Service, intends to continue to use the property for an impound and storage yard. Commissioner Murphy expressed concern about the fencing around the property, wondered if Jackson can be encouraged to maintain this fence. La Shot answered that he had reviewed the Code and that fencing seemed to be required. Jackson would be required to keep the fence as long as he continues the present activity in this zone. RENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Page 8 May 8, 1991 MOTION AND VOTE: Commissioner Bannock moved to recommend to Council approval of Application for Lease - Lot 4 Block 5, Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park. Commissioner Scott seconded. Passed Unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7 b. Comprehensive Plan Review and Adoption - Tentative Schedule La Shot asked the Commission if they wanted to have a work session with Council at the next meeting. He also asked if there were any changes the Commission would recommend before the work session. There were none. La Shot recommended that a review of the Townsite Historical Zone be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scott said that she would be out of town from May 16 -26th, but could submit her comments in writing regarding the Comp Plan. A tentative Work Session was scheduled for May 22nd from 8 - 10 p.m. pending Council's approval. S. REPORTS a. Citv Council Councilman Smalley reported on the Tomrdle appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commissions denial of his application for development in the TSH Zone, the applicant had withdrawn the appeal until further review of the Townsite Historical Zone. Tomrdle also requested that he be asked to serve on any Committee which might be appointed to review the TSH Code. The City Park on Forest Drive had been closed to overnight camping beginning May 15th. b. Borouch Planninq Chairman Bryson reported that a lease for a wood processing facility had been granted in the Cooper Landing area. C. Citv Administration None. A � � KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Page 9 May 8, 1991 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED 10. INFORMATION ITEMS 1. City Council Agenda - May 1, 1991 2. Appeal of Commission Decision - Tomrdle 3. Petition to Vacate - Duthweiler and Isrealson 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS & OUESTIONS Commissioner Bannock read a statement that he had prepared for Council, and asked that it be added to the record. "I am incredibly disappointed in the decision to turn down the variance permit to Nu -State Nursery. What is the use of a variance permit when this Commission is afraid to use it. Property owners have rights that are protected and when a body like this has specific reasons to grant the property owner what he requests I feel we are obligated to grant the request. Why else is a variance permit addressed at all?" Commissioner Scott asked if the Foster permit was in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit which had been issued for a gravel pit and RV Park. The Commissioner felt that under the Code the time had elapsed for the RV Park to be completed. Loretta Harvey, Planning Secretary said she would try to research this for the next meeting. Commissioner Murphy asked about the Kasprisin Report and requested a copy. La Shot offered to provide copies for the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Scott asked for an excused absence from the next meeting as she will be on vacation. So noted. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Respectful y submitted, �etta��ar`tyy Transcribing Secretary 7R, 2 A� > T28 r r y41 S 11 _ BL I D R L 0 0 P R 0 A D a. "Rt°, i F 2 GRID E RC UBD. I.I. S. 678 • 4A 5A / .r > 1 SECTION LIP EASEMENT TR. A VAN ANTWERP ST TR. A a a GOVERNMENT LOT 2 I G� TR. B K. STREET S E �A M' STREET S.E. I M -O BICENTENNIAL VdP ye W&-d)aC7St el4r afitta "te TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Staff DATE: May 17, 1991 RE: TOWNSITE HISTORICAL ZONE CITY OF KENAI 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99611 TELEPHONE 283-7535 FAX 907-283-3014 The City Manager has recently received correspondence from Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation officer, (see attached). Ms. Bittner is offering to assist the City of Kenai in drafting an historic preservation ordinance and also in updating the current Townsite Historical Zone (TSH). The City Manager if asking the Planning and Zoning Commission if they would be interested in technical assistance in preserving historic properties within the Townsite Historic Zone. It is the Staff's recommendation that this assistance would be valuable, but should be scheduled after the approval of the Comprehensive Plan. U U D a Q WALTER/. HICKEL, GOVERNOR 3601 C STREET, Suite 1278 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PHONE: (907) 762-2622 DIVISION OFPARKSAND OUTDOOR RECREATION MAILING ADDRESS: Office o/ History ay P.O. Box 107001ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510-7001 RE: 3130-3 City of Kenai 1(b h 919 0 May 15, 1991 �0. �64 i •,U' Lcvu C 1q Bill Brighton City Manager City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99611 Dear Mr. Brighton: Enclosed are two documents that address the drafting of a local preservation ordinance in Alaska. The first is entitled 'Basic Components of a Historic Preservation Ordinance." The second document is entitled "Guidelines for A Preservation Ordinance." The latter provides a more specific breakdown of the provisions contained in a preservation ordinance that would meet the minimum standards for certification under the Alaska Certified Government (CLG) Program. Certification as a CLG makes a local government eligible to apply for matching grant funds to help develop a local historic preservation program. Please let me know if this office can be of further assistance in providing technical assistance to the City of Kenai regarding the development of a program to identify and protect Kenai's historic properties. If you have any questions, please contact me at 762-2622. Sincerely, Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer Enclosures (2) printed on recycled p,3,,e'r h y . 3 ALASKA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SERIES Number 1 March 16, 1988 Basic Components of a Historic Preservation Ordinance ,,A t~xstoric preservation ordinance, also co:monly referred to as a landmarks ordinance, is an important part of establishing a historic preservation program for a community. Generally, it establishes a board or commission and provides for the designation and protection of historic buildings. Cities usually have conducted a historic building survey or intend to conduct a survey before writing an ordinance. No two ordinances are alike. Each ordinance should reflect specific circumstances within the community. There are, however, basic components an ordinance should have to make them workable and effective. Basic Components: Introduction and Purpose Establishes the need, benefits, and purpose of protecting historic resources and points to the economic, social, aesthetic, and cultural benefits of doing so. Definitions Provides definitions of key terms which are the primary subject of the ordinance such as "landmark," "historic district," "alteration," "demolition stay," etc. Authorization of Preservation Commission Describes composition and qualifications of commission members, length of terms, appointment process, and role of commission. (A Preservation Commission is also commonly referred to as a Landmarks Board). Powers and Duties of Preservation Commission Specifies the powers and duties of the commission which generally include responsibility for: 1. Compiling and updating the historic building survey. 2. Establishing their own operating rules. 3. Designating landmarks and districts according to criteria set forth in ordinance. 4. Reviewing demolition permits and instating demolition stays. 5. Reviewing requests to alter or modify a designated historic structure. 6. Performing environmental review of all new plans and ordinances pertaining to historic resources as prescribed by state and federal law. 7. Making recomp-endations to the Assembly on matters o€ funding, studying, and programmatic suggestions for historic preservation. 8. Developing a historic preservation plan. 9. Generally promoting historic preservation. 10. Advising owners of Oistoric,properties. 11. Performing other historic preservation related functions as appropriate. Designation Procedures Sets forth procedures including noticing, public hearings, and application requirements for historic designation. Sets forth the criteria to be used in bestowing historic designations. . Design Criteria Defines design standards and guidelines for rehabilitation which usually incorporates the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Permit Issuance Establishes permit and approval procedures for demolition and design review of listed historic structures. Appeals Section Provides for legal appeals process for any interested party appealing a decision of the Preservation Commission. Enforcement and Penalties Provides for methods of enforcement of ordinance. For further information contact Judy Bittner, Office of History and Archaeology, Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 107001, Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7001. (907) 752-2622. Three publications which were used as sources of information and provide more specific and detailed information are: Dennis, Stephen. Recommended Model Provision for a Preseryation ordinance. with Annotations. Washington, D.C., National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1980. Duerksen, Christopher J. (ed.) A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. Washington, D.C., The Conservation Foundation, 1983. (Dennis article included as appendix). Roddewig. Richard J. Pgpa,Dg a Historic Preservation ordinance. Planning Advisory Service.Report Number 374. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1983. This publication has been funded with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Department of the Interior. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM, ALASKA GUIDELINES FOR A PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Office of History and Archaeology P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7001 (907) 762-2622 PROVISIONS WHICH MUST APPEAR IN A PRESERVATION ORDINANCE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Purpose: To establish by ordinance a local preservation commission to undertake specified historic preservation duties including, survey and inventory, review of nominations to the National Register, preservation education and advice and enforcement of local and state preservation laws. The following provisions must be included in a preservation ordinance: Section One. Historic Preservation Commission. A historic preservation commission must be established with the minimum following provisions: A. Seven members (minimum) with a demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation, appointed for terms of not less than three years. B. To the extent available in the community, three commission members shall be professionals, as defined by National Park Service regulations, from the disciplines of history, architecture or architectural history, and archaeology. C. The commission will meet at least twice each year and conduct business in accordance with the Open Public, Meeting Laws of Alaska. This includes public notification of meeting place, time, and agenda items. D. Written minutes of each commission meeting will be prepared and made available for public inspection. Section Two. Commission Duties. The duties of the historic preservation commission must include: A. Survey and Inventory Community Historic Resources. The historic preservation commission shall conduct or cause to be conducted a survey of the historic, architectural, and archaeological resources within the community. The survey shall be compatible with the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey and able to be readily integrated into statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning and other planning processes. Survey and Inventory documents shall be maintained and released on a need - to -know basis to protect the site location from possible vandalism (see Section 3(a -c) CLG regulations). The survey will be updated at least every ten years. 1 B. Review Proposed Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. The historic preservation commission shall review and comment to the State Historic Preservation Officer on all proposed National Register nominations for properties within the boundaries of the community. When the historic preservation commission considers a National Register nomination which is normally evaluated by profes sionals in a specific discipline and that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission will seek expertise in this area before rendering its decision. C. Provide Advice and Information. 1. The historic preservation commission shall act in an advisory role to other officials and departments of local government regarding the identification and protection of local historic and archaeological resources. 2. The historic preservation commission shall work toward the continuing education of citizens regarding historic preservation and the committee's history. D. Enforcement of Local Historic Preservation Laws. If a local government has passed pr proposes to pass local laws providing for additional activities by the commission or staff, they should be noted here. The additional activities may not be eligible for funding under the Historic Preservation Certified Local Government Program. E. Enforcement of State Historic Preservation Laws. The commission shall support the enforcement of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act (AS 41.35). 2 "o WALTER/. HICKEL, GOVERNOR o ,q A L S M 3601 C STREET, Suite 1278 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503PHONE: (907) 762-2622 DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 107001 Office of History and Archaeology ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510-7001 RE: 3130-3 City of Kenai April 29, 1991 Bill Brighton City Manager City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99611 Dear Mr. n: Thank you for sending me copies of Kenai's "Townsite Historical Zone." 41� the ordinance and zoning provision for the City of I have reviewed the Townsite Historic Zone designation, a. -Lid offer the following observations. Like most zoning provisions, the townsite historic zoning provision offers little in the way of protection for historic properties. There are few tangible standards in the zoning provision to define and therefore protect properties that may have historic significance. The zoning provision also does not take into account incompatible development on parcels adjoining a historic property which may have an adverse impact on the historic property. The provision exempting any proposed construction Project valued at less than $10,000 from review aiso leaves historic properties vulnerable to incompatible development on a small scale or of a temporary nature. There is no provision for inclusion of individuals on the Landscape/Site Plan Review Board who have expertise or training in evaluating historic properties. A number of local governments in Alaska are confronted with problems similar to the ones faced by the City of Kenai. The Office of History and Archaeology has expertise and can provide technical assistance to local governments that seek to balance the needs of new development with protection of a community's heritage. The Certified Local Government (CLG) program, a federally funded program administered by this office, is designed to assist local governments to develop their own historic preservation programs. The CLG program provides federal matching grants and technical assistance to local governments for preservation programs. This office can assist the City of Kenai in drafting a historic preservation ordinance, establishing a preservation commission, surveying and inventorying historic properties in the old town area, and developing a set of review guidelines or stan- pr,r)t,,(J Oil Bill Brighton -2- April 29, 1991 dards that would protect historic sites in the Kenai old town area from insensitive development. I would be pleased to visit Kenai in the near future to discuss various options and strategies available to you if the City of Kenai is interested. I am enclosing a brochure outlining the CLG program. If you have any questions, please contact me at 762-2622. Sincerely, ��I' , Y� Judith E. Bit ner State Historic Preservation Officer Enclosure PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE The Kenai City Council will convene as a Board of Adjustment on Wednesday, June .5, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. (immediately before the Council Meeting) in the Council Chambers. The following item will be heard at that time: Appeal of Planning & Zoning Commission Decision John E. Bannock, Nu -State Nursery The public is invited to attend and participate. Carol L. Freas City Clerk DATED: May 16, 1991 f. AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 1991 A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Introduction of Student Government Representatives 4. Agenda Approval 5. 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. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT (10 Minutes) 1. DeWayne Craig - Sand dunes and beach. * AWW441 - - C. PUBLIC HEARINGS ,11)AV4�1' Ordinance No. 1431-91 - Replacing the Tables Referred yf•to in the Personnel Regulations (Title 23) to Establish a New Salary Structure by Grade and New Hourly Rates for Part -Time Employees. 1411,1,12. Ordinance No. 1432-91 - Amending KMC 23.55.040(a) by Increasing the Uniform Allowance for Employees in the Animal Control Department to $500 Per Year. 3. Ordinance No. 1433-91 - Amending KMC 23.50.010(c) and (d) by Adding New Job Classifications Entitled - "Battalion Chief" and "Animal Control Officer-" Ordinance No. 1434-91 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $254,545 in the Sewer Treatment Plant Modifications 1990 Capital Project Fund. Resolution No. 91-24 Setting the Percentage of Fair Market Value to be Used in Order to Derive a Fair Return on Lease of Airport Lands. Ptv"6. Resolution No. 91-25 - Awarding a Contract for Carpet �C and Installation of the Carpet at the Recreation Center to Peninsula Flooring for the Total Amount of $10,001.00, Which Includes the Basic Bid and Additive Alternate Numbers One (1) and Three (3). Resolution No. 91-26 - Ratifying Amendments to City of ��• Kenai Library Regulations and Including the City Library Policies. . 8. Resolution No. 91-27 - Transferring $3,400 in the �GCouncil on Aging - Borough Fund. Resolution No. 91-28 - Transferring $1-5,'6-&0 in the General Fund for Purchase of Dust Control Material. Al'10. Resolution No. 91-29 - Awarding the Sewer Treatment !9• Plant Disinfection Facilities Construction Bid. D. COMMISSION,/COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council on Aging 2. Airport Commission 3. Harbor Commission 4. Library Commission 5. Parks & Recreation Commission 6. Planning & Zoning Commission 7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees E. MINUTES 1. *Regular Meeting of May 1, 1991. 2. _*Board of Adjustment Meeting of April 30, 1991. F. CORRESPONDENCE G. OLD BUSINESS H. NEW BUSINESS 1. Bills to be Paid, Bills to be Ratified 2. Purchase Orders Exceeding $1,000 3. *Ordinance No. 1436-91 - Adopting the Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 1991, and Ending June 30, 1992. -2- 4. *Ordinance No. 1437-91 - Amending the Kenai Municipal Code, Title 21, Chapter 05, Entitled "Airport Administration and operation." 5. *Ordinance No. 1438-91 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $31,850 in the Capital Project Fund Entitled, "Trading Bay and Granite Point Improvements." 6. Approval - Application for Lease, Lot 4, Block 5, Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park and ROW/Robert C. Jackson d/b/a Jackson's Sales and Service. 7. Approval - Lease Agreement, Baron Park Subdivision No. 7 - University of Alaska JaPf 8. Discussion — Setting Board of Adjustment Meeting Date, lei Time, and Place to Hear Appeal of Planning & zoning Commission Decision/John E. Bannock, Nu -State Nursery. 9. Discussion - Confirm Work Session Date and Time of May 29, 1991 Regarding Hotel/Motel Tax. PV f, - 10 . Discussion - Set Work Session with Planning & Zoning *�I, jai Commission Regarding the Comprehensive -Plan. 4'-Vo?'� I. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS 1. Mayor. 2. City Manager 3. Attorney 4. City Clerk 5. Finance Director 6. Public Works Director 7. Airport Manager J. DISCUSSION 1. Citizens (five minutes) 2. Council X. ADJOURNMENT -3- - KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 7:30 P.M. MAY 6, 1991 TENTATIVE AGE -NO AGENDA ITEM A. CALL TO ORDER AGENDA ITEM B. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA KMNG DEM 1 Time Extensions a) Morrison Golden Bir6h Estates Unit 2 KPB File 89-129 Location: Southerly of Homer East Road Between Eastland Creek and Falls Creek RECOMMENDATION: Grant time extension until 5/6/92 b) Nubbleof Hill Subdivision KPB File 89-118 Location: MacDonald Spit Kachemak Bay RECOMMENDATION: Grant time extension until 5/6/92 1.1 Plat Amendment Requests a) Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park Subd No. 4 Plat No. 84-188 KRD RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission for surveyor to check out original mylar and amend plat as requested. 2. Plats Granted Administrative Approval a) Baron Park No. 7, KPB File 91-013 b) Bayshore Subdivision No. 2, KPB File 90-106 c) Cowgill Acres No. 2, KPB File 91-108 d) Grace Cole Homestead, KPB File 91-002 a) Mommsen's Addition - Nelson/Kluge Replat, #85-151 Q Nordby Subdivision No. Five, KPB File 91-005 g) Stubblefield Addition No. 9, KPB File 90-108 h) Voznesenka Three, KPB File 90-076 3. Coastal Management Program Consistency Reviews a) Bufflehead Expansion/Arcu Alaska, Inc. Swanson River, Unit 212-10 Pad Expansion AK910412-15A b) Kachemak Bay 147; AK910416-19A Homer area wetland fill c) Icy Bay Glacier Ice Harvest; LAS 12199 Prince William Sound reconsideration of modified proposal d) Redoubt Bay Setnet Cabin; AK910419-33A West Side of Cook Inlet; Land lease to replace set net cabin lost to Mt. Redoubt a) Exit Glacier Road Environmental Assessment Seward Area, reconstruct Exit Glacier Road KP13 File 91-032 AGENDA ITEM H. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS No plats submitted for review at this meeting. AGENDA ITEM 1. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 91-55; LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION/U.S. FOREST SERVICE SEWARD AREA, SEC. 25, T1 N, R1 AGENDA ITEM J. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 91-57; LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION/HOMER EMBLEM CLUB NO. 350 CITY OF HOMER/PIONEER AVENUE AGENDA ITEM K. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 91-??; CLASSIFICATION OF KP13 LANDS FOR SOLDOTNA LANDFILL AGENDA ITEM L. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 91-??; CLASSIFICATION OFKPB LANDS AS "RETAINED" AGENDA ITEM M. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY REVIEWS AGENDA ITEM N. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Lease/Sale 74 Proposed Consistency Determination AGENDA ITEM O. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE AGENDA ITEM P. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM Q. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM R. ADJOURNMENT ZiAJ�yUAtM11'.!1111;4 e Tips on Being an effective, positive member of a Planning Commis- sion, a Board of Adjustments, or a Building Board of Appeals is not easy. While much has been written about improving public hear- ings, it helps members of boards and commissions to periodically reflect upon their performance. Too often staff planners lower their performance expectations for the commission members they work with in deference to the fact that the members are lay volunteers. This is a mistake. Petitioners and other participants in hearings don't make such allowances. Conducting hearings, sometimes in a strained if not downright hostile setting, requires not only skill, but also a clear understanding of the role of the board and an awareness of how the public perceives the board's performance. A citizen's perception of the City or the County government can be shaped by a seemingly insignificant contact with a policy officer, a zoning official, or a receptionist across a building department counter. In the eyes of a citizen, local government's credibility often falls victim of a mispoken word or an aggravating wait for an answer. This dip in credibility can later manifest itself in other dealings with the local government, and sometimes mushrooms through the spread of rumors and innuendo. Public hearings are an unfortunate fact of life. Presumable they provide the public a forum for discussing matters affecting their homes and businesses; however, in reality they tend to function as structured units which lend them- selves to political posturing and hostility, and discourage reasoned negotiations and participation. Quasi-judicial hearings are particularly difficult. Limitations on ex parte communications prior to these hearings can result in board members obtaining answers to questions on the spur of the moment, rather than with the benefit of additional, thought- ful research. Decisions made during high pressure hearings sometimes result in expeditious, rather than correct, decisions and may include attempts at compromise which are inconsistent or unfair. The "people skills" needed to maximize hearings' usefulness require training, practice and feedback. In addition to the need for training in the laws commission members administer, they should receive periodic training in communication and listening skills in order to improve their 18 March - April, 1991 performance. This is especially important for new members, but it is just as important for experienced members who may tend to be too comfortable in their roles. The following tips can improve the performance of a member of a public board: Understanding your role. Although neither paid nor elected, board members "offi- cially" represent their local government. Often thought of as "recommending" bodies, the boards and commissions have very specific quasi-judicial powers. Even in the role of a recommending body a public board can make decisions which affect the timing, cost and design of a project. Boards must realize the importance of their decisions, and not try to "pass the buck" to an elected group. Consider how you are perceived. Although a board member may be a volunteer, in the eyes of an applicant or a citizen testifying at a hearing, the board is the City or the County. The manner in which board mem- bers conduct themselves directly impacts in the public's perception of the organization. People standing before a public board are very sensitive to the manner in which they are received. As a stakeholder in matters before the board, a citizen places him/herself in a vulnerable position. An applicant may have a lot of time and money invested in a project. A neighborhood representative may feel genuinely aggrieved by a proposal. If a hearing seems to be going poorly for either of these people little things, such as a whispered comment during testimony, a negative remark, or a facial expression, can indicate that the board is less than open to ideas. Public boards operate in a "fish bowl". People in the audience, even those not directly involved in the current agenda item, will be very observant of the board's manner. Their perception of how they will be treated when their case comes up will be affected by how they see other cases handled. Show respect for petitioners and their requests. It is very easy for a board member to form early impres- sions. Sometimes a petitioner presents a project which the board members feel is not in the best interest of the commu- nity. However, it is still the right of the petitioner to request approval, and it is the duty of the board to be clearly objec- tive in the manner in which information is received and considered. Board members should be cautious to avoid comments which reflect any personal bias, which are demeaning to the applicant, and which indicate any lack of openness. Justifications for all board comments should be clearly stated, avoiding any comments such as, "I just don't like it." Never express an opinion on a proposal before or during the hearing. Final opinions should be formed after the close of the hearing to avoid any appearance of bias. It is very important to convey to applicants that the board members understand and appreciates the applicant's effort. Show respect for other board members. Acknowledge the comments and perspectives of fellow board members. Feedback is critical to the communication process. Both the receiver and the sender can provide it. Without feedback, the communication process can break down. Any comments made during the discussion of a case which tend to degrade another member of the board can be very damaging to the board's credibility, the public's respect for the proceedings and for the local government. Rather than imply that another member's position is a poor one, in- dicate respect for the position, and offer alternatives. Ac- knowledge that the other's position is the product of a rational thought process, even if you don't necessarily believe it. Be sure the public understands their role. A hearing shopld be an opportunity to assemble facts. It should never be a referendum. How many times have planners witnessed the chairperson or a member of a board ask for a show of hands or counting the "fors" and "again- sts" on a hearing roster to determine how the audience feels about a matter before the board? Decisions should be made on the facts and the law, not on which side did a better job of stacking the hearing chambers. Asking for such a showing can unduly increase the pressure on members and can imply to the audience that they have a "vote" on the matter. At the beginning of a potentially hostile hearing make it clear to the audience that inappropriate remarks will not be tolerated. If the crowd is large, set rules and time limits for public comment and hold to them. Distribute a published agenda to the audience and follow it. The bottom line for every hearing should be that the partici- pants leave with a feeling that they have been listened to and treated fairly. Even if a petition is denied, or a neighborhood group doesn't get their way, they should understand that the decision of the board was made upon well explained criteria, plans and law. Don't close out any group. To the extent possible, convey to all parties that it is in the best interest of the community that they actively communicate as a project progresses. Even if a neighborhood group fails to "kill" a project, the door should be kept open for them to participate in a constructive way to minimize adverse impacts. Above all, recognize that there are elements of "truth" in the comments of all parties. Even if you strongly disagree with testimony, understand that it is an at least an expression of a set of values and, perhaps, an indicator of a deeper problem. Be sure to use hearings as an opportunity to better understand your community, and discuss possible implications with staff at follow-up workshops or study sessions. This may pre- clude similar difficulties in the future. There is no guaranteed way to be sure that all parties to hearings leave happy. There are real and perceived gains and losses in any process. However, a well run hearing can leave all participants with a respect for the system, for the members of the board and for local government in general.■ JodyS. Dutkiewicz & Joe Racine Jody S. Dutkiewicz holds a Ph.D. in Com- munication from the University of Colorado at Boulder. She teaches Organizational Communication, Leadership, and Negotia- tions in the MBA Program at the University of Denver College of Business Administra- tion. Recent consulting assignments include Colorado State Department of Revenue, Keystone Resorts, and the City of Littleton. Joe Racine is the Western Planning Re- souces President, and a long-time West- ern Planner Board member. He is the Director of Community Development in Littleton, Colorado. Western Planner 19